The Fox and the Hound

Post by **Daniel** » March 20th, 2007, 1:52 am

Most of Mermaid III, the last hand-drawn direct-to-video feature on the books, has been shipped to Toon City.

At Disney Toons, they wait for the remodel of the second floor of the Sonora Building, the final shipment of scenes for Little Mermaid III, overseas, the next turn in development of the long-gestating Tinkerbell. Division top-kick Sharon Morrill announces to staff that the DVD sales of Fox and the Hound II exceeded company expectations by 25%.

Alright!

Post by **Dacey** » March 22nd, 2007, 5:28 pm

Ben wrote:
Daniel Jake wrote:Its 2d, Mitch!
2D doesn't have to mean two dimensional.

Amen!

Post by **Ben** » March 23rd, 2007, 5:05 am

Uh-oh...does that mean DisneyToons get their traditional unit back for F&TH III?

I'd still LOVE those guys to be churning out new Mickey and co material, or the series of direct-to-video fairytales that were planned in the late 1990s. They would be "franchise extensions" to be sure, but be generating new content at least. Or set those wonderfully talented guys off on animating new shorts!

Post by **Daniel** » March 24th, 2007, 3:30 am

As much as I would love for that answer to be yes, I have to face facts that DTV sequels are over. What are the chances of them even continuing? Slim to none.

So yeah, I'm hoping for something along the lines of originality, like the stuff you suggested.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 30th, 2007, 3:00 am

I guess it's finally, officially true.

Sorry, Dan.

http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ulti ... 1;t=012209

But at least they're still going strong with the fairies series.....

AN links to a fascinating, very interesting 3-page article on DTV's!!

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=page ... le_no=3224

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 30th, 2007, 5:23 pm

BTW Dan just thought you'd like this statement:

Now that their hour is passing, perhaps it's time to give Disney's direct-to-video sequels their due. Quality is where you find it, and the studio's original theatrical releases have not been immune to creative and commercial failure. At their best, the sequels were created not by clock punchers, but by people who believed in and felt a commitment to their work and to classic 2D animation. "There's a lot of criticism that the sequels get," says Kammerud. "People hate them within the industry, but I'm glad for myself and the artists I work with that there's still a place to make 2D while everyone else is running away from it."

Post by **Daniel** » March 30th, 2007, 5:31 pm

Its ok, Vi.

I don't know what to think, really. Yes, I am heartbroken, but I'm really not surprised.

Sigh.

Here's what I wrote as a thread starter over at UD. (And now that I'm rereading it, I think I would've changed some stuff. )

~Daniel~ wrote:Its now official.

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=page ... le_no=3224

An yes, I stole the headline.

I don't know if this board has picked up on it yet, but I'm a HUGE fan of sequels, espicially Disney, so this kind of breaks my heart. I know many consider sequels to be cheap, and nothing more than a new movie with an addition of a "2/II". But to me, they were so much more.

Yes, a few were bad, I'll admit. But there were also a lot (IMO) gems among the batch.

Why, when I was younger and these DTV's were just starting out, I remember the exitement that came over me, time and time again. Seriously, I would get all pumped that a new movie with old cartoon friends was coming out! Oh, who am I kidding, that's still true to this day!

I know, huh? I'm weired. Anyway, I'm too emotional right now, to actually make sence so I think I'll stop.

Well, one more thing. I found that whole 3 page article, to be very interesting. It shed more light on the possible reasons why the DTV's are ending, interesting tibits from the directors of Cinderella III and The Fox and the Hound 2, and information about the future, and how they plan on making franchises, ie. "Fairies'. And most of all, just a nice recap of DTV's.

Twas a good long run!

Yeah, kinda lame. Anyway, I just read some of responses and its pretty much what I expected. Some are sad, while others don't care at all. Whatever.

Well, not worry anyone, I'm feeling much better.

Post by **Daniel** » March 30th, 2007, 5:44 pm

ShyViolet wrote:BTW Dan just thought you'd like this statement:

I do, it was one of best things out of the article. Thank you, Vi.

Post by **Josh** » March 30th, 2007, 6:07 pm

Don't be sad, Daniel. Keep in mind that a lot of the classic Disney characters will continue to star in new projects, such as the Disney Princess videos, spin-off films, books, fanfiction, etc.

Post by **Daniel** » April 1st, 2007, 1:49 am

I'm not sad anymore, Josh, but thanks for trying to make me feel better!

True, but they can never take the place of sequels. But yeah, I'm really exited for what the future has in store. What with franchises, and possible original films, its sounding very promising!

Post by **Josh** » April 1st, 2007, 2:44 am

Daniel wrote:I'm not sad anymore, Josh, but thanks for trying to make me feel better!

You're welcome.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 1st, 2007, 9:02 pm

Here's what "SteveG" on Animation Nation said. (he's so awesome!!

)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never minded the concept of animated sequels, but Lasseter hit the nail on the head when he demanded purpose. Did a second Hunchback film have to be made, for example? Was it a story that absolutely could not be left on the drawing board? It seemed like the films had no purpose other than the sake of existing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the same could be said of any sequel including Godfather2. A film is usually designe with a specific character/story arc and conflict in mind and a resolution. When that resolution is acheived than those characters have served their purpose and a brand new set of problems (that usually didn't exhist in the original) have to be imagined/created and dealt with.

And to be even more specific to your example of HoND - due to the story that Disney created in the original it could be argued that there could be a need for a sequel since, for once, the hero/main character hadn't found a specific person to have a 'happily ever after' with. Maybe they were reaching for loftier story/character goals than that, but it still remains that there still seemed to be some story that could be told.
Whether what the DTV came up with was worth it or not doesn't change the fact that unlike many of Disney's films (especially the fairytales) the story could continue. There are others that a sequel seems more natural, but I agree that many didn't need them - including Toystory.

Post by **Meg** » April 2nd, 2007, 6:11 am

Wow - I never thought I'd actually see someone defending HoND 2....

Anyway, he only reason those DTVs were getting made was to make money...I won't mis them.

Post by **Jeroen** » April 2nd, 2007, 8:10 am

Me neither, but the prospect of orginal dtv seems nice.
They should start making something like mickey's christmas carol or the prince and the pauper ( I disliked the 3 musketeers )

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 2nd, 2007, 1:21 pm

Anyway, he only reason those DTVs were getting made was to make money...I won't mis them.

Yeah, but that's why ANY sequel gets made--including Shrek, Toy Story, Godfather, Superman, etc...

I wonder if JL would say that same "purpose" stuff if someone brought up the fact that TS2 was originally a DTV....

(Ditto "Buzz Lightyear of Starcommand"--true, mostly not produced by Pixar, but they did agree to it, didn't they?)