The Real Reason Walt Disney Refused To Make Sequels To His Animated Movies – SlashFilm

The first feature film to be released by Walt Disney animation was, as most know, David Hand’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937. Walt Disney himself, of course, had been working in animation for over 15 years at that point, having founded Laugh-O-Gram Studios in 1921. It was at that studio where Disney developed his taste for well-worn fairy tales, making shorts based on “Little Red Riding Hood,” “Jack and the Beanstalk,” “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” “Cinderella,” and “Alice in Wonderland.” That last film provided fodder for a long series of Alice Comedies that launched Walt Disney Production in 1923. The first 56 films made by Disney were Alice Comedies before he shifted to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, making dozens for him as well. In 1928, he debuted Mickey Mouse, and the rest is history. 

When it came to shorts, Disney clearly had no issues following the traditional template of reusing characters. Mickey became just as ubiquitous as Oswald and Alice, and the character eventually became the face of the company. 

In 1933, however, Disney’s attitude shifted. According to Neil Gabler’s biography “Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination,” Disney was impressed with the unexpected success of the short “Three Little Pigs,” one of the studio’s many Silly Symphonies. “Three Little Pigs” was one of the studio’s riskier, more innovative projects, and Disney paused to regard it. It seems that the animators were fully prepared to make more “Three Little Pigs” shorts, but Disney didn’t feel that was appropriate. He famously said that “You can’t top pigs with pigs,” which became a slogan around the office to encourage innovation. 

That attitude stretched into his features in 1937. Disney could have made multiple “Snow White” sequels, but didn’t want to top Snow with Snow. As such, Disney almost never made sequels to his animated features. 

Of course, there are a few somewhat-exceptions to this rule. In 1942, Disney was commissioned by the U.S. Department of State to make a few films as part of the new “Good Neighbor” policy. He stared with an anthology film called “Saludos Amigos,” starring Donald Duck (Clarence Nash), and the film was a hit both in the U.S. and internationally. This led to a secondary commission for “The Three Caballeros,” also starring Donald Duck, and featuring the return of the parrot José Carioca (Zé Carioca).

Disney also moved gently from shorts to features, with multiple anthology-style films throughout the 1940s. Although they are unconnected, one can see a creative throughline between “Fantasia,” “Make Mine Music,” “Fun and Fancy Free” and “Melody Time.” Of course, also during the ’40s, Disney also expanded his interest in fairy tales/kid lit into feature adaptations of “Pinocchio,” “Bambi,” and “Dumbo,” all of them hits. In the 1950s, Disney hit his stride with adaptations of “Cinderella,” “Peter Pan,” “Alice in Wonderland” and many others that are still re-released to this day, and whose iconography is endlessly milked for theme park projects. 

Disney made sure that no sequels or follow-ups would be made for any of these films. Walt Disney kept the “pigs with pigs” rule firmly in place for decades, lasting well beyond his death in 1966. Creativity was key. There was no reason to top pigs with more pigs. Top pigs with something new. 

Although most of his films were adaptations of classic literature, he still preferred visual innovation when it came to making animation. The studio, even after Walt’s death, continued to ply his approach, following their pigs mandate closely. 

There wouldn’t be a Disney Animation Studios follow-up to a previous Disney property until 1990’s “DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp.” There wouldn’t be a theatrical sequel to a Disney Animated film until “The Rescuers Down Under” that same year.

The final film Disney worked on directly before his death was “The Sword in the Stone,” a riff on Arthurian legends. That film came out in 1963. It was a departure from the fairy tale films “Cinderella” and “Sleeping Beauty,” in that it followed a young male protagonist facing fantastical situations. It was loose and comedic, even if it wasn’t entirely funny. One can see Merlin as serving as the inspiration for the Genie in 1992’s “Aladdin.” 

In 1966, right before his death, Disney noted that making a sequel would mean, in the Alexandrian sense, there were no new lands to conquer. He refused to rest on sequels and easy money. 

After Disney died, the studio moved away from his no-sequels mandate pretty quickly, however. In the late ’60s and throughout the ’70s, there were multiple sequels to “The Love Bug,” several films set at Medfield College and starring Kurt Russell, and even two “Shaggy Dog” movies. 

