Do you think they should've killed Chief? - The Fox and the Hound (1981) Discussion

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] elizabeth_author 16 years ago

I see people's point but actually I think it works just as well without him dying, as far as motivation for Copper and the hunter goes. Almost losing someone you care about can produce just as much anger as actually losing them. Possibly more actually, because if they did die then the anger may be overshadowed by your grief, at least initially, and a brief but poweful shock of fear can be a very big motivator. Furthermore the relief at realising you're not going to lose them can lead directly to the anger, because you still have adrenalin pumping and you need to find somewhere to direct it.

reply

[–] JaffaCakes 13 years ago

Disagree. He should've died. However, I cannot see why Copper should hate Todd for what happened. Especially, as it wasn't entirely his fault.

reply

[–] dixiedarlin86 13 years ago

While I do agree that Copper blamed Todd for the accident, I think it was more of him blaming himself and using Todd as an outlet for his anger. He was the one that let Todd escape and if he hadn't done so then Chief wouldn't have gotten hurt. I don't know about anyone else, but I know I would feel guilty if I were in Copper's place. So he (wrongly) uses Todd as an easy scapegoat and takes his anger out on him instead of just coming to terms with it. What's done is done, as they say. This is what happens when you have a conflict of interests (good hunter vs. good friend).

reply

[–] TheHiawatha 11 years ago

Well said. I think for Copper, he wanted to bring closure to it and try to heal his own guilt after that incident. And so, because of letting Todd go, catching and killing Todd was the way for him to bring it to an end and to make him feel like he made up for his role in Chief's near-death and severe leg injury.

reply

[–] sahandc3-1 11 years ago

Actually, that's a great point. I still kinda think he should have died but after reading this I feel more satisfied with the film. But they probably should have made the injuries more significant. Maybe make it so that he could never be a hunting dog ever again, somehow.

I still think they should have developed the friendship more. They could have had a quick montage and it would have been fine. The entire film is based around their early friendship so the fact that it was underdeveloped really hurts it.

reply

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

I used to like the fact that Chief survives the fall, but now I'm not so sure. Chief doesn't really doing anything useful for the rest of the film except make wisecracks; even without knowledge of the film's production, it should be painfully obvious that Chief was originally supposed to be killed off--because his remaining scenes are weak at best.

The only valid reason to keep Chief alive at the end is perhaps to keep the ending from seeming too overwhelmingly bleak. Tod gets a girl, after all, so it's only fair that Copper gets to keep his only remaining friend.

Still, had they killed off Chief, it definitely would have made Copper's rage (as well as Amos') much more understandable and something to empathize with.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

reply

[–] number1212 14 years ago

I watched this movie a while ago and I agree. Chief should have died.

reply

[–] MetFanMac 14 years ago

Agreed. This is one of the most blatant cases of Disney "wimping out".

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

[–] PopSixSquish 14 years ago

Oh, gosh...since Chief is my favorite character, a substantial part of me is very happy that they didn't let him perish. I mean, I've always loved his convalescence scene. However, I can't deny that having him die would've packed quite the emotional punch and been very effective.

Just the same, I agree with Elizabeth_author and find the film perfect as it is. :)

reply

[–] Naylie 14 years ago

Since Chief does die in the original book, I wouldn't go too hard if Disney wanted to do it their way. They're always changing depressing things from the stories into almost near-death experiences.

reply

[–] jvfunn1 14 years ago

No. I would of cried if Chief died. He was my favorite character and I don't think Pat Buttram would of liked it if Chief would of died because he said in an interview that Chief and the Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood (1973) were his favorite characters that he voiced for Disney.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FrankBooth_DeLarge 13 years ago

If he died it would have improved the last third of the movie. For one thing it's unrealistic that Chief would survive being hit by a train and hitting his head on the rocks while falling. Amos and Copper would have had a better reason to be mad at Tod and Amos's decision to let Tod live after the bear fight would have been even more powerful. I still like this movie and think the final chase is one of Disney's most primally charged and intense scenes they've ever done, but having Chief die would have made the movie better.

My DVDs

http://www.imdb.com/list/HO8r9yJirPA/

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Taran_Wanderer_2 13 years ago

Chief should have died. It is the only way that the rivalry between Tod and Copper following his accident could have been believable. Neither Amos Slade nor Copper seem very troubled about Chief's injury, so why the hate on Tod? Makes absolutely no sense.

Comparing Chief to Trusty is also ridiculous. Trusty was a lovable, friendly character whereas Chief is a hateful and ruthless antagonist. There's no comparison.

The friendship between Tod and Copper never evolved much and was hard to accept as believable, their rivalry is even more artificial and forced. Luckily, the writers did a good job capturing the essence of tenderness between Tod and the Widow Tweed.

We must remember that this was the movie that launched Disney's "sloppy '80s" in which their movies suffered from very poor writing. No doubt "The Fox and the Hound" and "The Great Mouse Detective" were the worst of the worst in terms of writing (and "The Fox and the Hound" also has the worst human animation I've ever seen in a Disney film)

http://www.petitiononline.com/drescuer/petition.html Sign petition, save The Rescuers!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IceboxMovies 13 years ago

We must remember that this was the movie that launched Disney's "sloppy '80s" in which their movies suffered from very poor writing. No doubt "The Fox and the Hound" and "The Great Mouse Detective" were the worst of the worst in terms of writing (and "The Fox and the Hound" also has the worst human animation I've ever seen in a Disney film)

Ehrrmm... beginning in the 60's, Disney was already suffering from poor writing/animation! You think 101 Dalmatians, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron and Oliver & Company are worthy of the studio's finest!?? Hardly.

I mean, I would argue that The Fox and the Hound is far more complex than any of those films. It's made with a real sense of anger, passion and a worldview wholly aware of the evils of the world - specifically, racism. True, Chief's fake-death compromises its power, but there sure is a hell lot more going on in this story than, say, The Aristocats or Robin Hood.

I'd put in a good word for The Great Mouse Detective, too, because Basil and Rattigan make for one of the most fascinating hero/villain contrasts in Disney's history.

In short: The Fox and the Hound and The Great Mouse Detective are the two best movies Disney had to offer in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wrinkledlion 12 years ago

Ehrrmm... beginning in the 60's, Disney was already suffering from poor writing/animation! You think 101 Dalmatians, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron and Oliver & Company are worthy of the studio's finest!?? Hardly.

I would certainly argue in favor of Dalmatians. You can't possibly lump that in with The Black Cauldron unless it's been ages since you saw both.

But yes, I definitely think Chief should have died. Watching it for the first time, I thought he did die, and was confused when I saw him alive again a few scenes later. Quite simply, a broken leg isn't that bad—and his comedic moments afterward are really out of step with what's happening in the rest of the movie. Everyone around him is acting as if he's dead, and it doesn't feel real when we see his post-"death" scenes. It's like he's a ghost or something, and nobody else can see that he's there.

reply