I agree that not every single animated film needs to be compared to Disney. There are many that stand out as perfectly distinguished and ground-breaking enough on their own. However, I do think that comparing Don Bluth's films to Disney's is more than reasonable. Logical, even.
After all, he WAS a former Disney animator. And he left Disney because he wasn't content with their declining animation standards throughout the 70s. He felt that he could do things better, and create animated movies which were closer to the kind of films Disney used to make in his heyday (personally I'm of the opinion that he failed rather dismally for the most part, particularly once Disney's own critical revival got started, but that's just me). Throughout the 80s, the films which Bluth and Disney produced were in pretty much head-to-head combat at the box office. They were released at similar times, in the case of the Land before Time/Oliver and Company, the very same day. And, I mean,
look at his films. A lot of the time, they just invite comparison to Disney. There are plenty of other animated films, such as Yellow Submarine, Watership Down and When the Wind Blows, which I wouldn't even consider comparing to Disney, because besides being animated in the first place, they have scarcely anything in common at all. Bluth's films, however, strike me as being desperately determined to replicate the Disney format. His animation style, for a start, is blatantly modelled upon Disney's (although from All Dogs Go to Heaven onwards, this style did appear to start wandering into Saturday Morning cartoon territory - Anastasia proved a disruption to this slide). Then there are the upbeat musical numbers (NIMH and Land Before Time excepted), the dim-witted comical sidekicks (in Bluth's case, all voiced by Dom DeLouise
), the full-blown menacing villain, and the list goes on. Rather than pushing the boundaries, he strikes me as someone who's always determined to play things safe and include all the basic elements which have seemingly made Disney's films so endearing. Consider that the original NIMH novel, "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH", didn't have any really distinctive villains. Plenty of threats, but no one single figure who deserves to have the "pure evil" label slapped upon them (there is, maybe, Dragon, but he's only ever portrayed as acting purely on instinct, so he doesn't count). I mean, why else would they have given Jenner's characterisation a significant tailor-job other than to fill what the "Disney formula" would have dictated as a void? Given that the original story was engaging and dramatic enough as it was, I just can't think of any other reason.
And the historical inaccuracy isn't really what bothered me about Anastasia, hence why I didn't really dwell on that point. I just didn't feel, when I saw it, that the story, ripe with potential, was as well-told as it could have been. Rasputin has certainly been a figure of much historical controversy over the decades, but what turned me off about his portrayal in that film was that he felt like more of a plot device than a respectable character who had any reason to be involved in the story. The two romantic leads, Anastasia and Dimitri (sp?) had a lot of charm going for them...more focus upon their relationship and less upon Rasputin's perfunctory revenge scheme would have been more than welcome. But hey, as I said, I kinda liked that particular film, even if it was uneven.
And I growled about Thumbelina simply because I personally found that film unendurable. All respect to anyone who can actually find enjoyment in it (you're a braver soul than me). I had to keep flicking through the channels just to escape from how grating its songs, voices and execution insisted on becoming. I kept hoping I was just experiencing some really rough spots in an otherwise okay film, and that when I returned, things would have improved. Alas, no...
Love It.
. I don't like dinosaurs anyway. 
