Disney's Divinity wrote:
but I do think that the whole idea of numbering films as a means of marketing them can come across as a bit pompous.
I kind of like the numbering, and it would probably do good to number them as they go, so it doesn't get confusing about what counts and what doesn't (like what's happened with Disney).
I can't quite describe it, but it just seems a bit self-indulgent to go using the numbering in official promotions, and the fact that they can tweak it for their own needs (i.e. bulking out the list with package features, suddenly declaring Dinosaur
a classic so Tangled
can be the 50th film) is also a bit dubious. I suppose that it's also part of the whole thing of labelling their animated films as classics like nobody's business. Of course, there's no problem doing so for films like Snow White, Pinocchio
(to name but a few), all of which are classics in every real sense of the word. Equally, it's safe to say that more recent films like Beauty and the Beast
and The Lion King
have earned the classic moniker, and can be considered modern classics at the very least. But to label every new film as a classic or masterpiece, even those that won't ever become so (Treasure Planet, Chicken Little, Home on the Range
etc), does come across as a bit contrived, IMO.