Star Wars Month Issue #1: How to make Episode VII not suck D***

In case you don't read the title, next month is a big month here at SimbaKing94 Productions.  This is the month I have been looking forward to since I first posted "What Could Have Been: The Phantom Menace" over 10 months ago.  May 2014 is STAR WARS MONTH!!!!!  Everyone has been in some way, consciously or subconsciously, affected by the Star Wars Franchise.  Whether it's cheap science fiction, a deep and moving epic saga of good and evil, popcorn movies, or a series of progressively worsening movies and books, Star Wars has in some way affected most of the general public in some way, for good or bad.

As for me, I grew up on Star Wars.  One of my fondest memories was watching these films for the first time at my grandparent's house (they had the 1987 home video releases).  I loved the story and the epicness of the Star Wars saga so much that from the age of 7 to 11, I was a Star Wars character of some kind for Halloween.  In fact, when I post my 20 all time favorite movies list, you'll find A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back on their without a doubt.

Even the Prequels are reasonably entertaining, if not for their complex awfulness.  They may be clunky and have horrible scripts, boring effects and even more boring actors, but they're at least attempting to be good movies here.

So when the Crown Jewel in the legacy of one filmmaker George Lucas fell into the hands of the Walt Disney Company two years ago, people were amped for the next saga of films (either that or they were terrified that Disney would destroy Star Wars beyond repair), but I digress.  Lucas is out, JJ Abrams is in, and now Disney has set it's sights on not only keeping Marvel Universe in the works, but also revitalizing a movie franchise long devoid of excellence since George revived it in the mid 90's.

So, what are the ways to make Episode VII not suck?  How can Disney save Star Wars fans from six years of absolute pigshit?  Well, there's no use in asking questions.  Let's jump in, shall we?

1. The First Step has already been taken....

Step 1 for the new creative team tackling the next Star Wars saga was to make sure this guy had absolutely nothing to do with the saga.  Sure, George Lucas created the franchise from next to nothing but an idea, but his head has long been filled with dreams of money instead of storytelling.

Disney has already confirmed that old Jorge will have nothing to do with the next saga.  When I first heard this, all I had to say was "THANK GOD!!!!!"  George Lucas was at the heart as to why the last saga failed miserably.  The only person who had a hand in creating the old saga that should return as a creative consultant would be Producer Gary Kurtz, the only man outside of Steven Spielberg willing to tell George that they were going to do the films in a way to not make them suck.

Sure, maybe George could show up once or twice on the set and make sure that they aren't fucking up as badly as he did, but he should be at best a minor consultant.  He has good ideas on paper, but he's really bad at executing them.  This is a new saga, and to bring back too much of the old shit will be too disappointing.  Which leads me to...

2. This is not a reunion special.....

Episode VII is going to take place at least 30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi, so that means that there's a pretty good chance that most of the cast members of both sagas (Christopher Lee, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Hayden Christiansen, Natalie Portman, Samuel L. Jackson, Billy Dee Williams) will not be in the next film.  And while we do know that Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill have been rumored to be involved in this film, the less we see of them is the better.

This story should not have them heavily involved in the story.  Luke Skywalker, if you really want him to be involved, should be more like Yoda in the saga.  Just being very wise and instructive to the next generation of Jedi Knights.  Mark Hamill isn't as young or fresh looking as before, so keeping him heavily involved in the story is probably not a good idea.

Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford should be avoided at all costs, but since their children are probably going to be in the next film, then they'll have to be in it.  But Princess Leia and Han Solo are not needed to make a film work.  Red Letter Media reviewed the prequels and one of his biggest gripes was all of the lazy nostalgic imagery George hammered into the story (children training with the droids like Luke, etc.).  Therefore, JJ Abrams and his writing staff should not have to worry or care about some of the things not being easily recognizable.  Nobody knew a god damn thing about A New Hope when it first came out, but they were able to relate to all of the characters, be it Han or Luke or Leia.  NOT the characters themselves, but what the characters represented in the story.  Luke was the protagonist that we went on the journey with and learned things with, not just about the world they lived in, but about him and his legacy.  Han Solo was the fearless smuggler who would go and act as he pleased, but still had a sense of good and evil.  Leia was the damsel in distress who could still hold her own with a blaster.  And Darth Vader even represented the potential for evil in all of us.

This is where George and his Prequel Trilogy all failed miserably.  We didn't care about what happened to Padme, Obi-Wan, or Anakin because we weren't allowed to get to know them or their personal matters.  Obi-Wan was just being Obi-Wan (not showing much room for depth in his character), Anakin Skywalker was split into two different characters, an annoying overly happy little kid and a whiny bitchy teenager, and Padme was written more like an idea than as a character.  She didn't really have a personality outside of her looks, which is one of the big reasons why the Star Wars Prequels failed.

For the new films to work, the next line of main characters needs to be similar to the original trilogy, but giving them new twists and turns.  The "John Everyrman" story is getting a little old in Hollywood.  Maybe Leia and Han's daughter can inherit her father's disregard for the rules but have her mother's devotion to duty when needed.  Or maybe you can write a creative villain scenario where the villain is dark and complex.  Not just evil for the sake of being evil, but a tormented soul that just needed a little bit of caring and compassion.  Here is where a well written Disney Villain could come into play.

3. Follow Lord of the Rings.....


Few people take into effect just how important Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was, or how significant an achievement James Cameron's Titanic was.  Sure, they're known for their groundbreaking effects and stunning visuals, but the biggest shocks come from the fact that most of the time the sets are practical and actually exist and the effects were not all digital effects.  Fox built a private set for James Cameron to build a boat as closely as possible to be the Titanic.  And Peter Jackson took his crews to New Zealand to film much of his trilogy.

You also have to give George Lucas a ton of credit for the crap he endured while shooting in Tunisia for A New Hope and for shooting in Norway for The Empire Strikes Back.  But that probably detracted George from wanting to shoot on location again for the Prequel saga.  Most of the film's locations were composited digitally.  That allows you to go to new and exotic places, such as a planet above the water or an entire volcanic planet, but sometimes it makes problems for the actors.  Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christiansen both complained about having practically no real sets to work on.

