I'm the editor of our school newspaper and this month we themed it after Disney animated films. I want to have the name and release year of every Disney film wrap around the edges of the paper. I'm a Disney enthusiast and know that there's a difference between the 'canon' classic films and the direct-to-video sequels. When I said there was only 51 official films and showed them the list, some of the staff began to debate that saying 'there's way more...Pocahontas II, The Lion King II...
I have begun to write the text that will wrap around the margins. I want to briefly explain in it how only 51 films are sanctioned as classics by the Walt Disney Animation Studios but can't quite word it right. Here's how I have it worded so far:
"Almost everyone loves Disney animated movies. We all have a favorite. We all have one we've seen over and over. We can quote the characters and sing the songs. Think you've seen all the Disney animated movies? There's more than you might expect. In all, there's fifty-one "classic" Disney films. That means..."
I plan to add a brief explanation of what sets them apart from the DTV films and then list all 51 films with their year of release.
How do I word it? I've tried:
That means... they were shown in theaters.
That means... they're made by the same studio Walt Disney started.
I have no idea how to word it briefly but in a way to help people understand.
Thanks for any help.
P.S. If you think you've seen this other places it's not deja vu. I posted it at a couple of forums because I need to know by tomorrow if possible. The paper needs to be out this coming Tuesday so we're finishing the layout tomorrow.
Explaining difference between Disney Classics & Sequels
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Try this:
"Almost everyone loves Disney animated movies. We all have a favorite. We all have one we've seen over and over. We can quote the characters and sing the songs. Think you've seen all the Disney animated movies? There's more than you might expect. In all, there's fifty-one "classic" Disney films. That means these fifty-one films were conceived, produced, and animated by Walt Disney Animation Studios (the latest name for the original studio Walt started in 1928!) and have been released in theatres. People may assume that movies like Pocahontas II or Bambi II are part of the "Animated Classic" canon of films produced by WDAS, but these films were not produced at all by WDAS. They are direct-to-video features that were made by DisneyToon Studios, a separate division of Walt Disney Animation Studios, and for much of its production, based outside of the United States."
albert
"Almost everyone loves Disney animated movies. We all have a favorite. We all have one we've seen over and over. We can quote the characters and sing the songs. Think you've seen all the Disney animated movies? There's more than you might expect. In all, there's fifty-one "classic" Disney films. That means these fifty-one films were conceived, produced, and animated by Walt Disney Animation Studios (the latest name for the original studio Walt started in 1928!) and have been released in theatres. People may assume that movies like Pocahontas II or Bambi II are part of the "Animated Classic" canon of films produced by WDAS, but these films were not produced at all by WDAS. They are direct-to-video features that were made by DisneyToon Studios, a separate division of Walt Disney Animation Studios, and for much of its production, based outside of the United States."
albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
-
Mushu
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:25 pm
- Location: 3rd Street Elementary School
I'm guessing that you are including Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, and King of the Elves in your list of 51. I only doubt this because of this quote:
While there are, and will be some people who may have already seen Bolt by the time the newspaper is published, I'm pretty sure that most people in your school haven't seen the last 3 movies in the list. So either you have added four tiltes along the way (Since your a Disney enthusiast, this proably isn't the case) or you might want to change the question a little.Neal wrote:Think you've seen all the Disney animated movies? There's more than you might expect. In all, there's fifty-one "classic" Disney films.
I got fifty-one by counting Dinosaur in (as Disney now does, and I'm not open for debate on it) as well as including Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, and King of the Elves. They are all getting included because a portion of an article I wrote talks about the return of 2D and Disney's announced future 3 films. I want to enlighten my classmates on Princess and the Frog because some of them were talking about how the 2D features are a lot better than the CGI and how sad it was there hadn't been 2D in a while. I told them about PatF and they were interested so I wrote an article for the school's paper that mentioned the films and therefore decided to add the film to the 51 list. So yes, 47 sans Dinosaur and the three un-released but with those there's 51 in all.
albert - that works very well and conveys what I hoped to. Thank you... I'll re-phrase it where needed so that I'm not plagiarizing you.
albert - that works very well and conveys what I hoped to. Thank you... I'll re-phrase it where needed so that I'm not plagiarizing you.
