Oliver & Company- 20th Anniversary Edition

[JDCB1986]

The big question that I have is why does Oliver & Company get reissued for its 20th anniversary, but Hercules is still stuck with its letterboxed unrestored Gold Collection? 2007 would have been a great opportunity to market a 10th anniversary edition. Oliver & Company received a special edition that I would say satisfied 90% of its fans (and its still in print!). I would argue that Hercules is more popular than Oliver & Company. That's the way it feels to me, at least.

agreed

[271286]

The big question that I have is why does Oliver & Company get reissued for its 20th anniversary, but Hercules is still stuck with its letterboxed unrestored Gold Collection? 2007 would have been a great opportunity to market a 10th anniversary edition. Oliver & Company received a special edition that I would say satisfied 90% of its fans (and its still in print!). I would argue that Hercules is more popular than Oliver & Company. That's the way it feels to me, at least.

I was just about to post EXACTLY that! I cannot believe we're getting this pretty mediocre film in a SE when outstanding films like Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame has just been released as standard issues... insane... Disney should have put out 10th anniversary editions of Hercules and Hunchback in 2006 and 2007 like they did for Pocahontas...

[blackcauldron85]

Oliver & Company received a special edition that I would say satisfied 90% of its fans

I completely disagree. The so-called Special Edition isn't veryspecial at all...it has a short fluff promotional piece that really doesn't give any in-depth information at all...

I just reread the UD review, and I had forgotten about the trailers and art gallery. Still, though, a decent documentary on the making of the film would make the fans satisfied...

I 100% agree that Hercules needs to be rereleased with more substantial bonus features, but Oliver & Company does, too. Unfortunately, this new release doesn't offer that.

[goofystitch]

I guess the main reason I feel that Oliver & Company was treated well its first time around is that so many of the Disney animated films have been treated so poorly. Films that I feel had a bigger impact on todays pop culture. And the making of The Little Mermaid basically tells the story of Oliver & Company, which was also made in a trailer and during a time when Disney didn't have much faith in their animation department. The big difference is that Mermaid sparked the resurgence of Disney animation. I'm not saying that Oliver doesn't deserve more, but I think there are so many other titles that should have been paid attention to first and Oliver's first release wasn't bad.

On top of that, all they are adding is a new game and not doing a new restoration, so its hardly different from the last Special Edition. If Disney wanted to get me to buy it again, they would need to clean up the print and at least add a feature about how Billie Joel became attached to the film and about the song writing, because I feel the music in Oliver is one of its stronger points.

[blackcauldron85]

I don't think that the rerelease is necessary, either...but it's what Disney does best these days, releasing unecessary DVDs with the only new feature being a game...

There definintely should be a documentary on the music of O&C, because, I agree- that's a huge appeal of the movie; it's one of my absolute favorite soundtracks.

Even though I don't think that these poor rereleases are the way to go about it, I'm glad that some of the not-as-known movies are getting some attention, in terms of marketing. Especially with the advertisements on Disney Channel, some kids (and non-kids) will become interested in these films that they may not know about, which is a great thing.

I just can't understand what happened at Disney to have gone from releasing DVDs like the CEs of Tarzan, The Emperor's New Groove, Dinosaur, and Atlantis to releasing such mediocre DVDs as the rereleases of The Sword in the Stone and Oliver and Company.

Disney knows about their fanbase, and they should know that the fans will double-dip if the DVD is worth it. The average family who already owns Oliver and Company on DVD isn't going to double-dip. The only people (besides a few...*cough* Reyquila *cough* ) who will buy this new release are people who don't own the movie on DVD already...

Sleeping Beauty is a great example of what Disney should do if they had smarter business-sense. SB already had a great 2-disc set in 2003, and the new PE is different enough from the SE that many people double-dipped. I didn't, but many people did. I'd love to have definitive editions of the movies, with every bonus feature crammed on the discs that can be crammed, but that'd be bad business sense for Disney, because, except for upgraded picture & audio, people wouldn't have the incentive to double-dip nearly as much as they do now, when each release (at least should) have some new substantial bonus features.