It also makes scenes poorly shot and directed.  Lucas uses a practically archaic style of filming when not shooting action scenes.  Here is

Non-Action Scenario: Two or Three characters are walking somewhere or sitting on something, speaking their dialogue.  If they're walking, they stop and talk to each other in a shooting technique commonly known as "Shot; reverse shot".  Then, one character walks towards a window or a balcony and looks out it.

This lazyness made dialogue scenes in these films drag.

Then, to make things worse, some of the action scenes are so far overblown that they defy conventional belief and actually become like a video game no one can play.  The Droid Factory scene is a perfect example of this, as is the fight with General Grievous in Episode III.  But by far the finest example of this is the Mustafar fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan.  The fight is so long and over-amplified that it actually severs the audience's connection with the characters.  Anyone with a brain cell can figure that Anakin loses.  The fight could have been 4-5 minutes long, and shot on location at an active volcano in Italy or something.  But George got what he always wanted and reaped the Razzies for it.

For the next line of films, JJ Abrams must blend both the CGI and digital effects with actual camera work and actual live sets that don't need to have that many special effects.  Scenes need to be shot with their own unique flair and not to look like a soap opera being shot.  And shoot on location sometimes.  You don't need to create environments from your own imaginations, but create some that could exist in earth.

4. We don't need that many lightsabers.....

One of the things we loved about Star Wars was the lightsaber.  And yes, a decent amount of the lightsaber fights in the Prequel Trilogy were awesome.  But one of the subtleties of the Original Trilogy was the fact that the script and action scenes didn't always call for Luke to call out his lightsaber.  Luke only used his lightsaber in the following scenarios, and notice how all were necessary and needed for each situation:

1. Escaping from the Wampa
2. Cutting through the AT-AT
3. Fighting the specter of Darth Vader on Dagobah
4. Fighting Vader in Cloud City
5. Saving his friends on Jabba's Sail Barge
6. Deflecting the bolts of the speeder bike
7. Fighting Vader on the Second Death Star

There were several action scenes in the first trilogy where Luke could have used his lightsaber but didn't need to.  Such as:

1. Fighting the Thugs in the Cantina
2. Escaping from the Death Star
3. To fight off the monster that nearly ate R2-D2
4. Fighting off the Stormtroopers in Cloud City before his duel with Vader
5. Fighting the Rancor
6. To Fight The Emperor aboard the Second Death Star

In the Prequel Trilogies, here are the land-based action scenes that happen without the aid of a lightsaber:

1. The Podrace
2. The Arena Fight (before the Jedi showed up)
3. The Final Fight with General Grievous

In contrast, here are the scenes where they DO use the lightsaber:

1. When they hear an explosion in the first five minutes of Phantom Menace
2. Fighting droids in the ship
3. Fighting droids in the woods
4. Fighting droids in Theed
5. Qui-Gon fighting Darth Maul on Tatooine
6. Rescuing Naboo from the Trade Federation
7. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan vs Darth Maul
8. Killing the bugs sent to assassinate Padme
9. Cutting through the assassin's ship
10. Injuring the assassin in the bar
11. Yoda teaching the bad acting kids about lightsabers
12. Obi-Wan vs Jango on Kamino
13. When Obi-Wan noticed Jango flying away
14. Anakin slaughters Sand People
15. Anakin in the Droid Factory
16. The Battle of Geonosis
17. Anakin and Obi-Wan vs Count Dooku
18. Drug Addict Yoda vs Count Dooku
19. Fighting droids in Grievous's hanger
20. Obi-Wan almost kills Anakin in the elevator
21. See 17
22. Fighting Grievous's bodyguards in the Main Deck
23. Obi-Wan vs General Grievous
24. Anakin Threatens Palpatine
25. Palpatine vs Windu and the Jedi pussies (uh I mean Posse)
26. Windu deflects lightening at Palpatine
27. Anakin slices Mace's arm off
28. Obi-Wan's happy he got his lightsaber back before Order 66
29. Multiple scenes during Order 66
30. Yoda escapes Clone Troopers
31. Jedi fight clones in the temple
32. Darth Vader murders children
33. Kid fights clone troopers in Temple
33. Darth Vader murders the Separatist leaders
34. Obi-Wan and Yoda fight clones in the temple
35. Yoda vs Emperor
36. Vader vs Obi-Wan

See how many that was?  36!  Those scenes all didn't need to be there.

For the next saga, if you want to have a lightsaber duel, than you have to give us a reason to care about the fighting and not just to be blown away by how the effects and stunts are awesome.

5. Keep up the Star Power....

Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Harrison Ford, Billy Dee Williams, James Earl Jones, Peter Cushing, and Frank Oz are some of the major movie/TV/ radio stars that were cast to be in the Star Wars Saga.  And while some of them (SAMUEL) didn't exactly pan out, most of them were actually good efforts.  Liam Neeson was one of the best parts of The Phantom Menace, and Christopher Lee is the only thing worth seeing in Attack of the Clones.

For the next series, we should beef up the roster of stars in these movies while also developing our own actors.  Actor ideas for the next saga could include:

Orlando Bloom
Jennifer Lawrence
Megan Fox
John Rhys Davies
Anne Hathaway
Leonardo DiCaprio
Shia LeBouf (as much as I hate him...)
Joseph Gordon Levitt
Josh Hutcherson

among others.

6. Pay homage to the Original Trilogy...and forget the Prequel Trilogy...


I foresee a Star Wars Episode VII that will utilize some of the cool special effects of the Prequel Trilogy, but will fully capitalize on the dark and complex storylines covered in the Original Trilogy, which may very well be the greatest trilogy ever made.  Since the story will most likely have nothing to do with the "Expanded Universe", then the storyline will be the first Star Wars film to have it's own story since Return of the Jedi.  

But Disney cannot make this film in a way to just make money.  This is not your average cash cow.  Star Wars Episode VII is going to be the biggest gate draw for all of 2015.  And that's a year that will most likely see Kingdom Hearts III, Batman vs Superman, and The Avengers 2.

7. Do not "Disney-fy" Star Wars


There was one fear that everyone holds deep within their hearts: this poster.  Everyone is afraid that Disney is going to put their own touch on the film and hamper it with their marketing and demographics.  These films have the terrifying potential to be "child friendly" movies that limit the action in these movies and add musical scenes.

Luckily, The Avengers has quieted these doubters of this.  Disney didn't screw up the most sought after movie not named "Justice League".  So, there's reason to hope that Disney will let this film exist on it's own terms and keep their child friendly nonsense to the animation and Disney channel.

