Ditto, I tried to watch The Three Caballeros, but I found it really boringEvil Genie Jafar wrote:So, which ones you don't want and why?
I don't want:
- the "anthology films"; from "Saludos Amigos" till "Melody Time" . I want the real feature films.
.
, so i've decided to leave those movies till the end.Well, seeing as the majority of the film is live-action, I don't think you could consider it an "animated classic". Unless of course, you consider Mary Poppins an animated classic.jwa1107 wrote:is Song of the South considered an "Animated Classic"?
if so, it has not gotten a R1 release.
It's also fun to see how Disney animation has progressed over the years.
Yikes! Such animosity!Timon/Pumba fan wrote:From what I remember, Cinderella was one of the dumbest, most boring most overrated piece of trash in cinema history! Plus with a DVD that looks worse than "The Lion King", this garbage will never make my collection. I'd rather pick up "Home on the Range" first, a MUCH much better movie.
Seriously? I would suggest picking up a copy of Nemo, or Incredibles and watching some of the behind the scenes footage. Yes, computers are involved, but i dont think this in anyway makes those who make them "lazy." There's a lot of time spent making these films (2-4 years? much like regular animation), because a computer just doesn't do it for you, you have to know how to manipulate the characters, and coding, and such, as well as lighting. It's a much more complicated process then you seem to imagine.Disney Live On wrote:Well as far as animated classics go I could maybe live without the Aristocats, Dumbo and the Jungle Book, even though I have bought two of them already and still plan to buy the other. Besides that I've noted the Disney movies missing from my collection that I don't really think about are the Disney Pixars. I don't know if you can count them as 'animated classics' but I really don't give a ----- about these films. I find that they are usually forgetable, have some really annoying pionts to their characters, actors or animation and are basically the lazy way to make a film.
Where the classic Disney films took effort since everything had to be done from scratch and time consuming frame by frame drawn animation, 3d films are very easy to put together and the characters almost all look the same (example: The Incredibles).
They aren't considered Disney Animated Classics because they are 1) Disney AND Pixar, 2) not entirely animated in the true sense of the word and 3) aren't classic at all.Disney Live On wrote:Well as far as animated classics go I could maybe live without the Aristocats, Dumbo and the Jungle Book, even though I have bought two of them already and still plan to buy the other. Besides that I've noted the Disney movies missing from my collection that I don't really think about are the Disney Pixars. I don't know if you can count them as 'animated classics' but I really don't give a ----- about these films. I find that they are usually forgetable, have some really annoying pionts to their characters, actors or animation and are basically the lazy way to make a film.
Where the classic Disney films took effort since everything had to be done from scratch and time consuming frame by frame drawn animation, 3d films are very easy to put together and the characters almost all look the same (example: The Incredibles).
Sometime people are just so uneducated....the work from the Pixar films have just as much time, and effort put into them as the Disney films. They are classics as well...I'd say Pixar films are better than any DAC after Hercules for sure. These movies are also done "from scratch".MinnieMe wrote:They aren't considered Disney Animated Classics because they are 1) Disney AND Pixar, 2) not entirely animated in the true sense of the word and 3) aren't classic at all.Disney Live On wrote:Well as far as animated classics go I could maybe live without the Aristocats, Dumbo and the Jungle Book, even though I have bought two of them already and still plan to buy the other. Besides that I've noted the Disney movies missing from my collection that I don't really think about are the Disney Pixars. I don't know if you can count them as 'animated classics' but I really don't give a ----- about these films. I find that they are usually forgetable, have some really annoying pionts to their characters, actors or animation and are basically the lazy way to make a film.
Where the classic Disney films took effort since everything had to be done from scratch and time consuming frame by frame drawn animation, 3d films are very easy to put together and the characters almost all look the same (example: The Incredibles).
I agree that I don't like the look of these films. I do enjoy the storyline of most of them (with the exception of the Incredibles... sue me) and have them in my collection... but the Incredibles was a blind buy- I thought I'd like it because it was so popular!
I definitely agree with you, Disney Live On , that these aren't as great as the animated classics, but I do think a lot of time and effort goes into them and some are worth owning.