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
No problem, glad I could be of help!Neal wrote:albert - that works very well and conveys what I hoped to. Thank you... I'll re-phrase it where needed so that I'm not plagiarizing you.
Think you could post the full article when you're done so we can all read it?
(And then people will start furious debates on whether or not Dinosaur should be included!
)albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
I can post it now! I scaled this following article down a bit to be more in the standards of a high school newspaper, but what I started with was the following. I'd love to hear what you think!
The list of 51 films won't be an article. It'll be a border/frame around each page of the paper. It's going to start on the bottom and work left, then up, right, then down and begin again on the next page.
The article I mentioned is the following.
>>>>
Disney Movies Of Old To Make Triumphant Return
No matter who you are, it's pretty likely that Disney movies were a part of your childhood. Even if they weren't, you know the characters all too well. Tinker Bell, Jiminy Cricket, Mickey Mouse and Cinderella - these characters have become some of the most beloved and iconic figures of the American childhood. Sine 1937, when "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" premiered in theaters, the artists of Disney's animation studio have produced a new animated movie nearly every year. Whether you’re talking to children or adults, when you bring up nostalgic memories of youth, these films are as common of a bond between people as summer baseball, holidays and trips to our grandparent's house. “Bambi”, “The Lion King” and “Mulan” have become household names. However, as computers became more prevalent, it became less and less practical to draw these films by hand.
Disney's first computer generated image animated film, or 'CGI' film was 2000's "Dinosaur". However, it wasn't until 2004, after a series of traditionally hand-drawn or ‘2D’ animated films failed to make back their production costs that Disney phased out their traditional animation unit entirely. It re-trained its entire staff to use computers and decided to produce only CGI films from there-on-out. "Chicken Little" was released in 2005 and "Meet the Robinsons" came to theaters last year. This Thanksgiving, "Bolt" starring Miley Cyrus and John Travolta will be Disney's big ticket movie. In that film, Travolta stars as Bolt, an American White Shepherd who stars in an action thriller TV show. When he gets lost in the real world, he has to accept the fact that he's not the super-dog he thinks he is as he tries to find his way home.
Even though these films have fared well at the box office and done their job entertaining children, animation enthusiasts argue there's just something indescribable missing from these computer-animated films. Perhaps the hours and hours it took to draw each scene by hand during the earlier Disney days added a certain magic, warmth and heart to the films that computers fail to replicate. The problem was Disney's executives in the early 2000's weren't worried about how much soul these movies had, they cared about the bottom line. When films such as "Treasure Planet", "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", and "Home on the Range" which incidentally is Disney's last traditionally animated film to date lost them millions of dollars, but CGI films like DreamWorks’ "Shrek" or any of the Pixar movies ("Finding Nemo", "Monster’s Inc.") made millions of dollars, they saw it as time for a revolution. While children hardly noticed anything had changed – the characters were still lovable and that was all that mattered - animation aficionados wanted to see the return of the traditional days.
Ironically, it was some of the most loathed products coming out of the Disney Company that kept the ‘tradition’ alive – the direct-to-DVD features. “Pochantas II: Journey to a New World”, “The Lion King 1½”, “Cinderella II: Dreams Come True” and many others – these follow-ups to the Disney classics were being pumped out at dizzying speeds. Reprehensibly called ‘dreck-to-video’ films or ‘cheapquels’ by animation buffs, they were considered shameful insults to Walt Disney’s unrivaled film catalog and commitment to quality. Generally made only with potential profit in mind, not as artistic endeavors, these follow-ups included prequels, sequels, and even midquels (films treated as scenes missing from the middle of the originals) that showed the characters so out-of-character from their original forms they were said to be tarnishing Walt Disney’s legacy out of greed. Even so, they were ‘carrying the torch’ as it were, being traditionally animated films in a time when Disney’s theatrical releases had gone purely CGI. Pixar Animation Studios, the creators of CGI who many say sounded the death knell for 2D, became a Disney-owned studio in 2004 following a 7.4 billion dollar acquisition. Up until that time, Pixar films were merely distributed by Disney. Following the acquisition, Pixar president Johhn Lasseter (also director of “A Bug’s Life”, the Toy Story films and “Cars”) became the creative director of Walt Disney’s Animation Studio, given reign over all their ‘classic’ films and follw-ups. With his new position, John Lasseter seemed to have put the final nail in the 2D Disney coffin in June of 2007 when he announced that Disney was no longer going to produce the follow-up films to their classics. Despite making reportedly billions of dollars, Lasseter ended the lucrative features feeling the films were embarrassing to the Disney image. The last of the line to be traditionally animated was “The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning” which released this past summer – however, a few spin-off type follow-ups would still be released, but in CGI.
