Board 8 > darkx (re)ranks the 56 Walt Disney Animation Studios films

(+) Yeah! (+)

I kinda love how my posting of the Cinderella write-up has instead turned into a full-out discussion about Sleeping Beauty, further proving my point that Cinderella isn't good or interesting.
---

#50 was much less shocking than I expected
---

AdmiralZephyr posted...

I kinda love how my posting of the Cinderella write-up has instead turned into a full-out discussion about Sleeping Beauty, further proving my point that Cinderella isn't good or interesting.

More like Sleeping Beauty should be lower than Cinderella.
---

Also I always thought this was the funniest fuckin image for no reason


---

Like the framing is perfection
---

I love the art style of Sleeping Beauty too. At the Walt Disney museum in San Francisco there's currently a special exhibit about Eyvind Earle, the guy responsible for it. Really cool exhibit.

Bane_Of_Despair posted...

Also I always thought this was the funniest fuckin image for no reason

That wouldn't be outta place in Modern day Pro Wrestling!
---

I like to call Sleeping Beauty 'incredibly pretty backgrounds: the movie' because that is pretty much all it is
---

49 is Fantasia 2000. I'm going to just keep guessing it, as it's vastly inferior to the first.
---

I vastly prefer F2K to F1K40
---

I'm actually just sitting down to do the write-up for Fantasia 2000.

That doesn't mean it's next or even soon, it just means that's where I'm at in the write-ups.
---

Hmm after that reaction posting this next one feels just a tad underwhelming...
---

49. The Aristocats
Remember back at Home on the Range where I said that there was one other film that I felt was really just for kids? This is it. Aside from the song Everybody Wants to Be a Cat, there's not much in here that anyone over the age of 5 is going to find entertaining. But I'll give it this - it's not BAD in the same vein that Chicken Little and Home on the Range are bad. There's a clear effort put in here (even if the plot is stupid beyond belief), and there's nothing outright offensive about it (except for a couple of classic Disney racist stereotype characters), but it's just missing that Disney magic, which is to be expected given it was the first film that was made without Walt's supervision. If you like this one from your childhood, I guess it's fine enough, but if you somehow haven't seen it yet, it's probably a safe pass.

48. One of the three sequels in the canon (soon to be what, six of them?)
---

Tangled 2 so low? Good choice.
---

=( aww my Aristocats
---

Rescuers Down Under
---

Fantasia 2000. Technically a sequel.
---

Everybody wants to be a cat, because a cat's the only cat, who knoooooows where it's at


Sad to see it so low, I have a ton of nostalgia for it.
---

There are three sequels and all three of them are better than their initial outings...
---

I have nostalgia for it and all, but not much can redeem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqMie92LuZY
---

Thomas O'Malley will forever be a baller


But yea some of the stereotypes are p bad
---

IIRC a lot of work on Aristocats was actually done while Walt was still alive, and Robin Hood was the first to be made completely without him
---

WazzupGenius00 posted...

IIRC a lot of work on Aristocats was actually done while Walt was still alive, and Robin Hood was the first to be made completely without him

As far as I know, he greenlit the Aristocats and basically sort of knew where it was going before he died, but never saw any significant amount of work done on it. The Jungle Book is usually cited as the last one he had any meaningful part it.
---

Maybe Rescuers Down Under next.

Also Cinderella being that low is not really surprising. I'd rank the classic princess movies as Sleeping Beauty > Cinderella > Snow White though.
---

Laaaame back 2 back rankings. Never mind fortune cookie....DARKX always wrong!
---

Question from the board's biggest Disney newb: just curious, why are the direct-to-video films not in this?
---

Not part of their official animation canon thingy
---

Jeff Zero posted...

Question from the board's biggest Disney newb: just curious, why are the direct-to-video films not in this?

The direct-to-video films are made by a different studio than what we call the Disney canon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisneyToon_Studios
---

It COULD be Winnie the Pooh 2011, but it's probably F2K
---

Espeon posted...

It COULD be Winnie the Pooh 2011, but it's probably F2K

Winnie the Pooh 2011 is top-tier; it'll be a travesty to drop this low
---

48. Winnie the Pooh (2011)
This is barely an hour long. It's pretty much an extended Winnie the Pooh short that probably could have been better served as a direct-to-DVD. It's pretty much Winnie the Pooh and friends running around doing Winnie the Pooh type things. If you grew up watching Winnie the Pooh this is a fun rental to sort of reunite with the old gang, and in that sense it can be fun for adults in the same vein that, say, Follow That Bird can be fun for adults. Otherwise this is mostly just harmless stuff for kids. If somehow you've never seen Winnie the Pooh before, the original film is a much better introduction.

47. Okay, back to the package films (and by that I mean the Infamous Six, not Fantasia or these other things you guys wanna call)
---

Lmao, awful. New Pooh sooo good.
---

That Backson thing was amazing(ly stupid) though.

It boggles the mind.

Dammit Owl.
---

the 2011 version is Pooh done right

the others are pretty insufferable
---

2011 Pooh is the best Disney movie of the last decade. I have no idea why it gets so much hate whenever it's not being completely forgotten.
---

I remember growing up Tigger was always my favorite but then as I got older I was like "Fuck Eeyore is the literal epitome of me" and now he's my favorite
---

Yikes.

pooh too low
---

I saw Pooh 2011 in theaters and laugh aloud as a grown ass adult. It was Pooh at his best, and the writing and animation were leagues above some of the movies left. It was short, sure, but it was fantastic
---

am I the only person that liked Chicken little? Home on the Range should have been last. >_>
---

Jesus, Pooh 2011 is soooo low. I have it at #12.
---

Wow you have the Rescuers down under over pooh 2011
---

Alanna82 posted...

am I the only person that liked Chicken little? Home on the Range should have been last. >_>

I had them both dead last when I did my ranking, although Chicken Little is my least favorite by a fairly wide margin.

Alanna82 posted...

am I the only person that liked Chicken little? Home on the Range should have been last. >_>

Nah I also liked Chicken Little. But we are the only ones.

Also booooo stop killing things I love. Kill the rest of the package films!
---

Confirmed spectator
---

Good write-ups so far, dark.
---

Eddv posted...

Wow you have Fantasia 2000 over pooh 2011

Fixed
---

StifledSilence posted...

Alanna82 posted...

am I the only person that liked Chicken little? Home on the Range should have been last. >_>

Nah I also liked Chicken Little. But we are the only ones.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I liked Chicken Little but I do think it was better than the trainwreck that was Home on the Range
---

47. The Three Caballeros
I actually have fond memories of this one as a kid - unlike the other package films which I had no idea existed until I was a little older, I had this one on VHS as a toddler. And I still like to revisit it every now and then. It's certainly more amusing than something like Saludos Amigos but at the end of the day it's still just a pseudo-educational Latin American animation/live-action hybrid, except with quite a bit more effort put into it. In the 1970s, this film saw renewed success being screened alongside Alice in Wonderland in college towns due to their.. um... "creativeness."

46. Has both the words "the" and "and" in the title.
---

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
---