DVDizzy Forum

Mike wrote:I don't think Carrie's spoils the ending, just an iconic moment. But that's okay. I mean, that bloody prom IS Carrie. It doesn't show what really happens in the end (can you picture her mom up on the wall for the cover?). Unless I haven't seen the right cover, am I correct it's only her standing covered in blood?

Yeah, I probably should've excluded Carrie from the list, but in a way it spoils what should be a big moment for anyone who's never seen or heard of the movie. The image of her, drenched in blood, amidst flames and fire and brimstone...that totally spoils everything for a Carrie virgin.

Mike wrote:Yea Planet of the Apes with Miss Liberty is a real bone-headed move. I'm sure it got lots of complaints (and why didn't the fans get it changed?).

I don't know if it was the fans' outrage or Fox realizing what a blunder they made, but the cover was changed twice: in 2004 for the 35th Anniversary Edition, and again in 2006 for the "Legacy" and "Ultimate Collection" boxsets (and remastered single-disc release). Unfortunately, the spoiling cover is still used on Image Entertainment's Behind the Planet of the Apes: Special Collector's Edition DVD set.

Anyway, I'm just about laughing over people's arguments/debates about who should be on the cover/who should be on the spine/whether Disney should have 's or not, because it's all a lot of silly little nitpicking. I mean, how often will someone be looking at the cover and/or spine of the case? Seven hours a day?

Albert

Scaps wrote:I mean, how often will someone be looking at the cover and/or spine of the case? Seven hours a day?

I love seeing the bigger version of the cover. Although, maybe it's just me, but does Merlin look like a Muppet character to anyone else?

PrincePhillipFan wrote:Although, maybe it's just me, but does Merlin look like a Muppet character to anyone else?

I didn't notice that, but now that you say it, his eyes are kind of dead looking, as if they don't move and point in only one direction - LIKE A MUPPET! And look! Does anyone else think that Kay looks like Beaker (the muppet) in a helmet?

JDCB1986 wrote:And as far as the cover being a spoiler... I think it's pretty safe to bet every one knows the story of King Arthur by now.

I mean... If this were an original story it would be different.

But I'd say most people who know the story of The Sword And The Stone know how it ends and those who don't probably would never catch on that him holding the sword in the air means that he is king, until after they have watched the film, upon which the cover spoiling the ending would no longer really matter lol.

Like I already stated, the target of any Disney Animated Classic is children (these days), so their cover would ruin it for children who don't know the story. Think about how a lot of children first learn the stories through these movies anyway, even tales as well-known as Cinderella aren't well-known to kids until there parents put the movie on for them.

The beginning of the movie tells how anyone pulling the sword will be king, so it is still a spoiler that Arthur will be king by showing him pulling the sword.

Escapay, deciding who should be on the cover may be nit-picking, but "Walt Disney's" is needed because it is correct and pays respect to Walt. Film Freak noted that the features nearing Walt's death had to do with the old teaching the young and passing on knowledge, which is what Walt was hoping to do as he was getting closer to not being able to oversee everything anymore, and eventually not have any influence anymore (as a dead man). This is certainly Stone's case, and it should show Walt's personal input in the title. But all of them should have "'s".

I just checked - 101 Dalmatians Platinum Edition is also missing the 's. I think The Jungle Book Platinum Edition was the last DVD to say "Walt Disney's".

steve is right, The Jungle Book is that last DVD so far that says Walt Disney's. The 's to some isn't important, but it really is because, its showing respect for Walt Disney.

The official site is up and running. Check it out

Thanks for the link. According to the information posted there, they are now listing the Aspect Ratio as 1.33:1 !

(Technical specs listed under "Bonus Features" at the link below):

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/anima ... l?mchoice=

The text-only version of the site also lists 1.33:1. Clearly, either this or the earlier press release (which said 1.66:1) is wrong.

It still doesn't say what "much more" is, making it unclear if all the Gold Collection extras (like the anthology episode) have been carried over.

*faints*

Disney! WILL YOU FREAKING MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MINDS WITH ALL THESE RUDDY ASPECT RATIOS!!!??

This site is bad,Merlin looks way off-model,like a 3 years children drew him but thanks for finding it anyway .

Julian Carter wrote:*faints*

Disney! WILL YOU FREAKING MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MINDS WITH ALL THESE RUDDY ASPECT RATIOS!!!??

