Favorite Disney Animated Classic from the 60s?

[D82]

The remake gives us context on what life in the jungle is like with the whole opening such as the water truce and the law of the jungle which are pretty important elements from the book. The "red flower" is also given more weight. If all of that stuff had been in the original film for about a 10-minute opening or so, I'd probably have better feelings towards the animated film. I don't think the animated film even gives the wolves their name of the Seeonee tribe like in the book and remake.

I also don't like the westernized depiction of snakes because in India, snakes are treated with extreme reverence. Female snakes in particular are an important part of their culture and much like dragons in China, they aren't considered evil the way they are in western culture. So to have Kaa as a bumbling oaf instead of a great force of nature in the jungle was disappointing.

I understand that, as a fan of the book, you prefer the remake given that it's more faithful to the source material, and I also understand your problems with the animated film. I haven't read the book; I'll have to do it someday. I could borrow it from my brother, who has read it. He didn't like it much, but maybe I'll have a different opinion of it.

Wart as a character is plain awful. He never grows or develops and is just thrust into situations where Merlin or Archimedes is forced to rescue him. When his voice isn't changing mid-sentence, he's constantly falling over (reused animation) or making that annoying "whoa, what, oh" sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n7cS2p1xE0
The film is just really ugly when you put it next to Sleeping Beauty. That sketchy animation worked for 101 Dalmatians even later on Winnie the Pooh, but not TSITS. Madame Mim, the film's "villain," only appears in the end and has no personal connection to Wart. There's a reason she was removed from the original book because she had no actual purpose. Archimedes is really the only character you can root for because Wart doesn't even count as one and Merlin's interest in the boy isn't really justified from the characterizations alone. At least in the original opening, Merlin was responsible for hiding baby Arthur away from Madame Mim after King Uther's death. The only iconic scene from the film is what the title describes and it really doesn't even feel earned. For the original Arthurian legend, you'd think that Disney would be able to make their own definitive adaptation of it easily considering how many fantasy tropes Disney is known for but this film is completely ignored and forgotten for a reason. The songs are nothing to write about either and not the Sherman Brothers' best work. Also if you've read the book, you'll see that the book was much better, in part because it was Part 1 of five books chronicling Arthur's full story. However, even ignoring those other four books, the first book on its own could have been a spectacular film but instead we get an episodic structure thinly tied together. That's fine in films like Alice in Wonderland but that doesn't really work here for a character who is meant to grow and prove that he is meant to be king.

Thanks for your answer. I share some of those complaints too. It's true that the structure is a bit episodic and some parts feel repetitive, especially the last transformation where Wart is chased be a predator again and the lesson he learns after that sequence is similar to the first one. I don't think the story is bad, but they could've made it a bit more interesting and epic. And I guess they could've given Wart a more interesting personality too. One criticism I've heard about him is that his character is not the character of a future king, that he lacks authority and ambition, and I partly agree. Though, I don't know, maybe he's like that because of how he has been treated until then and he could gain more self-confidence in the future. I find him likeable, though, and I personally root for him.

Regarding Mim, I don't mind that she only appears at the end; she still makes an impression in my opinion. I also like Merlin and especially Archimedes, who is probably my favorite Disney owl.

I wish too the film didn't have recycled animation and sounds, though that doesn't ruin the entire film for me. Speaking of that, that video you posted was hilarious . I've seen the film in English a couple of times, but I hadn't noticed that they used the same sound for all the times he falls. That doesn't happen in the Spanish dub, where his voice is also a bit more appropriate for his age.

I agree that the songs are not the Sherman Brothers' best work, but I don't dislike any of them. My favorite is "That's What Makes the World Go Round". I find it quite catchy.

All in all, I think it feels like a minor movie compared to others from the same era, but I like the characters and I find it entertaining and quite charming, so though it's not one of my personal favorites, I understand why it is for some people.

I never watched Rock-a-Doodle and it's considered one of Don Bluth's worst films so I've had no interest in remedying that.

I've only seen it once and I don't remember much from it, so I guess it didn't leave a big impression on me either.

That's true, I wasn't going by the poll so much as recent post from the last few days where Jungle Book seems to be ranked higher than 101 Dalmatians more often than I expected. So that I did find weird considering it didn't make the top 20 in that previous ranking unlike 101 Dalmatians but maybe it's because it was a different crowd back then.

Oh, OK. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, I guess it must be because of that.

The animated film is the most successful film in Germany ever, to this day. Same with another European country which I can't remember (Switzerland or Sweden maybe). However, the live-action remake was such a success because of India. The film did amazingly well there and from what I remember, it was released in India a month or so before it was released here in the US. Based on its performance in India alone, Disney already confirmed a sequel even before the American release.

Yes, I remember it was really successful there. But in the US too. It's the third highest-grossing remake domestically after The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, surpassing titles like Aladdin or Alice in Wonderland.

I agree about the old vs new, for instance I can see things that Musker and Clements did better with Moana than with The Little Mermaid or Aladdin, but I've known Moana for four years only while TLM and Aladdin are with me as long as I can remember, so I can be forgiving to their flaws more than recent films.

