>>Words of someone who is only trying to keep the purists at bay.<<
How is that working?
Continuing to release Walt's film and television library at the very least in these annual sets would be far more effective.
I think we may need to save the Treasures series
-
Big Disney Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3110
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:28 pm
- Location: Any Disney park you choose
But he is not really doing it the way it deserves to be done, is he?merlinjones wrote:>>Words of someone who is only trying to keep the purists at bay.<<
How is that working?
Continuing to release Walt's film and television library at the very least in these annual sets would be far more effective.
-
merlinjones
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am
The situation is not unique to this company, it's just more prominent when it comes to Walt Disney and so much once high-profile unreleased material (that still has a huge fan base). At least other studios such as Universal and Warners are trying new solutions to serve the film buff market, such as DVDs on demand through Amazon or TCM.com - - surely Walt's films deserve this treatment at least, and sooner than later.
But if the rights holders truly have abandoned the commercial exploitation of Walt's material, it really should be licensed out -- or relinquished to the public domain for others to show freely. Otherwise the situation of perpetually withheld historical and artistic works by major corporations will become problematic to society's future. Historic intellectual property belongs as much to the masses for generational inspiration and reinterpretation - - especially that of such a hugely influencial artist. Copyrights ought to be a case of use 'em or lose 'em.
But if the rights holders truly have abandoned the commercial exploitation of Walt's material, it really should be licensed out -- or relinquished to the public domain for others to show freely. Otherwise the situation of perpetually withheld historical and artistic works by major corporations will become problematic to society's future. Historic intellectual property belongs as much to the masses for generational inspiration and reinterpretation - - especially that of such a hugely influencial artist. Copyrights ought to be a case of use 'em or lose 'em.
-
Big Disney Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3110
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:28 pm
- Location: Any Disney park you choose
Now the public domain is one place that the company will NEVER surrender its property to! Every time Mickey Mouse's copyright expires and ready for the public domain, the company always extends the copyright. They will never surrender their property to the public domain, no matter how much we want them to.merlinjones wrote:But if the rights holders truly have abandoned the commercial exploitation of Walt's material, it really should be licensed out -- or relinquished to the public domain for others to show freely. Otherwise the situation of perpetually withheld historical and artistic works by major corporations will become problematic to society's future. Historic intellectual property belongs as much to the masses for generational inspiration and reinterpretation - - especially that of such a hugely influencial artist. Copyrights ought to be a case of use 'em or lose 'em.
Or Walt's company was ran in a different time. Those days have been over for almost 30 years. Investors and profit margins rule the company, for better or, as it has been recently in the movies department, worse.merlinjones wrote:>>Words of someone who gets it.<<
^Words of someone who has has lost his soul to the MBAs. Walt's business and product and audience never, ever made sense to businessmen, in his time or ours. If Walt "got it" there would have been no "Steamboat Willie," no "Snow White," no "Fantasia," no Disneyland...
>>Once again, there was no demand for it then. If there was, Disney would exploit it for every dollar it is worth, it's what they do best.<<
They could create demand (as they always did before) - - but there is no attempt. Some titles are clearly more commercial than others - - that the rights holders (and yourself) are lumping ALL of Walt's shows together as "old stuff" regardless of content speaks (you cite EPCOT and Oswald -- when we could be talking Song of the South, Disneyland, Jiminy Cricket and Ludwig VonDrake) to the low measure of consideration for marketing this material. Not to mention that there are general audience baby boomers who want the material and have no idea it is or has been or will ever be available, as it really isn't offered at retail - - you have to go looking for it with insider knowledge. Seems more like it isn't desired in the rebranding effort or wanted as competition to current franchises.[/quote]
Because shows like High School Musicals and any other current Disney Channel shows will make millions more. There is a reason Mickey in color Volumes could not sell 175k volumes in 6-7 years, but Sonny with a Chance can move that many in one day.
Stuff like Ludwig or Song of the South is obscure. Outside of fanboys (like us on the site) or historians, they are but a footnote.>>Please don't take this as I hate the material or what the series to die.<<
Whatever your intent, that is exactly what you are advocating. That Walt's material remain forever in the vaults from declining demand and awareness. Planned obsolescence.
-
disneyrecordfan
- Member
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 6:42 pm
Until Iger or any other former weatherman-turned-CEO actually CREATES something from scratch, much less builds a studio, the least he or she can do is to acknowledge that the studios they run weren't built in a day, nor were they built by Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers, as popular as they may be today. They only have jobs at Disney because of the vision and creation of people like Walt Disney, his brother, and the people they selected to help them with their creations.
I also find it insulting to hear Iger, Eisner or any other Disney executive try to keep up with the Joneses running other studios by giving the appearance that they just "manage brands" through acquisitions or shrewd strategies to "position" the company.
Realistically, who among us has ever heard, "Oh, I just LOVE a Universal movie!" or "Paramount movies are my FAVORITE!" But for 80 years, people have said, "I love Disney movies" without the need for explaining what they mean.
Disney is more than "product" or a "brand." Walt Disney was more than a Zanuck or even the Warner Brothers in terms of his personal, lasting relevance. There's a reason his autograph outsells those of nearly every American president. There's a reason why Bob Thomas called his book "An American Original." Walt - and his work - became a part of the American fabric. Scholarly books have documented how Disney's contributions were perfectly timed with the baby boomers to largely shape a whole generation. That can't be said for the head of MGM or RKO in the 1950s. Walt Disney ranks up there with the likes of Lincoln in terms of his post-death, lasting influence. Like Lincoln, not a day goes by where you can't easily encounter his surname some place. (How often do you hear the name 'Dan Quayle' or 'Walter Mondale,' two modern American vice presidents who were a heartbeat away from leading the free world?)
