Should the package features be canon?

[SWillie!]

I'm guessing WilbyDaniels is asking "what does 'canon' mean"? If so, it's basically term meaning the "official" set of whatever media you're referring to. It more often is used in terms of a series of films, books, etc - for example, some consider the Star Wars canon to only include the six films, while others believe it should include all of the novels, cartoon series, etc - but all agree that things like fan-made films and board games are definitely not part of the canon. Here's the wiki article that explains it a bit more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

In this case, "canon" is simply referring to the "official list of Disney Animated Classics".

[Jules]

I just popped in my Danish DVD of Make Mine Music, to see if it looks better than I remember, and blergh ... it looks just awful - worse than when I last saw it because back then I was still using a CRT screen. Not only is it dirty and riddled with compression artefacts, but whoever authored the disc even got the frame-rate wrong.

These films seriously need a quality release on blu-ray. I'm entertaining the thought of starting a seperate thread dedicated to this idea, and see what feedback I get.

[blackcauldron85]

For me, Walt was involved and he wished for them to be packaged as feature-length films, so automatically these should be considered canon, IMO. Plus, there are other made-of-individual-stories DAC films (like what SWillie! said).

I would say Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 count as legit films, because they were conceived from the beginning as comprehensive "programs", in the style of a concert, consisting of selected songs combined with abstract and story art.

to me they just don't feel like feature length movies.

The thing for me with the package films & the Fantasias is that you can just as easily (and sometimes it's easier to watch this way) watch the individual portions separately and be satisfied. I think that some shorts are more satisfying than others. I guess that one could argue that other Disney shorts aren't canon, so why should the feature-length collections of shorts...I just accept that they are DACs...

[Disney Duster]

No one answered my question about Clair de Lune.

It was edited. The original Clair de Lune segment was almost six minutes long, and to me, better matches the mood and pace of the art. Blue Bayou is four minutes long.

Thank you. Shame it was edited.

[WilbyDaniels]

what is meant by canon?

[SWillie!]

WilbyDaniels... I answered that at the top of this page.

I guess that one could argue that other Disney shorts aren't canon, so why should the feature-length collections of shorts...I just accept that they are DACs...

This brings up another point that I wish Disney would do something about. There needs to be an officially recognized list or canon of the shorts. Like an encyclopedia of sorts. Pixar has very clearly identified all of their shorts, categorized into Theatrical, Home Entertainment, Cars Toons and Toy Story Toons (http://www.pixar.com/short_films/home). Disney's list would probably be very similar to the way the Treasures collection was set up, separated into series. But some way for the studio to officially recognize the shorts. As of right now, the only shorts even mentioned on Disney Animation's website are Paperman and Get a Horse. That's just silly.

[Jules]

This brings up another point that I wish Disney would do something about. There needs to be an officially recognized list or canon of the shorts. Like an encyclopedia of sorts. Pixar has very clearly identified all of their shorts, categorized into Theatrical, Home Entertainment, Cars Toons and Toy Story Toons (http://www.pixar.com/short_films/home). Disney's list would probably be very similar to the way the Treasures collection was set up, separated into series. But some way for the studio to officially recognize the shorts. As of right now, the only shorts even mentioned on Disney Animation's website are Paperman and Get a Horse. That's just silly.

I completely agree.

[Escapay]

I usually just consult The Encyclopedia of Disney Animated Shorts, but would love if Disney had their own official site set up. Granted, I doubt it would be as in-depth or as categorized as EDAS, but it would be a start.

As for this whole "are they or aren't they?" canon discussion, I've been spending too much time trying to draft up a good enough response that would justify the inclusion of some features, yet still exclude other feature-length animated films. In the end, it became too complicated and confusing, and I just accept it all under the umbrella of "Stuff by Disney" rather than try to differentiate the factors of one film when compared to another.

For example, nobody seems to protest the exclusion of 1937's Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons, which at 41 minutes just barely meets the requirements (as set forth by AMPAS, AFI, and BFI) for feature-length. The film is simply five "Silly Symphonies" strung together with new title cards and a narrator, and meant to promote Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. As all the shorts were made at Disney's animation studios, they *should* count, especially since ten years later, this same studio continued with package films done under similar (but not wholly the same) circumstances: a collection of shorts linked together in some overarching theme. We could consider it the first true "package" film, more so than the two Goodwill Tour films.

