Slate piece defends Disney “cheapquels” and says they’re sometimes better than the films that inspired them; as far as I can tell, it’s not satire…
Harry McCracken's website
Slate piece defends Disney “cheapquels” and says they’re sometimes better than the films that inspired them; as far as I can tell, it’s not satire…
I have to admit, “Cinderella III” was actually pretty decent. But Pixar’s point is generally, if you are proud enough of a sequel to make it, you should be proud enough to release it theatrically. And if it’s so cheap that it’s not worth releasing theatrically, perhaps you ought not to make it. I think I’d agree with that.
Um, wow.
For the majority of the sequels, this is untrue. I think the new head hanchos have the right idea- it may be a step that saves Disney from the money grubbing corporate hell it’s in. Many of the sequels- especially the earlier ones- just looked like they were thrown out there to get people to buy the original again.
I love traditional animation. I trained in both traditional and CG, and they each have their places. If he’s arguing for traditional animation, more power to him (and I honestly think that’s what he was TRYING for, judging by most of the article)- but there are other- better- places to look. Scripts are important too.