DVDizzy Forum

i am a disney classics collector and was wondering if anyone has had the same problem as me.

i have a copy of the wild which states on the back of the box that it is disneys 46th animated classic. however it is not on the list of disney classics on this website or several other websites at all.

of course if you add this one into the list it would make the princess and the frog disneys 50th animated classic when that DVD states that it is the 49th.
so i went looking through my classics collection to try to find which dvd i had in my classics collection was wrong.

on this site Atlantis is down as the 41st animated classic but the back of my atlantis dvd says it is the 40th animated classic.

and the back of my Fantasia 2000 dvd says it is the 38th animated classic which matches this site.

so it means that either the emperors new groove or dinosaur is not an animated classic.........

although the emperors new groove says on the front of the box walt disney classic it doesnt have a number on the back. dinosaur however doesnt mention classic on either the front or the back leading me to deduce that this is the wrong dvd.

but this website and several others state that dinosaur IS a classic.

has anyone else had this problem and if so do they know if dinosaur is or is not a classic HELP HELP HELP!!!!!!!!

Dinosaur originally wasn't on the list. It was added a couple of years ago, several years after its release. So, even though it wasn't originally considered one, it is now labelled as a DAC.

And The Wild isn't even a Disney film, it was only distributed and partially funded by Disney, so it is most certainly not a DAC, no matter what it says.

It seems like it was a marketing tactic and nothing more.

Not to mention that the official list varies depending on what country you're in.

If you want a long and drawn out answer, read this old thread:

If "The Wild" can be an Animated Classic...

But quite simply, as Margos and Neal said, it was a marketing tactic overseas than an actual addition to the "canon", which itself has been revised time and again anyway.

This is why I've simply taken to arranging all my Disney movies (live-action, hand-drawn, CGI, Disney-distributed-but-made-by-others, etc.) chronologically regardless of the medium. The only exceptions are the Treasures and other compilation DVDs ("Classic Cartoon Favorites", "It's A Small World of Fun", etc.) since they're a mix-n-match shake-n-bake of material. Plus, even though I've long championed the "who cares what the covers look like?" idea, it's nice seeing a whole line of silver on my shelf, with a bit of gold down the line and a bookend of black at the end.

albert

thank you : )

thank you : )

Margos wrote:Dinosaur originally wasn't on the list. It was added a couple of years ago, several years after its release. So, even though it wasn't originally considered one, it is now labelled as a DAC.

Dinosaur shouldn't even be part of the DAC canon.

jpanimation wrote:

Margos wrote:Dinosaur originally wasn't on the list. It was added a couple of years ago, several years after its release. So, even though it wasn't originally considered one, it is now labelled as a DAC.

Dinosaur shouldn't even be part of the DAC canon.

I don't see why not.... I had heard that the whatever-it-was studio that is given credit for making it was a codename for a short-lived, experimental sub-studio within WDFA. Wouldn't that make it WDFA material, and therefore canon?

I've come to believe the canon is whatever you want it to be.

Neal wrote:I've come to believe the canon is whatever you want it to be.

That's a good point. Like, even though I consider "canon" to be what Disney labels "canon," my idea of the "Disney Universe" or whatever are DACs, Pixar films, the Disney Fairies Series, TNBC, James and the Giant Peach, and only those live action films that contain animation (including Alice in Wonderland's heavy use of CG).