I've always seen Saludos, Amigos and The Three Caballeros as single-narrative films, even if they do comprise shorter subjects within them. At least The Three Caballeros has a more coherent story, so to speak. Given their political slant (the byproduct of Walt's government-funded tour of South America), they fall more in line thematically with the hybrid film Victory Through Air Power, which to my knowledge has never been "canon" nor has that ever been questioned. All three are vital parts of Disney's WWII contributions, yet the latter two have always been granted "canon" status while the much-more-propoganda Victory is left as the historical curio. Perhaps because Victory is pure propoganda, while the latter two were created with an entertainment point of view rather than an educational one. The Reluctant Dragon also gets the short end of the stick, too. It also functions more as promotional than as an entertainment piece, which is likely why so many are willing to overlook it.

I once had a whole diatribe here about the problems with trying to determine canon by the location and the name of the studio a film was made under, but that made me frustrated and even more confused. Especially as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was made at the Hyperion Ave studio, the majority of the "canon" films are from Burbank, others came during their banishment to Glendale, even more had a life entirely in Orlando, and some non-canon films had their start at WDFA before moving production elsewhere (like A Goofy Movie and Dinosaur). So location was thrown out the window, as were my ramblings about how the name of the studio isn't as important as I thought it was.

Besides, I've always seen the package films as the foundation to the Second Golden Age, just as Song of the South and So Dear to My Heart were the foundation to Disney's branching out into live-action filmmaking, so they're essential regardless of canon.

Albert

[SWillie!]

Agreed that at the end of the day just thinking in terms of "stuff by Disney" makes it much easier. Unfortunately that doesn't help the obsessive side of me. Films like Victory Through Air Power and the Academy Award thing definitely throw a big wrench into things. Ugh, this whole topic is so confusing, I change my mind a thousand times every time I try and put down any cohesive thoughts.

Here's a question: does anybody think that they may one day make adjustments to the "canon"? I would certainly guess no, especially after the big deal they made out of number 50... but way down the line? They've done stranger things...

[Jules]

Here's a question: does anybody think that they may one day make adjustments to the "canon"? I would certainly guess no, especially after the big deal they made out of number 50... but way down the line? They've done stranger things...

I think the pre-Tangled films will remain as they are, what with the number 50 burned on every available print and digital release of the film. Maybe, if they get sick of Dinosaur they'll trade it for another film. Victory Through Air Power would be a good choice, as I consider it to have enough animation to be classed as an animated feature and not simply a hybrid film. And Tangled will still be the super duper no. 50.

[blackcauldron85]

Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons...a collection of shorts linked together in some overarching theme.

Does it make a difference that those cartoons were previously released as individual shorts prior to joining together in that film?

the hybrid film Victory Through Air Power, which to my knowledge has never been "canon" nor has that ever been questioned.

Well, see, that's where things get hairy, because besides the Goodwill films, the other partly-animated-partly-live-action films aren't in Disney's official DAC canon.

Here's a question: does anybody think that they may one day make adjustments to the "canon"? I would certainly guess no, especially after the big deal they made out of number 50... but way down the line? They've done stranger things...

Well, it seems that it depends on what country you live in as to what Disney considers canon, doesn't it? I mean, isn't The Wild considered to be canon in parts of Europe?

Victory Through Air Power would be a good choice, as I consider it to have enough animation to be classed as an animated feature and not simply a hybrid film.

But Song of the South, So Dear to My Heart, Mary Poppins, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, & Pete's Dragon (& Who Framed Roger Rabbit & Enchanted) would also be included in that scenario, right?

[Escapay]

Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons...a collection of shorts linked together in some overarching theme.

Does it make a difference that those cartoons were previously released as individual shorts prior to joining together in that film?

We could ask the same about The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and to a lesser extent, all the package films. Especially Fun and Fancy Free and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, since they comprise of short films intended to be released individually (and at feature length).

If we had to create a definitive canon list, it would need a stricter set of guidelines/principles that every film must meet in order to be admitted into the list. But since any one guideline could always jettison at least one or two movies that has been on the canon before (or removed, like the hybrid films), that makes determining the canon very problematic. Everyone has their own reasons why any particular film should or shouldn't belong in the canon. It would take a lot to find a set of reasons which would satisfy everyone (even if it's just on this forum and not in any official Disney capacity).

the hybrid film Victory Through Air Power, which to my knowledge has never been "canon" nor has that ever been questioned.

