It's actually fairly rare for an animated sequel to outperform the original.

https://filmrust.com/2019/02/12/where-lego-2-went-wrong-an-5...

Incredibles 2, Shrek 2, Spongebob 2, and Despicable Me 2 were really the only ones worth making, vs gambling on a new property.

A moderately successful sequel to a highly successful original could underperform that original, but still outperform the average original.

If "Kung Fu Panda 1" makes $273 million and "Kung Fu Panda 2" makes $187 million that's lower - but higher than "Pokemon: The First Movie" which only made $153 million.

Maybe domestically? Toy Story 2, Monsters University, and I'm sure others outperformed the original when you compare their global box office numbers. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=monstersinc2.htm (nb foreign BO is 64% of the haul).

Personally I just consider every Pixar movie a sequel to the previous Pixar movie. I treat Pixar more like a director or author. The stuff may be different but I'm going to buy the next Neil Stephenson novel even if it's a cook book.

That was kind of my point. Pixar or Dreamworks or Disney Animation or Illumination as a brand are bigger draws than being a sequel. "I want to go see the new Pixar movie."

This is a good point. There is some sentiment in this thread, and among the public in general, that Hollywood has lost its touch and is unoriginal with the deluge of remakes and superhero movies. I don’t work in the industry, but I think Hollywood knows precisely what they’re doing.

A primary concern is how you differentiate your product in the age of Netflix. If you want to make an original and complex character driven work, you’re better suited with a Netflix series. Movie studios therefore gravitate to producing works uniquely suited to highlight the things that can’t be done on the small screen and simply must be experienced at a theater. Thus, they continue to churn out special-effects laden blockbusters based on familiar IP because it makes sense for their business.