DVDizzy Forum

It is a Disney film so I personally never thought McLeach would be a child molesterer. In many ways, he's very similar to Medusa, even down to the reptillian sidekicks. I think the problem Down Under had was the story was almost an exact replica of The Rescuers. I've always enjoyed both films, though I prefer the first one and always felt it's one of Disney's most underrated.

By the way, was The Rescuers Down Under even meant to be direct-to-video? I've always wondered why, of all the Disney classics, that was the first sequel they released theatrically.

Disney Duster wrote:Super, so "Hail, Aurora", then? The song is good during the refrain, and then the final last notes.

Not just the song I dislike. The whole premise of it as well. Felt boring to me.

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, I just meant that what McLeach did brings up that feeling, it reminds us of those kinds of perpetrators. And since we don't know much about McLeach at first, we don't know what he would do to the kid. So it's valid. At the very least, it strikes on the general fear and what his mother would be going through. It brings that emotion is the point. But still, we don't know enough about McLeach to know what he would do to the kid, and it's rather weird for a man to kidnap a boy in the first place, especially just for poaching, and so, all this fear and emotion is there.

If there is any Disney villian who is closest to a pedophile/child predator, it's the Coachman.

Mcleach is like Clayton more than anything actually. Same motivation.

Yea did he kidnap a little boy though? And, uh, what I said before, the feeling and all that just from the act and the way McLeach is, before you find out McLeach doesn't do anything to him and it is just for the eagle.

Disney Duster wrote:I remember you think a lot of Sleeping Beauty's scenes are scary and others pointed out it probably wasn't intended in the forest and other scenes you think it was. I don't know if the faceless people was intended to scare. But it still is there, whether they realized it or not, right?

If not scary, certainly spooky or exhilirating. Haunting. The two I always brought up were; 1 - Maleficent in the dungeon with Prince Phillip and that huge closeup of her face in the sky / 2 - the three fairies after the sequence of the King's men burning the spinning wheels, where Flora comes up with a plan and starts to talk about it but stops and gets very worried. "I'm going to- SSHH! Even walls have ears..."

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, I just meant that what McLeach did brings up that feeling, it reminds us of those kinds of perpetrators.

Hmm...

Nah.

Just the poacher thing.

Disney Duster wrote:And since we don't know much about McLeach at first, we don't know what he would do to the kid. So it's valid. At the very least, it strikes on the general fear and what his mother would be going through. It brings that emotion is the point. But still, we don't know enough about McLeach to know what he would do to the kid, and it's rather weird for a man to kidnap a boy in the first place, especially just for poaching, and so, all this fear and emotion is there.

No, it's not. You're making this up.

Disney Duster wrote:And I don't even know what you meant when you said, "He wanted the kid to play with his own kind; he's a traditionalist." What?

Read the paragraph again, Dusty. It's right there in the sentence before.

No offense but... someone really messed you up, didn't they? No, I'm not talking about the things you're saying. It's the way you're saying it. The way you defend your view on things, always suggesting that it's completely normal and natural when I really don't see anyone else here with arguments like yours. The way you view things is simplistic to the point of some kind of self-enforced regression. It's not just that you don't get it, it's that... you don't want to get it.

No, when I think of the scenes of what McLeach did, the capturing of a little boy brings on that little bad feeling that is like those of other people in the world who have captured children, especially little boys, to either molest them or just torture or kill them.

I don't know why you've attacked me in the last way. I'm not going to complain about it to anyone because I don't want anything to happen to you, I like a lot of other things you say, but I don't know how my defending of a movie I like brought such hurtful things on. The answer is no, and I still stand by what I said, to most of the things you said this time.

And I still want you to explain how a boy with the animals is playing with his own kind or what you meant by a traditionalist. I don't understand the way you talk all the time, either.

You and me both have very unique views. I am very glad to have such a unique view you don't think people usually share mine on here. However, I wish people could understand what I mean, and be able to see what I see, and finally "get it".