Film Review #78: The Incredibles

I always debate between what my three favorite Pixar movies are.  The first, as most of you know, is Toy Story 2.  The second and third places are much harder to place.  I often cannot choose between the absolutely praised and beloved Up and The Incredibles  This film is viewed by many as a subpar film, which has always astounded me.  I think this is not only some of Pixar's best work, but also the best in all of the history of animation.  I waited three and a half hours in line to see this film when it first came out and I was absolutely happy I did.  Not only did I see the first teaser trailers for Revenge of the Sith, but I saw what is still one of my all time favorite animated movies.  To be quite honest, had I left the theater after the opening scenes, I would have been pleasantly entertained enough with the day, even though I probably missed a marathon of "Spongebob", but I digress.

Plot: In the golden age of superheroes, heroes like Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson), Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson), and Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) defeat villains, save cats from trees, and stop robberies and all sorts of crime in the city.  But when the people around the world begin to sue the superheroes for their destructive and often disregard for both the law and the lives of innocent bystanders, the government decides to place all of the heroes in hiding, promising to give the heroes amnesty for their past actions in exchange for the promise to never again engage in superhero work.

15 years later, Bob Parr (Mr. Incredible) has married Helen Parr (Elastigirl) and the two have had three children: Dash, Violet and Jack Jack.  But Bob's craving for the old days forces the family to have to relocate often and he has to keep changing jobs to keep his family afloat in a world where his powers are still looked at as volatile.  When his actions cause him to get fired from yet another job, Bob is told he will no longer be taken care of by the government.  Just as Bob loses all hope, he is contacted by a mysterious woman named Mirage, who hires him to engage a powerful robot that has gone berserk in the jungles of a mysterious island, Mr. Incredible returns to the superhero line, getting paid exuberant amounts of money and getting back into fighting shape.

But not only does his family begin to catch on to what Bob's been doing, but Bob learns that he is just a pawn in the plan of a former fan of his, Buddy Pine, who has now become the "supervillain" Syndrome.  Syndrome has been wiping out the superheroes all around the US, planning to become the next leader of the next generation of superheroes, ultimately planning to sell his technology to people to make everyone super and in the process, making no one special.

What's Bad?: -_-

What's Good?: The Incredibles may cover a more relatable message than some of Pixar's earlier work.  The scenes with the family play out very much like normal families react.  The conversations the family has about school and life, the friction between Violet and Dash, seems really legit and reminded me a lot of dinnertime at my house.

Unlike DreamWorks, who was basically casting every major star they could find, from Will Smith to Dustin Hoffman, Pixar also cast this film fairly well, like they do most of their movies.  I don't ever picture Tom Hanks playing Woody or John Goodman playing Sulley, I picture Sulley and Woody.  The same can be said here.  I don't envision Craig T. Nelson or Holly Hunter as Mr. Incredible or Elastigirl, I see the characters.  Even acting great Samuel L. Jackson, the baddest mofo in Hollywood, as Frozone didn't seem like a call in to just read lines.  He is able to let loose and have fun in this to just be himself in a kids movie.  Beats the hell out of Mace Windu.

The single greatest thing about this movie is just one simple character: Edna Mode, the superhero clothing designer.  I don't even comprehend how hilarious this character is, but something about this role works really well.

Also, the score is also well written and well composed.  It ranges from a campy rendition of the old John Williams Superman score, to the dark and moody Danny Elfman Batman score.

Overall: This film should have been the first Pixar film to warrant a sequel after Toy Story.  It's a dark, yet highly comedic film that doesn't insult anyone's intellegence, something that the next film would have no problem doing....but more on that later....

Final Grade:   A+

Film Review #77: Finding Nemo

When I first saw the newspaper article saying that Finding Nemo had displaced The Lion King as the most successful animated film of all time, I was completely shocked.  Finding Nemo is a film that absolutely stunned moviegoers and captivated an entire generation of kids into wanting to be animators at Disney and Pixar.  It was critically acclaimed, every line was re-enacted, and every scene talked about.  For 2003, at least, Finding Nemo was the film to see for all ages.  So...is it bad to say I think it's kind of overrated?  Now before I get any backlash for this one, just hear me out.  By no means at all is Finding Nemo a bad movie, on the contrary.  This is still one of the best animated films of all time.  There are just a few specific things in this film that are way too overblown, way too overanalyzed and way too overemphasized.

Plot: Clown fish Coral and Marlin have an entire group of a thousand eggs to watch over underneath their anemone.  But when a barracuda tragically kills Coral and all but one of the eggs, Marlin decides to care for the lone survivor, calling him Nemo.  Nemo was not without injury, having a withered fin from the injuries he sustained.

As Nemo grows up, Marlin is an extremely overprotective father, who wants nothing to happen to his son, even reluctant to send him off to school.  One day, Nemo and his friends are playing in the sea when they come across a boat.  Nemo is dared into touching the boat and goes off to touch it, getting captured by a scuba diving dentist in the process.  Marlin desperately searches for his son, but loses sight of the boat.  In the commotion, Marlin meets Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a fish with short term memory loss.

Nemo finds himself in a fish tank that has a wide variety of characters, including the recluse fish named Gil (Willem Dafou), who tries to break the fish out and return to the ocean.  Now, he uses Nemo as a reason, as the dentist plans to give Nemo to his niece Darla, who shakes her fishes too hard in the baggy and often kills them.

Marlin and Dory travel throughout the ocean, encountering a gang of friendly yet hostile sharks, a colony of jellyfish, and a group of sea turtles swimming on the East Australian Current, while searching for Nemo.

What's Bad?: Finding Nemo is very much like a 1980's Don Bluth film, or a more recent comparison would be The Iron Giant or The Prince of Egypt.  The story often makes the audience sit through a near endless array of sorrow and emotional scenes, but always giving you a happy ending.  That, I have no problem with.  Each film also has the comic relief to keep the mood up and keeping it from an eternally gloomy mood.  Examples would include:

Tiger (Dom DeLuise) : An American Tail
Ducky and Spike (Judith Barsi): The Land Before Time
Lumiere and Cogsworth (Jerry Orbach and David Ogden Stiers): Beauty and the Beast
Timon and Pumbaa (Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella): The Lion King
Victor, Hugo, and Laverne (Charles Kimbrough, Jason Alexander, and Mary Wickes): The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hotep and Huy (Steve Martin and Martin Short): The Prince of Egypt
even R2-D2 and C-3PO in Star Wars.

