DVDizzy Forum

I feel like this numbering system is more a marketing strategy, whether to make people buy more home releases (more in the early 2000s when home media was in its prime), or in order to hype up a film like with Tangled (personally I feel like it would have been more appropriate had TPatF was the 50th).

Anyway, I don't really put too much stock in the canon, the order or what film is in it, personally I feel like there are film that shouldn't be there at all (like the package films or Winnie the Pooh) and some I would feel ashamed to put there if I were Disney (like Chicken Little). And I'm glad that US releases don't have numbers on them cause that would just annoy me.

In my opinion, Disney was smart to label the Vault films (I'm saying Vault cause I want to include Fantasia, Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland) because it allowed them to showcase the ultimate films Disney ever made, the films that represent Disney and give them more "prestige". Though unfortunately I feel like their reputation is hurt and I blame Disney for that because they stopped caring about the way people view the brand and started caring more about making money.

DisneyJedi wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote:I'm not a Tangled fan at all but I feel very sorry for any country that has to have Bolt as their 50th animated Disney classic.

Why? It wasn’t a terrible movie.

I'm guessing Jean feels BOLT is too undistinguished to be the landmark 50th feature. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie. My opinion is that it is a fine and very well-executed film (and yes ... I did want American Dog! ) However, it really doesn't stand in the Disney canon. Personally I feel its most unique feature is a technical one, namely the painterly backgrounds. I'm guessing quite a few of you never noticed these as the effect is quite subtle. However, if you're curious, pop in the BOLT blu-ray and freeze the frame - preferably in a scene where the background recedes into the distance - and you'll notice that the background elements are indeed rendered in a painterly style! Whether WDAS achieved this with the use of matte paintings or by putting actual CG background elements through a painterly filter I do not know - but I appreciate it - and wish the studio itself talked more about it at the time of the film's release. It is also comforting because I know for a fact that the painterly backgrounds concept was developed when the film was still American Dog under the helm of Chris Sanders, and I think it is one of the very few things from that version that survived into the finished film.

Also I've long wondered whether the painterly animation technique Glen Keane was developing for Rapunzel was in any way related to the processing that was done on Bolt's background. Unfortunately, Lasseter axed that aspect of the film, which devastated me because it was one of the top reasons I was so eagerly awaiting Rapunzel, what with that film long having been rumoured as possibly being the pinnacle of CG animation on release. I remember reading that Lasseter found the effect distracting but I wish at least he'd have let WDAS show it off within a special sequence in the film. Unfortunately, I find that Lasseter seems to favour very conventional visuals and seems none too keen on experimenting with different styles. By contrast, to Walt Disney's immense credit, even if the mid-century modern style wasn't quite 'his thing' he never stopped his artists from incorporating modern elements in both the short subjects and features of the 1950s. On the contrary, he was frustrated to no end that Mary Blair's modern sensibilities were being applied sparingly to the features. (It was for this reason that he championed Eyvind Earle and backed his proposed art direction for Sleeping Beauty with the weight of a 100-pound gorilla. I would like to point this out whenever anybody accuses Disney animation of the time of being archaic and failing to acknowledge modernism.)

Gee ... I think I'm going to repost all this in a Bolt thread because it makes more sense there!

Jules wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: Why? It wasn’t a terrible movie.

I'm guessing Jean feels BOLT is too undistinguished to be the landmark 50th feature. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie. My opinion is that it is a fine and very well-executed film (and yes ... I did want American Dog! ) However, it really doesn't stand in the Disney canon. Personally I feel its most unique feature is a technical one, namely the painterly backgrounds. I'm guessing quite a few of you never noticed these as the effect is quite subtle. However, if you're curious, pop in the BOLT blu-ray and freeze the frame - preferably in a scene where the background recedes into the distance - and you'll notice that the background elements are indeed rendered in a painterly style! Whether WDAS achieved this with the use of matte paintings or by putting actual CG background elements through a painterly filter I do not know - but I appreciate it - and wish the studio itself talked more about it at the time of the film's release. It is also comforting because I know for a fact that the painterly backgrounds concept was developed when the film was still American Dog under the helm of Chris Sanders, and I think it is one of the very few things from that version that survived into the finished film.

Also I've long wondered whether the painterly animation technique Glen Keane was developing for Rapunzel was in any way related to the processing that was done on Bolt's background. Unfortunately, Lasseter axed that aspect of the film, which devastated me because it was one of the top reasons I was so eagerly awaiting Rapunzel, what with that film long having been rumoured as possibly being the pinnacle of CG animation on release. I remember reading that Lasseter found the effect distracting but I wish at least he'd have let WDAS show it off within a special sequence in the film. Unfortunately, I find that Lasseter seems to favour very conventional visuals and seems none too keen on experimenting with different styles. By contrast, to Walt Disney's immense credit, even if the mid-century modern style wasn't quite 'his thing' he never stopped his artists from incorporating modern elements in both the short subjects and features of the 1950s. On the contrary, he was frustrated to no end that Mary Blair's modern sensibilities were being applied sparingly to the features. (It was for this reason that he championed Eyvind Earle and backed his proposed art direction for Sleeping Beauty with the weight of a 100-pound gorilla. I would like to point this out whenever anybody accuses Disney animation of the time of being archaic and failing to acknowledge modernism.)

Gee ... I think I'm going to repost all this in a Bolt thread because it makes more sense there!

I'll post this here to directly respond to DisneyJedi but I'll repost in the Bolt thread as well to respond to Jules.

My sentiments exactly. I don't think it's a terrible film but it generally doesn't stand out in the Disney canon and frankly feels like a film that any other studio could have made. When Disney's library holds genuine classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and The Lion King, having Bolt represent 50 films of that legacy seems a bit anticlimactic. I know some people call it the start of the Disney Revival but beyond the character of Mittens, I never really cared much for it and far preferred Meet the Robinsons, a film which I think has a lot of heart and I love how it incorporates Walt Disney's message into it. I know people are even more critical of that film but I personally think Meet the Robinsons would have been a better choice as Disney's 50th film than Bolt.

American Dog would have been my choice as well. As bizarre as it sounds, Lilo & Stitch would sound awful based on just a description as well and that's easily the most popular Disney film of the 2000s so Lasseter really should have given Chris Sanders a chance. He had proven he could make his material work and that film would likely have left more of an impression than typical CGI fare like Bolt.