Disney Animated Canon - Tier List

[nflchamp]

Lion King to top, Frozen to top, Little Mermaid down (seriously, why is this top?).

Also, I'll echo that Aristocats needs to go up.

But I'm going to go get dinner and probably forget about this. So take this as a why are these where they are (other than Aristocats, obviously).

[SoulSilver]

I would like to see a pixar tier list too :D but i agree lion king should be higher on the list, i wasn't that fond of aristocats idk i prefer lady and the tramp or one hundred and one dalmatians

Edited April 4, 2014 by SoulSilver

[-Cynthia-]

Well I assume that a number of the top/mid films are due to some kind of animation innovation, in terms of narrative or sheer entertainment value I'd definitely watch Aladdin or The Lion King over Bambi, Pinocchio, or Snow White.

The Rescuers Down Under always seemed like a mediocre film to me.

[Aquakat]

Idk, personally, a lot of your 'top tiers' fell HORRIBLY flat to me. The only one that didn't was Beauty and the Beast, but even then, I wouldn't call it a '10'. I'd also put Atlantis higher up. It's got a lot of great humor imo, and they actually created a language for the purpose of the movie. That's badass.

[Vashiane]

The lack of Cinderella III: Twist in Time in your sequels list disappoints me, Ana, have you not seen that one?

If not, I HIGHLY recommend it.

That said, my two biggest nitpicks about placement are the spots of Atlantis: The Lost Empire and The Black Cauldron.

[Silver Lightning]

Idk, personally, a lot of your 'top tiers' fell HORRIBLY flat to me. The only one that didn't was Beauty and the Beast, but even then, I wouldn't call it a '10'. I'd also put Atlantis higher up. It's got a lot of great humor imo, and they actually created a language for the purpose of the movie. That's badass.

Indeed.

I remember how much I adored that movie and was more than a little obsessed with it when I was a kid; went to see it 5 times at the movies or more, and I owned that cool fan book which contained the entire movie script along with producer notes. It's also what got me into my Atlantis research phase. It was amazing how much of the subject I dedicated myself to learning at the age of 9 or so, since I found it so fascinating. The movie is all kinds of awesome, especially now that I get more of the jokes now that I'm older, and I think it deserves a higher spot honestly.

And props to Milo for being one my fave Disney protagonists.

[Knight]

I personally think that Jungle Book shouldn't be any less than in the high tier or top of upper-mid. Personally, I believe the songs in the film are really good, cleverly written songs. I'd probably have a better convincing argument if I watched the movie again recently, but one thing I will point out is that it was probably the only Disney movie I watched as a kid that made me experience fear, as I think that the villain in the movie is quite geniusly setup. I also have a bad feeling about the last film Walt ever produced being lumped with Bolt and Lady and the Tramp. I also have a soft spot for Treasure Planet, as Treasure Island is one of my favourite stories. I also think that The Little Mermaid and especially Cinderella haven't aged that well, but this isn't a list of personal opinion.

[Randoman]

I guess Treasure Planet's position is good right now. Despite how good the character development, musical score, and the action sequences were (especially the sky surfing parts), I can't really do much to argue it's relatively low box office success.

On a side note, why is Hercules rather low? I felt the story was solid enough and that the humour didn't detract from the narration or plot too much. Also, it did garner quite a lot of popularity and success, at least from what I know.

[MacLovin]

Song of the South for upper-mid or high if allow the mixed type.

[Anacybele]

The lack of Cinderella III: Twist in Time in your sequels list disappoints me, Ana, have you not seen that one?

If not, I HIGHLY recommend it.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to say something about my sequels list. lol

But sadly, no, I never got to see that one. Same with The Lion King 1/2. >_<

[Aquakat]

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to say something about my sequels list. lol

But sadly, no, I never got to see that one. Same with The Lion King 1/2. >_<

Lion King 1.5 is humorous... but it's not really something I consider 'canon' with the original movie, if that makes sense.

