Was the 1973 animated 'Robin Hood' Disney's worst movie?
Disney’s 1973 Robin Hood with Robin as an anthropomorphic fox has been revered by Furry fans for decades. Many early fans credit it as what first got them interested in anthro animals.
This is us. Animation veteran critic Martin “Dr Toon” Goodman has just written an article for the Animation World Network on “The Animation Critic’s Art: Taking the Heat”, in which he reveals that in 2003, he was asked to name the worst Disney feature ever made. He chose Robin Hood.
Many Disney fans have since reviled him, but in subsequent pages he defends his choice. And, from an animation if not a Furry standpoint, he argues a good case. What do you think?
This article is also pertinent to all the discussion lately on whether there should be more criticism in Furry fandom. (And don’t miss my AWN review of The Art of Rise of the Guardians.)
About the author
Fred Patten — read stories — contact (login required)a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics
Comments
He hated it just because of some lack of scripts and other things I think but that doesn't mean the movie sucks for all or rated down since some other people doesn't care about that, some like it for other reasons, color, childhood, and that counts. :)
I didn't watch the movie or at least I can't remember. But I heard a lot of people liked it I think. Well, not sure.
No, it's not the worst movie.. A lot of people liked it and that's all that counts even if there was a lack of creativity. It matters on personal interest. /:)
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Maybe, you should, uh, watch the movie before you judge it.
Even positively.
I don't think I gave out my personal judgement for my personal interest yet.. For now, I was just looking at how many people around me liked it and said the movie average is great and any reason for each boost or lower counts.
I might watch it someday with someone I guess but if I didn't like it, I would not say the movie sucked as in for everyone, just to me.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Of fucking course...
You'll defend Robin Hood despite never having seen it because a lot of other people like it... but you openly hate ZOOTOPIA despite never having seen it FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON!
https://www.deviantart.com/another-realm/art/I-HATE-Zootopia-784700688
Seriously, what the fuck even ARE you, man?
Of f**king course...
You just can't drop that hate fetish you have over me, do you? So you just can't help yourself and find about an EIGHT YEAR old comment from this furry version of a general 4 chan site, so you start drama with me (and probably again if you already did).
By the way, I was probably arguing within a personal view.
I hate Zootopia because some people ruined it for me. And I wonder if you even read that text right below the stamp?
"Hate fetish"... LMFAO Yes, as I'm typing this, I'm actually getting jerked off by my girlfriend as she attempts to read your garbled nonsense you laughably call journal entries, then we laugh as you forget to deny that you wrote them in the first place. lol
In all seriousness though, sorry, but there's no statute of limitations on calling out bullshit, especially when it's as mind-mangling as the garbage you post.
You hate Zootopia because people "ruined it" by saying that the visuals were more polished than A&O. You can't stand people saying that this movie or that movie looks better than A&O, and as such, I'm actually surprised that you aren't hating on Robin Hood for the exact same reason. No, instead you DEFEND IT because a lot of other people like it, which means it MUST be good. Excuse me, but aren't you CONSTANTLY saying that this critic or that critic who has to "rely on popular opinion" has no idea what he's talking about? lol
This is a very good subthread, and I don't hate everyone involved with it at all.
Anyway, just to get back on topic, I pointed out (back when this was originally posted, I mean, Jesus, THE CONTRIBUTOR IS LITERALLY DEAD, YOU GUYS) that, love it or hate it, honestly, Disney's Robin Hood isn't even in the running for worst Robin Hood movie, and we've had a new contender since this was originally posted (YOU ARE DESECRATING A GRAVE, YOU FUCKS!).
Anyway, here's a video that's fun, on topic, and features Robin Hood music for that extra nostalgia kick. You kids have fun!
That settles it. If anyone can do a new Robin Hood movie, it's Disney. And the best bet would almost certainly be to do it as
not even pretending this isn't a movie for furriesa charming spiritual successor to the original if not a true sequel.*burps* This is why more and more people are finding other species attractive mainly because our species is boring, and gross, but it's even hated by many people. And laughing huh? I felt like that when you kept acting out on your fetish against me, and replying to a comment that's almost ten years old i-i-s truly laughable.
By the way, nobody wants to know you have a girlfriend. I don't care if you want the world to know something that is far more riskier than dating some "imaginary wolf".
And there is no statute of limitations of me pointing out the fact that it's a mental problem and as further proof of your drama obsession against me.
