Remaining Films

[Lnds500]

I actually don't consider the package films (including Winnie the Pooh), live-action and 3d films (Dinosaur, Bolt, Tangled, etc.) as part of the Disney Canon, so my list contains only 36. Having said that, the ones we still expect for 2013 are:

this is the stupidest, most arrogant thing! what an awfully biased thing to say... shall we all make threads with "our official Disney canon which isn't out on Blu-ray yet?"... and the thread started out so promisingly. there is only one canon, end of story. which one and if the rest of the Disney films come to Blu-ray on 2013 or 2014 is an entirely different matter.

that being said, I also think the rest of the films (all of them ) will come out on Blu-ray in 2013. if not so, maybe we'll see a few more titles in early 2014

[PatrickvD]

I actually don't consider the package films (including Winnie the Pooh), live-action and 3d films (Dinosaur, Bolt, Tangled, etc.) as part of the Disney Canon, so my list contains only 36. Having said that, the ones we still expect for 2013 are:

this is the stupidest, most arrogant thing! what an awfully biased thing to say... shall we all make threads with "our official Disney canon which isn't out on Blu-ray yet?"... and the thread started out so promisingly. there is only one canon, end of story. which one and if the rest of the Disney films come to Blu-ray on 2013 or 2014 is an entirely different matter.

that being said, I also think the rest of the films (all of them ) will come out on Blu-ray in 2013. if not so, maybe we'll see a few more titles in early 2014

Agreed.

I love how he even seems to base his selection on quality.

Because The Black Cauldron and Home on The Range couldn't hold a candle to Tangled or Bolt, right?

Whatever. Disney's animation studio has a website with a list of their films. THAT is canon. Anything else (including ridiculous European numbering systems invented to sell more dvd's) are complete bogus.

[PixarFan2006]

The CGI films are canon, like it or not. In my opinion, though, Chicken Little was pretty bland (mainly due to the terrible jokes). Meet the Robinsons and Bolt were just meh (not really great but not terrible either). Tangled was probably close to being decent, but it wasn't spectacular.

[albogango]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I didn't enjoy any of them and they don't bear any nostalgic significance to me.

ouch. Chicken Little was the only one of those that didnt do anything for me, but c'mon, Tangled, which is about as close to "classic Disney" as Parental Control will allow?

Or Political Correctness.

By the Way, if you're going by nostalgia, dont. Even the best movies will disappoint you. Just look at Dusty.

I mean, sure, Tangled was an ATTEMPT at Classic Disney, only with a huge helping of 2010 PG family comedy BS blended into the mix. I thought the end product was dull and extremely flimsy by comparison.

Also, who's dusty? I'm afraid I don't understand the reference here.

I didn't realize my own preference would touch so many nerves among you fanboys. Arrogant and stupid? Really? Aren't you stepping over the forum's regulations there?

[SWillie!]

Tangled was probably close to being decent, but it wasn't spectacular.

Must be why it was Disney's most successful film in 10 years, and why Rapunzel is far and away the most popular character to meet at Disney Parks right now (besides Mickey of course, and possibly Merida at the moment). Cuz the film was dull and flimsy. Right.

I'm so sick of the CG bias around here. I thought we were over it for a while there, but recently it keeps popping up again. Arrogant and stupid are maybe a little strong, but the argument stands - to base your interests solely on your nostalgic ideal is small minded. You'll only ever end up disappointed (like Disney Duster, a member here who you will certainly see around).

In 15-20 years, today's kids will look back on Tangled and say "man, why can't Disney make movies like THAT again? Classic." if you can't see that you're kidding yourself.

[qindarka]

They are well within their rights to criticize Tangled based on its merits as a film. The idealization of anything 2D and the dismissal of CG entirely is sickening, though.

[Disney's Divinity]

In 15-20 years, today's kids will look back on Tangled and say "man, why can't Disney make movies like THAT again? Classic." if you can't see that you're kidding yourself.

I can only imagine how rock bottom Disney'll be when that's the case. @_@

[Mooky]

I didn't realize my own preference would touch so many nerves among you fanboys. Arrogant and stupid? Really? Aren't you stepping over the forum's regulations there?

Ignore the naysayers. Had this topic come up in 2008 or so, half of the same people confronting you now would be more than happy to agree with you in your dismissal of Disney's CG films. It's only with the release of Tangled that the general opinion has shifted.

As for Disney's official canon(s): it's all marketing BS. The canon itself is a good idea, but even Disney's not very consistent or thorough about it - if The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh made it in, then why something like Disney's American Legends didn't? They stuck Dinosaur in there in order to make Tangled their DAC No. 50. If they're allowed to be picky and choosy about their own canon, so are you. And thankfully, North American releases don't come with numbered spines, so your BD collection won't seem incomplete.

Before I'm accused of being a hand-drawn snob (meh, who cares even if I am), I have to say that Meet the Robinsons has its moments, I really like Bolt, and I do enjoy Tangled (though why it is so immensely popular is beyond me), but I (and apparently everyone else) could live without Chicken Little.

