Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Why Bambi II Is Better Than BambiAnd why Disney shouldn't kill the straight-to-DVD sequel.

By Dan Kois
Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 6:06 PM ET
Bambi II. Click image to expand.

Last year, when Disney acquired Pixar, it installed Pixar big shots John Lasseter and Ed Catmull into positions of power in its flagship division, Walt Disney Animation Studios. Lasseter and Catmull are making their presence felt. A few weeks ago, they announced a dramatic reorganization of Disney's animation departments, eliminating one of the company's most lucrative, yet most criticized, products: straight-to-DVD sequels of classic animated films like Bambi and Cinderella. The Pixarians had long been critical of such sequels (Pixar co-founder Steve Jobs called them "embarrassing" back in 2003) and the move was viewed by many as a triumph of class over commerce. The artistic geniuses at Pixar were axing the money-grubbers who had sullied the good names of classic Disney cartoons.

But have you ever actually watched one of Disney's DVD sequels? If you're expecting half-assed hack-work, you're in for a surprise. Lady and the Tramp II (2001), Bambi II (2006), and Cinderella III (2007), to take three recent examples, are certainly not perfect, but they're worthy successors to the originals, carrying the well-worn stories forward with care and charm. What's more, the movies tell their stories in the classic animation mode, using hand-drawn images, winning songs, and an energetic but not hyperactive style that has entertained children since Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. And which, given the chance, can still engage children today.

The summer of 2007 has once again seen a steady stream of the computer-animated features that have replaced traditional animation on the major studios' slates. These films tend to share certain qualities: a fast-paced plot; crisp, shiny animation; and a Shrekian desire to pack every single frame with pratfalls, jokes, and action. Yet this year's Surf's Up, Shrek the Third, and Meet the Robinsons—like last year's Monster House, Barnyard, and Over the Hedge—seem to be provoking a kind of animation fatigue in audiences. The average gross of animated films fell from $149 million in 2004 to $88 million in 2006. Shrek the Third, meanwhile, is down 25 percent from 2004's Shrek 2.

Perhaps ticket buyers (i.e., parents) long for a different era of animation. If so, Disney's sequels will do a much better job of reminding them of the animated classics than the slick gagfests in today's theaters. Despite their straight-to-DVD status, there's nothing cheap or knocked-off about the animators' work on these sequels. They have a rich, hand-drawn look that few studios' CG efforts can match. (The exception, of course, is Pixar: Ratatouille is so well shot it should be eligible for the cinematography Oscar.) The dogs of Lady and the Tramp II are wonderfully expressive, stumbling through their junkyard environs in an endearingly imperfect way that sleek, computer-generated characters simply can't manage. And Bambi II is filled with some of the most painterly, awe-inspiring forest settings I've ever seen onscreen. Computers can make a forest look real; old-fashioned animation can make a forest look at once imposing and alluring.

And unlike the current crop of animated features, Disney's direct-to-DVD sequels tell their stories simply, without a constant barrage of slapstick and winking pop-culture references. All three films I watched were entirely free of crotch-kicking, and the only fart joke belonged, appropriately, to a skunk. Instead, the jokes tend to be quiet, the action gripping if only occasional, and the entire pace of the movie enjoyably slower than you're likely to see onscreen these days. How much slower? Lady and the Tramp II and Cinderella III even make time for character-defining songs, the way animated movies used to.

Of course, none of this would matter if the movies abused the beloved classic characters whose stories they take up. Pixar's head honchos seem to believe this is the case, but their concerns are misplaced. The sequels stay true to the characters, using them to teach some of the same gentle lessons as the originals. Lady and the Tramp II follows Scamp, the rambunctious son of Lady and Tramp, as he learns that finding a family that loves you is more important than trying to be "wild." And Bambi II tracks the evolving relationship between Bambi and his father, the Prince of the Forest, as Bambi comes of age and comes to grips with the loss of his mother and his fear of the unknown.

Is it sacrilege to say that some of the characters and themes in these sequels are actually better-handled than in the originals? In Bambi II, Bambi's father learns how to be a devoted, hands-on dad. As a father myself, I'd rather have my daughter watch the kinder stag of Bambi II than the distant, regal cipher of the first film. Plus, while his mother's death certainly weighs on Bambi in the sequel, there's nothing approaching the traumatic sequence in the original when Bambi's mom gets shot.

Or take the example of Cinderella III. In the original film, the wicked stepsisters are oafish caricatures who exist solely to abuse the lovely heroine. In the latest sequel, magical mischief (and a bit of time travel) allows one of the stepsisters the chance to experience the love of Prince Charming; as a result, she reforms her wicked ways and becomes a friend and ally to Cinderella, and a braver, richer character herself. Cinderella III even has a little fun with the absurdity of the original's conceit: "You think there's only one woman in the whole kingdom who wears a size 4 and a half?" the Prince's father asks at one point.

