Disney Animated Canon thread: Speedrun edition

[Sjogre]

Members of previous iterations of this board might remember that I've started but never finished watching all the films in the Disney animated canon in order.

Welp, my family's Disney+ subscription is ending next year, so I figure that's impetus to actually try to watch them all. I'm going to try to watch a minimum of two a day, which means that I'll be making short posts rather than going into detail, but if anyone wants to focus on a specific movie, go ahead.

I did save the long post I typed up on Snow White the last time I started this project, but the fact that the board died right after killed my motivation.

The rules: I'll be watching the movies of the Disney Animated Canon in chronological order. Sequels that are also an entry in the Canon will be watched when they are reached. Sequels that aren't entries will be watched after the entry, if not skipped. Again, if anyone else wants to write their own impressions about or reactions to a movie, feel free. Just don't skip ahead.

 

[Sjogre]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 1937

This film is known for being the first feature-length animated film, albeit with some caveats. There were a few earlier long form animations, but they didn't use cel animation. Snow White is definitely the first feature-length English language cel-animated film, though, and the first animated film to achieve widespread fame. Walt Disney did make the film to progress animation as an art form, but also because he could make more money with features than with shorts. Making Snow White was a difficult, expensive affair, and involved both a massive expansion of the studio and getting loans when his funds ran out. Fortunately, Snow was an immediate success and brought him the money and fame to try the later, sometimes experimental, entries.

First Seen: In the first DAC thread.

Adapted from the Grimm's version. I wasn't sure. I know that Cinderella, at least, was adapted from the Perrault version.

This film was distributed by R.K.O. It's always odd so see a reminder that Disney wasn't always the media megacorp that it's been for most of my life. I'll try to make a note of when Disney starts distributing it's own films.

Walt actually has a thank-you to the staff in the credits. Given that he didn't even give Adriana Caselotti a credit as the voice of Snow White, it rings kinda hollow. Well, at the least animators get their names in there.

For those that aren't watching along, old timey movies had all the credits in the beginning. I doubt people payed any more attention to them then than they do now, but at least people didn't walk out on them.

Snow White has a quick intro with a live action story book, something that will happen again here and there throughout the canon. I'll try to keep track of which ones have them.

This movie wastes no time on establishing anything; straight to the evil queen and her vanity. And, not for the first time, I'm wondering what the hell standards the Mirror is using. Sources claim that Snow White is fourteen, which... I guess that she's a young looking fourteen, but still, the Mirror seems to value youth a whole heck of a lot.

Something that surprised me the first time I started watching the DAC was just how good all the art is. It isn't a surprise this time, but it's still striking just how much detail there is. Okay, the static backdrops have the lion's share of it, but it's still incredible.

These days, cartoons either seem to be CGI or have a more streamlined art style, so it's pretty damn noticeable.

The Prince, unnamed and unexplained, meets Snow White while she working in the courtyard. He actually kind of scares her off, which, combined with how young Snow looks.... This part is less bad than the Grimm version, which didn't have them meet at all beforehand, but is definitely not aging well.
Why was the Prince in the area, anyway? Was he supposed to meet with the Evil Queen? Was he... Wait, was he supposed to get hitched to the Evil Queen?

If so, the Evil Queen catching him serenading her step daughter was probably pretty bad.

This movie really does move fast. Even a film later, I'd expect some kind of explanation for the Huntsman, but she's just got a dude on call, apparently. Likewise, we don't know what excuse he uses to get her out of the castle, but she's actually dressed in something nicer than her work clothes, so I guess that she wasn't expecting to get dirty.

I'm sure that someone with more technical knowledge of animation could point out all of the limitations that this movie is running into, but I'm just impressed by how well an eighty-year-old movie holds up. Snow's run through the woods still looks good.

This movie establishes the long-running concept/gag that princesses can control wildlife. Oddly, this might be the only Disney movie without even a vaguely implied reason for the ability. I'll be keeping track of which princesses can control animals and whether there's an explanation.

Snow White comes to the conclusion that the dwarfs are orphan children based on their size and terrible housekeeping. Which probably isn't that bad a guess, given the evidence that she has available and that the woodland creatures agree with her conclusion.

