Hi folks! Welcome to my My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analysis blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are just meant to be my analyses. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries are meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies.
Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.
And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize
Originally written when Disney were in the midst of their short sequel phase, there wasn't a better time to talk about the direct to-video Disney cheapquels. Originally this entry was supposed to precede the entries of the cheapquels which I've already written about. Yet destiny had other plans, so I`ve decided to make three entries about some cheapquels prior to this assessment. But like the say, better late than never.
 |
| This is not the most liked collage. But we had to do it ;) |
.JPG)
Usually in my entries I've summarized Disney's traditional stock components.
But for once I'm going to talk about their certain policies. Disney has
been ingrained in our culture since the days of Walt. Most people have a
certain connection to Disney in one way or another, whether it's been
through their merchandise or their movies. 
Due to Disney's legacy and success, it
wouldn't been an understatement to say that Disney is beloved by many
people. Yet Disney has managed to have certain policies within their
films, policies that haven't applied to other companies. And if there's
one set of rule that has been certainly evident to this policy,
which used to be one of the most hated aspects of Disney for a while,
its that of a sequel. Despite how this issue is now ancient histoy.
The Origins and Stigma of Sequels
Sequels have always existed in narrative form. To serve as a continuation to the stories and to develop their premises. The origin of the sequel came from the novella and romance traditions in a slow process that culminated towards the end of the 17th century. In
one sense, sequels became a means to profit further from previous
work that had already obtained some measure of commercial success. As
the establishment of a readership became increasingly important to the
economic viability of authorship, sequels offered a means to establish a
recurring economic outlet. In
addition to serving economic profit, the sequel was also used as a
method to strengthen an author's claim to his literary property. 
However,
sequels are stuck with a risk that is quite reasonable, if you think about it.
Mainly because they have a potental to be failures and destroying the purpose of
their predecessors and their characters. But last, but not least to
destroy people's fond memories of the original stories. There was a time where sequels was pretty much stuck with a bad
reputation. Yet nowadays we live in world that sequels are so common
that they become outright franchises.
As
for me, I've personally never minded sequels or continuations. As long
as they're good or compelling ones. Mostly because they give a chance to
revisit the characters and their settings. But at the same time, I completely understand
the intense hate of them. While Disney were far from the first ones
to pioneer the Direct-to-Video business, as the anime science fiction OVA series named Dallos was the very first one. And the market in the 90's was populated by low-cost action flicks and erotic thrillers. But at least Disney eventually (and unfortunately) became synonymous with the Direct-to-video staple that would last over a decade.
Walt Disney`s Policy Against Sequels/Previous Disney Sequels
 |
| The air froze my face, I'm not in awe :) |
However, it would take twenty-four years after his death before a true sequel was unveiled. Which was of course The Rescuers Down Under. A rare sequel that was included in Disney's official canon list. This fun, adventurous and swash-buckling sequel was unfortunately hampered by bad circumstances. Since it opened poorly and studio decided to scrap it for those reasons. Which is truly a pity, since I've always thought it deserved to do better (as I've mentioned previously).
Aladdin`s Cheapquels
.jpg)
The underperformance of Down Under
was the main reason for why Disney decided to release all their sequels
direct to video. But also due to how they could be made more cheaply
and quickly. The first of these "beauties" were the pilot to the Aladdin show, The Return of Jafar. Which was of course about the return of Jafar (despite how Iago serves more of a lead than Jafar, ironically enough). While the plot may be skimpy, at least it was an actual continuation of the story and had a purpose; To make Iago a member of the Aladdin squad. A third Aladdin movie was made in Aladdin & The King of Thieves. Which was a closure of the series and the Aladdin Universe. But also gave Aladdin his long lost father. It also had the comeback of Robin Williams, which also was a selling point.
The Origins of the Disney Cheapquels
 |
| But not in black ;) |
While the Aladdin
sequels (or cheapquels, as they've been currently referred to) started
it all, most of the Disney Properties received sequels soon afterwards. DisneyToon Studios began producing 2 to 3 sequels each year. Yet the first films that were given were those from the 1990`s.
Since the nineties was one of Disney's prime eras (let's face it),
there's no wonder why they were given cheapquels immediately. But soon even some of Walt's films were given sequels!
There was a time when Disney were even considering making direct-to-video sequels for Pixar's films, but they were scrapped. The same fate was happening for Toy Story 2, but was afterwards (and fortunately) altered.
 |
| The art of animation makes me distinctive. Don't be jealous :) |
 |
| I'm trying to match you. Sort of :) |
Fantasia 2000 has also been somewhat labeled as a sequel. Which is after all fair. The original Fantasia had
a premise that pretty much left open for several movies. Despite that
none of those segments required actual sequels.
