BK wrote:However if it's just about Disney films, I don't see why people here go so crazy about them. I mean, are you really considering buying stuff like Old Dogs just because it was made by Disney? It's a shitty movie, so why waste your $?
Well, there is the school of thought that anything with the word "Disney" is worth buying, irregardless of its quality.
BK wrote:the DACs are a list. Nothing else is.
<snip>
The DACs are a recognized list, it's an official one and they are all linked by being produced by the same animation company with mostly the same themes and style.
Well as an "official" list, yes, the DACs are the only real *acknowledged* list by the Walt Disney Company. But even as a list, they change it, add things, etc. In the end, the list is unnecessary and generally up to the consumer as to whether they'll follow it or not (changes and all). For example, there are still Disney animation fans who'll refuse to own
Chicken Little, or are not interested at all in the Package films, but proclaim their "Disney Animated Classics" collection to be complete. Likewise, I still don't consider
Dinosaur to be a Disney Animated Classic (it was made by Secret Lab, a wholly-separate branch from Walt Disney Feature Animation, and the general consensus of "Disney Animated Classic" is that the production is done primarily in WDFA), so while I own it, I don't put it as part of the "Disney Animated Classic" section of my DVDs.
Another example of lists not necessarily dictating an official studio's stance is The Criterion Collection. Granted, they're just a distribution company, not a movie-making one. But all their releases (first on laserdisc, then on DVD and Blu-Ray) have been numbered, so that it essentially will feel like one master list of movies. #1 is
La Grande Illusion, and #500 is Roberto Rossellini's War Trilogy, and they are always adding more and more titles. But does that mean that a movie collector need to get every single Criterion DVD/Blu-Ray out there? I've only got ten (technically twelve since one is a three-movie boxset), and there are probably several dozen other Criterion titles that I really really want, though a majority of the movies Criterion has released I could do without (as in do without owning, though I'm interested in watching a great many of them).
BK wrote:They are all live-action sure, but I know we say animation is a medium not a genre, but it is really easy to classify it as a genre because they are different and there aren't many. Live action is not a genre.
"Live Action Disney" is a genre among the "medium" of live-action films. If it isn't, then Turner Classic Movies wasted their time making a documentary two years ago celebrating Disney's live-action films.
In the grand scheme of movie making, Disney was (and to an extent still is) a small company. Thus, their films had a much closer level of attention by the big boss (Walt) compared to a megastudio like Warner Bros. or 20th Century Fox. Was Jack L. Warner or Darryl Zanuck 100% invested in every movie they greenlit the way Walt (more or less) was? That's why there are Disney fans who'll collect all the Disney material that Walt produced. His live-action films had the same amount of dedication as his animated films, he supervised both. But you don't necessarily see someone who'll have "The Harry Cohn Collection" on their movie shelf. These days, yes, there is less of a connection between movies like
Tuck Everlasting versus
National Treasure versus
The Game Plan. But they're made at (well, distributed through) Disney and that's the connection. Disney operates on a smaller scale than other studios, and so that connection still counts to some people.
BK wrote:Why do people classify Beauty and the Beast as animation and not under romantic drama?
I classify
Beauty and the Beast as a romantic drama, a date movie, a period piece, a musical, and animation. Not necessarily in that order, but the movie fits several genres. The only reason most animated movies get shoehorned into "animated movie" as a genre is because of the method of production. But the standards for judging the movie should be the same regardless if it's traditional animation, live-action, stop motion, sock puppets, CGI, etc.
BK wrote:I myself compare movies without the medium they are created in
Me too.
BK wrote:Disney has no published list of Disney live action features. There is no link, thus no collection.
But does there need to be any "official" source for a list? Anyone can make a list and call it a collection. Look, here's a list, and it can be classified as a specific kind of Disney collection:
1.
Treasure Island
2.
Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks With a Circus
3.
Kidnapped
4.
Pollyanna
5.
The Sign of Zorro
6.
Jungle Cat
7.
Ten Who Dared
8.
Swiss Family Robinson
9.
King of the Grizzlies
10.
The Boatniks
11.
Midnight Madness
12.
The Last Flight of Noah's Ark
13.
Herbie Goes Bananas
14.
Popeye
15.
Disney's The Kid
16.
Whispers: An Elephant's Tale
17.
Remember the Titans
18.
102 Dalmatians
19.
Alice in Wonderland
20.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
21.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
BK wrote:You might as well collect every movie ever made if you're going to collect all movies from one studio.
Some people do that. Disney's just one company after all. There are people who collect only Hammer films, there are people who like to build up their Warner Bros. collection, there are people who've collected all 40 of the numbered "Studio Classics" from 20th Century Fox regardless of the quality (as that would explain why a soapy melodrama sequel like
Return to Peyton Place is on a list of great movies like
All About Eve,
The Grapes of Wrath, and
The Razor's Edge).
slave2moonlight wrote:To say these aren't real collections because there isn't an officially released list somewhere is total bull. You CAN make a list of Disney live-action films, and you CAN make a list of just the "classic" ones, and you can make any kind of list, therefore any kind of collection, you want.
Agreed.
albert
)
Thanks in advance to any advice. 