I didn't notice this before, but the woodland creatures are actually lousy housekeepers, and Snow has to keep telling them to clean properly.

The dwarfs in this movie, somewhat oddly by today's standards, aren't pseudo-Scottish maniacs. This movie actually predates that version of dwarfs, and is old enough that gnomes and dwarfs were still considered the same thing by pop culture. Oddly, I think that's one of the starkest signs of how old this movie is.

I gotta admit, Sleepy, Sneezy, Bashful, Happy, Dopey, Grumpy, and Doc sound an awful lot like names that a bunch of kids would use for each other.

"Jiminy Crickets." I'm still surprised that Jiminy used to be an exclamation. Nobody uses it nowadays, likely because it's hard to use without thinking of a character from the next movie.

Grumpy's conclusion to someone cleaning up is that dirty work is afoot, of course. I'm also surprised by how jumpy the dwarfs get.

Huhn. I think that Dopey screaming when he sees Snow might be his only proper vocalization in the movie. He makes sound effects a few times, but I'd honestly put that further from talking.

Grumpy wants to kick Snow out so that she doesn't bring the wrath of the Queen down upon them. Snow is pretty confident that the Queen won't be able to find her in the middle of nowhere, so I guess that she didn't know about the Magic Mirror. Grumpy makes claims of her power, but none of the others back him up, so I guess that they're mostly rumors.

The washing up sequence has some pretty good slapstick, but it's probably the epitome of this movie's issue with... Form? Format? It's fun, but it's basically unconnected with anything else. It's okay to have some breather segments, but... I'll talk more at the end.

We get to see the ingredients the Evil Queen uses in her transformation, and those are some pretty serious magic ingredients. The most mundane is mummy dust, and the last one is a fractalin' thunderbolt.

We get to see that the Evil Queen has black hair during her transformation. Black hair and ruby lips... She's Snow's stepmother instead of mother in this version, but I'm left wondering if Snow's dad had a type, because I'm pretty sure that they have a strong resemblance. Hmmn. Did Snow's mother also know magic? That would explain where Snow got the ability to command animals.

The Queen actually keeps her green eyes. I hadn't noticed her eye color before. She also seems happier and more animated after her transformation. The animators were better with more stylized designs, but I don't think that the Queen so much as smiled before her transformation. I'm left wondered just what happened to make her so obsessed with her own beauty.

The dwarfs let Snow use their beds, but I can't but notice that's she's only using three. Why not move the other three downstairs?

Snow White actually says her prayers before bed. I'm pretty sure that this is the only entry in the canon where we see someone actually make christian prayers. Seems so odd now.

The Evil Queen is having a lot of a fun as an old witch, including scaring that crow (her familiar?) that she keeps in the lab. The poison apple's antidote is love's first kiss, which taken literally means that someone that had already kissed their love would be hosed. Also, she says that the dwarfs will bury her alive, preventing any chance of revival. So, not only is she putting Snow into a coma, but she's tricking her friends into killing her.

Y'know, I've got the sneaking suspicion that Snow is the fairest in the land because of personality and not just looks. That, or the Queen's frown lines massively deducted points.

The vultures follow the Evil Queen as she goes past. The idea, obviously, is that they know someone is going to die around her, but I suspect that they specifically knew that the Queen was gonna die. Even aside from her disguise as an old woman.

Oddly, I think that Snow might have been more wary of the Queen if the animals hadn't attacked her. She was wary at the start, but when the animals attacked she acted like an old lady rather than a sorceress.

I don't know what it sounds like when deer run, but that is definitely the galloping horse sound effect.

Hmmn. Watching it again, I think that Snow was just humoring the Queen to get the weird old lady off her back, not that she believed that the apple was magic. Unfortunately, she was wrong about the apple being magic.

The lightning bolt that caused the Evil Queen to fall from her death had to be supernatural. Hitting the Queen directly would have been odd, but it hit the ground in front of her. It's pretty weird for a lightning bolt to hit the lowest thing in a group.

The dwarfs sticking Snow in a glass coffin is pretty freaking weird when you get down to it. The Queen expected them to bury her because, well, that's what you do with dead bodies. You don't leave them out for random royalty to kiss.

Ends with a another shot of the live-action story book.

