Why are The Rescuers´movies so overlooked?

[DC Fan]

Watching right now Rescuers Down Under and I was wondering that.

Why are The Rescuers´movies so overlooked?

To me, The Rescuers is a GREAT movie. The best of that "Dark Era". Really, really good.

The Rescuers Down Under doesn´t reach the level of the first but it still is a very nice movie of the 90´s; that means great animation. On top of everything this one was the first sequel to Disney.

So, why doesn´t Disney do something to make people remember them? They lost a great opportunity with the BR release; that was the time!

[Musical Master]

I did like both Rescuers movies for different reasons. But if were talking about why both films are overlooked, I think it's because Disney almost never pays attention to both films (even though the first one was a success when it came out in 1977), because they don't fit the company's standards. The sequel especially since it BOMBED when it came out.

[Semaj]

I'm guessing The Rescuers is ignored, exactly because it came from a low point in Disney animation. It should be noted that all of Disney's Dark-era films except for The Black Cauldron did relatively well upon their debuts, well enough to keep the animation department going. The Rescuers is particularly remarkable because, unlike The Aristocats and Robin Hood, two films adhering to the straightforward comedies that Disney settled with by that point, The Rescuers proved that even long after Walt was gone, Disney animation was still capable of making the emotional stories that the company was famous for

The Rescuers Down Under is overlooked, obviously because it under-performed during the Disney Renaissance. And unlike other underperformers in Disney's past, it never got a chance to redeem itself. Plus, it would probably be difficult for Disney to include characters into their high period that are more easily associated with the company's dark era.

[Marce82]

Um... they are overlooked cause they are poor movies. Plot wise, character wise, heart wise, charm wise. The Rescuers was the best of the dark age films, but it is still a dark age film. Most of the world outside of Disney hardcore fans don't care (or remember) about those films.

They are not any more overlooked than any other dark-age film...

And RDU has nice animation, but if Im gonna watch a movie just for the excellence of its animation, I will turn to Sleeping Beauty, or Lion King... many disney films with GREAT stories that ALSO have great animation

[Walter]

Yeah, it sucks that the movies from the 1st Dark Age are overlooked. I did like "The Rescuers" a more than the sequel. My first guess is merchandising, as I guess the film is kind of hard to do in that regards. I don't see any of their presence in the theme parks.

I could list the reasons why I don't care for the sequel, one of which, is the way it ended. But it is one of the very few Disney sequels I will watch, mainly if I am going through a marathon.

[unprincess]

Disney only cares about the Walt era classics(except SITS apparently) the princess films, & Aladdin/Lion King.

[Kraken Guard]

It was all because of that naked lady in the window, wasn't it?

[MeerkatKombat]

I always preferred Down Under growing up. After re-watching them, The Rescuers is the far better film.

As for being overlooked, no merchandise or presence in Disney store and they hail from a point in Disney history that is considered a low point.

[Goliath]

It's a shame, because The Rescuers is such a beautiful film. Granted, it has less stellar animation/effects than the Walt-era classics and the Rennaisance movies, but it is in itself a story full of heart and warmth, strong characters and very moving songs. But it's not a fairytale or a musical, so it falls of the radar of most Disney/animation fans. Also it was produced during a time that Disney was generally putting out very mediocre movies and Rescuers has become associated with them. It seems like everything that was made between 1967-1989 and after 1995 doesn't get the appreciation it deserves.

[DC Fan]

I´d think The Rescuers Down Under would have been much better received if it had been released prior to The Little Mermaid. But right after that one, where everything clicked perfectly, then it was time for Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King an so on.

My only guess as to why it got released later was just because they wanted to try if a "boy´s movie" could be as great as TLM; I remember that on the making of TLM it was mentioned that probably the movie wasn´t going to be as great as Oliver and Company because it was a "girl´s movie". That way they could have make more than fairy tales (even though Aladdin is not but is counted as one).

Still, even if Down Under is not great it doesn´t mean that it was bad. There are far worse movies than this one.

And yet, they´re both very good movies that could greatly benefit for more presence in the eyes of the public.