[Fflewduur]

i am so mad they have not announced this for blu-ray. to me it makes no sense period to start releasing animated films on blu-ray then randomly stop, only to release the big titles and not the smaller ones. it's stupid. i mean seriously all of disney's animation deserves the blu-ray treatment,<b> and they have had the time to remaster it for blu-ray</b>. i think disney is making a really dumb move with this. along with mary poppins.

Unless we want BD releases which might look like pimply buttocks, no, they haven't had the time.

It's entirely possible that HD masters exist for the entire animated catalog <b>and they're just not good enough</b>.

... a rough rule of thumb would be that just about all HD masters produced prior to 5 years out, should/will have to be *redone*, or else the Blu-ray home media edition will reveal past unforeseen deficiencies.
In fact, a lot of the stuff that was HD mastered as recently as 3 years ago will have to be redone.

<a href="http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... 3">Link</a>.

Not the least reason being that masters that old were frequently monitored on CRT displays both smaller and less revealing than what's available on the consumer market today; what <i>used</i> to look good may actually contain flaws & deficiencies one could spot at home that originally went unnoticed in the lab (and might even pass unnoticed in the theater):

Today’s full resolution consumer displays showing their Blu-ray movies running in their Blu-ray players are more capable of mimicking the video master than the film’s theatrical presentation, for one, due to the film out process for release prints and the inherent nature of theatrical presentation with its weave, optics and projector light output.

<a href="http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... 6">Link</a>.

I think we can all agree we want the best-looking product possible, yes? I'd much prefer they get it done right than get it done quickly. Besides, the capability to produced 4k super-high-resolution scans as was done for the Sleeping Beauty negative just hasn't been around very long.

And this is very important: <b>creating those digital files is going to take longer for almost any Disney animated feature than almost any other film of equal length</b>, or at least anything shot on color negative. Oliver and Company is approximately 73 minutes long, or 4380 seconds; at 24 frames per second, that's more than 105,000 individual frames--or it WOULD be, except that (if I read <a href=http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... ml">Harris & Gluck</a> right) was shot using the successive exposure method:

...the successive exposure system utilizes a single strip of black and white film and places the three color records in succession (next to each other). So each single color frame that you see on screen is in fact a "triple exposure" of the three successive frames of negative. This method is ideally suited to filming animation...We adopted SE with the start of Snow Whie (probably late 1935 into early 1936)...The Little Mermaid (1989) was shot on color negative primarily as a financial consideration...there were some issues associated with Mermaid and the use of color negative so it was a one time only decision and the Studio went back to creating SE negatives for Beauty and the Beast and so on.

---so there are actually more than <b>315,000 individual frames</b> in Oliver & Company, enough for a color negative film running more than 3 1/2 hours. I haven't the faintest idea how long that kind of scanning work takes; mathematically it would take upwards of 800 frames a day for a solid year.

And that work has to be done <b>before</b> today's best-quality <b>restoration</b> even <b><i>begins</i></b>. (The <a href=http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... ml">Harris & Gluck</a> dialgoue on Sleeping Beauty's restoration is instructive, as is a recent <a href="http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod. ... article</a> in the online Post magazine.)

[Fflewduur]

I don't think that the rerelease is necessary, either...but it's what Disney does best these days, releasing unecessary DVDs with the only new feature being a game...

The only people (besides a few...*cough* Reyquila *cough* ) who will buy this new release are people who don't own the movie on DVD already...

Whether it's necessary for you is obviously for you to decide; what WDHE thinks is necessary is probably something else again. Last time Oliver released---and got the associated marketing push to go with it---there were only around half as many homes in the US with DVD players as there are today. Considering that half a new release's total sales usually come in its first month on the streets (due in no small part to that associated marketing push), it's at least possible that as many people could by this film for the first time as already own the previous edition--which is good for the film, besides being good for the studio.

