The Walt Disney Signature Collection

[JeanGreyForever]

Thanks for updating the list. It seems consistent with the last one except Bambi ranks up higher than Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland now, which is probably because of the re-release.

Do you have a link to where these sales figures can be found? I'd love to see what other non-vault Disney films make, such as Pocahontas and Tarzan and where they rank. It'd be interesting to compare Disney's "lesser" classics.

I've never really understood why Disney doesn't put Alice and Dumbo in the Signature line. Yes, I know they have that home video tradition reason, but frankly at this point, it's just as antiquated as the Vault. If you're going to group together what the company considers to be their most classic films, then Alice and Dumbo shouldn't be excluded. Especially when their theme park commercials usually showcase these two the most.

I wouldn't say I'm satifised by these rankings, but I found them interesting to look at. I was pleased to see that Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio are much higher than I thought, especially because, as I said before, Sleeping Beauty was never as big a seller as the other fairy tale/princess films. I was also pleased to see that Peter Pan, the only film on this list that I outright can't stand, is far lower than I expected, at least when it ranks against the other classics. Now if only Lady and the Tramp could overtake it

However, I did grow up with the Platinum line, so I have always somewhat prescribed to Disney's practice of elevating certain titles over others. I didn't find it that problematic in the beginning, because Disney still made efforts with their other "lesser" titles such as Tarzan, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, etc. Meanwhile, I loved how the Platinum films were also such huge events. Obviously that tapered down quickly to the point that non-Diamond releases like Dumbo and Alice were superior to Diamond releases like The Lion King and Bambi. To be fair, the latter two were released early on when Disney actually put effort in their blu-ray releases, but it goes to show that a label, whether Diamond or Signature, is just arbitrary.

And frankly, while I agree with the current Signature lineup (all except one), there are certainly films I would add to it. Alice and Dumbo certainly, but also The Rescuers and Tarzan because both were huge hits for Disney even if neither are much remembered now. Disney likes to pretend that after Walt's death with The Jungle Book, up to the start of the Disney Renaissance with The Little Mermaid, it had no huge box-office hit but that isn't true. Similarly enough, they like to pretend that after The Lion King, Tangled was their first big hit (maybe making an exception for Lilo & Stitch), but Tarzan was definitely one and even Pocahontas would be considered one if it hadn't come after The Lion King. Pocahontas, to me, feels like the new Sleeping Beauty, a very "highbrow" film that focuses more on the art and music, perhaps at the detriment of the characters, and ended up receiving mixed reviews from critics while not doing well at the box-office. Yet, one was raised up by Disney and is now considered one of their best films, while the other remains a company embarrasment. And frankly, I still think that if Disney didn't hide Hunchback away so much, the film would be better received and even considered a masterpiece of sorts, much like Walt's earlier films which "did not do well." But in general, I think the line should just be abolished because it hasn't really done much for most of the films in it, besides rampant merchandising for six months and even that really only applies to the six fairy tale/princess films and The Lion King, all of which probably don't need those massive advertising campaigns anyway.

The sources are Blu Ray.com
Just click on the movie and tally up the number of "collections" (not including the 'fan' portion).
For example:
http://www.blu-ray.com/Lady-and-the-Tramp/20544/

Also thenumbers.com
Take into consideration what movies made the top 100 best sellers that year. Also, don't align the first time release of a movie on blu ray to the standards of a movie that was already released on home video. As I mentioned, the first introduction of home video is when the sales will be at it's peak.

Here's what I discovered.
Despite not being Diamond, Alice and Dumbo are the only two "non diamond" movies to make the top 100 best sellers of the year they came out.

It's very important to understand that what consists of the Disney vault has nothing to do with...
How well a movie did in theaters
how commercial the movie is
how prominant it is in the parks
how popular it is
how much merchendising it has

It is VERY SPECIFICALLY: How well that particular movie did in the home media market.


The only other factor, while a small one, is critical acclaim. This is because Disney, being the giant image obsessed corporate conglomerate that they are, if they are going to promote a movie that they label as "the best of the best", they are not going to promote a movie that will make them look bad. It's a tiny thing, but relevant, be it considered a deity of animation (Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, etc ) or a B list Disney film at best (basically all the 50's Disney films).

Again my grievances with this lineup has nothing to do with my personal taste or special treatment are more to do with the relevancy of it and the dogged refusal to do anything productive with it when Disney insists on continuing it.

Tarzan and the Rescuers did do well in theaters........but on home video.......not so much.

Even though it's easy and rather fun to predict a clut following of a movie. That's not a safe bet, that is corporately irresponsible. There is no way of knowing these things. As for Pocahontas, I don't see any "following" happening any time soon.

So that means that these numbers basically only come from people who have an account on Blu-Ray.com and add these films into their account's collection? If so, that's a lot more limited than I thought. Really most people are Blu-Ray.com are just going to be collectors, not the general public that makes up the masses.

Is Fantasia considered a major home-video seller then? I've heard reports that at one point it was the most sold VHS or something like that.

I wasn't aware that Tarzan didn't sell well on home video. I just knew that Disney felt that like Hercules (and the other "boy films"), the merchandise didn't sell as well as they hoped. I'm not surprised about The Rescuers because home video wouldn't really be established until about a decade after it came out in theaters and at that point, it wasn't a recently released film nor a really old film either from Walt Disney's days so it would get lost in the mix.

You make it sound as though films like Pocahontas have a cult following or could potentially one day have one, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Disney's cult films are films like The Black Cauldron and Atlantis. Pocahontas already has a following and it isn't a miniscule size movement. Frankly, it's a bit insulting to suggest that the late Renaissance films are cult films (if those are the films you are referring to because you only specifically mentioned Pocahontas). Those films have huge fanbases and for many fans, they don't see the difference between the Big Four and the later Renaissance films. Obviously the Big Four have greater appeal in the general public (which I blame mainly on Disney only marketing those four. When audiences keep being told that only certain films are great and the others are completely kept out of view, you start to believe that), but if you look at Facebook fan pages, you'll see that the later Renaissance films have basically just as many likes as the Walt Disney Classics and for some, even more (and Facebook likes are just as valid imo as people who add films to their collection on Blu-Ray.com). I wouldn't say that the Late Renaissance films are cult classics at all, or could potentially become them, because that would be an insult to them.
The only issue most of them have is that Disney likes to pretend they never happened. If Walt Disney had hidden his box office or critical failures, a good portion of classics today would be in the same position as Pocahontas, Hunchback, Tarzan, etc. It's because Walt Disney kept re-releasing these films to a new generation over and over, not to mention exposure from the Disney Parks, that they remained relevant and have garnered classic status. That's the reason that Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty can be in the top ten Disney sellers today, not to mention Bambi and Alice in Wonderland. If Disney treated the late Renaissance films the same way and kept them relevant and used them in promos rather than just the 14 Signature Edition films, I'm sure they wouldn't be forgotten or minimized as much. I'm not saying that each film in the Renaissance was perfect and uimpeachable by any means. Hercules is definitely a lesser Disney effort and it's evident that the filmmakers weren't really interested in making it (although it's still miles apart from some non-Disney films from the same time). Even Mulan which used to be a fav of mine, is a film that I see some glaring faults with now. Pocahontas and Hunchback are very different in tone from most Disney films, but if Sleeping Beauty and Fantasia can both be considered classics, despite being too "highbrow" for their art and music, then I don't see why Pocahontas can't join them in that category. And the best moments in Hunchback rival some of the best in all of Disney and there's a reason it's really gotten much love in the past few decades from fans. Even when the film came out, critics praised it, it was just general audiences that found it to be too mature for their liking. Many of those same people, after growing up and understanding the content more, fell in love with it. And frankly Pocahontas and Hunchback are not tailored towards American audiences anyway (despite Pocahontas' story which is obviously American) which is why they were far more successful in Europe.

[pikachufan1336]

The sources are Blu Ray.com
Just click on the movie and tally up the number of "collections" (not including the 'fan' portion).
For example:
http://www.blu-ray.com/Lady-and-the-Tramp/20544/

Also thenumbers.com
Take into consideration what movies made the top 100 best sellers that year. Also, don't align the first time release of a movie on blu ray to the standards of a movie that was already released on home video. As I mentioned, the first introduction of home video is when the sales will be at it's peak.

