The Top 20 Disney Animated Classics 2012 - RESULTS

[Super Aurora]

- However the key difference is that the film doesn't seem to interact with Bambi, it seems to merely observe him and the woodland in their own kind of microcosm.

So Bambi is basically an animated National Geographic channel show?

- Sleeping Beauty on the other hand doesn't need Aurora to be engaging. Why? Because she's not really the protagonist. She's fodder - a plot device more than a character. Philip is really a plot device too. Alone, Aurora symbolises innocence and etherealness but together with Philip they are the embodiment/representation of love.

- They aren't required to be engaging because they aren't the main character focus which is on the fairies and Maleficent - good and evil respectively.

That's one of my main annoyance about the movie. When i first pick the box cover up and see a big pic of Phillip and Aurora up front while fairies are tiny small things to the side, I would expected them have good decent roles and for me follow and enjoy. I said, "Holy shit! Aurora is hot and fappable! Fap Fap Fap. I'd love to find out more about her! can't wait to watch this movie!"

It one of reason I like TLK cause I like Simba and root for him while experiencing his journey. reducing a main heroine and hero to fodders or background is insulting. I don't think SB should gone the route of Naruto if you know what i'm talking about.





Also please take SB and any Cinderella and snow white debate in my thread. That's why I made it, doh.

[yamiiguy]

Well that was certainly a nice debate. It's clear that it's going to be nothing but contradictions for here on out so I'll agree to disagree. I'd say that Simba seems to have a greater level of anthropomorphisation than Bambi which helps with the engaging-ness while Bambi is more like the National Geographic show where you can go "Oh that's sad, his mother' dead" and "Aww, he's in love" but don't really have the indescribable feelings you get when you truly connect with a fictional character. Is this subjective? Yes but objectively I think that Disney could have done some things to help. As I said before, it's Bambi's imagery that's memorable and I guess that's all that needs to be.

On the Sleeping Beauty front, I agree with you that the forest scene is too long.

[Disney Duster]

Okay let's agree to disagree. But I also wanna say I get indescribeably, incredible feelings from Bambi's film, just not the same ones as "identifying" with or "connecting' to Simba which is what you are really into. I think The Lion King is great, I really wish you would think so of Bambi too. Also, the characters of Bambi, Thumper, and Flower are memorable, even if it's mainly because of how cute and heartwarming/endearing they are. But it still is their character. I actually really badly wish you could see Bambi as the story of life that is not supposed to be like The Lion King, or like National Geographic for that matter, but I don't know what to do.

I actually would be okay with the Sleeping Beauty forest scene being long if only Aurora and Phillip and their romance had much more to them. I think they should get more screentime and dialogue, too, to me about equal to the fairies and Maleficent. But if you think the film should be more the way you see it, that's okay, we just disagree on that one too.

Holy crap you just made me realize something though. If Aurora was more like Mufassa, who we don't know that much as a character but more like a mysterious symbol with some character, then that might be better. We'd care more, feel more sad when she's "dead", identify with the fairies more, etc. At least, for you and Lazario's view of the movie, right?

[Goliath]

to Goliath:
What's the matter- you've run out of things to say about transwomen and now you're bored?

I still read no refutation of my arguments.

Hmm, must mean I was right after all about Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. I knew it.

to Duster:
Well, that was certainly pointless.

If you have anything more to say about anything, Duster, I don't care to hear it. I've witnessed enough "nuh-uhhhh!" discussions to last me a lifetime. I'll just end it by saying no I don't believe Bambi is the awesomest or that he can beat up Chuck Norris with one paw behind his back or that Walt had super powers. Because, even though that might seem out of left field to you, that's pretty much the level of maturity this "discussion" has been reduced to.

Look who's talking! I've seen Duster putting a lot of time and effort in his response to you. I don't agree with it at all, but he did his best to provide a decent answer to you. Only for you to spit on it and trash him. And with all that you've written above, you still have the nerve to tell me, like you did a few days ago, that you don't belittle people or denigrate them? You railed against me after me disagreeing with you, because you had been "nothing but nice" to me. Has Duster not been nice to you and haven't you acknowledged that? Only to turn around and slam him with things like "this is immature" and making a caricature of all his arguments? And you complain that *others* are killing discussion?

What a big flaming hypocrite you are!

What I'm getting at is this: When measuring how "good" a film is, I think it matters less how engaging the characters or story are while you are actually watching the film, and it matters more how well it is remembered after the fact. Society knows Bambi.

Utter nonsense. What makes people remember Bambi, is Disney's marketing. They put him on every piece of Disney merchandise available. Sure the people remember him! If they had put Bernard and Bianca on every piece of clothing, clocks, mugs, watches, puzzles, coloring books, toys etc. for the past 35 years, everybody would know them, too. A film is not "good" because many people remember it. Popularity doesn't equal greatness. Most people also know the participants of Jersey Shore. Following your logic, this must then be a high-quality tv show.