Now all that was left were some 2D TV shows on the Disney channel such as “The Emperor’s New School”, which was a TV-show format sequel to another classic Disney film “The Emperor’s New Groove”. Interestingly, that show ended last week. Even the Disney channel has seen a shift towards CGI. Disney’s mascot Mickey Mouse been subject to the switchover – his 2D show “House of Mouse” ended in 2002 and was replaced by the CGI “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse” in 2006. It seemed as if 2D couldn’t survive in today’s world where CGI films were faster and easier to produce and were more flashy and appealing to kids.
There’s wonderful news for all those nostalgic of the days when Disney characters were drawn by hand and painted – all the purists who don’t consider the recent CGI films ‘true Disney’ – the return of Disney’s old ways is coming. Disney’s twist on “The Frog Prince” – the classic tale of the prince turned frog - will be debuting in theaters Christmas 2009. Titled “The Princess and the Frog”, it will be Disney’s first Broadway-style musical, fairy-tale princess film since 1991’s “Beauty and the Beast”.
The story features the first leading role in a Disney film for an African American. It follows Tiana, a girl from New Orleans who woos middle-eastern Prince Naveen when he comes to America during the 1920’s jazz age to learn more about our soulful music. However, the devious villain, Dr. Facilier turns them into frogs and they wind up lost in the bayous of Lousiana, trying to become human again. The film will star Anika Noni Rose of “Dreamgirls” as Tiana, Oprah Winfrey as her mother, Jenifer Lewis as her voodoo practicing ‘fairy-godmother’ and John Goodman.
Disney isn’t sure of how successful the film may turn out to be. Their insecurity is not because of quality. In fact, in the talent department it has everything going for it. It will be directed by the same duo behind “Aladdin” and “The Little Mermaid” and is being animated by many of the same artists from the Disney renaissance of the 90’s – the same people who brought “Pocahontas”, “Aladdin”, “Hercules”, and “Mulan” to life. Their fear is that 2D is too outdated to make a comeback. With 2004’s “Home on the Range” being the last of their classic films to premiere in theaters, and 2005’s “Pooh’s Heffalump Movie”, a direct-to-DVD feature that got a limited theatrical run being the last 2D Disney movie in theaters overall, it will have been four years without a 2D Disney film in theaters by the time “The Princess and the Frog” premiers.
A lot is riding on it. If it is successful, Disney will explore the option of fully returning to 2D and letting Pixar handle the CGI. Currently, they are so unsure they don’t even have another 2D film on the immediate slate. Their 2010 feature is going to be “Rapunzel” but it’s CGI. In 2012 Disney will release “King of the Elves” – a film about a man who saves a group of elves and is named their king – but it, too, is CGI. So why are they willing to take a risk with “The Princess and the Frog”?
The very man animation purists claim killed 2D at Disney – Disney’s creative director and Pixar’s president John Lasseter – is in full support of the return to 2D and in fact, even argued with the director of “Rapunzel” to make it a 2D film but the director refused. Despite pioneering the CGI format through Pixar, his love for animation is rooted firmly in the 2D style. “The Sword in the Stone” was the film that absolutely convinced him he had to work at Disney one day and he animated a key sequence in “The Fox and the Hound”. Despite shutting down many in-production 2D sequels including “The Aristocats II”, “Dumbo II”, and a prequel to Snow White called “Disney’s Dwarves” (it told the story of their lives) he wants to see 2D return to prominence as much as any traditionalist, only in a form as enchanting and timeless as the tales Walt himself used to tell.
