don bluth productions


Don Bluth’s The Secret of NIMH was first released on July 2, 1982.

Don Bluth, John Pomeroy and Gary Goldman all left Disney to pursue this project, which had originally been rejected by their former employer as “too dark” to be a commercial success. They were followed soon after by 20 other Disney animators, dubbed “The Disney Defectors” by the trade press. (x)

I love it when people put hi-res photos of the stuff they’re selling on eBay. Especially since the only other picture I had of this was beyond small and cut off. 

(Yeah I tried going after this one but another person was willing to throw WAY more money at it than I was. I had some in-studio Don Bluth newsletter stuff and a photocopied publicity drawing, too, but I was mostly in it for this, and when I’ve bought some cels for half the price of what this went for, the model sheet from earlier this year go for a little more than half of what this went for, and a whole packet of model sheets from the movie, which if I remember correctly, had this model sheet go for half of what this went for… yeah man you can have it! I don’t need the original to re-boot the sculpt!)

anonymous asked:

Fellow Fanastasia! I am so happy I found this blog as I was so pissed throughout the entire Tony Awards and I am glad to see others agree about the snubbing. Anyway I was reading through reviews today of Anastasia to see what the overall reaction was and I was surprised that some of the reviewers were comparing it to the *ahem* current state of affairs in 'Murica (specifically Ben Brantley and Robert Hofler's reviews). I was curious as to your thoughts on these comparisons. I think it's utter bs

My views on the Brantley review are, I think, posted, but I really don’t think they’re a valid criticism. The production has its genesis in a story that is decades old, taking inspiration from the Ingrid Bergman movie of 1956 and the Don Bluth animated production from 1997, both of which far predate the current political climate (arguably, the 1956 production could be read as more anti-communist than the later ones, but I really don’t read a political intent there that goes beyond everything else Hollywood produced in that decade).

Somehow, Brantley in particular found parallels to Trump (and Ivanka) in his viewing of the stage musical, and I just don’t see how that’s possible except on the most superficial and coincidental of levels. The story itself isn’t really a “glorification” of the Romanovs in the way some reviews saw it; the story is one of loss of family and the search for identity, told through the lens of an amnesiac who slowly rediscovers that she was born a princess. In some regards, that’s not an entirely original premise–fairy tales have had the “lost prince(ss)” trope for centuries. The twist here is that it does use some real characters.

@anyasdimitry and I (and, I believe, @peony-pastimes and possibly @nikolaevna-romanova) had a bit of a circular colloquy back when the Brantley review was first posted on this topic. The musical is not an effort to be historically accurate, nor is it an indictment of a) the Romanovs, or b) the Soviet Union. Yes, the massacre at Yekaterinburg is portrayed and Gleb is a loyalist of the Soviet state, but those facts are used to drive character rather than plot. In that sense, it’s hard to see any “glorification” of the Romanovs or demonization of the Soviets/political left. Heck, if anything, the Romanovs that Brantley thinks have been fetishized by the musical are only present as living people for the briefest of moments in the prologue or as ghostly memories–hardly an apt metaphor for a living, breathing political phenomenon.

Here’s the thing. Broadway has had a lot of provocative and politically astute or satirical productions, especially in recent years. You cannot look at productions like RENT, Spring Awakening, or The Book of Mormon (to name just a tiny handful) without seeing political parallels and an effort at political satire. Go back far enough, and the same is true of the Golden Age of the Broadway musical (the stage version of The Sound of Music in particular has a couple subversive momenta and a very on-the-nose critique of post-war cultural materialism). Other musicals have had a political agenda imposed on them: people have looked at them after-the-fact and seen politics where the original creative team did not intend there to be any.

In my opinion as a fan and someone who has looked at the intersection of theatre and politics in the past, Anastasia falls into the latter category. The musical wants to be a touching story of love, life, family, and overcoming tragic loss. In a sense, that is perfect for our current political and cultural era where so many people are struggling to deal with the reality of the world around them. The idea of “home, love, family/there must have been a time I had them too” resonates with any number of marginalized groups, and even with those who may just be struggling with their own grief for personal reasons. If there’s any shade of political meaning in Anastasia, it’s that: no one suffers alone, not really, no matter if one is a street urchin (Dimitry), orphaned princess (Anya), or Dowager Empress (Maria Feodorovna). To find a parallel to Trump or any other political movement, to me, is intellectually dishonest.

I hope that answers your question–if not, I’m happy to provide more of an argument. And thank you for the Ask!

A Brief Education

Hello Internet :) 

This man is DON BLUTH 

he is an artist 

a cartoon artist 

an animator, if you will.

He is responsible for some work on the following classics 

As you may have noticed - these are Disney films. 

This nice man worked for Disney.


Mr Bluth didn’t like the way Disney did stuff. He wanted the animation to return to its heyday. He thought the films they were producing were a bit lame. 

So he left! 

He left The Walt Disney Company.

And he started his own company. 

Don Bluth Productions 

(With a few other ex-Disney animators :) ) 

Now pay attention. 

He proceeded to make some really cool films you might have seen, such as: 

Now then.

These films were doing really well (look, that one has Steven Spielberg involved!) 

Don Bluth was happy :) 

Disney were doing this: 

**Disclaimer: I LOVE The Black Cauldron** …But 

Compared to

But then Disney made some decisions and fired some people and hired some people.

They found a story they’d shelved several years back and tried a few things.

So in the early 90’s Don Bluth accidentally did this 

Whilst Disney had managed to do this 

To combat that Mr Bluth tried a clever trick 

He ALSO took a Hans Christian Anderson story (woo) 

Made the protagonist a red head (yeah this’ll work!)

and cast Jodi Benson in the titular role (sure fire win) 

Woo Yeah! Genius we…


Meanwhile Disney had found their Renaissance and continued for the next 10 years with:

Oooh lets see what Don Bluth is doing! 

….oh….oh i’m so sorry. 

Oooh,how about now? 

….I’ll stop..

He used Disney’s successful renaissance tropes 

  • A sassy, resourceful princess 
  • A handsome, sassy ‘prince’
  • A scary, gross, evil villain 
  • Beautiful songs
  • Famous actors to voice the characters 

But it is not Disney. 

It’s still Don Bluth 













The Don Bluth Production Studios died a death, they had a couple more films afterwards (a shitty sequel to Anastasia focusing on the bat, and Titan A.E), but sadly they were heard of no more.

Don Bluths heyday was over :( 

In the early 80’s, he was meant to do an adaptation of East of the Sun, West of the Moon, which i’m convinced would have been a gorgeous hit. Unfortunately, it didn’t have the financial backing :( 

So there we have it. This post was spawned from a article that referenced to Anastasia as a Disney Princess - something the internet keeps doing. 

There’s a beautiful gif set on Tumblr that expresses the amount of animated women mistaken for Disney Princesses - but I felt Mr Bluth deserved his own brief historical explanation.