The Makings of a Good Sequel

Article by Lilly

When I was a younger I was very opinionated how much I hated sequels. Period. All sequels were bad, everything that needed to be said was already said in the first movie. A trilogy was okay, sequels, not so much.

Then my grandmother bought me “Rescuers Down Under” on VHS. I figured I might as well watch it since I owned it and well....it was great. I loved it. I loved the plot and the characters and I fell in love with Bernard, Bianca and the Rescue Aid Society all over again. I couldn’t deny that this sequel was well written, fun, and frankly, just as good as the first one. It was on that day that my opinions of sequels began to evolve.

 I’m still as opinionated about sequels as I ever was, but I’ve decided there are a few things that have to be taken into consideration for a sequel to be any good.

1. The first one seems obvious, and yet sequel makers seem to do this more often than not, which never ceases to amaze me. You can’t just recreate the first movie as in “Lady and the Tramp II.” You can’t even do the “opposite” of the first movie like “The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea.” You have to actually think of a new plot.

2. You can’t use the same villain if resolution was made with the villain in the first movie. You have to create a new one. It’s different if the first movie set itself up for a sequel by having the villain storm away saying something like “I’ll get you next time!” But if the villain learns their lesson, they can’t come back and act like they didn’t. For instance if “Toy Story 2” had Sid show up because he decided that he really wasn’t that freaked out when all the toys came to life, that would have been lousy.

3. You must be incredibly conscious not to contradict facts defined from the original. Example: In “Peter Pan” you can only fly with pixie dust and a happy thought. However, in “Peter Pan: Return to Neverland,” we see an octopus fly right after it’s food gets away because it had pixie dust, but it didn’t look very happy to me, and I didn’t know Tinkerbell could take away pixie dust after she had given it.

4. You have to be even more conscious not to contradict the character’s integrity. Seeing the character we know and love do something we know they would never do, kills the movie right there. For instance Belle in “Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas” wouldn’t break her promise to the beast and go into the forest after she already broke her promise once and the beast was almost killed saving her. Not only would she not do that morally, but she isn’t an idiot. It would take more than a sinister organ and the need for a tree to make her put her and Chip’s lives in danger when she already knew what was out there. Another example: Sebastian in “The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning” wouldn’t have disobeyed King Triton’s orders to ban music. His whole character development in the original consisted of him being Mr. Discipline and straight down the line with the rules. He also always sides with Triton. Then he goes on this journey with Ariel and learns a whole new way of looking at things and ultimately helps in changing Triton’s mind. Now you’re trying to tell us that before all that he was a total rebel who totally bonds with Ariel and makes a secret oath with her and all that? Sorry we’re not buying it.

5. Nobody can come back to life. Period. The only time I have ever been on the fence about this is Captain Barbosa, but honestly if it were me I wouldn’t have done it.

6. People in love stay in love. It’s such a weak choice to make one of the major plot lines of a sequel be two characters, who were finally united in the end of the first movie, have some stupid misunderstanding and question their love for another. A choice like that would go something like this: Princess Aurora and Prince Phillip are now planning their wedding when one of Maleficent's Goons (who now suddenly has a name) decides he want’s to avenge Maleficent’s death. So he pretends to be Prince Phillip’s friend and tells prince Phillip that Aurora really doesn’t love him anymore. He tells the prince to see for himself and the prince overhears Aurora say “I just don’t think I can go through with this.” Of coarse what she was really talking about was a princess obstacle course that Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather made for her. Prince Phillip flees the castle distraught which was really just a trap so the goons could capture him....and well...you get the idea. That will be on direct to DVD next month, just wait and see.

7. Fairytales that end in happily ever after really can’t have a sequel. If you come back around and say, “just kidding, it was happily ever after except for this movie,” it doesn’t just make a bad movie, you also leak your horrid choices onto the first movie by invalidating the end. When I heard the line “What if the magic was taken away?” on the teaser of “Cinderella III,” my heart sank deeply. When a fairytale is over its over, it doesn’t go back it time, sorry.

8. Original voices are a must. We can tell when the voices are different, we really can. If the people are not around, it is possible to find people who can do the voice exactly, but they have to be exact. I think the current voices of Mickey, Donald, and Goofy do a great job. I don’t know why Disney struggles so much trying to find voice talent for every other character. People tried to tell me that the voices on “Peter Pan: Return to Neverland” wear dead on, but honestly I felt like they didn’t even try that hard. Smee came the closest, but no cigar. The character loses integrity and previous character development when the voice is obviously different, or worse they use a different actor in the case of a live action movie.

9. The animation style has to be the same. Obviously the characters need to look and move the same, but also, the feeling has to be the same. For instance, in “Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas” they threw a little CGI in there for Forte and then to make it worse, they gave him some neon green glowing powers that shoot out and can actually knock the beast of his feet. It just doesn’t fit with the first one.

10. Music is the last one. The musical score has to be a continuation from the original, you can’t do all new music. If there is singing, the vocal style has to match the original as well; you can’t have Cinderella sing with a nasal musical theater voice, when she originally sang with a full and smooth classic 1940’s voice in the original.

