Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray, 2011

[MJW]

the studio's involved in a long-term project with Lowry to execute 4k scans and digital restorations of their entire animated feature catalog...and they're doing it for archival purposes as well as to facilitate impending home media releases.

That's excellent news to hear, and not only because it (hopefully) means that we'll see all the classics in HD eventually, but that they are seriously doing as much as they can to preserve these films for generations to come.

I know that we've lost some things here and there, like some of the Deems Taylor Fantasia audio for example, but it is remarkable that Disney has been able to preserve the majority of their films as well as they have. I'm sure it helps that the company is a juggernaut and has tons of money and the best of resources at their disposal.

[BK]

the studio's involved in a long-term project with Lowry to execute 4k scans and digital restorations of their entire animated feature catalog...and they're doing it for archival purposes as well as to facilitate impending home media releases.

That's excellent news to hear, and not only because it (hopefully) means that we'll see all the classics in HD eventually, but that they are seriously doing as much as they can to preserve these films for generations to come.

I know that we've lost some things here and there, like some of the Deems Taylor Fantasia audio for example, but it is remarkable that Disney has been able to preserve the majority of their films as well as they have. I'm sure it helps that the company is a juggernaut and has tons of money and the best of resources at their disposal.

Well, according to the National Film Registry 90% of pre-1920 movies have been lost and 50% of pre-1950 movies so each studio should do their part in keeping their catalogue preserved. Disney is a 'new' studio anyway. Good to know that their other features will be preserved. If they could just expand it to their shorts, other archival material and live action films that'd be great too. They probably are working on some as we speak anyway.

edit: The article states it's the 10th movie to receive it. Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty- what else? Dumbo surely and Alice. Black Cauldron?

Just wondering here then, if the Masterpiece in 2004 had a Lowry restoration already, aren't they just going to port it over to Blu? They reused the same transfer for the Un-Anniversary anyway and technically a higher capacity disc would allow for a higher bitrate(if that's what makes a transfer stronger) so the DVD was just a compressed version of an already up to standard transfer?

[Mr. Yagoobian]

I know that we've lost some things here and there, like some of the Deems Taylor Fantasia audio for example, but it is remarkable that Disney has been able to preserve the majority of their films as well as they have. I'm sure it helps that the company is a juggernaut and has tons of money and the best of resources at their disposal.

Well, that's not always been the case---the studio's been on the verge of bankruptcy more than once, the company's been in danger of corporate dismemberment and sell-off...

They've missed some opportunities, like the Shultheis notebook, and they've flat-out *lost* stuff, like the stacks of artwork that toured Japan a few decades back that was found at Chiba University a couple years ago. They've tossed stuff, too---my mother's brother worked for Disney in Orlando for a number of years and knew a fellow who sneaked home some robot maquettes from pre-production for The Black Hole which had been slated for destruction...wonder how much they'd go for on eBay?

But in terms of documenting the production process and maintaining morgues full of archival material, I think we're all pretty grateful the studio's been as attentive as it has regarding the value of the products and by-products of their work. It helps immeasurably that they've always been in the business of re-releasing their films...can you imagine if Disney treated their properties with the disregard Paramount showed for <i>The Godfather</i>, for example?

[MJW]

The article states it's the 10th movie to receive it. Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty- what else? Dumbo surely and Alice. Black Cauldron?

I believe that Lowry Digital does the majority, if not all, of Disney's animation restorations. Lowry's website lists the following in their filmography:

Alice in Wonderland
Bambi
The Black Cauldron
Cinderella
The Jungle Book
Lady and the Tramp
101 Dalmatians
Peter Pan
Pocahontas
Sleeping Beauty

However, Lowry Digital's entry on Wikipedia boasts a longer list, including:

The Lion King
Aladdin
Beauty and the Beast
The Little Mermaid
Oliver & Company
The Black Cauldron
The Fox and the Hound
The Rescuers
Robin Hood
The Jungle Book
One Hundred and One Dalmations
Sleeping Beauty
Lady and the Tramp
Peter Pan
Alice in Wonderland
Cinedrella
Bambi
Dumbo
Pinocchio
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

I think Lowry has been doing the restorations since or before the Platinum line, so titles included in list that haven't made their HD debut yet (Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, etc.) aren't necessarily being prepped for a Blu-ray release just yet, they are in the list because Lowry had done work on them previously.

