DVDizzy Forum

The first "Swan Princess" movie I thought was actually quite good. The two sequels were complete crap, horribly animated (to the extent of looking like Saturday morning stuff). Believe it or not, but I actually saw "Swan Princess II" at the movies--I was the only one there over the age of ten--and it looked absolutely horrid on the big screen.

Sprince wrote:I agree with Escapay.

I think I've died and gone to heaven...is this actually the first time we've agreed on something???

Sprince wrote:lame wannabes

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa!!!

As glad I am that you actually agreed with a part of what I said (that non-Disney films shouldn't be part of the Disney canon), I must DISAGREE with the reasoning why (blanketing all non-Disney films under "lame wannabes").

The attitude of "Oh, this non-Disney film is trying to be all Disney and everything, what losers!" is what steers people away from non-Disney films, and is NOT what I want people thinking when I say "I don't want non-Disney films to be considered part of the Disney canon". As I probably already said in my last post, a good film is a good film because it's a good film, and it should have NOTHING to do with which company made it.

The Prince of Egypt, for example, is a beautiful and moving picture that takes on very mature themes and an important story from the Bible, and they are able to set it against the timeless struggle of brother-against-brother, old-against-new, man-against-himself. It's a great movie because it's a great movie, and regardless if Disney or Dreamworks or Bluth or Studio Ghibli made it, it will still have been a great movie.

And yet there will be blindly-loyal Disney fans somewhere in the world who'll refuse to sit through it because it doesn't carry a certain brand name. And to me, that's really what's immature.

Sorry if I'm making it sound like it's directed at you, Sprince. It's not, believe me. This is just a general rant I have towards the ideas that "it's not Disney, it must be a lame wannabe" and "it's not Disney, it won't be as good as a Disney film". There are plenty of animated movies out there that are good because they're good. It's stupid to say it's not good just because it wasn't made by Disney, and even stupider to say it would be better if Disney did it/bought it/put their name on it. Seriously, if every animated film in the world was suddenly bought and re-branded by Disney, would many families be flocking to Fritz the Cat? Doubtful.

(And just as a little post-script side-note, the only time anyone should ever use the word "Wannabe" is if they plan on referencing the Spice Girls song... )

Albert

Well said Escapay!

Escapay wrote:The Prince of Egypt, for example, is a beautiful and moving picture that takes on very mature themes and an important story from the Bible, and they are able to set it against the timeless struggle of brother-against-brother, old-against-new, man-against-himself. It's a great movie because it's a great movie, and regardless if Disney or Dreamworks or Bluth or Studio Ghibli made it, it will still have been a great movie.

Well put , but it's sad that people judge a movie by its studio. Sure it would have been nice if Disney was behind Balto, American Tail, or the Land Before Time, as in dvd wise (f lscreen). Plus the Land before Time would only have two sequels and a tv seri.....oh wait

Escapay wrote:The attitude of "Oh, this non-Disney film is trying to be all Disney and everything, what losers!" is what steers people away from non-Disney films, and is NOT what I want people thinking when I say "I don't want non-Disney films to be considered part of the Disney canon". As I probably already said in my last post, a good film is a good film because it's a good film, and it should have NOTHING to do with which company made it.

But it's almost as bad as the people who believe everything that is animated is a Disney product. (A soccer mom walks into a Disney Store looking for a copy of Shrek the Third. She finds several copies of High School Musical and Hannah Montana dvds covered with condoms, but no Shrek......)

Siren wrote:But look at Iron Giant. Bombed and yet, it was probably one of the best animated movies ever. Not to mention Wizard ranked it at like #3 for best sci-fi movie. Box office means nothing. The general public are sheep, they will always be sheep.

I blame bad advertisement

Thanks Siren and jrboy!

jrboy wrote:But it's almost as bad as the people who believe everything that is animated is a Disney product.

True.

I was mainly ranting about the Disney fans who know the difference between Disney and non-Disney, and how annoyed I am that some will always see non-Disney films as "lesser" to a certain degree. However, as you said, the ignorant people who think anything animated is Disney is just as bad. Maybe even worse, as they'd associate something truly abysmal as Disney, and that could turn them away from some Disney things as well (which wouldn't be too bad, I wouldn't mind people turning away from The Lion King...).

Still, it's just so ridiculous when blind company loyalty allows polished turds to be put up on a pedestal and have it be called Disney Gold, all the while this blind company loyalty will look at non-Disney-created Gold and thinking it's a polished turd.

