How dare you, sir? The Rescuers > The Rescuers Down Under

Are you kidding? The first Rescuers was a cheap, half-assed production with a lame story - the only thing it has in common with the sequel are the main characters.

I haven't seen them in years, but when I was a kid I seem to remember liking the first one better.

Wasn't the Rescuers the movie that finally pushed Don Bluth and fellow animators to walk out? I like the second film better but I like them both.

Yeah, if you're recalling it through the haze of nostalgia, you're not going to recall it too objectively. I guess it's not bad, but it does have very poor production values and recycles animation from old Disney cartoons.

Lady and the Tramp: HELL yes.

Fox and the Hound: I don't care if it includes the sequel (just please don't screw up the box art with two images and a line down the middle or something stupid like that), you know the price will be cheap as hell release week, just like all of the Disney Blus.

The only classics that I don't have that I really want are Robin Hood, Lion King, and Little Mermaid. And of course, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.

Completely agree. One of my favorite Disney movies.

That would be an instant pre-order!

Same Here!

The art will probably be close to what they're using for the promo image.

But don't you think it could be cheaper without the sequel? If having the sequel means I have to pay about $10 more, (basing on price difference between Fantasia set($20) and Alice in Wonderland ($10) ) than I do care if this direct-to-video sequel is included or not. (really hope all the future non-Diamond edition will be priced $10 with coupon)


The image looks nice - much better than having two different images side by side. But I really wish they would give us a choice of getting the boxset or individual release.

Same with Rescuers - I will definitely buy both, but I would prefer if they have their own case and that we have a choice of getting individual or boxset.

Almost every Disney film has a direct-to video sequel now, how come they'll only include the sequel this once? Wish they'd be consistent.

Unlike the other Disney classics, F&tH was never a huge hit so this is a marketing thing to help push more copies. Movies like Cinderella, Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast don't need the help, they'll fly off the shelf for decades to come.

Iam not sure what you qualify as being hit, but I would say the fact that it made 39 million dollars back in 1981 (14th highest grossing film of 1981) makes it a box office hit.
not mention another 23 million durring its 1988 re release
considering its budget back in 81 was aprox 6-8 million dollars, I would say that bringing in 39 million domesticly in its inital release qualifys it as a box office hit.

and 23 million for a re release is nothing to sneeze at either.

Doesn't matter what I think, Disney doesn't consider it one of their hits. It's during that low point from the late 70s to late 80s in their history.

^^How it did in the box office 30 years ago isn't going to be much of a factor in 2011 sales. I think Corvin is trying to point out that Disney doesn't see a huge market for this like they would with Lion King, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, etc. That being said, I will own this on day one.

You've hit it right on the head. Add the sequel at no additional cost to try to spur sales of a title that has very limited appeal.

Not true at all buddy not true at all. It made a good deal of money back then and has a pretty good size fan base as well. Now if you were talking about Black Caulderon then yeah that was definately not a hit. But Fox and the hound made disney a good amount of money durring it theatrical release.

You just proved Corvin's point and what I agree with as well. "Pretty good" does not cut it, GREAT does. If you are trying to place the Fox and the Hound in any ballpark with their classics then you are truly fooling yourself. Unless you can find me numbers on how it did, I'm willing to bet it is very low on the totem pole of earnings when it came to the toy/accesorry/whatnot market and that is an area where Disney truly makes there money. Think of it like Star Wars, where did Lucas really make his money. Not the movies themselves

And while I cannot find it myself, let me know where it ranks as far as their theatrical releases grosses if you can find that. If it is higher than middle of the pack I would be shocked.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to down the film, it's probably in my top 5 favorite Disney animated, but it's definitely not regarded as a top tier flick. It's also one of the few that rarely goes back into the vault. Even that marketing gimmick doesn't generate enough buzz to work on F&tH. That's probably why they are giving this the dual treatment to try something different.

Ditto, definitely love the film as well and is one of my faves as well. Say top 10 if we are only talking Disney(not Pixar as well) animated films for me. But in the "financial" eyes of Disney it is definitely not one of their "top tier" films.

Did anyone notice the artwork for Fox and the Hound say 1 bluray and 2 DVDs...are both films gonna be on the one bluray? or is Fox and the Hound 2 just gonna be on a DVD?

Never liked F&TH as a kid. Was alright compared to the older ones.

Its pretty easy to find the box office numbers online. go to box office mojo and do a search for Fox and the hound.
and twisting my words of saying a pretty good fan base,doesnt change the fact that the movie was a box office hit.
and Its 39 million dollar box office was one of the top 15 grossing movies of 1981.
It made more money than any other animated classic released from the late 70s till Oliver and Co came out.

And disney's Chief Historian has stated that Disney still has a lot of love for the film.

And this movie for the record is officially part of the classics line as well.