While the animation has aged better than one might expect, I think that this might be the weakest entry. Well, the weakest of the actually feature-length stories. Structurally, it feels a lot more like a collection of shorts or vignettes than a proper long story. More than a few sequences feel like they were originally designed as standalone shorts rather than scenes from a longer story.

The story is, well, a fairy tale, and while there was some compression, I'm left noticing how thin the characters are. Later adaptations are very good about being economical with character building, but this one leaves a lot of major characters pretty thin in favor of doing more gags or musical sequences that don't do much to build up either the characters or the plot.

Snow is the big loser in this; She's probably the most passive protagonist in the DAC, and I'm including Aurora in that statement. Aurora, who was literally Sleeping Beauty.

Something that later fairytale adaptations in the DAC are better about is justifying, or at least explaining, the events. Not the extent of delving into politics or metaphysics, but it's hard to imagine later entries not including at least a passing reference to why a prince is wandering around or why the dwarfs put Snow in a glass coffin instead of burying her properly. And finishing off the villain with a lightning bolt out of nowhere also seems unlikely.

In retrospect, it was a pretty rough beginning, but it was good enough to get the ball rolling.

 

[Sjogre]

That's the only post I had saved, so on to the quick ones... And I didn't decide to try a third thread until I watched Bambi, so I didn't take notes. These'll be a bit rough.

Pinocchio 1940

First Seen: Too young to remember.

This is the original appearance of the song When you Wish Upon a Star, which is something of the signature song of Disney as a whole.

While the original Pinocchio had a plot that just kinda jumped around, this movie is still better about about feeling like a cohesive whole rather than a series of shorts like the previous movie. The songs felt better used, too.

The big improvement is characterization. The characters aren't the deepest, but we're actually getting to know them since they aren't just coming onscreen to do a quick gag.

Something that's kinda glossed over in his later appearances is that Jiminy is kind of crap at his job. Not only is he bad at getting Pinocchio to pay attention to him, but he's also not all that clear on morality himself. He's somewhat wiser than a boy that's only a day old, but that's a low bar.

Sure, he learned from the experience of trying (and failing) to guide Pinocchio, but he's later treated as some kind of fount of wisdom rather than just a guy with a fair amount of experience.

On the whole, I liked it more than Snow White, but I'll admit that I like action and adventure stories.

Fantasia 1940

First Seen: Also too young to remember. My family actually had it on laserdisc, so way long ago.

Disney's big experimental art movie. Unfortunately, not a financial success.

Technically, just a bunch of musical shorts with a live action dude explaining some stuff in between. Very high quality shorts though.

Many of them would become well known in their own right. Sorcerer's Apprentice is the best known, although Rite of Spring is the one I think of when I think of this movie.

I've also got a soft spot for Pastoral Symphony, although some old-timey racism got tossed into that one.

Dance of the Hours is goofy fun, but I'm only mentioning for completion's sake.

If Apprentice isn't the best known short, it's Night on Bald Mountain. Having the devil call up damned souls before being subdued by the dawn is quite an image.

Overall, a lot to like, and it's become more respected over time. I think it'd be cool if a Fantasia 202x was made.

Dumbo 1941

First Seen: Also as a young child.

So. Neither Pinocchio nor Fantasia did that well at the box office. Disney needed to put out something cheap and quick.

Now, Dumbo was a success, and while it was cheaper than the previous films, it still maintained quality, although it wasn't as ambitious as other films around this time.

Something that strikes me every time I watch this movie is that Dumbo gets stuck being referred to by his insulting nickname. I guess he prefers it to being called Junior?

The Pink Elephants sequence is probably the most memorable sequence from the movie. Certainly moreso than Dumbo's flying scenes.

Speaking of, he only flies at the very end, and we only see him do so twice, without any real foreshadowing leading up to it. Very odd. Almost makes me want to see the live action remake to see if it tried to make sense of that. Almost.

Bambi 1942

First Seen: I honestly cannot remember. I don't think I saw it before I started the thread the first time, but I'm not sure.

On the one limb, this movie is probably the one that people point to as an example of cutesy twaddle. On another limb, it's also infamous as the movie where the main character's mother gets shot. And that's arguably not even the darkest part of the movie!