Albert

I remember being in the Disney Store once and a woman was in there, looking lost. She finally asked a cashier, "Where is all the Anastasia stuff?". The cashier explained its not a Disney movie. I quipped in that not every animated movie is made by Disney. And she got aggravated and left in a huff. Is it so hard for people to pay attention to move trailers that specifically put up their logos for their production companies. No where in Anastasia's marketing did I see anything remotely Disney.

I also agree with Anastasia. That is truly an incredible film that IMO is just as a good as Disney's best. And you all are so right on the "if it's not Disney, it must be crap" thing. That is a horrible way of thinking. I actually took a Disney class in college, that focused all on Disney films, and the instructor even said that not everything Disney made was great. And something else he mentioned, was that how he always hears from parents the "I'm buying my kid Disney movies only because I know they won't be offensive," when in reality most of them deal with the loss of a parent or something, which is the most horrific thing a child can go through!

Escapay wrote:

Sprince wrote:I agree with Escapay.

I think I've died and gone to heaven...is this actually the first time we've agreed on something???

No,there's other things that I agreed with.
Well,I said wannabes because he wanted to be Disney films and they"re not,each movie is different and it need to be it is,not pretend that it's something else,they"re not all bad-Dreamworks movies are good,Anatastia is good,and I didn't knew that Land Before Time is Don Bluth,The Land Bfore Time is nice (It is kinda Bambi with dinosaurs).

^ehh, I hate the "Ha-ha-I-stuck-my-tongue-like-a-5-years-old-while-you-didn't-noticed" scene with a passion.

.
Aw,me too (The rest of the movie was good but that part was just lame).

Ariel'sprince, didn't someone else say The Land Before Time was Bambi with dinosaurs? ...

And you are pretty much contradicting what Albert said.

You seem to "agree" with him, yet are still stuck with the concept that every studio is trying to be like Disney.

jrboy wrote:This would have been nice





The Iron Giant - A truly wonderful film, to bad it bombed at the box office

No. No. No. And... no. This movie should not be part of Disney's canon.

It's true that Warner Bros didn't give it the marketing, advertising and merchandising support it deserved. And that's why it's so amazing to me that in spite of a lack of support, it became a classic and an animated cult favorite on its own merits.

Another reason why it shouldn't be part of Disney canon is what escapay said relating to another movie:

Escapay wrote:It's a great movie because it's a great movie, and regardless if Disney or Dreamworks or Bluth or Studio Ghibli made it, it will still have been a great movie.

side note theres a disney class in college?

PeterPanfan wrote:Ariel'sprince, didn't someone else say The Land Before Time was Bambi with dinosaurs? ...

And you are pretty much contradicting what Albert said.

You seem to "agree" with him, yet are still stuck with the concept that every studio is trying to be like Disney.

I said it. I was comparing them to show that many non-Disney movies are as good as Disney movies.

PeterPanfan wrote:Ariel'sprince, didn't someone else say The Land Before Time was Bambi with dinosaurs? ...

And you are pretty much contradicting what Albert said.

You seem to "agree" with him, yet are still stuck with the concept that every studio is trying to be like Disney.

Siren,and I agreed with her,I said it's nice.
Look,every movie is different,I said "wannabes" because mooky_7_sa wants to them to be Disney and they"re not,I don't think that they"re really wannebes,every film is different and every company is different,mooky_7_sa,you should love those film because what they are,not pretend that they"re something else.
And I"m sorry to get off-topic but-PeterPanFan,did you used the Enchanted Tales I gave you? (Well,you never said anything so I don't know if you even got it).

That's the whole point: I love those films despite them not being Disney. I just thought that they needed more exposure and that being part of the canon would give it to them. It has nothing to do with "if it's not Disney it sucks" stuff.

It was just an honest opinion, whether you agree with it or not. That's the beauty of opinions .

But like Starlioness said

also, slapping the Disney label doesn't necessarily mean instant recognition.. films like Black Cauldron,Great Mouse Detective ,and Home the Range have to yet to earn the recoginition of the past better recieved films..

Yeah, you're probably right. Disney's known for putting the spotlight on movies and characters that don't deserve it and ignoring others just because they're not popular enough ("Hunchback", "Oliver & Co.", "Hercules", "The Rescuers"), so maybe I was too quick to assume they'd care enough for those films I mentioned in my original post.