Just wondering here then, if the Masterpiece in 2004 had a Lowry restoration already, aren't they just going to port it over to Blu?

I wondered about this as well. I don't know if the restoration process is different when the intention is to output to Blu than it is for output to DVD. Maybe they go into much finer detail for HD, since it would be far more noticable than standard def?

The Black Cauldron just this year had a full restoration by Lowry for output to DVD, does that also mean the print is ready for transfer to Blu-ray, or would additional work need to be done? I would assume that if they were going to go through with a restoration, they would just get it all done at once, even if they didn't have plans to release the film (such as Cauldron) on Blu-ray in the near future. At least they would have it ready to go when the time came?

[BK]

It would make no sense for them to do a half-baked restoration of Black Cauldron even if it's only for DVD because as they said they want to or need to restore all their films for archival purposes and secondly it's cheaper to do it once than doing it again and again.

Also I don't understand how films like Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King are slated under being restored. Aren't all of these digital? If we ignore the Wiki list which is bound to be misinformed, Pocahontas still appears on the website...it's like saying Lowry restored Toy Story 3 or something.

[BK]

I know that we've lost some things here and there, like some of the Deems Taylor Fantasia audio for example, but it is remarkable that Disney has been able to preserve the majority of their films as well as they have. I'm sure it helps that the company is a juggernaut and has tons of money and the best of resources at their disposal.

Well, that's not always been the case---the studio's been on the verge of bankruptcy more than once, the company's been in danger of corporate dismemberment and sell-off...

They've missed some opportunities, like the Shultheis notebook, and they've flat-out *lost* stuff, like the stacks of artwork that toured Japan a few decades back that was found at Chiba University a couple years ago. They've tossed stuff, too---my mother's brother worked for Disney in Orlando for a number of years and knew a fellow who sneaked home some robot maquettes from pre-production for The Black Hole which had been slated for destruction...wonder how much they'd go for on eBay?

But in terms of documenting the production process and maintaining morgues full of archival material, I think we're all pretty grateful the studio's been as attentive as it has regarding the value of the products and by-products of their work. It helps immeasurably that they've always been in the business of re-releasing their films...can you imagine if Disney treated their properties with the disregard Paramount showed for <i>The Godfather</i>, for example?

Not that I own the set but hasn't Godfather received quite a good release the last time round? That Paramount Sapphire collection or whatnot.

[MJW]

Also I don't understand how films like Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King are slated under being restored. Aren't all of these digital?

I think they are still processing even the digital titles (CAPS) to remove any flaws that exist in the print that may become overly obvious in HD. I know they had to digitally remove "water spots" or something from the backgrounds of Beauty and the Beast, so maybe it's something along those lines.

Digital or not, the core artwork (in most cases) started out on paper, so I guess there might need to be a little further cleaning up or distilling to make sure it looks really good in HD. Maybe little flaws or inconsistences they could get away with in standard def would be more blaringly obvious on Blu and require their attention?

[KubrickFan]

.can you imagine if Disney treated their properties with the disregard Paramount showed for <i>The Godfather</i>, for example?

What are you talking about? The Godfather set was great. The movies looked outstanding, and the set included all of the supplements from the older version, plus a couple of new ones in HD.

I wondered about this as well. I don't know if the restoration process is different when the intention is to output to Blu than it is for output to DVD. Maybe they go into much finer detail for HD, since it would be far more noticable than standard def?