With only one 2D film on the horizon for Disney, the 2D direct-to-DVD follow-ups dead (only the five CGI “Peter Pan” spin-off films featuring Tinker Bell remain – the first hit shelves last month), and the Disney channel shifting towards CGI, it’s up to you to help the traditional, beloved style of the Disney of old return. Since Disney is waiting to see how well “The Princess and the Frog” fares before green lighting any more 2D films, it needs all the support it can get. When Christmas rolls around next year, remember the Disney of your childhood – how beautiful those hand-drawn, painted scenes were – the inexpressible magic of a 2D Disney film. Take your children to see a classic Disney fairy tale on the big screen the way you most likely once saw them, go see it for yourself to remember what made our childhoods so special. If you do, you may just be helping restore the legacy Walt Disney created.
<<<<
The list of 51 films won't be an article. It'll be a border/frame around each page of the paper. It's going to start on the bottom and work left, then up, right, then down and begin again on the next page.
The article I mentioned is the following.
>>>>
Disney Movies Of Old To Make Triumphant Return
No matter who you are, it's pretty likely that Disney movies were a part of your childhood. Even if they weren't, you know the characters all too well. Tinker Bell, Jiminy Cricket, Mickey Mouse and Cinderella - these characters have become some of the most beloved and iconic figures of the American childhood. Sine 1937, when "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" premiered in theaters, the artists of Disney's animation studio have produced a new animated movie nearly every year. Whether you’re talking to children or adults, when you bring up nostalgic memories of youth, these films are as common of a bond between people as summer baseball, holidays and trips to our grandparent's house. “Bambi”, “The Lion King” and “Mulan” have become household names. However, as computers became more prevalent, it became less and less practical to draw these films by hand.
Disney's first computer generated image animated film, or 'CGI' film was 2000's "Dinosaur". However, it wasn't until 2004, after a series of traditionally hand-drawn or ‘2D’ animated films failed to make back their production costs that Disney phased out their traditional animation unit entirely. It re-trained its entire staff to use computers and decided to produce only CGI films from there-on-out. "Chicken Little" was released in 2005 and "Meet the Robinsons" came to theaters last year. This Thanksgiving, "Bolt" starring Miley Cyrus and John Travolta will be Disney's big ticket movie. In that film, Travolta stars as Bolt, an American White Shepherd who stars in an action thriller TV show. When he gets lost in the real world, he has to accept the fact that he's not the super-dog he thinks he is as he tries to find his way home.
Even though these films have fared well at the box office and done their job entertaining children, animation enthusiasts argue there's just something indescribable missing from these computer-animated films. Perhaps the hours and hours it took to draw each scene by hand during the earlier Disney days added a certain magic, warmth and heart to the films that computers fail to replicate. The problem was Disney's executives in the early 2000's weren't worried about how much soul these movies had, they cared about the bottom line. When films such as "Treasure Planet", "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", and "Home on the Range" which incidentally is Disney's last traditionally animated film to date lost them millions of dollars, but CGI films like DreamWorks’ "Shrek" or any of the Pixar movies ("Finding Nemo", "Monster’s Inc.") made millions of dollars, they saw it as time for a revolution. While children hardly noticed anything had changed – the characters were still lovable and that was all that mattered - animation aficionados wanted to see the return of the traditional days.
Ironically, it was some of the most loathed products coming out of the Disney Company that kept the ‘tradition’ alive – the direct-to-DVD features. “Pochantas II: Journey to a New World”, “The Lion King 1½”, “Cinderella II: Dreams Come True” and many others – these follow-ups to the Disney classics were being pumped out at dizzying speeds. Reprehensibly called ‘dreck-to-video’ films or ‘cheapquels’ by animation buffs, they were considered shameful insults to Walt Disney’s unrivaled film catalog and commitment to quality. Generally made only with potential profit in mind, not as artistic endeavors, these follow-ups included prequels, sequels, and even midquels (films treated as scenes missing from the middle of the originals) that showed the characters so out-of-character from their original forms they were said to be tarnishing Walt Disney’s legacy out of greed. Even so, they were ‘carrying the torch’ as it were, being traditionally animated films in a time when Disney’s theatrical releases had gone purely CGI. Pixar Animation Studios, the creators of CGI who many say sounded the death knell for 2D, became a Disney-owned studio in 2004 following a 7.4 billion dollar acquisition. Up until that time, Pixar films were merely distributed by Disney. Following the acquisition, Pixar president Johhn Lasseter (also director of “A Bug’s Life”, the Toy Story films and “Cars”) became the creative director of Walt Disney’s Animation Studio, given reign over all their ‘classic’ films and follw-ups. With his new position, John Lasseter seemed to have put the final nail in the 2D Disney coffin in June of 2007 when he announced that Disney was no longer going to produce the follow-up films to their classics. Despite making reportedly billions of dollars, Lasseter ended the lucrative features feeling the films were embarrassing to the Disney image. The last of the line to be traditionally animated was “The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning” which released this past summer – however, a few spin-off type follow-ups would still be released, but in CGI.
