So why aren't there more animated trilogies?

[I.R Joey]

This question popped into my head recently. As a rule pretty much every American company that releases big budget animated films releases fantasy in some form. Disney with their fairy tales, Dreamworks with movies like Sinbad, Warner's made Quest for Camelot (not my favorite film and Fox released Anastatia. So why hasn't anyone tried to make a truely epic fantasy that spans more then just one movie I'm talking something in the vein of Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, and of coarse the two Star Wars trilogies. I'm not talking about DTV sequals or T.V shows either I'm talking big budget movies here.

After looking at the book Disney Animation Magic by Don Hahn I realized that the animation process can be quite frantic and that its enough trouble getting one movie out. However, is it not entierly conceivable that a studio as large as Disney (assuming its at the size it was at during the mid 90's before all these layoffs) could in fact pull it off.

Some may comment on the ever changing nature of these films storyboards being added/tossed out, execs interfearing, and stuff like that mind you, but with a strong enough focus from the directors/prodcucers isn't it possible that it could be pulled off?

What say you my fellow Toonzoners?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I'd love the idea of some animated trilogies, but in reality the risks and costs are probably a little on the steep side for most animation studios. It would take some people with great ambition and vision to pull a successful trilogy off, something I'm not sure most creative teams have nowadays.

But if done right, I could see myself really liking the idea.

Also, Disney is going through a little trouble right now both creatively and financially, so I doubt they'd have the time to sit around thinking about ambitious trilogy ideas.

[Neo-Era]

This question popped into my head recently. As a rule pretty much every American company that releases big budget animated films releases fantasy in some form. Disney with their fairy tales, Dreamworks with movies like Sinbad, Warner's made Quest for Camelot (not my favorite film and Fox released Anastatia. So why hasn't anyone tried to make a truely epic fantasy that spans more then just one movie I'm talking something in the vein of Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, and of coarse the two Star Wars trilogies.

Like Ralph Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings?

You're going to have to get over that large hurdle that says that animated features have to be aimed at a family audience first.

[DianaGohan]

I don't know why, but maybe there just isn't enough spent on a budget for a trilogy to an animated movie.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Like Ralph Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings?

You're going to have to get over that large hurdle that says that animated features have to be aimed at a family audience first.

But you can still do a good trilogy aimed at a family audience too. It depends. I think the target demographic definitely has a lot to do with it, though.

[Dudley]

The genreal populace would not want to see an animated trilogy because they expect it to be some family freindly crap, even though people don't make trilogies that are family friendly.
Besides, a lot of studios hoped their animated films will be successful so then it could turn into a series of films, but that never happens.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Actually, Toy Story would be a trilogy if they made one more movie. I would expect that any smash animated hit could easily turn into a trilogy if the creative staff left it open to do so. Not that it would be a good idea, but the truth is it's quite feasible.

[I.R Joey]

Well what we're talking about here isn't three movies with three seperate storys (revolving around the same charecters) we're talking about one movie with a story that stretches over three movies. As far as budget what does the average animated movie cost now a days? If you have a particularly thrifty crew and little interferance you could probably pull it off with 70 million per movie. Using this modest number that's a little over 200 million I believe

As for trilogies being made for families, I think kids may be one of the most faithful movie audiences of all but maybe I'm wrong. I mean think about it magical kingdoms, evil monsters, castles and the like? That's a staple (or should I say cliche) of American animated films and and also of epic fantasy. I'm suprised no one has put the two together yet.

[Mynd Hed]

Actually, Toy Story would be a trilogy if they made one more movie. I would expect that any smash animated hit could easily turn into a trilogy if the creative staff left it open to do so. Not that it would be a good idea, but the truth is it's quite feasible.

Actually, Pixar wanted to make a Toy Story 3, but Disney screwed them over with Toy Story 2 so now they don't want to make it. The original deal between the two companies said that Pixar was obligated to make a certain number of movies for Disney, but now Disney is trying to say that sequels don't count towards that total. Pixar wants to be off Disney's leash as soon as possible, so even though they want to make a Toy Story 3 and even though it would almost certainly be a huge hit, they're not going to make it.

[Samurai Karasu]

Actually, Pixar wanted to make a Toy Story 3, but Disney screwed them over with Toy Story 2 so now they don't want to make it. The original deal between the two companies said that Pixar was obligated to make a certain number of movies for Disney, but now Disney is trying to say that sequels don't count towards that total. Pixar wants to be off Disney's leash as soon as possible, so even though they want to make a Toy Story 3 and even though it would almost certainly be a huge hit, they're not going to make it.

Those bastards....Disney makes me angry sometimes.

Well I just hope a trilogy dosent turn into about a ten movie epic (COUGHthelandbeforetimeCOUGH)

[Neo-Era]

But you can still do a good trilogy aimed at a family audience too. It depends. I think the target demographic definitely has a lot to do with it, though.

I guess it's how you think about it. I think Star Wars is perfectly appropriate for a family audience but I don't think it's aimed as squarely at that crowd in the same way most of the successful American animated films are these days. When I see movies like Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Shrek and so on, "epic trilogy" just doesn't come to mind. When I think of attempts at "epic American animation", I think of ambitious failures like Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings, Starchaser: Legend Of Orin, or Titan AE. Or, on tv, Invasion America.

[LightAngel]

I really do like this idea. As long as they don't become cheaper versions of themselves, it would be an enjoyable concept.

[Pilmedium]

The main problem is probably that the risk would be very high. If the first movie did poorly, the remainder might be forgotten about, leaving everyone hanging. Either that, or they might try to change the plan for the second, which would ruin everything. It is impossible to predict how well a movie would do, and one-film stories avoid that problem.

The way things go nowadays, they would try to make it appeal to children. They are less likely to remain interested until the next movie gets released. A trilogy would need to have a complicated plot in order to remain interesting, which might hurt the family audience even more.

[BabySealClubber]

One of the things that most critics applaud about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is that he was able to pull it off to begin with. As you are probably aware, the movie was originally envisioned as a duelology (it was pitched to Disney as such) and only expanded when they lucked into finding someone else with the guts and money to go further with the concept. In todays risk adverse Hollywood, getting just the first project is difficult without contracting for further expendature. It's only after the first movie has been proven to be profitable are additional projects green lighted. As such, we will likely see more X-Men movies and less likely Tomb Raiders sequels.

Additionally, animation groups often spend so much time in the creation of a project that once it is done, the creators want to try something new. It's only under the Eisner years that any of the Disney films saw new stories developed. In addition to the afore mentioned Toy Story and OAVs, the Resurers and Peter Pan had second outings, but especially with the later to less than desired results.

Then there is the possibilty that the audience may loose interest in the characters and story. Most recently, the Rugrats Go Wild failed to light up box-office receits as much more visually impressive CGI based animated features grabs the spotlight from traditional cel material.

I'm not saying the idea isn't worth the effort, I warn the risks are probably too great for any company to attempt such an endeavor.

[zimfan3000]

An animated triology needs unforgettable characters and a rousing plot.

Rugrats had worn out its welcome, and most 2D movies as of late try too hard to appeal to audiences; that's why they failed at the box office.

[Nin-Nin69]

I don't like the idea of having trilogies for different animated features. Look at stories like Cinderella or Lady and the Tramp. They didn't need another sequel, but they did it anyways.

Toy Story is fine where it allready ended. Besides according to Pixar they used almost all of the ideas that were shafted from the first movie in the 2nd one. The only way they could capture the audience heart again would be to have Andy all grown up and showing how Woody and Buzz are not fun anymore for Andy's age bracket. So Andy becomes an Otaku or a model maker. Then we can deal with relationship problems from there and with his little siter. Otherwise if they kept Andy close to the same age after wating until 2007 or so to make the movie, it would seem very silly to the audience.

[Carolina Red]

It would be very difficult to make a series of movies that would last around four-and-a-half hours or more total. Besides, there are some cases where once you write the original there really is no need for a sequal.

This is why there aren't very many animated trilogies...with most of these films one is all you really need. Apparently those "Land Before Time" people don't understand that. (but we've know that for years!)

[Gary L Thompson]

I think animated triologies would face the same barrier that live-action triologies run up against: Hollywood is allergic to them.

To me, it doesn't make any sense at all (acknowledged, very little about Hollywood makes sense). Yes, obviously any pre-planned serial story is a financial gamble. However, I can recall a couple notorious instances where the opposite was true. One was the 1920s classic "Greed", and the other was 1960s "Cleopatra". What both films had in common were directors that went wild ("Greed" was a rare instance of an entire novel filmed frame by frame, leading to a nine-hour movie), pushing their producers to the brink of bankruptcy. Both directors suggested their movies be split into chapters ("Cleopatra" was originally a six-hour movie), yet the producers dug in their heels and refused, instead cutting both films to ribbons in order to make them a releasable length. WHY??? Both movies were already in the can (most unfortunately so considering the ruinous expense of getting them into the can!), the real financial risk was not trying to earn every possible dime on the motion picture to at least try to bring the financial loss into somewhat bearable proportions. If Hollywood won't go for a pre-planned serial movie under those circumstances, is it any wonder that the numbers of epics like LOTR or Star Wars can be counted on the fingers of one hand?