The argument that "Annette" will "only" sell 25,000 copies, so why bother, when Hannah Montana will sell 2 million, is a straw argument. Troll through Amazon and see what else can be bought: who among us REALLY remembers or loves "Humanoids from the Deep" (1980), or "Strait-jacket" with Joan Crawford, or "Glen or Glenda?" Yet you can easily buy the obscure products of dead directors or producers more obscure than Walt Disney. I could cite hundreds of shlocky "B" movies available on DVD that have likely only sold a few thousand copies, but they're available because SOMEBODY wanted them.
It's disingenuous for the studio to "celebrate" the genius that was Walt with splashy releases for "Snow White" (it's nearly 75 years old, after all - who was around for that release, so why isn't it irrelevant?) or "Mary Poppins," but then they ignore OTHER movies approved by the same genius, movies for which he gave the greenlight, read the script, and visited the set and was involved in their making just as much as he was for those classics.
There are many examples, but "The Light in the Forest" is still one. It's an "old" book, after all, but for some "weird" reason, English teachers still assign it to today's kids to read. Disney movies were consistently solid box office staples for exhibitors, and I'll bet you that we can find movies released in 1957 from lesser studios on DVD, but not that Disney's adaptation of that movie, yet when I was a kid in the 1980s, we read the book and then watched the movie on VHS, in school.
As for Ludwig Von Drake being obscure, he appeared on one of the longest-running, highest-rated TV series of all time. Disney's show ran from 1955-1982. Can you tell me why it's ok for "Father Knows Best" or "Perry Mason" to be available on DVD? If we're talking marketing numbers, you expect me to believe that shows that weren't as popular or as long-lasting as the Disney shows somehow are MORE popular today when DVD sales are tallied? Who buys "Leave it to Beaver" or "Gilligan's Island"? 13-year-olds? (And if some of them do, is it because those old shows still get shown?)
And we could go on and on - The Little Rascals, The Three Stooges, Shirley Temple - all would be easily dismissed as "not relevant" in terms of million sellers today, but their rights holders have kept them relevant on television and in reruns to the point that these 60- to 70-year-old properties somehow sell enough to warrant releases.
I think it's an insulting premise to dismiss Walt Disney's classic work so easily, be it from a marketing perspective or "it's not my cup of tea" or any other argument. Unless there are geniuses among us on the Internet who have created more or inspired more than Walt Disney did. Merlin Jones is right - as long as there are those of us who remember and want to buy these productions, Disney should either release them or relinquish them.
I also find it insulting to hear Iger, Eisner or any other Disney executive try to keep up with the Joneses running other studios by giving the appearance that they just "manage brands" through acquisitions or shrewd strategies to "position" the company.
Realistically, who among us has ever heard, "Oh, I just LOVE a Universal movie!" or "Paramount movies are my FAVORITE!" But for 80 years, people have said, "I love Disney movies" without the need for explaining what they mean.
Disney is more than "product" or a "brand." Walt Disney was more than a Zanuck or even the Warner Brothers in terms of his personal, lasting relevance. There's a reason his autograph outsells those of nearly every American president. There's a reason why Bob Thomas called his book "An American Original." Walt - and his work - became a part of the American fabric. Scholarly books have documented how Disney's contributions were perfectly timed with the baby boomers to largely shape a whole generation. That can't be said for the head of MGM or RKO in the 1950s. Walt Disney ranks up there with the likes of Lincoln in terms of his post-death, lasting influence. Like Lincoln, not a day goes by where you can't easily encounter his surname some place. (How often do you hear the name 'Dan Quayle' or 'Walter Mondale,' two modern American vice presidents who were a heartbeat away from leading the free world?)
The argument that "Annette" will "only" sell 25,000 copies, so why bother, when Hannah Montana will sell 2 million, is a straw argument. Troll through Amazon and see what else can be bought: who among us REALLY remembers or loves "Humanoids from the Deep" (1980), or "Strait-jacket" with Joan Crawford, or "Glen or Glenda?" Yet you can easily buy the obscure products of dead directors or producers more obscure than Walt Disney. I could cite hundreds of shlocky "B" movies available on DVD that have likely only sold a few thousand copies, but they're available because SOMEBODY wanted them.
It's disingenuous for the studio to "celebrate" the genius that was Walt with splashy releases for "Snow White" (it's nearly 75 years old, after all - who was around for that release, so why isn't it irrelevant?) or "Mary Poppins," but then they ignore OTHER movies approved by the same genius, movies for which he gave the greenlight, read the script, and visited the set and was involved in their making just as much as he was for those classics.
There are many examples, but "The Light in the Forest" is still one. It's an "old" book, after all, but for some "weird" reason, English teachers still assign it to today's kids to read. Disney movies were consistently solid box office staples for exhibitors, and I'll bet you that we can find movies released in 1957 from lesser studios on DVD, but not that Disney's adaptation of that movie, yet when I was a kid in the 1980s, we read the book and then watched the movie on VHS, in school.
As for Ludwig Von Drake being obscure, he appeared on one of the longest-running, highest-rated TV series of all time. Disney's show ran from 1955-1982. Can you tell me why it's ok for "Father Knows Best" or "Perry Mason" to be available on DVD? If we're talking marketing numbers, you expect me to believe that shows that weren't as popular or as long-lasting as the Disney shows somehow are MORE popular today when DVD sales are tallied? Who buys "Leave it to Beaver" or "Gilligan's Island"? 13-year-olds? (And if some of them do, is it because those old shows still get shown?)
And we could go on and on - The Little Rascals, The Three Stooges, Shirley Temple - all would be easily dismissed as "not relevant" in terms of million sellers today, but their rights holders have kept them relevant on television and in reruns to the point that these 60- to 70-year-old properties somehow sell enough to warrant releases.
I think it's an insulting premise to dismiss Walt Disney's classic work so easily, be it from a marketing perspective or "it's not my cup of tea" or any other argument. Unless there are geniuses among us on the Internet who have created more or inspired more than Walt Disney did. Merlin Jones is right - as long as there are those of us who remember and want to buy these productions, Disney should either release them or relinquish them.
