When is a Disney sequel truly a sequel?

[darthjohnny]

I've been wondering about this question a lot:

When is a Disney sequel truly a sequel?

Sometimes when it is a "2" film, it takes place after the first movie.

But other times, it is actually a preview, or maybe even a spin-off.

Look at Brother Bear II- it is a sequel to Brother Bear one.

But look at Tarzan II- it is a prequel, and the technical sequel to the original Tarzan is just called Tarzan and Jane.

Peter Pan 2 is a sequel, but the new Fox and the Hound 2 is somewhat of a prequel.

Why does Disney do this crazy naming system? It boggles the mind. :veryconfu:lol: :xmas:

 

[clarksfan95]

In my opinion - anything that comes after the original is a sequel. Even though George Lucas likes to believe that Episode 1, 2 and 3 are prequels...they are still sequels (as in coming after the original).

I've always considered the underproduced piece of trash, Tarzan and Jane to be the first sequel to Tarzan (unfortunately). That movie looks as though students from you local animation school did it (while in their first year of attendance). The animation was horrific and the break up of stories was terrible. Should never have been released.