What makes this universal resistance to serial movies so dumbfounding is Hollywood's blindness to a very simple but powerful upside: you're basically charging the customer multiple times for the same story. If the studio had run "Greed" (and some silents were successfully run in the sound era) in segments over its entire length, instead of tossing the movie in the trash can in the 1950s, it could have charged movie customers three or four times more than it could have charged for a single movie. If "Cleopatra" had been run in two movies instead of one, it would have taken twice the box office. Pete Jackson deserves all the credit in the world for getting a studio that would allow him to film LOTR somewhat in the form he wanted. However, he still disappointed fans by cutting a lot of material, saying that it would have taken three five-hour movies to include everything. Well, if you look at LOTR closely, it actually contains six books (two-per-novel) instead of three. If Jackson had filmed six movies, he would be taking in twice the box office he actually did. As it was, his insistence on filming two movies instead of one, and then three instead of two, gained him so much more box office than he would taken in with the traditional single movie. And this is simple mathematics, this is not taking in account how serial movies could conceivably build up monumentum to a "Who Shot JR?" or the Fugitive-Catches-the-One-Armed-Man (significantly, this moment had nowhere near the impact in the single movie than at the end of a several years-TV run) cliffhanger. Again, considering how covetous Hollywood is supposed to be for profits, its blindness to these very simple truths is absolutely astounding.

Yes, it is true there is an ample number of movie series--after the fact. Hollywood is quite willing to make a sequel to a proven hit. The difficulty with this is that a successful plot resolution is what makes a movie great, leaving nothing to be developed for a sequel. Too often a sequel is developed by invalidating the resolution of the previous movie! ("Son of Flubber", the unworthy sequel to the classic "Absent-Minded Professor, is a textbook example of this.) All you're doing is taking some of the bloom off your original. Occasionally Hollywood does come up with an off-the-cuff sequel that is as good or better than the original ("Toy Story", "Godfather", and "Santa Clause"), but more often than not the results are critically and financially poor. Peter Jackson was likely wise in making the three LOTR movies at one time. When "Superman" and "Superman II" were made at the same time, the results were good, successive movies ("Superman III-IV" and "Supergirl") deteriorated greatly with every release. George Lucas probably would have benefitted greatly from releasing all six chapters of "Star Wars" at once, while each movie has advanced greatly technologically, storywise the trend has been sharply downward. Again, given the results, why is Hollywood so welcoming of serial movies after-the-fact, and so hostile to them before-the-fact. The world wonders.

One last note. If I had an financial stake in Comcast's Video-on-Demand, I would be pushing them to snap up LOTR and every serialized anime TV series, every significant TV miniseries of the 1970s-1980s, and every 1920s-1950s Hollywood movie serial. Like I said, if you can charge a customer more than once for the same story....

[Pilmedium]

It's only after the first movie has been proven to be profitable are additional projects green lighted.

That usually makes studios inclined to conclude the story at the end of a movie, because there might not be another. In those cases, sequels are like different stories, and having two sequels after the original movie would not make a good "trilogy."

An animated triology needs unforgettable characters and a rousing plot.

Rugrats had worn out its welcome, and most 2D movies as of late try too hard to appeal to audiences; that's why they failed at the box office.

The characters keep you curious, but the plot is what will keep the movie flowing well. Both are more important with a trilogy than with a single movie. Also, I think you mean most 2D movies as of late do not try too hard to appeal to audiences.

[Redi]

The new Star Wars are probably the closest you'll get to an animated trilogy.

A true trilogy just can't be 2 sequels written after the first movie was a hit. It has to planned from the get go and meant to be told in a 6 hour format. Plus, the audience for the pictures has to be Finding Nemo size for studios to want to spend that much money and time on an animated project that would take about a decade to complete.

2-D is going the way of the dinosaur and 3-d is too costly and time consuming...so I doubt a high quality-theater released animated trilogy will happen for quite some time.