The 'Worst' Disney Film Opening Ever

[King Louis 2010]

The blasphemy

j/k

It surprises me everyday that very few people agree with me. I just don't get people, obviously. I'm not made out of stone or anything, I'm actually very romantic and I love romantic stories. But this one glosses over everything - literally, so many details that need to be there for the serious moments to work are thrown to the side just to be sentimental. Just for cutesiness. It's not legitimate and nothing about it feels genuine in the slightest. It doesn't earn its' drama or the quiet romance. It feels wooden. Forget character development- there's almost none here. You get a few stray motivational ideas but they're nothing but cliche; she's smart and wants to be independent, he's angry and brooding. And then there is lame confrontation, cutesy scene to lighten mood, heavy dramatic adventure scene... Nothing inbetween. That's the problem. There's nothing inbetween the cliches. No glue to hold them together. Just underwhelming orchestral music and some high-tech production effects to overflash the music numbers. And the best one of them, "Gaston," is ruined by loud sound effects (you can barely even hear the damn lyrics).

You're not QUITE alone!! I actually agree with almost everything you say. I do still quite like Beauty And The Beast, as I like nearly all Disney animated movies, but I can never understand why it's regarded so highly.

I prefer Pocahontas!!

[Disney Duster]

I had to come in and say that Goliath is completely wrong about "The Rescuers Down Under" being one of the worst. I think it's one of the best, but I could understand you not thinking it's one of the best. It when you listed it as one of the worst that it makes no sense. You just hate the sequel because you love the first one, you've practically admitted it with the clues you leave.

It certainly does set the mood. It sets the big, dramatic, exciting, almost scary, wondering what's gonna happen, adventurous mood, which the rest of the film lives up to. You just don't like the film.

Also, The Sword in the Stone has great visuals, Escapay, and yes, it is heavily Sleeping Beauty inspired Lazario. Seriously, if only the film lived up to it. A sword that would give the kingdom it's greatness in a good kind, if only it were removed, but it's stuck in an anvil, turning cold and black and lost forever in the growing, choking plant-life... Perhaps it represents how great the film could have been but it got stuck in comedy and not the greatest art direction...

[King Louis 2010]

I don't like The Fox and the Hound opening.

The mother is shot yes, but it feels so forced I can't feel any emotion for it, especially since it happens in the beginning before we have any attachment to her. Not like Bambi or The Lion King. And then the song the queenlatifa owl sings, worst song I've ever heard!

I LOVE that opening, especially with the use of near-silence in the first part. One of the best openings in my opinion!

[Escapay]

I won't deny that the visuals in the beginning of The Sword in the Stone are inspired partly by Sleeping Beauty. But it's just off-putting for me to see stills that look more like concept art rather than an actual movie. Like they were still working on the opening, ran out of time, and basically said "Okay, we'll use those." Hence why I call them bland. They just haven't reached the point where they should be used as the beginning of a movie.

The reason it worked in Sleeping Beauty (The visuals) is because the rest of the film is styled after it. And it's the same for every book opening. The visuals you see in the book also complement the actual animation and look of the rest of the movie. With The Sword in the Stone, it's too much a contrast of the actual film.

And like Laz said, the ominous mood in the beginning just doesn't fit with what the rest of the film actually is. Like I said before, the movie can be highly imaginative, but that's now how I feel when I watch the beginning. It feels like the epic-that-almost-was instead, and one that's not fully realized yet.

Don't get me wrong, I love the movie to bits. But the first few minutes just feel too much like a whole different movie that isn't completely developed rather than a proper beginning for what ultimately became The Sword in the Stone.

albert

[Goliath]

I had to come in and say that Goliath is completely wrong

Shocker!

I think it's one of the best, but I could understand you not thinking it's one of the best. It when you listed it as one of the worst that it makes no sense. You just hate the sequel because you love the first one,

I hate it because it's a bad movie. It's loud, obnoxious, it kills everything that was interesting about the characters, it has a weak villain, his victim is as appealing as a bag of potatoes, there's no real drama, and the new character Jake is lame and only serves as a vehicle to make Bernard jealous --a very cliched, childish way of 'developing' the relationship between him and Bianca.

