What's a wrong stereotype of a 2000s cartoon you like?

Every Disney sequel was just a "cheapquel" with no soul. Sure a LOT of them were, and they were definitely a corporate mandated thing to squeeze $$$ from gemstones, but watch the "Behind the Scenes" stuff on their DVDs and you'll find a number of them DID have artists, animators, voice actors, scriptwriters, etc. who were passionate about making them. This is especially pronounced in my fave Disney sequel-101 Dalmatians 2: Patch's London Adventure.

Same for the movie sequel/alternative/tie-in TV series-again, there WERE passionate people in these projects who cared about their work. Heck the recent failure of the Pixar Lightyear movie had people reminiscing about their favorite memories of the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command show!

I can say the same for the Land Before Time sequels. Some aren't all that great & are noticeably not all that dark compared to the 1st movie, but looking back it's clear that there was passion from those. The Stone of Cold Fire in particular actually manages to have the theme of theorizing about what you see, but have no idea what is really going on or what it is, which is something I would've never expected in the SEVENTH Land Before Time movie & it does that theme amazingly! One of that movie's songs, Beyond the Mysterious Beyond, is a good showcase of what I mean:


Honestly I'm kind of impressed by a fair bit of these sequels, but the fact that this one in particular is about not being able to discover all of our universe, but can interpret what is going on is actually kinda deep for what is claimed to be a cheapquel. Heck, the Rainbow Faces themselves are mysterious creatures here, with them being implied to not even be like the other dinosaurs, but not confirming what they are, thus leaving it up to, well, interpretation.