It is much easier just to say Bolt is number 47 and not include films due in 2012 because most likely another film will slip in or be changed around before then. As for a official list, I always use Dave Smith's list from The Disney Archive's book "Disney A to Z". It lists Home on the Range as #44, which would mean Chicken Little is 45, Meet the Robinsons is 46 and Bolt is 47. I don't ever include Pixar Movies in the list or Dinosaurs because that wasn't made at the Featue Animation Studios.Neal wrote:I took the 51 released/announced animated Disney films and combined them with the 42 sequels/prequels/midquels/interquels that Disney has produced/announced for them.
Term For Disney's Canon/List of Disney Films/A Song For Them
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: January 21st, 2005
- Location: http://animationarchive.net
Re: Order In Which To Watch All The Animated Disney Films
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
Re:
GeorgeC - May I direct your attention to:
And obviously I don't consider fan fiction canon. I'm considering Disney funded films.
disneyaholic - Disney began using Dinosaur as part of their canon when they launched their new site a few months backed. It has shocked a bunch of people.
I was just trying to have a good sense of humor about it. I think that was evident. Hopefully Ben can see that. I didn't call him a name to be serious.Neal wrote: Okay...not really. I can understand you calling this 'dumb' but it is my prerogative.
And obviously I don't consider fan fiction canon. I'm considering Disney funded films.
disneyaholic - Disney began using Dinosaur as part of their canon when they launched their new site a few months backed. It has shocked a bunch of people.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Whoa! Okay guys, whaddaIdo? 
I have obviously edited Neal's post, which I think was way out of line, even for a jokey rebuttal, and especially after I made it clear I wasn't calling him "dumb" but that I thought the idea wasn't exactly the best use of time.
Neal...as a new member and someone who we are still getting to know here, that pushed the boat out way too far. Unless we get any complaints arising from your words, next time, you're a gonner, understood?
Onto the comments made since that post:
Yes, the films were not made by "slimeballs", and my support of many of the DisneyToon films is well documented in various articles on this site.
Apart from some others, they didn't "get Elton John back". They used material written for and discarded from The Lion King. I'm sure Elton was very happy to get a big fat cheque for a song that otherwise wouldn't have generated much cash.
Andreas Deja was a consultant on Bambi II because he didn't have anything else to do at Disney and refused to learn computer animation. By luck, one of his favorites is Bambi and he agreed to take a passing interest in this DisneyToons film.
Not all 51 "classic" films were all produced in California. This makes the inclusion of some other projects even harder to determine into a "pure" listing of what should and what should not be included.
TV compilations...I was addressing the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s compilations, each of which had new or repurposed animation similar to the Tarzan And Jane type efforts. Again, a DTV sequel is one thing, but those are just TV episodes strung together to make a quick buck. They don't have story arcs or any artistic, feature qualities even apparent in the better DTV films.
The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh was not "three shorts" and added animation. Walt always intended to make a feature-length Pooh film, but felt the bear needed more of an introduction. After all, a feature based on a series of books most Americans had never heard of wouldn't have been very successful. The first and second featurettes (they weren't shorts, they were featurettes) were created with Walt's full nod and approval, with Tigger Too planned to come at some stage. Actually, Tigger Too was originally going to be the catalyst to getting the full film completed, but it was decided to release it first, as the others had been. If you look at all three in their feature version, you'll see these three films have been planned all along as one story, in a usual three-act set up: the first intros Pooh and his basic personality traits, the second act develops more drama and introduces a new major character, Tigger, who appears right at the half way mark such a character would in a feature story. The third act plays as a consequence of what has come before, putting one of the characters in jeopardy and for which a resolve is needed. These are not "three shorts" just tied together: they are three acts of an always planned feature story that were told one part at a time before eventually being tied together as they had always been very carefully planned to. The same can not be said for Tarzan And Jane!
The other "fair few" titles I speak of are more pure "Disney" than some of the ones you've included, but I'll let you work those out yourself.