[Lazario]

to Goliath:
What's the matter- you've run out of things to say about transwomen and now you're bored?

I still read no refutation of my arguments.

Hmm, must mean I was right after all about Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. I knew it.

to Duster:
Well, that was certainly pointless.

If you have anything more to say about anything, Duster, I don't care to hear it. I've witnessed enough "nuh-uhhhh!" discussions to last me a lifetime. I'll just end it by saying no I don't believe Bambi is the awesomest or that he can beat up Chuck Norris with one paw behind his back or that Walt had super powers. Because, even though that might seem out of left field to you, that's pretty much the level of maturity this "discussion" has been reduced to.

Look who's talking! I've seen Duster putting a lot of time and effort in his response to you. I don't agree with it at all, but he did his best to provide a decent answer to you. Only for you to spit on it and trash him. And with all that you've written above, you still have the nerve to tell me, like you did a few days ago, that you don't belittle people or denigrate them? You railed against me after me disagreeing with you, because you had been "nothing but nice" to me. Has Duster not been nice to you and haven't you acknowledged that? Only to turn around and slam him with things like "this is immature" and making a caricature of all his arguments? And you complain that *others* are killing discussion?

What a big flaming hypocrite you are!

Yeah- you care about the people on this board. Really, that's the reason you keep doing these replies even though the 2 or 3 people replying before you (SWille!, yamiiguy, Duster) are actually sticking to the topic. You've completely convinced me.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Th6KP1zh7k" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Goliath]

Yeah- you care about the people on this board. Really, that's the reason you keep doing these replies even though the 2 or 3 people replying before you (SWille!, yamiiguy, Duster) are actually sticking to the topic. You've completely convinced me.

YOU didn't stick to the topic. YOU trashed Disney Duster when he did stick to the topic. You dismissed him and his arguments without any explanation. Nothing at all. Just a condescending dismissal.

If you were really such a tough guy as you pretend to be, you would have the balls to answer him, and answer my posts as well. There's nothing left of your facade of 'philisophy' once you're actually called on it, is there?

[Post another useless video to substitute for real argument here.]

[Lazario]

This is a game to you, G. And I've told you before nobody sane cares. I played it for awhile, admitted I was wrong in doing so, and it's over now. It's over now. I'll repeat myself, since I know you have trouble getting things to sink in: it's over now.

God you are SO desperate to keep this going. But you have nobody sane replying to congratulate you. And in case you hadn't noticed, nobody else is talking to you. Nobody sane. You have nothing to say.

Think whatever you want to, I don't care. Why would I; I've already had everyone I care about tell me I had a good point about Sleeping Beauty. What do I need you to agree with me for? It's over. Move on.

[Disney Duster]

Thanks for defending me Goliath. I think a lot of what you've been saying is right, and, well, I don't want to get between you and Laz, you're both fighting, but I gotta say, some stuff you have said about him, I agree with, like that he really is being rather condescending and diminishing to people and dismissing of posts in a slighting way instead of just saying he doesn't agree or want to talk about it anymore.

[Lazario]

Well, let me put this to you: what do you think about the film has stood the test of time?

The iconic image of young Bambi. I could possibly list more examples or scenes here to make my point (like the mother's death or the scene with the butterfly), but in my opinion, it doesn't need anything more than the simply image of young Bambi to be relevant to society and to stand the test of time.

That's kind of sad. And certainly debatable- especially since I believe most fans of the movie would argue that the film means more than that.

Everyone, everywhere, knows who Bambi is and what he looks like. The same cannot be said for lesser Disney films, many of which are "better" films with more developed characters or stories. But the fact is that, regardless of how "good" the film is, it doesn't matter - it is still relevant in today's society, which means it has stood the test of time.

Recognition doesn't actually equal relevance. Just because people remember something doesn't mean it translates into the world we live in today.

I'll use the Rescuers as an example. Many hardcore fans claim it is highly underrated and is one of the better films in the Disney canon (I'm not arguing this, as I do enjoy the film, although not quite that much). But your average person (non Disney geek) don't know who or what the Rescuers are. It has not stood the test of time, and is no longer relevant to society.

I'm not sure that bothers most of the people on this board, really. You say Disney geek like Disney is its' own cult following. But we all know Disney is a huge factory of nostalgia. That's not the same as something comparatively obscure like The Garbage Pail Kids or The Last Unicorn having a cult following. Though anyone can be exposed to anything, more than just "Disney geeks" will remember lesser known Disney films, songs, characters, etc.

Society knows Bambi. They remember Bambi, and they love Bambi. Regardless of the fact that most of them have not seen the film in god knows how many years and probably couldn't tell you the first thing about the story.

They still know and love the character 70 years later, and that is what makes Bambi such a great film.

