site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   2800 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 20, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's the best Disney sequel movie? I've watched basically all of the classics at some point in my life, but there's a bunch of stuff like Cinderella 2 or Mulan 2 that I just assumed were cash grabs based on the popularity of the original, and never bothered watching because I didn't think they'd be worth the time and the original movie closed its story on its own without needing continuation.

Is this assumption universally true, or are there exceptions? Am I wisely saving my time and money, or have I been sleeping on the hidden gem Aladdin 2: Electric Boogaloo?

Most of the Disney sequels are direct-to-video releases, so even when they're not trash, they're going to have an obvious decrease in animation quality and integration. And a lot of them are trash, or at best random TV episodes stapled together (eg, Kronk's New Groove).

That said, there are exceptions that are at least decent, even among the direct-to-video market. In addition to the Aladdin sequels, The Lion King II and 1-and-1/2 are late enough that their animation is decent, and they avoid their stories being too bad, but they're not exactly high literature.

Ditto to Rescuers down under. Aladdan 2 and Toy Story 2 are “watchable”. Everything else is slop.

The Rescuers Down Under. It doesn’t even feel like a sequel, partly because it’s just better than the original, and partly because it’s from before Disney went creatively bankrupt and started churning out vapid content to milk legacy IPs.

I'll second that. The first Rescuers was a work of love in a lot of ways and better from a matter of pacing, it has to fight a lot with the story it was using being originally intended for a novella format. Down Under has its faults and was a commercial flop, but the difference in animation quality a decade makes is vast, and the story, while more Topical for its time, avoids the ten thousand coincidences problem in the original.

A lot of that era also just benefits from the new technology (and, to a lesser extent, 'kids movies' developing enough demand to get a sizable budget). For a non-Disney example, Fievel Goes West is a much more marginal improvement from An American Tail, but the clarity of animation, audio quality, so on is massively improved, entirely downstream of technological advances. There's a few scenes in American Tail that are amazing efforts for what could be done, and what got Bluth his name and reputation... and also are just muddled and muddy by modern standards, with Scooby-Doo-level matting. Fievel Goes West still isn't as clear as modern-day techniques, but it's night-and-day.

For "worth the time" I'd nominate Monsters University, Finding Dory, the Toy Story sequels, and Ralph Breaks the Internet. My kids would add Frozen II.

The only Disney sequel (arguably) as good as or better than the original is Toy Story 3.

My kids would swear that Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure (TV series sequel) was at least as good as the movie. I watched enough with them to say that's surprisingly plausible but not enough to agree or disagree.

Even with adult movies it's rare that a sequel surpasses the original, probably for the reasons you state. Aliens, Terminator 2, Last Crusade, Dark Knight, and for especially the first three it was still downhill afterward.

You were probably just talking about the classics, but I've always seen Frozen 2 as a vast improvement on the first one, up to retroactively improving the first movie. Including the story of the second movie, the end of the first one feels more like a midpoint, while also expanding the world as the story expands to fit it.

Also, the music is much better IMO

The music in Frozen 2 is better, but the plot is barely comprehensible, and I hate the characters. The tendrils of wokeness are too obvious: Anna treats Kristoff like shit, Elsa is selfish and navel-gazing, and surprise-surprise, the old whites murdering the native magical browns are why everything sucks.

It's obvious Frozen 1 was rushed out and had serious story thrash but at least it's earnest. My kids barely watch the sequel but will see 1 any time.

Also, the music is much better IMO

The music in Frozen 2 is better

Am I taking crazy pills? "Non est disputandum" and all that, but still, really?

Frozen (1) was entirely supported by "Let It Go", which was so amazing (though the plot played it too straight in the end) that the flaws in the movie's plot and characterization were nothing compared to the zombie-apocalypse-level infectiousness of that song. I'm sure "Into the Unknown" managed most of the same technical feats of clever key modulation and whatever, but the lyrics and melody weren't nearly as interesting. For like a year afterward teachers were complaining that you couldn't put five kids in a room together without one of them starting to sing "Let It Go" and turning the whole group into an impromptu choir.

But even aside from the tentpole song? Frozen 2 had nothing as funny as "In Summer", and nothing as heartwrenching as "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?". I admit "Lost in the Woods" was impressively mature for a kids' movie, but I think "Love is an Open Door" would have been up there if only its irony had been a little less subtle. (of course, that time the plot managed to drive the irony in later, with a sledgehammer; modern Disney can show the problems with "love at first sight" more clearly than with "girl power leads to monologuing like a supervillain")

You know what? Actually, you're right. I've seen 2 fewer times so I was modifying my perception to account for it but after consideration 1 is superior.

Yeah, Frozen II songs were a little too on-the-nose.

This will all make sense when I am older
Someday, I will see that this makes sense
One day when I'm old and wise
I'll think back and realize
That these were all completely normal events
Ah

I'll have all the answers when I'm older
Like why we're in this dark enchanted wood
I know in a couple years
These will seem like childish fears
And so I know this isn't bad, it's good

There is a certain type of "Children's" entertainment that is really geared towards Parents. Books like "Love You Forever." Episodes of Bluey (I know this is controversial, but there are more than a few episodes of Bluey that have little interest to kids but is more geared toward teaching the parent.)

Frozen II is kinda there. Or rather, it's geared towards the 20 year olds who will never have kids but can reflect on their own childhood.

It's a weird rule, but Movie IIIs are typically good. Cars 3 is better than Cars 2. Toy Story 3 is better than Toy Story 2. Cinderella III is good. Aladdin III is good.

An Extremely Goofy Movie is fun. The Rescuers Down Under is better than the first.

I wonder if the logic is something like the first sequel being an easy cash grab where you don't want to expend too much effort or creativity, since it's fundamentally a bit grubby endeavor riding on the coattails of the initial movie, and the sequel is probably going to sink into obscurity after pulling in the expected amount of extra profit. However, if the sequel does better than expected, you've got a potential successful movie series going, and you should again start putting more effort and attention into the next sequel since now you want the sequel movies to be seen as An Entire Thing again.

Aladdin 3: King of Thieves is pretty alright, on the basis of a strong third act.

Can’t say I know of any other good ones.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats