Enchanted director Kevin Lima (Tarzan) says he wants to make at least one sequel if his movie is a hit. However, he forgets Disney Animation's recent history.
One word describes my opinion of a possible Enchanted sequel . . . NOOOOO!!!!!
I believe I speak for countless moviegoers when I say I'm sick of seeing every single successful film being turned into a franchise. I know studios love franchises, since sequels are considered a 'sure thing' at the box office. And certain movies, like Pirates of the Caribbean and Pixar's Toy Story and The Incredibles, possess plots that can extend beyond the original flick. But an Enchanted sequel has "bad idea" written all over it. Here's why.
1) The "fractured fairy tale" phenomenon has come and gone. Yes, Shrek made well over a billion dollars spoofing Disney's classic cartoons but how did Hoodwinked and Happily N'Ever After do? Hoodwinked was a modest hit – mainly because it was made on the cheap – but Happily N'Ever After bombed big time. Despite Shrek the Third currently heading towards $300 million at the box office, most reviews suggested the franchise has jumped the shark and is heading towards diminishing returns.
So, by parodying their own animated heritage with Enchanted, the Mouse House is jumping on a bandwagon just as the wheels are falling off.
That said, I believe moviegoers will give Enchanted a try, if only to see the Mouse House parody its classic movies. From what I've seen of various clips and previews, director Kevin Lima and company are on track to making a very funny and charming movie. But will audiences support multiple sequels? I doubt it.
2) Enchanted's plot doesn't lend itself to a sequel. After Giselle defeats evil Queen Narissa, kisses her prince (either Patrick Dempsey or James Marsden) and rides off into the sunset, what else is there for her to do? Will the disappointed suitor become the next film's villain? Will Narissa mysteriously return from the dead? Will Davey Jones sail in to claim Giselle's soul? Do you see the problem here?
The Mouse House is taking a huge risk by bringing back their old cel animation division after then-CEO Michael Eisner fired their best animators in 2002, and finally closed down the entire division in 2004.
Enchanted could signal the beginning of another "Disney renaissance," like they had in the late 1980's. The last thing Disney wants to do is kill that possible revival, and send Feature Animation back to Hades, by bringing out a lame sequel to this movie.
3) Sequels don't automatically equal massive box office. Consider this: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End haven't even come close to matching their predecessors' receipts. Plus, all three films opened to dismal reviews that suggested each series had lost its creative spark.
Sequels are always more expensive to make, largely because stars and directors ramp up their rates by about 30% when a studio approaches them for a sequel. So even if the sequel makes massive buckage, a lot of that goes to pay inflated salaries. Case in point: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, despite the fact that it ruled the box office for several weeks, hasn't even made back its $300 million price tag yet. So if it stalls in mid-July, it could end up this summer's biggest bomb.
4) The Mouse House has crashed and burned with animated sequels before. Their 1990's era "dreck to video" releases like Aladdin: The Return of Jafar or Cinderella II nearly ended up killing Walt Disney Feature Animation. Many brilliant artists, like Andreas Deja, ended up unemployed because Michael Eisner got greedy and swamped the market with animated crap that carried the Disney logo.
Learn from history, folks. don't repeat it.
Enchanted opens November 21st.