Here's what I discovered.
Despite not being Diamond, Alice and Dumbo are the only two "non diamond" movies to make the top 100 best sellers of the year they came out.

It's very important to understand that what consists of the Disney vault has nothing to do with...
How well a movie did in theaters
how commercial the movie is
how prominant it is in the parks
how popular it is
how much merchendising it has

It is VERY SPECIFICALLY: How well that particular movie did in the home media market.


The only other factor, while a small one, is critical acclaim. This is because Disney, being the giant image obsessed corporate conglomerate that they are, if they are going to promote a movie that they label as "the best of the best", they are not going to promote a movie that will make them look bad. It's a tiny thing, but relevant, be it considered a deity of animation (Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, etc ) or a B list Disney film at best (basically all the 50's Disney films).

Again my grievances with this lineup has nothing to do with my personal taste or special treatment are more to do with the relevancy of it and the dogged refusal to do anything productive with it when Disney insists on continuing it.

Tarzan and the Rescuers did do well in theaters........but on home video.......not so much.

Even though it's easy and rather fun to predict a clut following of a movie. That's not a safe bet, that is corporately irresponsible. There is no way of knowing these things. As for Pocahontas, I don't see any "following" happening any time soon.

So that means that these numbers basically only come from people who have an account on Blu-Ray.com and add these films into their account's collection? If so, that's a lot more limited than I thought. Really most people are Blu-Ray.com are just going to be collectors, not the general public that makes up the masses.

Is Fantasia considered a major home-video seller then? I've heard reports that at one point it was the most sold VHS or something like that.

I wasn't aware that Tarzan didn't sell well on home video. I just knew that Disney felt that like Hercules (and the other "boy films"), the merchandise didn't sell as well as they hoped. I'm not surprised about The Rescuers because home video wouldn't really be established until about a decade after it came out in theaters and at that point, it wasn't a recently released film nor a really old film either from Walt Disney's days so it would get lost in the mix.

You make it sound as though films like Pocahontas have a cult following or could potentially one day have one, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Disney's cult films are films like The Black Cauldron and Atlantis. Pocahontas already has a following and it isn't a miniscule size movement. Frankly, it's a bit insulting to suggest that the late Renaissance films are cult films (if those are the films you are referring to because you only specifically mentioned Pocahontas). Those films have huge fanbases and for many fans, they don't see the difference between the Big Four and the later Renaissance films. Obviously the Big Four have greater appeal in the general public (which I blame mainly on Disney only marketing those four. When audiences keep being told that only certain films are great and the others are completely kept out of view, you start to believe that), but if you look at Facebook fan pages, you'll see that the later Renaissance films have basically just as many likes as the Walt Disney Classics and for some, even more (and Facebook likes are just as valid imo as people who add films to their collection on Blu-Ray.com). I wouldn't say that the Late Renaissance films are cult classics at all, or could potentially become them, because that would be an insult to them.
The only issue most of them have is that Disney likes to pretend they never happened. If Walt Disney had hidden his box office or critical failures, a good portion of classics today would be in the same position as Pocahontas, Hunchback, Tarzan, etc. It's because Walt Disney kept re-releasing these films to a new generation over and over, not to mention exposure from the Disney Parks, that they remained relevant and have garnered classic status. That's the reason that Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty can be in the top ten Disney sellers today, not to mention Bambi and Alice in Wonderland. If Disney treated the late Renaissance films the same way and kept them relevant and used them in promos rather than just the 14 Signature Edition films, I'm sure they wouldn't be forgotten or minimized as much. I'm not saying that each film in the Renaissance was perfect and uimpeachable by any means. Hercules is definitely a lesser Disney effort and it's evident that the filmmakers weren't really interested in making it (although it's still miles apart from some non-Disney films from the same time). Even Mulan which used to be a fav of mine, is a film that I see some glaring faults with now. Pocahontas and Hunchback are very different in tone from most Disney films, but if Sleeping Beauty and Fantasia can both be considered classics, despite being too "highbrow" for their art and music, then I don't see why Pocahontas can't join them in that category. And the best moments in Hunchback rival some of the best in all of Disney and there's a reason it's really gotten much love in the past few decades from fans. Even when the film came out, critics praised it, it was just general audiences that found it to be too mature for their liking. Many of those same people, after growing up and understanding the content more, fell in love with it. And frankly Pocahontas and Hunchback are not tailored towards American audiences anyway (despite Pocahontas' story which is obviously American) which is why they were far more successful in Europe.

Once again, I know bluray.com is not the most reliable source, but it's something. Disney will never release their precise sales, so this is better than nothing. Besides it's not THAT off, Lion, Beast, and Snow White are in the top three for example.

I know Fantasia has done extremely well at some point, but just because it happened once doesn't necessarily mean it had that exact sales the next time. Also the movie was only released for a couple months. But again that's one website, i'm sure there's another that is different.

As for the cult followings, I am not going against the idea, but the fact of the matter is is that the home video sales don't reciprocate the idea that they're worth investing in as far as including them in the signature line up. If that does happen it's not happening any time soon. Yes I know a vaulted movie does automatically give the sales a little boost. But there's a reason why some made it in there and some did not....
There isn't enough evidence to prove that the post renaissance films are "cult following" status. the closest we get to is Mulan, which keeps rising in popularity and is even getting a live action remake. But it seems that the only people who really like Mulan are Millennials, that generation specifically, so.......I'm not sure, I guess it could be. But still, it doesn't do enough I guess...

[JeanGreyForever]

The problem with bluray.com though is that since it mostly caters to adult collectors, it completely misses the people who would be Disney's top consumers: children, soccer moms and dads, families, etc. But I agree that this is better than nothing. The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Snow White are also in the top three because they will specifically appeal to collectors, the latter two especially because of how much film history they have. And The Lion King is just one of those films which was a cultural phenomenon so basically everyone has it.

There's a user on bluray.com who always defends Fantasia and says it was once the top selling VHS of all time which I always find difficult to believe so I was hoping someone else can corroborate that.

I don't consider the Late Renaissance films as cult films at all and you'd be hard pressed to find people on here who would label them as cult films. Cult films have limited appeal and as you can see from Facebook fans of the Late Renaissance films, their like numbers rival those of Walt Disney's films if not exceed some. Cult films are films like Atlantis or The Black Cauldron as said above. They have a very dedicated follow, but it's a pretty niche group. The Late Renaissance films are in a much different caliber. Maybe we both have different definition of cult films, but Hocus Pocus would be another good example of a cult film that has attained a strong legacy from home video but especially being aired every Halloween. The Late Renaissance films were never outright flops and for the most part they were all well received which is why most people consider the Renaissance to not end until after Tarzan, and not after The Lion King. If each of these films had grossed along the lines of The Emperor's New Groove or Treasure Planet, and received really rotten views back then, and only now be considered good, then they could be considered cult films but that isn't the case. None of them have overly bad reviews. The closest is Pocahontas and those reviews were mixed which is why I think it's the only Renaissance film on Rotten Tomatos to have a Rotten score. Otherwise, disregarding critics, the general public seems to either love or hate that film which I've also noticed with Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty, as both of those films tend to be loved outright or very explicitly despised. The former for a lack of a cohesive story and the latter usually for just being a pretty picture but featuring dull characterization and a Snow White rip-off story.

I'd say that the Late Renaissance film that is the most popular these days is Mulan. As you said, it's really big amongst the current generation and people will praise both the character and the film on a lot of social media sites like Tumblr, Buzzfeed, etc. I guess because Mulan was considered the first independent heroine whose story didn't revolve around romance. I think it doesn't have much appeal to older generations though. I've heard stories that older people who go to the Parks can always recognize Pocahontas (because the film was a bigger deal not to mention Pocahontas' status as a historic icon unlike Mulan who is really just known in China) but few recognize Mulan. The film's more modern touches like Eddie Murphy and the pop song at the end may also be a reason why. Also, as I somewhat alluded to, Mulan isn't really a culturally well known story outside of China. As a result, the film loses appeal in Europe and Latin America, and even most other Asian countries. I know Japan is not a fan of Mulan at all because of their rivalry with China. On the other hand, young Asian Americans (whether Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.) all love Mulan because she's the closest culturally to them. Frankly, even in China, the Disney film of Mulan isn't really that popular. It wasn't really offensive to them, but I've heard some actual Chinese people comment on it and they find it to be too Westernized and not at all indicative of China so they were pretty ambivalent towards the film. I think only the recent Shanghai Disney park actually features Mulan, otherwise all the other Parks, including the Hong Kong one, don't feature Mulan at all except as a cast member and that's really more in the American parks. Pocahontas (and Hunchback) have a lot more appeal in Europe where they did much better as compared to in America, not to mention the subject matter is also more European with British settlers and a French classic. So while I've seen Disney use Mulan if they need to represent a Late Renaissance film, and they clearly realize that there is love for the film amongst the young, hence the live-action film because they needed to combat criticism of only creating live-action films on European stories with white leading actors, but really Mulan's appeal is also limited outside of American millennials.

