[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>be Disney in the '90s and '00s
>have a hit animated film
>"let's make a cheap straight-to-video sequel"
what was the deal with those?
>>
>>220383282
They were almost all utter shit, the exceptions being An Extremely Goofy Movie (which is just as good as the first movie) and Return of Jafar (not great but passable)
>>
>>220383282
Home video started in the 80s but it was expensive. By the 90s it started get cheap enough and Disney saw the opportunity to shit out low budget movies, making them sequels to get people interested.
>>
>>220383342
Which is the best for me? 34 M with ibs
>>
>>220383282
Home video was a big business. Sequels have a built-in audience, which means far-less promotional work needs to be done. Little Mermaid 2 grossed $120 million in sales just in its first year in the U.S. Disney hadn't yet realized that paypigs would actually go to theatres to watch complete slop.
>>
>>220383282
what went so right bros?
>>
>>220383512
this sucked
>>
>>220383342
The studio that made those (Disney Television Animation) was the same that made the original Goofy movie, that's why the quality of the sequel is consistent. Also Return of Jafar was the first direct to video sequel they made so they gave more of a shit.
>>
>>220383282
Any art of little mermaid 2?
>>
>>220383282
now it's even better they make cheap remake of decades old movies, they don't even bother to try to make something new
>>
>>220383342
Legend of the 40 thieves is way better than return of jafar
>>
>>220383342
Cinderella 3 is good
>>
>>220383282
maybe it was cheap to make and made money?
i don't know. have only seen return of jafar from those in the picture. remember liking aladdin and the king of thieves much more than return of jafar.
>>
>>220383512
>Lion King
>Lion King II
>Lion King 1 1/2
>Lion King but it's just CG
>Lion Guard
>Lion Guard series
>Lion King Mufasa
they're so unoriginal... all they really know how to do with Lion KIng as a franchise is try and introduce some new big bad who was behind everything
Lion King 2 had Scar's wife and kid, Lion Guard had scar's ghost, Mufasa I'm pretty sure had the white lions
>>
File: Lady.jpg (94 KB, 792x1000)
94 KB JPG
>>220383282
>that lady sequel nearly 40 years later
>>
>>220383282
How do you feel about the sequel TV series?
>>
>>220383282
surprised they never tried to make an Oliver and Company sequel
>>
Bump
>>
>never made Alice Through the Looking Glass
>>
>>220383342
40 thieves is way better than Return

Also Cindarella 3 where the evil step mom gets Bibbitys wand and creates a dark world universe where she wins wayyyy better than it has any right to be.
>>
>>220384491
I remember Return to Neverland being pretty decent and dark for a kid's movie.
Peter thinks Hook captured Wendy somehow only to find out it was Wendy's daughter then doesn't even really recognize Wendy herself at first, I think calling her 'Lady Wendy'
also leaned more into real world events with the London Blitz happening at the same time of the movie
>>
>>220384115
>that lady sequel nearly 40 years later that features dog pedophilia
>>
>>220383342
>the exceptions being An Extremely Goofy Movie (which is just as good as the first movie)
No it's not, it looks way cheaper
The only one I really liked as a kid was Lion King 1 1/2 because it wasn't trying to be on Par with the original lion king
>>
>>220383512
I liked this one more
>>
>>220384218
But that's not Disney anon that's Don Blun
>>
>>220385765
You're retarded



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.