[disneyboy20022]

I absolutely LOVED Rescuer Down Under when I was 3 or 4 years old. I say 4 because the VHS probably because came out a year after the theatrical release. I watched this movie over and over to the point the VHS broke down. I loved the characters in it, and prefer it more than The Rescuers, probably because of nostalgic purposes.

[unprincess]

RDU to me is like Road to El Dorado. Its story is meh but visually its so darn gorgeous looking that I had to own it just so I can take in those backgrounds & environments! And with RDU I dont have to suffer listening to two bickering man-children.

[carolinakid]

I love the score to The Rescuers. And Medusa is one hell of a villainess!

[milojthatch]

I personally never liked The Rescuers and felt the sequel was a superior film. That said, I'd agree that Disney does a good job of distancing itself from the so-called "dark-era" and the original Rescuers was part of that time period. Further, RDU didn't do as well and was over shadowed by Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King and the rest of the 90's films.

I'd have to agree that only die hard Disney nuts or people who grew up when those two films came out would know about them today.

[thelittleursula]

The Rescuers- Haven't aged very well, it's very simple and doesn't have that Resistance era feel that many people love so much. It was also during the dark age, so I'm also guessing that alot of today's Disney fans haven't even seen it, because they assume it's gonna be trash. [ when it's not]

Down Under This movie came out during the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and was pretty much ignored, and has been basically, pushed aside since then. Which sucks, because it's a pretty decent sequel.

[milojthatch]

The Rescuers- Haven't aged very well, it's very simple and doesn't have that Resistance era feel that many people love so much.

Ya, for me it always lacked that timeless quality the best Disney films have and felt very much rooted in the 1970's, which is an era I'm not a very big fan of for the most part. I didn't like the music or the look of the film very much. The sequel on the other hand, while basically a re-telling of the original film, lacked the 1970's soundtrack and was far more light and chipper in it's look.

[Walter]

The only good things about "The Rescuers Down Under" were the animation and the musical score. I even liked hearing a different musical version of the Rescue theme from the 1st movie.

But some of the characters just annoyed me, or I just did not care for them. I did not care for Cody as much as I did for Penny. McLeach was okay, but I don't think he was as entertaining as Madame Medusa (who was just hilarious whenever she lost it). And that Frank character just annoyed me, going crazy when he was carrying the keys around.

[thedisneyspirit]

Because they're not films "properly" from the 90s or the princess films or the uber popular films ala The Lion King. It doesn't have a typical Broadway score, no pretty princesses to root for, no sweeping idealized romance, and much like Oliver and Company, it's very dated nowadays. (though I think Oliver suffers worse from the dated syndrome, it just smells 80s that film).

Also, Disney only likes selling out the succesfull movies, that's why they don't promote the 70s films at all.

I still like this film, though. It's probably one of my faves from the Dark Era, along Winnie the Pooh and Great Mouse Detective.

[unprincess]

I dont know why so many people single out Oliver & Company & Rescuers for being dated but not 101 Dalmatians(very 1960's) & Aladdin( reeks of 90's pop culture). These films(Oliver & Rescuers) may have their problems but I really dont think being dated is one of them.

[Goliath]

The Rescuers- Haven't aged very well, it's very simple and doesn't have that Resistance era feel that many people love so much. It was also during the dark age, so I'm also guessing that alot of today's Disney fans haven't even seen it, because they assume it's gonna be trash. [ when it's not]

The Resistance era?

Anyway, it doesn't have such a timeless feeling to it like most other Classics, but neither does 'Oliver & Company' and I'm sure 'Lilo & Stitch' will feel that way in about 20 years, simply because they're set in contemporary times (having said that, '101 Dalmatians' doesn't seem to date). But that doesn't mean it's not a very good film. It has a small scale but I won't necesarily conflate that with 'simple'. Or, if you want to call it simple, by that standard, most other Disney films are also simple. They're never very complicated stories. But that doesn't take away the fact that it used its small scale, limited animation and small budget to create a fantastic story, far better than some big budget Disney flicks.