The Hatred For These Cheapquels
 |
| And it's so exciting that it will be in shadows :) |
And
yes, as the title suggest, this entry will be about the hate of
these sequels. Despite how of course some of them have their fans, it's
needless to say they've mostly been stuck with a bad reputation. And
it's right to say that it's deservedly so! 
While
I've personally not been one of their biggest and passionate haters, it's
easy to figure out why they are overall lackluster.
As Lindsay Ellis/former Nostalgia Chick said on her review about her Top Ten Worst Disney Sequels:
At best they're ok, at worst they're awful (or in my case, just
awfully bland and generic). And perhaps many of you may find the reasons
overt and obvious. But let's take a look of why these cheapquels actually sucks.
First Theory: Their Lackluster Quality
The first reason is how they're cheaply made! It's needless to say that these movies made for the home video market has a lower quality to them in every single term! But in this
case it was clearly evident with the actual animation. Which was a downgrade
from their predecessors! 
.jpg)
Despite some few exceptions, most of them had a Saturday Morning Cartoon-esque look
to them. And while sometimes the animation was altered, it was nothing
compared to the look of theatrical Disney animation (yet ironically, budgets rose from a rumored $3.5 million for Return of Jafar, to the mid-to-high teens and above for the later, higher-profile production). However, regardless of the aforementioned stigma, it's
been confirmed that these movies were proving grounds for up and coming
animators who attempted to compensate for slim budgets by meticulously
studying artwork from the original films.
 |
| I'm a child trapped in an adult body. I'm weird, but I`ll have to get used to it :) |
Yet the
animation wasn't the only element that made them inferior. But also
their overall tone and quality! What's ironic was how the original
voice actors returned to reprise their roles (surprisingly enough)! Despite how it was a challenge to replace some famous voices on such a small budget. Even
though some of the cheapquels were given some merchandise (despite how not as
much as their actual canon releases), they were still released with less
buzz than the other Disney properties. 
.jpg)
Perhaps
it's not surprising that most of the crew who worked on the original
movies were rarely involved in them, as Don Hahn confirmed
this. By declaring that he had no interest on working on the Beauty and the Beast cheapquels, saying that working four years with a project made one ready to move on with a new one. And
sure, while money as aforementioned has been the main reason for this
cheapquel business even going, there's no doubt that these movies
have been financially successful. Lady & The Tramp made $154 Million dollars, whike The Little Mermaid II made $121 millions.
Second Theory: How They`re Basically Cheap Fanfiction
 |
| We can bring Christmas Magic without Santa :) |
A
second reason is how they're mostly perceived for not being in tune
with their predecessors. Which is also afair reason to have! Most of
these stories are cheap fanfiction with skimpy plotlines. Despite how
not all of them messes up with continuities already established in
their predecessors (or TV-series), at least some of them did. Let's not look rather to The Fox and the Hound 2 for that example. Which adds a band-premise that never could've been placed in the original (despite that it tested higher than any sequel, believe it or not)!
Beauty and the Beast Enchanted Christmas
also messes with continuity by having a Christmas plot. But also
introducing new characters that never were in the original story. Tarzan II has also a similar problem, despite how it was not as disastrous as it could've been! But one offender that certainly fills the bill is The Little Mermaid III. Which not only breaks the continuity from the TV series, but also gives
a device that doesn't reasonate with Ariel's fascination for humans;
Her mother gets killed by humans and Ariel is given a loss-term memory
about it (which in reality should`ve traumatizde Ariel and making her
repulsed by humans).
Third Theory: Juvenility
 |
| It's just a title, not an origin story ;) |
 |
| But it won`t be a happy fairytale :) |
A
third reason is how sheer juvenile they are! Yes, it may sound like a redundant reason, due to the stigma of how animation is basically meant to
children (despite the evergoing discussion about the real demographic of animation). But besides their overall low quality, these
cheapquels are mostly made with a sheer juvenile audience in mind! And
therefore being grating and juvenile!
 |
| Yes, I've managed to assert you, despite being a female :) |
.jpg)
Disney's full-length theatrical features are of course labeled
for being children movies as well, at least Walt had a more universal
audience in mind to his movies. Regardless of individual opinions about
Disney features being juvenile or not. Yet
regardless of this statement, ther's no secret that kids has enjoyed these flicks, as it's been confirmed.
