Disney Duster wrote:Chernabog_Rocks, if you're in here, yes, all Disney films should be attempted to be treated equally.
BUT if one, if one has to be identified as the most important film to the studio, you have to admit, it's Snow White. I'm sure you can point out all the great aspects of other films, that saved the studio or whatever, but what is really the most important film, if you have to find it? It's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
And you bet some bad, little effort cover arts have been disgraces to Disney. Disney's still kickin' but there's no doubt disgraces have been done to it's films and characters. Sequels. Franchises. 'Nuff said.
I'm in here somewhere
Snow White, in my opinion, shouldn't be instantly called The Most Important simply because it was the first one. Look at kids, if I had younger brothers/sisters would I be The Most Important because I was the first born? First, isn't always better. I could point out that Cinderella helped (from what I recall) save the company from it's slump after the WW2 package features. Likewise Little Mermaid did as well I believe, or at least get them back in the game (I'm rather fuzzy on the details.) We could also look at, perhaps Sword in the Stone and....Aristocats? They continued the DAC line after Walt's death, or perhaps it was Jungle Book?
Anyways, point I'm trying to make is Snow White should...earn the title not just be handed it because it was first. If you had compared Snow White to all the other DAC's and how much importance they have compared to that one then that's fine. But something tells me you haven't done that?
Also, ugly cover art is trivial. Disney Franchises and Sequels are rather bigger problems than cover art. Well, actually Sequels would depend on who your talking to, there are some out there (including myself) who do like a number of the sequels and don't see them as "disgraces". I do agree some are subpar though. Also, you realize that Cinderella 3 is lumped in there with the sequels as being disgraces right? Also, Sequels generate more dvd releases which generate more ugly cover art! So without sequels there's less ugly art spreading around. Which is why I say the art on the cover is trivial.
Also, Franchises and Sequels are....more lasting in memory. You see the Ugly Art on the store shelf and for a minute? it takes to remove the movie etc. from the case. Sequels are what you watch, they have a more lasting impression because they're *movies* Disney advertises them and makes merchandise for them, same with Franchises they're also more lasting in memory. Simply because everywhere you go there's a franchise, I'm going to lump Hannah in here, along with the Jonas Brothers and other Disney Channel stars etc. because I"m not sure if they have franchises, but either way they are everywhere so I digress. You see Hannah everywhere, the Disney Princess line etc. It's far more overwhelming and lasting than some small ugly piece of art that a majority of people never notice for more than a few minutes.
Yes I know, you and other people love staring at the art (which no offense I find odd, simply because I'm very busy and can't imagine spending time looking at a dvd cover for no reason other than to look at it for pretty art, that's what paintings and lithos are for). But a lot of us don't. For you, yes it's probably disgraceful to have hideous art to look at but in the end will it matter? Because (I assume) a lot of us have moved on, and don't care most likely because we have other more important things to do than look at dvd cover.
Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news then . . .