Disney knows about their fanbase, and they should know that the fans will double-dip if the DVD is worth it.

Yup, they know their fanbase. Fans complain that double-dipping is evil; that they resent the expectation that they'll spend more money on the same film over & over again; that if a new release is a significant enough upgrade to tempt double-dipping, then it <i>should</i> have been that good <i>last</i> time around...and then fans---sometimes the very same fans---will also complain when a new re-release doesn't meet their personal standards for re-purchasing a film they already own. Disney knows their fanbase well enough to think medication and professional counseling might curb some of these bipolar tendencies, but is unwilling to subsidize treatment.

[Disney Duster]

Not the least reason being that masters that old were frequently monitored on CRT displays both smaller and less revealing than what's available on the consumer market today; what <i>used</i> to look good may actually contain flaws & deficiencies one could spot at home that originally went unnoticed in the lab (and might even pass unnoticed in the theater):

If it passed by people in the theater, then it should stay in the film. The original theatrical movie is what we should see. And who's to say how to fix these "flaws" without knowing what the original makers would want?

[blackcauldron85]

Last time Oliver released---and got the associated marketing push to go with it---there were only around half as many homes in the US with DVD players as there are today...it's at least possible that as many people could by this film for the first time as already own the previous edition--which is good for the film, besides being good for the studio.

Yup, they know their fanbase. Fans complain that double-dipping is evil; that they resent the expectation that they'll spend more money on the same film over & over again; that if a new release is a significant enough upgrade to tempt double-dipping, then it <i>should</i> have been that good <i>last</i> time around...and then fans---sometimes the very same fans---will also complain when a new re-release doesn't meet their personal standards for re-purchasing a film they already own.

I'm not saying that double-dipping is a great thing, but if the bonus features are worth it, then fans will double-dip. Basically, it hurts the fans' wallets more than it would have had the earlier release been jam-packed with bonus features (or had the earlier release had all the same bonus materials as the new edition), but it helps Disney; because of the extra effort they put into making the bonus features (and the film restoration), they'll make more money because people will double-dip.

[Fflewduur]

If it passed by people in the theater, then it should stay in the film. The original theatrical movie is what we should see. And who's to say how to fix these "flaws" without knowing what the original makers would want?

There really two different discussions to be had here....

But for simplicity's sake: I wasn't talking about flaws or deficiencies in the <b>film</b> itself, but flaws in the <b>HD master</b> of the film which result from monitoring the master's creation on professional displays which were less revealing than today's consumer displays---two different animals.

As for fixing actual flaws from the original source---well, it's very likely <a href="http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... html">been done</a>:

We can also address any glaring animation and paint flaw errors. Our philosophy is to take the stance that if they had seen the mis-painted cel (and undoubtedly they would have) if they had the time and wherewithal (budget) to fix it, they surely would have.

---Theo Gluck, Director of Library Restoration and Preservation for Walt Disney Studios. Depending on the nature of the flaws and the corrections, I don't have any problem with that sort of repair work because, time and money permitting, I doubt Uncle Walt (or any other artists responsible for a given film's creation) would want a print made from mis-painted cels going out the door with the Disney name on it; Walt was always more a perfectionist than a purist.

(We're now wandering off-topic, but there are other flaws that actually reside in films which I wouldn't mind seeing corrected. For example, there are lines clearly visible which suspend Angela Lansbury's uncooperative broom the first time she tries to mount it in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. I've seen them so many times I'd certainly miss them if they were gone, but they're painfully obvious and they take me out of the scene. Would Walt want them gone? Probably. Would I object if they were digitally removed from some future presentation? Probably not.)