Yes Walt took risk early in his career. But he has been dead for over 40 years. Clearly there have been other people who have done wonderful things in that time to help keep the company alive.disneyrecordfan wrote:Until Iger or any other former weatherman-turned-CEO actually CREATES something from scratch, much less builds a studio, the least he or she can do is to acknowledge that the studios they run weren't built in a day, nor were they built by Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers, as popular as they may be today. They only have jobs at Disney because of the vision and creation of people like Walt Disney, his brother, and the people they selected to help them with their creations.
People never stop to think that in 20 year or so people will talk about Hanna and Jonas Brothers the same as people on here do about the old Disney network program. It's call nostalgia and happens with every generation.
It's what investors want and what makes money.I also find it insulting to hear Iger, Eisner or any other Disney executive try to keep up with the Joneses running other studios by giving the appearance that they just "manage brands" through acquisitions or shrewd strategies to "position" the company.
Go check other movie boards. People say that all the time about other companies. I'm an RKO person and other people are WB people. Every company and category of film has it's fans.Realistically, who among us has ever heard, "Oh, I just LOVE a Universal movie!" or "Paramount movies are my FAVORITE!" But for 80 years, people have said, "I love Disney movies" without the need for explaining what they mean.
Walt Disney is a brand and never forget that. Most people know nothing about Walt but more of his name as a company. His legacy and name are a marketing tool that has been used amazingly.Disney is more than "product" or a "brand." Walt Disney was more than a Zanuck or even the Warner Brothers in terms of his personal, lasting relevance. There's a reason his autograph outsells those of nearly every American president. There's a reason why Bob Thomas called his book "An American Original." Walt - and his work - became a part of the American fabric. Scholarly books have documented how Disney's contributions were perfectly timed with the baby boomers to largely shape a whole generation. That can't be said for the head of MGM or RKO in the 1950s. Walt Disney ranks up there with the likes of Lincoln in terms of his post-death, lasting influence. Like Lincoln, not a day goes by where you can't easily encounter his surname some place. (How often do you hear the name 'Dan Quayle' or 'Walter Mondale,' two modern American vice presidents who were a heartbeat away from leading the free world?)
The production cost of those DVD's/sets are MUCH cheaper. All those companies do are is take a crappy print and put it on DVD. Add in a menu, maybe a trailer and scene selection and you are done. Disney spends more effort on the DVD artwork and inset design then most companies do on the entire DVD. That effort is not free.The argument that "Annette" will "only" sell 25,000 copies, so why bother, when Hannah Montana will sell 2 million, is a straw argument. Troll through Amazon and see what else can be bought: who among us REALLY remembers or loves "Humanoids from the Deep" (1980), or "Strait-jacket" with Joan Crawford, or "Glen or Glenda?" Yet you can easily buy the obscure products of dead directors or producers more obscure than Walt Disney. I could cite hundreds of shlocky "B" movies available on DVD that have likely only sold a few thousand copies, but they're available because SOMEBODY wanted them.
Along with that, the cost to the consumer is lower as well. People will buy a $5 movie on the fly, but a set that cost $25-$35 in retail stores for an obscure show just does not sell. Even well know series like All in the Family, Dragnet, Alfred Hitchcock Presents and others have staled or canceled in the past.
By the way, the reason Glen or Glenda sells is due to it being awful. There is a huge market for awful movies on DVD. I know I own a few and are great for get together movies to have fun.
Snow White and Mary Poppins are beloved movies. Most everyone has heard of them and knows them as a kid. How many people know what The Ghost of Blackbeard or the many awful 60's and 70's Disney movies are?It's disingenuous for the studio to "celebrate" the genius that was Walt with splashy releases for "Snow White" (it's nearly 75 years old, after all - who was around for that release, so why isn't it irrelevant?) or "Mary Poppins," but then they ignore OTHER movies approved by the same genius, movies for which he gave the greenlight, read the script, and visited the set and was involved in their making just as much as he was for those classics.
There are many examples, but "The Light in the Forest" is still one. It's an "old" book, after all, but for some "weird" reason, English teachers still assign it to today's kids to read. Disney movies were consistently solid box office staples for exhibitors, and I'll bet you that we can find movies released in 1957 from lesser studios on DVD, but not that Disney's adaptation of that movie, yet when I was a kid in the 1980s, we read the book and then watched the movie on VHS, in school.
Once again, this falls into the cost and returns for the company. Any company can do crappy releases like the Warner on-demand releases. Disney, thankfully, does 90% of their releases the right way.
The thing is, those do sell and very well. The Three Stooges is in it's 7th volume on DVD. Little Rascals and Shirley Temple have been on TV for over 50 years straight. When is the last time you saw Ludwig or Mickey Mouse Club on network TV re-runs? Disney's own stranglehold on rights made these series completely irrelevant.As for Ludwig Von Drake being obscure, he appeared on one of the longest-running, highest-rated TV series of all time. Disney's show ran from 1955-1982. Can you tell me why it's ok for "Father Knows Best" or "Perry Mason" to be available on DVD? If we're talking marketing numbers, you expect me to believe that shows that weren't as popular or as long-lasting as the Disney shows somehow are MORE popular today when DVD sales are tallied? Who buys "Leave it to Beaver" or "Gilligan's Island"? 13-year-olds? (And if some of them do, is it because those old shows still get shown?)
And we could go on and on - The Little Rascals, The Three Stooges, Shirley Temple - all would be easily dismissed as "not relevant" in terms of million sellers today, but their rights holders have kept them relevant on television and in reruns to the point that these 60- to 70-year-old properties somehow sell enough to warrant releases.
