Are there at least any good or decent direct-to-video Disney

>>83419680
both lion king sequels are fine by me. cinderella 3 is quite good too. rescuers down under is also solid. kronk's new groove is pleasant enough. and.. that's all i can think of off the top of my head

>>83419809
Rescuers Down Under doesn't count as a 'direct-to-video' sequel.

>>83419680
Not sure if it was direct to video, but I enjoyed Peter Pan 2: return to Neverland.
Jane was a qt.

File: image.jpg (214KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1920x1080px

>>83419680
Cinderella III had a surprising amount of depth.

Doesn't count as a sequel, but for a direct to video movie, "Mickey Mouse, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers" definitely deserves mentioning.

The Aladdin ones are pretty good (3 > 2) but the animation is so cheap that you can't watch them right after you watch the original.

Brother Bear II was decent.

File: Lion_king_1_half_cover.jpg (153KB, 290x435px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 290x435px

Also Goofy Movie II wasn't too bad.

>>83419680
Was "Extremely Goofy Movie" direct to video? If so, it was pretty good.

>>83420016
Return to Neverland was actually released to theaters, but I think it comes from the same studio as most of the direct to video sequels and isn't part of the official disney animated canon.

my dad and i always agreed that the Aladdin sequels were alright.