Exactly, you explained it better than me. I also think we're more critical of the new movies.

Sir Ector isn’t an openly malicious character at all. He is unlikable though, mostly because he and Kay represent the brawn over brain philosophy that Merlin is opposed against.

I said I saw him a bit like a villain, but that's a more accurate description of him. I watched the film again yesterday and I think it's true that he cares about Wart, at least a little. And it's possible that he just does what he thinks is good for him. However, it's clear he prefers his own son over him and uses Wart a bit like a servant. Well, maybe that's partially due to the customs of the time, given that as an orphan, he couldn't aspire to much and probably had to work to "pay" for having a roof over his head. But Ector asks Arthur to forgive him at the end, so that proves he felt remorse for the way he had treated him.

This time I also realized that Ector and Kay play a similar role to Cinderella's stepmother and stepsisters. Though they're not as evil as them, they also put obstacles in the protagonist's way. The way Ector shows favoritism for Kay and wants him to be the next king and how Kay treats Wart also reminded me of the Cinderella characters.

[JeanGreyForever]

The remake gives us context on what life in the jungle is like with the whole opening such as the water truce and the law of the jungle which are pretty important elements from the book. The "red flower" is also given more weight. If all of that stuff had been in the original film for about a 10-minute opening or so, I'd probably have better feelings towards the animated film. I don't think the animated film even gives the wolves their name of the Seeonee tribe like in the book and remake.

I also don't like the westernized depiction of snakes because in India, snakes are treated with extreme reverence. Female snakes in particular are an important part of their culture and much like dragons in China, they aren't considered evil the way they are in western culture. So to have Kaa as a bumbling oaf instead of a great force of nature in the jungle was disappointing.

I understand that, as a fan of the book, you prefer the remake given that it's more faithful to the source material, and I also understand your problems with the animated film. I haven't read the book; I'll have to do it someday. I could borrow it from my brother, who has read it. He didn't like it much, but maybe I'll have a different opinion of it.

Wart as a character is plain awful. He never grows or develops and is just thrust into situations where Merlin or Archimedes is forced to rescue him. When his voice isn't changing mid-sentence, he's constantly falling over (reused animation) or making that annoying "whoa, what, oh" sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n7cS2p1xE0
The film is just really ugly when you put it next to Sleeping Beauty. That sketchy animation worked for 101 Dalmatians even later on Winnie the Pooh, but not TSITS. Madame Mim, the film's "villain," only appears in the end and has no personal connection to Wart. There's a reason she was removed from the original book because she had no actual purpose. Archimedes is really the only character you can root for because Wart doesn't even count as one and Merlin's interest in the boy isn't really justified from the characterizations alone. At least in the original opening, Merlin was responsible for hiding baby Arthur away from Madame Mim after King Uther's death. The only iconic scene from the film is what the title describes and it really doesn't even feel earned. For the original Arthurian legend, you'd think that Disney would be able to make their own definitive adaptation of it easily considering how many fantasy tropes Disney is known for but this film is completely ignored and forgotten for a reason. The songs are nothing to write about either and not the Sherman Brothers' best work. Also if you've read the book, you'll see that the book was much better, in part because it was Part 1 of five books chronicling Arthur's full story. However, even ignoring those other four books, the first book on its own could have been a spectacular film but instead we get an episodic structure thinly tied together. That's fine in films like Alice in Wonderland but that doesn't really work here for a character who is meant to grow and prove that he is meant to be king.

Thanks for your answer. I share some of those complaints too. It's true that the structure is a bit episodic and some parts feel repetitive, especially the last transformation where Wart is chased be a predator again and the lesson he learns after that sequence is similar to the first one. I don't think the story is bad, but they could've made it a bit more interesting and epic. And I guess they could've given Wart a more interesting personality too. One criticism I've heard about him is that his character is not the character of a future king, that he lacks authority and ambition, and I partly agree. Though, I don't know, maybe he's like that because of how he has been treated until then and he could gain more self-confidence in the future. I find him likeable, though, and I personally root for him.

Regarding Mim, I don't mind that she only appears at the end; she still makes an impression in my opinion. I also like Merlin and especially Archimedes, who is probably my favorite Disney owl.

I wish too the film didn't have recycled animation and sounds, though that doesn't ruin the entire film for me. Speaking of that, that video you posted was hilarious . I've seen the film in English a couple of times, but I hadn't noticed that they used the same sound for all the times he falls. That doesn't happen in the Spanish dub, where his voice is also a bit more appropriate for his age.

I agree that the songs are not the Sherman Brothers' best work, but I don't dislike any of them. My favorite is "That's What Makes the World Go Round". I find it quite catchy.

All in all, I think it feels like a minor movie compared to others from the same era, but I like the characters and I find it entertaining and quite charming, so though it's not one of my personal favorites, I understand why it is for some people.

I never watched Rock-a-Doodle and it's considered one of Don Bluth's worst films so I've had no interest in remedying that.

I've only seen it once and I don't remember much from it, so I guess it didn't leave a big impression on me either.