I want to see the rest of the seasons on Maude or King of the Hill come out. Will they ever come out though? Odds are no. This is due to sales, same thing with the treasures.I think it's an insulting premise to dismiss Walt Disney's classic work so easily, be it from a marketing perspective or "it's not my cup of tea" or any other argument. Unless there are geniuses among us on the Internet who have created more or inspired more than Walt Disney did. Merlin Jones is right - as long as there are those of us who remember and want to buy these productions, Disney should either release them or relinquish them.
Taking things personalty do not change the fact the treasures series do not move enough units. Classic or not means nothing. King Kong took until 07 to come to DVD. African Queen just came out after hundreds of thousands of request for it. It's all about moving a ton of units, not what is considered important. Anyone who misses that this is how corporate business runs need to wise-up to that. It will lead to less letdowns when things do not come out on DVD.
-
disneyrecordfan
- Member
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 6:42 pm
Using this cynical "moved units" standard, let's just replace that with "tickets sold" and no one would have ever seen Fantasia beyond 1940 or Alice in Wonderland beyond 1951.Taking things personalty do not change the fact the treasures series do not move enough units. Classic or not means nothing. King Kong took until 07 to come to DVD. African Queen just came out after hundreds of thousands of request for it. It's all about moving a ton of units, not what is considered important. Anyone who misses that this is how corporate business runs need to wise-up to that. It will lead to less letdowns when things do not come out on DVD.
Money runs the world of media. This is not 1940 or 1951 anymore. Talent means nothing, all you need a is a good look. It's sad but true.disneyrecordfan wrote:Using this cynical "moved units" standard, let's just replace that with "tickets sold" and no one would have ever seen Fantasia beyond 1940 or Alice in Wonderland beyond 1951.Taking things personalty do not change the fact the treasures series do not move enough units. Classic or not means nothing. King Kong took until 07 to come to DVD. African Queen just came out after hundreds of thousands of request for it. It's all about moving a ton of units, not what is considered important. Anyone who misses that this is how corporate business runs need to wise-up to that. It will lead to less letdowns when things do not come out on DVD.
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Wasn't the reason The African Queen took so long to come to DVD more to do with its extensive restoration (and before that, questions about the rights issues)?
Anyways, I initially tried to read the first few pages of this thread, but it eventually just became merlinjones repeating the same list of material over and over ad nauseum, so I skipped around, only to find more of the same. However, this particular discussion is quite interesting. Cause we have Disney fans who are adamant about classic material being released even if Disney sees no potential profit, and Disney fans who actually "get it" that Disney sees no potential profit. I'm gonna have to side with pvdfan on this one. Disney as a company has to think of the bottom line, and unfortunately, it means little-to-no focus on certain things that some fans have otherwise cherished for years.
I still want The Sword and the Rose and The Light in the Forest on DVD.
I still want a Special Edition of The Rocketeer, The Black Hole, The Watcher in the Woods, etc.
I still want to see the second "Hardy Boys" serial, and the other two "Spin & Marty" serials.
I still want a Chip 'n' Dale Treasures set, double-dip that it would be.
But even if I want these, there are 10,000 more Disney fans who aren't aware of it, and are content at buying the latest "Wizards of Waverly Place" compilation set (nothing against Wizards, I just needed to insert a Disney Channel title). And those 10,000 fans matter more than I do, simply because they're buying something and I'm not.
It's the same with the Treasures argument here. Disney prints low because they expect low sales. They're surprised at how quickly something like "Dr. Syn" sells, and truthfully, most of those sales likely went to e-bay and Amazon Marketplace scalpers who are charging arms and legs for them.
The number of fans for older material is dwindling. Partly due to Disney not showing older material, partly due to fans simply moving on from Disney, partly due to fans not being aware of the older material at all. It's really senseless to try and place blame on why there's less fans of a 1950s movie than there are of the current flavor of the week on Disney Channel. There's a lot of factors, but outright blaming Disney simply for not showing older material seems rather petty and villifying of Disney ("Those mean rights holders! They won't let me have more Annette! I don't care about Selena or Demi or whoever! Why can't they satisfy me?").
While I'd love for someone in their Home Entertainment department to suddenly realize the value of older-material fans, it's obviously not happening.
Does it suck? Yeah. Does complaining about it repeatedly on a message board do anything to change that? Probably not.
albert
Anyways, I initially tried to read the first few pages of this thread, but it eventually just became merlinjones repeating the same list of material over and over ad nauseum, so I skipped around, only to find more of the same. However, this particular discussion is quite interesting. Cause we have Disney fans who are adamant about classic material being released even if Disney sees no potential profit, and Disney fans who actually "get it" that Disney sees no potential profit. I'm gonna have to side with pvdfan on this one. Disney as a company has to think of the bottom line, and unfortunately, it means little-to-no focus on certain things that some fans have otherwise cherished for years.
I still want The Sword and the Rose and The Light in the Forest on DVD.
I still want a Special Edition of The Rocketeer, The Black Hole, The Watcher in the Woods, etc.
I still want to see the second "Hardy Boys" serial, and the other two "Spin & Marty" serials.
I still want a Chip 'n' Dale Treasures set, double-dip that it would be.
But even if I want these, there are 10,000 more Disney fans who aren't aware of it, and are content at buying the latest "Wizards of Waverly Place" compilation set (nothing against Wizards, I just needed to insert a Disney Channel title). And those 10,000 fans matter more than I do, simply because they're buying something and I'm not.
It's the same with the Treasures argument here. Disney prints low because they expect low sales. They're surprised at how quickly something like "Dr. Syn" sells, and truthfully, most of those sales likely went to e-bay and Amazon Marketplace scalpers who are charging arms and legs for them.
The number of fans for older material is dwindling. Partly due to Disney not showing older material, partly due to fans simply moving on from Disney, partly due to fans not being aware of the older material at all. It's really senseless to try and place blame on why there's less fans of a 1950s movie than there are of the current flavor of the week on Disney Channel. There's a lot of factors, but outright blaming Disney simply for not showing older material seems rather petty and villifying of Disney ("Those mean rights holders! They won't let me have more Annette! I don't care about Selena or Demi or whoever! Why can't they satisfy me?").