Unfortunately, against the popular consensus, I cannot stand Ellen DeGeneres in this movie.  I felt she was really out of place in a lot of scenes and I didn't find her that funny.  I didn't even like her when I was a kid.  I thought she was annoying and overly blown out.  So, you can imagine my happiness regarding the plan to make a sequel with Dory as the lead.

I know how I like animated films that challenges the audiences, but this one may go a bit too far in some places.  For instance, the scene when Dory gets stung by the jellyfish and loses Marlin in the pack.  That scene was a scene I couldn't sit through as a kid until I was 12.  Another scene is the failed attempt to clog the tank filter, which almost gets Nemo killed.  The film could have used a bit of a lighter mood, but not Jar Jar duh I mean Dory annoying.

What's Good?: Like The Lion King or The Prince of Egypt, the movie is huge in both scope and visuals.  Some of the scenes of them just swimming in the ocean are just breathtaking to watch.  Like with The Little Mermaid you can see the amount of time and detail put into the animation of the ocean and each little light reflection in the water.  Also, the places they encounter and the people they see and the experiences they go on are also epic in scale.  You can clearly see that Pixar was still putting their effort into this movie.

Overall: I do like this one.  I wish that some of the other films got more recognition and made a bit more money, but Finding Nemo is still a marvelous film in it's own right.  It is still a unique and srong achievement in the art of animation, which was now clearly, Pixar's game.

Final Grade: A

Film Review #76: Monsters Inc.

Anyone who knows me knows that my sister and I never agree on anything  regarding pretty much anything.  Her and her friend Val know virtually every line of dialogue from this film.  This is my sister's all time favorite film not named Gone With the Wind.  As for me, I think Monsters Inc. is a very good film, but not the Holy Grail of Pixar animation.  It's a very amusing movie, and I liked it a lot more as a kid than as an adult.  But that's not to say there isn't anything good in it.  This is still one of the finest animated films ever made, despite my own personal flaws.

Plot: Mike and Sulley (Billy Crystal and John Goodman) live in the city of Monstropolis and work at Monsters Inc., a company where they scare children while they sleep in order to supply power to the entire monster world.  But the monsters also hide their own personal fears, specifically fear of the touch of a human child.  Sulley and Mike are the best team in the company, scaring every child in their path, thus making them incredibly popular.  Sulley is the favorite employee of CEO Watternoose, while Mike dates the secretary Celia.

But after an accidental mistake regarding paperwork brings Sulley into the path of a little girl he calls Boo, Sulley desperately tried to put the girl back in her room, but the girl has grown fond of him and follows him everywhere.  Eventually, the rest of the Monster World finds out about Boo and starts mass panicking in the city.  Sulley and Mike now need to bring Boo back into her closet, while also avoiding becoming too attached to the girl and also uncovering a secret plot about the company.

What's Bad?: Like how Doug Walker feels about Aladdin, I also feel the same way about this film.  It was one of my favorite films as a kid, but I have grown to appreciate the other Pixar films a bit more.  The film, while unique for Disney/Pixar, isn't really that special an idea.  There have been many different renditions of monsters living underneath beds or in closets, acting basically as if it's a 9-5 job.  Some have taken advantage of their source material, such as this and the Nickelodeon show "Aaahh Real Monsters!!!", then you have the bad ones like Little Monsters.  But by no means is this an original idea, and that is kind of disappointing.

What's Good?: This film is impeccably cast.  I don't usually go in depth about the cast of an animated movie, but I feel I have to with this one.  John Goodman is a fantastic Sulley, Jennifer Tilly is awesome as Celia, Steve Buscemi is a good villain in Randall, and while I'm not a big fan of Billy Crystal, he is pretty good in this movie.  It was the first time since Toy Story 2 that a Disney film gave me a strong and likable cast that was on par with DreamWorks films like The Prince of Egypt and Shrek.  I'll specifically praise John Goodman, who I've always believed was a fantastic actor who should always be in Disney Films.

The relationships between the characters is also genuine.  Whether it's between Sulley and Boo, Mike and Celia, Mike and Sulley, or even Sulley and Mr. Watternoose, the relationships seem very genuine, with no rhyme or reason to not believe that these characters wouldn't work in real life.

Again, the animation is wonderful.  It would take a very long time for Pixar to create a film with insulting aniation, but we'll get to those films later.

Overall: The good outweighs the bad for this film enough to make Monsters Inc. a pleasure to watch for all ages.  It may not be the best of Pixar's efforts, but it should certainly be held in the same regards with Pixar's better films.  It's definitely worth a watch, if you haven't seen it yet.

Final Grade: A-

Film Review #75: Toy Story 2

In the history of cinema, it isn't common for a sequel to be better than the original.  Of course, there are examples in which they are (The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Return of the King), but it is still fairly rare.  So, people were very curious when Pixar announced that their next film slated for release would be a sequel to Toy Story.  Would the film follow in the recent run of Disney Sequels (NOT going into that again), or would Pixar create a story that could stand the test of time and be in the same vein as The Empire Strikes Back?  To my surprise, and yours, not only is Toy Story 2 better than the first, not only is it the greatest Pixar film of them all, but it is also one of the greatest films of all time, period.  Why?  Well, lets look in and find out why...

Plot: Buzz and Woody, now best friends, enjoy their new trappings in Andy's new house.  But as Andy prepares to take Woody with him to cowboy camp, his favorite toy's arm slightly tears.  To make matters worse, after one of Andy's favorite toys accidentally gets taken for the yard sale, Woody is stranded in the yard when he falls off the family dog rescuing him.  The cowboy doll is plucked up by a collector and taken away.  Buzz decides to lead a rescue mission, along with Hamm, Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky.

When Woody arrives at Al's apartment, he comes across three other western toys, a cowgirl named Jessie, a prospector named Stinky Pete, and a giddy horse named Bullseye.  He also learns that he once had incredible fame in a famous children's show called "Woody's Roundup".  The toys, who are overjoyed to finally meet a Woody doll, have their own dream to be brought to a museum in Tokyo and immortalized for generations.  While Woody initially wants to return to Andy and his friends, he is confronted with a problem he hadn't thought of: eventually, Andy was going to grow up and not need him or any of his friends anymore.