"No one's ever combined the sequels canon with the original canon like this before."
- I retain, for my personal records, all listings of the shorts, featurettes, specials, features and other titles of all the Disney releases. On my shelf, I line up the sequels and spin-offs together with the originals for easy reference. So while my listings keep things separate, my shelving line-up reflects your list very closely, apart from the obvious omissions.
"You just have to understand why each line of film exists."
- I do...and I feel it's a real shame that they can't be better, even as "entertainment".
"Even in Disney's most subpar sequels like Piglet's Big Movie or The Hunchback of Notre Dame II, there's a lot more heart and warmth than some of DreamWorks top efforts like Shrek 3."
- Okay, maybe not so much with Hunchback, but you got me there.
George...agreed.
Disneyaholic...speaking about Walt Disney Feature Animation/WDAS' films, then you'd be right, even if some of those were not California based. While it's right not to include any Pixar, Dinosaur <I>was</I> created in-house at WDFA, originally to be directed by Bob Scribner (Oliver & Company). He moved on and the film became a CG film after the success of Jurassic Park. Disney bought up DreamQuest Images, renamed it The Secret Lab, and had them animate the film, but it was boarded and shepherded by the Disney team at WDFA. It was not originally included in the "classics" list because it was a CG feature and not hand-drawn. The original intention was to keep the "classic" list purely and simply a traditional list. When WDFA went over to CG production with Chicken Little, the list continued with these films in them (even though many believe the list should be suspended until Princess And The Frog can become number 45). Now, with the renaming of WDFA to WDAS, the list takes in practically anything that was WDP, WDPA, WDFA and WDAS created, including Dinosaur.
"I don't consider fan fiction canon. I'm considering Disney funded films."
- Disney funding these films doesn't make them official. Most of the higher up WDAS artists themselves are none too pleased with these efforts, and certainly wouldn't see them as anything official. They are, as you say yourself, "supplements".
My main point again, though, was not that you wouldn't want to sit and watch them all, but that you would inject something very modern into a classic sitting. Fine...watch all these if you feel the need, but watch them in production order. There's a world of difference between the tones of Bambi and Bambi II that reflect the different era's filmmaking trends. You couldn't really sit and watch the first half of Bambi, then Bambi II, then the second half of Bambi, without a massive shift in the way the stories are told. It's therefore much more interesting to watch the originals as they were made, and then come back to a character and see how, after all that has come before and how styles have changed, the same characters have been handled by different artists at different times.
I have obviously edited Neal's post, which I think was way out of line, even for a jokey rebuttal, and especially after I made it clear I wasn't calling him "dumb" but that I thought the idea wasn't exactly the best use of time.
Neal...as a new member and someone who we are still getting to know here, that pushed the boat out way too far. Unless we get any complaints arising from your words, next time, you're a gonner, understood?
Onto the comments made since that post:
Yes, the films were not made by "slimeballs", and my support of many of the DisneyToon films is well documented in various articles on this site.
Apart from some others, they didn't "get Elton John back". They used material written for and discarded from The Lion King. I'm sure Elton was very happy to get a big fat cheque for a song that otherwise wouldn't have generated much cash.
Andreas Deja was a consultant on Bambi II because he didn't have anything else to do at Disney and refused to learn computer animation. By luck, one of his favorites is Bambi and he agreed to take a passing interest in this DisneyToons film.
Not all 51 "classic" films were all produced in California. This makes the inclusion of some other projects even harder to determine into a "pure" listing of what should and what should not be included.
TV compilations...I was addressing the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s compilations, each of which had new or repurposed animation similar to the Tarzan And Jane type efforts. Again, a DTV sequel is one thing, but those are just TV episodes strung together to make a quick buck. They don't have story arcs or any artistic, feature qualities even apparent in the better DTV films.
The Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh was not "three shorts" and added animation. Walt always intended to make a feature-length Pooh film, but felt the bear needed more of an introduction. After all, a feature based on a series of books most Americans had never heard of wouldn't have been very successful. The first and second featurettes (they weren't shorts, they were featurettes) were created with Walt's full nod and approval, with Tigger Too planned to come at some stage. Actually, Tigger Too was originally going to be the catalyst to getting the full film completed, but it was decided to release it first, as the others had been. If you look at all three in their feature version, you'll see these three films have been planned all along as one story, in a usual three-act set up: the first intros Pooh and his basic personality traits, the second act develops more drama and introduces a new major character, Tigger, who appears right at the half way mark such a character would in a feature story. The third act plays as a consequence of what has come before, putting one of the characters in jeopardy and for which a resolve is needed. These are not "three shorts" just tied together: they are three acts of an always planned feature story that were told one part at a time before eventually being tied together as they had always been very carefully planned to. The same can not be said for Tarzan And Jane!
The other "fair few" titles I speak of are more pure "Disney" than some of the ones you've included, but I'll let you work those out yourself.
"No one's ever combined the sequels canon with the original canon like this before."
- I retain, for my personal records, all listings of the shorts, featurettes, specials, features and other titles of all the Disney releases. On my shelf, I line up the sequels and spin-offs together with the originals for easy reference. So while my listings keep things separate, my shelving line-up reflects your list very closely, apart from the obvious omissions.
"You just have to understand why each line of film exists."
- I do...and I feel it's a real shame that they can't be better, even as "entertainment".
"Even in Disney's most subpar sequels like Piglet's Big Movie or The Hunchback of Notre Dame II, there's a lot more heart and warmth than some of DreamWorks top efforts like Shrek 3."
- Okay, maybe not so much with Hunchback, but you got me there.
George...agreed.
Disneyaholic...speaking about Walt Disney Feature Animation/WDAS' films, then you'd be right, even if some of those were not California based. While it's right not to include any Pixar, Dinosaur <I>was</I> created in-house at WDFA, originally to be directed by Bob Scribner (Oliver & Company). He moved on and the film became a CG film after the success of Jurassic Park. Disney bought up DreamQuest Images, renamed it The Secret Lab, and had them animate the film, but it was boarded and shepherded by the Disney team at WDFA. It was not originally included in the "classics" list because it was a CG feature and not hand-drawn. The original intention was to keep the "classic" list purely and simply a traditional list. When WDFA went over to CG production with Chicken Little, the list continued with these films in them (even though many believe the list should be suspended until Princess And The Frog can become number 45). Now, with the renaming of WDFA to WDAS, the list takes in practically anything that was WDP, WDPA, WDFA and WDAS created, including Dinosaur.
"I don't consider fan fiction canon. I'm considering Disney funded films."
- Disney funding these films doesn't make them official. Most of the higher up WDAS artists themselves are none too pleased with these efforts, and certainly wouldn't see them as anything official. They are, as you say yourself, "supplements".
My main point again, though, was not that you wouldn't want to sit and watch them all, but that you would inject something very modern into a classic sitting. Fine...watch all these if you feel the need, but watch them in production order. There's a world of difference between the tones of Bambi and Bambi II that reflect the different era's filmmaking trends. You couldn't really sit and watch the first half of Bambi, then Bambi II, then the second half of Bambi, without a massive shift in the way the stories are told. It's therefore much more interesting to watch the originals as they were made, and then come back to a character and see how, after all that has come before and how styles have changed, the same characters have been handled by different artists at different times.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
Re:
How about we say I'm doing this for an "animation film study"?
As I'm new (I've been reading the news for a year but only joined the forum recently), I did not know you have vocally been supportive of some of the DisneyToon films. I don't think they're all good, many aren't even remotely good, but there’s a group of them that are quite enjoyable and worthwhile offerings, and in my opinion better than a lot of the other films being put out right now (Space Chimps, Igor, Shrek, etc.).
Now, before I dig myself in too deep, I should just point out that I think you know much, much more about Disney production history than I do. I can quote you some trivia about different films and list off some names, but my knowledge on the history of Disney animated films is probably quite limited in comparison to yours or that of other members here. So I hope I never come off sounding like I'm trying to be a Disney history snob - I fully understand you know more than me and sometimes my information may just be wrong and needs correcting.
