Anyone who actually likes the Disney sequels?

[DisneyFan09]

As known, most people despise the Disney sequels, because of the inferior quality of both animation, music and stories (with the exception of "Rescuers Down Under" and "Fantasia 2000", of course). And there's no doubt that most Disney sequels are just okay at their best and awful at their worst. But I still wonder, despite all the hatred that they receive, do anyone consider them to be a guilty pleasure? I know that "Simba's Pride" does have a fanbase, but are there anyone who likes the other sequels?

I'll admit that some of the Disney sequels are my guilty pleasures. At least the "Aladdin" and "Lion King" trilogies, "Pocahontas", "Hunchback", "Mulan" and "Jungle Book" sequels. No, they're not great, but I do like watching them now and then. Mostly because they do expand the universe and the characters. Despite the low quality of animation, I like seeing the characters in new environments and a few of the songs are catchy.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Spoiling the memory of a classic film by needlessly continuing the story with subpar animation and substitute voice actors? No thank you. All the Disney sequels - even those in the DACs - are horrible.

[moviefan12]

I like some of them such as the Mermaid and Aladdin sequels but other then that, no. Also, I'm so glad that Dumbo II never got made. That would've made me lose it.

[DisneyJedi]

The only sequel I really don't like is Pocahontas 2. Mainly because the whole John Smith/Pocahontas dynamic was shat upon.

[Vlad]

The only ones I really dislike are Pocahontas 2 and The Jungle Book 2. The other ones are okay, albeit inferior to their companions, but okay, nonetheless.

[MeerkatKombat]

I like and own the Aladdin sequels.
I also enjoyed Cinderella 3 but not enough to own.
I used to like TLM2 when I was younger and had it on VHS. Re watched it recently after many many years and it was terrible. Pocahontas 2 had 'Where do I go from here?' going for it and nothing else.
I saw BatB Enchanted Christmas when much younger and didn't mind it then. That's all I've seen thankfully.

I try not to see them as a continuation of canon or try not to see them at all.

[DVDBuff1]

All the Disney sequels - even those in the DACs - are horrible.

You didn't like Rescuers Down Under?

[Semaj]

Spoiling the memory of a classic film by needlessly continuing the story with subpar animation and substitute voice actors? No thank you. All the Disney sequels - even those in the DACs - are horrible.

2nd. Just leave well enough alone.

[Tristy]

I have a fond nostalgic memory of the Aladdin sequels. Lion King 2 was pretty decent as was Cinderella III and I did like Brother Bear 2 than the first one. Otherwise, very unnecessary, poorly animated and put a stain on the original films. The absolute worst one for me was Hunchback of Notre Dame II. I'm sure Victor Hugo would have hated the original but even he would have admitted at least it was more watchable than the garbage that was HOND II.

[Thoix]

I would love to see Disney make a full-on sequel one day that has quality to it and not just a direct-to-DVD sequel like they've all been so far (minus The Rescuers Down Under). I do like a few of them tough, such as The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride and the Aladdin sequels.

[Musical Master]

The whole lot of them are really either meh (Pocahontas 2, TLK 2) or just unwatchable. But the ones I found shockingly decent are Cinderella 3, and Brother Bear 2 (slightly better than the original).

The Rescuers Down Under is better than the original movie for me because of reasons everyone here would point out.

[Kyle]

I liked the aladdin sequels, the third more so than the second. But I was young and not as bothered by the step down in animation and general production value.

I liked The Lion King 1&1/2 largely because the Australian studio really pulled off the feel of the original, even if I didn't care much for the story itself and the interruptions.

The Brother bear sequel is another I don't mind too much. It was way better then it had any right to be. My only complaint is that it felt derivative of other Disney movies.

The vast majority of them though can die in a fire.

[RyGuy]

I do enjoy Fantasia 2000 from time to time but am ambivalent about Rescuers Down Under and Winnie the Pooh.

As for the DTVs, they are all horrible, IMO with the possible exception of Brother Bear 2.

And I will cop to being THAT parent who has used the DTVs from time to time to occupy my kids so I ca get something done. That being said, even my kids don't really like them.

[lord-of-sith]

Her videos on the Disney sequels are some of my favorite Nostalgia Chick videos (I'll not post them here as I have a feeling many don't like her videos, but I definitely think they're worth checking out) and I think she makes a lot of valid points.

I remember liking a lot of them when I was young and getting excited when a sequel to a movie I liked was released. I have since wised up (10 and becoming an adult will do that to ya) and realized just how terrible they mostly are. The main excuse behind basically all of them is to get money. How else could you possibly justify making sequels to Beauty and the Beast that shoe-horn events into the original movie that in no way make sense? Moneyyyyy.