Couldn't have said it better myself.

1.33:1??? r they seriuous?oh dang..now im tempted to buy it vonly for the ****cover..

(runs)

Yes, they sure have waffled a lot on how to handle the DACs from the open-matte 60's through early 80's era on their most recent releases.

101 Dalmatians, Many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh, and Fox and the Hound were given open-matte transfers on their most recent release (although there is some controversy regarding whether or not Fox was truly open-matte)

Jungle Book, Aristocats and Robin Hood as we know got the matted widescreen treatment.

And at this point who knows what Sword will be?

All of this indecision and lack of consistency as to how Disney presents these films of course only underscores that there is more than one valid way to present all of these films from this era on DVD.

One can only wonder about the reasoning and/or debates that take place at BVHE about this, or if it is merely up to the whim of the producer of any given release. But surely they must know this is a unique situation where calculating "OAR" based on what has actually been drawn/filmed and "OAR" based on how the films were screened in many theatres clearly leads to two different results.

So I will once again suggest that BOTH ratios for these films should have been made available, either on the same release or on seperate editions with equal bonus features, release dates, and cover art.

Studios do it ALL THE TIME when there is clearly a correct and incorrect ratio, so why can't Disney do it now when there are truly 2 valid ratios and make everyone happy? Picking one ratio exclusively over the other for these films is only going to dissapoint a segment of their fans, and with good reason.

David S. wrote:One can only wonder about the reasoning and/or debates that take place at BVHE about this, or if it is merely up to the whim of the producer of any given release.

BVHE Exec 1: Okay, we're releasing The Sword in the Stone in a few months. How are we gonna handle the aspect ratio?

BVHE Exec 2: Let's do it in 2.35:1 and really piss off the animation fans!

BVHE Exec 3: Yeah, that'd really get their panties in a twist!

(all have a laugh)

BVHE Exec 1: No, seriously, what are we gonna do?

BVHE Exec 4: Well, the VHS was always in 1.33:1, as was the laserdisc and DVD. We should do it in 1.33:1 again, to be consistent.

BVHE Exec 2: But we've gotten reports from hundreds of irate parents with widescreen TVs who don't like that there are now bars on the sides of their TV. So we should matte it down to 1.66:1 or 1.75:1 in order to get that original theatrical experience.

BVHE Exec 4: Oh please, not that load of malarkey again. If you matte it even the slightest bit, you'll have stubborn animation fans crying foul that we don't show them the whole goddamn picture!

BVHE Exec 3: Obviously some of them will never understand the concept of theatrical matting, and that the artists and animators knew about it, and thus, had everything composed and animated for a matted frame.

BVHE Exec 1: Now, now, let's not get into either of those arguments again, guys. You both have valid points, but remember, we want to sell as many of these babies as possible regardless if it's proper ratio or not. For every hundred people who complain, there's a thousand more who are in ignorant bliss.

BVHE Exec 2: True, true. So, shall we make our decision the same way we did for the others?

BVHE Exec 4: Yes.

(An assistant brings out a bullseye target, with each ring saying either "1.33:", "1.66:1", or "1.75:1", and the bullseye says "Include both, goddammit!".)

BVHE 3: Whose turn is it at darts?

BVHE Exec 4: Mine.

(BVHE Exec 4 gets a set of darts, and is blindfolded.)

BVHE Exec 1: Okay, ready?

BVHE Exec 4: Ready.

(Everyone stands clear, and BVHE Exec 4 tosses each dart at the target, blindfolded. When he finishes, they go over and see which ratio got the majority of darts.)

BVHE Exec 2: Damn...two of them went to 1.33:1...and the other two went to 1.66:1.

BVHE Exec 1: Well, we'll just send out information saying it's one or the other. But I'll tell the DVD plant to pick whichever one they want, and do that. Let the consumers not find out until they put it on the player.

(All laugh.)

BVHE Exec 1: Okay, now that we have that over and done with, how about the special features?

BVHE Exec 3: I was able to acquire a freelance video crew and documentarian. They went out and interviewed various people who worked on the film, along with interviewing some animators here at Disney. Along with some older interviews we had with original animators, and a lot of nice photographs and artwork, they put together a really nice half-hour documentary about how the film was made.

