Hi everyone! Thanks for stopping by. On this Labor Day, I am mourning the fact that my university is not closed as a result of COVID-19 messing with our academic schedules. To feel better, I am listening to my Disney playlist on Spotify and wondering when Disney is going to come out with the next princess movie. It's been almost four years since the last Disney princess movie, Moana—unless, of course, you count Frozen 2, the sequel to the 2013 blockbuster princess film.
I love Frozen. Part of this is because, unlike most people, I did not watch is constantly after it came out and subsequently get sick of it. Part of it is because the music contains some serious bops. Part of it is because I appreciated the portrayal of fear and anxiety in Elsa. All this to stay, I was pumped for the November 2019 sequel. I was nervous that it wouldn't deliver; after all, Frozen is a pretty hefty accomplishment to follow. I needed not worry, however, because not only did Frozen 2 deliver, I actually enjoyed it more than its original.
Frozen 2 accomplished what not all sequels can: a fresh take with characters we already love. In the past decade, Disney has been releasing a multitude of successful sequels: Toy Story 3 and 4, Monsters University, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Incredibles 2, and Frozen 2. While some of these sequels still aren't quite as good as their original (both with critic's and audience's ratings), they have all done very well. This is a stark contrast to Disney's original sequels which used to be, well, flops.
Here are some examples of those flops:
*The Return of Jafar
*Mulan 2
*The Lion King 2
*Bambi 2
*Just about every Disney princess movie 2
Remember these sequels? Probably not, either because you have never seen them or you saw and immediately repressed them.
Perhaps that is a bit harsh. Disney sequels of the past weren't terrible necessary (except for when they were). They were fine for children who enjoy most movies that are colorful and musical and fun. But for those of us who have moved beyond elementary school, past Disney sequels seem stilted, boring, and unoriginal. Did we really need to see Cinderella being bullied by her stepmother and stepsisters again? Was the implication of Mulan and Li Shang's eventual marriage not enough in Mulan? And who on earth thought they could create a sequel to Aladdin without Robin Williams as genie? Economically and creatively, it makes sense that Disney wanted to capitalize on Blockbuster films by continuing the story. Whether the sequels were Direct-to-Video or (rarely) played in theaters, audiences would eat them up. They wouldn't necessarily like them, they would purchase them.
You probably didn't want to see this, but in case you haven't seen the trailer for The Return of Jafar, here it is.
Recently, however, the mindset behind sequels has shifted. They're almost always released in theaters. Audiences typically enjoy them more. And critics, for the most part, are generous with them. Disney sequels are fresher, more creative, and overall more successful.
When did this shift happen? How has it happened? Creating a successful original Disney film is no easy feat, and sequels are often more difficult. I've noticed two areas that typically apply to the successful Disney sequel: timing with an awareness in audience shift and a refreshing conflict.
Timing and Audience:
If the motivation behind past Disney sequels was economics, then it makes sense that they would be released shortly after the original—very shortly. Most sequels appear only a few years after the original. Yet again, some sequels appear decades after the original, like the 2001 release of Cinderella II.
We see a similar trend with modern successful sequels, with Frozen 2 releasing six years after the original but The Incredibles 2 making a grand appearance after thirteen years.
The importance of timing, then, is less about the actual amount of time that has passed than the relation between timing and aging.
Toy Story 3 is one of the best examples of wisely playing with storytelling and timing. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 were released in 1995 and 1999 respectively, and Toy Story 3 was released in 2010. The creators of the Toy Story franchise probably did not purposefully wait eleven years for a third sequel; however, they did take advantage of the gap. Often, sequels don't cover a time gap, relying on the audience to believe that only a year or two has passed in the film's world instead of the five or six years that may have passed in real life. Toy Story 3 abandons that notion, which means Andy is no longer a child in the third film; instead, he is 17-years-old and about to go off to college.
And who else is no longer a child and transitioning into college or the post-high school life in 2010?
The children who were alive when Toy Story was first released.
The children who grew up seeing Toy Story in theaters were approximately 16-21 when the third film hit theaters. Even if they weren't in college yet, they were certainly thinking about college or life after high school. Toy Story 3, then, uses the emotions and experiences of its audience to create a story that will provoke those emotions.
This ties into the shift in the audience for sequels. Disney has a massive audience, though most movies tend to point toward children or families. Their films are meant to be enjoyed by all, but they must be crafted in a way that children will also love. The Disney sequel, however, slightly shifts with its audience. After all, children will always be excited to see a new Disney film, but they often don't appreciate the Disney sequel, especially when the original came out 5-10 years ago, sometimes before they were born. Who is excited to see these sequels? The children (or adults!) who saw and loved the originals, have grown up over a few years, and are ready to relive their childhood for a few hours. When Disney capitalizes on the anticipated shift in audience, its sequels are much more powerful, emotional, and successful.
As Andy gives his toys to Bonnie, he takes his first step to leaving childhood behind, a life change that the children who grew up with Toy Story can relate to. Just looking at this image makes me tear up.
Credit: The Pixar Times.