So, while I thought that the involvement of Andreas Deja, Elton John and others was significant to the production of these films, I can see I was mistaken. Money was really the only significance in most cases.
I probably shouldn't have generalized saying all the films were made in California. I was, in a stretch, trying to be synonymous with 'all the 51 films were made by the WDAS' or originally WDFA, and a good portion were made in California (to the best of my knowledge).
I am not aware of the 60's-80's compilations that you mentioned. Could you explain them further? Which titles are they?
And you're right, the DTV sequels actually required storyboards and new animation and...effort. The packaged DTV's were just shoveled together. However, I'm hardly the first to include the package-film type "sequels" in the list of other sequels.
As for re-purposed animation, Walt and co. did some of that themselves. Don't forget the many films where they used previous animation sequences but applied the new characters to save time and re-drawing.
I mistakenly said shorts, not featurettes, I DO know the difference. anyways, my understanding was that while the film contains three featurettes: Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966), Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968), and Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too! (1974) and that although Walt had planned a film later on, it wasn't with these three featurettes. However, I can wholeheartedly agree and see how these three segments properly mesh while the Tarzan & Jane segments were put together when that wasn't how they were meant to be.
Again, there's only one thing that comes to mind when you speak of a 'fair few' other titles - the hybrids. Song of the South, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, etc. There's nothing else coming to mind. I think films with a predominant amount of animation deserve to be included. Otherwise, a separate 'chronology' 'canon' 'list' whatever would work better for those movies. Maybe they aren't what you're talking about. Perhaps you could stop teasing my with these riddles?
I, too, keep printed lists on my 'Disney shelf' of the various films - the 51 classic films, the sequels, a list of Pixar films, etc. and order them to match the lists. I more or less meant a list like that hasn't been online as far as I've seen. I used to search for one, and finally just decided to make my own. Wikipedia has the classics on one page, the DTV material on another. Sites like the cartoon database are even more separated. I was just trying to make a list of all feature-length films, classic or DTV, and match up any continuities.
I've sometimes entertained the idea of making a 'continuities' 'canon'. Basically, with the 51 classic films as the foreground, I interject everything before and after to come up with the complete Disney slate - past, present, future. We're talking all publicly available animation tests, shorts, featurettes, features, prequels, midquels, interquels, parallels, spin-offs, spiritual successors, TV shows, TV pilots, holiday specials, package films - you name it, everything. The list wouldn't be chronological by year of release, rather group by continuity. All Mickey together, all Aladdin together - just all one long listing of everything animated under the Disney logo.
If not that, then make more of these 'canon' 'chronology' list thingamajigs. Have a shorts list, a featurettes list, classic films list, DTV list, TV shows list, hybrid list etc.
I only recently found out about the beautiful "One By One" short by Disney. Without proper lists for their various types of films, I sometimes just find some of their work by mistake. The 51 classic films list is the only 'official' list and the only one they themselves have been a part of in terms of promoting, editing, etc.
Why no collective term for their other work? That just makes their other works, like shorts or hybrids, feel like strange outliers.
Well, mind you, I don't think these are all so terrible films. Their official predecessors were meant as art, meant for everyone - 0 to 100. Their sequels were made with children largely in mind. They aren't babyish, per se, but they aren't quite as mature as their counterparts. If you go into them with the mindset that they'll be as well-rounded and open as the originals, then you'll of course be mistaken. I was expecting Kronk's New Groove to be funny for someone my age (17) for instance. I found the Emperor's New Groove to have humor suited to me. Kronk's New Groove, however, did not. So, I went into Pooh's Heffalump Movie expecting it to be cute, but not much else. It was, in my opinion, heartwarming and fun, too. So mindset is key. Expect much, be disappointed. Expect little, find it better than expected.
