VIDEO: Home on the Range (2004)

We can only imagine what the execs at Disney were thinking when they greenlighted an animated musical featuring Roseanne Barr as a talking cow… or maybe we can magically go back in time and see it for ourselves!

Scroll down to comment on this video...

You may also like...

  • Muthsarah

    Broken premise with limited genre appeal. Dated celebrity voices with limited kid or adult appeal. Ridiculously expensive. If it wasn’t for the background visuals and above-average animation (the characters weren’t drawn appealing, but they at least moved…expensively), you once upon a time coulda fooled me into thinking this was made by the same people – at the same time – as Quest for Camelot. Or possibly, as you mentioned, around the time of Fun and Fancy Free, back when Disney was doing cheaper stuff by necessity. But this wasn’t a cheapy film made by second-tier animators (at least I don’t think they were second-tier), this was supposed to be a premiere film on a premiere budget. Home on the Range cost more than Hunchback, and over twice as much as The Lion King. It doesn’t even seem as if Disney had already chosen to give up, because it cost way too much to make it. The only excuse is either A) insanity, B) sabotage, C) development hell, meaning they weren’t going to write off a failure on principle; better to throw more money at it and pray.

    The pirate genre was considered dead at this time, and that was – I think – the big reason given for why Treasure Planet failed so miserably. Soo….westerns instead? Oh no, don’t pack up the 2D house yet guys, how about a $150 million animated teenage beach party movie!

    I think it’s notable that the same year Home of the Range came out, Dreamworks released Shrek 2. The times had a’changed for certain. I actually don’t blame Disney for shutting down their animation studio after (if not before) this came out. Whether or not there was any value left, it was clear they had no idea what to do with it.

    • danbreunig

      I wrote this earlier in one of Animated Heroine’s reviews: Home On The Range is my own template of that one final movie for a studio which bluntly shows said studio that their formulae and gimmicks have run out of juice. For example, the 2013 Pixar film Planes–I want this to be Pixar’s own Home On The Range.

      • MichaelANovelli

        I really don’t understand why everyone hates the Cars movies, so much…

        • danbreunig

          I think I’d enjoy it more if it was the only cg-animated film in a five-year span, instead of yet another that gets lost in the herd. Full cg-animated movies of nearly any kind are so dime-a-dozen to me now. “Up” was the last one I saw in the theatre, and I don’t regret now just passing them up and waiting for the cheaper rentals to come out, because there’s no draw factor in these anymore that makes me want to expend myself in the full theatre experience. Not to be a sourpuss dick–the fatigue’s well set in.

      • tedzey71

        Technically this was animated at DisneyToon studios and distributed by Disney. Other than the look of the Cars films, this still goes back to Disney without Pixar getting the blame. Though i’m almost certain that Sleazi’s still up to no good!

        • danbreunig

          I wouldn’t put it past Sleazi to hatch more schemes 😉

          I wasn’t confusing Disney with Pixar, but suggesting (and even mostly hoping) that one may follow the path of the other.

  • ThatSexyGirl

    Shame this was the last 2D picture for years, and it ihnk Princess and the frog did a wodnerful job, the story was a bit rushed at tiems but other then that it had a stiller cast, a nice flavor, and the 2D worked very well.

    • ThatScottishGuy

      I Agree with you Lass 🙂 the film had some other flaws to, but I felt this was the closest we got to a genuine good and fun story with ell made memorable characters, then Tangled came, and that was just a really terrible disney movie like Cars 2.