Well, see, that's where things get hairy, because besides the Goodwill films, the other partly-animated-partly-live-action films aren't in Disney's official DAC canon.

Exactly why I stopped thinking about it and just put the "Stuff by Disney" umbrella up.

Victory Through Air Power would be a good choice, as I consider it to have enough animation to be classed as an animated feature and not simply a hybrid film.

But Song of the South, So Dear to My Heart, Mary Poppins, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, & Pete's Dragon (& Who Framed Roger Rabbit & Enchanted) would also be included in that scenario, right?

Especially as all those films have better animation.

But again, it boils down to inconsistent qualifications for "canon" status. Why did they decide to allow Song of the South once upon a time, but not The Reluctant Dragon? Why remove all traditional hybrids, but not exclude animated features that include live-action footage like Fantasia, Make Mine Music, and any movie that begins with a live-action storybook?

I would assume that the hybrids were removed as the ratio between live-action to animation was large enough that they'd be better seen as live-action films (which doesn't really have an official Disney canon beyond "It's one of our movies that's not animated" ). But if we had to actually measure the quantity of animation within a film, that's just going down a slippery slope which rationalizes why any extreme "guideline" should be suggested. One might make a sweeping declaration of "Everything in the canon must be hand-drawn! No computer elements allowed!", which automatically negates everything from 1985 onwards. Or we could hear something even more extreme that only Walt-Era material is deserving of the "Disney" name, and thus, everything that was after The Jungle Book should just be animated films created by the rights holders. Fine films, but not Disney films, and certainly not the canon.

Unfortunately, that's when the Disney name becomes a brand, rather than an identity. And I'd rather the canon not be a brand, but an identity. Think of it like the studio system of the 30s/40s/50s. Every studio had their own "house" style, something for which they were known. Though they produced a variety of material, a particular genre or method could be detected, something that made a general audience member think, "It's a [insert studio] movie, good! I love their [insert genre/method]." For Disney, their house style is the Animated Classic. Each film within that canon is part of a body of work, amassed over a period of time, that holds together the tireless effort, the passionate ideas, and the unending legacy of a group of people. The canon doesn't have to be locked in time based on a fixed idea of one person behind it, one studio behind it, and one brand name behind it. It has the capacity to change, adapt, and fit with whatever the new times and new people bring to the table. Audiences have certain expectations from it, even if it may evolve and change over time. But, in due time, a Disney animated film could can be recognized as a "Disney Animated Classic."

Albert

[BK]

I am attempting to watch all 53 of the features in the canon.

So far, I've seen 12, 10 of which I hadn't seen before.

These have been a slog to get through.

Saludos Amigos should be an educational short, not a proper film, which it isn't really.
Three Caballeros is absolutely awful once Donald starts socializing.
Make Mine Music is interesting purely because of the music hook but all the shorts run way too long.
Fun and Fancy Free's first half is alright, the Beanstalk bit is crap. Still, though they were pretty long, again maybe cutting it slightly would be better.
Ichabod and Mr Toad I'd seen before, at least Mr Toad surely, so I quite enjoyed it.

I haven't seen Melody Time.

Even at an hour and fifteen minutes, these take forever to watch. Three Caballeros was especially awful and grating. I don't know who the target audience is but it's no wonder they aren't very popular. I suppose they were released to the cinemas as films so that's what they should be, although Disney should really release anthologies of shorts like Warner is doing and include these on there. That way shorts like the little plane and the penguin migrant can be watched without having to go through Donald insufferable Duck. The interstitial bits don't add anything to the shorts anyway and is tenuous in making the bridge to call it a film because it isn't.

Equally used and similarly annoying are the commentary and voiceovers in Fun and Fancy Free's Beanstalk segment. Most of the narration in these films are redundant and just awful creative decisions.

And, although not part of the package features, Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is another mire of a film. At least the first half of it is unbearably juvenile before it turns a corner. I remember watching DTV Pooh features that were better. The original film is weaksauce. I did see the new 2011 update, and of the 12 films I've currently seen, that's my favourite. It does run a little long, but it is miles ahead of the rest of this crap (save Ichabod/Mr Toad).

These films killed any momentum I had in watching the anthology due to the excruciatingly plodding, boring pacing and unnecessary additions.