That's true, I wasn't going by the poll so much as recent post from the last few days where Jungle Book seems to be ranked higher than 101 Dalmatians more often than I expected. So that I did find weird considering it didn't make the top 20 in that previous ranking unlike 101 Dalmatians but maybe it's because it was a different crowd back then.

Oh, OK. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, I guess it must be because of that.

The animated film is the most successful film in Germany ever, to this day. Same with another European country which I can't remember (Switzerland or Sweden maybe). However, the live-action remake was such a success because of India. The film did amazingly well there and from what I remember, it was released in India a month or so before it was released here in the US. Based on its performance in India alone, Disney already confirmed a sequel even before the American release.

Yes, I remember it was really successful there. But in the US too. It's the third highest-grossing remake domestically after The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, surpassing titles like Aladdin or Alice in Wonderland.

Actually I only recently read the book about 2-3 years ago. It's not a book I grew up reading. The animated film was never my favorite but I liked the depth the live-action remake gave it but even then I wasn't sure if all the new stuff was from the book or not. Only when I read the book afterwards did I realize the live-action film drew heavily from it and the entire opening is based off of Chapter 1 of the book. Mowgli actually only has 3 chapters dedicated to him in the book. Chapter 1 is about Mowgli coming to the wolves, the water truce, Shere Khan challenging the wolves and Bagheera to give up Mowgli and the end has Mowgli leave the jungle. Chapter 2 is a flashback of Baloo and Bagheera teaching Mowgli the ways of the jungle and his "kidnapping" by the bandar-log (monkeys) and Kaa coming to help rescue him. Chapter 3 is what the alternate ending of Jungle Book was in the Diamond Edition (from Bill Peet's story). Mowgli is living in the village and starts a feud with the hunter Buldeo. He ends up not only dealing with Buldeo but also killing Shere Khan in a stampede with his wolf brothers and actually Mufasa's death in The Lion King is more accurate to Chapter 3 of the book than any of the battles in both Jungle Book films.

I agree with that criticism of Wart. He has no personality or character besides falling over and making that sound again and again and clumsiness is not a personality trait. I'm honestly still surprised that Disney could waste Arthurian legend this way. Archimedes is my second favorite owl after the Winnie the Pooh one although I'm fond of the Bambi and Sleeping Beauty ones as well.

You're lucky that the Spanish dub is better. That might also be why the film is more palatable for you because you probably haven't had to endure the dreadful voice acting in the English version. Thankfully by the time Mowgli came along, he had a consistent voice. Wart had 3 voice actors and one of them has a truly horrendous voice, you can tell he was still in the middle of puberty. And it's really jarring when his voice changes from one sentence to the next.

There's a reason none of the Sword in the Stone songs are iconic whereas almost anyone knows I Wanna Be Like You, or any Mary Poppins song, or even some of the Aristocats songs. There's also a reason this film is the only one from the Walt era not considered a classic and pretty much ignored. I have yet to meet anyone who's ever liked this film except for one friend who likes all the films with magic. Strange, because I tended to like the human films with magic as well but this was so not my cup of tea. Anyway her taste is suspect because she's a Trump supporter anyway so I don't even consider her a friend anymore. Her criticism of Mulan to this day is that even though she loves the character and the eastern values, she can't condone the message of the film that women should be able to fight in the army as she feels women were built differently than men and should thus stay home. Wackjob.

I haven't seen most of Bluth's films from that era besides Thumbelina which I don't really mind. The rest sound awful though and people are especially harsh on them.

You don't have to apologize, I don't think you misunderstood at all.

Oh wow, I didn't realize it was so successful in the US. I always remembered that it didn't quite make a billion worldwide, so I figured it's because the film didn't do as well in the US but that's not the case at all. Aladdin is just slightly below TJB in terms of domestic box office.

[Disney's Divinity]

This time I also realized that Ector and Kay play a similar role to Cinderella's stepmother and stepsisters. Though they're not as evil as them, they also put obstacles in the protagonist's way. The way Ector shows favoritism for Kay and wants him to be the next king and how Kay treats Wart also reminded me of the Cinderella characters.

It is a bit like Cinderella now I think of it that way. And them trying to pull the sword out themselves is similar to how the stepsisters try to force the slipper to fit them.

Anyway, I don't really mind that the film doesn't really address the rest of the Arthur stories since the book the film's based on doesn't either. As for Arthur himself, I guess it's my opinion of the character even outside the Disney film that Arthur is supposed to be a very flawed character. He's well-intentioned, but imperfect. I don't know if there was ever supposed to be anything very remarkable about Arthur. Some people just have a destiny that others don't; sometimes it isn't based on merit. The fact that the Disney character never fully takes in what Merlin tries to teach him sort of fits to me.

[Farerb]

What do you think Moana did better than TLM and Aladdin? I can't believe there used to be a time when talk like that was heresy and now it's being said all out in the open lol.

Sorry that I'm only commenting just now. Busy week.