Far from sullying the spirit of the original classic films, Disney's straight-to-DVD sequels respect their inspirations while finding new stories to tell. In Lady and the Tramp II, Scamp and his junkyard-dog belle Angel visit the same Italian restaurant famously visited by Scamp's parents. They share a plate of spaghetti and meatballs, just like Scamp's parents did. Adult viewers watching the sequel likely brace themselves, as I did, for some embarrassing gaffe that will tarnish their memories of a beloved childhood moment. But that gaffe never comes. Scamp noses a meatball over to Angel, but in a witty, doggy divergence from the original, she scarfs up the whole plate with nary a glance at her beau. It's a charming moment, and an emblematic one: No, the sequels aren't the originals, but yes, they're awfully sweet all on their own.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Dan Kois has worked as a film executive and a literary agent. He writes and edits New York magazine's arts and culture blog, Vulture.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

There is a very simple quote for which Walt was famous in animation. "You can't top pigs with pigs." It was Walt Disney's philosophy on sequels. He didn't like them and didn't believe in them as a focus of Disney's artistic efforts in feature animation. He believed in innovation and taking the art form to the next level...always seeking the next great story, characters and songs, not simply reprising the past successes.

When he was asked, shortly after the release of the wildly popular Three Little Pigs cartoon, if he would produce another one in response to the overwhelming audience response...he said no....more specifically, he said "You can't top pigs with pigs." A delightfully eloquent way to sum up what we now know as "Disney Magic." Being an innovator is what always set Disney apart. Not being innovative, but instead churning out horrible straight to video sequel after sequel in pursuit of the almighty bottom line has jeopardized the modern Disney.

Lasseter and company were brought in to restore that magic. Anyone who knows anything about Disney history, and especially animation should be wise enough to heed Walt's words and understand that they are the cornerstone upon which "the magic" is built.

--MyOpinion7

(To reply, click here.)

My daughter had never seen Bambi the original. We rented Bambi 2, she was 2 years old and loved it, so we rented Bambi 1. She was scared of it.

Some of the older classics are indeed very scary for young kids and the sequels seem more geared for the younger set. Later that summer, my daughter named an inflatable moose for our pool "Bambi 2" and still calls it that. at 3 years old as do all her cousins. Everyone argues over who gets to sit on "Bambi 2".

I can attest to feeling like these sequels are letdowns in comparison to the originals but I am not the one watching them really, my kids are. My daughter loved Lady and the Tramp, watched it over and over and over. She watched part 2 and was less than thrilled but still excited that it was the same characters. She just watched Fox and the Hound 2 and danced the whole way through! That's good entertainment right there!

The sequels have their place for little kids to enjoy. I agree that the relentless pop culture references of Shrek, etc get really tired and the movies are too long for kids!

--beckerdude

(To reply, click here.)

Saying that "because kids like them, adults don't need to" justifies putting out trash. Kids like candy, but parents should give them food that is healthy. These sequels typically remove any moral depth from the story. Yes, they may provide good practice for animators, and the animation may be as good as you say. However, the storytelling is a writers' sweatshop, where attention to quality is sacrificed to ... well, to the next quarterly earnings report, I suppose. I don't work there, I just have seen the product.

There are so many good movies out there, movies with messages, with maturity-inspiring themes, that the latest PC-stuffed DVD sequel really should be treated like junk food, not like real content. Dora the Explorer and Avatar come off better, heck even Blue's Clues has more meat than these things. Congratulations to those who care about making quality over a quick profit (at the expense of the brand name).

--Mr_A

(To reply, click here.)

Mr. Kois. you make the mistake of comparing the DVD sequels to all of the animated product in the marketplace, Disney should only be compared to Disney. All the other American animation houses are either reactions against, or knockoffs of Disney. When Disney brings its A game no one does it better. It's awfully disingenuous of you to focus on everyone but Pixar (the true inheritors of the Disney animation legacy) when comparing modern animated films to the DTV sequels.

As to your claim that the DVD sequels are worthy successors to the original animated films, I have to respectfully disagree. The animation in the DTV DVDs is never as good as the originals and the films generally retread the same territory through a modern politically correct lens. Backwards as some of the messages of those original films may seem to our modern eyes, those movies were genuine marvels of art and commerce. Walt consciously played with archetypes, myth, and folklore in those films so deftly that they became timeless and still pack a punch today. You may not necessarily feel comfortable with the politics of Bambi or Cinderella, but damned if they don't evoke some serious emotional responses.

The DTV sequels may not use pop cultural references like the Dreamworks abominations, but they aren't made to last either. Lassiter and the folks at Pixar want to create classics and nothing but classics. Unobjectionable, okay, and cute are not enough.

Disney is Disney because their rightful legacy is one of timeless excellence. The move to do awaywith the DTV sequels is the way to maintain that legacy and secure the future of the company.

--mattcable

(To reply, click here.)

(7/19)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.