What happened? It seems that Disney Studios was becoming old-fashioned and moribund. A look at the film landscape of the late ’60s and 1970s reveals a new generation of filmmakers making adult films about dark, intense subjects. It’s difficult to sell whimsical talking-animal fairy tales in a world that is being increasingly drawn to films like “Midnight Cowboy,” “Five Easy Pieces,” and “Easy Rider.” Disney Studios seemingly had to lean back into the familiar to make money, and sequels seemed to be the most obvious path forward. It’s also worth noting that Roy O. Disney, Walt’s nephew, was overseeing the studio, and he resigned in 1977, citing a steady decline of the company. 

Disney stayed afloat by innovating, creating the Touchstone label in 1984, and moving into more adult fare. It seemed that Disney would no longer be in the animation business.

By the end of the 1980s, Disney was almost wiped out entirely. Its animated films were bombing, notably 1985’s “The Black Cauldron,” based on a novel by Lloyd Alexander. “The Black Cauldron” cost an overwhelming $44 million to make and earned back only $21 million at the box office. There was talk of the studio shuttering entirely. It wasn’t until Rob Clements’ and John Musker’s “The Little Mermaid” became a smash hit in 1989 that the animation studio was more or less rescued. This is why Disney animated films from the early 1990s are referred to as the studio’s Renaissance.

As mentioned, 1990 saw two sequels. “DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp” was a theatrical adaptation of Disney’s own 1987 TV series “DuckTales,” itself recycling characters from “Mickey’s Christmas Carol.” In 1995, the company would adapt their series “Goof Troop” into “A Goofy Movie,” a film starring the titular dog man and his grumpy teenage son. Even “A Goofy Movie” would eventually get its own sequels.

Many are fond of “The Rescuers Down Under,” the first proper theatrical sequel to a Disney animated feature. It was a follow-up to the 1977 film about two brave mice (Zsa Zsa Gabor and Bob Newhart) who, well, rescued people in need. The sequel took them to Australia where they rescued a boy and many innocent animals from an evil trapper. “Rescuers Down Under” isn’t a bad film by any stretch, but it did mark the first time Disney went back to the animated, theatrical well. 

A page had officially turned.

As the studio was riding high, there were a few dramatic personnel changes behind the scenes that hypercharged Disney away from Walt’s pig mandate. In 1994, studio president Frank Wells died in a helicopter crash, and CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg left the company to found DreamWorks. Michael Ovitz stepped in to become president in 1995, and he declared a new mandate: make money. That was it. Disney was in the money business now. 

As such, a sudden influx of Disney animated sequels, most of them straight-to-video, immediately hit the market. Anyone who went to a Blockbuster Video in the late ’90s likely knows about the sequels to “Cinderella,” “The Lion King,” “Aladdin,” “Lady and the Tramp,” “Pocahontas,” “The Little Mermaid,” and the many, many others. Disney was always aggressive in their marketing and careful about its image, but all their worst habits were hypercharged under Ovitz. He was only president for two years, but the new mandate lasted well beyond his tenure. Exploiting known IP became the company’s bread-and-butter. 

This was also a time when Disney’s TV output continued to grow, and branding was increased. By 2000, the Disney Princess brand was launched. Radio Disney made it to AM airwaves. The animation studio infiltrated Broadway throughout the 1990s with high-profile stage adaptations of “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King.” It seemed that the company was relieved, running away as quickly as they could from their fallow period in the 1980s. 

And, of course, it only increased since then. Disney bought up extant properties like The Muppets, Marvel, and Star Wars, and exploited them as well. Their animation studio continued to make original films, but many of them were bombs (“Meet the Robinsons,” “Chicken Little,” “Bolt”). Disney found great success by reverting to their old fairy tale formula, and had hits with “Tangled” and “Frozen” in the early 2010s. Of course, the ultra-success of “Frozen” also inspired imitation more than innovation; “Frozen II” came out in 2019. 

Also, unable to court a wide audience of young boys — they had girls on lock with their Princess brand — Disney merely bought superheroes and spaceships. One needn’t talk about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, its success, and its unfortunate decline into creative stagnation. And perhaps the less said about “Star Wars,” the better.

More distressingly, Disney has been remaking their own animated films using modern CGI and/or live-action actors, revealing a deeply uncreative mindset, and producing a long string of terrible garbage. Disney today is more or less the opposite of what Walt wanted.

Of course, Walt wasn’t alive to see the company decline, so who is to say that he would have abided by his 1935 pigs mandate. The company did what it needed to survive. Sadly, that meant that the Mouse had to eat its own tail. These days, Disney is a studio to be feared, a colossus in the marketplace that offers little creativity and a lot of regurgitation. They may still make massive hits, but they are also the dominant paradigm to be subverted. It’s up to new studios to offer the real innovation.