I think M&C had better characters development in Moana than in The Little Mermaid and the connection between the external conflict and the internal conflict is done better. What I mean is here are the characters that show change throughout the Moana are Moana, Maui, Tui and Tala and to a lesser extent Te Fiti/Te Kā, in The Little Mermaid it's only Triton and Ariel (but mostly Triton). The external conflict (Te Fiti turning to Te Kā and bringing darkness to the world) is related to the internal conflict (characters trying to truly understand who they are and what their identities).

With Aladdin - less pop culture references (I think the only one in Moana is the twitter joke which I don't like) and better handling of a culture (some things are still left to be desired).

And overall, I feel Moana had better set ups to its pay offs.

(And I still think it's "heresy" here, but this is the only place I know where people have a major dislike to the newer films, and I've decided that I shouldn't hold on to my opinions just because some people have a difficulty to accept them).

[JeanGreyForever]

What do you think Moana did better than TLM and Aladdin? I can't believe there used to be a time when talk like that was heresy and now it's being said all out in the open lol.

Sorry that I'm only commenting just now. Busy week.

I think M&C had better characters development in Moana than in The Little Mermaid and the connection between the external conflict and the internal conflict is done better. What I mean is here are the characters that show change throughout the Moana are Moana, Maui, Tui and Tala and to a lesser extent Te Fiti/Te Kā, in The Little Mermaid it's only Triton and Ariel (but mostly Triton). The external conflict (Te Fiti turning to Te Kā and bringing darkness to the world) is related to the internal conflict (characters trying to truly understand who they are and what their identities).

With Aladdin - less pop culture references (I think the only one in Moana is the twitter joke which I don't like) and better handling of a culture (some things are still left to be desired).

And overall, I feel Moana had better set ups to its pay offs.

(And I still think it's "heresy" here, but this is the only place I know where people have a major dislike to the newer films, and I've decided that I shouldn't hold on to my opinions just because some people have a difficulty to accept them).

That's all right, I figured as much.

I agree about Moana and Maui, but I don't recall Tala changing at all, unless you mean changing into her new form. However, as a character she starts off as the wise but sassy granny and she ends the film as the wise but sassy granny. Tui is the dad right? Tbh, his part in the film isn't huge. Moana leaves without his permission so he has to accept her actions and the film never makes the effort of revisiting him after Moana goes off. We only see her parents and the island in her nightmare. Otherwise TLM did a much better job of going back to Triton's viewpoint after she's become human. Even Aladdin makes sure to check in on Jasmine multiple times after Aladdin is arrested and before he becomes a prince. Ariel gets criticized for being a static character and not really changing, but I think that's part of her charm. I wouldn't have her any other way and she wasn't wrong at all to have to change in the first place. Triton does change and so does Sebastian for that matter and he was one of the few sidekicks who developed at the time. The only prominent examples I can think of before him would be Jiminy Cricket and Baloo. Te Fiti really being Te Ka also doesn't grab me because it's left as one of Disney's typical twist villain surprises so there's no chance to actually get to know the character as a villain and understand her anguish besides her final scene.

Aladdin does have more pop culture references but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing since it sorta started that trend and it was only Genie. Unlike films like Hercules where every character is making references like that or how even in Moana, Maui wouldn't really have the sentience to know stuff like "Twitter" the way Genie would or his remarks about what a princess is like (the dress and the animal sidekicks). They feel way out of place in Moana even as brief as they are, unlike in Aladdin where pop culture jokes are part of the film's identity but still only tastefully restricted to one character essentially. Oh and Iago I guess.

If you go on Tumblr, you'll find plenty of different types of Disney fans. Some only like the Walt-era films, some only like the 90s, some only like the new films, some like blends of multiple eras, etc. There's also the Pixar fans, the Disney animals fans, and the Disney Parks fans. This forum tends to be more 90s biased and from what I've heard, that's been the case since its inception. I remember reading a post where Luke was joking that it seems most of the people on here think The Little Mermaid was the first every Disney film created.

[Farerb]

What I meant about Tui and Tala:
Tui - accepting Moana's journey and allowing her to lead their people into the ocean despite his post trauma.
Tala - realizing she was wrong to put the weight of the world on Moana, something that hasn't been done before with the "sassy grandma" trope (which I don't dislike like others cause it's the "mentor" trope that existed since LotR but with a woman instead of a man).

Yes these are small, but I feel they are significant and ultimately Moana is a different film than TLM and Aladdin so the going back and forth wouldn't suit it.

I guess I'm a blend since I think each of the three eras I like and Pixar has something different to offer. For me it's not an either or situation, but both or all. I just don't view it like it's a competition, and I don't think that saying positive aspects of one film dismiss the other, or that acknowledging a film's flaws means I don't like that film. I know people think I don't like Frozen (and now probably The Little Mermaid lol) but I do, if I didn't like them I wouldn't have been invested in talking about them as one can see the amount of time I give for the package"films" or the dark/bronze era or the the post Renaissance (except a few).