Didn't the boy's mother think he'd been eaten by crocodiles or something? Wasn't there a scene where the police give her his backpack and say that's how he died? It's been years since I've seen the film so I don't remember all of it very clearly.

Disney Duster wrote:No, when I think of the scenes of what McLeach did, the capturing of a little boy brings on that little bad feeling that is like those of other people in the world who have captured children, especially little boys, to either molest them or just torture or kill them.

Yeah- I heard you the first 2 or 3 times. And it's a bunch of malarkey manure. Ask anyone here. Do a poll. Anywhere you'd like. You'll see what I'm talking about. And I mean: forget that the film's tone doesn't get that serious at all, or that the man doesn't spend enough time alone with the boy, or - again as I pointed out in English, which we both speak - the boy doesn't cower, cry, whimper, or look the slightest bit sad. And there isn't a single instance of something like "what are you gonna do to me?" This is a Disney tradition going back at least as far as Mowgli from The Jungle Book. Little boy characters think they're impervious and you know what? Disney does not challenge this. Ever. They are not "real world" anything when it comes to situations like these. You should see this but you don't want to. Okay- fine. I wouldn't rain on your parade either, but you just keep repeating yourself like you think this is a solid argument. It's absurd!

Disney Duster wrote:I still want you to explain how a boy with the animals is playing with his own kind or what you meant by a traditionalist.

I called him a toad. It was a joke.

Goliath's got the right idea; Cody is a pretty annoying kid.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Didn't the boy's mother think he'd been eaten by crocodiles or something? Wasn't there a scene where the police give her his backpack and say that's how he died? It's been years since I've seen the film so I don't remember all of it very clearly.

Exactly!

Though, I can see how that could be interpreted as the fear of molestation and torture.


(:D)

Disney Duster wrote:And I don't know why you've attacked me in the last way. I don't know how my defending of a movie I like brought such hurtful things on.

I knew what I said had the potential to hurt your feelings - because for some reason, you take the ridiculous things you believe (or say you believe) to heart... one of the reasons why you continue to shock me on a regular basis. But I had to say them. I never think of you offline, but while I'm on here- I really worry about you.

Disney Duster wrote:I don't understand the way you talk all the time, either. You and me both have very unique views. I am very glad to have such a unique view you don't think people usually share mine on here. However, I wish people could understand what I mean, and be able to see what I see, and finally "get it".

I didn't say I don't understand you. I think I understand you just fine and most other people here do too...

That's the problem.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Super, so "Hail, Aurora", then? The song is good during the refrain, and then the final last notes.

Not just the song I dislike. The whole premise of it as well. Felt boring to me.

I'm in complete agreement, bores me to tears. Not to mention the character animation is very stiff and flat during that opening number.

This isnt really my discussion between Lazario and Disney Duster, but Duster, I just wanted to explain something to you . . .

I used to love and wait for your posts on here, but now it seems like most of your posts are all argumentative. No one else can express their opinion to you, as if it doesnt agree with yours, then it is wrong.

This is especially coming across on this thread; I created it especially for people to express their own, personal opinion on what makes a Disney opening poor. Not for them to express it, and for you to say, "Well, actually no, THIS is the worst, and for this reason ...."

Do you see ?

I'm not meaning to be rude Duster, just trying to explain how it comes across.

Disney Duster wrote:Yea, most people do like the sequel more than the first. Do I have the proof? Nope. I can't survey the whole world.

Then don't mention it as fact. It's bad enough you speak for Walt Disney all the time; now you're going to speak for "most people", too?

Disney Duster wrote:Yea, um, it's not just the reasons I stated in words, it's how he did it, it's how he acted, it's what exactly he did and the very scenes and how the scenes were, not just some words I wrote that you can too.

Read Lazario's description of the boy (Cody, was it?). I think that's totally on the mark. I like Penny because she shows vulnerability. Cody doesn't seem to be touched by anything Macleach does, or at least he doesn't really show it. So how can I care for him?

