worst Disney sequel

i'm not a big fan of Disney sequals. when i heard about this one, i was livid. once i saw it, i thought, "hey, this isn't so bad after all" if Melody was older that would have been better. but it was a good sequal along the lines of Lion King 2.

[deleted]

This movie was crappy. Did anyone notice that it has the exact same storyline as Lady and the Tramp 2? Parent hides past from kid, kid wants to be parent's past, parent gets mad and kid runs away, parent saves kid and admits to their past. I watched these two movies with my younger brothers, and we were amazed at how... BAD... they were.

The POINT is that they CAN'T make a 'Sleeping Beauty 2' or 'Snow White 2'...the originals were classics, ESPECIALLY 'Snow White'...if they do, it'll be the end of Disney, as we know it. Grand examples of classics ruined by sequels: 'Peter Pan', 'Cinderella', 'Halloween', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', 'The Exorcist', 'Beauty and the Beast', 'The Little Mermaid', 'Jungle Book', 'Lion Kning', and 'Hunchback of Notre Dame'...asdf Disney...they're running out of creativity!!!

Disney went through this stage when they weren't making any classics anymore and so they went back and looked at their classics and tried to see where they were going wrong. Then, being the imaginative people they are, they decided 'What the heck we'll just make a sequel,' hence: LAdy and the tramp 2, Little MErmaid 2, Peter PAn 2, Cinderella 2 and now Mulan 2. They took films which had been original new and interesting and butchered them, destroyed them. Admititedly I haven't seen many of them but these stories didn't need a sequel, just by doing a sequel they ruined it. They need something new original, Home Farm was awful, they haven't had a classic for ages and why? Because they can't put in the effort, they just have to reuse everything. How long is it since they've had a moment like in lion king where the father died, admittedly i like lion king 2 but it didn't need a sequel.

You are incorrect about Disney "not using the TV series animation on it." The animation for this film (most of it anyway), the first half of "The Return of Jafar," about 80% of "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" and Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp's Adventure were all done by Disney's Animation unit in Sydney, Australia. The animators (such as Kevin Peaty, Ian Harrowell, Bob Baxter, et all) were also the exact same people. Furthermore, the animation in the Cinderella sequel you enjoyed was done by Disney's Japanese studio that also did the other half of "Return of Jafar" and the other 20% of "King of Thieves"

What you actually think of as different is merely the fact that Disney's theatrical ventures were, since "The Rescuers Down Under," using the CAPS system (Computer Assisted Paint System) to ink & paint their traditionally animated films. At the time, this was too expensive a method to allow their television unit to do so, and it wasn't until "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" was completed that the Sydney and Japanese studios began using the CAPS system, allowing the Lion King, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast (etc.) sequels to have a more "lush" (read: digital) feel to them.

The animation itself has always been the exact same people though, and IMHO very talented people (read my comments on the "Return to Neverland" or "Marvin: Baby of the Year" pages to see how big a fan I am). You, I'm afraid, are a fan not of any film's animation, but their ink & paint style.

I don't mean to sound insulting, mind you. I merely want to make you aware.

[deleted]