I was only eleven when I saw Toy Story 3 in theaters, and I bawled my eyes out. I knew the movie was emotional, but I was still a kid and had no concept of change or transitions. My oldest brother, who saw the movie with me while on break from his freshman year of college, did. Of course, his male pride meant he couldn't outright start crying, but ten years later and I still remember how he conveniently had to "go to the bathroom" when the film ended and again when we got home (sorry Alex, but it's okay to cry at Disney and Pixar movies!)
Toy Story 3 is, in my opinion, the strongest examples of Disney's creative use of time and audience. Frozen 2, however, is another notable example. Although it was still released six years after its original, the sequel came out close enough to Frozen that it profited off of the immense popularity of the original. Enough time had passed that the original had the space to create a fever of obsession before dying down only to re-spark with the trailer of its anticipated sequel.
We see the shift in the audience again in Frozen 2. The children who watched Frozen are now teenagers, the teenagers now in their early twenties. They have matured and learned about the complex nature of life and relationships, and the plot of Frozen 2 responds to that maturity. Frozen 2 touches on colonialism, which is made more complex considering the heroines' own grandfather is the one responsible for the oppression. Anna explores death and grief in "The Next Right Thing," creating a relatively dark and serious tone that feels out of place for the normally bright and colorful nature of Disney movies. The plot, too, is much more complex than the original's: a trip to save a sister with ice powers transforms into a spiritual, mythical quest that includes spirits, nature, and an enchanted forest. It's a lot to unpack, and while most children probably pick up on the big picture (Earth and water and fire powers exist and Anna destroys a dam to right bad things her grandpa did), the intricate layers of the stories are catered toward audiences who are in Piaget's operational and concrete stages of development. Children would still enjoy Frozen 2, of course, much like they enjoy most movies with fun songs, cheesy jokes, and a talking snowman (as much as we all love Olaf, he is undoubtedly there for the kids, not us). We see a growth in Elsa with her iconic "Show Yourself,"—which is much better than "Into the Unknown," in case your wondering—a transformation of self-love and discovery that would go over children's heads but radiate with the 19-year-old in college.
It's interesting, then, that while Frozen 2 scores lower on Rotten Tomatoes than the original (77 compared to 90), it scores higher on the audience rating with a 92 compared to 85. Personally, I enjoyed the sequel better, as have many of my friends. The lower critic rating is understandable; the sequel packs a lot into less than two hours, and some of the finer details take a few small leaps that we have to forgive. However, considering the audience rating consists of not children, but adults or teenagers, it makes sense that they would connect with a story about identity, growth, self-love, grief, and righting past wrongs.
Refreshing Conflict
From both a critic's and an audience's standpoint, then, Frozen 2 was a massive success. Of course, timing and audience are only half the battle. If a Disney sequel—or any sequel, really—wants to be truly successful, it needs to introduce a new story, a new conflict, and most importantly, a new villain. It seems like a no-brainer, but whether or not a reliable conflict or villain is introduced is often the defining factor between Disney sequel flops and Disney sequel successes.
Let's travel back to the past for a bit and look at Disney's not-so-successful sequels. We have the sequel to Aladdin, which if you can forgive the sin that is a genie not voiced by Robin Williams, you can't look past the recycled story. I mean, it's called The Return of Jafar, which means we are experiencing the same villain with the same motivations and the same failures. Granted, Jafar is a genie in this sequel, and there are some differences, but the stakes aren't the same. Our heroes have already defeated the villains once, and we don't really care to see them do it again.
A similar problem emerges with the Cinderella sequels, especially Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. There are some new conflicts or storylines, but do we really need to keep seeing how awful Lady Tremaine is? No, not really. And The Little Mermaid: Return to the Sea? Picture The Little Mermaid, except Ariel is younger with black hair and Ursula is Morgana, the sea witch's younger sister. It's a no brainer why sequels like these are entertaining enough for kids, who enjoy most movies with talking animal and vivid animation, but hated by adults or teenagers, who would like a new storyline to emerge with their favorite characters.
It makes sense, then, why the Toy Story franchise is so successful: each film introduces a new villain, a new conflict, new side characters, and even a new setting. Frozen 2 didn't just deserve a sequel because of the popularity of the original; the origin of Elsa's ice powers is a natural question posed by the audience and serves itself well as a story. We see similar trends with Monster's University, a prequel that doesn't rely on Randall being the central villain; The Incredibles 2, a sequel that changes not only its villain but its central protagonist as Elastigirl is the one with the mission; and Ralph Breaks the Internet, a sequel that keeps some original side characters while adopting some new faces and making the villain a much less tangible being (Ralph's insecurities cause most of the problems as opposed to Turbo/King Candy in the original). All of these sequels performed well with critics and audiences.
Over the decades, Disney has adapted and progressed to fit current times: new technologies, societal progressions, audience shifts, and more. As a result, sequels have transformed over time. As the audience of Disney expands, sequels can no longer get away with being bright and fun for the kids but boring and predictable for adults. Instead, the successful Disney sequel creates a fresh conflict with mature content that resonates with older audiences, especially those who grew up with the originals.
So what's next for the Disney sequel? There are very scarce details about a Moana sequel, and audiences seem to want a Coco sequel. Who's to say whether any of these rumors or wishes will come to fruition, but if they do, you bet I will be one of the first in line to see them.
We can only hope Disney continues its trend of action-packed, joyful sequels.
Until later, have courage and be kind.
Comentários