I'm assuming that one of the major reasons that Tarzan has been so neglected is the rights issue. I still remember that even in the late 2000s, Tarzan was still present whenever Disney would release commercials or ads featuring snapshots or clips of a variety of Disney movies including the classic 2D films, Pixar, and the live-action films. By this decade though, Tarzan disappeared and I think the rights issue happened towards the end of the 2000s if I'm correct. I suppose Disney doesn't see the point to market any film that they can't really make money out of besides selling the film. I'm sure half of Dumbo's appeal comes from the Park ride plus plushies of him to sell to kids.

[Disney Duster]

Now Cinderella ranks at the bottom. I blame the Disney Princess franchise for that because out of all those films, Cinderella has probably suffered the most. Reusing the same botched restoration from the Platinum DVD probably didn't help matters either, so Disney really shouldn't act so surprised that Cinderella didn't sell as well as they hoped on Blu-Ray.

Why do you think the princess line exposure hurt Cinderella? I would have thought it would help.

[DisneyFreak5282]

Now Cinderella ranks at the bottom. I blame the Disney Princess franchise for that because out of all those films, Cinderella has probably suffered the most. Reusing the same botched restoration from the Platinum DVD probably didn't help matters either, so Disney really shouldn't act so surprised that Cinderella didn't sell as well as they hoped on Blu-Ray.

Why do you think the princess line exposure hurt Cinderella? I would have thought it would help.

I'd say because of how much Disney milks the Princess franchise. They kept the Diamond Edition in print for 5 years, no doubt to cash in on the live-action remake.

It's just crazy. Disney Home Video releases used to be such an event, and it was always exciting to sift through hours of bonus features. Now it's frustrating to spend $20 - $30 for essentially stripped discs, new artwork and a Digital code, which may end up being a waste depending on what Disney's new streaming service will be like.

[JeanGreyForever]

Now Cinderella ranks at the bottom. I blame the Disney Princess franchise for that because out of all those films, Cinderella has probably suffered the most. Reusing the same botched restoration from the Platinum DVD probably didn't help matters either, so Disney really shouldn't act so surprised that Cinderella didn't sell as well as they hoped on Blu-Ray.

Why do you think the princess line exposure hurt Cinderella? I would have thought it would help.

Because before the princess line, Disney had fairy tale films, not princess films. The princess line alienates boys and makes them reluctant to watch films like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella especially because she is the epitome of the princess line. Not to mention, there are many parents who did not want their daughters exposed to what they consider the princess stereotype which is why we have articles like What's Wrong With Cinderella? from the New York Times. I'm sure there was always a little bit of stereotyping the genders before the princess line, but it's so rampant and everywhere with so much pink and sparkles now that while back in the 80s and 90s, some boys may have turned their noses up at DP films, a much larger portion of them certainly do now.

Also in Cinderella's case, the Platinum edition changed colors to make Cinderella's hair more yellow and her dress more blue in some shots.

I'd say because of how much Disney milks the Princess franchise. They kept the Diamond Edition in print for 5 years, no doubt to cash in on the live-action remake.

It's just crazy. Disney Home Video releases used to be such an event, and it was always exciting to sift through hours of bonus features. Now it's frustrating to spend $20 - $30 for essentially stripped discs, new artwork and a Digital code, which may end up being a waste depending on what Disney's new streaming service will be like.

All of this as well. Not only do we lose bonus features, but Disney even takes away superior cuts of films like removing If I Never Knew You from Pocahontas and the restored scenes from Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

[Disney Duster]

or a B list Disney film at best (basically all the 50's Disney films).

Excuse me but those films are all A list.

I'd say because of how much Disney milks the Princess franchise. They kept the Diamond Edition in print for 5 years, no doubt to cash in on the live-action remake.

Like there's too much Cinderella in people's faces for them to want to buy it? I still feel like marketing would help the film, not hinder it. Maybe being out for too long would hinder it.

Because before the princess line, Disney had fairy tale films, not princess films. The princess line alienates boys and makes them reluctant to watch films like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella especially because she is the epitome of the princess line. Not to mention, there are many parents who did not want their daughters exposed to what they consider the princess stereotype which is why we have articles like What's Wrong With Cinderella? from the New York Times. I'm sure there was always a little bit of stereotyping the genders before the princess line, but it's so rampant and everywhere with so much pink and sparkles now that while back in the 80s and 90s, some boys may have turned their noses up at DP films, a much larger portion of them certainly do now.

Also in Cinderella's case, the Platinum edition changed colors to make Cinderella's hair more yellow and her dress more blue in some shots.

I do get that now. I doubt the restoration hindered the film though because I don't think the average consumer cares and even only some collectors care. But I would love if it was the restoration's fault that people didn't buy it, so that Disney would fix it if they wanted it bought more. I hope that's one of the reasons.

[pikachufan1336]

or a B list Disney film at best (basically all the 50's Disney films).

Excuse me but those films are all A list.

I would never say they were B list. I mean they have a reputation of being B list, especially compared to the first 5 Disney movies (Hell Lady and the Tramp was probably the only Disney movie of that decade that Walt was completely satisfied with). Personally I love those films. Sure I can't pretend that they have the level of artistic integrity that the Disney movies of the early 40's had. But they're still great! Honestly the 50s is THE best decade for Disney because, in my opinion, it's the only decade where ALL of their animated films are fantastic.

[JeanGreyForever]

I'd say because of how much Disney milks the Princess franchise. They kept the Diamond Edition in print for 5 years, no doubt to cash in on the live-action remake.

Like there's too much Cinderella in people's faces for them to want to buy it? I still feel like marketing would help the film, not hinder it. Maybe being out for too long would hinder it.

Because before the princess line, Disney had fairy tale films, not princess films. The princess line alienates boys and makes them reluctant to watch films like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella especially because she is the epitome of the princess line. Not to mention, there are many parents who did not want their daughters exposed to what they consider the princess stereotype which is why we have articles like What's Wrong With Cinderella? from the New York Times. I'm sure there was always a little bit of stereotyping the genders before the princess line, but it's so rampant and everywhere with so much pink and sparkles now that while back in the 80s and 90s, some boys may have turned their noses up at DP films, a much larger portion of them certainly do now.

Also in Cinderella's case, the Platinum edition changed colors to make Cinderella's hair more yellow and her dress more blue in some shots.

I do get that now. I doubt the restoration hindered the film though because I don't think the average consumer cares and even only some collectors care. But I would love if it was the restoration's fault that people didn't buy it, so that Disney would fix it if they wanted it bought more. I hope that's one of the reasons.

I think the problem with Cinderella's overexposure is not the overexposure itself, but how she's exposed. People only see her as the headliner of the DP franchise which waters down all the princesses, especially the three classic ones, into generic templates who share the same handful of stock traits. Cinderella now is only marketed to sell dolls, tiaras, costumes, etc. and has been robbed of all of her lovable personality from the original film.

Yeah, the restoration probably doesn't affect sales, as much as I wish it would. I was theorizing that maybe since the Diamond Edition was the same as the flawed Platinum Edition, that maybe some people didn't see the point to upgrade. I'm hoping that the combination of Cinderella's Diamond Edition not selling well, and Disney knowing that they botched this restoration, means that we might be able to get a proper restoration in the future. Obviously low sales haven't affected Beauty and the Beast, which is one of the top-selling titles, which is why Disney has had no financial reason to fix the transfer, but maybe Disney will feel like they need to create another incentive for people to buy Cinderella.

Tarzan and the Rescuers did do well in theaters........but on home video.......not so much.