The point of this post is not to rag on Disney sequels, there are plenty of blogs to share our woes in that regard. The point is that it really isn’t that hard to make good sequels. Look at Toy Story 2 and 3. Now whether you like sequels or not, you have to admit as far as sequels go, these were well done. They followed all the rules. The didn’t try to recreate the first one. They had a new villain for each sequel. They were very true to the facts and characters they established in the first movie. They didn’t resurrect anybody. Jesse and Buzz still liked each other and Woody still liked Bo Peep even though she wasn’t around in the last one. It wasn’t a fairytale, so there was no definitive ending to the first one. They had the same voices and animation style, and they based all the music off the music in the first film. Well done.

I’d prefer no sequels myself, but sequels are guaranteed to make 40% of the first film, no matter what the quality looks like. That’s just a known fact among filmmakers. So, Disney figures they can make a few quick bucks on some sequels with really no effort nor cost to them. However, I feel if they just put a little more effort into their sequels, by taking the money and resources they are using to make crappy sequels and using them to make fewer better sequels, those sequels will actually make more money then all their crappy sequels combined. Heck, Toy Story 2 made more money than the first one. If Disney made less, better sequels we could let rest a few movies that really shouldn’t have sequels (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Pinocchio could be spared) and focus on movies where sequels would be more appropriate.

Why Shows Fail

I have to admit, before actually working at Disney I didn’t care much for the parades or shows. As far as I was concerned, the times that shows were playing were the best times for riding the attractions surrounding those shows. However, after spending a lot of time with entertainment, I have become quite opinionated about the whole thing. 

One of the most mind boggling things to me is the consistent pattern of the company spending time and money on shows that any person in their right mind could tell you are incredibly lousy and doomed for failure. Many of their shows don’t even last a year and yet they spent boatloads of money on them. How does it happen? Why does it happen? Well, I’ll tell you.

It starts with an idea. Now I wish I could tell you it was an idea like “You know what would really be a cool show?” or “I just had this amazingly creative and artistic idea pop into my head for a show...” but I can’t. The idea usually comes from The Suits and starts more like this: “You know what’s been popular? Show’s like Turtle Talk and The Laugh Floor. Let’s make another one like that.” Or, “Nothing’s going on over in that area, let’s put a show there.” Or, my personal favorite, “You know what people love? Stitch and princesses. We need more shows with Stitch and princesses.”

Then they bring in people to carry out their dirty deeds. Possibly some very overworked show writer that has been writing pretty much the same show since 1980. Then, instead of giving this “creative team” the time necessary time to develop a show that could possibly be any good, they give them about a fourth of the time it takes and half the staff they would need.

After the underdeveloped show gets finalized, they bring in a director who probably won’t even be there half the time because he’s directing 7 other shows at the same time, and a choreographer who will probably make up the choreography as he goes and once again, the cast and crew will get about half the time they need to put this show on. It’s incredible to watch them do this over and over again. 

Aside from this atrocious method of show development, Disney does a few more things to set themselves up for failure. Something that I’ve noticed is their pattern for using the Abbot and Costello character roles over and over again. Let’s Have a Ball: Lucinda was Abbott, Simon was Costello. Storywalkers: The violinist was Abbot, the actor was Costello. Jack Sparrow’s Pirate Tutorial: Jack is Abbot, Mac is Costello (Since when did Captain Jack Sparrow need a silly sidekick anyway?). Hyperspace Hoopla: Guy with the Blue Jacket is Abbot, girl with the crazy hair is Costello. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Another thing I’ve noticed is a pattern of not thinking things through very well. Example: Storywalkers. Storywalkers was a little show they put in Asia at Disney’s Animal Kingdom that lasted probably less than a year. It was originally created because there is a dead spot in Asia between Expedition Everest and the siamangs (the apes in the temple) so they decided to put a show there. First mistake. Then they write a show with two characters that act like Abbot and Costello, but are dressed like they work at Pizzafari. Second mistake. Then they put this show in a major dead spot where people don’t care to see a show, because they are on their way to Expedition Everest. They could not get people to watch this show. I literally saw actors grabbing people walking by to try and get them to watch this sad show. Third mistake. So, to try and get people to watch this show, they moved it to two locations where people are standing around anyway, right outside the bathrooms and right below the roller coaster where people are waiting for their loved ones to get off the ride. Trouble is, when their loved ones get out of the bathroom or off the ride, they don’t want to be in your show anymore (They used “volunteers”). Fourth mistake. The fifth mistake was sound. At what point did they not recognize that setting a show between screaming monkeys and a roaring roller coaster with a giant body of water in front would completely drown out the sound? I remember watching one of the performers pause every time a car would come down that big drop on Expedition Everest so that she didn’t get drowned out by the rumble of the coaster and screaming of its riders.

Okay that’s small scale. Let’s look at something big scale. Stitch's Supersonic Celebration. Originally created because Space Mountain was going to be under some major maintenance and they didn’t want there to be dead space there. However, they didn’t seem to consider the fact that nobody has any reason to go to that part of the park when Space Mountain isn’t operating. Not to mention that a cheesy show can in no way compensate for missing out on a classic roller coaster.

