Just gave The Rescuers and its sequel a watch. Does /co/ like

>>78571006
The sequel is undeniably better in most people's opinions.

>>78571112
I thought so too; as I watched it, I felt it was interesting how a lot of animation techniques in it were setting the stage for Aladdin, The Lion King, etc.

File: my first OTP.jpg (153KB, 736x442px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 736x442px

>>78571006
Were the movies remastered PROPERLY?

>comparing 2 things
>we cannot like 2 things equally

>>78571360
>Were the movies remastered PROPERLY?
I dunno, the ones I saw on Netflix looked okay, though the original looked a bit "sketchy."

>>78571006
They're kind of both the same movie. Except Down Under has another male love interest.

>>78571360
I don't think Disney remasters so extensively the stuff that isn't vaulted, do they?

>>78571360
>Were the movies remastered PROPERLY?
I hope so. I won't buy it unless the hidden porn image is intact.

File: 1300180216403.png (47KB, 178x187px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 178x187px

>>78571525
>another male love interest

You mean that sexy kangaroo that was imprisoned?

Yeah, he was hot.....

I like both equally.

I watch Down Under when I'm looking for biiiig adventure and The Rescuers when I'm feeling like watching some old fashioned Disney animation.

>>78571006
>Down Under made child me think Australia was plagued by giant ass eagles
was disappointed when I learned it wasn't real. Then horrified when I learned about the real animals Australia is plagued by.

>>78571360
Down Under was the first to use CAPS, so it's fine.

And if I recall correctly, the Rescuers transfer didnt get the shitty smudgy Emulator filter treatment that Sword in the Stone got.

>>78572007
I'll plunder it before buying, and if everything's fine, pay for the disk.

File: 1447907122546.jpg (7KB, 250x236px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x236px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PUZO0pq-9M

both are favorites. i love watching the two back to back and seeing how much everything improved

>>78572007
whats CAPS

>>78572430
Some sort of digital colouring technology.

>NO Rescuers/ Rescue Rangers crossover special

It was money in the bank Disney!

>>78572980
Not that popular movie and not that popular nostalgic niche show? Gee, I wonder.

>>78573021
I meant back in the 90's, genius.

>>78571006
Sequel did not have enough nudity.

File: 1423890437116.png (635KB, 850x505px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 850x505px

How many single mothers can one kid have? Seriously, just about every other animal the kid is with seems like another mother figure for him. Disney's hard on for incomplete families may have gone too far this time.

>>78572980

Yeah, don't understand why RR was made when Disney already had two "Rodents go on adventures" IPS with Rescuers and the recent Great Mouse Detective.

>>78573057
Oh......

>>78572430
>>78572497
The computer software system Disney used to color and assemble their 2D movies in the 90s and early 2000s.

>>78572007
I'm still mad about SITS

>>78571006
Underrated films
>>78572348
Excellent taste my friend.

It's kind of neat to compare the original Rescuers with Rescuers Down Under. They belong to two completely distinct eras in Disney animation history. Rescuers belongs to the somewhat more downbeat era of the seventies. The story is a bit more dour than you would expect from Disney, and the animation has the grungy, unpolished look. Rescuers is from the much more upbeat, joke-driven era of the nineties, and the animation is much more polished.

Not saying one is better than the other, just that they're a neat time capsule for the times in which they were made, especially when you compare and contrast them with each other.

>>78575454
but which one is your favorite

>>78575522
As a kid I always preferred Down Under, but I suspect I would prefer the original as an adult.

I blame this mouse and Mrs. Brisby for helping start my furry fetish

>>78575572
>waaaah! What are we gonna do in the nest!?

>>78575736
How unoriginal to have such a predictable spoiler.

>>78576118
If that is a BD shot, I am impressed.

>>78571006

I was just thinking about the movies the other day. They could definitely use a third, probably CGI but you can really do some creative stuff with a team of mice sent as hostage extractors.

>>78576185
>3rd one
Not that good an idea.
>CGI
HORRIBLE IDEA.

>>78573131
>>78572980
Rescue Rangers was originally pitched as a Rescuers TV show.

>>78571006
no those fuckers don't save anyone not white or not food about to hit the ground

>>78571006
they are ok movies anon, but i prefer great mouse detective for my animal crime solver

>>78571006
Wow.. that takes me back. I remember watching the movie in the theatres when it came out... when .. last half of the 70s.

>1990 was 35 years ago

>>78571910
Straya wishes it was plauged with giant golden eagles.

Wouldn't have a hobbit problem then.

>>78577338
>-9 years

>>78577338
It's worse than that man. It was actually 45 years ago.

>>78573131
Chip and Dale are both older and considered classic and The Rescuers may not have done well enough for them to want to use in a TV show.

As for Great Mouse Detective, well even if Sherlock Homes was public domain even back then, they probably didn't want to make a show based on something they did not own completely.

>>78575454
>the animation has the grungy, unpolished look.

Something tells me that's at least in part of them skimping out on the budget to save some cash. But I like the look.

>>78576185
Not saying CGI can't be good. But really if Disney did do it you'd know it'd just be a direct to video move. Hell it might even not get a physical release and end up direct to netflix/whatever streaming service instead.

>>78575454
It does help that both are good movies and quite watchable.

File: Screen shot 2016-01-01 at 9.05.48 PM.png (39KB, 161x146px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 161x146px

>>78571910
>>78577347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge-tailed_eagle