[pap64]

In Goliath's defense, he has the right to believe the movie is bad if he particularly didn't enjoy it. The value of a movie is determined by the perception of the audience. Yeah, there are some truths that could never be argued, like if it's well acted, well shot, features a solid script etc. Those are technical details that can be detected by even the most casual of movie fans. The enjoyment the audience gets out of it, however, greatly changes from film to film.

Goliath stated why he doesn't like the movie, and his points are good. Can they be debated? Of course, but claiming that he is wrong is the worst way of doing it.

Start with "I disagree", then follow it by a statement like "Rescuers Down Under improves on many of the first film's flaws, like slow pacing" etc. etc. Back up your arguments with solid proof if you can provide it, then wait till he replies or leave it at that.

Once again, HE ISN'T WRONG. He would have been wrong if he had said "Down Under ruins what Beauty and the Beast had beautifully established in terms of standards", because Down Under came BEFORE Beauty and the Beast. What I mentioned is FACT. Fact CAN be wrong and those can be corrected. Personal opinion can never be corrected. It can change, but that is up to the person and his or her thoughts and ideas.

It's so simple, folks. Why do we have such a hard time accepting it? If Goliath doesn't like Down Under, fine, let him be. Making blanket statements like "You are wrong" and "You only hate the movie because you are biased" won't help win the argument (and DUH, EVERYONE has a bias of some sort, that too plays a role in what we think of something).

[Trumpet Joe]

That song was terrible (don't ask me how I forgot it in the Worst Disney Songs thread).

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just curious as to why you don't like "The Legend of the Sword in the Stone".

[Disney Duster]

Well, Escapay, I felt like what it was was there was this great, magical, epic thing set with the opening of the film, and Merlin was tryig to teach the boy how to be the great king, but the boy, and the film, were screwy and comedic, so only touches of Merlin, Archimedes, Madam Mim, kind of the villain guys, and finally, the sword pull and ending of the film, alluded to the greatness that it was about, that this boy's adventures would lead to. The magical light from the sky in the book reappears at the end.

Goliath, I think you're wrong on so many of those points. The film was different from the first, and that's actually why most people actually like it more than the first. The boy may not have been the best, but we care about him because he is good and caring and willing to do a lot for an eagle and her babies, and no one should be treated like he is. And I think the villain is fantastic. There's more than an air of creepiness to his keeping a child in his basement that hits you in a real world sense.

Pap, what you said was noted, but I will not be conforming to how people tell me to write. I'm going to speak my mind. By the way, I was saying Goliath was wrong about the opening, not his dislike of the opening, or of the film. I explained why I felt he was wrong. Please read my original post again if you don't see this. And I was pointing out he was pretty much saying what he was saying, that it was so bad, because it was different and he didn't like the film. He said it was one of the worst, that's stating it like fact, even though it was really just opinion, and so, I responded accordingly.

[Atlantica]

Disney Duster, out of interest (I dont think youve already said ?) what is your personal least favourite opening to a Disney movie ? Would be interested to hear ....

[DisneyAnimation88]

[quote]He said it was one of the worst, that's stating it like fact, even though it was really just opinion[/quote]

Isn't that exactly what you did by saying you had to comment as he was wrong. Surely, not to be hypocritical, you should have said "I think he is wrong because..." rather than saying he is "completely wrong". Like I've said before, I think you regularly say things like they are undeniable fact, telling other people to "do some research" so I don't think you should criticise Goliath for the way he made that particular point.

That being said, I agree with the point you made about the beginning of the Sword in the Stone. I love the film and it is among my favourites of all the Disney classics, but I also have always thought that the beginning sort of undersold the rest of the film. In relation to the issue of recycled animation, isn't the deer from the beginning of the Sword in the Stone the same that Shere Khan is hunting in the Jungle Book?

[Lazario]

I won't deny that the visuals in the beginning of The Sword in the Stone are inspired partly by Sleeping Beauty. But it's just off-putting for me to see stills that look more like concept art rather than an actual movie.

