Why is it that Disney always makes amazing animated films...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by lightleggy (15924 posts) -

That are really high budget, and extremely succesful both in reviews and in box office.

and then a few years later they make a straight-to-dvd sequel which doesn't even has half the budget of the original film?

Tarzan 2, Mulan 2, lion king 2, cinderella 2 (I think its on the 3rd by now), hunchback 2, the little mermaid 2, fox and the hound 2.

I could go on.

Why is it like that? I dont think that they are actually trying to make more money since it seems pretty obvious that making a full fledged sequel that goes on theaters would earn them a lot more even if it's not as good as the previous one, or good at all (Cars 2 for example)

#2 Posted by verbtex (8509 posts) -

I almost feel as if I wasted my time watching Cars 2. It was pretty boring.

#3 Posted by Heirren (16864 posts) -
I think Disney has gone downhill. 3D animation has become tiresome for animated films, IMO.
#4 Posted by Nuck81 (5846 posts) -
A lot of the grunt work is already done. They can recycle most of the animation with the computer, slap on some new backgrounds, and basically all your paying for is voice actors, and they rarely bring the big name people back. Make it Direct to Video and It's like printing money
#5 Posted by johnd13 (8077 posts) -

Maybe they' re out of inspiration. None of the newer animated films can match the awesomeness of some old classics IMO.

#6 Posted by Detroit222 (5296 posts) -

Funny but I read somewhere that Toy Story II was going to be a direct to video - until Disney realized how good it was. On the other hand, I couldn't sit through Cars II, it was just bad. A movie with Mater as mostly the star? No.

Not all the sequels are bad. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and I enjoyed Lion King II.

Jungle Book II had a better and more exciting storyline but JBI had better songs.

On the other hand, Mulan II was terrible. And the prequel to Beauty and the Beast was boring.

But the kids like them. So as long as they make money.................. (shrug).

I do admit to having seen the Tinker Bell movies - which are all direct to videos. They are quite well made. So direct to video doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad movie.

#7 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14417 posts) -
#8 Posted by Capitan_Kid (6549 posts) -
Lion King 2 and Lion King 1 1/2 were good. Peter Pan 2 wasn't bad either but yeah it's weird that they like to make mediocre sequels.
#9 Posted by lightleggy (15924 posts) -

Funny but I read somewhere that Toy Story II was going to be a direct to video - until Disney realized how good it was. On the other hand, I couldn't sit through Cars II, it was just bad. A movie with Mater as mostly the star? No.

Not all the sequels are bad. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and I enjoyed Lion King II.

Jungle Book II had a better and more exciting storyline but JBI had better songs.

On the other hand, Mulan II was terrible. And the prequel to Beauty and the Beast was boring.

But the kids like them. So as long as they make money.................. (shrug).

I do admit to having seen the Tinker Bell movies - which are all direct to videos. They are quite well made. So direct to video doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad movie.

Detroit222
Imo cars 1 was also terrible.
#10 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

really it's about money plain and simple.

there are a lot of parents out there who will buy their kid anything to shut them up for a bit, something with identifiable Disney characters and the Disney logo on it is gonna get picked up way way faster then generic cartoon made from 3rd rate animation studio.

There is also the double whammy that with those characters on the box, the boys and girls who love these characters, will want it and don't know and don't care about the quality it's all the same to them.

#11 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -
They were really at the top of their game in the 90s but moving from hand drawn animation has really irked me since then.
#12 Posted by lowkey254 (5904 posts) -

They make great films and mediocre films because they know people will pay for either.

#13 Posted by layton2012 (3653 posts) -
I still have yet to see Cars 2 since I have such a high regard for Pixar and I don't want to tarnish that.
#14 Posted by XilePrincess (13129 posts) -
Cartoon sequels rarely make as much money. Most of Disney's stories were based off of books or fables that did NOT have sequels, so I can see why a lot of them were direct-to-video. A lot of them are also just made because of popular demand, like the little mermaid 2. That turned out badly, but children eat it up, so why wouldn't they make them, I guess.
#15 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28072 posts) -
Was going to say that it isn't the same group that releases these productions, but someone else brought it up.
#16 Posted by Pierst179 (10768 posts) -

Ever since John Lasseter took over Disney's animation division, he has shut down the division that made all of the crappy Direct-to video sequels that plagued the early to mid-2000s.

Hallenbeck77

Yep, that studio is long gone.

Lasseter was brought in to, among other things, protect the Disney legacy, and those direct-to-video sequels were not exactly helping, so he promptly shut the studio down.

Speaking of Cars 2, I will always be intrigued by the way that movie came to be. Lasseter said he had a good idea for the script and decided to go with it, but I am almost 100% sure it was Disney that pushed that project on him in order to sell more boy-oriented merchandise, and he decided to go ahead and take the blame for the disaster that he knew was about to happen.

Talk about a hero... :P

#17 Posted by Yoweeh (3025 posts) -

There's a Fox and the Hound 2? Why.....

#18 Posted by sukraj (22608 posts) -

I almost feel as if I wasted my time watching Cars 2. It was pretty boring.

verbtex

the first one was better.

#19 Posted by lonewolfman10 (541 posts) -

They made Wally, so whatever they did with that movie is your answer