This movie doesn't switch between multiple ideas the way that Fantasia did, but I think it's just as ambitious an experimental in it's own way. The way that the animation just... drifts away from concrete images sometimes isn't something you see often.

This results in the fight between Bambi and the rival stag being intense and dreamlike at the same time, and more memorable than something purely fantastic or realistic would be.

Bambi II 2006

First Seen: As an adult, as part of the first iteration of this thread.

Watching this and the previous movie back-to-back was an interesting experience. This movie probably had technically better animation and has more plot and characterization to it, but it didn't hold my attention nearly as well.

Thinking about it, this was a safer movie. Strictly formula. Competently executed, but just formula. There was a bully to be knocked down, an estranged father to connect with, and the lessons learned would help Bambi survive the danger at the end. Seen it all before.

It also felt safer in terms of stakes. There's a scene in the first movie where Bambi's mother warns him that he'll have to be careful every time that he goes into the meadow. Bambi II never quite manages to get that kind of tension going.

Thinking about it, Bambi's images and sounds did a lot of heavy lifting. There were some decent jokes, but I don't think the writing wowed anyone.

Another thing is.... The first movie had animal characters living animal lives. They were lightly anthropomorphized, but still animals going through a story about animals. The second movie felt like someone had taken a stock story about human children and then cast animals. Kinda sticks out, back to back.

 

[MEDdMI]

The princess-animal thing was a "she's so pure, even the normally wary wild critters love her" type thing. The woodland creatures are all the cutesy prey-types: small birds, bunnies, deer, etc. All creatures that themselves portray innocence and vulnerability. Probably stems from the old tales that unicorns would only approach young virgin girls.
They later became sidekicks, comic relief, and merchandise opportunities. XD

 

[Sjogre]

Something that always kind of surprises me is that only a couple of those first films did well in theatres. Combined with many of Disney's animators going to fight in Word War II, the next few films are greatly decreased in scope and ambition. Mostly, they're just packages of shorts.

Saludos Amigos 1943

The Three Caballeros1945

First Seen: Elementary school.

I honestly did not realize that these were different features until I watched them for this thread, and well... they're obviously linked. Might as well talk about them at the same time.

They were made as part of the Good Neighbor Policy, and really feel like an advertisement for tourism. A reminder that even Disney needed to work for others, once upon a time.

Saludos has extended live action sequences around the shorts, which really makes it feel kinda cheap. Caballeros also has them, but they don't feel as much like a cost saving measurement.

Something that kinda surprises me is that Jose Carioca is only introduced partway through the last short. Part of why it feels more like a prelude to Caballeros than it's own thing, I guess.

Caballeros is ultimately the stronger of the two. Panchito is introduced towards the end, but he has enough time to really do something.

And, while the shorts in Saludos aren't bad, Caballeros is the one where the animation does some interesting stuff.

Also, the end sequence where Donald goes wild for Mexican women is so over the top that it's hilarious

Seeing the Mickey Mouse crew in prominent roles in an entry in the animated canon just feels weird. I'll talk more about it later.

 

[Sjogre]

Make Mine Music 1946

First Seen: Uncertain. I'm pretty sure that I saw at least some of the shorts as a kid, but I don't know if I saw the entire group at the time.

So. This is the only entry in the Canon that isn't on Disney+. I managed to find it elsewhere, but fricken' seriously, why isn't it on there? It's not like there aren't already plenty of stinkers or dodgy old films on there.

I don't want to just say that's it's Fantasia but not as good, but it's a series of music focused shorts. It invites comparison.

A few of the songs have actual lyrics, which makes for a different feel, at least. More often a concrete narrative, even if the visuals are less ambitious.

I'll take a moment to call out Peter and the Wolf as having too much narration. It betrays a lack of faith in the visuals and is more a distraction than anything else.

Fun and Fancy Free 1947

First Seen: Childhood. Might have seen them separately, though.

This one has two not-quite feature length adaptions, with an introduction by Jiminy Cricket. Who's in then-modern California.

The first one is Bongo based off of the children's story by Sinclair Lewis.

Pretty standard stuff: Circus bear escapes from to the wild, adapts, meets a girl, fights a rival, and is confused by their unfamiliar ways.

