DVDizzy Forum

Whydo people think that everything from Disney is a "classic?" I wish someone would define for me the word"classic".Please help me understand!

Well, Disney tends to over-use the term as a marketing ploy...

But usually, when something is a classic, I believe it means it has a timeless quality, that will continue to appeal to generations to come. Since most Disney animated films have continued their popularity through the decades, one could say (most of them) have become classics.

Shrek, for example, is def not a classic. THe first one MIGHT last for a while, but given that the franchise is mostly based on topical humor and pop culture references, the films feel dated already, and in the near future, non of the jokes will be understood.... and yet, Cinderella will still sell like hotcakes. :)

I agree with all that's been said, however - people still refer to the 52 and counting films in Disney's "Official" canon as "Disney Classics", regardless of how well liked or successful the films are.

And I don't think they should call them all classics. I think they should weed out the bad, un-classic ones. I know it sounds subjective, but they can gauge it by popularity over time, can't they?

Disney Duster wrote:And I don't think they should call them all classics. I think they should weed out the bad, un-classic ones. I know it sounds subjective, but they can gauge it by popularity over time, can't they?

Popularity doesn't equal quality.

Out of interest, which ones would you weed out?

I think films like Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Fantasia, Dumbo, Cinderella.....pretty much the majority of the Walt era films can be considered classics. Maybe excluding The Sword in the Stone, which for some reason seems to be forgotten. I don't think any of the post-Jungle Book, pre-LM movies are considered classics, at least not by the general public.

LM, BatB, LK and to a lesser extent Aladdin are the "modern" classics. Maybe Mulan and Pocahontas, they get more advertisement than Hercules, Hunchback and Tarzan. None of the 2000-2007 animated films are considered classics. PatF and Tangled are probably seen as new classics. But it's too early to call them classics.

While I agree that "classics" isn't the term they should necessarily be using, I do feel that there does need to be a way to easily identify the films in the WDAS canon. (Although I feel that canon also needs re-working. But that's a different story.)

Pixar is treated as a brand, and I think WDAS needs to be as well. Right now, "Disney Animated Classic" is that brand.

I'm all for them being called something, but what's wrong with the name Disney Animated Feature? And using that term would weed out the package features which don't really count as full-length animated features, which are part of the ones I don't think should be considered classics. The ones I would weed out, quindurka would be:

Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (maybe), The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (maybe), take out the celebrity cameos in Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear (unless it looks classic over time), Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons (unless it proves to have classic popularity later), Bolt (again, unless it has classic popularity) and maybe Wreck-It-Ralph (again, we'll see how classic it looks in the future).

I think "Feature" is too broad - to me, that would mean that the DisneyToon features would be included. I think if they were called "Disney Animated Features" it would have to include every animated feature that Disney has made, from Snow White to Nightmare Before Christmas to Hunchback of Notre Dame II.

To be honest, though, I don't think that's a half bad idea. I don't think most people would agree, but I think it would just make everything so much easier if they came up with a simpler way to identify these films. Instead of it being like "well this one counts because it made in this building, but this one doesn't because it wasn't" it would just be a list of all Disney properties, their sequels, etc regardless of where they were made or by whom. I don't know if this makes sense, I'm kinda spitballing here.

A classic is a title that has proven to pass the test of time and remained perpetually popular and relevant to new generations of viewers. That includes most all of Walt's key films, both animated and live action, as we are still discussing them here and now 50 years later.

merlinjones: I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree with you. I think 50 years from now people will still be viewing and discussing Snow White, Bambi, etc. but not Tangled and Wreck it Ralph.

WilbyDaniels wrote:merlinjones: I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree with you. I think 50 years from now people will still be viewing and discussing Snow White, Bambi, etc. but not Tangled and Wreck it Ralph.

Even if that is the case, if the package features got a DVD release in 2000, then I'll bet Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph will at least get a tradigital-unsuckable-candy-floss-subscattered-surface-glucosite-data* release in 2063.

*potential future home video format

Disney Duster wrote:Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (maybe), The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

If I was in charge of what would count as a Disney Animated Classic and which wouldn't, I would incorporate Mary Poppins, Bedknobs & Broomsticks and other major live-action/animation hybrids (probably excluding Enchanted) and would remove everything after 1994.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:...and would remove everything after 1994.

whaaaaaaaaaaattt?? That's just silly. Time would be your ONLY factor?