And I have a right to have those reasons because it's an attempt by treating their personal preferences as "facts" which is stupid. Also, it's not just Alpha and Omega. It's like many of those who likes it does this to ANY new anthropomorphic movie for being whatwhat different. Maybe that's the sole thing as to why many of those idiots ruined it for me.
As for Robin Hood, I don't see much people comparing that movie.
*rethinks statute of limitations sort of*
First, maybe you forgot to realize my original comment is about eight years? It's kinda like looking at an argument of an 5 year old, then comparing that argument to an argument made by the same person but was 29 at the time.
Second, I don't think I was even arguing (but wait! I don't even remember anymore because it's a VERY OLD F**CKING COMMENT) that the movie was "bad" or "good" just because of popular opinion. If I was, then maybe, just maybe I kinda am a little changed from that comment?
___________
Just get out of here Anon. I wouldn't be surprised if you're that lame person. I assume you're part of that special hate agenda against me, and stop expressing that your normie life is "great". Besides, that kind of sh*t inspires me to never even have any digusting human mate on this planet.
1. Risks of violence.
2. Depression WILL increase.
3. NEW - Might become an self alcoholic asshole of what I assume is you.
Sometimes me denying a closed minded society (including this joke of a fandom) gives me more time and room to question several beliefs, and ends up on being more on the logical side. I grew up myself to realize that most of big media hates science and physiologically.
You make at least one fair point. People do tend to change with time and in most cases it's stupid to reply to things from years ago expecting that person to be on the same wavelength they were when they originally wrote it. I mean, you still give near-radioactive vibes of untreated schizophrenia, but at least your wall of text ran the entire length without one use of the word "legal".
Oh, fuck me. No, you just replaced "legally" with "statute of limitations", a legal construct.
Diamondman I must request for the greater good you cease and desist from these Phoenix Wright shenanigans as it is causing undue emotional distress to my client who has an self alcholic condition, especially under the circumstances.
Also did you used to post on FAF? You kinda remind me of somebody from back in the day.
I wonder if you're the same person that posted this https://www.flayrah.com/4331/was-1973-animated-robin-hood-disneys-worst-movie#co...?
*remembers where I am* Oh wait, it doesn't even matter.
In case I said anything too broad, then maybe I will say respect the law.
I don't think the "statute of limitations" was much of the same thing, especially since I was using it as a less legal label.
FAF, as in, FurAffinity Forums? Now that I think of it, your username kinda reminds me of someone who was acting like a degenerate to someone by being a complete dick, and then promoting isolation toward someone who may have physiologically needed friends.
If you're that same guy, well, why should I be surprised to see you here?
Though I do not remember having a fight with this guy.
If you're some other guy who were arguing that somehow the wolves from Alpha and Omega didn't count as furry, then again, why would I be surprised?
FurAffinity Forums is probably one of the few furry websites that might actually be worse than Flayrah.
No, I'm none of those people. But we've crossed paths before, at least on Flayrah. Honestly couldn't tell you if we ever did on OldFAF and I don't use NeoFAF.
To be a little more clear and if my memory is right, the person being treated like crap was likely a zoosexual, and I think some posts were found on a forum thread involving s__ toys (Should I censor this?) with furry. If it doesn't ring a bell then I guess that wasn't you then.
We likely did crossed on Flayrah though.
What does it mean to need friends physiologically?
On one hand, the tracing issue is a pretty pertinent critique of the movie, and it was the first movie made after Disney's death, so the studio was kinda not in a good place at the time. It really isn't one of the better Disney "Classics;" if not the worst, one of the worst (though I think a few modern movies have come out that would totally take the cake, and I'm not even counting the sequels because they don't count even at Disney).
On the other hand, being the worst Disney "Classic" is kind of like being the world's worst Avenger; you're still one of the Earth's Mightiest Animated Movies, darnit.
And, on the gripping hand, the tracing issue is unfortunate for furries, because most histories of animation and/or Disney usually dismiss Robin Hood with a sniffy "lot of tracing going on here, and not much else" before moving on, instead of answering the very interesting question of what the fuck is up with the decision to turn Robin Hood and friends into funny animals? Because, you know, you can totally be Robin Hood without being a fox; just ask Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, Cary Elwes and that fucking Russell Crowe guy.
Maybe we should ask which is the worst Robin Hood movie? Because I vote Russell Crowe.