While I'd love for someone in their Home Entertainment department to suddenly realize the value of older-material fans, it's obviously not happening.
Does it suck? Yeah. Does complaining about it repeatedly on a message board do anything to change that? Probably not.
albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
-
Big Disney Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3110
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:28 pm
- Location: Any Disney park you choose
What really chafes me is not so much the existence of Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brethren or even that they're getting a lot of attention as the fact that they're trying to shove it down our throats, that the Disney world (no relation to the resort in Florida) revolves around teenyboppers like these. And don't even get me started on how the only way that Mickey and the gang will ever see the light of day now is by way of some rip off of Blue's Clues. That is on its own thread, which is in fact kinda the same as this one, to be honest: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... sc&start=0.
But getting back to the Treasures, maybe another factor is that they're running a bit slim on true Walt-era content, Ludwig Von Drake and Jiminy Cricket (and SOTS, to a lesser degree) notwithstanding.
But getting back to the Treasures, maybe another factor is that they're running a bit slim on true Walt-era content, Ludwig Von Drake and Jiminy Cricket (and SOTS, to a lesser degree) notwithstanding.
-
merlinjones
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am
disneyrecordfan wrote:
>>Realistically, who among us has ever heard, "Oh, I just LOVE a Universal movie!" or "Paramount movies are my FAVORITE!" But for 80 years, people have said, "I love Disney movies" without the need for explaining what they mean.
Disney is more than "product" or a "brand." Walt Disney was more than a Zanuck or even the Warner Brothers in terms of his personal, lasting relevance. There's a reason his autograph outsells those of nearly every American president. There's a reason why Bob Thomas called his book "An American Original." Walt - and his work - became a part of the American fabric. Scholarly books have documented how Disney's contributions were perfectly timed with the baby boomers to largely shape a whole generation. That can't be said for the head of MGM or RKO in the 1950s. Walt Disney ranks up there with the likes of Lincoln in terms of his post-death, lasting influence. Like Lincoln, not a day goes by where you can't easily encounter his surname some place. (How often do you hear the name 'Dan Quayle' or 'Walter Mondale,' two modern American vice presidents who were a heartbeat away from leading the free world?)
The argument that "Annette" will "only" sell 25,000 copies, so why bother, when Hannah Montana will sell 2 million, is a straw argument. Troll through Amazon and see what else can be bought: who among us REALLY remembers or loves "Humanoids from the Deep" (1980), or "Strait-jacket" with Joan Crawford, or "Glen or Glenda?" Yet you can easily buy the obscure products of dead directors or producers more obscure than Walt Disney. I could cite hundreds of shlocky "B" movies available on DVD that have likely only sold a few thousand copies, but they're available because SOMEBODY wanted them.
It's disingenuous for the studio to "celebrate" the genius that was Walt with splashy releases for "Snow White" (it's nearly 75 years old, after all - who was around for that release, so why isn't it irrelevant?) or "Mary Poppins," but then they ignore OTHER movies approved by the same genius, movies for which he gave the greenlight, read the script, and visited the set and was involved in their making just as much as he was for those classics.
There are many examples, but "The Light in the Forest" is still one. It's an "old" book, after all, but for some "weird" reason, English teachers still assign it to today's kids to read. Disney movies were consistently solid box office staples for exhibitors, and I'll bet you that we can find movies released in 1957 from lesser studios on DVD, but not that Disney's adaptation of that movie, yet when I was a kid in the 1980s, we read the book and then watched the movie on VHS, in school.
As for Ludwig Von Drake being obscure, he appeared on one of the longest-running, highest-rated TV series of all time. Disney's show ran from 1955-1982. Can you tell me why it's ok for "Father Knows Best" or "Perry Mason" to be available on DVD? If we're talking marketing numbers, you expect me to believe that shows that weren't as popular or as long-lasting as the Disney shows somehow are MORE popular today when DVD sales are tallied? Who buys "Leave it to Beaver" or "Gilligan's Island"? 13-year-olds? (And if some of them do, is it because those old shows still get shown?)
And we could go on and on - The Little Rascals, The Three Stooges, Shirley Temple - all would be easily dismissed as "not relevant" in terms of million sellers today, but their rights holders have kept them relevant on television and in reruns to the point that these 60- to 70-year-old properties somehow sell enough to warrant releases.
I think it's an insulting premise to dismiss Walt Disney's classic work so easily, be it from a marketing perspective or "it's not my cup of tea" or any other argument. Unless there are geniuses among us on the Internet who have created more or inspired more than Walt Disney did. Merlin Jones is right - as long as there are those of us who remember and want to buy these productions, Disney should either release them or relinquish them.<<
Brilliant post, disneyrecordfan!
Walt's own classics of pop culture are separate and distinct from current company product. He was a specific filmmaker, producer, artist, storyteller, showman (not unlike Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, George Lucas or Steven Speilberg), whose entire body of work from major to minor is worthy of constant exposure.
If Ted Turner had bought the Walt Disney library in the 1980s, we'd be over at TCM or WB's site making noise instead of here. That there is a current brand of product with the "Disney" name is simply irrelevant to exhibiting Walt Disney's own work - - it's not the same thing or for the same people.
The Walt Disney Treasures -- along with Uncle Remus, Ludwig Von Drake, Jiminy Cricket and Ranger Woodlore, should live on.
>>Realistically, who among us has ever heard, "Oh, I just LOVE a Universal movie!" or "Paramount movies are my FAVORITE!" But for 80 years, people have said, "I love Disney movies" without the need for explaining what they mean.
