DVDizzy Forum

sad but true...

anyway, maybe the "classic" label migt just be for some just a word, for others a way to say "this film is pure gold" and for others their most loved movies

Just remember that if you're capitalizing the word (Classic), you are referring to Disney's grouping, and if you use the lower case (classic), you are referring to a fine piece of work that has stood the test of time. Like a Ven diagram, there is some possible overlap between the areas.

Why can't Valiant, A Goofy Movie, DuckTales the Movie, and probably others be considered Animated Classics? And for that matter, will the Pixar films from now on be considered classics?


I think out of all the films I just mentioned, the films I'd really like to be considered Animated Classics (and I feel REALLY deserve it) would be A Goofy Movie and DuckTales the Movie.

I liked Ducktails the Movie, but I don't think it should be considered an Animated Classic. But then again, I don't think a lot of the Animated Classics are really "Classics."

who in their right mind would consider the wild to be a classic? it couldnt be further from it. a classic will be remembered for a long time. this movie will easily be forgotten, like most of the other 3d animated movies that we have been swamped with lately.

pixar's movies are a bit tricky. all are great in their own right, but for me personally, I only consider toy story (and its sequel) to be classics.
but if I were to lower the standards slightly, Id say every pixar movie with the exception of cars and maybe a bugs life can count as a classic.

Well my take on the whole thing is why is any movie that is less than 5 years old considered a classic. I mean how are they defining classic?They're not defining it based on time I can tell you that because if they did wouldn't they have a fixed age where when the movie reaches that age then it can be considered a classic? For instance, once after 25 years a car is now considered a classic. So any car made before 1981 is now a classic. I'm just saying why can't they do that for movies? I mean when you say Bambi is a classic that's entirely true because it's 64-years-old. But when you say Madagascar or The Wild (for the sake of conversation) which either hasn't been out that long is a classic! That just boggles the mind.

However classic can also mean a production with the highest excellence! Madagascar does not fit under this definition. I haven't seen The Wild yet so I don't know if it's excellent or not but Madagascar is not excellent. Maybe to Dreamworks and Disney when they create something they might think it's excellent therefore they call it a classic (even when we think it's not).

This board throws the word "classic" around far too much. A movie has to have more criteria to fit the "classic" category than simply being from Disney.

On the other hand, one could take a recent animated movie like "Brother Bear" and call it a classic simply because it was created using classical 2D animation techniques....but that's stretching it. (Note: I'm not dissing Brother Bear; I'm just using it as an example. I liked it a lot, but it's too young to obtain classic status.)

Kyle wrote:

pixar's movies are a bit tricky. all are great in their own right, but for me personally, I only consider toy story (and its sequel) to be classics.
but if I were to lower the standards slightly, Id say every pixar movie with the exception of cars and maybe a bugs life can count as a classic.

"Cars" and "A Bug's Life" are my favorite Pixar films...

Anyways, "The Wild" is only called the "46th animated classic" in Europe and doesn't really pertain to the U.S. classifictation... yet. Disney stoped publivly announcing this after "Home on the Range." When refering to the numerical counting of Disney animated classics, "classic" really takes on a new meaning. It doesn't mean the what initialy comes to mind: something that has been around for a while and that the general public loves. Instead, it simply refers to films that were made by Walt Disney Feature Animation. With that, the originaly definition of what gets counted and what doesn't, films such as "A Goofy Movie," "Ducktales: Treasure of the lost Lamp," "Dinosaur" don't make the cut. This has been a topic of much debate since "The Wild" has been billed as the 46th "classic" by BVHE UK. In the UK, Disney has also added in the live action with animated films like "Mary Poppins" and "Song of the South," but in the U.S., we don't count those. The facts are that "The Wild" was funded by, but not made by the Disney Company. It was made by C.O.R.E, a Toronto based animation studio. The billing of it as the 46th "classic" is simply a marketing tool to get this film, which had a generally poor box office record everywhere it was released, to sell more copies so Disney can make back some money. If/when Disney starts publicly announcing what counts and what doesn't in the US, I'm assuming that "The Wild" won't be the 46th "classic," but "Meet the Robinsons" will be, seeing that will be the 46th film made by WDFA.

Isn't Valiant a Pixar flick?

Prince Ali wrote:Isn't Valiant a Pixar flick?

No, it's from Vanguard, based in the UK.

Escapay

goofystitch wrote:Instead, it simply refers to films that were made by Walt Disney Feature Animation. With that, the originaly definition of what gets counted and what doesn't, films such as "A Goofy Movie," "Ducktales: Treasure of the lost Lamp don't make the cut.

How can the Orlando studio be considered a feature animation studio and Paris one not, esecialy when it was called "Walt Disney Feature Animation - France".

goofystitch wrote:"Cars" and "A Bug's Life" are my favorite Pixar films...

thats cool and all, but it takes more than just being someones favorite movie to be considered a classic. to me a classic has a certain magic that can never be replicated or outdone. can you honestly say that about cars and a bugs life? I think we should raise the standards of what defines a classic, rather than lower the bar enough so that any enjoyable film can join in.

Kyle wrote:

goofystitch wrote:"Cars" and "A Bug's Life" are my favorite Pixar films...

thats cool and all, but it takes more than just being someones favorite movie to be considered a classic. to me a classic has a certain magic that can never be replicated or outdone. can you honestly say that about cars and a bugs life? I think we should raise the standards of what defines a classic, rather than lower the bar enough so that any enjoyable film can join in.

