MovieChat Forums > Stuart Little 3: Call of the Wild (2006) Discussion > Why a direct-to-video animated sequel?

Why a direct-to-video animated sequel?


Weren't the last two films critically acclaimed box office hits?

"If I told you the reasons why, would you leave your life and ride? And rideā€¦"-Cary Brothers (Ride)

reply

I cant say that this is a bad movie, but i do think it is weird that these ones are animated... Probably due to 'George' (Jonathan Lipnicki) had well...grown.
I don't think it would have been hard to find a person who looks like him though...

reply

Actually, although both of the first two films were critically acclaimed, the first film was the only successful one. I'm guessing since "Stuart Little 2" didn't do as great at the box office, that's why this sequel was just animated.

"STUART LITTLE"
Budget: $105 million
Box Office Gross: $140 million + $159 million (internationally)

"STUART LITTLE 2"
Budget: $160 million
Box Office Gross: $65 million + $101 million (internationally)

reply

Maybe they didn't care for another big budget theatrical feature, but felt there may be enough fan base for a quick cash in with cheap a kid's film?


For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

[deleted]