tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post2851578876456006373..comments2024-03-28T03:28:11.926-11:00Comments on Kinemalogue: Walt Disney, XLI: ...He doesn't even know how to fold a mapHunter Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10925220178171355473noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-74310963745883413292024-02-03T14:38:58.561-11:002024-02-03T14:38:58.561-11:00I've actually been trying to think if I saw Re...I've actually been trying to think if I saw Rescuers Down Under in theaters, and realized while I definitely saw movies prior to this, and have been told about some of them (apparently I got my dad to take me to Transformers at age 4), the earliest *actual* memory I have of being in a movie theater is seeing Aladdin for the second time (even though I don't have an actual memory of the first) in a second run theater. I also feel like I would have some memory of Prince and the Pauper if I saw Rescuers Down Under theatrically, even if there were no specifics attached to the experience.<br /><br />The point is, re-release Rescuers Down Under.Hunter Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925220178171355473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-78046371350469229522024-01-31T20:36:14.937-11:002024-01-31T20:36:14.937-11:00Alright I'm looking at the trailer for Aladdin...Alright I'm looking at the trailer for Aladdin and it literally starts with clips from The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. "Rescuers Down Under, what's that? You must be thinking of Feivel Goes West or something."<br /><br />Moving on to the trailer for Rescuers Down Under itself, I'm seeing it came attached with an original Mickey Mouse short! I'm imagining Jeffrey Katzenberg reading my posts and pulling his hair out going, "Not Disney? What more does it fucking take?!"<br /><br />(Actually, I remember this! The Prince and the Pauper. Somehow I never connected it with Rescuers Down Under, I think the Disney channel used to show it by itself).Dafnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-72198421577026461012024-01-31T20:26:10.254-11:002024-01-31T20:26:10.254-11:00In that vein, DuckTales The Movie was my shit!
Wh...In that vein, DuckTales The Movie was my shit!<br /><br />What's sad about Rescuers Down Under is that I recall thinking the movie looked GREAT, I was truly impressed with the art and animation. But I was a busy kid between Ninja Turtles and Home Alone and Super Mario Bros. 3, and it wasn't like this was, you know, a *real* Disney movie or anything. No offense to Fern Gully The Last Rainforest and all them, but a kid only had so much allowance and I had to save it for the top-tier authentic stuff.<br /><br />Come to think of it, I think a big part of it was the fact the ads didn't play up the sequel angle, and I already knew sequels were all about THE WHOLE GANG'S BACK PART 2: THE RETURN (this spirit was always so infectious I used get excited for sequels to movies I never even saw). So it came off less like an official Disney "The Rescuers 2" and more like a random movie that happens to star The Rescuers (in fact I might've took as it the Australian version of The Rescuers or something). What might've seemed like a shrewd move to the studio turned out to backfire in my case.<br /><br />Also, The Little Mermaid was VERY clearly positioned as "The Revival of the Old Disney Classics" and despite literally being a revival of a (relatively) old Disney classic I never got the sense The Rescuers Down Under was meant as a followup to *The Little Mermaid* at all, certainly not the way Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King et al. would. It felt conspicuously stand-alone.Dafnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-63749151338782673462024-01-31T13:54:13.157-11:002024-01-31T13:54:13.157-11:00I don't know how they thought they were going ...I don't know how they thought they were going to market this--it's got a weird high concept that doesn't even feel like a "talking animal cartoon" and, as you say, makes it feel like it could be anybody as easily as Disney (though there weren't so many "anybodies" in 1990); beyond that, how do you market a sequel to The Rescuers in 1990? to the thirty year olds who probably don't even <i>remember</i> The Rescuers? And I don't disagree, while it is probably just its box office and historical ignominy doing it, it does somewhat require "animation historian" levels of care for digital inking and painting systems to punch through the "is this even <i>real</i> Disney?" vibe it gives off.<br /><br />On the other hand, to my mind, A Goofy Movie is one of the highlights of the Disney Renaissance without even being WDFA/WDAS proper. So it's not in bad company.Hunter Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925220178171355473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-45655245542430785792024-01-31T01:38:51.137-11:002024-01-31T01:38:51.137-11:00I'd be interested in reading the post mortem f...I'd be interested in reading the post mortem from Disney's marketing department that I'm sure someone had to write concerning this movie's box office failure, because I can tell you just going off memory this release had a weird, major branding issue: namely, it never registered to me at the time (and for YEARS afterward) that it was a Disney movie.<br /><br />This despite already knowing The Rescuers was Disney; I never gave it much thought, but I suppose I figured maybe it was based on some source material that another studio went and got the rights to and was trying to cash in on the Disney connection. Factor in the long gap between this film and its predecessor as well as the fact that Disney never did sequels before - also, the movie in general somehow reminded young me of An American Tail so I guess I associated it with the "faux Disney" flicks of the era.<br /><br />Even after finally getting its studio parentage straight, I've always assumed it was some kind of side project like DuckTales or A Goofy Movie, and am only JUST NOW realizing The Rescuers Down Under was a full-on entry in the Disney canon. And it just goes to show the power of branding because now I'm so much more keen on going back and checking this out than I ever was (I always did think it looked pretty spiffy). Go figure!Dafnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-47635934706088465382021-04-12T14:05:37.578-11:002021-04-12T14:05:37.578-11:00I almost want to see a misbegotten live-action Res...I almost want to see a misbegotten live-action Rescuers. Can they digitally resurrect voices yet? (Ok, Newhart's still alive, but he's 91. Incidentally, I did not know till just now that Gabor was either 69 or 70 when she did this movie!)<br /><br />I feel like I must've forgotten something important about Pooh 2011... anyway, I remember enjoying it a lot.Hunter Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925220178171355473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633480297352890314.post-49834464612514630942021-04-11T17:01:13.883-11:002021-04-11T17:01:13.883-11:00Can't wait for you to review 2011's Winnie...Can't wait for you to review 2011's Winnie the Pooh. I almost prefer it to The Adventures of Tintin as a cartoon about alcoholism, since The Adventures of Tintin now looks to me like a (superior) prequel to Ready Player One. As for ignorance, I consider it bliss that we'll never get a live-action Rescuers cash-in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com