If, like me, you grew up in Europe watching Disney DVDs, then you may be surprised to learn that you didn't get the same experience as your American counterparts. In fact, I only saw many Disney movies "as they were meant to be seen" on Disney+. This is because of the different broadcasting equipment used: Europe, Asia, Africa, Brazil, and Argentina use PAL or SECAM, while the Americas, Korea, and Japan use NTSC. This can be an immense cross-the-pond headache, but for DVDs the the important thing is this: European cameras shoot and display 25 frames per second, while NTSC uses 24. This means that European DVDs are 4% faster than their American counterparts, leading to the movie being a few minutes shorter in real time. The action is slightly sped up, and the pitch is a little bit higher. Play the two side-by-side, and they'll begin to diverge, by 2 seconds every 50 seconds.
What you're saying about NTSC video using 24 fps is not entirely true. The speed of NTSC video is actually slightly SLOWER than theatrical film at 24 fps. When you transfer film to NTSC, the footage is converted to 29.97 interlaced frames, which equals 23.976 fps in progressive framerate. 23.976 fps is slower than 24, even if the difference is less than that of PAL/SECAM and film.
Bottom line: Neither NTSC or PAL/SECAM offers the true, original speed of the theatrical film.
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman Written by Larry Clemmons with Ken Anderson, Vance Gerry, Frank Thomas, Eric Cleworth, Julius Svendsen, Dave Michener Based on character and story conceptions by Ken Anderson Starring Roger Miller, Peter Ustinov, Terry-Thomas, Brian Bedford, Monica Evans, Phil Harris, Andy Devine, Carole Shelley, Pat Buttram, George Lindsey, Ken Curtis
Academy Award for Best Original Song - Floyd Huddleston, George Bruns - nominated In the Dark Age of Disney animation, one movie was so bad that it put all the other movies to sleep shame. It was so bad, it begat the most degenerate of all animal character fandoms: furries. And that movie... was Robin Hood. Oh, Robin Hood...
Some movies are easy to dislike. Peter Pan, with its bald-faced racism. Or Make Mine Music, which is tonally totally incoherent. Robin Hood doesn't have any of that. On paper, it's got all the elements of a classic Disney animation. But the problem with Robin Hood is that it every single element of the movie hits a wrong note. None of the individual elements fully work, making the movie on the whole a grand disappointment (and a total snore fest). I've seen Robin Hood multiple times at different ages, and it has been a disappointment. Yes, always.
Director Wolfgang Reitherman is known for his lackadaisical, naturalistic pacing, sure. But his earlier features had a central main character like Wart or Mowgli, or they were a rambunctious comedy caper like The Aristocats or the Dalmatians. Robin Hood doesn't have a story arc to speak of: no character growth, no narrative transformation. It's got dozens of pathetic characters, and a few protagonists who ought to be brought down a peg.
But critiquing the movie from a story perspective is kind of pointless. It was only greenlit because of Ken Anderson's character designs. The ones that birthed the furry fandom. Surely the sexually charged jokes in certain places must have helped. Whoever thought that was appropriate for a children's movie? Cause that's what this is: this is one Disney movie no self-respecting adult can sit through.
A lot of the movie's problems stems from the idea to conflate "classic British folk hero" with "popular folk music". This leads to a cast staffed not only by esteemed British actors like Peter Ustinov or Terry-Thomas, but also Roger Miller and copy-paste Phil Harris as Baloo Little John the Bear. Casting Pat Buttram is one thing, but casting him as the famously tyrannical Sherriff of Nottingham? It just doesn't mesh together. Too much action kills the vibes, while the lack of tension kills the story.
With no overarching creative vision behind the story, the results are pretty astonishing. Robin Hood and Maid Marian have no chemistry. There's an actual Scooby Doo chase in the middle of the archery scene chaos. There's a full storyboarded alternative ending that got shelved, despite it having the closest thing to stakes the movie has to offer. Despite casting Terry-Thomas, nothing in the movie plays to his strengths.
More seriously, the lack of development in the central conflict means this movie propagates a baseless anti-tax message, which grinds my political gears. I take great issue with movies that teach children that taxes are instinctively bad! It also paints a false picture of history: John was facing ire from the lower nobility against Richard's reckless tax-levying for his pointless and expensive foreign adventures (including the Third Crusade, in which he failed to capture Jerusalem but was himself captured by the Duke of Austria on his way home). But this is Robin Hood, not a history lesson about Magna Carta. I'll give Disney credit for John's mommy issues, which is the single most succinct summary of English royal politics between 1150 and 1215.