[SWillie!]

Ignore the naysayers. Had this topic come up in 2008 or so, half of the same people confronting you now would be more than happy to agree with you in your dismissal of Disney's CG films. It's only with the release of Tangled that the general opinion has shifted.

But that's the whole issue here - it ISN'T 2008, it's 2012, and at this point in the game, Disney has a couple legitimate CG notches in their belt. 4 or 5 years ago, the future of Disney animation did indeed look pretty dismal, and so questioning thing was understandable. But now, in 2012, it is very clear that this is the direction that Disney is heading, and to blatantly choose to simply ignore the films, as of they weren't made by the same teams and same studio by the same people in the same building... That's silly.

[Sotiris]

The canon itself is a good idea, but even Disney's not very consistent or thorough about it - if The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh made it in, then why something like Disney's American Legends didn't?

You have a valid point there. They're being inconsistent. What bothers me a bit is that they included animated/live-action hybrid films like The Three Caballeros and Dinosaur but didn't include others like Mary Poppins, Pete's Dragon etc.

I can only imagine how rock bottom Disney'll be when that's the case. @_@

I like Tangled and it's certainly an entertaining film but it feels very derivative of previous Disney films, especially with repeated viewings.

[Lnds500]

I didn't realize my own preference would touch so many nerves among you fanboys. Arrogant and stupid? Really? Aren't you stepping over the forum's regulations there?

nobody said that you're not entitled to your opinion. we all are.

Ignore the naysayers. Had this topic come up in 2008 or so, half of the same people confronting you now would be more than happy to agree with you in your dismissal of Disney's CG films. It's only with the release of Tangled that the general opinion has shifted.

Ehhmm... no. it's not a matter of which kind of movies you prefer, the issue is that when you start a thread about the "last remaining DAC which aren't out on Blu-ray yet", you can't just excise the titles you don't like, cause it negates the point of the thread and the forum in general IMO.

for the record though, cause you implied I'm pretentious (or that's what I received anyway), I still believe PatF is the stronger of the 2 and in general I prefer hand-drawn over CGI. just toclear this up

As for Disney's official canon(s): it's all marketing BS. They stuck Dinosaur in there in order to make Tangled their DAC No. 50.

Where did you read that? that's the first time I'm hearing of this

[qindarka]

The canon itself is a good idea, but even Disney's not very consistent or thorough about it - if The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh made it in, then why something like Disney's American Legends didn't?

You have a valid point there. They're being inconsistent. What bothers me a bit is that they included animated/live-action hybrid films like The Three Caballeros and Dinosaur but didn't include others like Mary Poppins, Pete's Dragon etc.

I have never watched Pete's Dragon but Mary Poppins is not a hybrid film. It is a live-action film that so happens to have a few bits of animation. Dinosaur may have had live-action backgrounds but the animation was there throughout the film. Same goes for The Three Caballeros.

[Sotiris]

The issue is that when you start a thread about the "last remaining DAC which aren't out on Blu-ray yet", you can't just excise the titles you don't like, 'cause it negates the point of the thread

That's true.

They stuck Dinosaur in there in order to make Tangled their DAC No. 50.

Actually, Dinosaur was added in the canon list of WDAS' website around 2008 when Bolt was released.

http://web.archive.org/web/200812031406 ... story.html

[Elladorine]

Oh, I don't know . . . what's silly to me is when an OP asks people to completely disregard a subject that he brought up by himself in the very first post of the thread. No offense.

Personally, I'll admit I'm a hand-drawn snob. Always have been, probably always will be. But I have respect for CG and all the hard work and artistry that goes into it, and am happy to see that the studio is still thriving in some form and producing films that bring families together. I also realize that times are changing and modern audiences have different expectations that Disney must cater to in order to stay relevant.

I'm enjoying the modern films. While I don't expect everyone else to since we all have different opinions, like SWillie, I sometimes find it a little odd to see hardcore Disney fans completely dismiss certain works done by the same artists mainly because of the chosen medium. At another forum, I saw someone whine that Frank & Ollie hated CG.



I asked how on earth he could make such an assumption when it was clearly his own bias showing through.

DAMMIT, ENIGMAWING, WHAT DID WE JUST SAY?

Oh. Sorry.

[Mooky]

Ignore the naysayers. Had this topic come up in 2008 or so, half of the same people confronting you now would be more than happy to agree with you in your dismissal of Disney's CG films. It's only with the release of Tangled that the general opinion has shifted.

But that's the whole issue here - it ISN'T 2008, it's 2012, and at this point in the game, Disney has a couple legitimate CG notches in their belt. 4 or 5 years ago, the future of Disney animation did indeed look pretty dismal, and so questioning thing was understandable. But now, in 2012, it is very clear that this is the direction that Disney is heading, and to blatantly choose to simply ignore the films, as of they weren't made by the same teams and same studio by the same people in the same building... That's silly.