I vote Kevin Costner.
To quote Men in Tights: "Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I have a genuine English accent!"
My exact thought!
Disney studio uses tracing on a regular basis. I wasn't aware of the re-used/traced animations in Robin Hood, but the Lilo and Stitch dvd has bonus content that basically shows how the studio did the opening dance scene, and they basically traced the entire thing from video they took of a group of Hawaiian dancers.
Robin Hood is still a nostalgic favorite of mine, since I always really liked the color and the look of the characters (though I heartily agree on the 'meh'ness of the plot in hindsight, as a kid that really wasn't noticeable/didn't matter to me). Sure it's flawed, but personally I think the Black Cauldron was a lot worse; Tim Burton is great and all, but wow was that film one giant, creepy trip. o_o
Aristocats, The Rescuers (first one) to me rate lower. It's harder to name bad Disney flicks for me for some reason, but those two certainly fall below Robin Hood for me.
Thanks, Sonious. I have seen a lot of comments that, "NO, ROBIN HOOD IS NOT DISNEY'S WORST MOVIE!", but you are about the first to say that if it is not Robin Hood, what is? Nobody is naming The Black Cauldron?
Actually, Martin Goodman says in his own article that he thinks Chicken Little is much worse. And that one does not have the excuse of reused animation.
Fred Patten
I think I'd probably go with Chicken Little myself, though there was that weird time at the beginning of last decade where it didn't matter what Disney was doing, it just wasn't working. Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, Treasure Planet, Atlantis, Home on the Range (another contender for "worst ever"); all very different movies, all very ... not classic. Disney was kind of trying a thousand different things, and ... actually, they did throw up Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove during this time period, so it wasn't a total wash, but it was very, very messy. Bolt was the end of this period, and I think we remember it so fondly not because it was great, but because at this point "pretty good" was "great".
The Robin Hood "oh, shit, Disney just died, where do we go from here?" period was also pretty messy; The Aristocats, The Sword and the Stone, and, yes, even The Jungle Book (heresy!) were kinda iffy. I do like The Rescuers (Miss Bianca's entrance is superb, though the movie version doesn't hold a candle to the book version). The eighties were a bit weird, but they did improve, and of course started the new golden age at the end of the decade. I haven't seen The Black Cauldron, though, so I'll withhold judgement.
Funny thing is, Pixar seems to have followed Disney's path in microcosm: Toy Story equals Snow White and the other early classics, A Bug's Life (the first weak one) is the weird war collections, Toy Story 2 through the Incredibles is the post war movies until Disney's death, Cars (the second weak one) is the time period around Disney's death to the early 80s, Ratatouille to Toy Story 3 is the big turnaround in the 90s when the Academy was literally re-writing rules so that someone else would win certain categories at the Oscars, Cars 2 (the horrible one) is the sudden crash and burn at the beginning of the millenium, and Brave (the third weak one) is today, when we're just okay and that works.
Also, Goodman seems to be critiquing the movies more based on animation than story or characters, which seems to be our basis. Robin Hood is technically bad; as storytelling ... well actually, it's not great shakes there, either, is it? Edit: Whoops, no, Goodman goes to town on the story too.
I think (and my Google fu is weak and failing me here) the animator from Monty Python actually listed Robin Hood as the best Disney film (or at least it made his top ten all time animated list) because of one of Goodman's flaws; he really liked the Southern accents, and thought they did that on purpose, in an attempt to put the Robin Hood legend in a Western context (he noted that they went out of their way to get character actors known for their Western roles), which he thought was clever.
Wes Anderson seemed to like it, and the songs are still pretty good ("Love" appeared in Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is a fact that should have won that movie the Ursa Major in itself); "Love" went up against "Live in Let Die" (the best Bond song, of course) at the Oscars for Best Song; something else nobody remembers won. I also know a guy who hates Disney's animated movies, but gives Robin Hood a pass; he's also not a furry.
I basically agree with all of Goodman's points, but still like it. It really is one of those "good bad movies," though due to it being a Disney "Classic," most people forget that.
Also, Goodman's article is frakkin' great stuff!
Edit Again: I just recalled two incidences I'd like to share; one was walking into a crowded college campus center in Stillwater, OK and seeing Robin Hood playing on the central TV with a large crowd of very mixed students watching the movie intently. The second was being asked by the small son of a local teacher I was spontaneously assigned to babysit one day if I would like to watch the movie.
