The state and future of animation
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7279
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
Re: The state and future of animation
They hadn't run out of ideas yet.
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25404
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5205
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Re: The state and future of animation
"Studios" didn't (and Universal clearly didn't), Disney did:GeffreyDrogon wrote: ↑February 27th, 2024, 5:07 pmWhy did animation studios have a "no sequel policy" through the 1990's. The existence of theatrical sequels like The Rescuers Down Under, Fievel Goes West, and All Dogs Go To Heaven 2 seem to show otherwise.
After Disney's direct-video OVA market had been abused just like Disney's current live-action mania (ie. using them just to jumpstart the market for forgotten titles), John Lasseter put his foot down and banned any title-IP project that specifically pretended to follow the events of the classic movie.
Which threw ToonStudio's Tinker Bell movie into a last-minute tailspin, but things worked out.
And to answer your next question, this was in the 00s.
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25404
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Re: The state and future of animation
And, so, not related to the original question… ![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_new_confused.png)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_new_confused.png)