Fourth Theory: Quantity
 |
| I'm not a baby, but at least I have one teeth :) |
Of course there were a couple of productions that were planned (among them a computer animated prequel to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs), but they were scrapped (a commoner named Salvador Gonzales made an online petition to prevent
Disney for making a cheapquel to Snow White. And managed to gather 80
signatures in January 2002)! An fifth reason would be to
mention their overall mediocrity, but it's somewhat redundant to point
it out (despite how it's been said that a
part of their uneven quality may have been
that they came from two separate production entities in Disney. The TV Animation group and DisneyToon Studios. With the two outfits
often working on the same characters to different ends).The Purpose of These Sequels & How Not Everyone Being Actual Continuations
 |
| I know you're not Pumbaa, but you're close enough :) |
 |
| Welcome to Club Gaga :) |
 |
| We`re the female versions of the Seven Dwarfs :) |
 |
| Forget my ugliness and look at the rose :) |
.jpg)
At least The Lion King 1 1/2 does stands out among the cheapquels of being a retelling of the first movie. Just told in a snarkier, meta-way. To
analyze the rest of them, some are rehashes of their
predecessors. While others just serves to give the love-lacking
protagonist a love interest. Which is definitively true in The Hunchback of Notre Dame II and Brother Bear II, who are hampered by their skimpy plotlines (the former being hated for it).
But that's not the only thing these cheapquels does, as some of them makes the protagonists parents! At least Lady and the Tramp and The Lion King ended
with the protagonists reproducing. So therefore their child premises
made perfectly sense in their continutations. But movies like The Little Mermaid II, Peter Pan Return to Neverland and Hunchback II have
the protagonists reproducing anyways (Melody is essentially a tween
version of Ariel, with her fathers black mane. While Zephyr is a
rehash of Phoebus). And both Mermaid II, Return to Neverland and Lady and the Tramp II are basically the same story of a child rebellion.
 |
| This gives "a kiss from the rose" a new meaning :) |
 |
| I can do magic without being a wizard ;) |
However,
what's even more remarkable is how not all of them are even
consistent stories. Many of them are mini-stories that have been swept
into one movie. Which is true in Cinderella II, Belle's Magical World, Kronk's New Groove and Atlantis II. The latter flick seemed to be some episodes of a TV pilot that were crunched into a one movie. However, Aladdin was not the only one who got a movie pilot prior to it's TV series, as did Lilo & Stitch. Who got three direct-to-video releases, one of them being an actual sequel.
The Cheapquels Who Were Released Theatrically
However, what's even more odd is that three of these cheapquels were released theatrically! And those were cheapquels to Walt films (Bambi II, The Jungle Book 2 and Peter Pan: Return to Neverland).
Which was truly strange. While it would've been tempting to assume that their releases were altered for being superior, it was really not the case. Since they were practically in the same leauge as
their counterparts. 
Despite that I've had my bias towards The Jungle Book 2, for aforementioned reasons and Return to NeverLand
had it's moments and perks, as well as a fine score, it was still hampered
by serious flaws (as serious tonal inconsistency and awkward comedy). Yet NeverLand was made on a modest budget by Disney's TV department, it had elaborate digital effects by TV movie standards.Times Where The Cheapquels Improved Certain Storypoints (Yes, I`ll Confess It)
However,
despite that it's highly controversial to confess this, there was a
couple of times the cheapquels managed to improve certain plot points
from the originals. At least Mermaid II
gave Melody a logical device to yearn to the sea. She becomes
more crucial and proactive in the climax of defeating her villain
(despite still somewhat becoming of a damsel in distress at the end). And
she decides to blend both the sea and the human world in a pretty
satisfying way (the original was too focused to be bittersweet in tone,
regardless of it's happy ending).  |
| Never give a wand to a peasant :) |
 |
| We're flying backwards :) |
I've previously praised The Jungle Book 2 for
being an actual continuation of the story. Yet a satisfying one and
to actually give Mowgli a dilemma. Which gives the story substance and
depth. Cinderella III: A Twist in Time is a direct response
towards the criticism the original tale has received during the years. Yet it does it in a compelling way. Even Return to Neverland does have a couple of admirable cues of it's own; Jane's reason for wanting to grow up is logic and resonant.
Pocahontas: A Movie That Needed a Sequel
 |
| Mulan, I'm following your shoes :) |
But regardless of what could've been said about the policy of making a Disney sequel, a film who actually needed it was Pocahontas.
And I've actually dared to make an own entry to that sequel. And
yes, while this may be repetition of mine, at least the plot from that
movie is redeemable for being an actual contiunation to that story! Perhaps it may be
a reversal from the original story, but nonetheless.  |
| No touchy :) My jewels can fall off :) |
.jpg)
Fans
of the first movie despises the sequel for ending the
romance between John Smith and Pocahontas. And considers the unhappy
ending of it's predecessor to be just as fine as it is! But let's be
honest, guys; No matter which John she ended up with (couldn't resist
this one), at least a continuation of that story was needed anyways, due
to it's original's tragic ending. And since there was more to Pocahontas` history, as she travelled to England in real life.Simba`s Pride: The Rare Beloved Cheapquel
 |
| But not through a time machine ;) |
But it's not as every Disney cheapquel is labeled as an instant failure. Of course the most worshiped of them is The Lion King II: Simba's Pride. While it
has it's haters who dismisses it just as the rest of the sequels and
while the love for it may not be as huge, at least it has a fanbase who
genuinely appreciates and worshippes it. At least compared to the other
cheapquels.