"It's very fun," he said.
They should print that on the Blu-Ray.
I was always perplexed by why Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and Treasure Planet weren't more popular. I mean, I would have thought that Brother Bear could immitate the Lion King, in that it is well animated, good score, good story, about animals, etc. The background art is beautiful! Meet the Robinsons is by far my favorite of any disney movies I can think of. Maybe they were just having some lapses in their marketing department?
The problem with Brother Bear and Treasure Planet was story problems; the animation in both was top notch, admittedly. But to compare Brother Bear to The Lion King as a story? Umm, no.
Treasure Island is a notoriously difficult work to adapt; plus, there's the "pirate movie" curse that wasn't broken until Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. Cutthroat Island, the most famous example, destroyed a studio, the director's career, the star's career, and the director and star's marriage.
I can't really remember Meet the Robinsons, other than thinking "what are you doing, Disney?" It may have suffered from just being so outside of Disney's normal fare ... I'm going to guess you're not actually a big Disney fan if Meet the Robinsons is "by far" your favorite, because it is just so different from the usual Disney stuff.
Hmmmm. The director of Meet the Robinsons is the winner of the 2011 Academy Award (as author and co-director) for Best Animated Short Film for The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, the creator of The Guardians of Childhood series of children’s books that Rise of the Guardians is based upon, and a co-executive producer of Rise of the Guardians. What will Rise of the Guardians turn out to be like?
Fred Patten
I find it ironic that you list Emperor's New Groove as a success and Treasure Planet/Brother Bear as failures; I personally love TP and BB, but felt like ENG was a bit too low-brow comedy for my tastes. I think it's really just a matter of preference between those three in terms of plot and genre, not so much a quality issue.
As for the others you listed, I have yet to see Atlantis and Meet the Robinsons, and Home on the Range/Chicken Little looked dumb even from the trailers tbh.
Haven't seen it, sis' is more a Disney fanatic that would know more about it then I would. Was darker was all I know about it.
I think the reasoning for those two is that they seemed disjointed for some reason. The first rescuers seemed not very filling. From my recollection there wasn't much story driven in the 77 minutes. There was quite a bit of filler.
Amazingly I just learned that the amount of time for the Rescuers Down Under and the The Rescuers is exact to the minute, but as far as memorable moments and story arc Down Under just had alot more going for it. After you get past the long ass outback farm field pan intro though (it seemed really long as a kid get to the movie already).
The only thing memorable from the Rescuers which I admit seeing after Down Under was them singing their theme song, which seemed a time killer.
Aristocats the same thing. You remember some of the tunes, but behind that the story was not that interesting for me.
We seem to remember the same thing from The Rescuers as a stand out scene (though maybe not for the same reasons). That really is a great introduction to the characters.
Also, I love that pan shot in Rescuers Down Under. I think I liked it as a kid, but that just may be how much I love it now as an adult. For the time, that was a pretty impressive shot.
Well I didn't hate the pan for sure, just teased it I mean it was like "Cool we're going somewhere" and then it was like "are we there yet?" "No." "Are we there yet?" "NO" "Are we there... yet?" "We'll get there when we get there I'm the movie damn it... Kids these days, putting all the credits at the end back in my day the people who worked on this stuff came first... grumble grumble."
Worth the trip though.
On an unrelated note, who the heck did you piss off that they're running around one starring all of your comments? Holy crap does someone need a life.
aaaand I just realized this thread is two years old. Sorry about that. Excuse me while I slink back into my corner xD
Heh. There was a story, possibly apocryphal, that just after The Aristocrats came out, that situation happened in real lie. Some mega-rich old lady died and left her entire fortune to her cats, with her butler named as executor to take care of the cats. The estate was swarmed with news reporters, who asked if he planned to carry out the will or use some legal trick to get rid of the cats. The butler reportedly raised an eyebrow and asked, "Am I supposed to be seriously worried that the cats may be dissatisfied with my service and discharge me?"
Fred Patten
I like The Artistocats. Or, at least, I did as a little kid. It was one of my favorite movies.
But seriously, The Rescuers was terrible, just, terrible.
I was always under the impression that Robin Hood's tone was suppose to be like a fairytale, not a serious, developed story, which explains the one note characters and simple plot. Honestly, I think it worked for the film. Even if the animation isn't the best and reused, it's still Disney animation (and Don Bluth). It could be much, much worse.
