All Things Being Sequel

By Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman

F. Scott Fitzgerald once noted that there were no second acts in the lives of Americans. Mr. Fitzgerald, of course, did not live to see two crucial inventions of the late 20th century: The VCR and the direct-to-video (a.k.a. OAV) animation market. Were he writing today, the above axiom would have been revised, and Jay Gatsby would have watched "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride" when not dreaming of his beloved Daisy. The American OAV market, that ubiquitous child of the 1990's, has guaranteed second, third, and even fifth acts to nearly every animated feature film since the beginning of the decade.

Cinematic sequels are really nothing new; during the 1940's, the now-legendary Universal monsters made several bows after their successful debuts, usually in movies titled "Son of..." or "Curse of...". Popular stars of the Westerns also appeared in later films that were thinly disguised sequels as well. These films generally scored fairly well at the box-office, having been pre-sold in the first place. This practice remained more or less dormant throughout the 1950s, but a major resurgence of sequelization burst forth two decades later. It is true that the James Bond films were sequelized continuously, but the Seventies began the age of the indefinitely produced "Roman numeral" sequel. Original films such as "Jaws", "Airport", "Rocky", and "Superman" were among the most notable to spawn multiple sequels, although the quality was unquestionably degraded with each successive effort.

With the production of the "Godfather" and "Star Wars" sequels it was proven that first-class profits could be conterminous with quality filmmaking. To bring the story full circle, the horror film became the most sequelized genre of all, with Freddy, Jason, and Michael (do we really need last names here?) hacking their way through acres of teenaged flesh. In short, when studio moguls, accountants, and focus groups decided that a sequel was a prudent investment, one appeared in our local theaters. The notable exception? Animated films.

There are several reasons why animated features were not subject to sequels at that time. One consideration is that there were very few of them. The 1970's saw less than two releases a year for the entire decade, with only four entries from Disney. Ralph Bakshi's erratic yet exhilarating work represented a fifth of all films released during that decade, and Bakshi had little interest in repeating himself. Another reason was simply this; Disney studios did not do such a thing, so no other studio followed suit. Although Disney was wealthy enough to produce theatrical sequels to any and all of their films, this was a practice that Walt had always frowned upon; when it was suggested to him as far back as the 1930's that the Three Little Pigs might be good material for a continuing series of shorts, Walt turned the suggestion down with the mordant observation: "You can't top pigs with pigs." It was worth more to Disney to have his artists continually inventing and exploring rather than retracing old steps; so powerful was this dictum that it perservered after Walt's death.

Animated films were also expensive and labor-intensive. The costs of cartoon production had risen so high that most motion picture studios had closed their animation departments well before 1970. Existing cartoon studios, using the "limited animation" techniques refined by Hanna and Barbera, were selling mainly to television. On the rare occassions when animated features did appear, they were typically less than "socko" in box office gross. Reviews (save for the usual praise heaped on Disney)tended to miss the "socko" category as well. The result? no investments were made in sequels.

In the very midst of these lean times (1975, to be exact), the Sony Corporation introduced the very first commercial videocassette recorder, the Betamax. The following year JVC refined the machine to work with the superior VHS format, (Superior? Why, then, is VHS shunned and Betacam still used by the pros? The only thing VHS had over Beta was a willingness to license the technology and superior promotion. -- Webkeeper) and the technology was now in place for a revolution that was still nearly twenty years away; the direct-to-video animation market. The revolution still needed some figurative gears and cogs, however, and these gradually began to fall into line as well. Component number one was the revived interest in animation that took place during the end of the 1980's. Next came the wave of high-performance, lower-cost VCRs during that same period. Last but not least, perceptive marketers were checking out what was then called the "Japanimation" scene, in which OVAs released in sequel form played a crucial and very profitable part of the Japanese animation industry.

The idea still took time to catch on in America. As late as 1990 ("The Rescuers Down Under") and 1991 ("Fievel Goes West"), feature sequels were still theatrical events. As usual, it was Disney who came out of the gate first with the then-novel announcement that a sequel to their 1992 mega-hit Aladdin would be released - direct to video. The 1994 project, called "The Return of Jafar", turned out to be a watered-down, creatively vacuous effort by Disney's second-stringers. To be fair, they were hamstrung by a poor script, execrable musical numbers, and Robin William's litiginous feud with the Mouse House which cost Disney his services as the Genie. Had Walt been personally supervising, this OAV would have never graced the shelves of a single Wal-Mart.

The video made a Sultan's ransom. And the pattern was set.

You may assume at this point that I about into launch a full-fledged attack on OVAs (or, OAVs, as you please). After all, most live-action sequels are hackneyed curtain calls which highlight nothing so much as Hollywood's creative bankruptcy and its unabashed attempts to cash in on profitable original projects that were, in many cases, less than inspired to begin with. That is the case with some OAVs, but not always. Although "The Return of Jafar" was hardly an auspicious beginning, "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" (1996) was an enjoyable piece that served every function a credible sequel should. And though I truly wanted to turn up my nose at "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride", I could not; this video stands up on its own four paws.