I'd agree to that. Along the same line I'd suggest that people stop worrying so much about how Disney's marketing people decide to label any given DVD release. Some "read" waaay too much into that, IMO.

drnilescrane wrote:

How can the Orlando studio be considered a feature animation studio and Paris one not, esecialy when it was called "Walt Disney Feature Animation - France".

I don't know to much about the history of the French studio. I do know from the "Tarzan" collectors edition DVD that Glenn Keane was at the French studio during it to oversee production. I believe a great deal of "Tarzan" was animated there. That was back when it was WDFA. I think it was shortly after that it was converted into a Direct to Video animation studio. While much of the talent that worked on "Tarzan" may have remained, it was no longer considdered one of WDFA's studios. Therefore, any films animated there weren't classified. By the way, I'm curious to know more about the hisrory of the France studio and Japan's. If anyone knows more(or if I was wrong about anything) please post.

Kyle wrote:

thats cool and all, but it takes more than just being someones favorite movie to be considered a classic. to me a classic has a certain magic that can never be replicated or outdone. can you honestly say that about cars and a bugs life? I think we should raise the standards of what defines a classic, rather than lower the bar enough so that any enjoyable film can join in.

Once any film is made, it can be replicated or outdone. Especially in a new field such as computer animation. "Toy Story" has already been outdone in terms of graphics and Pixar's story telling abilities. "Citizen Kane," which the AFI has declared the best picture of all time, could be replicated or outdone. That doesn't make it any more or less of a classic. Granted, I feel it is to early to apply the literal deffinition of "classic" to the Pixar films, but I do feel they will all be around for many years and that future generations will look at them the same way I looked at "Peter Pan" and "Alice in Wonderland." In my opinion, "A Bug's Life" and "Cars" are the two most unique CG films I've ever seen. BL has had two attempts at re-creating it: "Antz" and "The Aunt Bully" in some ways. However, neither hold a candle to the film and both will more than likely not be remembered by most people in 10 years. The scenery in both films is so detailed and amazing. Same with "Finding Nemo" and "Then Incredibles." The "Toy Story" films and "Monster's Inc." are more styleized and cartooney in their design, which is the way all other CG studios are handling their films at the moment. I'm not to say the other films aren't cartoony or stylized. The ants in "A Bug's Life" don't look like ants, but the whole world is so amazing to me. And I never refered to "Cars" and "A Bug's Life" as classics, but I feel that all of Pixar's films will be someday.

when I say "a certain magic that cannot be replicated or outdone" I don't just mean a better movie with more in dept story. if we're using Toy Story as an example, its the magic of toys coming to life, planning, plotting etc. and seeing the first 3d movie ever, with characters that you really feel for. no amount of technology or depth of story will outdo that to me. it was first and always will be. something similar goes for the Lion King. they tried to replicate that a few times (brother bear for example) but failed at it. coming off short.

if you don't agree, well I'll just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

I don't really agree. The fact that "Toy Story" was the first CG film makes it a novelty, not an instant classic. I feel that movie IS a classic already because of how good it is and the fact that everyone seems to have embraced it. Not how it was made. The same goes for "Snow White," the first full length animated film. It's a special movie that evokes a feeling of warmth and happiness inside at the end. It's not special simply because it was the first. I don't think any studio could do a film about ants or cars as well as Pixar did.

P.S: Don Hahn, producer of "The Lion King," admits to taking story elements from "Bambi" and using them in his film. I don't see any resemblance between LK and "Brother Bear," but I see them with Bambi. (young prince looses parent, grows up, has a battle in fire, and takes their spot on a pedestal with inspirational music playing.) The only similarity between LK and BB is that they are both animal movies and they both hired pop singers to write the music.

just a quick note, I didnt mean toy story being th first 3d movie made it a classic, just one of the many things that factored into into it.

If the Wild is considered a Disney animated classic, all of the following should be as well:

Ducktales: The Movie
A Goofy Movie
Doug's 1st Movie
The Tigger Movie
Recess: School's Out
Return to Neverland
The Jungle Book 2
Piglet's Big Movie
Teacher's Pet
Pooh's Heffalump Movie

The Nightmare Before Christmas
James and the Giant Peach
Dinosaur

Toy Story
A Bug's Life
Toy Story 2
Monster's Inc
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles
Cars

Tom and Jerry: The Movie
Arabian Knight
Pokemon 4ever
Pokemon Heroes
Valiant

Princess Mononoke
Spirited Away
Howl's Moving Castle

Under Disney's new definition all these should be included.

I am fully against this, and think that labeling "The Wild" a Disney animated classic is preposterous.

If Pokemon every became part of a Disney's Animated Classics List I would probably die. Pokemon isn't even part of DISNEY! It can't be because if Pokemon was part of Disney it would air on ABC, not WB like it does. So I really don't think that those Pokemon movies could EVER be classified as Disney.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:If Pokemon every became part of a Disney's Animated Classics List I would probably die. Pokemon isn't even part of DISNEY! It can't be because if Pokemon was part of Disney it would air on ABC, not WB like it does. So I really don't think that those Pokemon movies could EVER be classified as Disney.

I agree with you, but like the Wild, they were distributed by Disney, and probably received financial backing.