In fairness, I think the sequels started off earnestly enough. The Aladdin sequels, while having terrible quality animation, are at least creative stories that retain the original personality traits of the characters and even develop them a little bit (Iago). If they had a larger budget, they would be looked at as decent DTV films.

Once the ball really got rolling, there was no stopping the storm of terribleness that was to come. The Littler Mermaid II was a pointless rehash of the original only with less likable characters (Melody was a stupider Ariel, and Morgana was a more pathetic Ursula). Lady and the Tramp II followed suit with an annoying lead character and a terrible change in art direction from the original. The Hunchback of Notre Dame II contains some of the worst DTV animation I've ever seen, and Cinderella II is on the shortlist for worst thing Disney has ever produced.

I think The Lion King II is overrated, while the music is decent, the overall story feels a little shoe-horned in. I would much rather see movies about our favorite characters form the original than their unlikable children. Maybe I was the only one, though, as children of the original characters was the basic plot point for a majority of these movies.

They managed to go out on a high note, though, at least as high a note as you could with these terrible movies. Brother Bear II, as mentioned previously, might actually be better than the original. Cinderella III is pretty good and creative, and gives the Prince an actual personality. I'm not so hot on The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning as there was so much more potential for a prequel to the original than what we got. Would have definitely preferred Ariel's mother having more of a role and including Ursula as the antagonist. It seems pretty glaring that neither of those were included, but I suppose it could have been a lot worse.

Overall I'm glad Disney has stopped these films and has refocused on their original theatrical films again, slowly trying to rebuild their good will and street cred.

[DC Fan]

Hate almost every one.

I watch them just to pass the time and see just what they are. Some I won´t ever watch (The Fox and the Hound 2, 101 Dalmatians 2, Lady and the Tramp 2..) because I don´t even love the originals.

As for the ones I like:

-The Return of Jafar: Just because Aladdin is my favorite Disney movie and Jafar my favorite Disney character. So sad this one had to be the first because of the quality of the animation and that is basically a TV pilot.

-Aladdin and the King of Thieves: Again, because of Aladdin and that it closes the story.

-Cinderella III: Surprisingly very, very good. Guess they had to make up for the horrible sequel and because Cinderella is the main leading princess. To me, the best of the sequels.

-The Lion King 2: Seems logical that if the original is Hamlet they´d go for Romeo and Juliet here. Plus, the soundtrack has songs that were cut from the original; so the music was meant to be good.

-The Lion King 1 1/2: It´s different and dares to be funny.

-The Little Mermaid 2: As a whole is average but just because it´s based on my second favorite Disney movie.

-Return to Neverland: The other sequel that´s great.


As said before the rest are OK or awful.

[Walter]

I never really bothered with the sequels, other than the ones in the canon, because they just seem like a huge waste of time. The only DTV sequels I have seen are "Return of Jafar", "Stitch the Movie", and "Atlantis: Milo's Return" (though not really a sequel). Of the 3, Milo's Return was the only one I liked.

Of the ones in the canon, I liked "Winnie the Pooh" and "Fantasia 2000", but not so much with "The Rescuers Down Under".

[thedisneyspirit]

I like the ones from the DAC.

About a month ago I've might off seen ALL of the sequels, and tbh, it was a mixed bad. Some were good and entertaining (Lion King 2, the Aladdin sequels...) all the others are just ugh-material (I particularly hated Lady and the Tramp/101 Dalmatians 2, Jungle Book 2 and Kronk's new Groove).

So yeah, while a few were enjoyable, I'm glad they're gone, and I hope Disney never comes back to them and listens to those people that are crying out like babies "oooh I want Tangled 2! No I want Frozen 2!" No, shut up.

[DC Fan]

Kronk HAD potential:

1. The movie is NOT based on a particular fairy tale, novel... So, they could play around with it and won´t hurt anyone.

2. Kronk was the highlight of the original.

The movie was such a let down. Not that the movie was awful as it is but it´s not funny at all.

[thedisneyspirit]

Kronk HAD potential:

1. The movie is NOT based on a particular fairy tale, novel... So, they could play around with it and won´t hurt anyone.

2. Kronk was the highlight of the original.

The movie was such a let down. Not that the movie was awful as it is but it´s not funny at all.

Eeeh, I found the movie terrible. Bad jokes, a waste of talent from Eartha Kitt, almost no Kuzco, and the 90% of the film is Kronk moping about his daddy issues.

Where's the fun?

[Dr Frankenollie]

You didn't like Rescuers Down Under?

You mean the pointless sequel that embarked upon an inferior retread of the original's story, albeit ruining Bernard and Biana's romance, replacing the genuinely likeable Penny with the bland Cody and substituting substance for style?

No, I didn't like it.

In fairness, I do like Joanna.