[Anacybele]

Huh, I see. Well, whenever I see it, if I see it, I'll find out if you're correct. :P

I also know of One Hundred and One Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure, but I'm not sure if I actually saw it. I vaguely know what it's about. Patch meets his hero, that dog from Canine Crunchies, and all kinds of stuff happens between them. I think it turns out that the dog is just an actor playing a heroic canine and something big happens, where the actor dog has to prove that he's not just an actor after all or something. Sounds pretty decent, but I can't remember if I saw a trailer or part of the movie or whatever. xP

Edited April 4, 2014 by Anacybele

[Skynstein]

Fantasia shouldn't be in. It's a demonstration of technical achievements without a plot. Of course, it's great, but not comparable to the other movies.

The list is BS because Aristocats is ranked so low. It wasn't that bad.

[Rehab]

I think that achieving excellence in animation is no less noble an endeavor for an animated work than any other measure of a good film. I think really fucking good animation, which Fantasia has, tells a story of its own naturally.

But then I think tiering separate works of art is a bit of a daft idea itself on multiple levels, so I guess that doesn't really have much bearing on where somebody decides to put it in a list, anyway

Edited April 5, 2014 by Rehab

[Cowboy Karimov]

You guys are talking about your opinions on the movies themselves, while I'm observing how the tier list fits almost perfectly into a Gaussian distribution. Wow...

I watched The Great Mouse Detective on Netflix. It's probably still there. :P

Probably not. Once the license expires, all the movies are gone(it probably expired by now is what I'm saying). Edited April 5, 2014 by HeavyBrawlsGuy

[Loki Laufeyson]

I think Aristocats might be kinda racist or something and that's why it's down there?

I have no idea why Hercules is so low.

Hercules is bad. It should be pretty low.

Lady And The Tramp being as low as it is, is the reason i threw the rest of this "list" out the window. The animation and songs for that film were fantastic.

[Xator Nova]

Lion King to top, Frozen to top, Little Mermaid down (seriously, why is this top?).

Also, I'll echo that Aristocats needs to go up.

But I'm going to go get dinner and probably forget about this. So take this as a why are these where they are (other than Aristocats, obviously).

The Lion King has a severe inconsistence with its message in the climax of the last third, which leads to alternate interpretations that differ from the original intention of the creators, thus distracting the audience and making the last third sloppy in execution. The problem is something like this.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The catalyzer of the third act is the conversation between Simba and Rafiki. There, Rafiki tells Simba that the past hurts, but one must learn from the mistakes and assume the responsibility of one's acts. That is a clever message which I totally support. However, when Simba does exactly that when he confronts Scar and his responsibility of Mufasa's death, everything goes against him. His fears start to win, nobody supports him, and he's on the verge of dying. The only reason why he manages to survive is because Scar confesses having killed Mufasa, since only then is he supported and he stops being fearful.

In that way, what the third act suggests is that assuming one's responsibilities and trying to learn from one's mistakes has negative repercussions against oneself. He survives because when he knows the truth, he has nothing to blame himself, no mistake was ever made, and there was no past to confront. If anything, one could argue that Scar is the one who actually confronts his past, since he admits having killed Mufasa, which results in getting him killed. Before then, one can notice that he was safe. In this way, the actual suggestion of the third act is that the way of surviving and reaching success is to convince other people that one isn't responsible of one's acts.

I wouldn't mind if this grim interpretation was the film's actual message. Films aren't PSA. However, the problem doesn't come from ethics, but from story consistence. The last paragraph goes obviously against eveything the movie has been defending, and is different from the author's true intention that was very well made clear in the conversation between Simba and Rafiki. If they wanted to get across that message, then it should have been set in execution properly in the third act, otherwise breaking the willing suspension of disbelief. The confrontation of Simba to his uncle fails to convince the audience that Simba is psychologically capable of accepting his past and coming to terms with himself, and fails to convince that he would have overcome his fears in order to defeat Scar. He was successful at the end, but it wasn't with the help of the message presented, but with the help of a deus ex machina pulled by Scar.

All of this stuff confused me when I was a kid, since I noticed that something was really wrong at the end. Which was a pity, because I was totally sold into the movie.

...

