Friday, January 27, 2017

The State of the Chronological Disney Animated Canon Series

See the thing is, I reviewed "TRON: Legacy".

Let's back up.  The issue I'm wrestling with right now is the question of what I should and should not count as a Disney Animated Feature for my ongoing "Review Every Animated Disney Feature" project.  It used to be easy to answer: "Duh, it's a film with animation by Walt Disney Feature Animation.  Also, whatever Disney movies with animation in them were considered animated films by all those Disney Channel specials and montages and such.  ALSO also, whatever is listed on The Official Walt Disney Features Animated Canon Big Ol' List Thing on Wikipedia and elsewhere.  Golly, maybe this isn't an easy answer?"

So what's going on in my head right now is, like, do I have to review the new "Pete's Dragon" if I reviewed the original?  Cause again, I reviewed the "TRON" sequel.  And "TRON: Legacy" doesn't have any more or less animation in it than any other blockbuster released by Disney in the past twenty years (and I really don't want to have to revisit the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series).  And what of 2016's "The Jungle Book", which is an animated Disney film by any meaningful definition of the term?  If I review that, does that mean I have to do the other remakes of movies that are very definitely officially Disney Animated Canon features?  (Which would of course mean having to revisit Tim Burton's "Alice" movies and... no, please, God, no.)

I know all of this is ultimately up to me.  It's getting very tricky though.  Any helpful suggestions in the comments will be greatly appreciated.

For more posts in this ongoing series, go here, or click the Chronological Disney Animated Canon tag below.

-----

Art of the Day!

Thanxalotl.

1.21.17 - Janphibianuary

2 comments:

Andrew Raymond Stück said...

I think you should limit it to anything that's meant to be stylized rather than realistic. "Cartoony" if you will, though that's sort of a limiting term. By my metric, you don't need include anything that simply uses CG effects as they are meant to look like they belong in our world. This would include the new Jungle Book and (I would argue) the new Pete's Dragon as well. The only downside to my definition is that while that means you shouldn't have reviewed "TRON: Legacy", you should review Tim Burton's Alice movies. Barf.

Andrew Raymond Stück said...

Ultimately, though, I think you should just go on the "come on, you trolls, we all know what I'm talking about" rubric. I wouldn't argue with anything you've included so far, and I certainly won't argue for including the Burton Alices.