Why make sequels to movies that had happy endings … and that ENDED!!!!??

Well, I think little children might want to see their favourite charcters once again and see what happens to them.

Get ready for more...Little Mermaid 3 comes out soon too

their only re-making th classics. i can't wait for song of the south 2

I enjoyed the sequel to Mulan, the original gave space for a sequel. The Little Mermaid sequel was pretty good as well, but I didn't like Cinderella II. Really bad sequel. The Aladdin sequels were pretty good as well. The Lion King 2 was a very good sequel and underrated to boot. The Lion King 1 1/2 was BAD. Really bad. And a ripoff.

As for Disney, it's DISNEY. Their movies are directed towards children who don't mind there being a second story. Just take them as they are, and don't dislike them automatically just because they are a sequel to something else. It would be nice if there were more American animators that dealt with more serious-themed animations though.

Copyright. Disney can't let any of its characters fall into public domain, so they make new (and crappy) sequels and do their best to include every single character from the original.

This is just my assumption, but maybe a good reason for these sequels is to give today's animators a chance to leave their touch on some of the classics that they grew up watching and enjoyed. And it would be vandalism to add to or alter the old Disney classics that were made before the 1990's.

I do see your point though, and I agree that Disney should show some more originality and let "Happily Ever After" be exactly that.

Also, I would like to see sequels to "The Sword and the Stone" and "Robin Hood." Like for "Sword in the Stone 2," Arthur would be still be under Merlin's teachings as he assembles his knights of the round table and discovers love after meeting Lady Guenevere (certain things that echo back to what Merlin mentioned in the first "Sword in the Stone"). And "Robin Hood 2" could be about Prince John getting revenge against Robin Hood by kidnapping Maid Marian, and a sub plot with Sir Hiss and the Sheriff having to redeem themselves to King Richard.

The thing about Disney sequels is that most of them are rather silly and don't live up to the originals, but once in awhile they do give one that is decent and engaging.

For example, the Lion King 2 was very good. It showed Simba's insecurities taking over his father's position, a Romeo and Juliet romance, and was pretty well handled.

In some cases, like with Mulan 2, they probably figured "Oh, there's a loose end (like Mulan not actually having been married yet) which we can use to get more milage".

Of course, a lot of it has to do with success. The Black Cauldron had a princess and magic and dark scary stuff, but wasn't very well known or remembered. Disney could have followed up with one of the other books in the series, but probably looked at the reception and said "Nope, not worth the time."

Now a part of the success would, in my opinion, have to do with how the original was handled. What I mean is this: to me, Cinderella 3 was pretty good, as far as Disney sequels went. The time travel concept was a bit silly, but other than that it was entertaining. A large part of it, to me, was the fleshing out of the characters. We see a stronger, more courageous side to Cinderella and watch her overcome some obstacles herself, we see Anastasia stand up to her mother and show to that she's a good person at heart, we see more of the Prince, and heck we even learn more about the king and his deceased wife. All this is possible because when Disney made the original, they didn't have that much on the characters in there. Don't get me wrong, the original was beautiful. But it was a bit more flat, like the characters in a fairy tale (unlike later Disney characters, who had traits added to make them more realistic).

Now, when Disney did the midquel to Beauty and the Beast, it was also charming, but got a bit tedious at points. To me, that's because the original movie already developed things quite nicely. We see Belle's strong and weak sides, we know about the Prince/Beast, we see their personalities, we can attribute more to their relationship than love at first sight. It's what made the movie so spectacular. But it also leaves the midquel with little to add or reveal. It does its best, but there's only so many ways to have the Beast be a jerk (albeit, a manipulated one in the midquel), Belle get in a misunderstanding with him, the two fight and sulk, and then they reconcil in an "Awe, how sweet!" moment (not to mention the servants driving home the fact that the must fall in love).

And of course "The Little Mermaid 2" was just weird because it sort of served as a memorial to how Disney veered off of the source material for the ending (in the story, the mermaid dies, thus there's no chance of her having a child for a sequel).

I so agree with the points made, my irritation points now are all the re-imaginings of the SAME F#@%^ing movie! If it ain't broke don't fix it you flaming idiot! Right?