Dan Kois Defends Dreck

Slate writer Dan Kois says that Disney's 'dreck to video' sequels weren't as bad as everyone made them out to be. But his argument has one major hole in it.

I have to give Dan Kois over at Slate Magazine full marks for guts: he defends Walt Disney Company’s infamous ‘dreck-to-video’ sequels that infested store shelves in the 1990’s.

A quick recap: the Walt Disney Company created DisneyToon Studios in 1994 in order to crank out low-budget sequels to their animated classics such as Cinderella, Aladdin and Lilo and Stitch. While they were successful initially, these sequels ended up ruining demand for Walt Disney Animated Studios product, which meant that profits for Disney’s big screen animated movies plunged.

Eventually, the combination of falling profits, rising costs, the Tinker Bell scandal, and the implacable hatred of Pixar honchos Ed Catmull, John Lasseter and Steve Jobs (the Apple founder called them “embarrassing” in 2003) conspired to kill DisneyToon Studios and direct-to-video sequels altogether. Most animation fans despised the sequels, and cheered their demise as a triumph of art over commerce.

“But have you ever actually watched one of Disney's DVD sequels?” Kois asks in his article. “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.”

Keep in mind the operative word here is “recent.” DisneyToon had been throwing more money at their later flicks in order to stop criticism that their product was cheaply made crap. Unfortunately, this meant that they pulled out of Australia and moved their animation studios to India and Singapore (part of DisneyToon’s cost-cutting methods included out-sourcing to Third World countries). By that point, however, the damage had been done: despite DisneyToon putting more money into production, serious animation fans were no longer buying what DisneyToon was selling.

That said, there are some points in this article to agree with: Kois points out that the recent glut of CGI toon flicks, with their shared “qualities: a fast-paced plot; crisp, shiny animation; and a Shrekian desire to pack every single frame with pratfalls, jokes, and action,” has left audiences cold. But he does take time out to praise Ratatouille, saying it’s “so well shot it should be eligible for the cinematography Oscar.” No argument here.

While I respect Dan’s experience watching Lady and the Tramp II, Cinderella III and Bambi II, this is a pretty low cross-section of DisneyToon’s output. I’m sure Kois would’ve had a very different experience if he had watched something like Aladdin 2: The Return of Jafar. This sequel featured Dan Castellaneta (The Simpsons) replacing Robin William as The Genie, since the motor-mouthed comedian had fallen out with Disney.

How would’ve Kois reacted if he was forced to sit through the failed Tinker Bell Movie, the one where “Neverland disappeared, Peter and the Lost Boys were enslaved in the boiler room of a real-world barge, and children all over London lost joy and imagination," said a Disney insider, who also called out multiple fart jokes and lesbian overtones in the flick.

As this insider exclaimed, "I would expect young children to run screaming!”

And while we’re at it, did 101 Dalmations really deserve 11 sequels, including a wretched Home Alone-esque live action flick that was more about selling toys than making a good movie?

While Dan Kois mounts a spirited defense of certain movies in the DisneyToon catalogue, his premise is based on 3 later movies, where DisneyToon tried to repair the damage it had done with animation fans. While it’s good to see other viewpoints, it won’t stop the general consensus that the Mouse House is better off without those ‘dreck to video’ sequels.