SWillie! wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:...and would remove everything after 1994.

whaaaaaaaaaaattt?? That's just silly. Time would be your ONLY factor?

As others have suggested, films like Tangled and The Princess and the Frog are too recent to be referred to as 'classics', and I think TLK is the last of the 'modern classics' (as phrased by Jay).

However, thinking about it...quality should be a major factor too. Although it wouldn't necessarily please others, I would be happy with everything between Jungle Book and Little Mermaid losing classic status (outside of The Rescuers and Great Mouse Detective).

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (maybe), The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

If I was in charge of what would count as a Disney Animated Classic and which wouldn't, I would incorporate Mary Poppins, Bedknobs & Broomsticks and other major live-action/animation hybrids (probably excluding Enchanted) and would remove everything after 1994.

With the exception of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, which definitely IS a recognisable classic, I'd agree with Duster. Nobody remembers those movies anymore, and by definition, a classic is something that stands the test of time in terms of resonance and popularity. If it was any other studio but Disney that put those films out, they probably would be pretty hard to get because people wouldn't be very interested in them.

And Duster, how's it possible to think The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh isn't a classic. When people talk about Winnie the Pooh (it could come up ), Disney's version is the one they'd think of. There are Pooh walk-around characters at all Disney theme parks, and they're popular. Most parks also have rides based on the movie, not just spin-off movies. Winnie the Pooh is still a popular brand.

I honestly don't think Disney should label classics. They're too biased. Why should there be a formal "classic" label at all? Why not just an animated feature label? THAT at least means something concrete and unbiased. Maybe after home video units reach a certain number, THEN they can slap on some super-mega-ultra-lightning label onto it, like platinum for CDs.

Linden, I think Duster's issue (I could be wrong here, of course) with Winnie the Pooh isn't the quality or the fact that everyone loves it, but instead just the matter of it not having been originally intended as a feature. Since it's just a collection of shorts, some feel it shouldn't be in the same category as the rest of the features. I don't agree, for the reasons you mentioned, but there you have it.

Linden wrote:I honestly don't think Disney should label classics. They're too biased. Why should there be a formal "classic" label at all? Why not just an animated feature label? THAT at least means something concrete and unbiased.

I agree with this. While I like the idea of having a concrete list of films created by the same studio, I think there's just too many ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to all the animation that "Disney" has produced. To many "outsiders". Where does Nightmare Before Christmas belong? Where does A Goofy Movie belong? Where do the package features belong? Where in the world does a film like Planes belong?? Etc... I could definitely see the merit in simply a "Animated Feature" label.

People people...
There are two things being discussed here:

One is the "Disney Classics" as a label that the Disney Company has classified their in-house made features (though still dont know how Dinosaur weasel-ed its way into that list...). Its just a way of grouping or classifying them. They are rendering the word "classic" meaningless... same way the called the VHS "masterpiece" collection in the 90s (not all Dis. Anim. feat. are masterpieces)... and how they keep calling things "ultimate".

The other is "disney classics", as perceived by the general public (and I don't mean us fans). In that sense, its pretty easy how to distinguish the "classics" from the non-classics: the diamond/platinum editions. THOSE are the ones people consider Disney Classics. And for those clamoring that Dumbo and Alice arent part of the line... well, the reason for that, is that they were shown on TV in the 50's, hence IN THEORY killing them as potential re-releases or "hot commodities"... which is dumb. I think they are both "unofficial platinum/diamond". And Fantasia was SUPPOSED to be part of the line... nobody knows why it was dropped... but still counts!

I don't think there's any harm in Tangled and TP&TF being called classics even though they are recent. If there's anything I'm sure of, it's that the Disney Princess line will still be around a century from now reminding everyone who those characters are.

Why not call them "Disney Studios Animated Features" then? Doesn't that solve the problem (because I do not agree with having every film Disney's made, including the sequels, be under one big name)?

SWillie! wrote:Linden, I think Duster's issue (I could be wrong here, of course) with Winnie the Pooh isn't the quality or the fact that everyone loves it, but instead just the matter of it not having been originally intended as a feature. Since it's just a collection of shorts, some feel it shouldn't be in the same category as the rest of the features.

EXACLTY! That's what I meant, Linden.