Hmmm, still not sure about how Tarzan fared in home video as I'm only aware that much like Hercules, Disney felt that their "boy films" did not sell as much merchandise. However, I just came across this blog which claims that The Rescuers sold out when it first came out on DVD. https://journeysinclassicfilm.com/2013/ ... uers-1977/
"With all that, The Rescuers is an underrated film that doesn’t have nearly the clout of Disney’s other cinematic gems. It doesn’t have a Disney attraction, and I’ve never seen photos of any costumed characters at the park, and yet this movie originally sold out when Disney first put it out on DVD! I say it’s time to reclaim The Rescuers!"

It's strange how this movie is generally well regarded (some people do prefer the sequel but that's not a common opinion and usually only held amongst people who grew up with the sequel instead of the original) by critics, was a huge box office hit, the biggest after The Jungle Book and before The Little Mermaid, and even some of the Nine Old Men stated that this was the best film since Walt's death, yet it receives little recognition. I had to import plushes for Bernard and Bianca from Disney Store Japan, because they actually sell Rescuers merchandise unlike here in America. If Disney has any underrated gem, besides Pocahontas, Hunchback, and Tarzan, it would be this film. I'd argue the same for The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, because while the Pooh franchise is one of the strongest in the world, I feel like Disney barely acknowledges the original film/shorts.

Excuse me but those films are all A list.

I would never say they were B list. I mean they have a reputation of being B list, especially compared to the first 5 Disney movies (Hell Lady and the Tramp was probably the only Disney movie of that decade that Walt was completely satisfied with). Personally I love those films. Sure I can't pretend that they have the level of artistic integrity that the Disney movies of the early 40's had. But they're still great! Honestly the 50s is THE best decade for Disney because, in my opinion, it's the only decade where ALL of their animated films are fantastic.

But, I don't even think that it is true that they have a reputation of being "B-List." I think that is only believed by a very small group of crotchety animation critics who feel as though Disney never was able to return to their height of glory afer Bambi. Never mind that the 40s era also featured Dumbo which is very different from Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi or that the 50s era featured Sleeping Beauty which is much closer to those aforementioned films than Dumbo is. And I disagree that they lack artistry, or at least have inferior artistry compared to the 40s. Some people will prefer Mary Blair's work over Tyrus Wong's work in Bambi or Gustaf Tenggren's work in Snow White and Pinocchio. I think hailing the 40s as the pinnacle of animation (both Disney and otherwise) that nothing else has ever been able to come close to isn't any different to how an even larger group of fans believe that Disney never created anything worthy after The Lion King and that the Renaissance's Big Four is the height of Disney moviemaking.

Another thing to be remembered is that the films in general of that era had much darker material and content (once more except for Dumbo). Cinderella is a very different fairy tale than Snow White so it was never going to be as dark and frightening and that isn't a bad thing at all. Cinderella shouldn't be (unless it's the Grimm's version). Lady and the Tramp is a romance and still widely believed to be one of the best romance films ever. The only film, I think that should have been more in the vein of the 40s is Peter Pan. Whereas Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp take the best of the 50s and blend it with their respective eras (Victorian and Edwardian), Peter Pan takes the worst traits of 50s masculinity into Peter Pan and arguably even the worst traits of 50s femininity into Wendy. The film loses all the darkness of the original film, and while it may not be as gritty as some scenes in Snow White or Pinocchio, it should have been much more like them in tone, imo, than Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland, at least if it wanted to be true to the book. I've heard people say that the 2003 live-action Peter Pan is the best Peter Pan film that Disney never made but always wanted to make, and I agree with that. I wish we could have gotten the Peter Pan film that was being developed in the 40s because it seemed a lot more authentic to the book's true spirit. Contrariwise, the Alice film being developed in the 40s, while one I would have liked to have seen, was not accurate to the book at all. Yes, it followed the storyline to a tee, but in terms of spirit and tone, it felt more like a never-ending sequence of horror with none of the whimsy of the original book. If anything, Tim Burton's live-action film should have been based on this if he wanted to deviate from the book, especially because animation in both the 40s and 50s would never have been able to duplicate the concept drawings for Alice with all their sketchiness and immense detail.

[JeanGreyForever]

Data is from the-numbers.com (so maybe it's not 100% correct, but this is the only way to see some trends in BD-sales of Disney titles).

Sales of Diamond editions in the first three years of their release (but only if they peaked at top 100 bestselling BD discs).


Now, the same graph, but with the addition of three non-diamond bestselling Disney editions (Fantasia & 2000, Alice and Dumbo).

You can see clearly the difference in sales between Diamond editions and those three non-diamonds.


Other interesting data:

Every other Disney edition never have peaked to top 100 for some year except Diamond editions and non-diamond trio: Fantasia, Alice and Dumbo.

But we can find some other their numbers - how they charted in their first three weeks of release.



For comparison, here is the same data, but for Diamond editions.



You can see clearly the difference in sales between Diamond editions and all other editions in first three weeks.

So, after Diamond editions and non-diamond trio, I supuse, is clearly that next best selling Disney blu-ray disc of their old movies is - The Fox and The Hound.

Note:

1) There are no any data for Platinum Edition of Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio, so I didn't include it. But there is data sales for Signature edition of Pinocchio - 295,473 copies in first 6 months of 2017.

2) In the first graph, sales of Aladdin in 3rd year is missing - 86,033 copies in first 6 months of 2017 (I suppose).

Here are sales figures for Disney's Diamond Blu-Ray line as well as some non-Diamond releases. Courtesy of BDDlover who gave permission for me to re-post his findings for other people to see.

I'm surprised that Sleeping Beauty ranks so low but I suppose because it was the second time it had been released on Blu-Ray, that makes sense. Since it ranks much higher in people's blu-ray collections, most people must have opted for the Platinum Edition (I know that I did when I saw the meager amount of bonus features for the Diamond Edition).

The data on the non-Diamond edition films is especially interesting to me, because while the classic films are sure to sell the most, I wonder what other films are close to that level. I'm really surprised that The Fox and the Hound ranks the highest outside of Disney's classic films, including their Diamond/Signature line as well as Dumbo, Alice, and Fantasia (although I suppose the latter counts as part of the Signature line now). It's one of the better known "Dark Age" Disney films, but I didn't expect it to top Aristocats and Robin Hood, since the former has a lot more merchandise while the latter is either extremely loved or extremely despised. I think The Fox and the Hound made a lot more money than those films (not as much as The Rescuers though) and I suppose the fact that while the film isn't perfect either, nor does it have any particularly memorable songs especially compared to Aristocats and Robin Hood, it's highpoints are much stronger than anything in the other two. I know the themes of this film resonate a lot, especially today. Still, I'm surprised that a film that comes with a crummy direct-to-video sequel managed to top the others.

I'm glad that the Rescuers beats Aristocats and Robin Hood and is generally high up as well. I wonder if that's because some people bought it for the sequel rather than the original though. Glad to see Pocahontas right after The Fox and the Hound in terms of sales. I'm sure those numbers might even be higher if the film hadn't lost out on the extended scenes (not to mention surplus of bonus features from the DVD). I'm a little surprised that The Sword in the Stone ranks so low, because even though it isn't considered a classic like the top sellers, it did come out in the Walt Disney era so I expected it to be better remembered. I suppose the transfer was so horrible that the low sale figures could be partially attributed to this. A little surprised that Tarzan is so low especially compared to Hercules, as they were both released on the same day. I suppose Disney hasn't been able to promote Tarzan for a good decade now with the loss of rights, so while Hercules might still get an occasional piece of merchandise every year or so (usually something Hades related or the Meg shoe ornament), Tarzan hasn't even been able to get that. It lacks 2nd week figures like Hercules though, so I guess those numbers are either missing, or even worse, Tarzan just didn't sell at all in the second week lol. Wish Hunchback was on this list seeing that it was released on the same day as Mulan, but I guess it didn't even rank high enough to appear which is a pity. I know I didn't bother buying it because I had no interest in the sequel (opted for the Zaavi steelbook instead), but even on Facebook, it's the only Renaissance film to be way below the others. I guess like Fantasia, it's more of a niche taste, but unlike Fantasia, it lacks the classic status.

[Escapay]

The Sword in the Stone deserves to have such a low selling figure given that early-word-of-mouth was able to warn folks that it had such a terrible transfer. Unfortunately, Disney probably will interpret that as "we don't have any reason to re-issue it on a new disc with an improved transfer, look at how badly it sold."

