DVDizzy Forum

I was inspired by The Rescuers thread hahah. Why do you think this movie is so forgotten/ignored? Aside from the package films it's the only Walt era classic that is overlooked. I wonder why this one is singled out? Merlin and Mim are great characters and both deserve more attention. Mim would fit right in with the other villains and they could do a lot with Merlin he is such a legendary character.

So what are your thoughts and opinions as to why this movie is overlooked?

I don't think 'Sword in the Stone' is the only non-package feature that gets overlooked. I don't think 'Alice in Wonderland' is given a lot of attention either.

I think it's because at the time, reception of the film was very bad. Walt Disney himself was not involved a lot in the making of the film, instead concentrating on live action films and the theme park. When the bad reviews came in, he was upset by them because they took him by complete surprise. That's why he decided to make sure the next production, 'Mary Poppins', would once again have that classic Disney feeling, something the critics thought was lacking from 'SitS'. I agree, the film didn't have the classic Disney touch. It was a mediocre film with a story that was all over the place; weak and lackluster songs; no heart or warmth in it; and the background animation of Peregoy that worked so well in 'Dalmatians' didn't work in 'SitS' and it was lazy that it was just copied instead of finding a new style.

Goliath wrote:I don't think 'Sword in the Stone' is the only non-package feature that gets overlooked. I don't think 'Alice in Wonderland' is given a lot of attention either.

.

I think Alice in Wonderland gets attention, at least from what I've seen. A lot of the characters are prominently featured in the parks. The live action Tim Burton was a mega hit worldwide. I see a lot of Alice related merchandise in stores other than the Disney store. It doesn't get the attention movies like Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty get because of the princess line but I still see it represented.

Alice isn't a top-priority film, but it gets plenty of love in terms of merch. The Cheshire Cat sells a lot of plushes, and you can often find Mad Hatter hats alongside Mickey and Goofy and now Oswald caps at the parks.

Personally, I love The Sword in the Stone, but I understand why it isn't as beloved as most of Walt's other classics. The film is disjointed and compromised from a structural level, although to be fair, this does come from the source material, and I'd go on record to say that it isn't any more disjointed than The Jungle Book, yet TSITS doesn't have the distinction of being Walt's last film like that does. It's also a bit hard to get into the film when it becomes so apparent that there were multiple boys voicing Wart throughout, especially when his voice changes mid-sentence.

Yet I do think that the characters are generally likable, at least the main 3, being Wart, Merlin and Archimedes, who all have great chemistry with each other. I also feel that Disney had nearly perfected their Xerox method by this point, and got some great animation throughout. The Madam Mim sequence in particular is a highlight. But as much as I like the film, there's at least a half, if not a full dozen, films from Walt's time that just hold up better as a whole.

Avaitor wrote:But as much as I like the film, there's at least a half, if not a full dozen, films from Walt's time that just hold up better as a whole.

I would agree with that, as if I was quickly to name the top 10 films from Walt's time, I don't think this one would make the list. Watching it again recently, I find myself liking it a little more. Before that, the only thing really memorable was the showdown between Merlin and Madam Mim. But also, there was that sad scene when that female squirrel was heart-broken when finding out that Wart was really a human, and got left behind.

Merlin has definitely had a resurgence in Disney World, mainly in the interactive game, Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom. So maybe the film itself, won't be overlooked as much these days.

Yeah, I did enjoy this a lot when I was young, and still got a kick out of it after recently giving a visit for a bit. It's one of those Disney films that gets overlooked thanks to the more popular Disney films. It's not an out-of-this-world film, and it may not be the strongest out of the 60's animated Disney films, but it does have a lot of great moments! Animation can be a bit rough and inconsistent (BLAME TV. That's what brought down the quality of theatrical animation). The songs from the Sherman Brothers (which is actually their first animated full-length film for the songs written... well, from one of the brothers, that is)- not bad. Not really memorable, but never a slop.

I really don't know about this one. I like TSITS... I;ve seen in many times. But yeah, it's not the strongest of films story/character wise, but I would say its as good as Jungle book. Its not as "careless fun" as Jungle book.... but thru my life, I know I have seen SITS way more times.

And yes, I think part of the reason it doesnt get much attention is cause its not very "marketable"...

I believe it's because the film is lightweight. Most Disney films are aimed at entertaining every member of the audience, and so they have a mix of music, action, comedy, romance, etc. TSitS succeeds extremely well at comedy, but that's all it really has going for it (although I personally like the music, of course it's not all-time best for Disney either).

TSitS is my favorite Disney film after TLM--it and Hercules are almost tied for second place after Mermaid for me, to be more specific--so I obviously adore the movie. Never tires for me, and Merlin/Archimedes are two of my favorite Disney characters. Easily Disney's most hilarious film.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I believe it's because the film is lightweight. Most Disney films are aimed at entertaining every member of the audience, and so they have a mix of music, action, comedy, romance, etc. TSitS succeeds extremely well at comedy, but that's all it really has going for it (although I personally like the music, of course it's not all-time best for Disney either).

TSitS is my favorite Disney film after TLM--it and Hercules are almost tied for second place after Mermaid for me, to be more specific--so I obviously adore the movie. Never tires for me, and Merlin/Archimedes are two of my favorite Disney characters. Easily Disney's most hilarious film.

The Sword in the Stone's comedy is where some of Disney's best writing comes from, especially from Merlin.