When Buzz and the others arrive at Al's apartment, they are stunned to find out that Woody doesn't want to return.  Before leaving, Buzz tries to remind Woody of how good of a life he had with Andy, and if he'd be willing to throw that away, then what was the point of his existence.  Woody now has to choose between a life of being played with, or being in a museum forever.

What's Bad?: -_-

What's Good?: Every single aspect of this film is practical perfection.  I could spend nearly five or six pages talking in depth about how wonderful each aspect of this film is, but I'm going to try to keep it abridged.

The film's strongest aspect is the message that the moral gives us.  Life is not forever.  The greatest days of our lives do not last forever.  And yet, if your life is fun, you have to enjoy it.  Woody has an option to be immortalized in a museum, but chooses to remain with Andy.  He decides that his future doesn't matter, and that his life of watching Andy grow up is worth the emotional pain of realizing he isn't going to be a kid forever.

The music is extremely powerful.  I was stunned to learn that Randy Newman's greatest song, "When She Loved Me", did not win the Oscar for best song over "You'll Be In My Heart" from Tarzan.  The score is also pretty strong, ranging from the classic western films of the 40's and 50's, to the epic space operatic opening scene that could rival Star Wars.

The side characters are also hilarious and developed well.  Jessie (Joan Cusack), despite being extremely gung ho and cheerful, hides a dark and tragic past that has made her distrust people.  She once had a girl she loved, but lost her when she grew up.  Stinky Pete (Kelsey Grammer) who (SPOILERS) ends up being the villain, also has a reasonable motivation for not being sold and being confined to his box for most of his life.  We finally see what Evil Emperor Zurg looks like, and we even get a hilarious Buzz who also thought he was a real space ranger.

Woody and Buzz's friendship is still believable, despite them not sharing as much screen time as they did in the first film.

The animation is even better than in the first film.  The film takes us to new worlds and levels of animation depth, particularly with the human characters.  Though the people would not reach perfection until The Incredibles, the animation in this film is most certainly a step forward.

Overall: This is one of 5 (or six if you count Roger Rabbit) animated films that cracked my Top 20 All Time Favorite films list and for good reason.  The film is an amazing undertaking that challenges the heartstrings and the depths of the medium and the technology.  There is no Pixar film that has matched the wonderful depth and power of this film.

Final Grade:    A++

Film Review #74: A Bug's Life

After the smash release of Toy Story, Pixar immediately went to work on their second feature, A Bug's Life.  Innocent enough, until a certain unhappy former Disney Exec decided to create his own animated movie about bugs, ants specifically.  It should come as a surprise to no one that most of DreamWork's first few films were a bit similar to past Disney and Pixar efforts, considering Jeffery Katzenberg was the one who greenlit most of the movies to begin with.  And while Antz is not too superior a film when compared to A Bug's Life, the differing styles of both films would set in stone the future of both animation giants as they would rise to depose Disney as the heads of the animation world.  While one utilized more adult themes and more well-known actors (Woody Allen, Gene Hackman, Sylvester Stallone, Christopher Walken), the other was centered more around family friendly adventures and fun colors.

Plot: A large colony of ants needs to build up their food stock as an offering to the local grasshoppers for their "protection".  But one ant, a quirky inventor named Flik, decides to spend his time inventing ways to maximize production over simply doing what the others do.  When one of his inventions accidentally knocks all of their food for the offering into the water, the grasshoppers threaten to take all of the food on the island.  Flik decides to go off in search of bigger bugs to help rid the colony of grasshoppers for good.

Upon finding more bugs, Fllik hopes that they will be able to help him.  But the new bugs come with a catch: their not warriors, but circus bugs.  Flik needs to not only convince the bugs to be strong and fight, but also prevent his colony from learning the truth themselves.

What's Bad?: The film, like I mentioned above, is geared more towards children than Antz.  The film isn't as groundbreaking as Toy Story was, and it seemed to gear itself to being a simple children's story.  And while that isn't entirely bad, I expected a film up to par with Toy Story.

The main cast of bugs, particularly the ants, aren't that interesting.  Only Flik and the royal family are fleshed out and receive proper character development.  Maybe, in the long run, this flaw helps the film out, but more on that in the next segment.

What's Good?: The supporting cast is where the story's strong points are.  The grasshoppers are nearly as amusing as the hyenas from The Lion King, while Kevin Spacey is in yet another great villain role as the main grasshopper.  But I really like the circus bugs.  My particular favorite is the obese caterpillar that has a hilarious German accent.

The animation is also pretty damn impressive.  The amount of scope and detail that they give each scene, particularly the opening of the film.  In most non-fairy tale animated films, the opening scene is used to often showoff the skills of the animators and set the tone for the story.  For instance, "Circle of Life" in The Lion King, or the opening scene of The Prince of Egypt.  This film does not waste time bringing us into the world of the ant colony, but it also reminds us that there are people in this world, often cutting to show that the bug bar in the city is really inside an empty can of soup.  That's clever.

Overall: A Bug's Life, despite being geared a bit more towards children than Toy Story and most of the succeeding films would be, is still a very good film.  And it wasn't one of the Pixar films that was heavily marketed into the ground.  It's a pretty food film with a pretty good cast and a pretty good story.  Some things are just better than others.  And, in a year where the scale of animation began to tip away from Disney and lean towards Pixar and DreamWorks, A Bug's Life kept the scale leaning away from Disney and preparing a bright future for the small computer company called Pixar.

Final Grade: A-

Film Review #73: Toy Story

Pixar.  There really is no set amount of words that can describe how brilliant and excellent their movies are.  In a time when Disney was basically the only market for animated films (unless you liked A Troll in Central Park), Pixar rose from practically nowhere and became not only the dominant kings of animation technology, but also the dominant force in telling wonderfully engaging stories with great characters and fascinating stories and plot points.  And, much like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs impact on audiences in 1937, their first film release in 1995 brought about a shift in the paradigm of movie entertainment.  Toy Story is a spectacular movie that I've seen probably as many times as The Lion King or Aladdin.  So, I know this film pretty damn well.  The characters, the story, and the breathtaking realism of the animation still amazes audiences to this day, although some of the animation of the human characters is a bit dated.