The Black Cauldron just this year had a full restoration by Lowry for output to DVD, does that also mean the print is ready for transfer to Blu-ray, or would additional work need to be done? I would assume that if they were going to go through with a restoration, they would just get it all done at once, even if they didn't have plans to release the film (such as Cauldron) on Blu-ray in the near future. At least they would have it ready to go when the time came?

Every restoration is done in HD. I believe the Black Cauldron restoration was the same as the one for the anamorphic French edition. Since that one's a couple of years old, it could be that it wouldn't be up to the high standards Disney wants. Often times restorations get redone, like the Wizard of Oz, or Gone With the Wind. Even though the previous restorations weren't done too long ago, Warner thought they could do better. Of course, those are very popular titles, and The Black Cauldron really isn't.
However, TBC was shot on 70mm, I believe, so it really should look incredible. If Disney would put in the time and money for a proper restoration, and a proper special edition DVD and Blu-ray, this could be the best set they've ever made. Imagine a documentary that goes in-depth at everything that happened during the making of the movie. How fascinating would that be?

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Not that I own the set but hasn't Godfather received quite a good release the last time round? That Paramount Sapphire collection or whatnot.

This last time around, yes.

What are you talking about? The Godfather set was great. The movies looked outstanding, and the set included all of the supplements from the older version, plus a couple of new ones in HD.

What I'm talking about is addressed extensively in one of those excellent new supplements entitled "Emulsional Rescue": Revealing <i>The Godfather</i>;" it's also addressed elsewhere, like <a href="http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feat ... 6">this</a> interview with Robert A. Harris on the restoration (from which I'll briefly quote):

...one of the dirty little secrets in Hollywood in the last few years is that its original negative has been in a state of major disrepair and without a serious and expensive restoration effort, it was in serious danger of disappearing forever.
...
...[Harris] has managed to take a negative that was torn, faded and missing nearly 20 minutes of footage and restore it to the most nearly pristine state that it has been in since it premiered in 1972.

My point is that with a Disney film, we're not likely in danger of facing a situation in which a studio representative says "Hey, we accidentally destroyed 30 feet of the original negative"---which is what happened to <i>The Godfather</i> in Paramount's care.

[BK]

Not that I own the set but hasn't Godfather received quite a good release the last time round? That Paramount Sapphire collection or whatnot.

This last time around, yes.

What are you talking about? The Godfather set was great. The movies looked outstanding, and the set included all of the supplements from the older version, plus a couple of new ones in HD.

What I'm talking about is addressed extensively in one of those excellent new supplements entitled "Emulsional Rescue": Revealing <i>The Godfather</i>;" it's also addressed elsewhere, like <a href="http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feat ... 6">this</a> interview with Robert A. Harris on the restoration (from which I'll briefly quote):

...one of the dirty little secrets in Hollywood in the last few years is that its original negative has been in a state of major disrepair and without a serious and expensive restoration effort, it was in serious danger of disappearing forever.
...
...[Harris] has managed to take a negative that was torn, faded and missing nearly 20 minutes of footage and restore it to the most nearly pristine state that it has been in since it premiered in 1972.

My point is that with a Disney film, we're not likely in danger of facing a situation in which a studio representative says "Hey, we accidentally destroyed 30 feet of the original negative"---which is what happened to <i>The Godfather</i> in Paramount's care.

Wow I don't think Disney will be as bad as Paramount but you can't say that there is no danger of doing so.

Disney haven't exactly wowed the world with its live action transfers pre-1990 and I'm also willing to bet that many are in a worse state of disrepair. Granted, Godfather is a premium title whereas it's probably a title no one cares about in Disney's case, since there isn't actually much to care about anyway.

Also, you're right that at least the animation features of the 1940s have all been restored now but what about the shorts/package features? I'm not 100% confident Disney have actually restored them. I'd also rather they unedit cigarettes and whatever nonsense they decided to censor rather than doing a Fantasia expulsion of Sunflower forever. I mean, yes, cigarettes and smoking sucks, but come on, it's not as if seeing Peco Bill smoking is going to make children smoke and while I'm at it, it isn't going to make children have sex seeing VFX in the night sky or disrobe to random Arabian men because apparently good children do so.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Just wondering here then, if the Masterpiece in 2004 had a Lowry restoration already, aren't they just going to port it over to Blu?