[D82]

Actually I only recently read the book about 2-3 years ago. It's not a book I grew up reading. The animated film was never my favorite but I liked the depth the live-action remake gave it but even then I wasn't sure if all the new stuff was from the book or not. Only when I read the book afterwards did I realize the live-action film drew heavily from it and the entire opening is based off of Chapter 1 of the book. Mowgli actually only has 3 chapters dedicated to him in the book. Chapter 1 is about Mowgli coming to the wolves, the water truce, Shere Khan challenging the wolves and Bagheera to give up Mowgli and the end has Mowgli leave the jungle. Chapter 2 is a flashback of Baloo and Bagheera teaching Mowgli the ways of the jungle and his "kidnapping" by the bandar-log (monkeys) and Kaa coming to help rescue him. Chapter 3 is what the alternate ending of Jungle Book was in the Diamond Edition (from Bill Peet's story). Mowgli is living in the village and starts a feud with the hunter Buldeo. He ends up not only dealing with Buldeo but also killing Shere Khan in a stampede with his wolf brothers and actually Mufasa's death in The Lion King is more accurate to Chapter 3 of the book than any of the battles in both Jungle Book films.

Thanks for that summary of the chapters in which Mowli appears in the book. I knew from my brother that there are more stories in the book and not just Mowli's, but I didn't know many of those details.

Archimedes is my second favorite owl after the Winnie the Pooh one although I'm fond of the Bambi and Sleeping Beauty ones as well.

Well, Disney has several good owl characters. Apart from the ones you mentioned, I also like Big Mama from The Fox and the Hound.

You're lucky that the Spanish dub is better. That might also be why the film is more palatable for you because you probably haven't had to endure the dreadful voice acting in the English version. Thankfully by the time Mowgli came along, he had a consistent voice. Wart had 3 voice actors and one of them has a truly horrendous voice, you can tell he was still in the middle of puberty. And it's really jarring when his voice changes from one sentence to the next.

I noticed the changes in his voice this last time I've watched the film, but I didn't know he was voiced by three different actors. I though his voice was different sometimes because the actor had recorded some lines before his voice changed and others after that. I guess they had to use the other two actors to replace the original one when his voice started to sound too adult, but they should've recorded the entire dialogue again with one of the new actors. Having different voices for him in the same scene is a really sloppy job. Disney wouldn't have allowed this if he had been more involved with the film, as he was a perfectionist. By the way, I've looked it up and the son of Wolfgang Reitherman who voiced Mowli (and also Christopher Robin) is not the same as any of the ones who voiced Arthur. Those were his two oldest sons and the one who voiced Mowli is the youngest.

I haven't seen most of Bluth's films from that era besides Thumbelina which I don't really mind. The rest sound awful though and people are especially harsh on them.

In my opinion, his best films are the first ones he made: The Secret of NIMH, An American Tail and The Land Before Time. An American Tail is my personal favorite. Anastasia is also good and I personally like Thumbelina too. The rest are OK, but not as good as those to me.

It is a bit like Cinderella now I think of it that way. And them trying to pull the sword out themselves is similar to how the stepsisters try to force the slipper to fit them.

It's true! I hadn't thought of that. There are also parallels between Arthur and Cinderella (the character), come to think of it, and between Merlin and the Fairy Godmother.

Anyway, I don't really mind that the film doesn't really address the rest of the Arthur stories since the book the film's based on doesn't either. As for Arthur himself, I guess it's my opinion of the character even outside the Disney film that Arthur is supposed to be a very flawed character. He's well-intentioned, but imperfect. I don't know if there was ever supposed to be anything very remarkable about Arthur. Some people just have a destiny that others don't; sometimes it isn't based on merit. The fact that the Disney character never fully takes in what Merlin tries to teach him sort of fits to me.

Well, I personally think it was a good idea to adapt just that first book, because I think the rest of Arthur's legend is not very suitable for a Disney film. And I haven't read it, so I don't really know if Disney could have made a better movie out of it or not. Regarding Arthur, I don't really mind that he doesn't show a lot of progress in the film. It's actually more believable that way, given that the whole movie takes place in just two or three days and people don't usually learn so quickly. I think the lessons he learns with Merlin will serve him in the future.

[JeanGreyForever]

Actually I only recently read the book about 2-3 years ago. It's not a book I grew up reading. The animated film was never my favorite but I liked the depth the live-action remake gave it but even then I wasn't sure if all the new stuff was from the book or not. Only when I read the book afterwards did I realize the live-action film drew heavily from it and the entire opening is based off of Chapter 1 of the book. Mowgli actually only has 3 chapters dedicated to him in the book. Chapter 1 is about Mowgli coming to the wolves, the water truce, Shere Khan challenging the wolves and Bagheera to give up Mowgli and the end has Mowgli leave the jungle. Chapter 2 is a flashback of Baloo and Bagheera teaching Mowgli the ways of the jungle and his "kidnapping" by the bandar-log (monkeys) and Kaa coming to help rescue him. Chapter 3 is what the alternate ending of Jungle Book was in the Diamond Edition (from Bill Peet's story). Mowgli is living in the village and starts a feud with the hunter Buldeo. He ends up not only dealing with Buldeo but also killing Shere Khan in a stampede with his wolf brothers and actually Mufasa's death in The Lion King is more accurate to Chapter 3 of the book than any of the battles in both Jungle Book films.

