The Film Proper…
A first for a Disney animated feature, the credits sequence began with the opening of the book, rather than the book opening following a series of credits screens. This typography, as expected, doesn’t really appear anywhere else. No posters, video covers, etc. This book and font are reproduced for the end credits of Jon Favreau’s 2016 remake, but beyond that… Nowhere else. Anyways, the font totally fits the book cover and the setting of the film. While it doesn’t quite align with the more comedic nature of this Kipling adaptation, it is an appealing and somewhat mysterious font… What’s inside that book?
The Theatrical Releases…
The original 1967 release poster’s logo reflects the nature of the film better, I think…
See, that’s a little more fun and happenin’. The in-film logo feels like it belongs to a more serious take on the material, but this above? Perfectly suited all-around. Looks very “rocky” and jungle-ish, but also hints at the film’s jaunty, swingin’ music, its colorful cast… If we separate the logo itself from the poster, obviously because this is after all about the typography itself… It also aligns with the era it was made in, the mid-to-late ’60s.
The 1978 re-release poster aimed for something equally stylish, but something a little more formal.
I’ve always loved the 1978 poster for the film, and that font really adds to it. The letterforms really match up with the tree in the poster, as that is how the trees look in the film’s art direction. Very wavy and curvy, very much like real-life trees and their branches, but given enough flair to stand out.
The 1984 re-release poster goes for a new font altogether…
This one also has a very jungle/adventure feel to it, too! In fact, this logo was later used for a 90s edition of the soundtrack and the direct-to-video sequel. I also saw it, years ago, in an illustrated collection of Disney stories. Quite long-lasting! Even the remake’s logo is heavily inspired by this one. Again, that typeface just suggests a big adventure out in an unknown land… Not quite the film itself, for it is more of a comedic road movie with jungle animals sharing the names and some aspects of the Kipling characters, but the setting? Yes indeed. Especially the ruins, the throne of which is featured here.
For the final North American theatrical re-release in 1990, they went back to the original poster font and modernized it a bit. It looked great in the ’60s, it looked great in the early ’90s as well. A timeless, fun typeface.
Also, how often do you see one of the vultures on a poster or video cover for this movie?
Home Video…
The first video release from 1991 used the 1967 font as well, making the border stroke a little heavier than what we saw on the 1990 poster.
For the 1997 release (and 1999 DVD), the same idea is followed, but the type now looks a little crunchier (is that the word I’m looking for?), and the “The” is significantly different…
The Jungle Book then got the Platinum Edition treatment in 2007, a new logo was introduced, one that’s kind of dull in comparison to the previous ones.
The words “Jungle” and “Book” are way too close, too. “The” is in all-caps… It’s just kind of a basic serif font for a movie that had much more distinctive type in the past. While not bad on the eyes, it’s just… There. The 2014 Diamond Edition cover fares better.
While a similarly simplistic serif font is used here, the letterforms are given that sort of texture and feel that puts them closer to the 1967 poster font than what we see on the 2007 cover. Not the best font for this movie, but not my least favorite. The same font was re-used for the recently-released Disney Movie Club exclusive edition.
I feel that the first and third print font Disney used for this movie are some of the best for a Disney animated feature, then or now… When a typeface really captures the setting and the overall mood of a movie, it has really done its job.
The Film Proper…
Much like The Jungle Book, the in-film font for The Aristocats wouldn’t be used anywhere else… Wait, hold on… Are we supposed to spell it as “AristoCats”? A few posters would, but video covers? Not so much. Many just refer to it, even Disney themselves, as “Aristocats” with a lowercase “C”. The film itself does not… Anyways, the font! Pretty detailed, and the logo itself is animated because the kittens change it from “Aristocrats” to the film’s punny title:
So, it does fit the 1910 Paris setting of the movie and the lifestyle of the titular cats. I mean, they would have to have luxurious lives, given the name of the movie. The rest of the movie plays out more like a goofball 60s Disney comedy romp, but with cats.
The Theatrical Releases…
The original release posters, interestingly, used a logo that tried to capture the more silly comedic nature of the movie than the setting or the wealth of the cats’ owner.
Perhaps they were also trying to match the mood of the film’s midpoint jazz number ‘Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat’? Looks pretty contemporary, for sure, though the letterforms are kind of questionable here. The shapes are fine, but the circular holes for all the letters is… A unique choice to say the least. It doesn’t strike me as jazzy, as I haven’t seen such a font used for ’60s jazz posters and album covers. Makes it look like Swiss cheese, honestly! Perfect for something more cartoony in nature, too. The same one-sheet poster – with some minor modifications – and font were re-used for the 1980 re-release.
The 1987 re-release introduced an all-new poster with an all-new font that was a better fit for the film’s setting…
An elegant typeface, for sure, yet not too plain. I like the little flourishes added to some of the letters… This, to me, looks great for a movie whose title is a pun on “aristocrat”.
