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 market 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

 

[BrianL]

Honestly, most of them aren't all that bad - they jsut aren't all that great either and certainly don't measure up to the originals that they are sequels to. How could they when they had a much smaller budget. It's like a made-for-TV movie or series - they don't have feature budgets. But if you go in with proper expectations, they can be pretty enjoyable. They certianly made a lot of money.

 

[DodgerGirl]

I can't figure out how Lady And The Tramp got a sequel? I remember seeing preview trailers for it and it just seemed odd that Disney did this. The only reason I think Lady And The Tramp got a sequel was to hype Scott Wolf who was the voice of Scamp in the movie and also hype Alyssa Milano who voiced Scamp's crush Angel and it seemed that when you stick celebrity voice talent in Disney sequels they make the movies sell. Another odd thing about Lady And The Tramp II is they put SheDaisy's song Still Holding Out For You and I don't know why it was even needed in the trailer? Was that song gonna be featured in the movie? But I have to say when it came to releases like The Little Mermaid III and The Lion King 1/2 Disney should've promoted them a lot more. But I hope we don't see The Sword In The Stone II or 101 Dalmatians III be made in the near future

 

[BrianL]

I can't figure out how Lady And The Tramp got a sequel? I remember seeing preview trailers for it and it just seemed odd that Disney did this. The only reason I think Lady And The Tramp got a sequel was to hype Scott Wolf who was the voice of Scamp in the movie and also hype Alyssa Milano who voiced Scamp's crush Angel and it seemed that when you stick celebrity voice talent in Disney sequels they make the movies sell. Another odd thing about Lady And The Tramp II is they put SheDaisy's song Still Holding Out For You and I don't know why it was even needed in the trailer? Was that song gonna be featured in the movie? But I have to say when it came to releases like The Little Mermaid III and The Lion King 1/2 Disney should've promoted them a lot more. But I hope we don't see The Sword In The Stone II or 101 Dalmatians III be made in the near future

Interestingly, I remember when I was a kid we had this Disney storybook, and in it was a story about Lady & Tramp's puppies, including "that Scamp of a puppy" as the story would say. This was well before the sequel was made, like the early 1980's, and I think the book was quite a bit older as I picture it in my head. That story had been floating around for a while! I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how closely it follows - not that I might even remembe beyond all of the puppies looking like Lady except for Scamp who took after his father.

 

[DodgerGirl]

Why I think Disney wanted to make sequels to films was to see if they could make a trilogy out of the films and I think beginning with Aladdin they had planned to do just that. But what I can't figure out is how Belle's Magical World was even considered a sequel for Beauty And The Beast when in truth as I mentioned in my opening post it's not even a movie at all but three now four short stories about Beauty And The Beast and the characters with the fourth story called Mrs. Potts Party taken from Belle's Tales Of Friendship that was released on video. The only reason why Belle's Magical World sold well was because most of the original Beauty And The Beast celebrity voice cast returned minus Bradley Pierce as Chip. Another sequel I cannot figure out was made is The Lion King 1/2 and why Disney decided to make that movie was to cash in on The Lion King's popularity but The Lion King 1/2 wasn't really needed when they already had The Lion King II Simba's Pride

 

[DodgerGirl]

I basically think Disney had high hopes for their movies to get sequels to make continuations of the movies. Like for Beauty And The Beast I would've perferred that Disney should've made Beauty And The Beast II rather than Beauty And The Beast The Enchanted Christmas because it would've been nice to see Belle and The Beast get married and have a wonderful wedding and it would've been a great sequel if it did exist before Beauty And The Beast The Enchanted Christmas debuted. Another sequel series that I think was simply made to cash in on the popularity since The Little Mermaid was rereleased in theaters and rereleased on video and released for the very first time on DVD was The Little Mermaid II Return To The Sea and I cannot figure out why Ariel and Prince Eric decided to have a daughter in the movie? And why they came up with the name Melody for Ariel's daughter? They could named her something like Marina or any other mermaid name. But this movie seemed to be popular when it debuted on DVD and VHS. But why The Little Mermaid III was created i'll never know as Paul Harvey used to say "the rest of the story" because when I saw The Little Mermaid III I think it was simply made to cash in on the Broadway show of The Little Mermaid and what's shocking is that Melody is gone from this movie and it reminded me of a The Little Mermaid version of the 1984 classic Footloose. How this sequel became popular and sold well is a mystery to me

 

[gmi3804]

Desperate parents will buy anything where they can plop their kids in front of the boob tube and get some moments of peace and quiet. That’s why.

 

[Kit Jackson]

And why they came up with the name Melody for Ariel's daughter?

Melody is her name because it connects to song and music. Eric first heard Ariel's singing voice and was part of why he thought Vanessa was the woman he originally fell in love with, because he recognized her voice not realizing it was actually Ursula in disguise and that Ursula had Ariel's voice.