Glad you can agree with me on one thing (that some Disney DTV's have more warmth than even the top-tier CGI films put out today).
Obviously I meant they were official in terms of they were funded by Disney. There are fan-made animations that are not official. I meant official in terms of them being something Disney paid to have expand their various franchises/characters.
As for midquels, everyone always points out for it to really work you have to watch so much of the original, turn it off, pop in the DTV, watch that, then flip back to the original.
I don't plan to put in that much effort, but I did plan to watch them side-by-side in a comparative setting.
For instance, I've never seen the Little Mermaid (you'll find I'm actually a bit lacking in my Disney repertoire, my parents didn't take me to these films, or buy them for me, and I'm only 17), so I'm looking forward to watching the films in chronological order, but also to compare them.
LM: A'sB was made at the end of DisneyToon's life as a sequel-maker. It came after 14 years of tuning their process, and when they had serious focus on effort in the film. So you can see their swan-song, in a way.
LM was part of the renaissance and considered one of Disney's top films ever. You can see how Disney animation should be done.
LM II: RttS was one of the 'cheapquels' as people call it. Drivel clearly without much effort behind it and all for $. You can see the result of greed.
I want to catch up on all the classics I missed, and see all the supplementals to compare 14 years of an up and down rollercoaster of expanding these classic franchises. So, this is all almost a comparative study. That sounds more silly than it should.
As I'm new (I've been reading the news for a year but only joined the forum recently), I did not know you have vocally been supportive of some of the DisneyToon films. I don't think they're all good, many aren't even remotely good, but there’s a group of them that are quite enjoyable and worthwhile offerings, and in my opinion better than a lot of the other films being put out right now (Space Chimps, Igor, Shrek, etc.).
Now, before I dig myself in too deep, I should just point out that I think you know much, much more about Disney production history than I do. I can quote you some trivia about different films and list off some names, but my knowledge on the history of Disney animated films is probably quite limited in comparison to yours or that of other members here. So I hope I never come off sounding like I'm trying to be a Disney history snob - I fully understand you know more than me and sometimes my information may just be wrong and needs correcting.
So, while I thought that the involvement of Andreas Deja, Elton John and others was significant to the production of these films, I can see I was mistaken. Money was really the only significance in most cases.
I probably shouldn't have generalized saying all the films were made in California. I was, in a stretch, trying to be synonymous with 'all the 51 films were made by the WDAS' or originally WDFA, and a good portion were made in California (to the best of my knowledge).
I am not aware of the 60's-80's compilations that you mentioned. Could you explain them further? Which titles are they?
And you're right, the DTV sequels actually required storyboards and new animation and...effort. The packaged DTV's were just shoveled together. However, I'm hardly the first to include the package-film type "sequels" in the list of other sequels.
As for re-purposed animation, Walt and co. did some of that themselves. Don't forget the many films where they used previous animation sequences but applied the new characters to save time and re-drawing.
I mistakenly said shorts, not featurettes, I DO know the difference. anyways, my understanding was that while the film contains three featurettes: Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966), Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968), and Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too! (1974) and that although Walt had planned a film later on, it wasn't with these three featurettes. However, I can wholeheartedly agree and see how these three segments properly mesh while the Tarzan & Jane segments were put together when that wasn't how they were meant to be.
Again, there's only one thing that comes to mind when you speak of a 'fair few' other titles - the hybrids. Song of the South, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, etc. There's nothing else coming to mind. I think films with a predominant amount of animation deserve to be included. Otherwise, a separate 'chronology' 'canon' 'list' whatever would work better for those movies. Maybe they aren't what you're talking about. Perhaps you could stop teasing my with these riddles?
I, too, keep printed lists on my 'Disney shelf' of the various films - the 51 classic films, the sequels, a list of Pixar films, etc. and order them to match the lists. I more or less meant a list like that hasn't been online as far as I've seen. I used to search for one, and finally just decided to make my own. Wikipedia has the classics on one page, the DTV material on another. Sites like the cartoon database are even more separated. I was just trying to make a list of all feature-length films, classic or DTV, and match up any continuities.
