History Headscratchers / TitanicTheLegendGoesOn

The Titanic started its voyage in Southampton, and was headed for New York. Why would Mexican mice be on board? If they wanted to go to New York, why would they go to England to catch the ship there? Honestly, the only reason for their presence seems to be giving animators the opportunity for being more racially insensitive than Speedy Gonzales. What is the point of them?

-->Fritz: Oh yes, and while you're on your rounds, keep an eye out for a locket that was lost by a very sweet person who is kind to animals.

* It's possible that Angelica's mother was too poor to feed her or raise her properly.

[[WMG: Why the "Rapping Dog"?]]
And, no, I don't mean "Why does it even exist in this film?". I know it's a BigLippedAlligatorMoment. What I mean is, why is it so many people focus on ''that'' particular scene in terms of historical innacuracy? I mean, the film itself is filled with AnachronismStew that it boils over. You've got dialogue that nobody would've used in 1912, clothing that nobody would've worn for decades, and so on and so forth. Yet, people always seem to focus on the "Rapping Dog". Is it really that hilariously out-of-place?
* Probably it's because ''everything'' about that sequence is just so out-of-place. The bad dialogue and anachronistic clothing are things that crop up in period pieces. A random, modern music video sequence? Not so much. Plus, the sequence fails all around. As the Nostalgia Critic put it, it would still be weird and out of nowhere even if the movie were set in modern times and the music was appropriate.
* It's also one of the earliest and most blatantly obvious signs that this movie is, well, completely off tonally speaking.
* On top of that, it's easier for the layman to recognize as out-of-place - period-inappropriate dialogue and fashion is something that enthusiasts and historians pick up on easily, but to most viewers, time periods aren't that well defined beyond being 'in the past'. But rap is unmistakably modern (or from the 80's at the earliest), so even the most historically ignorant get what's wrong with that scene.
* The song isn't just a BLAM. Sometimes bad things are left in movies because somebody paid a lot to make it, and by god they're going to use it. Or maybe they thought it was really good. Or clever. Or funny. Most of "Party Time" is mashed together from recycled animation - most of it from another song. The music is bad. It's poorly framed. Parts of it feel like it's from a whole other movie. It's completely zero effort. At some point, somebody should have realised that not only was the sequence bad, it was unnecessery. But they put it in anyway.

[[WMG: Why is the opening score backwards in the uncut version?]]

At the end of the movie, Angelica's mother tells her she never wanted to give her up as a baby, but that she was forced to...but by who, or what, exactly? How can anyone force you to give up your own child? It would be one thing if she lost Angelica to her father in a divorce, but she says that neither she ''nor'' her father wanted to leave her, and Angelica says that the mother and sisters she's travelling with are her "foster" family, not her stepfamily.

[[WMG: Why do people think that this movie's Gaston is based on Disney's Gaston?]]
They don't look or act especially similar, so the only real connection I can see are the hair color and name.
* Because everyone else in the film is ripped from far better animated movies.
** Doesn't change the fact that none of the others were directly named after the characters they were ripped off from, so it would be strange for just one to be.

* They actually say that they were touring (remember that they're a band) and were dying to go back home.

* They could've done some traveling in Europe prior to boarding the ''Titanic''.

The Titanic started its voyage in Southampton, and was headed for New York. Why would Mexican mice be on board? If they wanted to go to New York, why would they go to England to catch the ship there? Honestly, the only reason for their presence seems to be giving animators the opportunity for being more racially insensitive than Speedy Gonzales. What is the point of them?

* The song isn't just a BLAM - it's zero effort. It doesn't show musical skills because it's a pretty bad song too. It doesn't develop characters or tug at our emotions or add to the story. Since all but ten seconds of the animation is from other parts of the movie (The dog jigging about in a shirt and his paws clapping, used repeatedly), it isn't even being used because it cost too much to not use. The song lasts for about ninety seconds and for some reason it never occurred to anybody that it wasn't just a bad sequence, but was also unnecessary.

They don't look or act especially similar, so the only real connection I can see are the hair color and name.

[[WMG: Why is the opening score backwards in the uncut version?]]

** It's also one of the earliest and most blatantly obvious signs that this movie is, well, completely off tonally speaking.

[[WMG: Why is the opening score backwards in the uncut version?]]
* Easy, TheyJustDidntCare.

* Why the "Rapping Dog"? And, no, I don't mean "Why does it even exist in this film?". I know it's a BigLippedAlligatorMoment. What I mean is, why is it so many people focus on ''that'' particular scene in terms of historical innacuracy? I mean, the film itself is filled with AnachronismStew that it boils over. You've got dialogue that nobody would've used in 1912, clothing that nobody would've worn for decades, and so on and so forth. Yet, people always seem to focus on the "Rapping Dog". Is it really that hilariously out-of-place?
** Probably it's because ''everything'' about that sequence is just so out-of-place. The bad dialogue and anachronistic clothing are things that crop up in period pieces. A random, modern music video sequence? Not so much. Plus, the sequence fails all around. As the Nostalgia Critic put it, it would still be weird and out of nowhere even if the movie were set in modern times and the music was appropriate.
* Why is the opening score backwards in the uncut version?
** Easy, TheyJustDidntCare.

* Why is the opening score backwards in the uncut version?

*** Given all the other DisneyAnimatedCanon ripoffs in this, the animators were likely trying to invoke TheGenieKnowsJackNicholson. But unlike the Genie in {{WesternAnimation/Aladdin}}, the dog isn't a magical being. Hell, he's not even fantastic like [[QuestForCamelot Devon and Cornwall]].

[[WMG: How did the Dalmations know what Angelica's locket looked like?]]

* When the Dalmations see the locket in Molly's room, they say that it looks like the one Fritz told them to look for. The problem with that is that Fritz ''never told them what it looked like''. This is all he says:

** Probably it's because ''everything'' about that sequence is just so out-of-place. The bad dialogue and anachronistic clothing are things that crop up in period pieces. A random, modern music video sequence? Not so much. Plus, the sequence fails all around. As the Nostalgia Critic put it, it would still be weird and out of nowhere even if the movie were set in modern times and the music was appropriate.

* Why the "Rapping Dog"? And, no, I don't mean "Why does it even exist in this film?". I know it's a BigLippedAlligatorMoment. What I mean is, why is it so many people focus on ''that'' particular scene in terms of historical innacuracy? I mean, the film itself is filled with AnachronismStew that it boils over. You've got dialogue that nobody would've used in 1912, clothing that nobody would've worn for decades, and so on and so forth. Yet, people always seem to focus on the "Rapping Dog". Is it really that hilariously out-of-place?

-->Fritz: Oh yes, and while you're on your rounds, keep an eye out for a locket that was lost by a very sweet person who is kind to animals.