Now all that was left were some 2D TV shows on the Disney channel such as “The Emperor’s New School”, which was a TV-show format sequel to another classic Disney film “The Emperor’s New Groove”. Interestingly, that show ended last week. Even the Disney channel has seen a shift towards CGI. Disney’s mascot Mickey Mouse been subject to the switchover – his 2D show “House of Mouse” ended in 2002 and was replaced by the CGI “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse” in 2006. It seemed as if 2D couldn’t survive in today’s world where CGI films were faster and easier to produce and were more flashy and appealing to kids.
There’s wonderful news for all those nostalgic of the days when Disney characters were drawn by hand and painted – all the purists who don’t consider the recent CGI films ‘true Disney’ – the return of Disney’s old ways is coming. Disney’s twist on “The Frog Prince” – the classic tale of the prince turned frog - will be debuting in theaters Christmas 2009. Titled “The Princess and the Frog”, it will be Disney’s first Broadway-style musical, fairy-tale princess film since 1991’s “Beauty and the Beast”.
The story features the first leading role in a Disney film for an African American. It follows Tiana, a girl from New Orleans who woos middle-eastern Prince Naveen when he comes to America during the 1920’s jazz age to learn more about our soulful music. However, the devious villain, Dr. Facilier turns them into frogs and they wind up lost in the bayous of Lousiana, trying to become human again. The film will star Anika Noni Rose of “Dreamgirls” as Tiana, Oprah Winfrey as her mother, Jenifer Lewis as her voodoo practicing ‘fairy-godmother’ and John Goodman.
Disney isn’t sure of how successful the film may turn out to be. Their insecurity is not because of quality. In fact, in the talent department it has everything going for it. It will be directed by the same duo behind “Aladdin” and “The Little Mermaid” and is being animated by many of the same artists from the Disney renaissance of the 90’s – the same people who brought “Pocahontas”, “Aladdin”, “Hercules”, and “Mulan” to life. Their fear is that 2D is too outdated to make a comeback. With 2004’s “Home on the Range” being the last of their classic films to premiere in theaters, and 2005’s “Pooh’s Heffalump Movie”, a direct-to-DVD feature that got a limited theatrical run being the last 2D Disney movie in theaters overall, it will have been four years without a 2D Disney film in theaters by the time “The Princess and the Frog” premiers.
A lot is riding on it. If it is successful, Disney will explore the option of fully returning to 2D and letting Pixar handle the CGI. Currently, they are so unsure they don’t even have another 2D film on the immediate slate. Their 2010 feature is going to be “Rapunzel” but it’s CGI. In 2012 Disney will release “King of the Elves” – a film about a man who saves a group of elves and is named their king – but it, too, is CGI. So why are they willing to take a risk with “The Princess and the Frog”?
The very man animation purists claim killed 2D at Disney – Disney’s creative director and Pixar’s president John Lasseter – is in full support of the return to 2D and in fact, even argued with the director of “Rapunzel” to make it a 2D film but the director refused. Despite pioneering the CGI format through Pixar, his love for animation is rooted firmly in the 2D style. “The Sword in the Stone” was the film that absolutely convinced him he had to work at Disney one day and he animated a key sequence in “The Fox and the Hound”. Despite shutting down many in-production 2D sequels including “The Aristocats II”, “Dumbo II”, and a prequel to Snow White called “Disney’s Dwarves” (it told the story of their lives) he wants to see 2D return to prominence as much as any traditionalist, only in a form as enchanting and timeless as the tales Walt himself used to tell.