As with Pocahontas II, I`ve actually dared to make an entry about that one as well (a month prior). Yet
in that entry I've already tapped into it's flaws. It's easy to see why
it's liked, because of being a cute and endearing. Yet it's
hampered by some internal faults that, even for a Disney cheapquel,
drags the story down. Those reasons alone doesn't make Pride a bad film. But it's skimpy screenplay something that drags the film down, being cheapquel or not.
As with Pocahontas II, I`ve actually dared to make an entry about that one as well (a month prior). Yet
in that entry I've already tapped into it's flaws. It's easy to see why
it's liked, because of being a cute and endearing. Yet it's
hampered by some internal faults that, even for a Disney cheapquel,
drags the story down. Those reasons alone doesn't make Pride a bad film. But it's skimpy screenplay something that drags the film down, being cheapquel or not.The Actual Sequels of the Revival Era
.jpg) |
| I didn't do it :) |
Anywho,
no matter what we could be said about these plagues, at least they're history! To much joy to the aforementioned haters of these
"beauties". But when this entry was written, Disney changed their policy and given us
actual sequels for two of the Revival films. To Wreck-It-Ralph and Frozen. While there were rumors about how the other films from the Revival era getting
sequels, at least nothing has been confirmed yet. At least movies as Big Hero 6 and Zootopia would be palatable for sequels. As with Wreck-It-Ralph, who had a concept that just screamed sequel. But a sequel to Frozen was invigorating for a Disney movie. For actually being a
continuation of an actual fairy tale! But at least the reason for giving
Frozen a sequel is pretty obvious, since it's Disney's biggest cashcow to date and therefore it's ought to be milked.
 |
| This is how you make a face, Baymax :) |
At
least the criticism for giving the fairy tale movies sequels are
understandable. Because how many thinks that fairy tales should not
continue for their "happily ever after"-norm. However, despite this, there were initial discussions of giving Tangled
a sequel. Yet it's rather been given a TV series (where Rapunzel's long,
yellow hair is in full bloom again. Which is a contrast to Mulan's
length of hair, which at least is given some continuity. Since her hair
never grows back to her full length in the sequel nor in Sofia the First).Epilogue
 |
| I know it's rude to point, but I'm a villain, so I can do it ;) |
And
yes, as aforementioned, I've personally never minded
actual sequels from Disney or otherwise. I've personally always
liked expansions and revisits, so I wouldn't mind if Walt made
actual sequels himself. While the idea of continuing a Disney property isn't wrong by it's own terms, the real problem is the final execution. Even the TV spinoffs have managed to be somewhat superior and were hardly were as loathed as the cheapquels.
.jpg)
However, now that Disney has made two sequels in a row, they just didn`t
only turn out to be actually good, but overall redeemable to Disney`s name (despite how Ralph Breaks the Internet's
case had some
components that worked against it). So let's hope if Disney makes more actual sequels, that they won't tarnish
Disney's name in the future. I know many purists said that Walt
must have rolled in his grave by the idea of a sequel. But like the wise Queen once sang; "The
show must go on". Times are always changing and sequels are becoming
more of a norm than ever. So we'll have to just accept the fact that
Disney will be making sequels in the future. In the meantime, only time will tell... |
| They couldn't all make it on this spot :) |
Follow my updates on https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100035703494050 and https://twitter.com/NerdyLunada.
References:
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs & The Making of the Classic Film (Richard Hollis, Brian Sibley).
Disney Magazine Winter 1997-1998.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Meet-Margaret-Kerry-The-Woman-Who-Gave-Tinker-Bell-Wings-189451441.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-09-27-ca-50412-story.html
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=20020217&id=PockAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZHUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1102,2300694
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SequelItis
https://ew.com/article/2011/01/06/sequel-map-worse-original/
http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2013/4/4/burning-questions-can-a-bad-sequel-diminish-a-classic.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/12/movies/sequels-of-hit-films-now-often-loser.html?scp=9&sq=robocop&st=cse
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/sequels/35320/should-we-really-fear-movie-sequels
http://animatedviews.com/2013/mike-disa-and-the-seven-dwarfs-how-the-snow-white-prequel-became-a-dopey-movie/?highlight=Snow%20White%20and%20the%20Seven%20Dwarfs
https://www.awn.com/animationworld/disney-dtv-sequels-end-line
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6a7t4f (Nostalgia Chick Top Ten Worst Disney Sequels).
The Pixar Story
Thank you so much :)
SvarSlett