In this case, the fact that bears show love by slapping each other in the face.

Yeah. I don't think that Disney would use that means of affection these days. I'm not sure how well it worked back then, either.

Apparently, these two were supposed to be feature length but ended up stitched together. The stiches are pretty obvious; Jiminy never interacts with the people in the framing device for Mickey and the Beanstalk.

I am reasonably sure that I saw the version with Ludwig von Drake narrating as a child. I was surprised to see the old-timey ventriloquist when I saw it as part of the first DAC thread.

As far as adaptations go, it's pretty decent. Short, though.

I hadn't notice it before, but in the package films so far, only shorts with the Mickey Mouse crew have actually had the characters talk. Could just be coincidence, but it feels odd.

Seeing the Mickey Mouse crew in the Animated Canon movies is... I grew up in the Renaissance era, so I'm used to these movies being big money makers. More through merchandising than ticket sales, admittedly, but the idea that they're not being used to spearhead new IP and products is kind of hard to wrap my brain around, sometimes.

The idea that they'd use "safe" characters like Mickey and Donald is not something that would have occurred to me.

 

[Sjogre]

Last of the package films.

Melody Time 1948

First Seen: Childhood. Pretty sure it was in school.

This one is mostly musical shorts, but the adaptations of Johnny Appleseed and Pecos Bill are much longer.

Unsurprisingly, this story kinda skips that the apples Chapman planted were meant for making cider rather than eating. Also, most of the trees were chopped down during prohibition.

The Johnny Appleseed kinda has a couple of characters talk. A little.

Pecos Bill is back to only having a narrator, though. Pecos Bill is pretty long, and I'm wondering if it was planned to be a full length feature of it's own at one point.

Also, it's the only one to have a live action introduction.

Honestly, it kinda feels like Disney took a bunch of completed cartoons and shoved them together.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad 1949

First Seen: Childhood. Probably not in school, though.

The Wind in the Willows has characters that actually talk! A whole bunch them!

Willows is a pretty fun piece. Toad is a jerk, but not so much that he's completely unsympathetic, and his antics remain entertaining.

Ichabod Crane does not having talking characters, going back to narrator only. I can't imagine that having Bing Crosby talk the whole time was really cheaper than grabbing some other voice actors, but it's not like I know what was going on in the studio.

Brom's a brute, Ichabod's greedy, and Katrina is egging them both on. Fun to watch them mess with each other, but I end up wanting them all to lose.

Brom looks more than a little like Gaston, and Katrina looks a lot like Cinderella. Brom's resemblance to Gaston is probably just the result of them both being big, beefy guys, but Cinderella was in production at the time. I suspect that Katrina looks like Ella because the animators were used to that face.

This movie claims a theme of unconventional heroes, but combined with the frontier shorts in the previous movie, I kinda suspect that Disney had planned on an American Frontier-themed package but scheduling caused it to fall apart.

 

[Sjogre]

Hokay, spent entirely too long slacking off.

Cinderella 1950

First Seen: Childhood.

Cinderella is the first full-length in a while. While it's superior to the package films as storytelling and animation, I'd rate it lesser than Bambi. It took Walt a while to rebuild the animation team, I guess.

Story-wise, well... I like action and adventure stories more than romances, so this isn't much to my taste.

That's not to say it's bad; This movie is basically the prototypical Disney animated movie, moreso than even Snow White. Musical numbers, a magical character that helps the protagonist, cute animal sidekicks, and a competent and intimidating villain with goofy henchmen.

Lady Tremaine is impressively serious. Part of what makes an impact is that she's such a mundane villain; no grand plots or schemes, she's just a thoroughly unpleasant and abusive parent.

Ella's seemingly passive nature has not aged well, but I'll give the movie this; She gets free at the end because of her own actions, rather than getting bailed out through luck or more magic.

Cinderella II: Dreams Come True 2002

Did not watch this one again. I saw it as part of the first iteration of this thread, and it's pretty dire. Basically, it was a package of episodes that were an attempt to make a Cinderella series, and a good illustration of why they didn't.

Cinderella III: A Twist in Time 2007

First Seen: First iteration of the DAC thread.