The storybook stuff?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvLRRuU7S4Y
Just played it through again, and it's definitely on the weaker side at the very start. Only because it's way too Sleeping Beauty. But I'm not sure I get the concept art look. You mean... it just sits there? Doesn't do anything? I did notice that around 3:00 it began to feel like one of Disney's tv animated specials (especially one of Jiminy Crickett's "I'm No Fool" things). The narration over dissolves and characters that are frozen there. All it's missing is the guy talking to the characters, they look at the camera and don't talk back but shrug their shoulders or raise their eyebrow(s).

But of course, I love that.

The reason it worked in Sleeping Beauty (The visuals) is because the rest of the film is styled after it. And it's the same for every book opening. The visuals you see in the book also complement the actual animation and look of the rest of the movie. With The Sword in the Stone, it's too much a contrast of the actual film.

Well, I've never been one to be too against something that crops up in one or two scenes which you don't find in the rest of the film. I mean- they never let Mary Blair have her own Disney movie but scenes where you can see her work in Cinderella, Three Caballeros, and especially Melody Time are just outstanding. If those moments stick out to me, they might with others as well.

And like Laz said, the ominous mood in the beginning just doesn't fit with what the rest of the film actually is. Like I said before, the movie can be highly imaginative, but that's now how I feel when I watch the beginning. It feels like the epic-that-almost-was instead, and one that's not fully realized yet.

I get the opposite feeling. It's more like a fun educational tv show stretched out to feature length. It doesn't feel like they failed to make it an epic- it feels like they strained to make it a story. Much of it, in fact, feels like a package feature; The Adventures of Merlin and the Future King Arthur.


I forgive the ominous-ness for two reasons. One, because they never killed a cute little animated animal (ala- Bambi or Fox and the Hound). Two, because I think Disney can get away with putting things into one movie that don't belong just because it was in another one they made. Disney is very incestuous that way.

Goliath, I think you're wrong on so many of those points. The film was different from the first, and that's actually why most people actually like it more than the first. The boy may not have been the best, but we care about him because he is good and caring and willing to do a lot for an eagle and her babies, and no one should be treated like he is. And I think the villain is fantastic. There's more than an air of creepiness to his keeping a child in his basement that hits you in a real world sense.

I disagree on your last argument. Disney are the last people in the movie business who could read a newspaper and go, "kids held prisoner in some creep's basement? Put it in the new movie!" The last thing Disney does is get serious on real world issues. This movie is the best example of how Disney were wimping out on story. They knew that parents did not want to take their kids to movies where it felt like the villain had designs on tormenting the child. The only thing that was suggested by Cody's kidnap was that the villain would trick the kid into talking. Then, you have the kid who wasn't scared at all when he was in the dark, cold basement/backroom. He didn't even cry for his situation. If he shed a tear, it was for the bird. So- how are we meant to feel for him? He, and the movie, want us to think he's fearless. You can't exactly tell us that we care about the kid just because the story wants him to seem noble. If anything, he's being foolish. If his supposed bravery was a credit to the filmmakers, they didn't even need Bernard and Bianca. So... forget about the kid. Nothing about him is relevant to the movie's achievements.

If people like the sequel more than they do the first film, it's likely because this sequel is pure action-adventure movie. The first film is a slow-burner with a few adventure scenes. And a fairly drab atmosphere, which forced you to look internally at the people and not delight in overly pretty colors and animation- which the movie had but saved for certain scenes. Which is one of the film's greatest charms.

[Disney Duster]

atlantica, well, it's hard for me to say what the worst of anything is for a Disney movie. I haven't seen all of them, and I don't think anyone here has (really, you saw all the live-action films, really?), so I don't want to say... But I just don't remember anyone that were so bad. I mean, usually something sticks in your mind if it is good!

That said, I actually thought I remembered Bambi's as kinda bad. Then I watched it again, and now I'm reminded I lobster love that film, it is so so amazing. So, obviously I was wrong there!

DisneyAnimation88, noted, basically, what Goliath did, I felt I did back, but with actually good explained reasons proving him wrong. And I don't know about that dear...I don't remember.

Lazario, okay, I'm glad you gave the link, because...now what I think about The Sword in the Stone's is:

The opening titles, definately very Sleeping beauty. Some parts of the music are great and make me wanna see the deep epic, but others, bad. Then the book and the cloth...um, the book should look a little better, and the cloth should probably be a different color. The visuals in the book, however, excellent. But the song...I like some parts, but think other parts are bad, and the narration...I think that shoulda been better.