At least it was way more exciting than Bambi. (Sorry, but that movie bores me to tears, even as a kid. It's sequel even has more tension.) EDIT: I should say there was more character development and growth than in the original, not actual die hard plot tension. It was still pretty boring anyway.
OH, NOW THAT IS A HERESY! Not liking Bambi ...
Admittedly, that's just about the same critique I usually give about WALL-E ...
One thing to consider, though, is that just because a movie is poor by analytical standards doesn't mean that it's a bad movie. Look at The Dark Knight as an example. The movie is full of plot holes that basically rely upon handwavium, and according to a number of critics, the plot is very poorly executed. Despite all of this, I consider this a very entertaining movie, and and I'm not even a big fan of Batman (I'm more of a Marvel man personally).
I'd heard over the years that many in Disney hated that animated Robin Hood movie, I never quite understood why they felt that way.
If we're going to list animated Disney movies which are clearly worse... I'm sure we can come up with some. Disney does some great stuff but they're not perfect and quite a few duds (opinions may vary) have been let loose.
I don't remember being a fan of the Aristocats, it had its moments but... it didn't grab me much.
I know I've seen the Black Cauldron at least a few times but I barely remember anything about that movie, probably a flag about how forgettable the story and animation is.
I didn't see it but I have heard nothing but terrible things about Mars Needs Moms.
I didn't hate it but The Princess and the Frog didn't really grab me (it would definitely rank lower than Robin Hood).
Honestly... if I would pick the worst animated Disney movies I've seen - it would have to be Brother Bear and Brother Bear 2. The animation is pretty but the story is flat, the characters are dull, and it's so frackin' boring! I found myself nodding off a bit during both. Without that whole 'transformation' theme I would have never watched the sequel and probably would have never gotten more than a quarter through the first one. I'm annoyed I picked them up on dvd before viewing it - ah, if only I'd known Brave would be coming out years later... now there's a GOOD Disney movie involving bears and transformation :)
No. Pocahontas is, by one heap big country mile. Holocaust-denial-style historical revisionism, for kids!
If you don't shudder and scream at the thought that Katzenberg regarded it as superior to The Lion King, you have no heart or head.
Oh hi Disney's Anne Frank.
Pocahontas and The Lion King were being developed concurrently by Disney studios, and at the time, Poca was considered to be the more serious, desirable effort to be involved in. How ironic that TLK turned out to be by far the more successful work of the two.
While I would never endorse the sort of historical liberties Disney took with Pocahontas, I wouldn't remotely put it on the same level as Holocaust revisionism. At least Disney admits they weren't trying that hard to be historically accurate and took some liberties in the belief that they were making what they considered a better story. Holocaust revisionists try to pass off their version of events as though that's how it really happened. (I read one essay which postulated that most Holocaust revisionists don't really believe the Holocaust didn't happen; they just say that because they find it entertaining to see what kind of reactions it gets out of people. A lot like the Internet trolls we see today.)
Mars needs Moms was just incredibly terrible, 3d motion capture with a horrific premise and only a few cast members invested in saving it.
If i'm allowed to expand to Disney feature films, Popeye. Really, I can think of no worse torture then having to watch this again, so bad it's hurty.
While I don't think Robin Hood was one of Disney's better films, I thought it was better than some of the other films produced during that era. I'd rank it below The Jungle Book and about even with The Aristocats (better, if pressed to choose one over the other, but they're very close), and both of those better than The Rescuers or The Fox and the Hound (another furry fandom favorite). I've never seen The Black Cauldron though I've heard from multiple others that it was the worst Disney film they'd seen (by the way, some of those statements date from the late 1990s and thus would pre-date some of the more recent candidates for worst film).
You could argue that there's not a bad film from the classic Disney era (late 1930 to early 1960s), but one that I thought was weaker than the rest was Alice in Wonderland, mostly due to a sense that doing fun stuff with the animation medium seemed to take priority over being true to the source material.
Pocahontas wasn't that bad if you can overlook how badly it deviated from historical accuracy. The Hunchback of Notre Dame also suffered from deviation from its source material and was lacking in any sort of offsetting cute appeal. Of the other late 1990s films, I think Hercules is the worst hands down (unless you include direct to video films, in which case I would have to award that dishonor to The Return of Jafar). Rounding out the 1990s, Mulan was excellent, and Tarzan was pretty good too.
