Why did Disney think making direct-to video/DVD sequels would be moneymakers for them?

[DodgerGirl]

Ever since Disney released The Return Of Jafar in 1994 "The pilot episode for Aladdin The TV Series" I think Disney in general had a plan to release direct-to video sequels as ways to cash in on the movie's popularity as a moneymaker for them to make more money. After the success of The Return Of Jafar Aladdin And The King Of Thieves followed and had the same success as The Return Of Jafar and I think why Aladdin And The King Of Thieves was a successful sequel was because of Robin Williams returning as The Genie's voice. And based on the Aladdin movies they started repeating the same thing with Beauty And The Beast with the release of the Christmas oriented Beauty And The Beast The Enchanted Christmas and based on that success they released Belle's Magical World which I don't think is an actual movie but the pilot episode for a cancelled Belle oriented Disney cartoon series that was never developed. But why Disney created sequels to classic movies like 101 Dalmatians and Bambi Lady And The Tramp and The Fox And The Hound i'll never understand why? And the same with Cinderella and The Little Mermaid and Pocahontas The Lion King and Mulan. I'm not surprised they haven't made Sleeping Beauty II or Robin Hood II The Sword In The Stone II or even Oliver And Company II. I guess Disney saw these sequels as a way to market the films more and use them to make merchandise deals "the way we saw Mattel make The Lion King II toys". But when Disney stopped making direct to-video/DVD sequels it changed Disney's image

 

[maltdizzy]

They were big moneymakers. In the pre-streaming days, these were created and priced to as impulse purchases for young families shopping at Walmart/Target/Kmart/etc. that just wanted something new and predictable to have for the children to watch. The sequels, the Air Bud films, the pixie series, etc. were all very lucrative markets. Many companies were doing the same thing (including Mattel with Barbie DVDs).

And, you are right, they did "cheapen" the Disney image, which is why John Lassiter cancelled the business practice when he was put in change of Disney Feature Animation. Then streaming came along and stole most of the marekt anyway.

 

[Smugpugmug]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Return of Jafar one of the highest grossing VHS releases of that year? These movies made a lot of money for Disney. If they weren't making any money, Disney wouldn't have made a bunch of them. Also agree with the previous poster in that other companies were doing this too. Anyone else remember how almost every Don Bluth film received a sequel, spinoff or TV show?

I grew up with these movies (unfortunately) and everyone around my age did too. I actually saw these crappy sequels before the originals they were based on LOL

 

[DodgerGirl]

In my eyes I think most of the Disney sequels are really good like Pocahontas II Journey To A New World and Mulan II. But why The Hunchback Of Notre Dame II was made i'll never understand? I think the only reason that movie did well was because of Jennifer Love Hewitt voicing Madelline who was one of the characters in the film and I think Madelline was mainly put in the movie as a crush for Quasimodo and when that sequel came out Jennifer Love Hewitt was the star of the preview trailers for The Hunchback Of Notre Dame II because her song served as the love theme for the movie. But Cinderella III should've never been made because how in the world did a third Cinderella sequel get talked into development after Cinderella II was such a weak movie? I think they wanted to cash in on Cinderella by making a trilogy movie series because after all for Aladdin it worked and they hoped it would do the same for Cinderella. But the movies like Atlantis The Lost Empire and Tarzan and The Jungle Book didn't need sequels in my book