Albert

[JeanGreyForever]

The Sword in the Stone deserves to have such a low selling figure given that early-word-of-mouth was able to warn folks that it had such a terrible transfer. Unfortunately, Disney probably will interpret that as "we don't have any reason to re-issue it on a new disc with an improved transfer, look at how badly it sold."

Albert

I've heard people say that Disney is so embarrassed by the transfer that when they regularly post images and clips of films on social media, they always use the latest Blu-Ray transfer for their films...except for The Sword in the Stone. I think they use the HD iTunes transfer instead. Disney always seems to know when their transfer is a dud (The Sword in the Stone, Mickey's Christmas Carol, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, etc.) but they annoyingly very rarely ever fix these issues. I'm still surprised they fixed the errors on The Little Mermaid and The Lion King (even if the latter took a whole separate release years later to fix the issue). Pinocchio, I'm sure only got a replacement disc, because it was back when they were first getting into Blu-Ray so they were somewhat more devoted back then, not to mention Pinocchio has more of a classic status.

[Disney's Divinity]

I hope that's true, JeanGreyForever. But it seems much more like Disney to blame the film for something that was their fault for being cheap. Especially with a film like TSitS which has always been on the skirts anyway.

As an aside, just wanted to say I finally got a copy of the Pinocchio Platinum! I don’t even know why Disney bothers to re-release films anymore anyway, since they might as well be served on cardboard with all the effort they put into them now.

[pikachufan1336]

Excuse me but those films are all A list.

I would never say they were B list. I mean they have a reputation of being B list, especially compared to the first 5 Disney movies (Hell Lady and the Tramp was probably the only Disney movie of that decade that Walt was completely satisfied with). Personally I love those films. Sure I can't pretend that they have the level of artistic integrity that the Disney movies of the early 40's had. But they're still great! Honestly the 50s is THE best decade for Disney because, in my opinion, it's the only decade where ALL of their animated films are fantastic.

But, I don't even think that it is true that they have a reputation of being "B-List." I think that is only believed by a very small group of crotchety animation critics who feel as though Disney never was able to return to their height of glory afer Bambi. Never mind that the 40s era also featured Dumbo which is very different from Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi or that the 50s era featured Sleeping Beauty which is much closer to those aforementioned films than Dumbo is. And I disagree that they lack artistry, or at least have inferior artistry compared to the 40s. Some people will prefer Mary Blair's work over Tyrus Wong's work in Bambi or Gustaf Tenggren's work in Snow White and Pinocchio. I think hailing the 40s as the pinnacle of animation (both Disney and otherwise) that nothing else has ever been able to come close to isn't any different to how an even larger group of fans believe that Disney never created anything worthy after The Lion King and that the Renaissance's Big Four is the height of Disney moviemaking.

Another thing to be remembered is that the films in general of that era had much darker material and content (once more except for Dumbo). Cinderella is a very different fairy tale than Snow White so it was never going to be as dark and frightening and that isn't a bad thing at all. Cinderella shouldn't be (unless it's the Grimm's version). Lady and the Tramp is a romance and still widely believed to be one of the best romance films ever. The only film, I think that should have been more in the vein of the 40s is Peter Pan. Whereas Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp take the best of the 50s and blend it with their respective eras (Victorian and Edwardian), Peter Pan takes the worst traits of 50s masculinity into Peter Pan and arguably even the worst traits of 50s femininity into Wendy. The film loses all the darkness of the original film, and while it may not be as gritty as some scenes in Snow White or Pinocchio, it should have been much more like them in tone, imo, than Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland, at least if it wanted to be true to the book. I've heard people say that the 2003 live-action Peter Pan is the best Peter Pan film that Disney never made but always wanted to make, and I agree with that. I wish we could have gotten the Peter Pan film that was being developed in the 40s because it seemed a lot more authentic to the book's true spirit. Contrariwise, the Alice film being developed in the 40s, while one I would have liked to have seen, was not accurate to the book at all. Yes, it followed the storyline to a tee, but in terms of spirit and tone, it felt more like a never-ending sequence of horror with none of the whimsy of the original book. If anything, Tim Burton's live-action film should have been based on this if he wanted to deviate from the book, especially because animation in both the 40s and 50s would never have been able to duplicate the concept drawings for Alice with all their sketchiness and immense detail.

I know Dumbo doesn't have the artistry that the others have but I don't think that's the point, the legacy of Dumbo is it's sharp writing, sophisticated simplicity, and high stakes, all while costing three dollars and a hot dog (figuratively), being sixty minutes long, and a main character who doesn't talk. It's considered a deity of animation, it was ranked #6 on Timeout.com's greatest animated films (voted by hundreds of experts, employees, and figures in the industry). So I get why that movie is alongside of the others as a legendary film. It's a perfect movie, hell I don't think Disney animation has made a perfect movie since Dumbo. Sleeping Beauty definitly takes risks but it doesn't really have the writing of the earlier 5 (say what you want about Aurora, but the only real reason to care about her is because the fairies care about her. The movie is about the fairies, which is great. But when the try to pull the pathos of a character in the way that they did with Snow White, it doesn't have the gravitas because.....we don't know Aurora.)

I never been that hard on Alice, it's based off of a book that relies on so much that can't be translated to film, more than most books do (certainly more than any other book adaptation Disney has done). That's not to say that I think it's a satisfying adaptation of Alice, like most things, the books is THE VERSION. And I'm also not implying that one should pessimistically lower their standards when walking into this film with only knowledge of the book, rather, it's comparing apples to oranges. So of course we have to have things like transitions or having a main character not be capable the entire time. Besides, the movie does get a lot of nuances from the book that most adaptations forget: the lack of a traditional antagonist (I don't care what Disney's marketing department tells me), no forced moral, how half of the time the wonderland characters don't even realize she's there, Alice not getting particularly close to any of the creatures in the vain of the Wizard of Oz, etc. I'm not saying I don't see where all the criticism is coming from, in fact in some cases I even agree. But I think out of ALL of the Disney movies, I think people are way to hard on. Even though it's considered a classic. It's easily the definitive FILM version of Alice, along with Jan Svankmajer's version, thought that's a completely different movie. The better version really depends on how you feel about the book and how you feel about adapting it to a visual medium. Also, Disney does give us an interesting and different version that the book. Even though I'm willing to rant about all of the inaccuracies over the Tim Burton sh- show. I prefer to see a different story or experience, rather than a movie adaptation that is so literal to the book, and therefore aggressively worthless, you fell as though you could just go to the library and read the book for free (Mia Farrow's Great Gatsby, for example). I can't say the same about Peter Pan. Which, compared to Alice, has a MUCH more traditional approach and doesn't get the original point at all. Alice was certainly more ambitious by every standard, even if it's not a very satisfying adaptation it at least went there. Alice was more experimental, better looking, more interesting, Kathryn Beaumont was more interesting, etc. Sure it didn't have much of a plot, but it's Alice in Wonderland it's not supposed to. I love Peter Pan, but it's like comparing Mrs. Doubtfire to Tootsie, the former is a less good version of the ladder. But that's just me.

Though you make a good point about the 40's vs. 50's debate. I don't think the differences es are THAT Staggering, but I can certainly see it. Even though I do think the 40's were the better decade, you're right, I shouldn't be so dismissive of the others. Besides, I have realized I've watched the 50's movies much more than the 40's movies.

[pikachufan1336]

Data is from the-numbers.com (so maybe it's not 100% correct, but this is the only way to see some trends in BD-sales of Disney titles).

Sales of Diamond editions in the first three years of their release (but only if they peaked at top 100 bestselling BD discs).


Now, the same graph, but with the addition of three non-diamond bestselling Disney editions (Fantasia & 2000, Alice and Dumbo).

You can see clearly the difference in sales between Diamond editions and those three non-diamonds.


Other interesting data:

Every other Disney edition never have peaked to top 100 for some year except Diamond editions and non-diamond trio: Fantasia, Alice and Dumbo.

But we can find some other their numbers - how they charted in their first three weeks of release.



For comparison, here is the same data, but for Diamond editions.



You can see clearly the difference in sales between Diamond editions and all other editions in first three weeks.