Next, they thought they’d throw all the right ingredients together to make a good show: a little Stitch, a little music, a little dancing, girls in boots, and the ever so popular animated characters talking to audiences live. It didn’t really occur to them those things don’t always go together that well, and by the way, Stitch doesn’t really talk that much, but who cares about character integrity anyway, right?

Then there is logistics. An outdoor screen with no covering and the sun shining on it, means people can’t really see what is on the screen. An uncovered stage with no seating doesn’t really entice guests to stand in the blazing sun to watch a forty minute show.

And let’s not forget about content (the thing that should have been stimulus for the whole project, but instead is an afterthought). How did that script make it past someone’s desk, let alone into a full blown show? That host? That choreography? What were they thinking? I could have told you it was going to fail before they even started.

I thought that Walt Disney World was the only culprit for these obvious eye sores, but I was walking by the Plaza Inn at Disneyland the other day and saw this.

His name is Pat E. Cake and I can literally look at this picture and tell you this is not a good idea....but then I saw the show. He sings a terrible song and breaks out into a rap in the middle. See for yourself.

You know, after watching that video I really have nothing else to say about it.

So here’s my dream. No more crappy shows. It’s that simple. I want the parks to be full of things that I love as much as the Dapper Dans, the atmosphere characters on Main Street and Hollywood Boulevard, or the ragtime pianist pianist that plays in the evenings at Disneyland. Remember when you could go into the Diamond Horseshoe and see all those little variety shows and maybe a can-can or two? Those were the days (although I like the little band they have in the Golden Horseshoe, they can stay). It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to come up with ideas that really add to the parks instead of take away from them, or at the very least, aren’t complete failures. But I guess it is.

The Hidden Mickey Controversy [Part One]

By Lilly.

Ha ha Mitch I got to it first! 

Our Debate
So, Mitch and I have this ongoing debate about Hidden Mickeys. Mitch hates Hidden Mickeys. Is hate too strong of a word Mitch? ;) He feels like Hidden Mickeys are nothing but a commercialized attempt at creativity and they do nothing but distract from the amazing designs and details of each attraction, a view point I’m sure you will be reading in a follow up article very shortly....

Here's how I see it.  I spent a lot of time when I was growing up learning all kinds of useless yet interesting facts about Disney. I spent most my time on Disneyland. I researched articles, timelines and websites–when they were beginning–and learned all about this park I loved so much. I didn’t realize there were people out there that really loved it as much as I did and when I realized there were many other nerds out there, I gleaned everything they knew out of them. I loved to know things. Dates, names of imagineers, what the story is behind everything, what Walt said about things, who died at Disneyland, who was born there, and every secret out there I could find.

Of course, I started with the facts that are now obvious, the apartment above the Firehouse, the basketball court in the Matterhorn, but then it never stopped. Soon I could tell you every name Walt gave to each horse on King Arthur’s Carrousel, the name of the gardener that cut the animals into the bushes at It’s a Small World and how many miles per hour every attraction could go. And I loved that imagineers intentionally put things out there that nerdy people like me could just eat up. Like designing animatronics that look like certain people or having George Lucas duck behind a counter during Star Tours. It’s like when professional basketball players wipe their sweat off in a certain way to let someone out there know they are thinking about them, by planting secrets, it’s like the imagineers’ way of saying, “here’s a little something fun for all our nerdy followers out there.” And that is what Hidden Mickeys were to me, too–well–at least at first.
 
The Trend
Then, the Hidden Mickey trend started. In my opinion, the real popularity of Hidden Mickey’s came about as a result of the late 1980s Disney Channel ID bits like these:

People started thinking, “yeah, those three circles could show up anywhere” and imagineers started playing into their popularity. Now, it’s not that there weren’t any Hidden Mickey’s before then, but at that point they exploded and people started claiming three rocks in a garden were really Hidden Mickeys. I liked the idea of the Hidden Mickey’s. I thought they were fun, but when people started seeing “Hidden Mickeys” everywhere, it did make me roll my eyes a little bit. But then Imagineers started doing it, too. Real Hidden Mickeys created by imagineers started showing up on every corner to the point that I am pretty confident there is no where on Disney property where you can look and not see a Hidden Mickey, many of which are not hidden at all.

My Opinion
Although I like the idea of Hidden Mickeys, I think they’ve gone a little overboard with the whole thing. There are too many and they are too obvious. The Hidden Mickey in the Magic Kingdom Splash Mountain that is an entire cloud of Mickey laying down? Yeah, that’s too much. But I like the Mickey ears on the skeleton in Disneyland’s the Temple of the Forbidden Eye. That’s a fun little inside joke I think.

My opinion, keep Hidden Mickeys, but make them more subtle and more classy, like you’d probably have to hear it from a cast member or ride the attraction a ton to really see it. Don’t go overboard. Mitch?

[ Part Two ] by Mitch now available.