Due to some carelessness, Lady Tremaine gets hold of the Fairy Godmother's wand, and turns back time to the end of the first movie.

This movie has more adventure elements, so yeah, I like it more than the original. However, I also think that the plot is just plain more interesting, and it does more with the characters.

Anastasia especially is a delight. She shows herself to actually be something of a romantic, as opposed to Drusilla, who is every bit as cynical as their mother.

Like Bambi II, the silliness dial has been turned a notch or two higher, but I think it works well here. Cinderella's not-talking mice are pretty goofy, so the film makers just kinda embrace it and keep on going.

There's one point where they try to tell the prince what's going on, but he can't understand animals, so they resort to charades. It is completely ridiculous and works better than something more serious would have.

That's not to say that it's never serious; Lady Tremaine' ultimate plan to deal with Cinderella gets pretty dark and messed up.

While the animation is pretty unremarkable, the part where they put Anastasia's goofy expressions on Cinderella's face manages to be pretty unnerving.

So, yeah, definitely one of the better cash grab sequels and well worth watching.

 

[Pocket]

Something that later fairytale adaptations in the DAC are better about is justifying, or at least explaining, the events. Not the extent of delving into politics or metaphysics, but it's hard to imagine later entries not including at least a passing reference to why a prince is wandering around or why the dwarfs put Snow in a glass coffin instead of burying her properly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the first version of the story (on record, at least) to establish that Snow White and the prince had at least met prior to him coming to the rescue in the end? Same with Sleeping Beauty.

Oh, and speaking of records, did you know this was the first movie to ever have its soundtrack sold? Given the year, I guess it would have had to be a literal album of 78s; 33⅓-RPM LPs didn't show up until 1948.

Something that strikes me every time I watch this movie is that Dumbo gets stuck being referred to by his insulting nickname. I guess he prefers it to being called Junior?

I wonder how many people don't get around to actually seeing this movie until they're of a certain age, and only then realize his name was given as an insult in the first place. Because it really does seem to have lost all meaning from decades of just being the name of a famous character who's not actually known for being dumb (unlike for example Goofy or Dopey).

On a related note, his dad and partial namesake, Jumbo, was a real circus elephant. The whole reason "jumbo" came to mean "huge" was because of him. Wikipedia doesn't elaborate on where his name actually comes from, but I would guess it was either some African word or some racist white guy's made-up idea of one.

The princess-animal thing was a "she's so pure, even the normally wary wild critters love her" type thing. The woodland creatures are all the cutesy prey-types: small birds, bunnies, deer, etc.

And raccoons, in what was probably not the first and would definitely not be the last case of Disney sticking North American animals in a medieval European setting.

Apparently, these two were supposed to be feature length but ended up stitched together. The stiches are pretty obvious; Jiminy never interacts with the people in the framing device for Mickey and the Beanstalk.

Now that's a weird thought. Out of all the stories that made it into the anthology films, none of them feel any more cut down than they should be. The only one I can possibly imagine working as a full-length movie of its own is The Wind in the Willows, and that's only because the source material is a pretty decent length. I don't know what exactly they left out, but it must be something.

Ichabod Crane does not having talking characters, going back to narrator only. I can't imagine that having Bing Crosby talk the whole time was really cheaper than grabbing some other voice actors, but it's not like I know what was going on in the studio.

I saw this recently, and it did get me thinking, Bing Crosby was a big freaking deal in those days. I wonder how long it would be before Disney had anyone that A-list famous in one of their cartoons again. Vincent Price, maybe?

 

[Sjogre]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the first version of the story (on record, at least) to establish that Snow White and the prince had at least met prior to him coming to the rescue in the end? Same with Sleeping Beauty.

Could be? I'm not really an expert on fairy tales. That said, I remember being surprised that Aurora wasn't put to sleep for a hundred years, so it was at least the first version I encountered where she'd met the prince.

Alice in Wonderland 1951

First Seen: Early childhood.

Every time I see this movie, I'm surprised by how long it is. It's not that it drags or anything, I just go into it expecting that it'll take less time.

For all that it consists of Alice stumbling from one loosely-connected scene to the next, the movie manages to make them all feel like part of the same movie. Compare that to Snow White, where it could feel like a collection of shorts at times.

