They probably put it up out fear of you. They're probably scare of you and scare that you will eat their brains if they didn't oblige to your demands.Goliath wrote:
Seriously, what I'm pleasantly surprised about, is how consistently high Lilo & Stitch ranks on so many lists.
No, it's not.But let's not argue about it here. For now, let's say we have differing opinions.Dr Frankenollie wrote:Bambi is style over substance (although I still respect its animation and really like parts of it);
I recently wrote how it's amount of filler is not "extreme" and Sleeping Beauty may have much more filler, that spoils it.Dr Frankenollie wrote:while I like Cinderella, I think its extreme amount of filler partially spoils it;
Winnie the Pooh is a kind of heartwarming I don't think is found in any Disney film and I would say it's all emotion over any kind of intellectual stuff so I thought you wouldn't like it at all.Goliath wrote:Oh? Would I be a fan of Disney's if I didn't like "heartwarming cuddly stuff"? Most Disney films contain that in one form or another.
I don't think it's that good but I have started thing it may really be better than the Rescuers Down Under after I and many others have often thought the opposite. I'd have to watch them back to back though. And unfortunately The Rescuers still has this...muggy feeling to it, if you know what I mean.Goliath wrote:Oh, and The Rescuers should be in everybody's top 10.
I know. But... I wanted to make a joke, you see... and thus... never mind, my humor obviously sucks.Disney Geek wrote:The benefit of a doubt?
But my list is on page 3...
I think I know what you mean, although that's not exactly a bad thing for me. Do you mean the overall fuzzy vibe of the animation and languid songs? And how dark the lighting usually is? If that's not what you mean, I'm curious. It's a very interesting way to describe a movie.Disney Duster wrote:And unfortunately The Rescuers still has this...muggy feeling to it, if you know what I mean.
I suppose all those things contribute to it, but generally when I watched the film it had this...feeling, like a depressing thick fog that made everything in it rather slow and un-exciting. It has really good stuff in it but unfortunatley the thing is very sombre...and not the good kind of dramatic sombre, but a kind of sombre that is rather off-putting and makes me not want to watch the film and see that good stuff. I hate to say it but I mean the dull, gloomy kind of sombre.Linden wrote:I think I know what you mean, although that's not exactly a bad thing for me. Do you mean the overall fuzzy vibe of the animation and languid songs? And how dark the lighting usually is? If that's not what you mean, I'm curious. It's a very interesting way to describe a movie.Disney Duster wrote:And unfortunately The Rescuers still has this...muggy feeling to it, if you know what I mean.
Agreed 110%, it's something I've felt for awhile now, especially when you compare the live-action movies too, but even animation alone is a good way to the show contrast. Looking at just the five 80s DAC you see different drawing styles, settings, storytelling methods and approaches that show a much more varied output than the post Mermaid movies. It's part of the reason why I find the 80s the most interesting time in the company's history. Just think about the differences between "Walt Disney Productions" of 1980 with "The Walt Disney Company" of 1989 and you'll see what I mean.Goliath wrote:What strikes me about the 1980's, is that Disney dared to do lots of different things; they were experimental and were not afraid to think outside the box. In a way, it's more interesting than the 'safe' 1990's.
And your response is equally surprising. I thought for sure you would argue against it. But thank you.Goliath wrote:Linden, your list is the most intruiging and most surprising thus far. It really stands out from all the other lists.
I do like to think I stand out. Well, obviously I don't agree with it at all. I don't understand why anyone would put The Fox and the Hound, of all the Classics, at no. 1 and I also don't see how Bolt and Treasure Planet made the top 20... But then again, I don't *have* to understand. It's your list, isn't it? I can't really argue preferences, even if I wanted to. Your taste is a bit unconventional, but at the same time, that's also refreshing!Linden wrote:And your response is equally surprising. I thought for sure you would argue against it. But thank you.
Goliath wrote:Well, obviously I don't agree with it at all. I don't understand why anyone would put The Fox and the Hound, of all the Classics, at no. 1 and I also don't see how Bolt and Treasure Planet made the top 20... But then again, I don't *have* to understand. It's your list, isn't it? I can't really argue preferences, even if I wanted to. Your taste is a bit unconventional, but at the same time, that's also refreshing!
I like talking about The Fox and the Hound. I think it's the best mainly because it's about strong characters in a complicated situation. There is no bad guy, and there are conflicting motivations. It is one of the few Disney movies (or the only?) that focuses on how growing up changes people and shows the fragility of friendship (even though all the commercials say it's about the power of friendship, which it is, too). It stands up on its own without a purely bad character, without a romance-centric plot, and even without a mystery. It's a character-driven movie, unique in the canon. 
