"the rescuers" should not imply "don bluth". The Rescuers is not a Don Bluth film.

The association is likely because Don Bluth directed the film before he left Disney and founded his studio. I agree it should be unimplied.

A very, very good opening scene and song...

... Better version (stereo)

Another one, instrumental:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syLh3U2xfN4

The bulk update request #2538 is active.

remove implication the_rescuers_(disney) (290) -> don_bluth (2814)

Reason: Although Don Bluth directed Disney's "The Rescuers", he did so before he left that company and founded his eponymous studio. Thus, the copyright should be Disney's, not Don Bluth's. It should be noted that the other Disney film e621's wiki credits him for, Pete's Dragon (also as director), doesn't implicate don_bluth (or disney for that matter). I leave the issue of implying pete's_dragon_(film) (or pete's_dragon or `pete's_dragon_(disney)`, the last being my preference) to disney for another BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2538 (forum #335711) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

It was not even directed by Don Bluth. It was directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, John Lounsbery, and Art Stevens.

biggraywolf said:
It was not even directed by Don Bluth. It was directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, John Lounsbery, and Art Stevens.

Strictly speaking, he was in Direction of Animation, with some other 3 guys...

https://postimg.cc/ppmJNRsN

For some time now, I wished to spend a whole day looking at a good number of videos that recapitulate the biography and art of Don Bluth.

If you like... ;-)

The bulk update request #2538 (forum #335711) has been approved by @gattonero2001.