However, I finally see now that I was right about how if you think about it, the opening does indicate the film. It says the kingdom was in a bad state. Well...the movie is kind of in a bad state, but the sword, and some magical and mysterious moments, or moments with Merlin and the pursuit of knowledge, give hope!

As for the Rescuers Down Under, well, I think it's possible that this villain gave off simply the feeling of child molester or child killer. Just kidnapping a child is more chilling and real world scary than many other Disney villain moments, but it doesn't matter if they intended it or not, it's there. As for Cody, yea, not everything he does earns our sympathy or care, just some things. Mostly, his relationship with the eagle, and the other animals.

[DisneyAnimation88]

[quote]Do some research. I don't mean that in a mean way, I just won't take a false saying. [/quote]

You can't really say you've proven him wrong because what he said isn't wrong. He stated an opinion and gave a reason for it, he hasn't suggested that it's a fact all of us agree with.

[Goliath]

Goliath, I think you're wrong on so many of those points. The film was different from the first,

I usually like it when sequels do things differently. I like The Godfather- Part II because it has a totally different story structure than the original film; I like Die Hard with a Vengeance because it's different in a whole lot of areas from the original film, while the first sequel (Die Harder) was weaker because it was too much a repetition of the first film. And I dislike Rescuers Down Under because I think it's a bad film. How hard is it to understand that?

and that's actually why most people actually like it more than the first.

Who did you survey? Where are the results? Can I see them too?

The boy may not have been the best, but we care about him because he is good and caring and willing to do a lot for an eagle and her babies, and no one should be treated like he is.

I'm sorry, but I don't automatically care for a character just because he's kind to animals. Hitler liked dogs, too.

And I think the villain is fantastic. There's more than an air of creepiness to his keeping a child in his basement that hits you in a real world sense.

What was so fantastic about MacLeach? Did he have any of the impact of Madam Medusa? Remember that scene in The Rescuers where Medusa has a little talk with Penny, while she's doing her eyelashes in the mirror at the same time? She pretends to be so nice, but her sarcastic tone of voice and her gestures while she's plucking her lashes reveal how harsh and cruel she really is. And then the knock-out: "What makes you think anybody would want a homely little girl like you?" Where in the sequel did MacLeach ever exhibit such malice? Yes, he was evil, but in an obvious kind of way; there was no psychology or manipulation behind it. He was evil because Disney told us he was evil, and that's boring.

Pap, what you said was noted, but I will not be conforming to how people tell me to write. I'm going to speak my mind. By the way, I was saying Goliath was wrong about the opening, not his dislike of the opening, or of the film. I explained why I felt he was wrong.

You have a right to your opinion, and if you like the opening, that's fine. I'm just disagreeing, because I still feel it's cold and lifeless and basically plain boring, as you just sit there and wait 'till the movie finally starts. It's like I said, one big show-off by Disney to let us know what they could do with CGI at the time.

And yes, I agree that you don't have to say "In my opinion" after every statement. But nevertheless, pap64's post is much appreciated.

[toonaspie]

Speaking of book openers, I think my least favorite opener is Chicken Little...the whole "let me tell you the real story of so-and-so" is such a cliche. And why they had Gary Marshall narrate the opening I have no clue.

[Super Aurora]

Sleeping Beauty's. The song was shit.

[Disney Duster]

Sleeping Beauty's. The song was shit.

Wait, "Once Upon A Dream" or "Hail, Aurora"? I like both those songs for the film, but I admit I don't like "Once Upon A Dream" as an opening song that much. However, the overall score of the opening, all excellent.

Goliath, I think you're wrong on so many of those points. The film was different from the first,

I am so glad you quoted me. So I did say "I think" you are wrong. Well, that ended anything I would take from other people telling me I shouldn't have said what I said.

Yea, most people do like the sequel more than the first. Do I have the proof? Nope. I can't survey the whole world. But I have heard the amount of opinions I needed, and if you haven't heard them, that is fine for the both of us. Not that it matters. I can't say which is the better film, I like them both and think they're probably about equal in how good they are. But I think I actually like Down Under better.

The boy may not have been the best, but we care about him because he is good and caring and willing to do a lot for an eagle and her babies, and no one should be treated like he is.