I think tackling the Robin Hood myth in general was a bad idea. It's a cool idea, but none of the adaptations I've seen have ever managed to pull it off. Disney, whose writers really couldn't be bothered, should have left well enough alone.
It doesn't help that Robin Hood keeps reminding the viewer of its inadequacy by cannibalizing from other Disney output. Sometimes directly, by tracing over animation from Snow White or lifting a shot or two from elsewhere in the same film. Other times, indirectly: some of the character designs insufficiently distinguishable from recent snakes (Kaa/Sir Hiss) or lions (Prince John/King Leonidas), never mind bears! Some of the incidental music is a little familiar, too: Robin Hood and Maid Marian frolicking in the forest is very reminiscent of "It's Morning" from Lady and the Tramp, and the royal music around Prince John sounds like "Hail to the Princess Aurora" from Sleeping Beauty. Was everyone involved in this movie on autocue? Not every problem is the result of a lack of money, you know!
Look, I don't want to slag off Robin Hood either. A lot of work goes into the production of an animated movie. I just can't recommend a single part of that production. Yes, it's got some clever lines. But per Alice in Wonderland, dialogue is arguably the least important part of an animated movie. Yes, most of the animation is technically sound. You'd still be better off watching almost anything else.
You want to know what I find most impressive about Robin Hood? That it was financially successful, said the snivelling, snobbish scholiast.
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Dec 14, 2020 23:19:05 GMT
Once again our opinions diverge irreversibly, as well as you might argue your position. I find Robin Hood to be a humble but terrifically successful little movie; its only great crime in my view is not quite having the epic breadth of a properly cinematic movie — this feels somehow like it should be a television movie, split into two 50-minute halves as part of Wonderful World of Color, perhaps. But what a terrific, what a boundlessly charming TV special that would make it. Character animation is always my favorite part of a Disney movie, over showy effects or elaborate background, even if I like the best of those as much as the next guy; so I find Robin Hood perfectly satisfactory in that department.
Story-wise, I also think this is quite possibly one of the most successful translations of the Robin Hood story (really: the Robin Hood premise) into a movie screenplay out there, even if it's not without its failings. Cutting out the indiscriminate and fairly amorphous mass of "the Merry Men" in favour of one true companion in the person of Little John, and a Friar Tuck who is more of an occasional ally than a full-time member, was its first great choice; making Prince John the main antagonist rather than a distant excuse for the Sheriff's tyranny, so as to tighten the premise, is another.
And, ahistorical as it may be, blaming John for Richard's Crusade expedition is also terrifically canny, both because it again helps pull together the inchoate mass of Robin Hood "plot points" into a single narrative, but also because it allows the viewers to take Richard seriously as "the Good King". It is, of course, completely ahistorical, but any Robin Hood story which agrees to present an unambiguously heroic and right-thinking Robin as loyal to Richard, The Good One, over John, The Bad One, is going to be ahistorical from the word go. If you're going to have Robin treat Richard as a good ruler, then finding a way to blame somebody else for Richard's reckless warmongering is miles better than just leaving the contradiction there.
I know I've seen the animated "Robin Hood," but it left not the slightest trace in my memory banks. Though I might have indeed enjoyed it in childhood had it been a two-parter on Wonderful World of Color/Disney. And then forgotten it, lock, stock and barrel.
At the risk of being mocked, though, I will say that I *do* remember fondly Disney's 1952 live-action "Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men" (Richard Todd). While its Metascore is not high, it is higher than that of the animated "Robin Hood"! and Leonard Maltin thought it was quite good.
I literally remember as much about "Robin Hood" as I do about "AristoCats"--and I HAVE NEVER SEEN ARISTOCATS.
Once again our opinions diverge irreversibly, as well as you might argue your position. I find Robin Hood to be a humble but terrifically successful little movie; its only great crime in my view is not quite having the epic breadth of a properly cinematic movie — this feels somehow like it should be a television movie, split into two 50-minute halves as part of Wonderful World of Color, perhaps. But what a terrific, what a boundlessly charming TV special that would make it. Character animation is always my favorite part of a Disney movie, over showy effects or elaborate background, even if I like the best of those as much as the next guy; so I find Robin Hood perfectly satisfactory in that department.