I sure hope not. If you step-frame through the 00:05:04 mark, as the White Rabbit is doing the big take on his watch and just before he utters his first lines you can find a moment in which a few pieces of debris are visible in the sky plus a *big* ol' *hair* behind the Rabbit's head...and that took me about two minutes to find (including loading the DVD & navigating the menu). Really, spend a few minutes with it on a largish display and keep an eye on the backgrounds & I have no doubt you'll be spotting defects in short order. That's not up to par with the kind of work we've been getting on Disney animated BDs to date. I can't imagine they'll street <i>Alice</i> on BD looking like that.

Wow I don't think Disney will be as bad as Paramount but you can't say that there is no danger of doing so.

Disney haven't exactly wowed the world with its live action transfers pre-1990 and I'm also willing to bet that many are in a worse state of disrepair. Granted, Godfather is a premium title whereas it's probably a title no one cares about in Disney's case, since there isn't actually much to care about anyway.

Also, you're right that at least the animation features of the 1940s have all been restored now but what about the shorts/package features? I'm not 100% confident Disney have actually restored them. I'd also rather they unedit cigarettes and whatever nonsense they decided to censor rather than doing a Fantasia expulsion of Sunflower forever. I mean, yes, cigarettes and smoking sucks, but come on, it's not as if seeing Peco Bill smoking is going to make children smoke and while I'm at it, it isn't going to make children have sex seeing VFX in the night sky or disrobe to random Arabian men because apparently good children do so.

<i>Alice</i> is neither live-action nor pre-1990. Live-action pre-1990 films are not what built the studio. Compared to the animated features I'd guess that the live-action catalog is a low priority for this kind of archiving and restoration.

As for the vintage shorts, etc: it's almost certain they haven't done the kind of harvesting and restoration we've seen on the features---not all of them, not yet, even if they've begun. It's time-consuming, it's expensive, and resources are not unlimited: even if Disney's workforce were the size of China and their coffers rivaled that of the Catholic Church, there are only so many hours in a day and only so many employees & so much workspace at Lowry...and it's not as Disney is Lowry's only studio client.

Children imitate enough behavior in the programming they see that there's no good reason to keep addictive and toxic substances in the studio's films, and they have to be fed the idea that it's acceptable from *somewhere*---no one starts smoking because they think it smells and tastes good. And the studio lost its creator before his time because of lung cancer. I don't see anything inappropriate in editing out smoking. (And I don't know what urban legends have to do with it.)

[BK]

Just wondering here then, if the Masterpiece in 2004 had a Lowry restoration already, aren't they just going to port it over to Blu?

I sure hope not. If you step-frame through the 00:05:04 mark, as the White Rabbit is doing the big take on his watch and just before he utters his first lines you can find a moment in which a few pieces of debris are visible in the sky plus a *big* ol' *hair* behind the Rabbit's head...and that took me about two minutes to find (including loading the DVD & navigating the menu). Really, spend a few minutes with it on a largish display and keep an eye on the backgrounds & I have no doubt you'll be spotting defects in short order. That's not up to par with the kind of work we've been getting on Disney animated BDs to date. I can't imagine they'll street <i>Alice</i> on BD looking like that.

Wow I don't think Disney will be as bad as Paramount but you can't say that there is no danger of doing so.

Disney haven't exactly wowed the world with its live action transfers pre-1990 and I'm also willing to bet that many are in a worse state of disrepair. Granted, Godfather is a premium title whereas it's probably a title no one cares about in Disney's case, since there isn't actually much to care about anyway.