I've sometimes entertained the idea of making a 'continuities' 'canon'. Basically, with the 51 classic films as the foreground, I interject everything before and after to come up with the complete Disney slate - past, present, future. We're talking all publicly available animation tests, shorts, featurettes, features, prequels, midquels, interquels, parallels, spin-offs, spiritual successors, TV shows, TV pilots, holiday specials, package films - you name it, everything. The list wouldn't be chronological by year of release, rather group by continuity. All Mickey together, all Aladdin together - just all one long listing of everything animated under the Disney logo.
If not that, then make more of these 'canon' 'chronology' list thingamajigs. Have a shorts list, a featurettes list, classic films list, DTV list, TV shows list, hybrid list etc.
I only recently found out about the beautiful "One By One" short by Disney. Without proper lists for their various types of films, I sometimes just find some of their work by mistake. The 51 classic films list is the only 'official' list and the only one they themselves have been a part of in terms of promoting, editing, etc.
Why no collective term for their other work? That just makes their other works, like shorts or hybrids, feel like strange outliers.
Well, mind you, I don't think these are all so terrible films. Their official predecessors were meant as art, meant for everyone - 0 to 100. Their sequels were made with children largely in mind. They aren't babyish, per se, but they aren't quite as mature as their counterparts. If you go into them with the mindset that they'll be as well-rounded and open as the originals, then you'll of course be mistaken. I was expecting Kronk's New Groove to be funny for someone my age (17) for instance. I found the Emperor's New Groove to have humor suited to me. Kronk's New Groove, however, did not. So, I went into Pooh's Heffalump Movie expecting it to be cute, but not much else. It was, in my opinion, heartwarming and fun, too. So mindset is key. Expect much, be disappointed. Expect little, find it better than expected.
Glad you can agree with me on one thing (that some Disney DTV's have more warmth than even the top-tier CGI films put out today).Obviously I meant they were official in terms of they were funded by Disney. There are fan-made animations that are not official. I meant official in terms of them being something Disney paid to have expand their various franchises/characters.
As for midquels, everyone always points out for it to really work you have to watch so much of the original, turn it off, pop in the DTV, watch that, then flip back to the original.
I don't plan to put in that much effort, but I did plan to watch them side-by-side in a comparative setting.
For instance, I've never seen the Little Mermaid (you'll find I'm actually a bit lacking in my Disney repertoire, my parents didn't take me to these films, or buy them for me, and I'm only 17), so I'm looking forward to watching the films in chronological order, but also to compare them.
LM: A'sB was made at the end of DisneyToon's life as a sequel-maker. It came after 14 years of tuning their process, and when they had serious focus on effort in the film. So you can see their swan-song, in a way.
LM was part of the renaissance and considered one of Disney's top films ever. You can see how Disney animation should be done.
LM II: RttS was one of the 'cheapquels' as people call it. Drivel clearly without much effort behind it and all for $. You can see the result of greed.
I want to catch up on all the classics I missed, and see all the supplementals to compare 14 years of an up and down rollercoaster of expanding these classic franchises. So, this is all almost a comparative study. That sounds more silly than it should.
Last edited by Neal on September 24th, 2008, 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
Re:
And also, everyone, I was just trying to be funny. My sense of humor offline often involves being bombastic when people say things like "no offense". I'll always begin to 'have an outburst' but it's really just meant to poke fun at the people who say "no offense", etc. because I'm usually laid back and don't even care what they said to any significant degree.
I hope no one thought I was being serious and really that mouthy to a moderator. As a moderator myself at my own forum, I'd never be so brash.
I was just trying to be sarcastic in a good-natured way.
I hope no one thought I was being serious and really that mouthy to a moderator. As a moderator myself at my own forum, I'd never be so brash.
I was just trying to be sarcastic in a good-natured way.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
Looking for a song reflective of Disney’s classic animations
I want to make a video of Disney’s classic films using climatic scenes from each movie.