Story-wise, I also think this is quite possibly one of the most successful translations of the Robin Hood story (really: the Robin Hood premise) into a movie screenplay out there, even if it's not without its failings. Cutting out the indiscriminate and fairly amorphous mass of "the Merry Men" in favour of one true companion in the person of Little John, and a Friar Tuck who is more of an occasional ally than a full-time member, was its first great choice; making Prince John the main antagonist rather than a distant excuse for the Sheriff's tyranny, so as to tighten the premise, is another.
And, ahistorical as it may be, blaming John for Richard's Crusade expedition is also terrifically canny, both because it again helps pull together the inchoate mass of Robin Hood "plot points" into a single narrative, but also because it allows the viewers to take Richard seriously as "the Good King". It is, of course, completely ahistorical, but any Robin Hood story which agrees to present an unambiguously heroic and right-thinking Robin as loyal to Richard, The Good One, over John, The Bad One, is going to be ahistorical from the word go. If you're going to have Robin treat Richard as a good ruler, then finding a way to blame somebody else for Richard's reckless warmongering is miles better than just leaving the contradiction there.
Once again? You should post here more often! I had a feeling that this movie would have its fans, and it's certainly easier to love than a package film. But even though I'm not the best judge of character animation, Robin Hood is exactly what I wouldn't be using as an example.
I'm really not blaming the movie for ahistoricity, that's baked into the source material. The rehabilitation of King John is a fairly recent historiographical turn. In that respect, you make some good points. In fact, I'd argue the movie doesn't stray far enough from the source material: the archery contest in particular strikes me as simply going through the motions of a typical Robin Hood plot, but that's partly because it's such a dead trope to me. As for Prince John, I just wish they'd made him a bit more competent, so that I could take him seriously. John lacks a clear motive (greed?), and the whole movie is worse for it. Give me a reason to hate him, not pity him! In this respect he reminds me of Captain Hook: how is this guy still in charge?
I know I've seen the animated "Robin Hood," but it left not the slightest trace in my memory banks. Though I might have indeed enjoyed it in childhood had it been a two-parter on Wonderful World of Color/Disney. And then forgotten it, lock, stock and barrel.
At the risk of being mocked, though, I will say that I *do* remember fondly Disney's 1952 live-action "Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men" (Richard Todd). While its Metascore is not high, it is higher than that of the animated "Robin Hood"! and Leonard Maltin thought it was quite good.
I literally remember as much about "Robin Hood" as I do about "AristoCats"--and I HAVE NEVER SEEN ARISTOCATS.
The 1952 version is the earliest Disney feature available on Disney+ that I haven't seen. I have seen countless parodies of Robin Hood, including the Mel Brooks version. That one just made me realize that I really don't like Mel Brooks humor. I've also read Ivanhoe, which was fairly successful in its plot, but really needed an editor. Supposedly the 1938 Errol Flynn movie was the main inspiration for the 1973 version, but then, so was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
You haven't seen The Aristocats? You're doing yourself a disservice. Unless anything drastic happens, I'd argue it's Disney's strongest fully animated movie in the 30 years between Lady and the Tramp and The Great Mouse Detective.
Well, thing is, as I said, we have such drastically different takes that a lot of the times I abstain from commenting, the gist of what I'd have to say would be "so no offence but I think you got basically everything you just posted backwards". This is your thread, and I don't want to be raining on your parade! Although other times it's just because I was too busy to put my thoughts together in time, before you'd moved on to the next one.
John lacks a clear motive (greed?), and the whole movie is worse for it. Give me a reason to hate him, not pity him!
Now that criticism rather baffles me. I don't just disagree with it, I am genuinely baffled. Prince John's motive(s) are clear as rain; firstly, there's no call to put a question mark to the "greed" qualifier when the man is seen hugging huge sacks of gold in his sleep à la Scrooge McDuck. Secondly, he's also clearly motivated by deeply-ingrained jealousy towards his stronger, more successful older sibling who was always Momma's favourite. I don't really see how he needs any more motivation than a desire to outstrip Richard, and (secondarily) a basic hedonistic enjoyment of the perks being King will give him. Certainly that's as much motivation as many a historica tyrant ever had.
As for the second part of the message I quoted, I like my Disney villains to be entertaining, and the larger-than-life combination of the animation and Ustinov's voice certainly does that for me with John. I don't want to a hate a Disney villains! Disney villains, with a few exceptions, exist to be the highlight of the film whenever they're on screen. One is not intended to hate Professor Ratigan or Grand Vizier Jafar or however many highly successful villains you'd care to name. Even with Maleficent, Madam Medusa, or other such villains who are more straightfowardly meant to come across as abhorrent and despicable, they're still meant to be larger-than-life and fun to watch strutting about.