Plot: In the bedroom of a boy named Andy, the toys are played with in a wide variety of roles.  But when Andy leaves the room, his toys come to life and begin to interact with each other like people in an office.  The toys are led by a cowboy doll named Woody (Tom Hanks), who is Andy's favorite toy.  But when Andy's birthday comes along, the other toys begin to worry about being replaced.  But the only toy who is replaced in the eyes of Andy is Woody, who is supplanted as the favorite toy by the world's coolest action figure, a space ranger named Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen).

Woody constantly tries to regain his reign as the leader of the toys, but Buzz's popularity begins to grow even stronger, making him incredibly jealous.  When one of Woody's pranks on Buzz goes too far and accidentally knocks him out the window, Woody is ostracized by his friends, prompting the cowboy to go off and find Buzz.  But it turns out that Buzz thinks he's actually a real space ranger who has crash landed on earth while on a mission.  To make matters worse, the toys are mistakenly left behind at a gas station when Andy and his mom go to a pizzeria called Pizza Planet.

When Buzz and Woody arrive, both are unfortunately captured by Andy's psychotic neighbor Sid, who likes to blow up toys for fun.  The two are taken back to Sid's house.  When Buzz finally learns the truth, he takes it horribly.  So it's up to Woody to find a way to make Buzz happy about being a toy, while also finding a way back to Andy before they become craters in Sid's backyard.

What's Bad?: The only flaw is what I mentioned above.  The animation of the people is a bit dated and not that good, but you have to give Pixar a ton of credit.  Not only was this the first ever completely computer animated film in history, but the film is also nearing it's 20th birthday.  Naturally, the technology is only going to get better.

What's Good?: What Pixar did right was one of the key elements that Disney failed on in Pocahontas earlier that year.  The relationships between the main characters is very strong.  Buzz is a deluded toy who thinks he's an actual space ranger.  One of the funniest scenes in the movie is when Woody opens Buzz's air helmet and Buzz think's he's going to choke to death.  As for Woody, he is a cocky yet lovable leader of the toys.  Put the two together, and you have some of the funniest banter and one of the strongest friendships in cinematic history.

While I'm no huge Randy Newman fan, these songs are just so good that I cannot find myself hating any of them.  The songs and score are so well known at this point that there is no point in going on any further.

While we had only seen CGI in films like The Rescuers Down Under and Aladdin before this, the total CGI environment that is created by Pixar's computer engineers and animators is just so beautiful that it still boggles my mind even when I first unwrapped the film for Christmas in 1996.

Overall: Toy Story is an absolute gem and a must have for any fan of film or practically any fan in general.  In fact, I own this film on VHS, DVD, and Blu Ray disc and am looking forward to buying it on another media form in the future.  Everything in this film is sheer brilliance and needs to be kept in the minds of any and all fans forever more.

Final Grade:       A+

Film Review #72: The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

Mercifully, the Disney Sequel nightmare is over.  There will be no more of these nightmares haunting my dreams anymore.  This has been an especially strenuous time for me, with both familial and outside issues preventing me from working on this site much (a friend was posting most of the Kingdom Hearts stuff), and with so many horrid films to watch, I needed some time to relax.  Luckily, the last of these wretched Disney Sequels isn't as bad as it could have been.  Nevertheless, the film is severely weaker than the original, as several missed opportunities could have made this film work.

Plot: After the tragic death of Queen Athena, King Triton outlaws music in his kingdom, as it reminded him too much of his wife.  Naturally, Ariel doesn't seem to like listening to this rule and goes out to try and recall what drove music out of Atlantica.  After encountering an underground music bar, where her father's advisor Sebastian plays at, Ariel instantly falls in love with the medium and invites her sisters to come along.

This angers the mermaid's governess, Marina, who schemes to dethrone Sebastian as Triton's majordomo and keep the kingdom free of all of this music.

What's Bad?: Marina is one of the weaker Disney Villains.  I believe that the only villain that could have worked here, if the story required one, was Ursula.  It would give Ursula rhyme and reason to hate Triton for banishing her, and it would give her reason to target Ariel as revenge.  But what we got was an underdeveloped and uninteresting subplot villain.

What's Good?: Pretty much everything else is pretty spot on.  We get an in depth look at why Triton hates humans and it also gives him a fair reason to ban music from his kingdom.

Ariel is still a good character and the rest of the cast is also pretty decent.

Overall: Despite striking out badly with the villain, the film manages to be a worthy sequel to one of the most cherished Disney films of all time (unlike that other abomination).  It's not complex and there's really no serious perfection in it, but the film is not as disgusting to watch as other films can be.  Passable.

Final Grade: C+

PIXAR'S UP NEXT BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Film Review #71: Cinderella 3: A Twist in Time

Of all of the Disney Sequels, no film had a dumber premise than this.  Not a single film.  Cinderella's wicked stepmother gets a hold of the Fairy Godmother's wand and manages to change time so that the slipper fit Anastasia's shoe and ruined Cinderella's happily ever after.  I'm not even kidding about that either.  This is the plot to Cinderella III.  And yet, something happened.  I don't know what it really was, but something happened that
made this film tolerable.  Something, but I don't know what...

Plot: It's been a whole year since Cinderella and the Prince married.  And while Cinderella enjoys the life of a princess, Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine are forced to take on the duties of their stepsister.  After Anastasia sneaks away to spy on Cinderella, she finds the Fairy Godmother's magic wand and brings it to Lady Tremaine.  The wicked stepmother then hatches an elaborate scheme to turn back the time to the day the Duke came to fit the glass slipper on the Tremaine sisters.  By using her magic to make the slipper fit Anastasia and subseqeuntly shattering the glass slipper Cinderella had held on to, Lady Tremaine and her daughters are whisked away to the King's castle in her place.  Cinderella decides to take it upon herself to fix this and goes to the castle to find out the truth, along with her two mice friends.

The Prince is at first reluctant to marry Anastasia, but the girl finds a quick friend in the King, who tells her of the first time he fell in love.  This makes Anastasia's conscience uneasy, while Cinderella is captured and exiled to a faraway land after she learns the truth of her stepmother's evil act.