It may be silly, but like albogango said, it's a simple point of preference. The quality of the film (or anything else for that matter) is irrelevant if the visual style is not to your taste. I don't like strong, black coffee, and I wouldn't drink it even if it was made by the world's greatest coffeemaker. Besides, albogango said he doesn't count package features as canon either and I don't see anyone harping on him for that.

Ehhmm... no. it's not a matter of which kind of movies you prefer, the issue is that when you start a thread about the "last remaining DAC which aren't out on Blu-ray yet", you can't just excise the titles you don't like, cause it negates the point of the thread and the forum in general IMO.

And all of you could have just chosen to ignore it (since all CG films have already been released to BD) and answered his question as asked.

for the record though, cause you implied I'm pretentious (or that's what I received anyway), I still believe PatF is the stronger of the 2 and in general I prefer hand-drawn over CGI. just toclear this up

I'm sorry if that was your impression, maybe it was my poor choice of words or something, but I never intended to imply anything like that. I just remember what it was like around here in 2008/2009 and the predominant opinion was (heck, it still is) that Disney foraying into CG territory was an awful idea. Quality of the four CG movies released up to that point didn't help things either. Was it fanboys whining? Maybe. Yes. But it was still a legitimate opinion.

And I actually agree on the PatF vs. Tangled point.

As for Disney's official canon(s): it's all marketing BS. They stuck Dinosaur in there in order to make Tangled their DAC No. 50.

Where did you read that? that's the first time I'm hearing of this

AFAIK, there wasn't an official reasoning behind Dinosaur's inclusion in the canon, it was just assumed it was due to making room for Tangled's "golden jubilee" since it happened around 2008 or 2009 (with putting up WDFA's official website), without any prior notice.

[Sotiris]

Dinosaur may have had live-action backgrounds but the animation was there throughout the film. Same goes for The Three Caballeros.

So? They should at least have specific rules that determine which animated/live-action films will be included into the canon. At the moment, the selection occurs arbitrarily. For example, for animated/live-action films to be considered eligible for the Best Animated Feature category, 75% of the film's running time must contain animated footage.

[Mooky]

The canon itself is a good idea, but even Disney's not very consistent or thorough about it - if The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh made it in, then why something like Disney's American Legends didn't?

You have a valid point there. They're being inconsistent. What bothers me a bit is that they included animated/live-action hybrid films like The Three Caballeros and Dinosaur but didn't include others like Mary Poppins, Pete's Dragon etc.

Fully agreed. Running time of some of the features also bothers me, namely Saludos Amigos at 40 minutes or so.

They stuck Dinosaur in there in order to make Tangled their DAC No. 50.

Actually, Dinosaur was added in the canon list of WDAS' website around 2008 when Bolt was released.

http://web.archive.org/web/200812031406 ... story.html

Well, yes, but don't you think that at that point they knew that by including Dinosaur they'd make Tangled their No. 50. C'mon, this didn't happen in 2000 or 2003 or 2006. In 2008, Tangled's production was heavily underway.

[Lnds500]

Besides, albogango said he doesn't count package features as canon either and I don't see anyone harping on him for that.

My post was targeted towards the exclusion of DACs, not in the exclusion of the CG DACs.

And all of you could have just chosen to ignore it (since all CG films have already been released to BD) and answered his question as asked.

Well, I did both.

[Sotiris]

It may be silly, but like albogango said, it's a simple point of preference. The quality of the film (or anything else for that matter) is irrelevant if the visual style is not to your taste. I don't like strong, black coffee, and I wouldn't drink it even if it was made by the world's greatest coffeemaker. Besides, albogango said he doesn't count package features as canon either and I don't see anyone harping on him for that.

I agree. Hand-drawn animation is also my favorite medium, not just over CG but over stop-motion as well and I have to admit that the medium used does play a role on how much I will love a movie or not. However, I don't consider hand-drawn animation better than the other animation mediums. They all have their strengths and limitations and ideally the medium chosen serves the nature of the story first and foremost. (But most of the time that doesn't happen unfortunately.) It is indeed about personal taste and the set of aesthetics one adheres to.

And all of you could have just chosen to ignore it (since all CG films have already been released to BD) and answered his question as asked.

But the package films haven't been released and they should be included.

Well, yes, but don't you think that at that point they knew that by including Dinosaur they'd make Tangled their No. 50. C'mon, this didn't happen in 2000 or 2003 or 2006. In 2008, Tangled's production was heavily underway.

No, I don't think they did because Tangled was initially supposed to come after Bolt. It was due to unforeseen story problems that it got pushed back and ended up being the 50th.

[AlasmineLover:)]

I have a question:
Why is everyone saying "these will come in 2013 or early 2014?" Why can't they come later? Is that when Disney All Access is supposed to wipe out physical format?

I am really hoping all will come on blu-ray, and I am hoping Sleeping Beauty gets repackaged too, because I missed it the first time around.