With only one 2D film on the horizon for Disney, the 2D direct-to-DVD follow-ups dead (only the five CGI “Peter Pan” spin-off films featuring Tinker Bell remain – the first hit shelves last month), and the Disney channel shifting towards CGI, it’s up to you to help the traditional, beloved style of the Disney of old return. Since Disney is waiting to see how well “The Princess and the Frog” fares before green lighting any more 2D films, it needs all the support it can get. When Christmas rolls around next year, remember the Disney of your childhood – how beautiful those hand-drawn, painted scenes were – the inexpressible magic of a 2D Disney film. Take your children to see a classic Disney fairy tale on the big screen the way you most likely once saw them, go see it for yourself to remember what made our childhoods so special. If you do, you may just be helping restore the legacy Walt Disney created.
<<<<
Albert's explanation is very good, although it might be shortened. You could say that the official films are those made by Walt's original animation company/studio and its successors.
I would list the official number at 48 (with Dinosaur), and say that the number will continue to increase. With the uncertainty of the film business, none of those are sure things, and there could well be cancellations or other films coming out before Rapunzel, King of the Elves, and The Princess and the Frog.
I would list the official number at 48 (with Dinosaur), and say that the number will continue to increase. With the uncertainty of the film business, none of those are sure things, and there could well be cancellations or other films coming out before Rapunzel, King of the Elves, and The Princess and the Frog.
-
SpringHeelJack
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16689
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
I just read your article, Neal, and I think you did a nice job!
I like how Dinosaur is now included as a DAC. It's animated (I mean, the backgrounds are live-action, sure, but the CGI films are included in the DAC list, so I don't see why Dinosaur shouldn't be. Unless the reason is because WDFA didn't animate it...because the Secret Lab did. Maybe that would be a reason...) I still think of it as an animated film, and I think that it fits in nicely with the DACs. If nothing else, I'm glad that the movie is getting a little more attention by being added to the DAC list. It's a really good movie that tends to get overlooked.
I like how Dinosaur is now included as a DAC. It's animated (I mean, the backgrounds are live-action, sure, but the CGI films are included in the DAC list, so I don't see why Dinosaur shouldn't be. Unless the reason is because WDFA didn't animate it...because the Secret Lab did. Maybe that would be a reason...) I still think of it as an animated film, and I think that it fits in nicely with the DACs. If nothing else, I'm glad that the movie is getting a little more attention by being added to the DAC list. It's a really good movie that tends to get overlooked.
Nice article, btw - but I do have a question:
What about DTV sequels that did, in fact, debut in theaters?
I mean, Jungle Book 2, Return to Neverland and Bambi 2 (only in Europe, I do believe) actually were on the silver screen prior to their DVD release.
Should those count as "classics" or do we just leave them as DTV sequels?
(And no offense, Bambi 2 should have been in theaters - it's great. And the better of all three theater-debuted DTVs has to be "Return to Neverland" . . . it's such a charmer!)
- Juuchan17
What about DTV sequels that did, in fact, debut in theaters?
I mean, Jungle Book 2, Return to Neverland and Bambi 2 (only in Europe, I do believe) actually were on the silver screen prior to their DVD release.
Should those count as "classics" or do we just leave them as DTV sequels?
(And no offense, Bambi 2 should have been in theaters - it's great. And the better of all three theater-debuted DTVs has to be "Return to Neverland" . . . it's such a charmer!)
- Juuchan17
~ Return to the Sea . . . Return to the Little Mermaid! ~
-
Widdi
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:10 pm
- Location: North Bay, Ontario
They were not animated by Walt Disney Feature Animation. That is why they do not count and why The Rescuers Down Under does.Juuchan17 wrote: I mean, Jungle Book 2, Return to Neverland and Bambi 2 (only in Europe, I do believe) actually were on the silver screen prior to their DVD release.
It's also why Dinosaur doesn't count. I don't give a crap what Disney says the film doesn't fit the criteria.
Just Because Disney says it doesn't make it right. Disney says the sequels are good movies. We all know that's not true. Disney says Song of the South is inappropriate and that Fantasia has never been edited. Again, lies.
