MovieChat Forums > The Fox and the Hound (1981) Discussion > Was it really necessary for Don Bluth/Ga...

Was it really necessary for Don Bluth/Gary Goldman to quit this movie?

posted 14 years ago by IceboxMovies
14 replies | jump to latest

Look, I understand perfectly why Bluth and Goldman left Disney; they had every reason to believe that it was not the studio it used to be. As great a filmmaker as Wolfgang Reitherman was, there is no doubt about it that he was also a bit of a corner-cutter: he had a bad habit of recycling the same sequences he had used in previous Disney films. Even though I like The Rescuers and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (both of which Bluth & Goldman worked on) and they were slight returns to form for the studio in the late 1970's, well... they weren't exactly A-class films. They could hardly make up for minor efforts like The Aristocats and Robin Hood, which kind of represented Disney when it was at its nadir. Reitherman is to blame for that.

Still, was it really all that wise for Bluth and Goldman to stage their walkout... on THIS film? I don't think so. Even though it wasn't recognized as such at the time, I will say this: The Fox and the Hound is a masterpiece. There is no reason why Bluth and Goldman should have felt the need to break away from the studio and form their own company on this film, of all films; it definitely was not the kind of "stale" movie (like The Aristocats) that Bluth/Goldman were accusing Disney of having resorted to. Had they remained on the production, I can't help but wonder if The Fox and the Hound would be even better than it already is.

And even though Bluth and Goldman had a fine independent career of their own, particularly with The Secret of Nimh (their first), I'd be hard-pressed to declare that they succeeded in their efforts to make Disney look inferior. If you compare the two films, The Secret of Nimh truly does have some dazzling images and likable heroes/villains--but The Fox and the Hound has such a uniquely objective point of view towards it characters and makes such great use of silence that I consider it a better film.

Not that I don't understand why Bluth and Goldman wanted to break away from Disney. If I'm correct, The Black Cauldron came out after this film, and that movie is certainly identical to Bluth and Goldman's criticism of what Disney was becoming at the time. But The Fox and the Hound? Not so much.

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

[–] CosmosX9 14 years ago

This is VERY true...

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CosmosX9 14 years ago

I don't think "ALL" of his 90's features were bad. The only two that were "bad", in my opinion, were "Thumbelina" and "A Troll in Central Park" ("Bartok the Magnificent" was okay).

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dogsoldier_spoon-1 14 years ago

I think a lot of things happened that we didn't hear about.

Bluth's films really are not that bad (or perhaps they don't seem too bad as they bring back childhood memories).

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Severedevil 14 years ago

Bluth might've gotten annoyed at the same thing that annoys me in this film - the threat of Amos and Chief is undercut by the slapstick chase scenes when Todd is young.

That said, I love The Fox and the Hound. I feel like Disney is far more confident presented adventure, peril, and similar mature themes with animal characters than with humans.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PopSixSquish 13 years ago

I do agree...although I love The Aristocats, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and The Black Cauldron, and think Robin Hood is pretty good, despite it probably being my least favorite of the classic Disney films.

I also adore The Secret of NIMH and almost all of Don Bluth's films, especially All Dogs Go to Heaven. However, I feel that a lot of the criticism that was aimed at some of the less-popular Disney movies was unwarranted. (And yes, I do understand that criticism doesn't always translate as hatred. It can be "done out of love," or a wish for something to be as good as it possibly could be--and honestly, I think that almost all of the classic Disney's works fit that bill...) Some may have come out better than others, sure, but in my opinion they are all great films, worthy of the terms "classic," and even "masterpiece" (for some, anyway, depending upon one's individual perspective.) They are the types of movies that should be watched indefinitely into the future and seen by every generation, because it's clearly becoming more and more challenging for any studio to achieve those standards again (even though Disney still reigns king.) I would, however, say the same of most or all Bluth/Goldman movies--so while The Fox and the Hound was NOT the optimal choice on which they should have walked out if they were determined to go their own way and make a statement, I don't regard their leaving as a tragedy...or at least, great things did wind up emerging because of it. One CAN only wonder, indeed, what else might have been...but, The Fox and the Hound is outstanding just as it is. That one thing is for certain.

[–] JaffaCakes 13 years ago

Sometimes, people just can't get along. That's just it. When you've achieved everything you've wanted to achieve, you probably feel it's time to move on and grow. Disney wasn't immune to internal infighting.

[–] thereseuphemiaabernathy 13 years ago

Yes, that's unfortunately what it probably boils down to...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]