That is why I wanted to know which ratio each film was supposed to be viewed in and what the official term for these 51 animated films is so that my video is correct in its wording and presentation.
Now, the final piece of the puzzle is a song.
I’m looking for just the right song to play over these clips – adding to the mood.
It needs to be sweeping, orchestral, magical, whimsical, and preferably without lyrics.
Here are some examples:
“Flying” by James Newton Howard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSsngqap9qI
“The Great Eatlon” by James Newton Howard (a little too intense):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bns3DEzFJB4
“What’s This?” by Danny Elfman (a little too upbeat):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGLDDlNE8FY
“Can’t Take It In” by Imogen Heap (I love the opening melody and the pace):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naO8TyQi0-8
“Hoppipolla” by Sigur Ros (Sigur Ros has some lovely, ethereal songs but I can’t seem to find one just right)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDxMQaMqsig
…Imagine some of the climatic scenes from the 47 released classic Disney films. What song would be able to represent them all? I want it to be beautiful, magical, sweeping, whimsical, haunting, orchestral and if possible, without lyrics.
I can’t quite find what I’m looking for. I know people will suggest “When You Wish Upon a Star” but that feels like I’m being discriminatory. I know that’s essentially the Disney theme song now, but what made Pinocchio better than any of the others? I want something not from any one of the 47 films because I want it to be more original and not single out one film over another.
What song(s) do you think would reflect and match the feel and look of the classic animated Disney films?
They can be classic or more recent. From a band or from a soundtrack. Any song that would be able to capture the emotion of Disney animation.
Thanks!
That is why I wanted to know which ratio each film was supposed to be viewed in and what the official term for these 51 animated films is so that my video is correct in its wording and presentation.
Now, the final piece of the puzzle is a song.
I’m looking for just the right song to play over these clips – adding to the mood.
It needs to be sweeping, orchestral, magical, whimsical, and preferably without lyrics.
Here are some examples:
“Flying” by James Newton Howard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSsngqap9qI
“The Great Eatlon” by James Newton Howard (a little too intense):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bns3DEzFJB4
“What’s This?” by Danny Elfman (a little too upbeat):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGLDDlNE8FY
“Can’t Take It In” by Imogen Heap (I love the opening melody and the pace):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naO8TyQi0-8
“Hoppipolla” by Sigur Ros (Sigur Ros has some lovely, ethereal songs but I can’t seem to find one just right)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDxMQaMqsig
…Imagine some of the climatic scenes from the 47 released classic Disney films. What song would be able to represent them all? I want it to be beautiful, magical, sweeping, whimsical, haunting, orchestral and if possible, without lyrics.
I can’t quite find what I’m looking for. I know people will suggest “When You Wish Upon a Star” but that feels like I’m being discriminatory. I know that’s essentially the Disney theme song now, but what made Pinocchio better than any of the others? I want something not from any one of the 47 films because I want it to be more original and not single out one film over another.
What song(s) do you think would reflect and match the feel and look of the classic animated Disney films?
They can be classic or more recent. From a band or from a soundtrack. Any song that would be able to capture the emotion of Disney animation.
Thanks!
Last edited by Neal on September 27th, 2008, 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Feature Animation Favorites:
- Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
James Newton Howard's "Flying" from (the live-action) Peter Pan has been used as the underscore for Disney's 'theme park' ads for the past year .. if that means anything to you.
It seems to go well with Disney imagery from various films.
JNH's themes for Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, and Atlantis have a similar feel .. but -- as they are from Disney features -- they may be 'disqualified' by your criteria.
It seems to go well with Disney imagery from various films.