Disney Duster wrote:You bring up that Medusa "homely little girl" speech a lot. Medusa had a few great scenes, but was so goofily funny and even when she said her most threatening line about letting the girl drown if she didn't bring up the diamond...not as menacing as it could have been.

Medusa stands in a long line of Disney villains who could be both menacing and funny, like Cruella de Vill and Captain Hook. I don't know how she could've been more threatning. She essentially says to Penny she doesn't care whether or not she'll drown; and to keep her from running away again, she tells Penny there's nothing for her out there: no family would want her. Medusa launched psychological warfare against Penny; MacLeach was not intelligent or manipulating enough to pull something like that off. He's just menacing because we're being told he is.

Disney Duster wrote:So what's Medusa's psychology that she has over McLeach? That she pretends to be nice and adopts a girl instead of kidnaps her?

You don't *have* to agree with me. I don't know what this obsession of yours is to, always, automatically take the opposite position from *me* and beat the issue to death, but it's not worth it. I already explained how and why I feel the way I do about Medusa vs. MacLeach. And you can continue to ask about it for a 100 times, but my answer has been given.

Disney Duster wrote:The opening of Down Under was not cold and lifeless, I could only imagine that statement thinking you're looking at it as CGI instead of mountains, and perhaps their large, stony, ominous presence makes you think of cold. You know, that can even be part of it. The mountains, if they are cold, work as an indication of the kind of heartless danger of the film's main conflict. And it's certainly not boring. If you think it is, imagine seeing it for the first time, especially before one becomes a cynical adult, wondering what is going to be around the next corner, where is this taking me to? I'm moving like 80 miles per hour to where? If you think it's boring, I think it's cause you've seen it already and you're a bit detached. It's a mood setter, it doesn't dive right into the action.

It's boring, cold and lifeless because it doesn't *say* anything. It doesn't tell me anything. It's just a seemingly endless shot through the Outback. I'm just wondering when the darn film is finally going to begin. Unlike the older Disney Classics, where you had the title cards, but their style and the music (chorus song) in the background would already set the mood of the film. Robin Hood's opening tells you it's going to be slapstick; Lady and the Tramp's telling you it will be a nostalgia piece; Peter Pan's telling you it will be a fantasy. Rescuers Down Under tells me nothing, except: "Look what we can do with teh computer!" If you want to talk about an opening that sets the mood, then, again, go back to the original The Rescuers. Thunder and lightning, the camera moves in to the old riverboat in a swamp in the middle of nowhere. The door opens with a creepy sound. A little girls walks out, looking anxiously around her. Two alligators are watching her. She drops a bottle in the bayou. Cue title cards. Shelby Flint starts to sing: "Who will rescue me?"

There's your mood. This is what the story will be about.

Lazario wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:but it doesn't matter if they intended it or not, it's there.

Sure and I'm the new King of England. It doesn't matter if I was appointed or not- I'm here.

Knowing the risks in encouraging Duster, there IS some merit to what he says. Just because a filmmaker didn't (intentionally) put something in his film, doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact, if we follow the line of reasoning of John Fiske and other film scholars, every audience member 'reads' a film text differently. That's why you, Lazario, came up with an interpretation of both The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company (in Off-Topic) that I had never considered and which I seriously doubt Disney had intented that way, but that doesn't mean it's not there/not true.

yukitora wrote:I don't like The Fox and the Hound opening.

The mother is shot yes, but it feels so forced I can't feel any emotion for it, especially since it happens in the beginning before we have any attachment to her. Not like Bambi or The Lion King.

How do you feel about Finding Nemo's opening, then?

Goliath wrote:and the new character Jake is lame and only serves as a vehicle to make Bernard jealous --a very cliched, childish way of 'developing' the relationship between him and Bianca.

Aww, he's not lame. And I don't think that the love triangle in the film is childish! I think that it shows, well, yes, Bernard's insecurities, but also that he has nothing to worry about with Bianca- they're a solid team! That she loves him for who he is, and even a cute mouse with a cute accent can't take her away from Bernard.

pap64 wrote:Yeah, there are some truths that could never be argued, like if it's well acted, well shot, features a solid script etc.