I think of the "sketchy era" The Aristocats is the most over-looked. I think one of the parks actually has the Sword in the Stone as an attraction. Plus Merlin makes an appearance every now and then.

What does the Aristocats have? Marie plushies ... and that's it really.

I pretty much agree with Goliath. Sword in the Stone is quite dull, really, when compared to just about any other Walt-era film. It feels like the animators and story folks were just going through the motions and pumping out a film without really putting any heart, soul or warmth into the proceedings. It's just kind of...there. That's how I've always felt about this film. It's not dead, just comatose. It drags and drags until Mim pops onscreen and then the Wizard's Duel astounds and leaves and, personally, I cry for it to come back every. Single. Time. Because, man, it was a breath of fresh air. I don't hate the Sword in the Stone, but of all the Walt-era features, it's by far the weakest.

This thread reminds me of something that happened about five or six years ago. I was living in Las Vegas at the time and went to a young adults activity at my church. They held these activities every Monday night, and it was a way to do fun things and get to know each other. Anyway, the activity that night was watching "The Sword in the Stone." Not even ten minutes into the film and you could no longer hear the audio because everyone was talking so much. Within twenty minutes, the film was turned off. I was so sad! So it is said, film had been shown previous times and they were given more respect.

While not my favorite Disney film, I still really enjoy it. I've thought about that moment ever since and I really think that for a lot of people, the film does come off as boring. While I admit there are a few places in it that kind of drag, I don't feel that it is a boring film. I do however feel that I'm in the minority.

The culprit here, once again, is box office numbers. SitS was not as big a hit as hoped upon its initial release, and subsequent re-issues only reinforced this. Even the 1983 release with Winnie the Pooh and a Day for Eeyore, didn't make as much as other Disney returns of the time.

Although Jungle Book has similar pacing issues, it has more memorable characters and songs, the things most Disney features are judge for (it would seem).

I personally rank the film among my top ten favourites, but know it's far from being the most popular with the general public.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:It feels like the animators and story folks were just going through the motions and pumping out a film without really putting any heart, soul or warmth into the proceedings.

Not necessarily. Bill Peet was supposedly pretty passionate about the project (seeing as he was the only story man on it, a rarity for Disney at the time). Besides, when you're working on one animated feature at a time and there's a bit of a gap between release dates, why would they not put effort into it? Heck, with Walt Disney not really supervising that movie, The Sword in the Stone was a chance to show the big boss they can do a good movie even without his watchful eye.

Personally, I enjoy The Sword in the Stone. Admittedly, it's really episodic (one of Wolfgang Reitherman's directing trademarks), but there is enough good humour in it and I like the Sherman's songs. I always found Merlin himself to be a fun character and his shape-changing battle with Medusa is definitely an impressive use of Disney animation. Not one of my favourites, but it has enough I like about it.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I believe it's because the film is lightweight. Most Disney films are aimed at entertaining every member of the audience, and so they have a mix of music, action, comedy, romance, etc. TSitS succeeds extremely well at comedy, but that's all it really has going for it

Pretty much. The film is not bad, but there only seemed to be enough meat to make a featurette.

It's also a little disappointing in regards to the fate of Chanticleer. A film that after on-and-off labor was permanently torpedoed due to economics.

This is one of my least favourite Disney films.

Semaj wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I believe it's because the film is lightweight. Most Disney films are aimed at entertaining every member of the audience, and so they have a mix of music, action, comedy, romance, etc. TSitS succeeds extremely well at comedy, but that's all it really has going for it

Pretty much. The film is not bad, but there only seemed to be enough meat to make a featurette.

I find this one boring. I really like the characters in it but the story limps along painfully slow. As an animated short it probably could have worked better. It has its moment of genius but they seem far between. I love the part in Merlin's cottage, Madam Mim and of course, the climax. This isn't one I pull off the shelf - maybe once every five years.

I can appreciate others love this film and I'm not bashing anyone else's taste. I still believe every Disney animated classic is deserving of a collectors edition DVD/BD. After all, Disney does claim it as a classic - treat it as such. If I had some more special features about the making of, it might endear the film to me (and others) more.

I love this film.

I think it is overlooked because people are surprised and disappointed by its lack of granduer. It has such a casual opening and even more casual ending. I feel that audiences respond similarly, and so don't take it seriously.

disneyftw1 wrote:Animation can be a bit rough and inconsistent (BLAME TV. That's what brought down the quality of theatrical animation).

Uhm... no. Television cartoons and theatrical animation are two very different things. One has got nothing to do with the other. The budgets for tv cartoons are much smaller, they're churned out much faster, and are given less attention when it comes to quality animation because they're considered to be just babysitter-material for the youngest viewers. This is not the case for theatrical animation. So why you would say tv brought down the quality of theatrical animation is beyond me. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Goliath wrote:

disneyftw1 wrote:Animation can be a bit rough and inconsistent (BLAME TV. That's what brought down the quality of theatrical animation).

Uhm... no. Television cartoons and theatrical animation are to very different things. One has got nothing to do with the other. The budgets for tv cartoons are much smaller, they're churned out much faster, and are given less attention when it comes to quality animation because they're considered to be just babysitter-material for the youngest viewers. This is not the case for theatrical animation. So why you would say tv brought down the quality of theatrical animation is beyond me. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I think he/she meant TV in general brought down theatrical animation because in the 50's-60's a lot of attention shifted to this relatively new medium.

It doesn't have good animation or very good music.