Disney is more than "product" or a "brand." Walt Disney was more than a Zanuck or even the Warner Brothers in terms of his personal, lasting relevance. There's a reason his autograph outsells those of nearly every American president. There's a reason why Bob Thomas called his book "An American Original." Walt - and his work - became a part of the American fabric. Scholarly books have documented how Disney's contributions were perfectly timed with the baby boomers to largely shape a whole generation. That can't be said for the head of MGM or RKO in the 1950s. Walt Disney ranks up there with the likes of Lincoln in terms of his post-death, lasting influence. Like Lincoln, not a day goes by where you can't easily encounter his surname some place. (How often do you hear the name 'Dan Quayle' or 'Walter Mondale,' two modern American vice presidents who were a heartbeat away from leading the free world?)
The argument that "Annette" will "only" sell 25,000 copies, so why bother, when Hannah Montana will sell 2 million, is a straw argument. Troll through Amazon and see what else can be bought: who among us REALLY remembers or loves "Humanoids from the Deep" (1980), or "Strait-jacket" with Joan Crawford, or "Glen or Glenda?" Yet you can easily buy the obscure products of dead directors or producers more obscure than Walt Disney. I could cite hundreds of shlocky "B" movies available on DVD that have likely only sold a few thousand copies, but they're available because SOMEBODY wanted them.
It's disingenuous for the studio to "celebrate" the genius that was Walt with splashy releases for "Snow White" (it's nearly 75 years old, after all - who was around for that release, so why isn't it irrelevant?) or "Mary Poppins," but then they ignore OTHER movies approved by the same genius, movies for which he gave the greenlight, read the script, and visited the set and was involved in their making just as much as he was for those classics.
There are many examples, but "The Light in the Forest" is still one. It's an "old" book, after all, but for some "weird" reason, English teachers still assign it to today's kids to read. Disney movies were consistently solid box office staples for exhibitors, and I'll bet you that we can find movies released in 1957 from lesser studios on DVD, but not that Disney's adaptation of that movie, yet when I was a kid in the 1980s, we read the book and then watched the movie on VHS, in school.
As for Ludwig Von Drake being obscure, he appeared on one of the longest-running, highest-rated TV series of all time. Disney's show ran from 1955-1982. Can you tell me why it's ok for "Father Knows Best" or "Perry Mason" to be available on DVD? If we're talking marketing numbers, you expect me to believe that shows that weren't as popular or as long-lasting as the Disney shows somehow are MORE popular today when DVD sales are tallied? Who buys "Leave it to Beaver" or "Gilligan's Island"? 13-year-olds? (And if some of them do, is it because those old shows still get shown?)
And we could go on and on - The Little Rascals, The Three Stooges, Shirley Temple - all would be easily dismissed as "not relevant" in terms of million sellers today, but their rights holders have kept them relevant on television and in reruns to the point that these 60- to 70-year-old properties somehow sell enough to warrant releases.
I think it's an insulting premise to dismiss Walt Disney's classic work so easily, be it from a marketing perspective or "it's not my cup of tea" or any other argument. Unless there are geniuses among us on the Internet who have created more or inspired more than Walt Disney did. Merlin Jones is right - as long as there are those of us who remember and want to buy these productions, Disney should either release them or relinquish them.<<
Brilliant post, disneyrecordfan!
Walt's own classics of pop culture are separate and distinct from current company product. He was a specific filmmaker, producer, artist, storyteller, showman (not unlike Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, George Lucas or Steven Speilberg), whose entire body of work from major to minor is worthy of constant exposure.
If Ted Turner had bought the Walt Disney library in the 1980s, we'd be over at TCM or WB's site making noise instead of here. That there is a current brand of product with the "Disney" name is simply irrelevant to exhibiting Walt Disney's own work - - it's not the same thing or for the same people.
The Walt Disney Treasures -- along with Uncle Remus, Ludwig Von Drake, Jiminy Cricket and Ranger Woodlore, should live on.
Last edited by merlinjones on Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
merlinjones
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am
It couldn't hurt to remind the rights holders how much Walt Disney enthusiasts care about the Walt Disney Treasures line, and that there are many viable titles still to be released (particularly those featuring prominent animated characters and concepts), such as:
1. Song of the South (plus The Joel Chandler Harris Story, Trailers, promos, TV spots, Soundtrack, outtakes, artwork, etc.)
2. Ludwig Von Drake (18 episodes of Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color)
3. Ranger Woodlore and Humphrey Bear (all shorts plus 4 hour WWoC shows)
4. Jiminy Cricket (all educational shorts, MMC shorts, plus all 6 Jiminy hosted hour shows)
5. Chip an' Dale (all shorts, plus Walt Disney Presents hour show)
6. The Magic Mirror (all 6 TV hours hosted by Magic Mirror, including Walt's first two TV specials)
7. Disneyland Volume 3 (all remaining TV hours about the park including From the Pirates of the Caribbean to the World of Tomorrow and Disneyland Showtime!)
8. Mickey, Donald and Goofy on TV (TV hours featuring all the standard characters in original animation bridges, often interacting with Walt)
9. Rarities 2 (with remaining animated shorts and featurettes like It's Tough to Be a Bird And Susie the Little Blue Coupe)
Not to mention all the other great Walt material still in the library:
10. The Swamp Fox (all 8 episodes)
11. The Prince and the Pauper (all 3 Wonderful World of Color episodes plus the theatrical version)
12. Disneyland: Films From Park Attractions (America the Beautiful, Mouseketeer 3-D Jamboree, Story of Oil etc)
13. Annette 2 (Horsemasters, Escapade in Florence, music sequences)
14. Kurt Russell (TV movies and featurettes like Willie and the Yank, Secret of Boyne Castle, Disneyland Showtime and Dad, Can I Borrow the Car?)