Live action - while the original animated 101 Dalmatians remains one of my personal favorite Disney films, the live action remake was horrifically bad. Earlier bad films would include just about anything with Dean Jones in it, especially Snowball Express and $1,000,000 Duck. Okay, The Love Bug was good, and maybe The Ugly Dachshund, but the rest are pretty forgettable.
I don't remember "Pocahontas" very well, but I have to say "historical accuracy" should not be a big thing to bring up in an animated musical with a talking tree. The real question is whether animated musicals with talking trees should mess with that topic.
It seems to be one of those movies that was better respected at the time, but has not aged well at all.
Also, it seemes like it was totally intended as Oscar bait; at the time, a story about Native Americans was a bit smarter play than talking animals.
On the topic of RH, I am not an animator, nor do I consider myself an animation buff, so I am generally forgiving when it comes to the topic of animation quality (especially when it involves anthropomorphic animals). But I just couldn't forgive the story of Robin Hood. I just didn't like the main character, and since the story is so blatantly one-sided I was cheering for the bad guy to win most of the time. Every time I see this movie anywhere I wish it was actually the story of Renard the Fox just so I could have something DIFFERENT than every other Robin Hood movie. I agree with Dr. Toon's story analysis whole-heartedly: it's good original characters that make a story great, an element that Robin Hood was clearly lacking.
I would gladly give my opinion on which Disney movie is the worst, but it is so controversial, it would be wiser to keep it to myself.
Well, I'll be...
Robin Hood is by far not Disney's worst animated feature, but Pocahantas sure rates high in yuck factor. The animation is gorgeous and well-executed, but c'mon, Disney, do a little research before you create settings. I'm originally from Virginia, and the last time I looked, Jamestown did not have all those beautiful waterfalls or all the cliff tops for people to dance and run over. It's a bug-infested swamp that's literally 2 feet below sea level. No wonder colonists moved to Hampton and Williamsburg, later on.
Much of what Disney has done since Lion King just falls flat with me with the exception of what PIXAR has done like Toy Story and even they have made a few features that just don't do it for me, such as WALL E. Well done but it didn't excite me.
Huh, I'm noticing WALL-E is becoming kind of the divisive Pixar film; I've seen a few critics single it out as "the movie everyone thinks is one of Pixar's greatest, but that I don't like as much." It's usually the "holy trinity" of Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up, but if someone wants to take one out and put in, say, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles or one of the Toy Story movies, they usually pick WALL-E to bump out of the top three. Surprising, considering that many consider the snub of WALL-E (along with The Dark Knight) in 2008's Best Picture Oscar nominations to be the reason the field was extended from 5 to 10 nominees in 2009.
Though they still like it as much as Pixar's bottom trio of Cars, Cars 2 and A Bug's Life. Right now, it looks like Brave is going to fall in between Cars and A Bug's Life to make a new bottom trio, with Cars 2 becoming "the one we don't talk about."
I enjoyed WALL-E, but I didn't jump up and down and clap my hands wildly. It was just okay.
Cars 2. I didn't see it. It looked like it was just a movie to make some extra bucks.
I worry that PIXAR might be losing its passion, that fire in the belly. Also, and I most wholeheartedly believe this, that if you are in the arts just to make money, get out, NOW! You are not doing it because you passionately love the arts, then you may be in it for the wrong reason. EG: Cars 2. Where's the fire?
I think they're just on a downward curve of creativity right now. Even though their movies haven't been as good lately, there was clearly a lot of passion in them (except for Cars 2), but passion alone doesn't guarantee a good movie (or any kind of art piece).
There actually seemed to be a lot of passion for Cars 2 on John Lasseter's part; he was campaigning for that Oscar Best Animated Feature nomination pretty hard, and I don't think it was just because he felt like it was his due or anything.
He kind of went against his own policy; he basically kicked Chris Sanders out of Disney because the guy was "too quirky for his own good" (Sanders went on do DreamWorks where he made How To Train Your Dragon, so that wasn't Lasseter's best move). Basically, the story of American Dog, which became Bolt, was, you know how the trailers made you think for like a minute the show Bolt starred in was the real movie's premise, then you realized the premise of the trailer was no, this is Three Amigos or Galaxy Quest in reverse with a dog (and then you watched the movie and realized it was actually that movie for all of five minutes before becoming a remake of the remake of The Incredible Journey)?
