1) Rescuers Down Underis a sequel. In fact, it's the only sequel in the entire Disney animated canon. (Unless you count the latest Winnie the Pooh movie that came out last year, which I don't, because its story doesn't necessarily follow the '77 Pooh sequentially. Also, there are several other Pooh & Friends movies that were released straight to video between those years).
2) It is not a musical. All the other 9 Renaissance films are musicals - including Tarzan, though its characters do not sing. In my completely unbiased opinion, the music of the Renaissance is the primary feature that makes them the best films of the whole series.
3) It did not garner the same box office success as the other 9 films. While 8 out of the 9 other Renaissance films made over $100 million in their initial release (Hercules being the exception, which made $99.1 million), Rescuers Down Under made less than $28 million.
 |
| thanks to boxofficemojo.com for data |
4) I haven't seen it a gazillion times. Okay, so this is a fairly unscientific reason, but this is my blog. I make up my own rules here.
So, although I do not count it as a Renaissance film, I'm still treating it as such since it's technically on the list. I just won't have as much to say since I don't know it that well, and, honestly, there isn't a lot to say about it!
Some of the characters DO sing in Tarzan... His mom, Glenn Close, sings "You'll Be In My Heart", and his best friend, Rosie O'Donnell, scats and do-be-do's when trashing the camp! Though you're right, the mysterious singing narrator man that is Phil Collins does most of the singing.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with you. Rescuers Down Under reminds me of Fievel Goes West: An American Tail. Continued mouse adventures in a different setting from the original movie. Both were released in theaters, but both should probably have been direct-to-video releases.