The first time I felt insulted by a sequel, it was Toy Story 2. (Hang with me here for a moment!) As a plucky five-year-old in '99, my developing brain believed that Toy Story had been a perfect film: comedy, drama, personified potato heads, jokes even a child could understand. What could a sequel possibly have to add to the world of sentient toys? Would Woody and Buzz become even better friends? Would they travel even further from Andy's house? Would Pizza Planet have an even greater appeal? Fortunately, the movie was far from what I had fearfully anticipated: Woody goes on a whole new adventure instead of retracing his steps, with a new set of given circumstances and different friends to help him return home. Sure, the 'return home' plot was recycled, but the journey of understanding a different toy was done with an introduction of a boisterous new character, in a world with the novel dangers of crossing the street.
But most importantly: the movie was still culturally relevant. Kids were hungry for Toy Story's unique perspective of the toys, and the adults remained entertained by esteemed actors as animated characters. The sequel blended its A and B storylines much more than in the original; made space for a central female character (something missing from Pixar's canon at the time); and perhaps most importantly, it was released within five years of the original film.
Maybe that's why I was so perplexed by the studio's continuation of the franchise with "Toy Story 3" and "4", which took nearly a decade each to release.
I had my reservations when heard about the production of Toy Story 3. Sure, animation had developed with lightning speed during the 2000s, but did that really mean we needed to revisit Woody and friends? Again, the premise had changed enough that a third independent story seemed doable; the creators fully recognized the target audience of youngsters who were now grown-ups were sobbing over the 'final chapter,' as many of us saw it. Maybe they wanted a well-rounded ending to the franchise.
What I didn't know at the time was that Pixar Studios had just been purchased by the Disney corporation. The revised studio kicked off the merger with Toy Story 3, Cars 2, and Monsters University...all three films being sequels to previously imagined characters and worlds.
How does this tie into freedom of speech? From my perspective, it's about the public's need for creative storytelling. Blockbuster movie studios are well within their right to keep milking cash cows. There's nothing in the constitution damning the exclusive production of sequels, especially with Pixar now tucked safely under Disney's conglomerated wing. Why not continue to belch out another Toy Story or Cars movie? The studio is under no obligation to release new or inventive content. Don't waste time creating new content. Why not build off of what's already successful and offer Ellen a protagonist role instead of a funky sidekick? No need to use animation as a way to write love letters to different cultures, like how Coco was as an homage to Mexico, or the exploration of Italian culture next new Pixar film, Luca - just give the moneybags another sequel!
Consider Francine Prose's argument from "Burn This Book." She didn't want to write Yet Another Feminist Essay about the wage gap, female representation, or the grip of the patriarchy. So she penned "Out from a Cloud of Unknowing" about the importance of expressing new ideas or looking critically at what already exists. The major problem I have with a corporate cash cow mentality is that it doesn't challenge audiences OR creators. It doesn't give the opportunity for writers and animators to play, to imagine new worlds, to exercise their freedom of speech or expression. It doesn't give space for anyone to create, nor does it introduce audiences to new worlds that make us question our reality. In this day and age, sequels primarily exist to make money, not to spark ideas or challenge the status quo.
We see this in many of Disney's practices, from oversaturated sequels to Star Wars. Compare the commercial success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Sony Picture's wildly successful "Into the Spider-Verse." Disney was able to shove the MCU into the limelight by creating more movies than they knew what to do with, utilizing intertextuality (references to previously existing worlds/media) in order to squeeze out as many movies in a year as possible. The origin story of Peter Parker in the MCU, having Peter's transformation into a successful Spiderman rely entirely on Tony Stark's technology, is the weakest introduction of the friendly neighborhood spider any of the films. Compare the lazy inclusion of Peter in one of the Avenger blockbusters, a film made to make money, to the commercial AND critical praise of "Into the Spider-Verse." The attention granted in the creation of this world is obvious in both the animation and sound design, not to mention the writing. They didn't rely on cheap references to previously established characters or switching focus from one protagonist to the foil. In "Spiderverse," each spider-person/pig was fully realized, and the film existed to inform about the importance of self-acceptance, as well as going above and beyond to entertain.