15. Best of Disneyland Series Season Sets
16. Best of Walt Disney Presents Series Season Sets
17. Best of Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color Season Sets
18. Best of The Mickey Mouse Club
19. Moochie (Moochie of the Little League, Moochie of Pop Warner Football, Mooncussers, Johnny Shiloh)
20. Spin and Marty 2 and 3 (With Annette, Darlene and Moochie)
21. The Hardy Boys 2
22. Corky and White Shadow (Darlene)
23. People and Places
24. The Fabulous 40's (uncut versions of all the 1940's animated package features)
25. Animal Stories (best of the TV hours like Sammy, the Way Out Seal)
26. The Mouse Factory - Complete Series
27. Disney Family Album - Complete Series
28. A Walt Disney Christmas
29. A Walt Disney Halloween
...And that doesn't even account for all the lesser known TV limited series and TV movies like Elfego Baca, Texas John Slaughter, Kilroy, Gallegher, et al -- and additional MMC serials like Clint and Mac.
Walt Disney Home Entertainment
Senior Vice President Worldwide Operations: William (Bill) Segil
Executive Vice President Worldwide Marketing, Creative Content, and Business Development: Gordon K. Ho
Executive Vice President Worldwide Sales, Distribution, and Trade Marketing: Patrick (Pat) Fitzgerald
The Walt Disney Company
President, CEO, and Director: Robert A. (Bob) Iger
Chairman The Walt Disney Studios Rich Ross
Chief Creative Officer Walt Disney Animation John Lasseter
The Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Home Entertainment
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521
1. Song of the South (plus The Joel Chandler Harris Story, Trailers, promos, TV spots, Soundtrack, outtakes, artwork, etc.)
2. Ludwig Von Drake (18 episodes of Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color)
3. Ranger Woodlore and Humphrey Bear (all shorts plus 4 hour WWoC shows)
4. Jiminy Cricket (all educational shorts, MMC shorts, plus all 6 Jiminy hosted hour shows)
5. Chip an' Dale (all shorts, plus Walt Disney Presents hour show)
6. The Magic Mirror (all 6 TV hours hosted by Magic Mirror, including Walt's first two TV specials)
7. Disneyland Volume 3 (all remaining TV hours about the park including From the Pirates of the Caribbean to the World of Tomorrow and Disneyland Showtime!)
8. Mickey, Donald and Goofy on TV (TV hours featuring all the standard characters in original animation bridges, often interacting with Walt)
9. Rarities 2 (with remaining animated shorts and featurettes like It's Tough to Be a Bird And Susie the Little Blue Coupe)
Not to mention all the other great Walt material still in the library:
10. The Swamp Fox (all 8 episodes)
11. The Prince and the Pauper (all 3 Wonderful World of Color episodes plus the theatrical version)
12. Disneyland: Films From Park Attractions (America the Beautiful, Mouseketeer 3-D Jamboree, Story of Oil etc)
13. Annette 2 (Horsemasters, Escapade in Florence, music sequences)
14. Kurt Russell (TV movies and featurettes like Willie and the Yank, Secret of Boyne Castle, Disneyland Showtime and Dad, Can I Borrow the Car?)
15. Best of Disneyland Series Season Sets
16. Best of Walt Disney Presents Series Season Sets
17. Best of Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color Season Sets
18. Best of The Mickey Mouse Club
19. Moochie (Moochie of the Little League, Moochie of Pop Warner Football, Mooncussers, Johnny Shiloh)
20. Spin and Marty 2 and 3 (With Annette, Darlene and Moochie)
21. The Hardy Boys 2
22. Corky and White Shadow (Darlene)
23. People and Places
24. The Fabulous 40's (uncut versions of all the 1940's animated package features)
25. Animal Stories (best of the TV hours like Sammy, the Way Out Seal)
26. The Mouse Factory - Complete Series
27. Disney Family Album - Complete Series
28. A Walt Disney Christmas
29. A Walt Disney Halloween
...And that doesn't even account for all the lesser known TV limited series and TV movies like Elfego Baca, Texas John Slaughter, Kilroy, Gallegher, et al -- and additional MMC serials like Clint and Mac.
Walt Disney Home Entertainment
Senior Vice President Worldwide Operations: William (Bill) Segil
Executive Vice President Worldwide Marketing, Creative Content, and Business Development: Gordon K. Ho
Executive Vice President Worldwide Sales, Distribution, and Trade Marketing: Patrick (Pat) Fitzgerald
The Walt Disney Company
President, CEO, and Director: Robert A. (Bob) Iger
Chairman The Walt Disney Studios Rich Ross
Chief Creative Officer Walt Disney Animation John Lasseter
The Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Home Entertainment
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521
-
Big Disney Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3110
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:28 pm
- Location: Any Disney park you choose
I doubt that writing letters will help much.merlinjones wrote: Walt Disney Home Entertainment
Senior Vice President Worldwide Operations: William (Bill) Segil
Executive Vice President Worldwide Marketing, Creative Content, and Business Development: Gordon K. Ho
Executive Vice President Worldwide Sales, Distribution, and Trade Marketing: Patrick (Pat) Fitzgerald
The Walt Disney Company
President, CEO, and Director: Robert A. (Bob) Iger
Chairman The Walt Disney Studios Rich Ross
Chief Creative Officer Walt Disney Animation John Lasseter
The Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Home Entertainment
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521
-
Margos
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1931
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA
(Not going to bother quoting the huge posts above, but....)
Well said, Merlinjones!
Well said, Merlinjones!http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
http://childrenofnight.webs.com
^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
I was thinking about the possibility of the treasures being...
"The Boys"
"Walt and El Grupo"
"Waking Sleeping Beauty"
IF....
They released those as was/is being speculated, there would be plenty from the anthology series to flesh out and make these sets awesome.
For example, with Sleeping Beauty, "Four Artists Paint One Tree", "A Calvacade of Songs", "Disney's Unsung Villains" , and more.
The anthology series is a great resource for Disney history, and would do well to be released on it's own at some point.
"The Boys"
"Walt and El Grupo"
"Waking Sleeping Beauty"
IF....