Well, those are still just opinions...for example, many people think that Keanu Reeves isn't a good actor, but I enjoy his character in A Walk in the Clouds...getting off-topic, but those things aren't facts, just opinions, I think...

As for the question at hand, I don't have a least favorite opening that I can think off...

blackcauldron85 wrote:Aww, [Jake]'s not lame. And I don't think that the love triangle in the film is childish! I think that it shows, well, yes, Bernard's insecurities, but also that he has nothing to worry about with Bianca- they're a solid team! That she loves him for who he is, and even a cute mouse with a cute accent can't take her away from Bernard.

That's all true, but my point was that that's what we already get served in every Hugh Grant-movie. The 'love triangle' is such an old, cliched, trodden out concept that I can't believe Disney didn't opt for something a bit more original. Also, the proposal was too much in-your-face for my taste. I liked how, in the original, their relationship is never made explicit. It's built very subtle and it's never expressed out loud.

The Rescuers should have a third sequel. This time they have rescue Disney Duster from falling into insanity. The colorful acid induced mind-fuck occurs.

jpanimation wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: Not just the song I dislike. The whole premise of it as well. Felt boring to me.

I'm in complete agreement, bores me to tears. Not to mention the character animation is very stiff and flat during that opening number.

That's what makes it great. I mean, who says all Disney films have to conform to the same laws? I'm sure it was intentional- the people are supposed to be unreal. I can't think of another Disney animated film that did this. It's creepy! I love it!

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Goliath wrote:and the new character Jake is lame and only serves as a vehicle to make Bernard jealous --a very cliched, childish way of 'developing' the relationship between him and Bianca.

Aww, he's not lame. And I don't think that the love triangle in the film is childish! I think that it shows, well, yes, Bernard's insecurities, but also that he has nothing to worry about with Bianca- they're a solid team! That she loves him for who he is, and even a cute mouse with a cute accent can't take her away from Bernard.

Oh, I don't know about that. To me, Bianca and Jake's relationship felt a lot like Dutchess and Thomas O'Malley in The Aristocats. She warms up to him awful fast and they're only one flattering compliment away from being as close as those two were. I never felt through most of the movie that Bianca took their partnership very seriously. Their duty, yes. Which is almost used as an excuse by her to push her and Bernard away. But not their partnership. Also, I didn't feel this was a character-oriented form of suspense (like- will he or won't he propose?). It felt like they didn't consider Bernard's feelings at all. Bianca's life is her duty (it's where she gets both her fun and her sense of joy for helping others) and Bernard's isn't. Part of me thinks they never would have made it as a couple.

Lazario wrote:

jpanimation wrote: I'm in complete agreement, bores me to tears. Not to mention the character animation is very stiff and flat during that opening number.

That's what makes it great. I mean, who says all Disney films have to conform to the same laws? I'm sure it was intentional- the people are supposed to be unreal. I can't think of another Disney animated film that did this. It's creepy! I love it!

JPanime and I felt it was boring cause we want see something engaging or something that would grab us in to the world. Seeing Medievil styled characters, walk slowly to the castle isn't something that would make us get into it. The people didn't show any excitement for the new born baby either.

Super Aurora wrote:The people didn't show any excitement for the new born baby either.

Do they have to for us to get what's going on? Do you feel Disney have to lead everyone along by the nose? (Like in Bambi, for example)

Yeah, we both saw the same opening. But when I see this sequence- I know something else is going on. I don't think the scene is strictly telling us: be excited for new baby. I feel like the entire post-credits opening is a build-up to the darkness of Maleficent and the feeling of ultra-caution the characters have to take living in a kingdom where her evil magic runs wild. Anything could happen at any time. The fairies show us this and I think it extends to the rest of the kingdom.

You don't like that? Nice to know. But who said we were both expecting the same thing from the images and music we were seeing?

