The Little Mermaid: Platinum Edition DVD Press Release

roswellian · Post by **roswellian** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:20 pm

They're going to release TLM on IMAX?? I'm in heaven!

Harbinger · Post by **Harbinger** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:34 pm

roswellian wrote:They're going to release TLM on IMAX?? I'm in heaven!

what? they are?

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:49 pm

No, no, no. The Little Mermaid and Aladdin were both prepped for IMAX screens around the same time The Lion King was. When the film lost money, Disney decided it wasn't worth it to release films exclusively to IMAX. When Aladdin hit DVD, Disney used the tweaked version that was meant for IMAX screens. Compared to Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, though, Aladdin wasn't changed very much. All Disney did was add twinkling stars to the nighttime sequences and redrew background character animation (if Aladdin had been released to IMAX without any tweaking, the extras in the marketplace would very clearly have no faces). For The Little Mermaid, the version prepped for IMAX will probably be used. If it's in the same lines as Aladdin, though, the only real difference should be more clearly defined animation for background characters.

TheSequelOfDisney · Post by **TheSequelOfDisney** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:13 pm

What would you change to

the TLM cover? I would change Ursula's position. She's too close to Flounder, and since Flounder is right beside Ursula, I think that putting her there would be "odd" I would move her closer to the left side of the cover, but that's just IMO

MerXAN · Post by **MerXAN** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:06 pm

Disneykid wrote:No, no, no. The Little Mermaid and Aladdin were both prepped for IMAX screens around the same time The Lion King was. When the film lost money, Disney decided it wasn't worth it to release films exclusively to IMAX. When Aladdin hit DVD, Disney used the tweaked version that was meant for IMAX screens. Compared to Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, though, Aladdin wasn't changed very much. All Disney did was add twinkling stars to the nighttime sequences and redrew background character animation (if Aladdin had been released to IMAX without any tweaking, the extras in the marketplace would very clearly have no faces). For The Little Mermaid, the version prepped for IMAX will probably be used. If it's in the same lines as Aladdin, though, the only real difference should be more clearly defined animation for background characters.

I've been searching the net for some details about the remastering of The Little Mermaid and I just found out that the directors have just recently worked on it.

MerXAN · Post by **MerXAN** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:15 am

TheSequelofDisney wrote:What would you change to the TLM cover? I would change Ursula's position. She's too close to Flounder, and since Flounder is right beside Ursula, I think that putting her there would be "odd" I would move her closer to the left side of the cover, but that's just IMO

oh yeah....It really is "odd" 'cause it looks like Flounder is Ursula's sidekick.

271286 · Post by **271286** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:46 am

I think i would look cool if ursula and triton stod back to back...

rodis · Post by **rodis** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:38 am

Disneykid wrote: If it's in the same lines as Aladdin, though, the only real difference should be more clearly defined animation for background characters.

But keep in mind that Aladdin had little to no flaws in terms of background animation (nature, houses, etc.) while The Little Mermaid has many. In every other sequence I can spot rushed or even unfinished backgrounds. Granted, Mermaid dates back to a time when no computer animation was used and thus the minor flaws, but I hope that for this release they'll redo some of the backgrounds and add detail.

Again, I will give you an example:
when Ariel and Triton confront in her grotto, the colors are so faded and washed out, it's hard to even look at. When Ariel says "it even has his eyes" you can see the grotto was drawn with no attention in the background. The lines are almost non-existent.

Or when Ariel first talks to Ursula, right before Ursula starts singing, the background looks blurry.
I hope they would change all this.

And, of-course, there are also the flawless, exquisitely executed sequences such as the main titles, the storm at sea and the final battle. Those are some of the best parts in the movie.

Billy Moon · Post by **Billy Moon** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:32 am

rodis wrote:Again, I will give you an example:
when Ariel first talks to Ursula, right before Ursula starts singing, the background looks blurry.
I hope they would change all this.

I've always hoped they'd made many of those backgrounds more blurry to give the scenes even a little underwater feeling. Anyway, the less they change the film the better.

TheSequelOfDisney · Post by **TheSequelOfDisney** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:34 pm

MerXAN wrote:oh yeah....It really is "odd" 'cause it looks like Flounder is Ursula's sidekick.