They are also the reason I will not now ever be attempting to complete the collection. Not worth it since I don't intend on watching these as films again. Some, as shorts, maybe, but never in their current form.

Now, I don't know what would really be a good way to call them "canon" as Escapay has pointed out the various flaws in attempting it through different means. Having to accept whatever they tell us, these 4, and probably 5 films are some of the worst of the lot and from the movies I've seen Home on the Range and Princess and the Frog might join their merry band since I dread rewatching those the most.

[DC Fan]

No.

Besides, who watches them anyways?; at least as frequently as the others.

I wouldn´t count them as canon the same way Disney should remove Piglet´s Big Adventure and The Wild from it in Spain.

...saying Spain because, if I remember correctly in other countries most of the sequels are considered canon.

And yet, in Europe Winnie Pooh isn´t considered canon technically. By this I mean that the movie didn´t get released in BD. On DVD doesn´t have the number on the spine. However, Tangled is #52 and Wreck it Ralph is #54.

You know? For a while I might have think of adding the package films, Piglet´s Big Adventure and The Wild to my collection. Just so I could have all of them numbered. But then, what´s the case?

I don´t like package films except for Ichabod and Mr. Toad and Disney didn´t keep a consistency with the numbers. Neither Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty and the first releases of The Princess and the Frog were numbered. And the ones that were the number was placed all over the place; unlike the DVDs that are uniformed. In some the numbers are too high, in others too low...When you look at them seems like a wave instead of a cohesive pattern.

[Jules]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes-yes!

Yes!

BK and DC Fan, if Disney cancels the package films' Blu-ray releases (I'm deadly serious) based on your comments here, I will hunt down both of you, like Liam Neeson does in Taken, and torture you both with the strappado ad infinitum (or until you write Iger an enthusiastic fan letter on how you simply adore all six films).

[Semaj]

Pretty much everything BK said is the main flaw behind anthology films in general, and why they're rarely made nowadays. Most people will only want to watch for their favorite segments; the rest of the time is having to tread thru the "boring" stuff, if not skipping out altogether, which leads to a fractured movie-watching experience.

For Mickey and the Beanstalk, that one is often featured as a separate short, sometimes mixed with other shorts; it's part of a more recent DVD featuring Mickey's fairy tale adventures. There was also an alternate version made for early TV viewings where the original narration was replaced by Ludwig von Drake.

[ichabod]

No.

Besides, who watches them anyways?; at least as frequently as the others.

We'll I do for one. In fact probably more. The Three Caballeros being one of my most viewed. In terms of enjoyability, creativity and pure artistic merit, I'd personally say it outstripped the likes of 'Cinderella'.

Whilst there are admittedly weaker elements to some of the musical package features like Make Mine Music, and lower production values due to the historical context in which these films were made; they still feature outstanding animation by some of the most legendary artists, animators and creative talent Disney has ever had. I mean if you want to talk about Disney not sticking to its 'formulae' and 'being creative', look at the magnificently animated and sorrow filled morality of the 'Willie the Operatic Whale' segment. You want to see Mary Blair's stunning design work quite literally transferred direct to celluloid, then Once Upon a Wintertime is the only place you will see that; Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland were essentially watered down versions of Blair's designs: 'Disneyfied' by animators, which led to Walt giving such control to Eyvind Earle during the production of Sleeping Beauty' to endure that didn't happen again (even Walt thought Alice, Cinderella and Peter Pan had lost their artistic 'essence' along the way).

If we're throwing out Make Mine Music, why not by the same logic throw out Fantasia too? That's made up of segments? If you're saying 'bye-bye' to Ichabod, then surely it's only fair to send Stokowski and his dancing hippos with them too.

To place some context to my Likes: I grew in the 90s era with Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Lion King, The Hunchback of a Notre Dame being the movies I went to see in the theatre (which obviously I loved) on VHS I had all the classics from literally all other eras: Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Bambi, The jungle Book, Snow White, Robin Hood, Many adventures of Winnie the Pooh etc.
When DVD came around and thanks to the internet, I learnt about these films for the first time and Only saw these films for the first time at around about the age of 20. Well, to be plain: I loved them. These days, given the choice of a package feature or a 90s movie: I'd probably go for a package feature.

If I was to say why? They're fresh: Vibrant in some cases. Playful, not contrived in any way and beyond creative.