I'm not saying that double-dipping is a great thing, but if the bonus features are worth it, then fans will double-dip. Basically, it hurts the fans' wallets more than it would have had the earlier release been jam-packed with bonus features (or had the earlier release had all the same bonus materials as the new edition), but it helps Disney; because of the extra effort they put into making the bonus features (and the film restoration), they'll make more money because people will double-dip.

And since they haven't put forth the effort with restoration and new/more bonuses, they're not ASKING you to double-dip on this release; for all intents & purposes, they're telling you NOT to bother with this new release if you own the previous one so your goodwill will not have been exhausted by the time a <i>legitimate</i> upgrade comes around...which will take more time, money, and physical and skilled human resources than they've chosen to invest in Oliver at this time.

[blackcauldron85]

And since they haven't put forth the effort with restoration and new/more bonuses, they're not ASKING you to double-dip on this release; for all intents & purposes, they're telling you NOT to bother with this new release if you own the previous one so your goodwill will not have been exhausted by the time a <i>legitimate</i> upgrade comes around...which will take more time, money, and physical and skilled human resources than they've chosen to invest in Oliver at this time.

That's actually a really good explanation. Good job! It makes sense.

[Disney Duster]

Oh, Fflewduur, so you were talking about the specific master of the film shown in theaters.

But I did already know that they "fixed" things in the films. I am still against it, even more since the "fixing" has seemed to leave the films looking different in a bad way. At least, fixing the way the paint looks, but also even some cel movements.

Who's to say they didn't know the wires were in there, and it was some kind of joke?

And when the Prince shimmied as he bent down to kiss Snow White, Walt said, "Let him shimmy." Sure, because it would cost too much to fix it, but he let it go forever instead of deciding to fix it in subsequent re-releases.

[Fflewduur]

Who's to say they didn't know the wires were in there, and it was some kind of joke?

And when the Prince shimmied as he bent down to kiss Snow White, Walt said, "Let him shimmy." Sure, because it would cost too much to fix it, but he let it go forever instead of deciding to fix it in subsequent re-releases.

Any collaborative creative effort on a large scale is a collection of concessions and compromises to a multitude of artistic viewpoints and financial and time constraints. My first college theatre technical director had an oft-repeated saying: Done is beautiful. It's more important to have a finished set an opening night, however flawed, than to have the lights come up on a set that's flawlessly executed but only 80% finished.

There's a universe of difference between Walt's era and today; it's far easier to make a paint-line correction in a digital file of the original negative than to re-paint a cel, re-shoot it, insert it into the film, and make any necessary adjustments due to anomalies in film processing to match the look of the rest of the scene.

I think the "joke" explanation is a bit of a stretch. Why that scene? Why make the effort to hide any of the tricks behind visual effects? This is Disney, not Brecht. If they thought it was funny to break our suspension of disbelief, they could have given us something with a punchline so we could be in on the joke. (Heck, they could have left the Sunset Squid sequence in 20,000 Leagues for a joke, and audiences would have laughed it out of the theater.)

[akhenaten]

the new anniversary cover courtesy of amazon.u may start ur bashing now

[Jack Skellington]

Actually that looks great.

[miklc]

Actually that looks great.

I completely agree with you, it's great

[Anne]

I agree with you guys, it's really great!

It's colorful and I like how the characters are displayed on it. And I like the city in the background. It's way more attractive than the previous edition. I liked how Jenny was pictured on the Special Edition cover but it wouldn't have been a great idea to add her on this new cover. I like it the way it is.

[akhenaten]

one dog is missing tho..einstein.

[universALLove]

one dog is missing tho..einstein.

And Georgette! I know she's not part of the gang as such but she's still a dog and I love her she's so funny. She should have been on the cover . I really like it though, much better than the last one .

[akhenaten]

crap how can i forget georgette.she's the show! now come to think of it just go back to the old VHS cover. the one with everyone on the bus or the one with dodger and oliver on the piano.they're the best. im still keeping my fingers crossed for a sleeping beauty quality restoration.