Yeah, and Flounder is like 2 feet (I mean 2 fins) from Urusla, and he's smiling. What's with that?

magicalwands · Post by **magicalwands** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:57 pm

TheSequelofDisney wrote:
MerXAN wrote:oh yeah....It really is "odd" 'cause it looks like Flounder is Ursula's sidekick.
Yeah, and Flounder is like 2 feet (I mean 2 fins) from Urusla, and he's smiling. What's with that?

It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.

BATBfan1 · Post by **BATBfan1** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:23 pm

magicalwands wrote: It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.

I agree with you!

It's just a COVER!
Disney finally got it right somewhat. It has been the best cover since The Lion King IMO.

TheSequelOfDisney · Post by **TheSequelOfDisney** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:17 pm

magicalwands wrote:It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.

I know that it's only a cover. I just find that it's weird that the evil villianess would be right next to a happy-but-really-scared-of-ursula/anything-that-seems-scary fish. And I would find Urusla scary, and that Flounder would be too close to Ursula. I'm not depicting the cover like it's the movie. This movie is in my top 3 favorite movies (of all time). It just seems that the villian wouldn't be very close to a sidekick. I guess it's just my opinion on things. And I know that the cover and movie are two totally different things, and I appreciate each diffrent aspects of the film & the cover.

crunkcourt · Post by **crunkcourt** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:39 pm

If I could change the cover I'd add Scuttle; and perhaps move Sebastian and his orchestra to the right so Flounder wouldn't be on top of Ursula. Overall I think this is a beautiful cover though and am excited to add it to my collection.

MerXAN · Post by **MerXAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:20 am

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I know that it's only a cover. I just find that it's weird that the evil villianess would be right next to a happy-but-really-scared-of-ursula/anything-that-seems-scary fish. And I would find Urusla scary, and that Flounder would be too close to Ursula. I'm not depicting the cover like it's the movie. This movie is in my top 3 favorite movies (of all time). It just seems that the villian wouldn't be very close to a sidekick. I guess it's just my opinion on things. And I know that the cover and movie are two totally different things, and I appreciate each diffrent aspects of the film & the cover.

I totally agree with you. I mean, it's just our opinion. Everyone has one, right?

magicalwands wrote:It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.

We're not depicting the cover like it's the movie. I think that it's a beautiful cover and I do appreciate the art. What's wrong with comments and suggestions? We just want to give our insights and opinions about it, that's all. You said too much. And OBVIOUSLY, the cover and the movie are totally different forms of art and we aren't dumb not to figure that out.

Pasta67 · Post by **Pasta67** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:09 am

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I know that it's only a cover. I just find that it's weird that the evil villianess would be right next to a happy-but-really-scared-of-ursula/anything-that-seems-scary fish. And I would find Urusla scary, and that Flounder would be too close to Ursula.

Who knows? It's been 17 years since the movie was released; maybe Ursula & Flounder are buddies now.

I honestly wouldn't change anything about the cover; I think it's one of the best PE covers we've had so far. I do agree that Scuttle should be somewhere on the packaging, though. Maybe he'll be on the back cover, or on the inserts, perhaps.

magicalwands · Post by **magicalwands** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:59 am

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I'm not depicting the cover like it's the movie. This movie is in my top 3 favorite movies (of all time). It just seems that the villian wouldn't be very close to a sidekick.

What I meant was, it is okay for Flounder to be next to Ursula on the cover because it's only a cover, but it wouldn't be okay if he was next to her in the movie. That's what I meant by you depicting the cover as a movie.

I'm sure the artist put into speculation that Flounder is right next to Ursula and he/she concluded it would be okay to do that. I bet you guys are the only one of the whole world who've looked at the cover and said that Flounder is too close.

Tarzan. · Post by **Tarzan.** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:48 pm

I also didn't like that Ursula is too close to Flounder when there's a big space between her and the left edge of the cover and also I was hoping to see Eric on the cover because he's one of the main characters or at least more important than Scuttle.

Lucylover1986 · Post by **Lucylover1986** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:54 pm

Tarzan. wrote:and also I was hoping to see Eric on the cover because he's one of the main characters or at least more important than Scuttle.

Don't you see Eric on the ship!? He's a little dot on it.

Tarzan. · Post by **Tarzan.** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:05 pm

Lucylover1986 wrote:Don't you see Eric on the ship!? He's a little dot on it.

I know that we can assume that he's on the ship and that it represents him, but it would have been better to have his face on the cover.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

The Little Mermaid: Platinum Edition DVD Press Release