So, after Diamond editions and non-diamond trio, I supuse, is clearly that next best selling Disney blu-ray disc of their old movies is - The Fox and The Hound.

Note:

1) There are no any data for Platinum Edition of Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio, so I didn't include it. But there is data sales for Signature edition of Pinocchio - 295,473 copies in first 6 months of 2017.

2) In the first graph, sales of Aladdin in 3rd year is missing - 86,033 copies in first 6 months of 2017 (I suppose).

Here are sales figures for Disney's Diamond Blu-Ray line as well as some non-Diamond releases. Courtesy of BDDlover who gave permission for me to re-post his findings for other people to see.

I'm surprised that Sleeping Beauty ranks so low but I suppose because it was the second time it had been released on Blu-Ray, that makes sense. Since it ranks much higher in people's blu-ray collections, most people must have opted for the Platinum Edition (I know that I did when I saw the meager amount of bonus features for the Diamond Edition).

The data on the non-Diamond edition films is especially interesting to me, because while the classic films are sure to sell the most, I wonder what other films are close to that level. I'm really surprised that The Fox and the Hound ranks the highest outside of Disney's classic films, including their Diamond/Signature line as well as Dumbo, Alice, and Fantasia (although I suppose the latter counts as part of the Signature line now). It's one of the better known "Dark Age" Disney films, but I didn't expect it to top Aristocats and Robin Hood, since the former has a lot more merchandise while the latter is either extremely loved or extremely despised. I think The Fox and the Hound made a lot more money than those films (not as much as The Rescuers though) and I suppose the fact that while the film isn't perfect either, nor does it have any particularly memorable songs especially compared to Aristocats and Robin Hood, it's highpoints are much stronger than anything in the other two. I know the themes of this film resonate a lot, especially today. Still, I'm surprised that a film that comes with a crummy direct-to-video sequel managed to top the others.

I'm glad that the Rescuers beats Aristocats and Robin Hood and is generally high up as well. I wonder if that's because some people bought it for the sequel rather than the original though. Glad to see Pocahontas right after The Fox and the Hound in terms of sales. I'm sure those numbers might even be higher if the film hadn't lost out on the extended scenes (not to mention surplus of bonus features from the DVD). I'm a little surprised that The Sword in the Stone ranks so low, because even though it isn't considered a classic like the top sellers, it did come out in the Walt Disney era so I expected it to be better remembered. I suppose the transfer was so horrible that the low sale figures could be partially attributed to this. A little surprised that Tarzan is so low especially compared to Hercules, as they were both released on the same day. I suppose Disney hasn't been able to promote Tarzan for a good decade now with the loss of rights, so while Hercules might still get an occasional piece of merchandise every year or so (usually something Hades related or the Meg shoe ornament), Tarzan hasn't even been able to get that. It lacks 2nd week figures like Hercules though, so I guess those numbers are either missing, or even worse, Tarzan just didn't sell at all in the second week lol. Wish Hunchback was on this list seeing that it was released on the same day as Mulan, but I guess it didn't even rank high enough to appear which is a pity. I know I didn't bother buying it because I had no interest in the sequel (opted for the Zaavi steelbook instead), but even on Facebook, it's the only Renaissance film to be way below the others. I guess like Fantasia, it's more of a niche taste, but unlike Fantasia, it lacks the classic status.

This is great but there is one big problem with thenumbers.com and these graphs.

It only counts the sales of the week, not the sales of all time. Just because a movie sells faster than another doesn't mean that that film automatically sold more in the long run.
This is why I included the bluray.com collections. Sure it's not a very reliable source, but it does offer an idea that the numbers.com doesn't: a total (sort of).

Non of us know the total amount of sales, which I imagine is confidential to Disney (I don't see why though)
The TOTAL is what I'm interested in.

Also, of course the vaulted movies sold more because of their "limited time" offer gave it a boost. This is when Vaulting a movie actually meant something. And with the home video market being more diverse and enduring, the less relative the Vault system is. Don't believe me? Compare the Diamond edition sales of the year to the Signature Edition sales of the year they came out. For example, Bambi's 2011 sale to it's 2017 sale. There is a big difference. I wish there was a formula to determine how well some movies would do if put into the vault. Because after all, it's really not fair to measure a film's blu ray sales compared to those that have only been released for a limited time. That was the trick to which films got selected and which didn't: If vaulting these movies are going to increase the sales this rapidly, would they want to put their investments on a movie that did a great job on home videom making the sales greater if vaulted? or one that did.....ok and then making the sales greater? And yet, three films that Disney hasn't officially vaulted, and have always been available, and are already well known movies, still make the top 100. Doesn't that tell them something? It's pretty telling if they give the go-ahead to Fantasia. Which I can't imagine doing TOO well.
Also, as for Fox, again, just because it did well the first three weeks, doesn't mean it did better than the non diamond trio. By that logic the film would make the top 100 of the sales, which it didn't.
I'm not saying I think Alice, Dumbo, and Fantasia do as well as the others, rather, if they do well enough on their own, wouldn't that be a good reason to put them in the line up? Especially since Vaulting the films is irrelevant now. Hell I'm not even sure if they decide to vault any of the signature editions at all.
Apparently they decide to put Fantasia in there but not Alice or Dumbo. which is the point I made earlier.

[Disney's Divinity]

(say what you want about Aurora, but the only real reason to care about her is because the fairies care about her. The movie is about the fairies, which is great. But when the try to pull the pathos of a character in the way that they did with Snow White, it doesn't have the gravitas because.....we don't know Aurora.)

I always have thought of her as the JLO of the Disney princesses.

[pikachufan1336]

(say what you want about Aurora, but the only real reason to care about her is because the fairies care about her. The movie is about the fairies, which is great. But when the try to pull the pathos of a character in the way that they did with Snow White, it doesn't have the gravitas because.....we don't know Aurora.)

I always have thought of her as the JLO of the Disney princesses.

LOL
Honestly she's not that bad to me.
1. She's in the movie for 18 minutes she has nothing to work with
2. Mary Costa's performance is astounding. It's one thing to sound like a broadway star but opera is a whole 'nother ball park and she plays it to the hill.
3. Despite it's problems, Sleeping Beauty is a good movie.

IMO Pocahontas is the worst. She's boring as tar and her movie is a dumpster fire.

[JeanGreyForever]

I know Dumbo doesn't have the artistry that the others have but I don't think that's the point, the legacy of Dumbo is it's sharp writing, sophisticated simplicity, and high stakes, all while costing three dollars and a hot dog (figuratively), being sixty minutes long, and a main character who doesn't talk. It's considered a deity of animation, it was ranked #6 on Timeout.com's greatest animated films (voted by hundreds of experts, employees, and figures in the industry). So I get why that movie is alongside of the others as a legendary film. It's a perfect movie, hell I don't think Disney animation has made a perfect movie since Dumbo. Sleeping Beauty definitly takes risks but it doesn't really have the writing of the earlier 5 (say what you want about Aurora, but the only real reason to care about her is because the fairies care about her. The movie is about the fairies, which is great. But when the try to pull the pathos of a character in the way that they did with Snow White, it doesn't have the gravitas because.....we don't know Aurora.)

I never been that hard on Alice, it's based off of a book that relies on so much that can't be translated to film, more than most books do (certainly more than any other book adaptation Disney has done). That's not to say that I think it's a satisfying adaptation of Alice, like most things, the books is THE VERSION. And I'm also not implying that one should pessimistically lower their standards when walking into this film with only knowledge of the book, rather, it's comparing apples to oranges. So of course we have to have things like transitions or having a main character not be capable the entire time. Besides, the movie does get a lot of nuances from the book that most adaptations forget: the lack of a traditional antagonist (I don't care what Disney's marketing department tells me), no forced moral, how half of the time the wonderland characters don't even realize she's there, Alice not getting particularly close to any of the creatures in the vain of the Wizard of Oz, etc. I'm not saying I don't see where all the criticism is coming from, in fact in some cases I even agree. But I think out of ALL of the Disney movies, I think people are way to hard on. Even though it's considered a classic. It's easily the definitive FILM version of Alice, along with Jan Svankmajer's version, thought that's a completely different movie. The better version really depends on how you feel about the book and how you feel about adapting it to a visual medium. Also, Disney does give us an interesting and different version that the book. Even though I'm willing to rant about all of the inaccuracies over the Tim Burton sh- show. I prefer to see a different story or experience, rather than a movie adaptation that is so literal to the book, and therefore aggressively worthless, you fell as though you could just go to the library and read the book for free (Mia Farrow's Great Gatsby, for example). I can't say the same about Peter Pan. Which, compared to Alice, has a MUCH more traditional approach and doesn't get the original point at all. Alice was certainly more ambitious by every standard, even if it's not a very satisfying adaptation it at least went there. Alice was more experimental, better looking, more interesting, Kathryn Beaumont was more interesting, etc. Sure it didn't have much of a plot, but it's Alice in Wonderland it's not supposed to. I love Peter Pan, but it's like comparing Mrs. Doubtfire to Tootsie, the former is a less good version of the ladder. But that's just me.