Well, thing is, as I said, we have such drastically different takes that a lot of the times I abstain from commenting, the gist of what I'd have to say would be "so no offence but I think you got basically everything you just posted backwards". This is your thread, and I don't want to be raining on your parade! Although other times it's just because I was too busy to put my thoughts together in time, before you'd moved on to the next one.
I'll admit that I've been fairly harsh on a couple of Disney classics. Part of my aim is to rank them relative to one another, and learning what to do and what to avoid if I got the chance to create an animated movie. I have my preconceived notions of what that should look like (having grown up in the age of peak Pixar, Avatar the Last Airbender and the like), and we're not there yet. Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather watch the bottom 90% of Disney movies than the top 90% of conventional drama, but that's a matter of taste.
Naming this thread as my review series may have sent out the wrong signal. I appreciate every contribution.
Now that criticism rather baffles me. I don't just disagree with it, I am genuinely baffled. Prince John's motive(s) are clear as rain; firstly, there's no call to put a question mark to the "greed" qualifier when the man is seen hugging huge sacks of gold in his sleep à la Scrooge McDuck. Secondly, he's also clearly motivated by deeply-ingrained jealousy towards his stronger, more successful older sibling who was always Momma's favourite. I don't really see how he needs any more motivation than a desire to outstrip Richard, and (secondarily) a basic hedonistic enjoyment of the perks being King will give him. Certainly that's as much motivation as many a historica tyrant ever had.
Good point from you, bad point from me. Don't know what it is then. John doesn't have the sadistic tendencies later villains are famous for. He's not Scar or Jafar, Hades or Yzma. (Then again, you can expect me to go into a tirade about how the Animal Kingdom is a terrible form of government when we get to The Lion King.)
As for the second part of the message I quoted, I like my Disney villains to be entertaining, and the larger-than-life combination of the animation and Ustinov's voice certainly does that for me with John. I don't want to a hate a Disney villains! Disney villains, with a few exceptions, exist to be the highlight of the film whenever they're on screen. One is not intended to hate Professor Ratigan or Grand Vizier Jafar or however many highly successful villains you'd care to name. Even with Maleficent, Madam Medusa, or other such villains who are more straightfowardly meant to come across as abhorrent and despicable, they're still meant to be larger-than-life and fun to watch strutting about.
I'd argue that the type of Disney villain you mention isn't standardized until the 1980s, and while there are a number of notable antecedents, it's more of a projection back in time. Generally, I find the future examples you mention to work a lot better in general (although I have a softer spot for them in TV series spinoffs than in the movies themselves).
Let me say that I have enjoyed the majority of Disney villains so far. The Evil Queen, Honest John and Gideon, Stromboli, the Coachman, the T. rex, Zeus, Chernabog, Ronno, Tetti-Tatti, Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear, Sally, Widowmaker, Mrs. Kincaid, Mr. Winky and the weasels, Si and Am, Maleficent, Mr. Dawes and the bankers, Bookman and Swinburne, Mr. Jelk, Colonel Heller and his regiment, Edgar. There's a couple I don't like as much. A few of them are too mean for my tastes: Lumpjaw, Lady Tremaine, the Queen of Hearts, Aunt Sarah. A few of them are too silly for my tastes: Willie the Giant, Captain Hook, Prince John. I'm on the fence about Cruella de Vil: she's the first in a line of great Disney villains, but I feel like writers always had a better handle on her in retrospect, than they did in 1961. As for Madam Mim and Shere Khan, they're one-scene-wonders, but I'd have liked them to have had bigger roles in the movies they were in.
Prince John is entertaining to some degree, but I still think he should've played a more active role in the story.
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman and John Lounsbery Written by Larry Clemmons, Ralph Wright, Vance Gerry, Xavier Atencio, Ken Anderson, Julius Svendsen, Ted Berman, Eric Cleworth and Winston Hibler Based on the books written by A. A. Milne and illustrated by Ernest H. Shepard
Starring Sterling Holloway as Winnie the Pooh Featuring Sebastian Cabot, Junius Matthews, Barbara Luddy, Howard Morris, John Fielder, Ralph Wright, Hal Smith, Clint Howard, Dori Whitaker With Bruce Reitherman, Jon Walmsley and Timothy Turner as Christopher Robin And Paul Winchell as Tigger The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is an outlier in Disney's animated canon. It's a package feature, a compilation of previously released theatrical shorts. Nevertheless, it represents a significant step forward.
Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966) As the last animated short released during Walt's life, The Honey Tree is a great showcase of Disney animation. Many parts of the production stand out: the general faithfulness of the adaptation, the design, the Sherman Brothers songs, but most of all: the characters. Every character is distinctly animated, and there's always a hint of them being stuffed toys when exposed to the elements. The voice cast is stellar too, soft and warm. There's Disney alumni like Barbara Luddy and Junius Matthews as well as new actors, but Sterling Holloway's Winnie the Pooh takes the cake. Great American voice actors are hard to come by, especially following the demise of radio, but Disney always had a great ear for it. The combination of character design (indebted to Ernest Shepard), character animation, and voice acting gives Disney's Winnie the Pooh a diverse, distinct, and complementary cast of characters. Those are hard to come by! If this is the legacy of Disney animation, they've done a stellar job. As for The Honey Tree itself, it's a great introduction to Winnie the Pooh and his world. Pooh's love for honey gets him in all kinds of trouble, through which we learn about all the other characters in the Hundred Acre Wood. It's a charming short, one of the best to come out of this era.
Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968) "Tut tut, looks like rain." One of the recurring motifs in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is the seasons. The Blustery Day, for instance, takes place during a wet and windy fall, while Tigger Too takes place during winter. The environment is an integral element of the Hundred Acre Wood and the behavior of its residents. It taps into a certain part of childhood memories, especially when the flood and the snow are a little larger than life. The environment is also shaped by the words on the page, in this short more than in the previous one, which is another classic Disney trope. These Pooh shorts have fun with the fact that they're set inside a storybook, unlike post-Disney animation which would often do away with the proscenium arch. The Blustery Day introduces yet more characters in Piglet and Tigger, as well as the Heffalumps and Woozles in Pooh's nightmare. The latter is a great Disney dream sequence and a nice break from the flow of the regular action, while the former have become Pooh standards. I can hardly separate them from Winnie the Pooh, as I grew up with the 1988-91 series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh myself. The Blustery Day expands on the world of Pooh with great success. It is the ambitious, the most adventurous, and the best looking of the shorts on display.
Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too (1974) What's notable about Winnie the Pooh is that it's Disney's first animated franchise. As such, it occupies an important role in keeping Disney animation alive, from Walt's last days, through the 1970s, and into the Eisner/Wells era and beyond. From TV episodes through made for home video releases through Christopher Robin, Disney has been released Pooh content for over fifty years. And I think it doesn't get enough credit for that. Over time, Pooh material has tended to be aimed at the youngest, and perhaps hasn't enjoyed as much respect as Disney's other productions since the Disney Afternoon/Renaissance. But humble Pooh is pure Disney at its core, and its role in bridging the Dark Age of Disney animation is very respectable indeed. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, although it's a compilation of previously released material, is perhaps the first glimpse of a new direction for the studio and for the company. Tigger Too is probably my least favorite of the shorts in this movie. The antagonism between Rabbit and Tigger that fuels the plot feels a little out of place with the other shorts. Although I agree that there is such a thing as too much Tigger, trying to lose him in the woods in winter is a bit too mean-spirited.
Our sojourn in the Hundred Acre Wood has come to a close. But one day, we will return. One day.
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman and John Lounsbery Written by Larry Clemmons, Ralph Wright, Vance Gerry, Xavier Atencio, Ken Anderson, Julius Svendsen, Ted Berman, Eric Cleworth and Winston Hibler Based on the books written by A. A. Milne and illustrated by Ernest H. Shepard
Starring Sterling Holloway as Winnie the Pooh Featuring Sebastian Cabot, Junius Matthews, Barbara Luddy, Howard Morris, John Fielder, Ralph Wright, Hal Smith, Clint Howard, Dori Whitaker With Bruce Reitherman, Jon Walmsley and Timothy Turner as Christopher Robin And Paul Winchell as Tigger The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is an outlier in Disney's animated canon. It's a package feature, a compilation of previously released theatrical shorts. Nevertheless, it represents a significant step forward.
Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966) As the last animated short released during Walt's life, The Honey Tree is a great showcase of Disney animation. Many parts of the production stand out: the general faithfulness of the adaptation, the design, the Sherman Brothers songs, but most of all: the characters. Every character is distinctly animated, and there's always a hint of them being stuffed toys when exposed to the elements. The voice cast is stellar too, soft and warm. There's Disney alumni like Barbara Luddy and Junius Matthews as well as new actors, but Sterling Holloway's Winnie the Pooh takes the cake. Great American voice actors are hard to come by, especially following the demise of radio, but Disney always had a great ear for it. The combination of character design (indebted to Ernest Shepard), character animation, and voice acting gives Disney's Winnie the Pooh a diverse, distinct, and complementary cast of characters. Those are hard to come by! If this is the legacy of Disney animation, they've done a stellar job. As for The Honey Tree itself, it's a great introduction to Winnie the Pooh and his world. Pooh's love for honey gets him in all kinds of trouble, through which we learn about all the other characters in the Hundred Acre Wood. It's a charming short, one of the best to come out of this era.
Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968) "Tut tut, looks like rain." One of the recurring motifs in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is the seasons. The Blustery Day, for instance, takes place during a wet and windy fall, while Tigger Too takes place during winter. The environment is an integral element of the Hundred Acre Wood and the behavior of its residents. It taps into a certain part of childhood memories, especially when the flood and the snow are a little larger than life. The environment is also shaped by the words on the page, in this short more than in the previous one, which is another classic Disney trope. These Pooh shorts have fun with the fact that they're set inside a storybook, unlike post-Disney animation which would often do away with the proscenium arch. The Blustery Day introduces yet more characters in Piglet and Tigger, as well as the Heffalumps and Woozles in Pooh's nightmare. The latter is a great Disney dream sequence and a nice break from the flow of the regular action, while the former have become Pooh standards. I can hardly separate them from Winnie the Pooh, as I grew up with the 1988-91 series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh myself. The Blustery Day expands on the world of Pooh with great success. It is the ambitious, the most adventurous, and the best looking of the shorts on display.
Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too (1974) What's notable about Winnie the Pooh is that it's Disney's first animated franchise. As such, it occupies an important role in keeping Disney animation alive, from Walt's last days, through the 1970s, and into the Eisner/Wells era and beyond. From TV episodes through made for home video releases through Christopher Robin, Disney has been released Pooh content for over fifty years. And I think it doesn't get enough credit for that. Over time, Pooh material has tended to be aimed at the youngest, and perhaps hasn't enjoyed as much respect as Disney's other productions since the Disney Afternoon/Renaissance. But humble Pooh is pure Disney at its core, and its role in bridging the Dark Age of Disney animation is very respectable indeed. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, although it's a compilation of previously released material, is perhaps the first glimpse of a new direction for the studio and for the company. Tigger Too is probably my least favorite of the shorts in this movie. The antagonism between Rabbit and Tigger that fuels the plot feels a little out of place with the other shorts. Although I agree that there is such a thing as too much Tigger, trying to lose him in the woods in winter is a bit too mean-spirited.
Our sojourn in the Hundred Acre Wood has come to a close. But one day, we will return. One day.
Hey. HEY! Aren't you gonna review the new bridging and ending animation done for the 1977 movie, including the final scene with Pooh and Christopher Robin?
Hey. HEY! Aren't you gonna review the new bridging and ending animation done for the 1977 movie, including the final scene with Pooh and Christopher Robin?
Ha ha ha! The new animation adds up to about two minutes, which is too short for me to say anything to say about it in this blasted reviewing format. I tried saying something about the final scene (which is beautiful), but is it really something you can separate from the main attractions? What would you even call it?
Hey. HEY! Aren't you gonna review the new bridging and ending animation done for the 1977 movie, including the final scene with Pooh and Christopher Robin?
Ha ha ha! The new animation adds up to about two minutes, which is too short for me to say anything to say about it in this blasted reviewing format. I tried saying something about the final scene (which is beautiful), but is it really something you can separate from the main attractions? What would you even call it?
Well.. it's years and years since I watched it, but it IS based directly on the final chapter in A. A. Milne's second and last Pooh book, The House at Pooh Corner (1928). So it's certainly there to say "The End" as clearly as possible. At the time, I suspect the Walt Disney Company wasn't necessarily expecting to do more cartoons with Pooh, so they used that sequence to give the movie a bit of finality.