If Japan can make the OVA market a successful one, why can't we? There are some good points to these sequels: If the stories are carefully done and the characters can remain consistent and credible, a good film can have a second chapter as long as the quality does not lapse. Animators can have ongoing employment and training. The fact that many of these sequels are aimed at what seem to be a children's market does not bother me greatly; children need to appreciate animation, too. Besides, the end result may be higher quality OVAs as consumers become more demanding. Some of the sequels, such as past ones involving "Beauty and the Beast" and a recent second reprise of "All Dogs Go To Heaven" have holiday themes, and how many of us have cherished our unforgettable childhood memories of animated holiday specials?

On the other hand, the OAV market has the potential for vast crimes against the hallowed art of animation and all its fans. Disney has proven it can sully even the memory of bland and uninteresting films like "Pocahontas" with a sequel that manages to be inferior to the original. Richie Rich dared to unleash a third installment of "The Swan Princess" upon us. Other studios have chipped in with OAVs filled with third-rate animation, tepid stories, and shoehorned musical numbers that would have Joe Raposo or Howard Ashman swearing vengeance from beyond the grave. Profits may always be the foremost consideration, but these direct-to-video sequels deserve a modicum of quality. Therefore, I offer these three caveats to the future producers of OAV sequels:

1. Know When Enough Is Enough

Go to your local video outfit or department store and let your eyes wander over the animation video section. Do you see what I see, and this just in time for a holiday purchase? Why, it's "The Land Before Time VI: The Secret of Saurus Rock"! "VI"? What is Universal trying to do, catch up with the Super Bowl? Anyone who has had the stomach to sit through even one Roman Numeral follwing the original 1988 feature already knows the titular secret: all of the crimes listed in the previous paragraph. How much longer must this go on? With six movies in ten years, Littlefoot should be at least Middlefoot by now; at this rate, in roughly two-hundred and fifty million sequels, this tired property will reach our present year and the fossilized skeletons of Cera, Petrie, and their twee dino pals can continue to sing and cavort in some fey museum of the damned. Let us not have five sequels to features that were watchable but ultimately mediocre in the first place; the Golden Goose can indeed be killed.

2. Some Integrity, Please!

In the rush to cash in on the OAV gold mine, some studios - let's call them, oh, MGM - have decided to produce sequels that the original director and creators of the progenitive film had nothing at all to do with. I speak of "The Secret of NIMH II: Timmy To The Rescue", which has been put together with seemingly no input, direction, or involvement from Don Bluth. As a home-run hitter Bluth is no threat to Mark McGuire, but the original 1982 film remains the finest piece of work in his pantheon. Done with conviction, flair, and the enthusiasm of an Independent On a Mission, "The Secret of NIMH" cannot, and should not, be followed up by anyone but Bluth. I have not yet obtained a copy of this dross (which I understand also contains "five musical numbers"), but advance reviews appear to indicate a wholesale butchery of the original film's intent. No integrity. No respect. Hopefully, no sale.

3. There are Some Things That Man Was Never Meant To See...

...and "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" will most certainly be one of them. When I saw this announcement appear on my video copy of the original Disney classic, my mouth fell open in horror. Nothing could equal the shock of this wanton sacrilege, not fifty Littlefoots, not a hundred Mrs. Brisbys, not a million Batty Kodas. Abomination! What are the heads at Disney thinking? Sure, I remember Scamp; he's the sole male offspring of Lady and Tramp who appears briefly at the end of the film and who later starred in numerous Gold Key (or was it Dell?) comic books. These were mildly amusing adventures that had little to do with the Disney universe, and that's the way it should have stayed.

Why cheapen the few acknowledged classics by making sequels of them long after the fact? What's next, "Pinocchio II: Return to Pleasure Island"? "Peter Pan II: Hook's Revenge"? "Snow White II: The Secret of the Mine"? How does one even make a sequel nearly forty-five years later? Jim Dear and Darling would be at least eighty years old, Scamp himself would be pushing three hundred (in human years, anyway), and Lady and her hubby would have gone to doggie Valhalla decades before. Oh, I get it; we simply pick up the story as it ended in 1955. And I suppose that the the few surviving Disney animators who brought us the original picture are being hauled out of nursing homes at this moment to supervise and perhaps even work on this ill-advised project in order to recreate the ambiance of the original feature. No. This is wrong. "Lady and the Tramp", like the other great animated features before it, has passed beyond a realm occupied by later films such as "Hercules" or "Mulan". It has withstood the greatest critical test of all: that of time. The most fitting tribute to this film would be to let "Lady and the Tramp" stand alone, unsullied by a tacked-on sequel. How sad that the very studio that proudly produced this film seems to lack that insight. Produce, if you must, your misbegotten mutant - but then go and sin no more.

With unlimited potential for both good and ill, OAVs will undoubtedly become a powerful force in shaping animation audience patterns over the decade to come. While you wait to see how this plays out, why not toon in to next month's column, "Dr. Toon XXI: Challenge of the Website Deadline"?

As ever, Dr, Toon looks forward to your thoughts and comments about this month's column.

Other Voices Index|Back To Menu