Pretty much what Mattimeo said.
While, yes, there were 2D "straight-to-DVD" films and even theatrical releases like Return to Neverland, they aren't part of the Disney Canon. And by Canon, I don't mean they aren't canon in their respective storylines. I mean there is a Disney Canon that includes 48 films, from Snow White to Bolt. These were done by the Walt Disney Animation studio.
The sequels/prequels you are talking about were done by ToonDisney, based out of Australia. They aren't considered "Disney Classics". The two sequels that ARE considered Classics, as Mattimeo alluded to, are The Rescuers Down Under (Which was a superior film to its predecessor) and Fantastia 2000.
I've only watched a few of the sequels outside the canon. The Little Mermaid II, the two Aladdin sequels and the two Lion King sequels. Out of those, only King of Thieves and Lion King 1 1/2 (Which is basically Disney's version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead) were entertaining. The others were garbage, in my opinion. Although I've actually heard the third Cindarella and Return to Neverland are decent. I'm just leery about those straight-to-DVD releases, especially since even the the canocical Disney theatical films have been mediocre at best these last 10 years.
The exception being Bolt. I was highly entertained by it. It was the first Disney film that gave me hope that the company was finally moving in the right direction again. Not including the always phenomenal Pixar, of course.
ourchair said:
Not an entirely bad compromise, actually.
I'd much rather Disney Animation focus on 2D while Pixar focus on 3D, but you're right, it is a fair compromise. And, to be quite honest, Rapunzel looks gorgeous, despite the fact that it's 3D animation. The art style is fantastic.