Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the September 4 article: Jim on Film at <a href="News-ID180360.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180360.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators An ambitious and arguably overdue survey. (In addition to being an inspiring exercise!) As always, you've written with insight and skill second to none. There's a great deal to discuss here, Jim, with both keen observations as well as debatable theories. I think it best to read the second half of this thesis before wading in (or weighing in) any further. But I'm anxious to do so. Must we wait an entire month?!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I'm going transfer my comments over here. Usually I may write, great column and just leave at that, but not today. Because that was probably the best column I have ever read on this site. Jim you are to be commended. This is not to take away from the many fine contributors to LP. But I just loved every facet of this column. It was very deep and thought provoking. Considering we may never get an audio commentary on the package features, this will come as a great substitute. Jim a job well done and I can't wait for next month's
Originally Posted By Keneke Agreed, DDMAN. Lately, with the output of Disney, our time has been involved with absorbing these movies that comes out one after the other...we don't usually take the time to go deeper instead of wider.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 It's also kind of interesting to think that the Make Mine Music's were once looked on with the same disdain and the direct to video sequels that Disney churns out nowadays. You have to wonder will they require the same type of detailed analysis.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Great, great article & analysis, Jim. Can't wait for the next installment!
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'm always interested in lists of things (rides, films, etc.) and my question is - what about the animated movies not on that list? Where, for example, does Song of the South fit in? (I know it's not completely animated, but I believe the animated portions are lengthier than the live sections.) What about Mickey and the Beanstalk, Mickey's Christmas Carol, The Goofy Movie, and the other full-length Pooh movies? It seems to me that there are a few others too. When certain animated featues are released, does Disney dub them instant classics and thus the others are considered ahead of time to be an inferior product? Just curious.
Originally Posted By basil fan Great stuff! For Disney Girls Only <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/girls.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/girls.html</a>
Originally Posted By Jim Thank you for reading. Rhett, my question is when will we get another Great Animated Performances? That's what I'm waiting for. To answer your question John, once upon a time, Disney had a list of their animated classics/masterpieces/etc. That is the list I used. I've never seen SONG OF THE SOUTH, but I would probably think it is more of a live action film (like SO DEAR TO MY HEART, MARY POPPINS, etc.). The films on my list are those made by Walt Disney Feature Animation and released under the Disney name. For example, ROGER RABBIT was released under Touchstone. JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH was not made by Feature Animation. The other Pooh features, the cheapquels, and such are made by the television wing. DUCK TALES and GOOFY MOVIE were made by Disney Studios France, which also contributed to a number of the classic features, but those films are not the same. TOY STORY and the other Pixar features are not from Feature Animation. The ones on my list are also the ones that I really have an interest in (though I own most of the live-action/animation combos and love them). I like most of the Pixar features, but they just don't have the same effect for me. I enjoyed A GOOFY MOVIE, but it just isn't the same quality. I've never seen the cheapquels, and they are never made with the intentions of them being anything other than quick bucks anyway (my interpretation). MICKEY AND THE BEANSTALK was originally part of FUN AND FANCY FREE (which is on the list) but MICKEY'S CHRISTMAS CAROL is not a feature. Again, the list I used is the one that Disney once kept (and to an extent still does). The problem was when Disney started producing animated features from all these other places, they kind of threw them all into one pot. I'm not exactly sure why, but it probably has to do with marketing. When Disney made their Gold Collection, all the cheapquels, for example, were included. People are probably more likely to buy them if they are put on the same plane as the originals . . . no matter how inferiopr they are. I hope that helps answer your question.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Soon, Jim. Soon. Thanks for asking. And re A GOOFY MOVIE....I'd urge you to insert it in the list, as it was produced and directed by WDFA talent, albeit in France at the time. Let me simply challenge you to watch it in the context of the viewing schedule that you have outlined for yourself and see what you think of it then. If you think it worthy of including in the commentary (and I have a prejudicial guess about that) then you can include it in your coverage, otherwise you can leave it out. Sound fair?
Originally Posted By actingforanimators oops...one other thing...DINOSAUR? It is a project that was produced at WDFA in Burbank (in fact, it and FANTASIA 2000 and the early Visuals Development of TARZAN shared the same facility for over four years), greenlit as a Feature Animation project, staffed by artists and directors coming off of other so-called traditional WDFA films, and fully financed and produced in-house in the same fashion and at the same time as it's contemporaries. This is your survey, and you set the rules, but I'd continue on the challenge from my last post by saying that the most complete critical analysis of the studio's output, the trajectory of their work and the resulting impact is best served by looking at all things they produced in the same period. There's an argument for including the Pixar films that I'll save for later, but I understand the basic reasoning for leaving them out. I do strongly believe, however, that both A GOOFY MOVIE and DINOSAUR should be included...that's my 2 cents. Looking foward to the next installment!!!
Originally Posted By arstogas A wonderful and comprehensive read. It clearly was a labor of love. Thanks for sharing and for imbuing it with so much thought and care.
Originally Posted By Jim AFA, I never even considered adding those into my list. I first read your thoughts last night, and my thoughts . . . I honestly haven't seen A GOOFY MOVIE for so long, I'd have to watch it again (I never even bought it) but in argument against it being included: 1. Disney has never categorized it as such. 2. Many of the same people who worked on it also worked on the DUCK TALES movie and episodes of the television shows. Plus, with the re-shuffling around of things, people from Feature Animation have also worked on cheapquels. 3. Plus, it's a theater version of a television show. 4. That said, I'm almost finished through the end of my list, and as soon as I can, I'll rent it (I don't even own it) and look at it again. As for DINOSAUR (which I do own), it hardly even seems like animation, particularly with live-action backgrounds. I realized when I started this series, by rights, I should include any films with animation from Feature Animation (SO DEAR TO MY HEART, MARY POPPINS, PETE'S DRAGON), but I really wanted to focus on what I had always seen as the list (and what, up until a few years ago, Disney had as its lists . . . which they have maintained to an extent).
Originally Posted By actingforanimators OK, I hear your reasoning, and I can respect it. There's another point to the challenge of including those films that we can discuss another time. Again, Jim, yours is an effort that very few have made. That not only you attempted it and managed it, but that you have brought great insight and skill to it is, frankly, extraordinary. DDMAN is right in that this may well be the best thing written for LaughingPlace to date! Can't wait for the rest.
Originally Posted By arstogas I do agree on A GOOFY MOVIE. It caught me quite off-guard, it has great heart, much more in the tradition of other fine Disney features, and the layout and animation are quite satisfying, and in some cases, beautiful. This was Kevin Lima's big jump into the pool, too.
Originally Posted By arstogas Let me clarify: I agree that A GOOFY MOVIE should be included on the list. Boy, sometimes I am really good at fostering ambiguity...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I agree about A Goofy Movie. Very underrated. Here's a sticky problem: I would assume Rescuers Down Under will be included, but how about Peter Pan 2 and Jungle Book 2?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'm assuming the rule is that a film had to be made for theaters, right? Not direct to video?