Lazario wrote:Do they have to for us to get what's going on? Do you feel Disney have to lead everyone along by the nose? (Like in Bambi, for example)

They don't have to, but would make the scene bit more lively and engaging for us(me and JP at least) have our eyeballs glue to the screen rather than just pretty art alone.

Lazario wrote:Yeah, we both saw the same opening. But when I see this sequence- I know something else is going on. I don't think the scene is strictly telling us: be excited for new baby. I feel like the entire post-credits opening is a build-up to the darkness of Maleficent and the feeling of ultra-caution the characters have to take living in a kingdom where her evil magic runs wild. Anything could happen at any time. The fairies show us this and I think it extends to the rest of the kingdom.

Don't see that at all from marching cardboards.

Lazario wrote:You don't like that? Nice to know. But who said we were both expecting the same thing from the images and music we were seeing?

Of course we don't see things same way. Is that hard to understand? LOL

See see see see see. That's all I'm reading from you. But that's not what Disney is or has ever been.

Did you hear anything during that scene? Feel anything?

Lazario wrote:See see see see see. That's all I'm reading from you. But that's not what Disney is or has ever been.

Did you hear anything during that scene? Feel anything?

If you read back I also said I don't like the music either.

Can't you just leave it that I don't like the opening and find it boring? -__-

Lazario, I films at least gives senses of danger, but anyway, you missed that I said it was before we found out more about McLeach, and just what he did, what happened, that resonated, for a moment, with the fear of what happens to many kids that get kidnapped. Also, the fact that the boy doesn't cry and stuff can make it seem worse like he thinks he's impervious when he really isn't, he doesn't know what he's in for, etc.

Anyway, before his mother finds the backback is also what I meant about thinking, when he's kidnapped, about his mother, also adds to that emotion, until the backback scene.

Atlanticaunderthesea, I'm sorry to let you down like that, and thank you for your concern.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Yea, most people do like the sequel more than the first. Do I have the proof? Nope. I can't survey the whole world.

Then don't mention it as fact. It's bad enough you speak for Walt Disney all the time; now you're going to speak for "most people", too?

I state things much like you do. But this time, then, I will say, "Most things I've heard suggest most people prefer the sequel to the original".

Goliath wrote:[Read Lazario's description of the boy (Cody, was it?). I think that's totally on the mark. I like Penny because she shows vulnerability. Cody doesn't seem to be touched by anything Macleach does, or at least he doesn't really show it. So how can I care for him?

You can care for him without him acting so sad. You've met people who act tough and don't want to show vulnerability. If you need people to act sad to care for them when they are still good people who care for animals and are in peril...wow.

Goliath wrote:[Medusa stands in a long line of Disney villains who could be both menacing and funny, like Cruella de Vill and Captain Hook. I don't know how she could've been more threatning. She essentially says to Penny she doesn't care whether or not she'll drown; and to keep her from running away again, she tells Penny there's nothing for her out there: no family would want her. Medusa launched psychological warfare against Penny; MacLeach was not intelligent or manipulating enough to pull something like that off. He's just menacing because we're being told he is.

Psychological...warfare?

Anyway, when she said she'd let her drown, yea, I felt bad, but McLeach I found more menacing. It's funny you say he wasn't smart enough, usually it is the ones who don't use their heads, but their physical force, that you should fear more. Anyway, I found him menacing not because I was...um, told to (um, who told me, how?) but by the way he was, what he did, how he did it, the actual character.

Though speaking of psychology, if I remember, McLeach did also figure out ways to get Cody to do things he wanted, so...yea.

And remember, I think Medusa is excellent, too, in many ways, I'm not denying there's a lot of good stuff about her, too.

The opening of The Rescuers Down Under set the mood. It seemed what you were talking about for the original Rescuers opening was really mood and story. Okay, so Down Under's opening didn't reveal much about story, but rather mood and senses. That is fine. It's still excellent and found as one of the best openings, as found by many, mentioned in the thread about best openings.