Also, you're right that at least the animation features of the 1940s have all been restored now but what about the shorts/package features? I'm not 100% confident Disney have actually restored them. I'd also rather they unedit cigarettes and whatever nonsense they decided to censor rather than doing a Fantasia expulsion of Sunflower forever. I mean, yes, cigarettes and smoking sucks, but come on, it's not as if seeing Peco Bill smoking is going to make children smoke and while I'm at it, it isn't going to make children have sex seeing VFX in the night sky or disrobe to random Arabian men because apparently good children do so.

<i>Alice</i> is neither live-action nor pre-1990. Live-action pre-1990 films are not what built the studio. Compared to the animated features I'd guess that the live-action catalog is a low priority for this kind of archiving and restoration.

As for the vintage shorts, etc: it's almost certain they haven't done the kind of harvesting and restoration we've seen on the features---not all of them, not yet, even if they've begun. It's time-consuming, it's expensive, and resources are not unlimited: even if Disney's workforce were the size of China and their coffers rivaled that of the Catholic Church, there are only so many hours in a day and only so many employees & so much workspace at Lowry...and it's not as Disney is Lowry's only studio client.

Children imitate enough behavior in the programming they see that there's no good reason to keep addictive and toxic substances in the studio's films, and they have to be fed the idea that it's acceptable from *somewhere*---no one starts smoking because they think it smells and tastes good. And the studio lost its creator before his time because of lung cancer. I don't see anything inappropriate in editing out smoking. (And I don't know what urban legends have to do with it.)

You sure took up the defense. I only asked, I've never seen the transfer so I assumed since the reviewer here said that Alice looked great. If it needs another then so be it.

I never implied Alice was a pre-1990 live action flick. You seem to think Disney do a fantastic job with keeping their material in a state of repair so I stated they have other films that they have not done so. I don't see what fame has to do with anything. Of course the animation has priority being what it is but ignoring everything else does mean they are being Paramount-esque. Furthermore I did state that they are likely titles that no one cares about.

I'm sure there are other companies like Lowry. You'd think that if hundreds of films need restoration they won't rely on just one company otherwise it would take an infinite amount of time. Since shorts have less priority they don't have to be Lowry-supervised. Money-wise, sure they shouldn't splash like no tomorrow but as you stated and they stated they are keeping their material archived so this is an expense that is going to be incurred anyway.

It's a product of its time for God's sake. Why not edit out instances of smoking everywhere then? There's the villain in Incredibles and Cruella de Vil for starters. Do away with that then. Doesn't Carl in Up have a pipe? Get rid of it. I think there's some in Atlantis. Violence in just about every movie from Beauty and the Beast to Snow White. If it was there let it remain. Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids what is right and wrong not the studio. The only thing the studio should do is not promote it and it doesn't.

Those were instances of editing out as well just because people like yourself were in uproar for mishearing and seeing things that weren't there. So what if the creator lost his life to smoking? The company has no need to preach the ills of it retroactively. He chose it and he died because of it. The world moves on.

People should inherently know the ills of it. Whether they are stupid enough to continue for whatever reason is their choice. By having someone smoking in a movie does not equate propaganda for it. Wasn't it Walt anyway who stated that the movies weren't just for kids? People are so sensitive these days about issues it's ridiculous, that combined with the anonymity of the Internet mean that trollish behaviour is widespread.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

You sure took up the defense. I only asked, I've never seen the transfer so I assumed since the reviewer here said that Alice looked great. If it needs another then so be it.

I never implied Alice was a pre-1990 live action flick. You seem to think Disney do a fantastic job with keeping their material in a state of repair so I stated they have other films that they have not done so. I don't see what fame has to do with anything. Of course the animation has priority being what it is but ignoring everything else does mean they are being Paramount-esque. Furthermore I did state that they are likely titles that no one cares about.

I'm sure there are other companies like Lowry. You'd think that if hundreds of films need restoration they won't rely on just one company otherwise it would take an infinite amount of time. Since shorts have less priority they don't have to be Lowry-supervised. Money-wise, sure they shouldn't splash like no tomorrow but as you stated and they stated they are keeping their material archived so this is an expense that is going to be incurred anyway.