Well.. it's years and years since I watched it, but it IS based directly on the final chapter in A. A. Milne's second and last Pooh book, The House at Pooh Corner (1928). So it's certainly there to say "The End" as clearly as possible. At the time, I suspect the Walt Disney Company wasn't necessarily expecting to do more cartoons with Pooh, so they used that sequence to give the movie a bit of finality.
From what I've gathered, it was the intention from the outset to release the story piecemeal. That was Walt's idea back when work began on Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree in 1962. The first two shorts were released in 1966 and 1968, but the timeline after that is a little hazy. Jon Walmsley, the voice of Christopher Robin in Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, reportedly dubbed Bruce Reitherman's part in Honey Tree, and also voiced the character in the epilogue. The animation for the epilogue also seems to have been done around this time, but that's purely my intuition. The third Pooh short didn't come along until 1974. The main thing they seem to have fixed for the movie in 1977 was the narration, but I'm not sure as I've never seen the stand-alone shorts. A fourth Pooh short, Winnie the Pooh and a Day for Eeyore, was released in 1983, using the same cast as Winnie the Pooh Discovers the Seasons, an educational short from 1981.
Given the time usually involved in making these shorts, I'm not sure how definitive that ending was meant to be. Sure, it was according to Walt's plan, and it gives the narrative a sense of finality. But that's a pretty steady flow of new Pooh.
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, John Lounsbery, Art Stevens Story by Larry Clemmons, Ken Anderson, Frank Thomas, Vance Gerry, David Michener, Ted Berman, Fred Lucky, Burny Mattinson, Dick Sebast Suggested by "The Rescuers" and "Miss Bianca" by Margery Sharpe
Starring Bob Newhart as Bernard and Eva Gabor as Miss Bianca Against Geraldine Page as Madame Medusa With Joe Flynn as Mr. Snoops, Jeanette Nolan as Ellie Mae, Pat Buttram as Luke, Jim Jordan as Orville With John McIntire as Rufus, Michelle Stacy as Penny, Bernard Fox as The Chairman, Larry Clemmons as Gramps With James MacDonald as Evinrude, George Lindsey as Rabbit, Bill McMillan as TV Announcer, Dub Taylor as Digger, John Fielder as Owl
Academy Award for Best Original Song - Carol Connors, Ayn Robbins, and Sammy Fain - nominated By the 1970s, Disney animation was running on fumes. The staff at the Disney studios, who had been hired in their youth in the 1930s or early '40s, were now approaching retirement age. Corners were being cut like never before. That said, things were even more dire elsewhere in the field. Virtually every studio had shut down, and those who remained worked for TV on a very limited budget: Hanna-Barbera, Filmation. In theatres, Disney shared the screen with Rankin/Bass and the remaining DePatie-Freleng shorts.
But there was also cause for hope. It was a good time for independent filmmakers like Ralph Bakshi, who emerged out of the underground culture of the late '60s. The children of the baby boom generation, young and passionate, saw an opportunity to work with their aging heroes. Disney held the advantage of being essentially the only name in town. People like Ron Clements and John Musker, but also Don Bluth and even Tim Burton got their start at Disney.
Some of that influence begins to shine through in The Rescuers. What started out as a traditional Disney movie, including obligatory appearances by Phil Harris and Louis Prima and a sequence about watching humans in the zoo, gradually became more focused and more serious. Composer George Burns retired from the studio and was replaced by Artie Butler, who wasn't afraid to introduce a more contemporary sound while still quoting from the classics. The animation budget was increased, and careful editing was done to conceal the rest, and to highlight the drama. Yes, real serious drama, for the first time since One Hundred and One Dalmatians!
All that is to say that The Rescuers is a real shot in the arm. Oh, it's still a little rough around the edges. Some of the animation is pretty sketchy, the second act is underdeveloped, and the romance is a little dated. But you can't get these things right on the first try. I'm very much looking forward to re-watching The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company after this!
There's so many good little things in this movie. The opening shot, a riverboat lying in the bayou. The muted color scheme. The title music. The quietly feminist agency of Miss Bianca. The character design of Mr. Snoops (an unwitting John Culhane posing as the model). Geraldine Page's fantastic performance as the menacing Madame Medusa. She may have been inspired by Cruella de Vil, but she is so much more. The swamp mobile. The whole idea of the Rescue Aid Society. I know Walt shelved the first draft of the movie for its political undertones (back when it was still about a Norwegian poet stuck in a gulag), but I think it's great. I could go on. This is the first movie to be advancing the animal adventure genre since One Hundred and One Dalmatians, and boy are we overdue. At the same time, the kind of adventure we see here won't really come to fruition in Hollywood until the 1980s, with kidnapping and diamonds in Central American locales. (Yes, I just said the American South is in Central America. Deal with it.)