BVHE Exec 4: I asked my four-year-old son what kind of game he'd like to see based on The Sword in the Stone and he told me he wanted to be a wizard like Merlin, so I got some people to design a sort of "Academy" for young wizards. Very Harry Potter-ish, and a lot of fun for my son.

BVHE Exec 2: I figured we could just shift over all the old stuff and not have to pay for anything new. But not that "Disneyland" episode, we'd have to pay residuals and licence out the clips again.

BVHE Exec 1: Okay. I think we'll go with the "Academy" game, and all the old stuff. Saves time and money!

BVHE Execs 2 & 4: All right!

(They high-five each other, but BVHE Exec 3 looks disappointed)

BVHE Exec 3: But what about my documentary?

BVHE Exec 1: Come on, BVHE Exec 3, who's really gonna watch that?

(BVHE Execs 1, 2, & 4 laugh at BVHE Exec 3.)

BVHE Exec 1: And our last bit of business...the restoration. BVHE Exec 2?

BVHE Exec 2: We gave it a minor clean-up and turned up the colors a bit, you know, make it look a little different, but not different enough. Did it all in only a week too!

BVHE Exec 1: A week!

(BVHE Execs 3 & 4 look shocked)

BVHE Exec 2: Um...yeah, a week, why?

BVHE Exec 1: A title like The Sword in The Stone doesn't need a week's worth of restoration. You should've been finished after 48 hours!

BVHE Exec 2: Oh...I'm sorry.

BVHE Exec 1: The five extra days of restoration is coming out of your summer bonus.

(BVHE Exec 2 looks sad.)

BVHE Exec 1: Okay, that's it for today. We'll meet again in a couple months to discuss Oliver & Company.

BVHE Exec 4: Why don't we just re-release the existing disc with new cover art and different preview trailers?

BVHE Exec 1: That sounds good. Consider it done. See you guys in September, I'm off to Tahiti!

(Everyone leaves.)

Albert

Best. Post. Ever.

Poor BVHE Exec 3. He actually seemed slightly concerned about quality.

steve wrote:Best. Post. Ever.

Thanks!

Jules wrote:Poor BVHE Exec 3. He actually seemed slightly concerned about quality.

Ditto.

He originally was going to go off on a long rant against the other execs about how Disney should be quality over quantity, but after the first few sentences, I didn't feel like writing it anymore (and it wasn't very funny).

Albert

(deleted conversation)

richard sherman uses his all access pass to the lab and insert some home made interviews on the disc bfr it goes into pressing.

"now i'm the tenth old man! (sniggers)"

pass by the hallway

"hi dick!"
"hi flloyd!"

Escapay that was the best thing I’ve ever read. The sad part is a typical Disney DVD board meeting is probably just like that.

Thank you David S. for posting the link to the official site. I like the site, and I can’t believe Madame Mim has her own desktop wallpaper. I do think the cheap animation on the main page is unnecessary; the characters look like cardboard cutouts. I am outraged over the aspect ratio. What is wrong with Disney? Nothing makes sense. I’m really annoyed.

In all fairness, Simba 3 first posted the link. After exploring the site I was surprised to see the change in aspect ratio listed so I then posted a link to that.

I actually prefer the fullscreen open-matte versions of these films because they show more picture, but get no joy in seeing other fans getting disapointed when they were expecting something based on what they were initially told the disc would be by Disney.

If the anthology episode "All About Magic" is not carried over to this disc, I'll be sticking with my plan of getting the 1,33:1 gold collection version anyway (even if the new one IS in 1.33:1) because the gold would have the more substantial bonus features.

I really wish BVHE could be counted on to list all contents of the disc in advance instead of listing the vague "and more". It would be nice to be able to make an informed decision about whether to pick up the Gold Collection version before they completely disappear from stores in my area. (and I've seen it in more than one place as recently as yesterday)

Also, regarding the aspect ratio, perhaps that is only a mistake and the 1.66:1 is still correct. As much as I prefer the fullscreen for these titles (NOT because it fills my screen, but because it shows the entire drawn frame) I don't take pleasure to see other people get disapointed. I remember how I felt when the lack of an open-matte transfer made the Jungle Book, Robin Hood, and Aristocats releases disapointing for me and I had to track down the OOP first versions.

Again, they should just put these films out in both ratios.

PS. Funny post, Escapay

So funny, yet so sad because it's probably so true...