People can't love a character if they can't remember the first thing about the movie's story. At best, they can only admire a character's design. And that has no relevance to society. Unless you really want to argue that people typically say they love things for no real reason.

[SWillie!]

What I'm getting at is this: When measuring how "good" a film is, I think it matters less how engaging the characters or story are while you are actually watching the film, and it matters more how well it is remembered after the fact. Society knows Bambi.

Utter nonsense. What makes people remember Bambi, is Disney's marketing. They put him on every piece of Disney merchandise available. Sure the people remember him! If they had put Bernard and Bianca on every piece of clothing, clocks, mugs, watches, puzzles, coloring books, toys etc. for the past 35 years, everybody would know them, too. A film is not "good" because many people remember it. Popularity doesn't equal greatness. Most people also know the participants of Jersey Shore. Following your logic, this must then be a high-quality tv show.

Well I certainly didn't mean that popularity equals greatness. I meant that the test of time equals greatness. So no, Jersey Shore is not a high quality show, because it most certainly won't be remembered, let alone socially relevant, in 10 years.

But yes, you're right that it is Disney's marketing that has a big say as to what characters become well known and what do not. But the fact is that Bambi IS still socially relevant, regardless of how it has stayed that way. Maybe it really has nothing at all to do with how good or bad the film is, and it really is just because of the way Disney has pushed the film. Either way, 50 years from now, film critics will STILL talk about Bambi, and how great it is, and no one will ever mention lesser known films like the Rescuers.

I think you're underestimating the importance of social relevance.

(Goliath don't get your knickers in a twist because I picked on Rescuers. Like I said, I like the film.)

[Lazario]

Well I certainly didn't mean that popularity equals greatness. I meant that the test of time equals greatness. So no, Jersey Shore is not a high quality show, because it most certainly won't be remembered, let alone socially relevant, in 10 years.

No offense, but I don't think you had a clue where you were going with that argument. The test of time means that people remember something, yet you forgot to take into account that people remember things for bad reasons as well as good. Plan 9 from Outer Space is regarded as one of the worst films ever made and hasn't been out of print since being given that honor. More people see it out of historical curiosity than film quality and yet you're arguing that any example of something being held up over large quantities of time makes it great.

the fact is that Bambi IS still socially relevant, regardless of how it has stayed that way. Maybe it really has nothing at all to do with how good or bad the film is, and it really is just because of the way Disney has pushed the film. Either way, 50 years from now, film critics will STILL talk about Bambi, and how great it is, and no one will ever mention lesser known films like the Rescuers. I think you're underestimating the importance of social relevance.

Critics don't immediately value a film higher because the public likes it or vice vers(a). In fact, this is why things like the Twilight franchise or Jersey Shore are judged so harshly.

And I still don't understand how this film becomes socially relevant in your estimation. All you basically said was that people like young Bambi and think he's cute.

[SWillie!]

That's kind of sad. And certainly debatable- especially since I believe most fans of the movie would argue that the film means more than that.

Yes, they would say it means more than that. That's why I mentioned that I could very well list other examples of why Bambi is memorable. But I stand by my feeling that it doesn't take more than someone remembering a character in order for a film to stay relevant.

Recognition doesn't actually equal relevance. Just because people remember something doesn't mean it translates into the world we live in today.

You're right, but in this case I believe it does. You can pretty much ask anyone in today's society, "Have you ever seen Bambi?" and the vast majority will have. They may not remember it, but they will have seen it. I think that means it's relevant to today's society.

Though anyone can be exposed to anything, more than just "Disney geeks" will remember lesser known Disney films, songs, characters, etc.

True... although I think if you asked the same question ^^ "Have you ever seen the Rescuers?" your answers would be all over the board. Maybe I use the term Disney geek lightly, but still...

People can't love a character if they can't remember the first thing about the movie's story.

I disagree. Most people today are not exactly versed in stories that Mickey Mouse plays a part in, whether it be shorts, features, etc... but they sure as hell love Mickey. Working at Disney World, I can tell you that plenty of little girls have never seen Snow White or Sleeping Beauty (the films), but they most certainly love the princesses, because they know the characters.

[Super Aurora]

That's not the same as something comparatively obscure like The Garbage Pail Kids having a cult following.

Does that really seriously have a cult following......?

[Lazario]

That's kind of sad. And certainly debatable- especially since I believe most fans of the movie would argue that the film means more than that.

Yes, they would say it means more than that. That's why I mentioned that I could very well list other examples of why Bambi is memorable. But I stand by my feeling that it doesn't take more than someone remembering a character in order for a film to stay relevant.

Recognition doesn't actually equal relevance. Just because people remember something doesn't mean it translates into the world we live in today.

You're right, but in this case I believe it does. You can pretty much ask anyone in today's society, "Have you ever seen Bambi?" and the vast majority will have. They may not remember it, but they will have seen it. I think that means it's relevant to today's society.

