What don't you like about sequels?

1. Most of the sequels are sloppy. The animation is always downgraded
2. The stories are clice and subpar
3. They exist solely for a profit, and lack artistic integrity .

There are three exceptions- Three Caballeros, Rescuers Down Under, and Fantasia 2000. What do they all have in common? They were made by Walt Disney Animated Studios, therefore part of the Walt Disney canon. All other Disney sequels (like the Aladdin sequels and Lady and the Tramp II, etc) aren't, and are made at studios like DisneyToons, not Walt Disney Animation.

The films I just listed are better than most sequels. Because they were made by WDA, more money went into the animation and effects. And since they're canon more interest went into telling a good story.

The non canon films are cheap and done as quickly as possible- throwing aside artistic integrity for a large profit. Because they're cheap, no risks are taken.

The only Disney sequels that are better than their predecessors (IMO) are The Three Caballeros (sequel to Saludos Amigos) and The Rescuers Down Under (Sequel to Rescuers). Fantasia 2000 wasn't better than Fantasia, but it was still really well done

It never lives up to the first movie, I hate them.

I actually like most of the sequels, I even ENJOY watching them. ...Even though barely anyone else does.
Maybe it's because I grew up on Disney sequels as well as the original movies. I'm not a '90s' kid as so many people like to call themselves. I'm an early 2000s kid, I guess (there isn't a name for that).
I like the sequels, so maybe they were created more for money, I still watch them. I don't think any are better than the original (except for The Jungle Book 2) but I still get invested in the characters, the story, not so much in the animation a lot of the time but I have watched worse animation than in Disney sequels. Honestly I don't get why people 'HATE' them. They might not be your preference but there isn't anything terrible about them.

Most are made because the original was such a success. I feel like the main reason they make sequels, regardless of how good they are, is to make a little extra cash because as long as a movie has "The Lion King" in its title, people will be drawn to it, because the original movie was so great. If the people walk out of the cinemas unsatisfied, so be it. The movie still got its viewers, so that's that much more cash in Disney's pocket.

The problem with Disney sequels are that they are very cheap, the animation is terrible, the stories are unoriginal, and most likely for a tv series that went wrong. The characters do not look or act like they did in the original, so it feels like you'vs gotten ripped off. The stories in some of the sequels are the dumbest plots I've ever heard, and some of the sequels don't contradict with the original.

These sequels are made to get quick money from the studio, without putting much effort into it. The problems I loses above is because they are not made by Walt Disney Animation Studios, but a low-budget Disney Toons, who also makes the Disney TV series of the original movies. Because of the popularity of the original, or a cancelled TV series they were planning to the original, it attracts people to buy them. That is why people do not like sequels