It's a product of its time for God's sake. Why not edit out instances of smoking everywhere then? There's the villain in Incredibles and Cruella de Vil for starters. Do away with that then. Doesn't Carl in Up have a pipe? Get rid of it. I think there's some in Atlantis. Violence in just about every movie from Beauty and the Beast to Snow White. If it was there let it remain. Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids what is right and wrong not the studio. The only thing the studio should do is not promote it and it doesn't.

Those were instances of editing out as well just because people like yourself were in uproar for mishearing and seeing things that weren't there. So what if the creator lost his life to smoking? The company has no need to preach the ills of it retroactively. He chose it and he died because of it. The world moves on.

People should inherently know the ills of it. Whether they are stupid enough to continue for whatever reason is their choice. By having someone smoking in a movie does not equate propaganda for it. Wasn't it Walt anyway who stated that the movies weren't just for kids? People are so sensitive these days about issues it's ridiculous, that combined with the anonymity of the Internet mean that trollish behaviour is widespread.

I haven't jumped to the "defense" of anything. I thought the Masterpiece released looked great when it came out. Times have changed. As has my TV. And my expectations.

I'm unaware of single example of Disney's treatment of its live-action catalog that equates to the shoddy state which Paramount let befall a seminal, multi-Oscar-winning film.

Clearly there's a reason the studio has chosen Lowry. Yes, there are other restoration houses. There are also other studios and other films---Warner's made <i>thousands</i> of movies since the Disney studio's been in existence. I don't understand what your complaint is, but this isn't about sprinkling pixie dust, and it's unrealistic to expect the studio to be doing everything at once.

If it were possible for people to "inherently know the ills" of smoking there wouldn't be warnings on the packaging. The company feels that smoking cartoons could be construed as promoting the activity; given the impressionability and relative comprehension for consequences of the average pre-adolescent, it's not an unfounded concern. And, as you clearly pointed out, they haven't and very likely won't eliminate *all* tobacco use from their films. I can't imagine Cruella without her cigarette holder and the attendant smog, or Joe Carioca without his cigar, or Basil without his pipe, and to date I haven't had to. I don't see any reason to get worked up about Pecos Bill's cigarette because it doesn't do a thing for him. Although you feel "the company has no need to preach the ills of it retroactively" just because its "creator lost his life to smoking," they clearly feel differently. I respect that.

As for people like myself and uproars...well, I've never engaged in that sort of uproar, to the best of my knowledge.

To attempt to tie much of this in with the thread's purpose---I don't think they'll be eliminating the Caterpillar's hookah, either.

[WonderlandFever]

No there's no need to edit the caterpillar's hookah I mean in the live action version he still had it so I think it's safe too.

[Disneykid]

Just wondering here then, if the Masterpiece in 2004 had a Lowry restoration already, aren't they just going to port it over to Blu?

I sure hope not. If you step-frame through the 00:05:04 mark, as the White Rabbit is doing the big take on his watch and just before he utters his first lines you can find a moment in which a few pieces of debris are visible in the sky plus a *big* ol' *hair* behind the Rabbit's head...and that took me about two minutes to find (including loading the DVD & navigating the menu). Really, spend a few minutes with it on a largish display and keep an eye on the backgrounds & I have no doubt you'll be spotting defects in short order. That's not up to par with the kind of work we've been getting on Disney animated BDs to date. I can't imagine they'll street <i>Alice</i> on BD looking like that.

We're definitely getting a new restoration for the film (though the HD trailer for this release is taken from the 2004 restoration and doesn't look bad at all). The recent video Disney released that countdowns their 50 films leading up to Tangled shows a difference in quality from the previous restoration, and this is just from a flash video (top is 2004, bottom is taken from the countdown video):




Just from that quick cap we can see a brighter image, tighter background, and more refined outlines on Alice herself.