What's Bad?: He may not be as bad as he was in the original, but the Prince in this film is fairly boring and uninteresting.  We don't really care for his happiness, but the happiness of both Anastasia and Cinderella.

What's Good?: Like in the first sequel and with Iago in the Aladdin sequels, Anastasia is one of the few Disney Villain sidekicks that actually gets depth and a character arc.  We actually get to see a side character with a storyline and a dream of her own, and not just recycling storylines and jokes from the original.

But the film's strong point is not Anastasia, but Cinderella herself.  Somehow, in an act of redemption, Cinderella's character receives proper fleshing out and the film begins to write the wrongs about the original, such as Cinderella's extremely passive attitude about most things and her reactive role over the active role in more modern Disney Fairy Tales.  HEre, Cinderella actually has to save herself and make her own decisions throughout the movie that somewhat makes up for her weakness in the original.

Lady Tremaine remains as bitchy and evil as ever.

Overall: Cinderella III is a film that should have fallen flat on it's face and failed as miserably as the other pitiful sequels I've reviewed on here.  But the film manages to follow Brother Bear 2 and build up on the weaknesses of the original and turn it around to be an advantage for the film.

Final Grade:    B

Film Review# 70: The Fox and the Hound 2

Now imagine a film that completely shits upon whatever made the original flick any good.  The Fox and the Hound was among the darkest and most emotionally moving Disney Films made prior to the renaissance and was the most powerful film in the era from 1970-1985.  This film does the original no justice whatsoever, simply acting as a cheap tie in that is as cripplingly awful as the message any fan of the original adds.

Plot:  Tod and Copper decide to pay a local county fair a visit.  One of the main attractions is a group of singing dogs.  But when one of the lead dogs leaves the show, Copper is allowed to show off his singing chops, and is offered an opportunity to sing, so long as he acts like a stray.  Being shunned by his best friend doesn't sit well with either the dog that left (Reba) and Tod, so the two hatch a plan to reunite the friends and get Copper out of the band.

What's Bad?: I could go in depth about the things that are wrong with this movie, but compared to the ultimate reason why this film is awful, this is a moot point.  No matter how you look at this film, it is a midquel.  Therefore, the film needs to take place between two specific parts in the original film.  In this case, this probably takes place between the chase between the hunter and Tod when he was a kit, and Copper's departure for the hunting trip.  Any way you look at it, the film still ends with their friendship being torn apart by society,  The only way a sequel could work for this film is if it were an actual sequel.  No midquel could have possibly been effective at all.

While I'm no big fan of country music to begin with, the absolute focus on country music by the musical score and songs is mildly annoying.

None of the new characters add any depth.  This is where one of the older characters, like Big Mama, would have worked.  Obviously, Pearl Bailey would not have reprised her role, but the film needed something to counteract the dull and boring aspects about the other band members.

What's Good?: There is no law ordering you to buy this...yet.

Overall: The film is a weak interpretation of what the original film offered.  Nothing works, nothing is reasonably tolerable, and the film still ends with the audience knowing that society would tear the Fox and Hound apart once more.  Awful.

Final Grade: F

Film Review #69: Brother Bear 2

Imagine, if you will, a film that actually improves vastly on the weaknesses of the original.  As most of you know, I found the first Brother Bear to be a fairly weak film that offered little outside of cheap laughs for the kids and yet another chapter of "what could have been great..." which was being written by Disney Animation in the early 2000's.  So, with good reason, I had little to no expectations for the sequel.  That actually helped this film out to an extraoridnary degree, as the film would probably have been pretty poor had I liked the original.  By no means whatsoever is Brother Bear 2 a great film by Disney's standards.  But it is still a good children's film that may even get a bit of a laugh from the adults who had to shell out the money for it.

Plot: Kenai's best friend as a child, Nita, has grown up into a young woman ready to marry her fiance.  But due to an Eskimo ritual that bonds people together, Nita cannot marry her fiance until she and Kenai both burn a totem pole that bonded them as children.  As most would expect, the two do begin to fall in love once more as they journey out.  Also, his jealousy in full bloom, Koda worries that if Kenai were to choose Nita over him, he would become human once more to be with her.  But the bear cub shows a surprising amount of adult mind by asking his mother to make his brother human once more to let him be happy.

What's Bad?: Naturally, as I barely tolerated the moose boys in the first film, their presence in this film is a bit annoying.  But beyond them, the film is fairly well balanced.

What's Good?: The relationships between the three main characters, Kenai, Nita, and Koda, are fairly well fleshed out.  You can actually see the chemistry between Kenai and Nita, while you can also feel pity for Koda, who has already lost his mother, and may also lose his best friend/ adopted brother.  The brotherly love between both Kenai and Koda is also pretty strong, both showing absolute devotion to the other and is eager to make the other one happy.

Overall: Brother Bear 2 is a surprisingly effective film.  It manages to improve upon some of the issues I had with the other film, and despite some of the flaws returning, they don't detract from the main story and manage to give kids a reason to laugh in the movie.

Final Grade:  B-

Film Review #68: Bambi 2

Often, a person can be surprised by what a film can offer you.  I was afraid to see this film, mostly because of how poorly Walt's films that got sequels had been treated.  Despite being a fairly boring film, Bambi II may be one of the finer efforts of the Disney Toon studios.  I daresay it is one of the finer Disney Sequel efforts, including Aladdin and the King of Thieves and The Lion King II.

Plot: After the tragic death of his mother, Bambi is forced to live with his father, The Great Prince, who isn't too keen on the idea either.  All Bambi attempts to do throughout the movie is to earn the respect and love of his estranged father, while the father does the best he can while running both the forest and his young son.

What's Bad?: The only thing I can find that I wasn't too fond of in the movie, was the way the film dealt with the death of Bambi's mom.  I guess it's due to the adult measures The Lion King took to dealing with the death of Mufasa, but two of my close friends lost both of their parents not too long ago and both are still devastated by the loss.  The fact that Bambi was quick to recover after such a shocking turn in his life was a bit of a shock to me, considering how well the rest of the film was written.

Another nitpick for me would be about how boring the film was.  If this was the fate that the original film would have been if it had been longer, than I recant my previous statement regarding Bambi's short length.