Thanks for that summary of the chapters in which Mowli appears in the book. I knew from my brother that there are more stories in the book and not just Mowli's, but I didn't know many of those details.

Archimedes is my second favorite owl after the Winnie the Pooh one although I'm fond of the Bambi and Sleeping Beauty ones as well.

Well, Disney has several good owl characters. Apart from the ones you mentioned, I also like Big Mama from The Fox and the Hound.

You're lucky that the Spanish dub is better. That might also be why the film is more palatable for you because you probably haven't had to endure the dreadful voice acting in the English version. Thankfully by the time Mowgli came along, he had a consistent voice. Wart had 3 voice actors and one of them has a truly horrendous voice, you can tell he was still in the middle of puberty. And it's really jarring when his voice changes from one sentence to the next.

I noticed the changes in his voice this last time I've watched the film, but I didn't know he was voiced by three different actors. I though his voice was different sometimes because the actor had recorded some lines before his voice changed and others after that. I guess they had to use the other two actors to replace the original one when his voice started to sound too adult, but they should've recorded the entire dialogue again with one of the new actors. Having different voices for him in the same scene is a really sloppy job. Disney wouldn't have allowed this if he had been more involved with the film, as he was a perfectionist. By the way, I've looked it up and the son of Wolfgang Reitherman who voiced Mowli (and also Christopher Robin) is not the same as any of the ones who voiced Arthur. Those were his two oldest sons and the one who voiced Mowli is the youngest.

I haven't seen most of Bluth's films from that era besides Thumbelina which I don't really mind. The rest sound awful though and people are especially harsh on them.

In my opinion, his best films are the first ones he made: The Secret of NIMH, An American Tail and The Land Before Time. An American Tail is my personal favorite. Anastasia is also good and I personally like Thumbelina too. The rest are OK, but not as good as those to me.

Well, I personally think it was a good idea to adapt just that first book, because I think the rest of Arthur's legend is not very suitable for a Disney film. And I haven't read it, so I don't really know if Disney could have made a better movie out of it or not. Regarding Arthur, I don't really mind that he doesn't show a lot of progress in the film. It's actually more believable that way, given that the whole movie takes place in just two or three days and people don't usually learn so quickly. I think the lessons he learns with Merlin will serve him in the future.

What's interesting is that one of the chapters is set in the arctic. About a seal I believe. Not sure what that has to do with the jungles or India. Rikki Tikki Tavi is the other most famous character besides Mowgli but he only has one chapter dedicated to him.

Yes, I forgot about her and I like her too.

Every time they cast an actor for him, that actor's voice would break. Hence why the first boy was replaced with the second who was replaced with a third. I'm assuming the reason they didn't replace all his dialogue with the third actor's voice is because they feared that boy's voice would break too before they could get all the dialogue re-recorded so better just record the parts that haven't been voiced yet. And I'm glad that Mowgli's voice actor was different as you said. He has a whole feature in The Jungle Book DVD.

I like NIMH but I only saw it for the first time a few years ago and I think it's a bit overrated. It's a good film but I don't like the mix of magic and science and the amulet is just a strange addition imo. I really like An American Tail though although it has a plot of plot issues like how Fievel's baby brother completely disappears throughout the film and how entire scenes were cut out (like Fievel in the orphanage. In the final cut, as soon as he arrives he just leaves). I also think it's strange that a cat was able to masquerade as a mouse, that just seems like it's pushing plausibility even in an animated film. However the film has enough charm in its characters and songs to mostly make up for all of those issues. The Land Before Time is also a great film although I'm more used to the kiddie sequels.

If Disney could adapt Hercules and Greek Mythology, they could figure out a way to adapt King Arthur (then again, their version of Hercules basically had nothing to do with the real myths and there's a reason Greece refused to premiere the film). It's not like they're ever 100% accurate and there have been plenty of popular Arthurian adaptations recently like the Merlin TV series.

[blackcauldron85]

Rikki Tikki Tavi is the other most famous character besides Mowgli but he only has one chapter dedicated to him.

Learn something new every day! I had a storybook that had Rikki Tikki Tavi as a kid, but I never knew his story came from The Jungle Book!

[JeanGreyForever]

Rikki Tikki Tavi is the other most famous character besides Mowgli but he only has one chapter dedicated to him.

Learn something new every day! I had a storybook that had Rikki Tikki Tavi as a kid, but I never knew his story came from The Jungle Book!

I'm glad you learned something! I never grew up with him but I had heard of the story before.

[D82]

Every time they cast an actor for him, that actor's voice would break. Hence why the first boy was replaced with the second who was replaced with a third. I'm assuming the reason they didn't replace all his dialogue with the third actor's voice is because they feared that boy's voice would break too before they could get all the dialogue re-recorded so better just record the parts that haven't been voiced yet.

That makes sense. It's a common problem that happens with boy actors. That's why in many cases they use girls instead of boys to voice boy characters. Especially for TV series, given that they're usually needed for a longer period of time.