Home Video…
The original video release from 1996 used an all-new font, one that’s certainly pointier… But nonetheless very nice to look at, and a nice shape is made to house it, typical of Walt Disney Masterpiece Collection releases. The arching really adds to it.
The 2000 Gold Classic Collection edition’s font is a lot simpler, but still matches the setting enough. Not my favorite of this bunch, though. These letterforms make me think of the more recent Signature Collection releases that Disney has been putting out lately.
The 2008 DVD release sports a stronger font, and one that’s distinct from the other ones, though this one is still a little too basic despite what’s done with the letterforms. Really no different from what we’ve been seeing for this movie since 1987, but I’m not fond of how squeezed the letters look.
The 2012 Blu-ray’s logo is as simplistic as you can get. Basically a very toned down version of the 1987 font, though that “R” really branches out there. Also interesting is that it’s housed inside a shiny ruby oval, rather than a regular frame.
In terms of home video releases, The Aristocats didn’t quite get it good with fonts. Outside of the original 1996 release, these fonts don’t really do it for me, but they aren’t awful by any means. The Aristocats actually got some pretty bad logos for the international releases, including an unspeakably questionable one for a UK release in 1995. Perhaps this is because The Aristocats, despite being a box office success in 1970 and on re-release, was never considered to be one of the better Disney animated features. Often times it makes many worst-of lists, and while it has its fans (particularly in Japan, also ask Snoop Dogg what he thinks of the movie), it is generally put more towards the bottom.
If anything, the inconsistency of the posters and logo fonts are a reflection of the film’s own anachronistic inconsistencies. It’s a film set in Paris in 1910, but it has a jazzy soundtrack (and many video covers for the movie make it clear that Aristocats is a “jazzy” Disney movie) and lots of modern, very 1970 things.
The Film Proper…
Like The Jungle Book and The Aristocats, here’s another Disney animated feature whose in-film font is not really used anywhere else. Of all things, I found the font on a Read-Along CD and book for the movie. The book opening is pretty much just The Jungle Book, right down to the specifically-arranged cloth below it. I mean, this movie also has a bear version of Little John that highly resembles Baloo, voiced by the same voice actor – Phil Harris. Plenty of animation from The Jungle Book is recycled and used in this film. Anyways, the font… Very ol’ English, very ye olden dayes, traditional. Very pretty to look at. A shame it wasn’t used on posters or video covers even…
The Theatrical Releases…
Now, the logo used on the original 1973 release posters is GREAT. Buckle up, because this is where it gets fun…
Look at that “H”. I mean, c’mon. The H-bow, the O-target, you can’t go wrong! The font itself reflects the more fun, cartoony nature of this Merry Old England adaptation, but keeps just enough of that aesthetic. There’s a slight bit of flair to these bold letterforms.
Forsaking that, the 1982 re-release poster went heavier on the Merry Old England feel.
I especially dig what they do with the “R” going into the “B”, and the smaller “O” inbetween. Just very manuscript-like and medieval. The “H” extending to the “O”… Just all nice flourishes to this all-caps typeface. I love it.
Home Video…
The film’s 1984 video release used the original theatrical release’s font. Can’t complain about that! (My copy pictured below.)
By contrast, the 1991 and 1994 video releases used the 1982 font.
The 1999 video release used an all-new font, which would be re-used for the nearly-identical 2000 Gold Classic Collection release, which is pictured below.
A little less interesting to me, but it’s far from being too simplistic. At least they have fun with the letterforms here, what with the curvy “R” and “H”, and the size of the individual “O”s. It still has that old medieval times feel to it anyways. For me, the letters are a little too elongated and squished, much like that 2008 Aristocats logo.
The “Most Wanted Edition” DVD from 2006 goes back to the 1973 poster for inspiration.
Though we don’t get an “H” bow, it’s still satisfying. The “O” in “Robin” is a full-on target now, as opposed to a plain circle with a circle rim and black circle inside of it. This one’s colored like one of the targets in the movie. The rest of the font is pretty, it looks a lot like the in-film title card, and each letterform is nicely-designed. For a more contemporary Disney movie logo not used on the posters, it’s very good. Disney wisely re-used it for the 2013 Blu-ray release. My only quip? “Robin” and “Hood” are a little too close to each other. Space those words out, you know?
The Jungle Book and Robin Hood seemed to get some of the best logo treatments for Disney animated features in the late 1960s and the entire 1970s. Robin Hood seemed so consistent, as each North American theatrical poster and video release of that film sports a very pleasing logo. The Jungle Book is definitely a close second, as most of its video cover fonts succeed. The Aristocats, out of this trio, is the more inconsistent case.
]]>