Though anyone can be exposed to anything, more than just "Disney geeks" will remember lesser known Disney films, songs, characters, etc.

True... although I think if you asked the same question ^^ "Have you ever seen the Rescuers?" your answers would be all over the board. Maybe I use the term Disney geek lightly, but still...

People can't love a character if they can't remember the first thing about the movie's story.

I disagree. Most people today are not exactly versed in stories that Mickey Mouse plays a part in, whether it be shorts, features, etc... but they sure as hell love Mickey. Working at Disney World, I can tell you that plenty of little girls have never seen Snow White or Sleeping Beauty (the films), but they most certainly love the princesses, because they know the characters.

Well, this particular avenue of discussion indeed seems to have come down to: popularity equals greatness. Something I was born to disagree with.

Check, please.

That's not the same as something comparatively obscure like The Garbage Pail Kids having a cult following.

Does that really seriously have a cult following......?

I meant that it's well-remembered in cult circles for being a controversial toy item and an awful film.

[Goliath]

This is a game to you, G. And I've told you before nobody sane cares. I played it for awhile, admitted I was wrong in doing so, and it's over now. It's over now. I'll repeat myself, since I know you have trouble getting things to sink in: it's over now.

Don't project your own bullshit on me. Nobody is buying it, Lazario. Do you really think anybody is falling for this sharade? You can't hide the fact that you totally trashed Disney Duster after he took the time and effort to reply to you. I didn't even have to point it out. It's out there for everybody to read. You can't cover it up with your usual methods of distractions and blame-shifting.

Why have you STILL not answered to my arguments against your posts? What is taking you so long, Lazario? Do you enjoy blame-shifting SO much that you don't want to answer them? Just say so. No need to waste everybody's time with your shenanigans. Just tell us you have no answer of substance to my pointed arguments about the Disney movies we discussed. Because that's what I was talking about. Not about "games" or "traps" or whatever you got cooked up in your paranoid mind this time.

So either answer or MOVE ON.

And in case you hadn't noticed, nobody else is talking to you. Nobody sane. You have nothing to say.

What is this? An attempt to make me feel bad by implying nobody woves me anymowe? Well, YOU'RE still putting energy in replying me. Nothing of substance; nothing that adresses my real arguments about the Disney movies I THOUGHT we were discussing, unfortunately.

Think whatever you want to, I don't care.

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure make a lot of noise.

Why would I; I've already had everyone I care about tell me I had a good point about Sleeping Beauty.

You mean the person whose posts you trashed by condescendingly dismissing them as "immature"?

(Goliath don't get your knickers in a twist because I picked on Rescuers. Like I said, I like the film.)

Oh, I'm not upset. I agree that most people don't remember The Rescuers the way they remember Bambi. That was true. I just didn't agree with the reasons you gave. But I would have said exactly the same when you had mentioned Fox and the Hound (a film I loathe with passion) instead of Rescuers. I never feel personally attacked whenever people criticize things I like/love. Unlike certain others in this forum, my priorities are not with what other people think of pop culture that I like. That's too insignificant to me.

[Disney Duster]

People can't love a character if they can't remember the first thing about the movie's story. At best, they can only admire a character's design. And that has no relevance to society. Unless you really want to argue that people typically say they love things for no real reason.

Yes, people can love what they remember the character did even if they don't remember the movie's story. And know people don't just love their designs. They love how cute and innocent Bambi was in the film, how he looked in awe at that butterfly, how Thumper thumps and says things he shouldn't, how flower is perpetually shy, etc. And even if they can't be specific in their remembrances about them, they remember the warm fuzzy feelings the characters gave them as a whole.

[Lazario]

Yes, people can love what they remember the character did even if they don't remember the movie's story. And no people don't just love their designs. They love how cute and innocent Bambi was in the film, how he looked in awe at that butterfly, how Thumper thumps and says things he shouldn't, how flower is perpetually shy, etc. And even if they can't be specific in their remembrances about them, they remember the warm fuzzy feelings the characters gave them as a whole.

If they remember what the character did, then they remember the movie's story. Especially in a movie like Bambi where there is no story other than: deer does stuff. No matter how you read it, that's how it works out. It's not that complex a movie.

What are you really trying to say about people loving the character?

[Disney Duster]

You don't have to remember what the story was about to remember you felt loving feelings for a deer that played with a butterfly or slid around on the ice, or just remember that he was cute. You actually don't even have to remember much details about anything to remember you liked it.

[Lazario]

Um, with that in mind...

Who cares?

[JeanGreyForever]

Is there any interest in doing something like this again with all the new DAC movies that have been created since? Perhaps in a month or two after everyone on this forum has gotten the chance to see Frozen 2? I'm curious to see how tastes may have changed or been altered with the induction of the new films.