I'd also argue that three of the musical numbers are quite derpy, and Simba's actor is bland, but those are nitpicks that are easily compensated by the numerous merits of the film (the cinematography, the gigantic scale, the fitting score by Hans Zimmer, the intensity of the climax, the seriously storyline... for the most part). However, the big and important flaw mentioned earlier can't be compensated since the issue lies on the core of the film. I firmly believe that, with that problem fixed, The Lion King would be structurally perfectt.

Frozen falls into the same category, since it sacrifices story consistence in the last third for character potential. It's otherwise completely solid and magnificent. Amazing scope, complex characters, musical numbers of Broadway quality, etc. I believe that Frozen takes what was good in Tangled (story and characters) and what was good in Princess and the Frog (style, acting and musical numbers), and combines both of them into a new, successful formula. It's like the Second Renaissance, in the sense that the film reshapes the standards of modern animated films, kind of like The Little Mermaid did when it was released. Speaking of...

The Little Mermaid started the Disney Renaissance and... boy does it show. Fluid animation, interesting characters and really impressive musical numbers (Part of Your World and Poor Unfortunate Souls being really good) from beginning to end. Even the romance seems plausible, despite following the three-day-romance archetype. The only minor nitpick is that the main character doesn't actually develop from her journey, but her character traits compensate it for the most part.

Idk, personally, a lot of your 'top tiers' fell HORRIBLY flat to me. The only one that didn't was Beauty and the Beast, but even then, I wouldn't call it a '10'. I'd also put Atlantis higher up. It's got a lot of great humor imo, and they actually created a language for the purpose of the movie. That's badass.

Snow White is the Citizen Kane of animation.

The other films of the Golden Age (other than Dumbo, and even that is debatable) explored experimental techniques of filmmaking and animation, and triumphed in some areas much better than films from other genres. In other words, revolutionary films. Fantasia and Bambi in particular were many years ahead of its time.

Beauty and the Beast is structurally perfect. It is widely considered to be one of the greatest movie musicals of all time, and the pinnacle of the Disney Renaissance.

Song of the South for upper-mid or high if allow the mixed type.

Song of the South doesn't belong to the canon.

Fantasia shouldn't be in. It's a demonstration of technical achievements without a plot. Of course, it's great, but not comparable to the other movies.

The list is BS because Aristocats is ranked so low. It wasn't that bad.

Fantasia belongs to the canon, and thus must be tiered.

The fact that it doesn't have a plot isn't a net negative, since it isn't affected by flaws of narrative structure, and can only be judged by its merits in cinematography. It is flawless in that category, and holds up 70 years after its release.

I still need to listen an argument of why The Aristocats is a decent film, since I've given my thoughts on why it isn't. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You guys are talking about your opinions on the movies themselves, while I'm observing how the tier list fits almost perfectly into a Gaussian distribution. Wow...

Probably not. Once the license expires, all the movies are gone(it probably expired by now is what I'm saying).

Could you please explain what the bolded part means? I don't know if it is a positive or negative commentary.

[-Cynthia-]

Hercules is bad. It should be pretty low.

Lady And The Tramp being as low as it is, is the reason i threw the rest of this "list" out the window. The animation and songs for that film were fantastic.

I think the animation and songs for Hercules were pretty fantastic. It may not be the "deepest" Disney film or whatever but it's rather entertaining. It's obviously a bad representation of Greek mythology, but Disney doesn't tend to represent any myths or the real world very accurately.

[Anacybele]

Whaaat. Hercules is awesome! I really love that one. The music is excellent, "Go the Distance" being one of my favorite Disney songs of all time (it's in my top ten list, in fact). And the characters are all amazing, as is the story!

I also loved the cartoon show lol. It's about Herc's high school years. XD

[largebus]

Considering the lion king is basically hamlet its my favourite of the main canon but importantly also on the sequel list you forgot the lion king 1 1/2, which really should in a tier of its own (on top). yeah it is out of the direct to video sequel crap disney likes to pump out, but i watched it for high school literature when we studied rosencrantz and guildernstern are dead. you know the one if you studied hamlet in high school. definitely more fun than studying tom stoppard and absurdism... (apologies to waiting for godot)

still no disney film has left more of a lasting impression on me than that one, if if i was older when i watched it.

I've never seen fantasia though.