Alice doesn't manage to solve many, if any, of her own problems, but she still manages to feel active through the whole thing. Wonderland also feels just coherent enough that one feels that they could figure the rules with a bit more time.

If I've got one complaint, it's that having Alice escape by just waking up feels like a cop-out. Having Alice throw together a proper escape, or even just a more elaborate process to wake herself up would have made for a stronger story.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Never seen Alice in Wonderland. It's in Disney+. Should I bother?

 

[Pocket]

It's probably the best non-ironic adaptation of the book ever made, for what that's worth. For as many attempts as have been made over the years, it's notoriously hard to adapt because it's so aggressively weird and full of references that modern audiences (which is to say, virtually everyone born after 1900) would need to have explained to them (hence The Annotated Alice, published not long after the movie revived public interest in the books). Disney's solution was to throw as much of that as possible out the window and stick their own brand of cartoonish nonsense in its place. It meshes pretty well.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Never heard of th Annotated Alice.

Anyhow, I ended up watching Cinderella 2 and 3 for the Anastasia redemption arc. It actually made me tear up several times. Durn broken heart.

Apparently there's confusion as to why Anastasia wasn't with the baker at the start of Cinderella 3 but I assumed that her segment in Cinderella 2 could fit as part of the new timeline.

 

[Sjogre]

Peter Pan 1953

First Seen: Early childhood.

The second film about a strange fairy-land in a row. Guess that someone liked working with them.

The beginning of the movie has a strange sort of fairy logic that is completely bizarre and yet makes total sense. "My dog caught your shadow and I stuffed in a drawer, but I can stitch it back on no problem." Yep, checks out.

The scene with the natives is... Yeah. Somehow, it manages to worse than I remember because there's more cringe than can fit in my head.

Despite Wendy seemingly making up stories about Pan, Peter and Neverland are never really implied to be a dream. The parents never see Peter, but the way that they react to the ship sure doesn't look like they saw a cloud.

Return to Neverland 2003

First Seen: First iteration of this thread.

Made fifty years later and it feels like it. It starts off with a song similar to the one Bambi II started with. I wonder if Disney had a contract? They don't sound much like the music used in the original movies.

Technically, the first movie did include the phrase "Faith, trust, and pixie dust," but it wasn't given a lot of emphasis, and wasn't really a catchphrase or slogan. I guess that it really stuck with Wendy.

The movie starts off with Jane navigating WWII London, complete with a bombing run, and then goes to her being kidnapped by Captain Hook, who has somehow gotten the Jolly Roger to fly. This is easily the best part of the movie, and the rest fails to live up to it.

It's... not bad, really, it just plays it pretty safe, being a remix of the first movie. Jane learns to have fun rather than be more responsible, but... Honestly, that doesn't work as well. She's in genuinely dangerous situations at home and... Well, this movie can't decide how dangerous Hook is supposed to be, but Neverland is hardly safe.

Like the other two cash-grab sequels I've watched in this thread, the silliness is a notch or so higher. I don't think that it worked quite as well in this one because it had trouble being serious when it needed to be. I think the thing that stands out most is the final fight. Rather than having Jane come up with some kind of clever plan, they just made the pirates really incompetent in that scene, with Jane basically just acting like they aren't dangerous at all. Having Jane and the Lost Boys shoot the pirates with the treasure and then having the pirates start fighting each other for it? Kinda silly, but I'd have bought it. Having them shoot bits and pieces of the treasure overboard, which the pirates then followed? Not so much. Even having them threaten to dump all the treasure overboard would have worked better.

Compare that to the first movie, where the pirates actually were a threat and had the Lost Boys on the run before Peter helped them.

And using "Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust" as a slogan over and over just made it fell weird.

 

[Sjogre]

Apparently there's confusion as to why Anastasia wasn't with the baker at the start of Cinderella 3 but I assumed that her segment in Cinderella 2 could fit as part of the new timeline.

I hadn't thought about it before, but I'd assume that Lady Tremaine sabotaged that relationship, somehow. There's no way in hell that she'd let one of her daughters marry someone that she didn't choose.

 

[MEDdMI]

Nope, she's still with her baker, just not on camera.