They released those as was/is being speculated, there would be plenty from the anthology series to flesh out and make these sets awesome.
For example, with Sleeping Beauty, "Four Artists Paint One Tree", "A Calvacade of Songs", "Disney's Unsung Villains" , and more.
The anthology series is a great resource for Disney history, and would do well to be released on it's own at some point.
Where's the rest of Elfego Baca and the Swamp Fox?
-
Big Disney Fan
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3110
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:28 pm
- Location: Any Disney park you choose
-
merlinjones
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am
Personally, I'm weary of Walt Disney's studio being eulogized and memorialized as if burying the past through legend and analysis is the same thing as keeping Walt's library active for new generations.
The Walt Disney Treasures series was something more - - they were offering Walt's actual work, not just archival, nostalgic commentaries on it. That's what made these worth buying. The commentaries and editorial features were a bonus to enhance the experience of the film, not the experience itself. Fine thing when we can get dozens of books and documentaries about Walt films, but not the actual films ("Song of the South" anyone?)!!!
I'd like to just see all of Walt's work made available to enjoy again for what it is -- kept alive as entertainment rather than just discussed and portrayed as ancient film history.
Facts: The film is in the vault. Telecine is not that expensive.
Yes, that "Disneyland" documentary package worked out because Leonard chose to fill it out with many of the complete Disneyland TV shows and featurettes we needed and wanted (and there are more to get) -- but unless the (excellent, moving and interesting) Sherman documentary includes complete presentations of "An Adventure in Color," "Carnival Time," "The Horsemasters" and "Escapade in Florence" I don't see how it's packaging as a Treasure helps to solve our unreleased Walt films problems. If it does include those kinds of things, then great!
"El Groupo" would be a great extra for a "Saludos Amigos," "The Three Caballeros," "Blame it on the Samba" and all the other South American derived shorts box set -- but those films are already available to us.
(...and "Waking Sleeping Beauty" isn't even about Walt or his times at all, so I don't see that helping here).
No matter what -- these (worthy) recent theatrical documentaries will be released to DVD anyway. Why make eliminate an opportunity for "Walt Disney Treasures" with their inclusion in this series?
In short, I'd rather see Ludwig VonDrake doing the twist. He's funny.
The talking heads I'd rather see belong to Hans Conreid as The Magic Mirror. He's funny.
I'd rather see Annette sing "Dream Boy." She's pretty.
I'd rather be lectured by Jiminy Cricket or Ranger Woodlore. Maybe I'll learn something about the world.
I'd rather listen to Uncle Remus tell his tales. They are wonderful.
The Walt Disney Treasures series was something more - - they were offering Walt's actual work, not just archival, nostalgic commentaries on it. That's what made these worth buying. The commentaries and editorial features were a bonus to enhance the experience of the film, not the experience itself. Fine thing when we can get dozens of books and documentaries about Walt films, but not the actual films ("Song of the South" anyone?)!!!
I'd like to just see all of Walt's work made available to enjoy again for what it is -- kept alive as entertainment rather than just discussed and portrayed as ancient film history.
Facts: The film is in the vault. Telecine is not that expensive.
Yes, that "Disneyland" documentary package worked out because Leonard chose to fill it out with many of the complete Disneyland TV shows and featurettes we needed and wanted (and there are more to get) -- but unless the (excellent, moving and interesting) Sherman documentary includes complete presentations of "An Adventure in Color," "Carnival Time," "The Horsemasters" and "Escapade in Florence" I don't see how it's packaging as a Treasure helps to solve our unreleased Walt films problems. If it does include those kinds of things, then great!
"El Groupo" would be a great extra for a "Saludos Amigos," "The Three Caballeros," "Blame it on the Samba" and all the other South American derived shorts box set -- but those films are already available to us.
(...and "Waking Sleeping Beauty" isn't even about Walt or his times at all, so I don't see that helping here).
No matter what -- these (worthy) recent theatrical documentaries will be released to DVD anyway. Why make eliminate an opportunity for "Walt Disney Treasures" with their inclusion in this series?
In short, I'd rather see Ludwig VonDrake doing the twist. He's funny.
The talking heads I'd rather see belong to Hans Conreid as The Magic Mirror. He's funny.
I'd rather see Annette sing "Dream Boy." She's pretty.
I'd rather be lectured by Jiminy Cricket or Ranger Woodlore. Maybe I'll learn something about the world.
I'd rather listen to Uncle Remus tell his tales. They are wonderful.
Last edited by merlinjones on Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:11 pm, edited 9 times in total.
-
merlinjones
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am
>>Walt Disney Home Entertainment
Senior Vice President Worldwide Operations: William (Bill) Segil
Executive Vice President Worldwide Marketing, Creative Content, and Business Development: Gordon K. Ho
Executive Vice President Worldwide Sales, Distribution, and Trade Marketing: Patrick (Pat) Fitzgerald
The Walt Disney Company
President, CEO, and Director: Robert A. (Bob) Iger
Chairman The Walt Disney Studios Rich Ross
Chief Creative Officer Walt Disney Animation John Lasseter
The Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Home Entertainment
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521<<
>>I doubt that writing letters will help much.<<
Can't hurt to ask nicely. That's what saved the Submarine fleet.
Senior Vice President Worldwide Operations: William (Bill) Segil
Executive Vice President Worldwide Marketing, Creative Content, and Business Development: Gordon K. Ho
Executive Vice President Worldwide Sales, Distribution, and Trade Marketing: Patrick (Pat) Fitzgerald
The Walt Disney Company
President, CEO, and Director: Robert A. (Bob) Iger
Chairman The Walt Disney Studios Rich Ross
Chief Creative Officer Walt Disney Animation John Lasseter
The Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Home Entertainment
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521<<
>>I doubt that writing letters will help much.<<
Can't hurt to ask nicely. That's what saved the Submarine fleet.