I like NIMH but I only saw it for the first time a few years ago and I think it's a bit overrated. It's a good film but I don't like the mix of magic and science and the amulet is just a strange addition imo. I really like An American Tail though although it has a plot of plot issues like how Fievel's baby brother completely disappears throughout the film and how entire scenes were cut out (like Fievel in the orphanage. In the final cut, as soon as he arrives he just leaves). I also think it's strange that a cat was able to masquerade as a mouse, that just seems like it's pushing plausibility even in an animated film. However the film has enough charm in its characters and songs to mostly make up for all of those issues. The Land Before Time is also a great film although I'm more used to the kiddie sequels.

I didn't like The Secret of NIMH when I rented it as a child. I guess I found it too dark and confusing back then. I didn't see it again until some years ago when I decided to watch all of Don Bluth's films again and this time it was one of the films by him I enjoyed the most. I think it's my third favorite now after An American Tail and The Land Before Time.

I've always found the cat masquerading as a mouse in An American Tail difficult to believe as well. But I agree with you that the film's charm mostly makes up for all those plot issues.

I've only seen one of the sequels to The Land Before Time. One in which the main characters have to take care of a baby dinosaur (if I remember it correctly). I don't know what sequel it is. I think there are ten or more, right?

If Disney could adapt Hercules and Greek Mythology, they could figure out a way to adapt King Arthur (then again, their version of Hercules basically had nothing to do with the real myths and there's a reason Greece refused to premiere the film). It's not like they're ever 100% accurate and there have been plenty of popular Arthurian adaptations recently like the Merlin TV series.

Well, I guess you may be right. I was thinking mainly of Guinevere's infidelity with Lancelot, which seems to be one of the most famous episodes from Arthur's legend. But maybe they could adapt that as a love triangle, for example, that takes place before Arthur and Guinevere are married.

[JeanGreyForever]

Every time they cast an actor for him, that actor's voice would break. Hence why the first boy was replaced with the second who was replaced with a third. I'm assuming the reason they didn't replace all his dialogue with the third actor's voice is because they feared that boy's voice would break too before they could get all the dialogue re-recorded so better just record the parts that haven't been voiced yet.

That makes sense. It's a common problem that happens with boy actors. That's why in many cases they use girls instead of boys to voice boy characters. Especially for TV series, given that they're usually needed for a longer period of time.

I like NIMH but I only saw it for the first time a few years ago and I think it's a bit overrated. It's a good film but I don't like the mix of magic and science and the amulet is just a strange addition imo. I really like An American Tail though although it has a plot of plot issues like how Fievel's baby brother completely disappears throughout the film and how entire scenes were cut out (like Fievel in the orphanage. In the final cut, as soon as he arrives he just leaves). I also think it's strange that a cat was able to masquerade as a mouse, that just seems like it's pushing plausibility even in an animated film. However the film has enough charm in its characters and songs to mostly make up for all of those issues. The Land Before Time is also a great film although I'm more used to the kiddie sequels.

I didn't like The Secret of NIMH when I rented it as a child. I guess I found it too dark and confusing back then. I didn't see it again until some years ago when I decided to watch all of Don Bluth's films again and this time it was one of the films by him I enjoyed the most. I think it's my third favorite now after An American Tail and The Land Before Time.

I've always found the cat masquerading as a mouse in An American Tail difficult to believe as well. But I agree with you that the film's charm mostly makes up for all those plot issues.

I've only seen one of the sequels to The Land Before Time. One in which the main characters have to take care of a baby dinosaur (if I remember it correctly). I don't know what sequel it is. I think there are ten or more, right?

If Disney could adapt Hercules and Greek Mythology, they could figure out a way to adapt King Arthur (then again, their version of Hercules basically had nothing to do with the real myths and there's a reason Greece refused to premiere the film). It's not like they're ever 100% accurate and there have been plenty of popular Arthurian adaptations recently like the Merlin TV series.

Well, I guess you may be right. I was thinking mainly of Guinevere's infidelity with Lancelot, which seems to be one of the most famous episodes from Arthur's legend. But maybe they could adapt that as a love triangle, for example, that takes place before Arthur and Guinevere are married.

I always wondered why they can't hire a boy who is young enough to not have to worry about puberty for years to come. Even a tween/teen is considered a minor so it's not like the same labor laws don't apply.

I grew up with The Land Before Time franchise so those characters are very dear to me and it would rank as #2 after Anastasia for me. I like An American Tail a lot but it has those things I mentioned before which hamper it as one of my top favorites which is why it's at #3. Thumbelina is a guilty pleasure to be honest. I also grew up with All Dogs Go To Heaven (both films) but it was never a major favorite of mine.

There's like 14-16 sequels now I think. To be honest I don't even remember which ones I've seen, I just remember that I saw some of them and they clearly weren't the original because they were much more family friendly.

A lot of Arthurian adaptations cut out the love triangle and just stick with Arthur and Guinevere as a couple. Lancelot had a lot of love interests anyway so it's not necessary to tie him up in that. But yes, they could go the route you said as well and just stick with a time period before they're married.

[D82]

I always wondered why they can't hire a boy who is young enough to not have to worry about puberty for years to come. Even a tween/teen is considered a minor so it's not like the same labor laws don't apply.

