Do you consider 2 to be a canon succesor to The Lion King?

[SummerSnowLeopard]

[FlipMode]

To Disney it goes like this:

Canon (aka Box office/Awards/Reviews):
Every movie produced Walt Disney Pictures (including the sequel "Rescuers Down Under").
Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs
(...)
The Lion King ("Fluffy")
(...)
Tangled
Winnie The Pooh

Not canon (aka Money):
Sequels produced by Toon Disney (aka Walt Disney Television Animation):
Return of Jafar
(...)
The Lion King 2 (Kiara)
(...)
The Little Mermaid 3
+ Books (Six New Adventures ---> Kopa),
+ Tv Shows (Timon & Pumbaa, Aladdin...)

Fanon: (aka Imagination)
Original characters (Tanabi...),
+ Fan theories ("Zira killed Kopa"...),
+ Fanfiction.

To Disney, SNA and SP are actually equal: official material but NOT canon.

And someone from Disney told you that? Where is the source that officially states TLK2 is not cannon?
You see I think of it this way, it might sound crazy but it has the same title with a 2 on the end; meaning it is a sequel to TLK and it directly follows from the story which I would assume makes it cannon also. But I do not claim that to be a fact because it is only what I think.

[atouchofgrace]

And someone from Disney told you that? Where is the source that officially states TLK2 is not cannon?

When the numbering system was introduced, the group of films included became collectively known as the "Disney Animation Canon." The term 'canon' was used to indicate that the films were all of a similar medium and caliber.
Number 1 - Snow White
Number 50 - Tangled
What's SP's number? None. Why? Because SP was produced by Walt Disney Television Animation, not Walt Disney Pictures.

You see I think of it this way, it might sound crazy but it has the same title with a 2 on the end.

So what about the Aladdin sequels? There's no Aladdin 2 or Aladdin 3...
Adding a number to a very well known title is more profitable, simple as that.

[FlipMode]

When the numbering system was introduced, the group of films included became collectively known as the "Disney Animation Canon." The term 'canon' was used to indicate that the films were all of a similar medium and caliber.
Number 1 - Snow White
Number 50 - Tangled
What's SP's number? None. Why? Because SP was produced by Walt Disney Television Animation, not Walt Disney Pictures.

And it not being produced by the same Company makes it non cannon to the plot? And besides Disney TV Animation is a division of the overall Disney company so I still do not see how it makes it non cannon. I didn't mean it was part of the "Disney animation cannon" I meant that TLK2 was cannon to the overall story of The LIon King.

So what about the Aladdin sequels? There's no Aladdin 2 or Aladdin 3...
Adding a number to a very well known title is more profitable, simple as that.

Nope adding a number to a title indicates that it is a sequel, and the definition of the term sequel is "'a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work." which means that TLK2 is a sequel to the story and is made and produced by a sub section of Disney; it is cannon to me therefore.

As for the Aladdin sequels; that is different because they really did suck compared to the original and nothing would make them profitable :D.
However you know Pirates of the Caribbean does not have numbered titles either and for a different example neither does Kingdom Hearts (except for 1 &2); it is because they are part of the same single continuing story and thus do not need numbers, nothing to do with being more profitable.

Another example would be the Spider Man movies; there has been the original, 2 and 3... Yet the next title due for release is simply being called "Spider Man" because it is a reboot of the series story; if they wanted maximum profit then by your logic it should have been called Spider Man 4. But it is not, because the series needed a reboot after a steady decline in critical success.

Now I am not arguing your opinion but when you state your thoughts and then say "This means this. Simple as." that is when I question stuff and get into discussion; please do try to respect other people's opinions, if you do not want anyone else having one then this is cool by me, but please do not try to pass off thought as fact eh?

[atouchofgrace]

As for the Aladdin sequels; that is different because they really did suck compared to the original and nothing would make them profitable

So the Aladdin sequels are different because they suck compared to the original?
First, that's your opinion, not a fact.
Second, some people actually think TLK sequels suck. They're not different. They're just sequels just like any other Disney sequel.
You say I'm trying to pass off thought as fact and yet you claim Aladdin sequels are different because they suck...

[FlipMode]

Ignore this post please :)

[SummerSnowLeopard]

Okay