Yes; they are weak segments. I for one am not going to claim that Melody Time should have outsold The Little Mermaid' on DVD, but that's not to say it should be regarded any less. What I love about Disney (particularly the Walt era, is not the songs, the princesses or the sidekicks) it's the story of an evolving studio, not always evolving because it wants to, but because it HAD to. And that is life.
When you watch the package features you literally see the history of the Disney studio pour at you from every second. The good neighbour program to foster links with South America during a war ravaged world drips out of Saludos Amigos. The beautiful early artistic style of Mary Blair which you just can't avoid in The Three Caballeros. The animation in this film is truly some of the finest work Ward Kimball ever did. Yes; it has less polish due to the War's effect upon the Disney purse strings, but it still has the technique. There is more bittersweet logic and heart in Willie the Operatic Whale that most of the films from the 50s and if you want a master class on tension, staging, suspense and how a story and emotions can be conveyed without a character uttering a single word: then watch the sequence of Ichabod riding his horse through Sleepy Hollow. It's up there in terms of the best sequences in animation with the gorge stampede in The Lion King. The story of Make Mine Music is the story of a studio which has had half it's staff disappear, enlisted by the military to either work away from the studio; or, for those remaining, working night and day on military projects. Make Mine Music was a film born out of necessity: true. But, in life, many choices are made out of necessity.
To be basic:
Walt needed money.
Walt needed to keep the studio open.
Walt needed to put something out for people to see.
Walt needed to keep his animators doing something, or they would probably leave for another studio: after all there were studios with larger reserves of money in the coffers to give more security to their animation departments; like MGM and Warner Brothers. And -leaning into a completely different area of discussion - this was the period when these animation studios did start to become more popular than Disney and have more successful characters. Disney's shorts department never recovered after the war, especially with the stiff competition the other studios eclipsed Disney with.

Now, would these package features have been made if the War had never happened? No, most likely not. But the fact is: these films kept the studio alive. If Walt didn't have 'something' for audiences to see. The studio WOULD have closed.

These films made it possible for the Cinderella and Peter Pan and all the following films to happen. They did keep the studio afloat. Perhaps consider that, when dismissing these films so easily. Maybe without Melody Time; you never would have had Frozen.
It's also worth saying that the idea of a film being made up of a number of smaller segments is not something only Disney did. All studios did it, even live action films made up in this way were far more common in the forties.

To conclude, yes this was a difficult period in history, not just for the Disney studio, but you can't rewrite history. If you lose your job because the company you work for collapses and you have to spend five years stuck in a disastrous job, trying to pay the mortgage: yeah it's tough, but you make the best of a bad situation. That's what Disney did. They made the best of a bad situation.

And I, for one, am extremely thankful.

Some beautiful things happened in the package films, some of which you would never have got in your average short. Willie the Operatic Whale is, simply, one of the finest bodies of work Disney made. It's a shame it's not more widely regarded. Peter and the Wolf, Pecos Bill, Johnny Appleseed: all wonderful. Even in the disastrous sequences, which even a package feature love like me can't deny, you can see the strive for innovation. Two silhouettes, undoubtedly falls flat. Which is a shame, because actually there's a large 'let's be playful and try something different' attitude behind it. 'Without You' I would say is probably the lowest point of anything any of the 53 features has ever presented, but you can at least and appreciate the attempt at least to capture some sort of mood through somewhat unorthodox use of camera techniques.

I honestly watch the package features a couple of times each year, still using the DVDs that were originally released. Whereas: Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Cinderella, I have on blu ray and I honestly wouldn't even be able to tell you when I last saw them; being honest, I font think I've watched them since I first got the blu rays, so a few years in some cases.

Perhaps I like them because they are different. They try, they fail, but they strive to be something new and different. I think the one thing we can say about the majority of Disney fans in that they don't like new and different. Another of the most creative and diverse periods of a Disney history is the period from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. Yes again there were misses. But you get the woefully underrated stylization of Atlantis with such bold ambitions of bringing something different, the unique beautiful styling of Hercules, Home on the Range, Mulan and Lilo and Stitch. Diversity in Disney is what I love. Perhaps I see the striving aims of artists trying to 'break a mould'. So many outstanding artistry is underloved because they have unusual leading characters, no princesses, or the filmmaker went at it with an outlook that was as 'un-Disney' as they could. I think my outlook on what makes a good Disney film looks beyond the characters and the story.