Though you make a good point about the 40's vs. 50's debate. I don't think the differences es are THAT Staggering, but I can certainly see it. Even though I do think the 40's were the better decade, you're right, I shouldn't be so dismissive of the others. Besides, I have realized I've watched the 50's movies much more than the 40's movies.

I've never understood why so many people have never been found of Alice. I suppose, however, my opinion was always biased, because the book is one of my favorites so all the things that bothered other people never bothered me. Usually the most frequent complains are that the film is too episodic, not enough of a narrative, too crazy, or that Alice is either uninteresting or too Britsh which makes her difficult to relate to. I never had issues with any of these things, and frankly all of these complaints could be used to describe the book too, so clearly the detractors would never like Alice in Wonderland in any format. I think the book is one of the most difficult to adapt, because much of it relies on word play as well as historical references that are antiquated now. The former especially becomes very difficult to translate on screen, if you can't see the text in front of you. I think Alice manages to pull it off well though through animation as a medium, because they are able to show off some of that wordplay through the bizarre creations in the Tulgey Wood, but mainly because the songs use actual text from the book, so the text is still in the film in a way.

I know Walt was never a fan of the movie himself, nor were audiences at the time, but I'm glad he still ended up making it, because it has always resonated with me (I'm not sure what that says about me lol). I do know that Walt felt pressured to make this film, and especially try and make it accurate, because he knew not alone how beloved it was, but also how literary purists were so protective of it, that it wasn't a film he could tamper with too much. For that, I'm very glad he made it the way he did. I wish he had kept a similar attitude when it came to Peter Pan. Yes, it may follow the plotline for the most part of the original book, but the spirit of the book is not really there at all. Peter Pan may not be as beloved as Alice in Wonderland, but I would have preferred a truer book adaptation like the Peter Pan 2003 live-action film, which I've heard many people not only call the definitive version of the story, but also what many people think Walt would have wanted his film to be more like. It's no suprise that he was bothered by Peter Pan's portrayal in the film, and I can't help but wonder if part of that reason was the voice casting. I know that Bobby Driscoll was a favorite of the studio at that time (not that it ended up doing him any good), but in no way did his growing voice fit a boy who never grows up. And frankly, even his appearance was just very odd. I don't even mean the tights and elven ears which never made sense with the character, but the fact that he basically looked like Lampwick's big brother (not even little brother) and Lampwick was never a particularly good-looking character. Considering that Peter Pan is supposed to be a beautiful child and even with his darker side, he has the ability to charm anyone with his eyes and mischevious grin, but all of that is missing in the film. He is certainly not beautiful on the outside, and his inner self might be missing the darkness of the book, but it certainly isn't a very pretty sight either. He lacks any of the charm to excuse his despicable personality as he epitomizes the worst aspects of males from the 50s. Even Wendy, imo, gets the worst 50s attributes from women in the 50s, and all of this is especially a shame because of how well Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp blended the 50s era with their respective time periods from the films. Why Peter Pan failed so much in that respect, I don't understand. I won't get started on Hook either. I'm not sure why he is rated so highly except for his comedy with Smee and the crocodile I guess. Frankly, I would laugh more at him than with him. He's not threatening or dangerous at all to play off one of the most iconic villains ever...he's nothing but a foppish fool who the real Captain Hook would gut in an instant. Anyway, I won't rant about this film much longer, because I'm sure I've done so before and I have a difficulty to stop when I start.

I think one of the reasons the 40s gets the reputation it does compared to the 50s, is because the 50s is considered to be more frivolous. It lacks the darker scenes from the first five films, such as Snow White in the forest, anything with the Evil Queen or Stromboli or the Coachman, Bambi's mother's death, Chernabog, Dumbo's separation from his mother. The later films don't ever reach that same level of pulling at your heartstrings or frightening you to wit's end. People seem to claim that Disney was now afraid of going all out as they once had, and going for more family friendly material. I suppose part of that could be attributed to the more conservative 50s era, but honestly, most of the films that were released in that era anyway wouldn't have worked with the 40s "tar and sugar" (as the unshavedmouse calls it) style. Cinderella was never a dark fairy tale and unlike Snow White, it's supposed to be oppulent and sumptious with grand palaces and elegant balls and gorgeous costumes. Lady and the Tramp was first and foremost a love story. Alice in Wonderland isn't a dark book by any means and although the David Hall concept art from the 40s is stunning, and a film I would definitely love to watch, I wouldn't replace the Alice we got now with it because the one we have is the far more true Alice. Peter Pan is the one exception to this era considering that if any film did need the 40s treatment for more mature themes and darker scenes, this is the one. Which is why I would have loved to have seen David Hall's version for it from the concept art he did in the 40s. I especially prefer Peter's design with him looking much younger (like an actual child rather than a teenager), and not at all like Lampwick, along with the blonde hair (which is how he was mostly pictured before Disney) and the red outfit since green was never accurate despite common belief anyway. I also liked that Wendy looked much younger (around 8 which is what she is believed to be in the book I think) to match Peter, and I also liked the black hair she had to contrast Peter's fair hair. But anyway, the other exception is Sleeping Beauty, although this is a proper exception because while it may never get as mature as the early five films, it does have that same level of darkness in it.

The 50s era was probably my favorite at one time, closely tied with the Renaissance. I've come to appreciate the 40s era more, and realize the faults of some of the 50s films now, but otherwise I might have called this one the most classically Disney.

[JeanGreyForever]

Here are sales figures for Disney's Diamond Blu-Ray line as well as some non-Diamond releases. Courtesy of BDDlover who gave permission for me to re-post his findings for other people to see.

I'm surprised that Sleeping Beauty ranks so low but I suppose because it was the second time it had been released on Blu-Ray, that makes sense. Since it ranks much higher in people's blu-ray collections, most people must have opted for the Platinum Edition (I know that I did when I saw the meager amount of bonus features for the Diamond Edition).

The data on the non-Diamond edition films is especially interesting to me, because while the classic films are sure to sell the most, I wonder what other films are close to that level. I'm really surprised that The Fox and the Hound ranks the highest outside of Disney's classic films, including their Diamond/Signature line as well as Dumbo, Alice, and Fantasia (although I suppose the latter counts as part of the Signature line now). It's one of the better known "Dark Age" Disney films, but I didn't expect it to top Aristocats and Robin Hood, since the former has a lot more merchandise while the latter is either extremely loved or extremely despised. I think The Fox and the Hound made a lot more money than those films (not as much as The Rescuers though) and I suppose the fact that while the film isn't perfect either, nor does it have any particularly memorable songs especially compared to Aristocats and Robin Hood, it's highpoints are much stronger than anything in the other two. I know the themes of this film resonate a lot, especially today. Still, I'm surprised that a film that comes with a crummy direct-to-video sequel managed to top the others.

I'm glad that the Rescuers beats Aristocats and Robin Hood and is generally high up as well. I wonder if that's because some people bought it for the sequel rather than the original though. Glad to see Pocahontas right after The Fox and the Hound in terms of sales. I'm sure those numbers might even be higher if the film hadn't lost out on the extended scenes (not to mention surplus of bonus features from the DVD). I'm a little surprised that The Sword in the Stone ranks so low, because even though it isn't considered a classic like the top sellers, it did come out in the Walt Disney era so I expected it to be better remembered. I suppose the transfer was so horrible that the low sale figures could be partially attributed to this. A little surprised that Tarzan is so low especially compared to Hercules, as they were both released on the same day. I suppose Disney hasn't been able to promote Tarzan for a good decade now with the loss of rights, so while Hercules might still get an occasional piece of merchandise every year or so (usually something Hades related or the Meg shoe ornament), Tarzan hasn't even been able to get that. It lacks 2nd week figures like Hercules though, so I guess those numbers are either missing, or even worse, Tarzan just didn't sell at all in the second week lol. Wish Hunchback was on this list seeing that it was released on the same day as Mulan, but I guess it didn't even rank high enough to appear which is a pity. I know I didn't bother buying it because I had no interest in the sequel (opted for the Zaavi steelbook instead), but even on Facebook, it's the only Renaissance film to be way below the others. I guess like Fantasia, it's more of a niche taste, but unlike Fantasia, it lacks the classic status.