Sure, you can find an important lesson about disabilities and self-acceptance in Monsters University, but couldn't we have come to understand that through an entirely new character? We need more movies that explore new content. We need more challenging content. We deserve more than a reused idea in slightly different clothes or a new spandex outfit. How can we claim to be free in our entertainment or media if all we receive is more of what already exists?
I love this topic, thank you for posting about it! I think the connection between this topic and Freedom of Speech, for me, comes from both being oversaturated to the point of them losing any substance. In Fahrenheit 451 we see how Millie doesn't know what's actually going on in her favorite shows aside from surface-level visual cues. We point to this scene and criticize Millie for not actively listening to it, but we might ask whether there was a conversation worthy of listening to in the first place. I know a lot of movies where the dialogue or even the plot itself isn't crucial to listen to and understand in order to enjoy it (a lot of action and horror movies come to mind, that rely solely on jump-scares and explosions to keep the audience engaged). When we don’t demand, as you phrased it, “challenging” content from corporations and instead encourage the hundreds of sequels and remakes, we’re holding them to very low expectations—capitalism can begin to cover up the media that does introduce new ideas/stories.
ReplyDeleteOf course, not all movies have to be beard-stroking critical social commentaries, sometimes I like to indulge in the made-for-money slop corporations like Disney want to feed me. However, I think that letting the biggest companies that actually have the budget to kickstart new projects continuously get away with putting out soulless cash-grabs sets a standard that takes advantage of the negative side of capitalism. As everything we see on television is entertainment, the greed that's overtaking the media is lessening the value of the information we're receiving. And when corporations have the power to get us to tune in no matter how lazy and empty the content is, that reflects on us as well, shaping our public discourse and our expectations of it. Only receiving empty/junk media is another form of censorship.
This is an interesting topic that I honestly haven't thought about in detail before but I see what you are getting at! This notion of creative storytelling is only successful to a certain extent in terms of the movie franchise. These story writers and creators know exactly what sells and what works in the movie industry, thus becoming a matter of income and networth. However, I also think it is a matter of the inability to think of original storylines that are worthwhile. We all know that often times the sequels of bestsellers do better than a competitor original story. While this is unfortunate, it seems to hold true and thus its an endless cycle of bad restructuring.
ReplyDeleteI am not super knowledgeable when it comes to film, so I appreciated your perspective on the Disney/Pixar merge and how you were able to relate that to the text and writing in general. We, of course, see this is many different modes of art. It seems that in literature, there is a resounding theme for a decade. Back in the mid-2000s, everything was vampires and zombies. Every YA book you picked up that had been released recently incorporated one of these mythical beings. Why? Because it sells. These books were the ones adapted into film, not the one about that girl who lived her normal life and struggled through adolescence without any interference from a pale, sparkly bloodsucker.
ReplyDeleteThis was quite interesting to read. I will say I agree with needing new content than just revised context we have already seen before. Yet this could also be said with Disney princesses. Disney princess movies are being recreated but with a different race as the main character. Couldn't we say there too then that essentially is similar to remaking multiple toy story movies or monster inc movies, yet slightly changing the look and plot? That was something that came to mind after reading this post. Maybe think about that example also it could really tie into the idea you were getting at possibly! I want to see new Disney princesses just like you want new movies that explore new content. Shouldnt we get new Disney princesses that appeal to other people other than white supremacy essentially? We need new content, ideas, characters, and much more beyond movies in general!
ReplyDeleteAs someone who is a huge animation fan (and thinks Monsters University is a masterpiece) this post was a little hard for me just in that I had to bat off my desire to defend the Disney/Pixar sequels I think are good stories, but you make an important point. This reminds me of a Tweet I saw recently which criticized movies that do nothing but reference a whole bunch of IPs in one big "crossover" without a lot of substance otherwise--citing Ready Player One and Wreck It Ralph 2 as examples. Children's animation in particular also falls into this strange pattern in sequels that necessitates all of its characters being paired off into heterosexual relationships (thinking Madagascar, How To Train Your Dragon, the list goes on), which can be a difficult message to send to children.
ReplyDelete