Anyway, what I was trying to say before I rudely interrupted myself is the original premise was basically "superhero dog," and John Lasseter didn't like that, but "James Bond with talking cars" didn't strike him as "too quirky for its own good."
He loved the concept of the original Cars (I swear, Lasseter has an inanimate anthropomorphic object fetish), and he loved his silly idea for a sequel. Despite being able to tell other people there pet project was silly (and basically firing not only Sanders but Brenda Chapman and Jana Pinkava off theirs), he wasn't able to make the call on his own silly movie.
I don't think the problem with Cars 2 was that John Lasseter didn't care; the problem was that John Lasseter cared too much.
Yea, I don't really understand why people consider Wall-E a fantastic movie. It's cuteness with an environmental message thrown in and that's it. Them not having a lot of dialogue is impressive, but that alone doesn't make a movie great.
What may have killed Robin Hood is that lack of passion, unlike what Disney produced when Walt ran the show and the Disney Renaissance that was bookended by films like The Little Mermaid and Lion King. The filmmakers had a creative fire in them when they were making those movies. That fire just doesn't really exist since those times.
It has been argued that Sleeping Beauty and 101 Dalmatians were the last animated features made "while Walt was running the studio". He was still alive when The Sword in the Stone came out and when The Jungle Book began production, but by then Walt had turned all his attention to EPCOT and he more or less just ok'ed whatever the animation staff did. You're right; none of the animated features between 101 Dalmatians and The Little Mermaid have any passion.
Fred Patten
You hit it, Fred.
All of the great animated features were led by storytellers that were really into storytelling, Walt through the 30's to the early 60's and Don Hahn during that time from Roger Rabbit to Lion King. Anything else just lacked child-like sparkle.
Do you know who I think right now has that wide-eyed, kid-like sparkle? It's Tomm Moore, the director of The Secret of Kells. That movie was filled with love and passion for making a great story.
Robin Hood is my all time fourth favourite!
with the first three being Pinocchio, Fantasia & 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
Awesome soundtrack, a very suspenseful scene, cool representations of character, even the liberal messages are cool.
RH was the reason why I became a left-winger.
If there were some Disney movies I'd label the worst, it's;
James & The Giant Peach, Many Adventures Of Winnie The Pooh, Pocahontas and Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 (seriously kids, stick to the first one, that one's totally epic!)
AWISE FWOM YUOR GWAVE!
I think Robin Hood has had a bit of a critical Renaissance in the years since this piece was ran; Time Out New York did a "top 100 animated movies" piece last year, and Robin Hood finished a fairly respectable 81st. Not bad for "worst Disney movie." For context, out of the 53 "Disney Animated Canon" movies, 20 made the list, and Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland ranked lower than Robin Hood. It only lost to Frozen, Wreck-It Ralph, Tangled, The Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmations, Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp, Cinderella, Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia, Pinocchio and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
On the other hand, it beat Winnie the Pooh, The Princess and the Frog, Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, Chicken Little, Home on the Range, Brother Bear, Treasure Planet, Lilo & Stitch, Atlantis the Lost Empire, The Emperor's New Groove, Dinosaur, Fantasia 2000, Mulan, Hercules, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, The Rescuers Down Under, Oliver & Company, The Great Mouse Detective, The Black Cauldron, The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Aristocats, The Sword in the Stone, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Melody Time, Fun and Fancy Free, Make Mine Music, The Three Caballeros and Saludos Amigos. Big Hero 6 was probably too late to have a chance to be voted on; it probably wouldn't have made it, but then it definitely shouldn't have won the Oscar, either, so who knows?
The quick little blurb mentions the "Robin Hood as Western" theme I talked about three years ago, which seems to be the major "redemptive" reading of the movie, though it does note (in a couched, film critic sort of way) that the real virtue here is "it's fun". Of course, I don't think anyone doubts its place in the formation of the furry "aesthetic;" I wonder if that might become it's redemptive reading some day.
some people also like because its pretty much the old animated disney movie of christianity! and i loved it in MY childhood and so far, no creepypastas out of it! JUST THE WAY I LIKE IT!
HELL NO! this movie was my childhood, what makes you ask us that?! and no if you look up the creepypastas out of it................. IT DOESNT EXIST!!! AND IM LOVIN IT!!! AND I HOPE IT NEVER WILL BE MADE UP OR ELSE.........
Post new comment