Love It.First off, the original Rescuers came out before the Black Cauldron. The Rescuers down under came out 5 years later, after The Little Mermaid. Neither of the films helped Disney regain money from the Black Cauldron.stitcharielbeast wrote:The Rescuers Anthology - because it was a tremendous success that helped Disney regain money from Black Cauldron
I dunno, I feel that Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch were both instant classics that deserve to be in the Platinum line, I mean sure they were recent films but by the time their respective platinums could come out, it could be in 2010 and beyond which puts them in the same timeline that Beauty and the Beast and Lion King came out as Platinums.Disneykid wrote:Pocahontas, Hunchback, and Hercules deserve to be included because all three were financially successful (even if Disney found their grosses disappointing compared to the previous ones), and they're all prestigious Alan Menken musicals. I debated for a while about whether or not Tarzan or Lilo should be included, but I decided not to because even though I prefer both over Pocahontas and Hercules, they're a bit too recent to be part of the collection, in my opinion.
You make good points regarding Tarzan and Lilo. As for Mulan, the way you feel about it is the same way I feel about Hunchback. I think Hunchback is more deserving because it was more daring than Mulan. It tackled themes Disney never even glanced at before, and it did it with artistic flair and drama that shames most live action films. Mulan was great, but was sort of more of the same stuff Disney audiences were familiar with (it fits the so-called "Disney formula" much easier than Hunchback).stitcharielbeast wrote: I dunno, I feel that Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch were both instant classics that deserve to be in the Platinum line, I mean sure they were recent films but by the time their respective platinums could come out, it could be in 2010 and beyond which puts them in the same timeline that Beauty and the Beast and Lion King came out as Platinums.
Alice in Wonderland, Hercules and Hunchback of Notre Dame, while fine movies, all had very jarring flaws which sends them leagues below the classics that preceeded them. Now if either Hunchback or Hercules won an academy award or two, then yes they deserve to be platinums but they didn't. Pocahontas however, did get the same accolades as the big 4. that's why I think Pocahontas deserves Platinum-hood
the one other films that deserve the platinum title out of the their over-all quality and financial success would be Mulan and Dumbo. Mulan because it was a finely crafted picture with a well rounded story that audiences around the world loved, plus it was the last broadway-style musical. Dumbo because it is the only movie omitted from Walt's first 5 animated features which doesn't make sense because it is one fo Disney's most popular movies. In fact, Dumbo deserves Platinum-hood way before Peter Pan (which would be on the same level as Mulan) or Sleeping Beauty (which would be on the same level as Pocahontas).
by the way, you're a Gilmroe Girls fan!!! that is awesome!!!!!
I've been re-watching all of my DVDs in preparation for the DVD release of season six, which in turn will prep me for the season seven premiere.
well if Mulan shouldn't be considered anything significant, so shouldn't Peter Pan, in retrospect, both share the same kind of rank within their own eras. Peter Pan was enjoyable but not as spectacular as Cinderella or Lady and the Tramp, as would Mulan be compared to the big 4 musicals of the renaissance.Disneykid wrote: You make good points regarding Tarzan and Lilo. As for Mulan, the way you feel about it is the same way I feel about Hunchback. I think Hunchback is more deserving because it was more daring than Mulan. It tackled themes Disney never even glanced at before, and it did it with artistic flair and drama that shames most live action films. Mulan was great, but was sort of more of the same stuff Disney audiences were familiar with (it fits the so-called "Disney formula" much easier than Hunchback).
As for Dumbo, it being one of Walt's first films isn't the reason why I think it should be in the Platinum line. What I meant was Disney critics consider the films from Snow White to Bambi Disney's first golden age, and the films from Cinderella to Sleeping Beauty to be the second golden age. To leave off one film from each (Dumbo and Alice) makes their exclusions from the Platinum line seem glaring. It's like leaving off Aladdin (which is part of Disney's third golden age) just because it's not quite as popular or critically acclaimed as Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, or Lion King.
Acadamy Awards wins shouldn't be a factor in this at all, either. If that were the case, the only fims in the collection would be Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. As you can see, that leaves off an alarming amount of beloved films already in the collection.
It all boils down to our opinions, of course. You think Mulan and Dumbo both deserve to be in it way before Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty. Despite my rooting for Dumbo to be included, I think Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty are far worthier entries. I also would put Alice in the collection before Mulan any day. Alice is far more significant and easily recognized by the general public than Mulan is.
And yes, I'm a Gilmore Girls fan and proud of it.
Come on, this is one of Walt's classics!
even though we arent getting it) 
I think the argument I see here has to do with what exactly is the criteria for being a Platinum edition? is it the amount of money the film brought in in its day? Does anyone know what Disney's criteria is for putting a film into the Platinum series?stitcharielbeast wrote:....
As for Dumbo, it being one of Walt's first films isn't the reason why I think it should be in the Platinum line. What I meant was Disney critics consider the films from Snow White to Bambi Disney's first golden age, and the films from Cinderella to Sleeping Beauty to be the second golden age. To leave off one film from each (Dumbo and Alice) makes their exclusions from the Platinum line seem glaring. It's like leaving off Aladdin (which is part of Disney's third golden age) just because it's not quite as popular or critically acclaimed as Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, or Lion King.
Acadamy Awards wins shouldn't be a factor in this at all, either. If that were the case, the only fims in the collection would be Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. As you can see, that leaves off an alarming amount of beloved films already in the collection.
Whoops, had to edit this post because I meant to include the following response. I'm a bit annoyed about the slip cover situation, because sometimes I don't get them. If you wait a bit too long to buy a movie, the slip covers disappear. Also, sometimes Amazon.com sends the DVDs without the slip covers. Because of that, my Lion King 2 (or 1 1/2, I forget which) doesn't have a slip cover, nor do my Pocahontas or Mary Poppins 2-discers. It's REALLY irritating. Plus, I was going to by Napoleon Dynamite on sale a few weeks ago, but Best Buy took off the motion slip covers from them during the sale (even though they had them in the ad)! That was just plain crooked! Best Buy has been doing A LOT of crooked things lately, which really ticks me off, because I buy most of my movies there and at Target (then Wal-Mart and Circuit City, and that's mostly it). Well, I guess I buy A LOT at Wal-Mart, but usually from the 5.50 bin.BambiFan87 wrote:
5. All the Music ones between Bambi and Cinderella in a box set anthology
I also think that brother bear needs a slip cover does it not bother anyone else when brother bear 2 has one and not the first!!! but I guess thats a different topic.