 

[ZakuConvoy]

I thought Cinderella 3 actually takes BEFORE that "episode" of Cinderella 2 on the timeline?

...Which is probably more complicated than it needs to be, but oh well. That's just how Disney did it's direct to video movies, for some reason.

Like how The Little Mermaid 3 Ariel's Beginning is actually a prequel to the TV show and original movie.

Or how Lion King 1 1/2 actually came out AFTER the Simba's Pride, and was actually CALLED Lion King 3 in some territories, but takes place both BEFORE and DURING the original movie, NOT ACTUALLY in between LK 1 and 2 like the title implies.

And how Beauty and the Beast 2 and 3 actually take place right in the middle of the original movie And B&B 2 Enchanted Christmas MUST take place basically in the middle of B&B 3 Belle's Magical World since there's winters in ALL THREE MOVIES over the course of the same year, making the B&B movies some sort of Russian nesting doll of movie franchises.

Or Lilo and Stitch 2 (Stitch Has A Gltich) ACTUALLY being the THIRD movie, but taking place BEFORE the ACTUAL second movie that leads into the TV show that leads into the fourth movie...and then the Japanese anime...and then the Chinese cartoon! (Stitch & Ai MIGHT actually take place BEFORE the Japanese cartoon since the Japanese cartoon has a adult Lilo in it, but the Chinese cartoon was released AFTER the Japanese one, and I've never actually seen either one,)

...Disney is a mysterious beast, sometimes.

 

[Pocket]

The scene with the natives is... Yeah. Somehow, it manages to worse than I remember because there's more cringe than can fit in my head.

Ironically, this is also the movie that planted a lifelong confusion as to why we don't refer to our native peoples as "aborigines", as John does early on in the film. Australia doesn't have a monopoly on that word!

Made fifty years later and it feels like it. It starts off with a song similar to the one Bambi II started with. I wonder if Disney had a contract? They don't sound much like the music used in the original movies.

Technically, the first movie did include the phrase "Faith, trust, and pixie dust," but it wasn't given a lot of emphasis, and wasn't really a catchphrase or slogan. I guess that it really stuck with Wendy.

Fun fact: That opening song is on a three-disc collection of Disney songs that my brother owns. We listened to them on our way to Disney World one year, and it's really jarring. Even compared to the other modern songs they included, it sounds completely out of place, moreso because they decided to order the songs on each disc from most- to least-recent so it's the very first song on the disc.

Also I might have mentioned this last time, but the "villain tricking hero's offspring into helping them" plot was literally recycled from an earlier direct-to-video sequel, which you might not have gotten around to seeing yet so I won't spoil it. How the hell they thought this was the first sequel good enough to get a theatrical release blows my mind for so many reasons.

 

[Sjogre]

I thought Cinderella 3 actually takes BEFORE that "episode" of Cinderella 2 on the timeline?

Nah, Cinderella II takes place in the original timeline. It's setup isn't really compatible with the ending of III.

I figure that the two main possibilities are either that Lady Tremaine sabotaged Anastasia between II and III, or that III starts before Anastasia and the baker had time to progress their relationship.

Whatever the details, Twist in Time erases the second movie from the timeline, while keeping the only good parts.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Nah, Cinderella II takes place in the original timeline. It's setup isn't really compatible with the ending of III.

I figure that the two main possibilities are either that Lady Tremaine sabotaged Anastasia between II and III, or that III starts before Anastasia and the baker had time to progress their relationship.

Whatever the details, Twist in Time erases the second movie from the timeline, while keeping the only good parts.

Another take is that the way Cinderella 2 happens is the mice were telling a story (making a storybook with pictures and stuff) so when they told the story of Anastasia and the Baker, it was wildly inaccurate or might not even be real.

(They were busy getting Lucifer to date that white cat. They weren't even around when Anastasia met up with the baker for the fountain scene)

I kinda prefer the idea that Anastasia's segment in 2 happened after the fairy godmother lost her wand in 3 (even if it was after a year). Would hurt too much with Lady Tremaine broke up Anastasia and the Baker after they got together already. Getting the wand erased the original timeline meeting, yes, but the new timeline still allowed for the meet to happen, but much much sooner.