And here's where the plot could be a bit tighter. Despite the fact that humans and animals can talk now, we never find out how Madame Medusa came to know of the Devil's Eye diamond, or why she kidnapped this particular New York orphan for the job. (I appreciate the reference to stranger danger, but it's just muddying the waters between real life fears and fiction.) The second act seems to head into mystery territory, with Rufus (and his weird glasses) and the zoo and Medusa's pawn shop, but we get to spend little time with Penny herself (or Medusa) as a result. The swamp folk are also a bit underdeveloped, but I do love their chaotic attempt to attack Madame Medusa. Neither gets quite enough meaningful interaction with our protagonists for the whole thing to come together.
The period between The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under has a cult following among Disney fans, and it's easy to see why. It's not as glossy and marketable and family-friendly as the Disney Renaissance, but it provides a lot of the underlying foundations. There's a great potential in The Rescuers. By Disney standards, it's not a great movie. But it's got all the premonitions of one.
So what about periodization? I'm having second thoughts about the Dark Age of Disney animation. It's comprised of two quite different eras, one cool and spearheaded by Reitherman, the second more down-to-earth and fueled by new talent. Let's see how this goes.
The Little Whirlwind (1941) Dir. Riley Thomson Star. Walt Disney, Thelma Boardman
It's a cute little cartoon, and the premise of Mickey chasing a little whirlwind makes for some fresh gags. I find the action a bit too cartoony to enjoy, preferring the comedy to be more grounded in the 'human' characters and their wild devices than a sentient windbag and a march of leaves. Mickey's new design is awful, and Minnie's oblivious and cruelty do her no favors either. You can tell they were struggling to keep the characters relevant in the changing cartoon landscape of the 1940s.
I have to say I really like this cartoon. Mickey's personality here is great, much more fun than in most of the later shorts, and I don't mind his design all that much either. The animation of him by (I'm 99% sure) Freddy Moore is frikkin' amazing -- there's something lyrical about the way Mickey dances about the screen raking up the leaves.
And interestingly enough: in most cases, dead elements suddenly becoming sentient beings who fight the main characters in Disney shorts are utterly uninteresting to me. But in this case, it works for me because the personality of the whirlwind is pretty fun... and Mickey is also always kept squarely in the spotlight; the whirlwind doesn't run off with the entire show. Plus, there's a great twist in the end when he calls on his father and it becomes clear that Mickey bit off more than he could chew when taking on the whirlwind in a fight.
The Little Whirlwind (1941) Dir. Riley Thomson Star. Walt Disney, Thelma Boardman
It's a cute little cartoon, and the premise of Mickey chasing a little whirlwind makes for some fresh gags. I find the action a bit too cartoony to enjoy, preferring the comedy to be more grounded in the 'human' characters and their wild devices than a sentient windbag and a march of leaves. Mickey's new design is awful, and Minnie's oblivious and cruelty do her no favors either. You can tell they were struggling to keep the characters relevant in the changing cartoon landscape of the 1940s.
I have to say I really like this cartoon. Mickey's personality here is great, much more fun than in most of the later shorts, and I don't mind his design all that much either. The animation of him by (I'm 99% sure) Freddy Moore is frikkin' amazing -- there's something lyrical about the way Mickey dances about the screen raking up the leaves.
And interestingly enough: in most cases, dead elements suddenly becoming sentient beings who fight the main characters in Disney shorts are utterly uninteresting to me. But in this case, it works for me because the personality of the whirlwind is pretty fun... and Mickey is also always kept squarely in the spotlight; the whirlwind doesn't run off with the entire show. Plus, there's a great twist in the end when he calls on his father and it becomes clear that Mickey bit off more than he could chew when taking on the whirlwind in a fight.
I agree that this short could have been a lot less entertaining based on the "dead elements become animated and heckle the protagonist endlessly" premise. I also agree this Mickey is more interesting than the later "Pluto's sidekick", but I prefer the earlier (b/w) Mickey in terms of personality. And there's nothing in the whole wide world that beats the 1938 design, in my opinion. To each their own, huh?
Is it Freddy Moore? I always thought it was Ward Kimball, but then they worked together in the same department and I am terrible at telling apart all the different animators. They both worked on this short, but I have no idea who did which character or what scenes.