JNH's themes for Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, and Atlantis have a similar feel .. but -- as they are from Disney features -- they may be 'disqualified' by your criteria.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8207
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
just a very quick look through my iTunes library:
whimsical and ethereal: Edward Scissorhands, A Series of Unfortunate Events
sweeping and orchestral: Dinosaur, some of the themes from Harry Potter without the main theme (Buckbeak's Flight is a good one), Robin Hood, Prince Of Thieves, A Wondrous Place from Tarzan, some of John Williams' lesser known Olympic themes
a mix of styles: Reflections of Earth (one of my favorites), Rhythm of the Pride Lands (if you don't mind the African rhythms)
whimsical and ethereal: Edward Scissorhands, A Series of Unfortunate Events
sweeping and orchestral: Dinosaur, some of the themes from Harry Potter without the main theme (Buckbeak's Flight is a good one), Robin Hood, Prince Of Thieves, A Wondrous Place from Tarzan, some of John Williams' lesser known Olympic themes
a mix of styles: Reflections of Earth (one of my favorites), Rhythm of the Pride Lands (if you don't mind the African rhythms)
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
AMVs are copyright infringement? Then Disney has a lot of people to get suing on YouTube!
Is making a homage video really that illegal? In essence, they promote Disney's films.
I don't question your authority, but I'm surprised you really think this topic had that much to do with the others that you'd merge them. The point of separate topics was to not overload one topic with so many questions that members would be overwhelmed and not answer them all/any. In the past, at other forums, when I'd make one topic with multiple questions people's answers were less detailed, or they skipped one whole question altogether. So I began to separate multiple questions into their own respective threads.
But obviously it's your choice.
Is making a homage video really that illegal? In essence, they promote Disney's films.
I don't question your authority, but I'm surprised you really think this topic had that much to do with the others that you'd merge them. The point of separate topics was to not overload one topic with so many questions that members would be overwhelmed and not answer them all/any. In the past, at other forums, when I'd make one topic with multiple questions people's answers were less detailed, or they skipped one whole question altogether. So I began to separate multiple questions into their own respective threads.
But obviously it's your choice.
Feature Animation Favorites:
- Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Yep, and around <I>here</I> we simply try and keep the number of related tangents down to as few as possible.
Just our way of working. We like a clean shop.
As for copyright...we enjoy a healthy relationship with the studios and trade on a lot of their goodwill for a lot of our content. In return, we try and at least not encourage what is basically infringement, or at least promotion of infringing items on our front pages and forum. Fair and square, really.
Just our way of working. We like a clean shop.
As for copyright...we enjoy a healthy relationship with the studios and trade on a lot of their goodwill for a lot of our content. In return, we try and at least not encourage what is basically infringement, or at least promotion of infringing items on our front pages and forum. Fair and square, really.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: August 11th, 2008
Okay, well I'll try not to stray into anything illegal but as someone who owns all the Disney classic films on VHS and half of them again on DVD, and goes to see all the Disney/Pixar films in theaters, I think my patronage has been more than sufficient to make a video retrospective.
Also, as for a clean shop. After the Nocturna topic having already been done before, I began to browse each page of the general discussion forum to see if any other of the topics I had in mind had already been made. It seems like this place was quite busy in 2006 and then just sort of dropped off. I mean page 1 is filled with 2008 topics, but page 2 has some 2006 topics on it. Was there just a sudden downturn in posting somewhere in the recent past?
Also, as for a clean shop. After the Nocturna topic having already been done before, I began to browse each page of the general discussion forum to see if any other of the topics I had in mind had already been made. It seems like this place was quite busy in 2006 and then just sort of dropped off. I mean page 1 is filled with 2008 topics, but page 2 has some 2006 topics on it. Was there just a sudden downturn in posting somewhere in the recent past?
Feature Animation Favorites:
- Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25326
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
While we've never been the busiest of forums, I know that we have a <I>lot</I> of guest readers that don't post. I also put that down to our audience being a discerning bunch, which is why we're also able to keep things clean and - hopefully - intelligent and without the slanging matches other forums suffer from.
It could be that 2006 saw us launch the Animated Views site and that traffic was bumped up more than usual due to the excitement and new topics generated from there.
It could be that 2006 saw us launch the Animated Views site and that traffic was bumped up more than usual due to the excitement and new topics generated from there.