What's Good?: Everybody wishes they could have a relationship with their father that rivaled Mufasa and Simba's.  But often, our father-child relationships tend to be more like Triton and Ariel, or more commonly, Bambi and The Great Prince.  All the children want to do is win their father's approval and praise, but the father has a good deal of things to worry about outside of you and your achievements.  Nevertheless, this film is the rare sequel that picks up on a serious flaw of the original, that being the relationship between Bambi and his father.  If the original film was supposed to be about Bambi's life, than his relationship with his mother AND father are fairly important.  Instead, the film glossed over the mother's death and basically moved right into Bambi's adulthood.

The animation is also fairly strong.  Considering the shoestring budgets these films usually run on, this is a fairly surprising trait the film has.

Overall: The film, while still no where near matching the quality of the first film, still manages to capture a reasonably sized fraction of it's moral values, while also adding onto what was already a storied film.  It is as good as these awful Disney Sequels are going to get.

Final Grade:  B

Rant of the Month: Disney's Classic/Masterpiece/ Platinum/ Diamond editions

Happy April everybody.  SimbaKing94 here to give you guys my first true rant of 2014.  I haven't done one of these in a long time, but I feel I have no choice on this matter.  Here we are, five months since Frozen began shattering box office records for Disney and the signs that a second Disney Renaissance seem to be treading strong.  But herein lies a fairly pertinent question: undoubtedly, the popularity of films like Tangled and Frozen will almost certainly garner them recognition in Disney's next major line of releases.  After all, up until the Platinum Edition line began in 2001 with the DVD release of Snow White, each subsequent collection was added to by major releases coming out of theaters at the time.  For instance, The Little Mermaid first came out in the Walt Disney Classics line in 1990, less than five months after it's theatrical debut.  The Classics Collection would also add The Rescuers Down Under, The Great Mouse Detective, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.  The Masterpiece line would eventually add these post 1981 Disney films:
The Lion King, Pocahontas, Oliver and Company, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, The Black Cauldron, and Mulan. 

But, as we all know, after the turn of the millennium, the animation department hit a skid.  Therefore, in order to capitalize on the anniversaries of these up and coming releases, Disney split both the Classics collection and Masterpiece collection into two groups.  The first was the Gold Classics Collection, which released several of their films, like Alice in Wonderland, The Aristocats, and Pocahontas to DVD and would keep these films available until a more updated version was released when the film reached a specific milestone.

The second line was the Platinum Editions, the company's more elite films.  But the studio didn't really define what made a film elite.  Therefore, Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty each received their own special releases and a slot in the Platinum Edition line.  In case you don't know, here is the order of releases in the Platinum Editions Line:

Fall 2001: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Fall 2002: Beauty and the Beast
Fall 2003: The Lion King
Fall 2004: Aladdin
Spring 2005: Bambi
Fall 2005: Cinderella
Spring 2006: Lady and the Tramp
Fall 2006: The Little Mermaid
Spring 2007: Peter Pan
Fall 2007: The Jungle Book
Spring 2008: 101 Dalmatians
Fall 2008: Sleeping Beauty
Spring 2009: Pinocchio

Herein lies the first problem.  Disney, who once promised a seven to ten year release pattern, went against their word and released several films (specifically Peter Pan), more than 5 times to video and DVD (1990, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2013), while a film like Aladdin has only received 2 releases since it's 1992 debut (1993, 2004).

Here is what the order should have been:

Spring 2001: Fantasia
Fall 2001: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Spring 2002: Aladdin
Fall 2002: Beauty and the Beast
Spring 2003: Peter Pan
Fall 2003: Cinderella
Spring 2004: Sleeping Beauty
Fall 2004: The Lion King
Spring 2005: Lady and the Tramp
Fall 2005: Pinocchio
Spring 2006: 101 Dalmatians
Fall 2006: The Little Mermaid
Spring 2007: Bambi
Fall 2007: The Jungle Book

Then, in 2008, you could begin the Diamond Editions, even allowing some to enjoy anniversaries:

Spring 2008: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Fall 2008: Sleeping Beauty
Spring 2009: Fantasia
Fall 2009: Beauty and the Beast
Spring 2010: Peter Pan 
Fall 2010: Cinderella
Spring 2011: Lady and the Tramp
Fall 2011: The Lion King
Spring 2012: Bambi
Fall 2012: Aladdin
Spring 2013: 101 Dalmatians
Fall 2013: Pinocchio
Spring 2014: The Jungle Book
Fall 2014: The Little Mermaid

After this can be done, the second problem comes in.  This list was created under the context that Disney wouldn't release another film worthy of these films.  Unfortunately o(r fortunately for us) Disney made two films worthy of addition to the line: Frozen and either Tangled or The Princess and the Frog.

This complicates things, especially if you want to remain loyal to all of these films.  Here are a few steps you can do to solve this:

1. Drop films from the list that are borderline classics- I think we can all agree on films that need to be on this list.  Films like Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast just to name a few.  But that does not mean that all films need to be in this list.  For instance, considering that the company re-releases Peter Pan every five years on average, take it off this list and let be a semi-general release.  Release it every few years, but do not hold it in the same regards as the others

2. Define the Word "Classics": The "entertained audiences" excuse has worn out it's welcome.  You need to strictly define the word Classics.  Does it mean critical praise?  Does it mean box office success?  Does it mean fan praise (since when has Disney cared about that?)?  Audiences continue to grow more diverse each year.  More seem to be drawn to films like Frozen and The Lion King over films like Bambi or 101 Dalmatians.  You need to be specific as to what constitutes a film like this...

3. Split the groups up again: The Classics films all seem to take a split in one specific area: between The Jungle Book and The Little Mermaid.  No film is in the Platinum Edition line or Diamond Edition line that was released between 1968 and 1988.  Therefore, you can split them into two more collections:

The Golden Age Editions:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Fantasia
Bambi
Cinderella
Sleeping Beauty
The Jungle Book
Lady and the Tramp
Peter Pan

The Renaissance Editions:

The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Frozen
Tangled
The Princess and the Frog
Tarzan

If you split the collections up, then release one from each line each year, none of the films will sit in the moratorium for too long, and you can get away with adding several newer titles into the line.  As for 101 Dalmatians, a film missing from the older list, you could re-release it every few years or alternate that with Peter Pan or something.  To sum up, we need to get films to be available in the 6-9 year range, and keep Peter Pan out of the 3-6 year line and Aladdin out of the 10-12 year line.