Exactly. Well, I guess in some cases they want the character to sound like a teenager and there's not a wide range of ages there, but for all the other cases that would be the most logical solution.

There's like 14-16 sequels now I think.

Wow, that's a lot of sequels. They've really milked that franchise.

A lot of Arthurian adaptations cut out the love triangle and just stick with Arthur and Guinevere as a couple.

I didn't know that, but I haven't seen many adaptations of Arthur's legend. Well, that would be a possible solution too.

[JeanGreyForever]

I always wondered why they can't hire a boy who is young enough to not have to worry about puberty for years to come. Even a tween/teen is considered a minor so it's not like the same labor laws don't apply.

Exactly. Well, I guess in some cases they want the character to sound like a teenager and there's not a wide range of ages there, but for all the other cases that would be the most logical solution.

There's like 14-16 sequels now I think.

Wow, that's a lot of sequels. They've really milked that franchise.

A lot of Arthurian adaptations cut out the love triangle and just stick with Arthur and Guinevere as a couple.

I didn't know that, but I haven't seen many adaptations of Arthur's legend. Well, that would be a possible solution too.

That reminds me of how Bobby Driscoll clearly sounds like a teenager as Peter Pan. As much as I love Driscoll's early films, he was miscast for Peter Pan. A few years too late to play the role.

The Swan Princess seems to be trying to match that record.

Some versions now omit the romance altogether.

[blackcauldron85]

That reminds me of how Bobby Driscoll clearly sounds like a teenager as Peter Pan. As much as I love Driscoll's early films, he was miscast for Peter Pan. A few years too late to play the role.

To me at least, Disney's Peter Pan looks like a teenager, so the voice matches the look...were you meaning not only that you wish Peter sounded younger, but looked younger to match the book's Peter? (Bobby D. turned 16 in 1953, for reference.)

[D82]

That reminds me of how Bobby Driscoll clearly sounds like a teenager as Peter Pan. As much as I love Driscoll's early films, he was miscast for Peter Pan. A few years too late to play the role.

To me at least, Disney's Peter Pan looks like a teenager, so the voice matches the look...were you meaning not only that you wish Peter sounded younger, but looked younger to match the book's Peter? (Bobby D. turned 16 in 1953, for reference.)

I was going to say the same thing, blackcauldron85. I also think his voice matches Peter Pan's look. They clearly wanted him to sound like a teenager in my opinion.

The Swan Princess seems to be trying to match that record.

You're right. I've looked it up and there are already nine films in that franchise. I didn't know there were so many. I've only seen the first three.

[JeanGreyForever]

That reminds me of how Bobby Driscoll clearly sounds like a teenager as Peter Pan. As much as I love Driscoll's early films, he was miscast for Peter Pan. A few years too late to play the role.

To me at least, Disney's Peter Pan looks like a teenager, so the voice matches the look...were you meaning not only that you wish Peter sounded younger, but looked younger to match the book's Peter? (Bobby D. turned 16 in 1953, for reference.)

Yes, that's precisely the issue. Peter Pan is supposed to be the eternal child, not a teenager. Especially not a teenager since that is the age group that seems the most ardent in proving that they aren't children and should be considered adults. Peter is supposed to have all his baby teeth, not resemble a reject from The Outsiders. The Bobby from Song of the South, So Dear to My Heart, The Window, and Treasure Island would have been a much more natural choice, especially if the film had been made in the 40s like originally planned. I prefer the concept art from that period as well since he did resemble a child and not Lampwick reincarnated.

The Swan Princess seems to be trying to match that record.

You're right. I've looked it up and there are already nine films in that franchise. I didn't know there were so many. I've only seen the first three.

The first three are the only good ones imo. I can't get through the first few CGI films like that Christmas Special one. Michelle Nicastro (Odette's speaking voice) also passed away by the time they started working on the CGI films so that's another loss.

[D82]

Yes, that's precisely the issue. Peter Pan is supposed to be the eternal child, not a teenager. Especially not a teenager since that is the age group that seems the most ardent in proving that they aren't children and should be considered adults. Peter is supposed to have all his baby teeth, not resemble a reject from The Outsiders. The Bobby from Song of the South, So Dear to My Heart, The Window, and Treasure Island would have been a much more natural choice, especially if the film had been made in the 40s like originally planned. I prefer the concept art from that period as well since he did resemble a child and not Lampwick reincarnated.

I don't know, to me it kind of makes sense he's not that young in Disney's version. He's more or less the same age as Wendy, and at the beginning, she's in that phase in which she doesn't want to become an adult yet. I imagine Peter has been though something similar, and he decided not to grow up anymore (in Disney's version). Perhaps it's not too common, but I also had a phase as a teenager when I wanted time to stop so I could be a child a bit longer. There was a time when I dreamed of being an adult as well, but if I'm not mistaken, that was before being a teenager. It seemed to me adults could do whatever they wanted and go wherever they wished to go and that's why I wanted to be one. We always want what we don't have, don't we?

[Farerb]

To me it always seemed like Peter Pan is ~14-15, Wendy ~13, John ~10, Michael ~6-7.