I don't think we'll see any of Lowry's previous restorations ported over the Blu-ray. I believe they were all done in 2K, and Disney prefers using 4K masters for BD. It'll be interesting to see what Cinderella and Peter Pan look like when they're released since those are the two most controversial ones (well, besides Beauty and the Beast).

[DisneyJedi]

I sure hope not. If you step-frame through the 00:05:04 mark, as the White Rabbit is doing the big take on his watch and just before he utters his first lines you can find a moment in which a few pieces of debris are visible in the sky plus a *big* ol' *hair* behind the Rabbit's head...and that took me about two minutes to find (including loading the DVD & navigating the menu). Really, spend a few minutes with it on a largish display and keep an eye on the backgrounds & I have no doubt you'll be spotting defects in short order. That's not up to par with the kind of work we've been getting on Disney animated BDs to date. I can't imagine they'll street <i>Alice</i> on BD looking like that.

We're definitely getting a new restoration for the film (though the HD trailer for this release is taken from the 2004 restoration and doesn't look bad at all). The recent video Disney released that countdowns their 50 films leading up to Tangled shows a difference in quality from the previous restoration, and this is just from a flash video (top is 2004, bottom is taken from the countdown video):




Just from that quick cap we can see a brighter image, tighter background, and more refined outlines on Alice herself.

I don't think we'll see any of Lowry's previous restorations ported over the Blu-ray. I believe they were all done in 2K, and Disney prefers using 4K masters for BD. It'll be interesting to see what Cinderella and Peter Pan look like when they're released since those are the two most controversial ones (well, besides Beauty and the Beast).

Well, if you compare the pictures, the one on top is kind of cropped, and you see a little more of the scenery in the bottom one. Keyword: A little.

[Coolmanio]

I just went on Jim Shore's site and saw that he is releasing 3 new AiW statues in February, and can't help but wonder if it had something to do with the fact that it's Alice's 60th birthday and the Blu-ray is being released. (The Alice statue looks nothing like her -_-)

[Sky Syndrome]

(The Alice statue looks nothing like her -_-)

She looks like a cartoonized version of the Alice in the Disney parks' meet and greets.

[Coolmanio]

Classic DVD features classified. The art gallery has 81 images instead of 59:

ALICE IN WONDERLAND [Additional material SE Bonus] 108m

N/A PAINTING THE ROSES RED (GAME)
00:59:26:00 ONE HOUR IN WONDERLAND
00:08:06:00 ALICE'S WONDERLAND
00:02:02:00 WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND (1951 ORIGINAL THEATRICAL TRAILER)
00:01:53:00 WALT DISNEY'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND (1974 THEATRICAL RERELEASE TRAILER)
00:01:21:00 (1954 INTRODUCTION) (WALT DISNEY TV INTRODUCTIONS)
00:01:09:00 ALICE IN WONDERLAND (WALT DISNEY TV INTRODUCTIONS - 1964 INTRODUCTION)
00:30:57:00 THE FRED WARING SHOW (EXCERPT)
00:03:56:00 ("I'M ODD" NEWLY DISCOVERED CHESHIRE CAT SONG)
00:00:00:01 "BEWARE THE JABBERWORK" (ORIGINAL SONG DEMO)
N/A "EVERYTHING HAS A USENESS" (ORIGINAL SONG DEMO)
N/A "SO THEY SAY" (ORIGINAL SONG DEMO)
N/A "BEAUTIFUL SOUP" (ORIGINAL SONG DEMO)
N/A "DREAM CARAVAN" (ORIGINAL SONG DEMO)
N/A "IF YOU'LL BELIEVE IN ME" (ORIGINAL SONG DEMO)
00:00:00:01 ALICE IN WONDERLAND - INTERACTIVE ART GALLERY (81 IMAGES)

[Lorddh]

I'm so anxious for this to come out!
February is so close from now...hopefully they don't change the date!