I'm sorry, but I don't automatically care for a character just because he's kind to animals. Hitler liked dogs, too.

Yea, um, it's not just the reasons I stated in words, it's how he did it, it's how he acted, it's what exactly he did and the very scenes and how the scenes were, not just some words I wrote that you can too.

You bring up that Medusa "homely little girl" speech a lot. Medusa had a few great scenes, but was so goofily funny and even when she said her most threatening line about letting the girl drown if she didn't bring up the diamond...not as menacing as it could have been. As for McLeach, he is more threatening for me. He just is, from all that he is and does and how he does it. His funny scenes come pretty much only from how he deals with the funny sidekicks. I worry more about what he will do to his lizard sidekick than what Medusa will do to Penny.

I will say, this is how I feel now, and maybe watching the two films close together again as I did a year or two ago may change this, but I don't see how I would feel different as of now.

So what's Medusa's psychology that she has over McLeach? That she pretends to be nice and adopts a girl instead of kidnaps her? Yea I dunno how deeply that was explored, she just went to great lengths to get something she wanted which was one-track...and McLeach also pretended to be nice sometimes, too. One was after a diamond no matter the cost of a little girl. The other was after an eagle at the cost of...the eagle herself, her babies, and a little boy.

Mind you, I find Medusa excellent in many ways, but I also find McLeach to be, too.

The opening of Down Under was not cold and lifeless, I could only imagine that statement thinking you're looking at it as CGI instead of mountains, and perhaps their large, stony, ominous presence makes you think of cold. You know, that can even be part of it. The mountains, if they are cold, work as an indication of the kind of heartless danger of the film's main conflict. And it's certainly not boring. If you think it is, imagine seeing it for the first time, especially before one becomes a cynical adult, wondering what is going to be around the next corner, where is this taking me to? I'm moving like 80 miles per hour to where? If you think it's boring, I think it's cause you've seen it already and you're a bit detached. It's a mood setter, it doesn't dive right into the action.

In any case, it's stayed a part of the film I love seeing and am glad to always be on the ride, and it is for other people on here as they mentioned.

[Super Aurora]

Sleeping Beauty's. The song was shit.

Wait, "Once Upon A Dream" or "Hail, Aurora"? I like both those songs for the film, but I admit I don't like "Once Upon A Dream" as an opening song that much. However, the overall score of the opening, all excellent.

the latter.

[Lazario]

Sleeping Beauty's. The song was shit.

As for the Rescuers Down Under, well, I think it's possible that this villain gave off simply the feeling of child molester or child killer.

Hmmm...

Nah.

He was a poacher. He simply gave off the feeling of... poacher. He did not plan on branching out into child molesting or killing just because you had that reaction to him sticking the little toad in with his collection of reptiles. He wanted the kid to play with his own kind; he's a traditionalist.

Just kidnapping a child is more chilling and real world scary than many other Disney villain moments

Yeah, because you have an overactive imagination. What's next; Bernard kidnapped that wild bore as a present for Bianca? Jake kidnapped the snake because he needed a new horse and you think their relationship went on after the film ended? Frank kidnapped the key ring because he thought it was jewelry?

but it doesn't matter if they intended it or not, it's there.

Sure and I'm the new King of England. It doesn't matter if I was appointed or not- I'm here.

[Disney Duster]

Super, so "Hail, Aurora", then? The song is good during the refrain, and then the final last notes.

Laz, well, I remember you think a lot of Sleeping Beauty's scenes are scary and others pointed out it probably wasn't intended in the forest and other scenes you think it was. I don't know if the faceless people was intended to scare. But it still is there, whether they realized it or not, right?

Anyway, I just meant that what McLeach did brings up that feeling, it reminds us of those kinds of perpetrators. And since we don't know much about McLeach at first, we don't know what he would do to the kid. So it's valid. At the very least, it strikes on the general fear and what his mother would be going through. It brings that emotion is the point. But still, we don't know enough about McLeach to know what he would do to the kid, and it's rather weird for a man to kidnap a boy in the first place, especially just for poaching, and so, all this fear and emotion is there.

And I don't even know what you meant when you said, "He wanted the kid to play with his own kind; he's a traditionalist." What?