Dinosaur is not an Animated Classic. End. Of. Story.
I think you also must consider what the films were intended for. Bambi II was intended as a DTV but was given a theatrical showing for money. Same with The Tigger Movie and Pooh's Heffalump Movie - all made to be DTV but once they were showing potential, they were put in theaters to earn an extra buck.
Dinosaur was animated with the final destination of a theatrical showing always in mind.
I mean it was made by people who also worked at what's now WDAS. It was sanctioned by Roy Disney. It was made in an official theatrical Disney studio - not just distributed by Disney or made at one of their DTV studios.
You want to know another reason I consider it canon? Watch the bonus features on the Fantasia 2000 DVD. Roy Disney is talking about various Disney 'classics' and how they contribute to Disney's storied history. Dinosaur is right there among the earlier Fantasia and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. If Roy Disney considers it part of the same line of movies, so do I.
And Roy is a different kind of Disney. He doesn't say the sequels are good. He doesn't like a lot of the crap Disney puts out. But if Dinosaur is part of the same line of classics to him, that's good enough for me.
Dinosaur was animated with the final destination of a theatrical showing always in mind.
I mean it was made by people who also worked at what's now WDAS. It was sanctioned by Roy Disney. It was made in an official theatrical Disney studio - not just distributed by Disney or made at one of their DTV studios.
You want to know another reason I consider it canon? Watch the bonus features on the Fantasia 2000 DVD. Roy Disney is talking about various Disney 'classics' and how they contribute to Disney's storied history. Dinosaur is right there among the earlier Fantasia and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. If Roy Disney considers it part of the same line of movies, so do I.
And Roy is a different kind of Disney. He doesn't say the sequels are good. He doesn't like a lot of the crap Disney puts out. But if Dinosaur is part of the same line of classics to him, that's good enough for me.
-
SpringHeelJack
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Yeah, you, uh, pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter right there. To me it's not even just that, it's like it was retrofitted years after to be forced into this line. It wasn't ever thought of being a DAC until fairly recently. That's like taking "Victory Through Air Power" and saying it's a DAC.Widdi wrote:It's also why Dinosaur doesn't count. I don't give a crap what Disney says the film doesn't fit the criteria.... Dinosaur is not an Animated Classic. End. Of. Story.
I would actually have less of a problem with that.
"Ta ta ta taaaa! Look at me... I'm a snowman! I'm gonna go stand on someone's lawn if I don't get something to do around here pretty soon!"
-
Chernabog_Rocks
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:00 am
- Location: New West, BC
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
MK Sharp wrote:1923, actually, but what's a few years amongst friends...Escapay wrote:(the latest name for the original studio Walt started in 1928!)
Of course, we could both be wrong since 1934 is when the features division of the studio started and that's what Neal was probably going for.
But it was produced by the original Disney studio, it features animation, it was supervised by Walt, and was intended for theatrical release! Fits all the guidelines Neal outlined!SpringHellDAC wrote:That's like taking "Victory Through Air Power" and saying it's a DAC.
albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
-
SpringHeelJack
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:20 pm
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
If we can find a princess in Mulan, surely we can find one in Victory Through Air Power!
Plus, we always have "Education for Death" if we want some form of Nazi royalty (it's even got Hitler as a knight in shining armour to save what-can-be-considered-a-princess known as Germany!) to add to the Disney Princess line.
albert
Plus, we always have "Education for Death" if we want some form of Nazi royalty (it's even got Hitler as a knight in shining armour to save what-can-be-considered-a-princess known as Germany!) to add to the Disney Princess line.
albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
Was there a separate features division in the 1930s? I've always had the impression the studio was all of a piece at the time, and the dividing up of the company into different business aspects happened much later.Escapay wrote:Of course, we could both be wrong since 1934 is when the features division of the studio started and that's what Neal was probably going for.
Anyway, the date considered the "official" founding of the Disney company is 16 October 1923, when Walt entered his distribution contract with MJ Winkler. 1928 is neither here nor there. Nothing of corporate significance happened in 1928...
(See also: my sig.)
"I hope we never lose sight of one thing - that this was all started by a little girl and a cat. And a rabbit."