^Weren't those movies popular in their time? I think the reason why they are being "left out" is simply due to the fact that they don't appeal to children in the current generation, which makes sense from a business (empire) point of view. It's just not the right time for the 70s movies, or the latter 90s, as they haven't got a decent target audience yet (and probably won't for a long time with all this pre-teen girly princess stuff they're whoring out). The Rescuers might get a DVD upgrade once tPatF gets released like when they released Peter Pan around Pirate's peak, and now Mulan to coincide with the Olympics.

back on topic:
Eck. I didn't like the iron giant either.

I don't know whats with me though, because of the scenes i remembered, it was great. i just remembered sitting through the film thinking "uck." But this was before seeing Sinbad

Some films seem as if they are straight out of the disney canon however:

Road to Eldorado (looks like TENG)
An American Tale
The Prince of Egypt

The style and production are very disney-influenced in my opinion. The Land Before Time probably fits in there too, but I like how removed from Disney that classic is. Besides the fact Disney would give it a decent DVD release.

You don't like "Sinbad"? My opinion of it changed with time. Back in 2003 - when the whole CG craze began - I thought "Sinbad" would be the one to save hand-drawn animation. I saw it and I liked it. Then I saw it again and I hated it, I thought the ending was anti-climactic. Then I saw it again about a month ago and now I love it. It's funny how one's opinion of music/films/books changes like that.

Back on topic:
I think "Prince of Egypt" is DreamWorks' answer to "Hunchback" - and I don't mean it in the sense that it's a rip-off or something like that - they're both serious films, they deal with heavy matter and religion is one of the main themes in both of them. Maybe that's why it reminds you of a Disney film - because of "Hunchback"?

I wish these movies were Disney :

The Prince of Egypt
Sinbad
Anastasia
Shrek trilogy
Madagascar (wish it was replaced by the ripoff known as"The Wild")

^despite the fact that The Wild was actually in production before Madagascar started and the rumors of Dreamworks rushing Madagascar so they could beat The Wild to cinemas, thus explaining it's horrendous second half.

Ugh how much I hated it when I first saw it. Now I don't mind it so much. I usually have a hate for movies on the first viewing Even Ratatouille.

I don't think any more 3D movies should be in the canon. Although I liked Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons (love!), and Rapunzel just looks gorgeous.

Must say that I really wanted Disney to do the following

a) Tell a great horse-movie:
Dreamworks Spirit: stallion of the Cimmarron is just that...

b) Create a decent cowboy-flick as opposed to Home on the Range
Fievel nailed that concept....

c) Tell a Russian folktale
Don Bluth's Anastasia RULES!!!!

d) Create a kind of adventure movie that has heart as well...
YES on EL Dorado, no (or at least partial no ) to Atlantis

e) Tell a tale of epic, no biblical proportions
Prince of Egypt does just that

f) Open season and Ice Age scream for a disney-treatment!!!!

If i like an animated movie it doens't matter to me if it's Disney or not. But at the time The Secret of NIHM came out it reminded me so much of the good old days of Disney (it was the time of the lean years for Disney remember) I must have sighted 'Why doesn't Disney do any of this kind of stuff anymore?'

Since then Disney of course has come back with a venegance!

I also like the fact that Disney is also involved in the production of a great movie like Spirited Away, which nevertheless fully maintains it's own 'anime' characteristics. (If you can't beat them, join them! )

My opinion about several of the movies mentione here before:

Prince of Egypt: good in parts, but also a bit ....uh... boring (don't kill me!)

Anastasia: also good in parts, but doesn't succeed as a whole I think. I still have trouble with the fact that Bluth used the tragic family-history of the Romanovs as background for a pure happy-ending fairy-tale (before anyone comes up with Pocahontas: I think that was different in tone, did not make light of the historical background, even if it was far removed from actual events)

Madagascar: saw it halfway than turned it off because it was so insipid: joke, pop-culture reference, joke, pop-culture reference and so it went on and on.

Ice-age: Quite amusing

Iron Giant: pretty good

Chicken Run: pretty good

Curse of the were-rabbit: Good (not mentioned here before I believe)

Bee-movie (not mentioned here yet): to many disconnected stories in one movie (and why is the bee-hive presented as a masculine rather than a feminine society - yes I know it's fantasy anyway, but still..)