For example: Sleeping Beauty is a film that is quite well recognised as being low on plot, simple on story and having its stlylization as part of what makes it a masterpiece. The design of sleeping beauty is stunning. The backgrounds are stunning. It is beautiful. But, this seems to be an attitude that only Sleeping Beauty is graced with. Read about Sleeping Beauty from the point if view of animators and fil makers and the general consensus is 'Not much going on plot-wise, but beautiful beyond words'. Home on the Range is equally as beautiful in its design, perhaps that's why I don't disregard it as soon as others. Yes, it's weak in other areas, but visually it's stunning. The same goes for much of the creativity of the package films. Yet Atlantis, Home on the Range, Make Mine Music, don't seem to be awarded the same 'get out of jail free card' that Sleeping Beauty does: but that's a discussion for somewhere else.

I for am glad they are included as canon, because maybe it may at least bring more people, like me, to one day see a list of films with a section of unusual titles in between Bambi and Cinderella and then go seek these movies out and see the history of a difficult period before them. Otherwise, they'd go the way of 'The Reluctant Dragon' or 'Victory Through Air Power' and sink into almost complete anonymity. Two more extremely significant films from the same period.

As I said earlier, I award merit to films baed upon more than just story. I find enjoyment in significance; something which anyone who cares about the history of Disney can't erase about the package features: they are significant.

Sometimes being significant, is as much as an accomplishment as being 'good'.

[BK]

I appreciate your very well written post but I have to disagree.

What I do enjoy, especially about Make Mine Music and Melody Time is the animation. The styles vary from segment to segment and of course gives it character, flair and uniqueness. However, not a lot of them are strong (I've only seen half of Melody Time as of this moment, but the next half apparently has Donald Duck? So my hopes are flatlining already.) and there is zero connection between each short, so why is it a film besides the fact that they are presented together in one reel? As shorts, they do work, some of them, as films they do not. At least they don't follow the first two South American pandering films, which despite your like for them, I find especially intolerable. Three Caballeros is awful, in my opinion. It drags and drags and as I said before has the terrible character of Donald Duck quacking crap all over the place. Once again, there are no actual proper links between shorts but they try to alleviate that with either narration or Donald breaching the gap and it does not work. It's pointless. It felt, to me, like they were adding it in there just so it could qualify as a film.

Significance doesn't matter. That way, you could say that Heaven's Gate (I think was the film) was great. Now, it may well be, I haven't seen it, but it was supposedly critically reviled and killed the parent studio (United Artists?) so it certainly is significant, but then great? Important as story and character? Nope.

For historical purposes, yes, Saludos/package films may be far more important than Cinderella or Peter Pan, but I'm not a historian or an archivist. I want to watch movies that I feel entertained by, that I feel is worth my time, that I feel I can connect to and with and characters and story are what draws me and most people in. These films fail by all accounts in doing so. I don't think I can even single one out that I felt was truly memorable. Entertaining for a bit, yes, but ultimately most are empty to me.

[Big Disney Fan]

Yes, I would consider them canon. They did help keep the studio afloat in some tough times before they could return to full-length features. Some of the cartoons herein were originally planned as their own standalone films, even though they didn't quite turn out that way.

Incidentally, my sister absolutely ADORES "The Three Caballeros" (Donald Duck is one of her absolute favorite Disney characters), and for a long time, I've had an interest in "Fun and Fancy Free".

[BK]

Yes, I would consider them canon. They did help keep the studio afloat in some tough times before they could return to full-length features. Some of the cartoons herein were originally planned as their own standalone films, even though they didn't quite turn out that way.

Incidentally, my sister absolutely ADORES "The Three Caballeros" (Donald Duck is one of her absolute favorite Disney characters), and for a long time, I've had an interest in "Fun and Fancy Free".

I much prefer Bongo.

Also, I've never seen Victory through Air Power or Reluctant Dragon.

I know Mary Poppins and Song of the South are mostly live action and all of these in the canon definitely contain more animation than live action but are there any films left out and thus forgotten that actually have more animation in them?

Escapay made a point that how much animation/live action in a movie was not considered on legitimacy of being in the canon, but I think, barring knowledge about other films, that that is what makes the inclusion of the package films/Fantasia/Pooh.