This is great but there is one big problem with thenumbers.com and these graphs.

It only counts the sales of the week, not the sales of all time. Just because a movie sells faster than another doesn't mean that that film automatically sold more in the long run.
This is why I included the bluray.com collections. Sure it's not a very reliable source, but it does offer an idea that the numbers.com doesn't: a total (sort of).

Non of us know the total amount of sales, which I imagine is confidential to Disney (I don't see why though)
The TOTAL is what I'm interested in.

Also, of course the vaulted movies sold more because of their "limited time" offer gave it a boost. This is when Vaulting a movie actually meant something. And with the home video market being more diverse and enduring, the less relative the Vault system is. Don't believe me? Compare the Diamond edition sales of the year to the Signature Edition sales of the year they came out. For example, Bambi's 2011 sale to it's 2017 sale. There is a big difference. I wish there was a formula to determine how well some movies would do if put into the vault. Because after all, it's really not fair to measure a film's blu ray sales compared to those that have only been released for a limited time. That was the trick to which films got selected and which didn't: If vaulting these movies are going to increase the sales this rapidly, would they want to put their investments on a movie that did a great job on home videom making the sales greater if vaulted? or one that did.....ok and then making the sales greater? And yet, three films that Disney hasn't officially vaulted, and have always been available, and are already well known movies, still make the top 100. Doesn't that tell them something? It's pretty telling if they give the go-ahead to Fantasia. Which I can't imagine doing TOO well.
Also, as for Fox, again, just because it did well the first three weeks, doesn't mean it did better than the non diamond trio. By that logic the film would make the top 100 of the sales, which it didn't.
I'm not saying I think Alice, Dumbo, and Fantasia do as well as the others, rather, if they do well enough on their own, wouldn't that be a good reason to put them in the line up? Especially since Vaulting the films is irrelevant now. Hell I'm not even sure if they decide to vault any of the signature editions at all.
Apparently they decide to put Fantasia in there but not Alice or Dumbo. which is the point I made earlier.

The numbers may not end up meaning a lot in the long run, but I do find them interesting to see anyway and maybe others would want to see them which is why I posted them.

I'm not sure the gradual erosion of the vaulting system is as much to explain the difference in Diamond vs Signature sales though, as much as the fact that for example, in Bambi's case, the Diamond Edition was the first release it had on Blu-Ray. The first release on a specific medium would always sell more then re-releases. So the Signature Edition was only going to sell for those people who didn't catch it the first time, or are completists, or tricked by Disney's marketing into thinking that this edition has something new that isn't on the older one. The same logic applies to Sleeping Beauty. The Platinum Edition will sell far more copies than the Diamond Edition because the Platinum came first. I'm not even talking right now about how the Diamond Edition basically takes most of the features from the Platinum Edition out, because the average consumer will either not know or care about that. The reason the re-releases sell less is because they are re-releases. I agree that vaulting does make people snag up releases quicker. That's something Disney banks on.

I didn't say that The Fox and the Hound did better than the non-Diamond trio, unless you misinterpreted me, or I am misinterpreting you now. I said I was surprised that after the non-Diamond trio, it did so well especially compared to some of the others on the list (Pocahontas, Tarzan, Robin Hood, Aristocats, etc.) One thing that might be in its favor is that The Fox and the Hound was one of the first Disney blu-rays to be released, at least compared to pretty much all the rest on the list except the non-Diamond trio. Since there were also less Disney classics in circulation then, that could also explain high sales. I wonder how Mulan and Tarzan would rank if Disney had kept them vaulted as they originally did. Tarzan especially since Disney has been forced to ignore this film for such a long time now. Also wish there were numbers for Lilo & Stitch, alongside Hunchback which I mentioned before. That seems to be the one major Disney film that isn't on there...the rest I think are all C-List like Atlantis or Home on the Range.

Alice and Dumbo seem to only not be vaulted because of Disney's bizarre belief that since these films used to be released to the public at all times (whether on TV, home video, DVD, etc.) they should always remain that way. I'm not sure why they so stringently stick to this tradition, especially because in that video showing the 14 Signature Films together to promote Bambi, Alice and Dumbo's exclusions really stick out imo.

[pikachufan1336]

The numbers may not end up meaning a lot in the long run, but I do find them interesting to see anyway and maybe others would want to see them which is why I posted them.

I'm not sure the gradual erosion of the vaulting system is as much to explain the difference in Diamond vs Signature sales though, as much as the fact that for example, in Bambi's case, the Diamond Edition was the first release it had on Blu-Ray. The first release on a specific medium would always sell more then re-releases. So the Signature Edition was only going to sell for those people who didn't catch it the first time, or are completists, or tricked by Disney's marketing into thinking that this edition has something new that isn't on the older one. The same logic applies to Sleeping Beauty. The Platinum Edition will sell far more copies than the Diamond Edition because the Platinum came first. I'm not even talking right now about how the Diamond Edition basically takes most of the features from the Platinum Edition out, because the average consumer will either not know or care about that. The reason the re-releases sell less is because they are re-releases. I agree that vaulting does make people snag up releases quicker. That's something Disney banks on.

I didn't say that The Fox and the Hound did better than the non-Diamond trio, unless you misinterpreted me, or I am misinterpreting you now. I said I was surprised that after the non-Diamond trio, it did so well especially compared to some of the others on the list (Pocahontas, Tarzan, Robin Hood, Aristocats, etc.) One thing that might be in its favor is that The Fox and the Hound was one of the first Disney blu-rays to be released, at least compared to pretty much all the rest on the list except the non-Diamond trio. Since there were also less Disney classics in circulation then, that could also explain high sales. I wonder how Mulan and Tarzan would rank if Disney had kept them vaulted as they originally did. Tarzan especially since Disney has been forced to ignore this film for such a long time now. Also wish there were numbers for Lilo & Stitch, alongside Hunchback which I mentioned before. That seems to be the one major Disney film that isn't on there...the rest I think are all C-List like Atlantis or Home on the Range.

Alice and Dumbo seem to only not be vaulted because of Disney's bizarre belief that since these films used to be released to the public at all times (whether on TV, home video, DVD, etc.) they should always remain that way. I'm not sure why they so stringently stick to this tradition, especially because in that video showing the 14 Signature Films together to promote Bambi, Alice and Dumbo's exclusions really stick out imo.

[/quote]

I apologize, I must have misunderstood. Because what you said about the Diamond/Plat edition is the point I made to some extent. And yes I must have misread it. My bad.

Though yea I know a lot of people are sick of it but the Alice and Dumbo rule doesn't make sense. Especially considering it's rules as to why they weren't in there in the first place are outdated and seems to be in hindsight a bad move, and doubly especially considering that they include Fantasia, a movie that's in the same boat. and TRIPPLY especially since these vaulted movies are being available for a lot longer.

Maybe we'll get Dumbo for the awful...I'm calling it... live action remake. I'm suspicious they'll do something because they never released the DMC exclusives to the public.

As for Tarzan and Mulan....
Like I said before, Mulan seems to be only popular to THAT generation. Infact, I think i'm the only millennial who doesn't think that this movie isn't that great. (It's like Disney's attempt of making a ghibli film......and failing). So while I can't say that the film does horribly, I don't see anything happening with that film outside of diversifying the princess line up even though it's so unsuccessful in that area. I don't even take the Live action remake that seriously, there isn't a single cartoon that is somewhat well known that will get a live action remake. Watch Gertie the Dinosaur will get a live action remake with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

As for Tarzan, I'm not sure what happened. I KNOW that the film did well in theaters but after that.......not so much. A lot of movies fall through that trap. And this is not the first Disney movie to do so (Robin Hood, and The Rescuers). So that's my input.