DVDizzy Forum

WHY NO WART ON SPINE???

SpringHeelJack wrote:WHY NO WART ON SPINE???

probably because it's just early version of the cover art and we should see the final one soon.

magicalwands wrote:The logo is so horrible, I am really rolling on the floor laughing.

Maybe they just look off-model because they made the characters a 3D look. But anyhow, it is still beautiful!


"NEW! IMPACTFUL O-SLEEVE PACKAGE WITH FULL EMBOSS"

This has become the new awesome feature for Disney DVDs!

*Note the bottom: Package Art Not Final.

Yes I agree this is not final...I noticed that too...

Also Albert aka Escapay aka Scapsta is going to have a cow sided with fries and if that slogan is packed on the real final cover art


Also I bet this "cover art" is from a retailer flyer... You know the kind like what dvd retailers get... One of the rental stores in my town of 7000 people (that is now closed shop) use to give me flyers that had early cover art of a movie.... If this came in the Enchanted flyer I will be highly surprised....


and I think the logo on the bottom of the spine is the new Walt Disney Pictures logo only thing on the spine....

I like the concept, I think the colors look really nice together, and I'm glad to see that Merlin makes the cover. However, I agree that they both look a bit off model and I'm puzzled as to why there is no Wart on the spine as well. As has been stated, this is probably just the rough cover art, and we will see a revised final cover art in the near future. If the just touch a few things up (especially Wart, because he looks terrible), I think it will be a decent cover.

Thomas J wrote:"NEW! IMPACTFUL O-SLEEVE PACKAGE WITH FULL EMBOSS"

Sorry, what does this mean?

I mistyped it. It's actually FOIL emboss.
I got the quote from the picture.

drfsupercenter wrote:My point being that it's cropped, making it not worthwhile. Sure, widescreen is nice, but ONLY ON STUFF THAT WAS MADE IN THAT FORMAT.

You do know that it was matted to widescreen for it's original theatrical release and was animated with matting in mind?

Disney seem to be being a bit undecisive, first they release Robin Hood, Aristocats and Jungle Book matted to widescreen, then they preserve 101 Dalmatians in its full frame ratio without matting it, then back to widescreen with this.

I wonder if they'll ever make up their mind.

Although the 1.66:1 ratio is odd, since the film would most likely have been 1.75:1 or 1.77:1 ratio in the theatre. I wish Jungle Book and Robin would have had 1.66:1 transfers rather than 1.75:1. It would have given them that bit more "breathing space" I felt they needed.

Well the covers at least different from the Black Diamond/Masterpiece edition VHSs. This new ones good, especially Archimedes and the books. I'm sure a larger picture would look better.

bodster wrote:Disney seem to be being a bit undecisive, first they release Robin Hood, Aristocats and Jungle Book matted to widescreen, then they preserve 101 Dalmatians in its full frame ratio without matting it, then back to widescreen with this.

Why don't you / others ever mention The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh Friendship Edition? That was released unmatted too (wasn't it?)

Well, the GC DVDs were good...until I realized those weren't the true colors Walt had envisioned for his films. Disney use to restore films to make them look the way THEY wanted them to. Now, I'm glad they restore the films to their original quality not only for the Platinum Editions, but for the SEs as well, which is what I hope they do for "The Sword in the Stone".

Actually, I beg to differ on that one.

Have you seen Cinderella's Platinum Edition? The colors are way off... surely not how Disney wanted them to look. And other movies, like Snow White, are said to look "too new". Personally, I like Snow White's restoration. But not all older films are meant to look like they should be on Blu-Ray. I'll just say this: there IS a line that's very easy to cross when "restoring" a film.

The Lion King was like this too... in some shots, Nala and/or Scar look pink. A pink lion? Surely you can't be serious! So basically, not all restorations are good.

The Gold Classics Collection, however, is untouched from the original. It's not RESTORED, but it's not MESSED UP either.

it's a good thing this is just a "rough draft", but the DVD cover dosen't mean alot, besides it being pretty and shiny, it's whats inside that counts, I talking special features here, from what I read I'm not liking it so far.

Personally I hate this cover art. I have not disliked Disney cover art this much since... well I don't know how long! The font (looks like Sweeney Todd), the spine, the off-model-ness, its so awful! There needs to be some MAJOR work done on this puppy.

I have a feeling Disney's going to market the boys this one.

With a few touch-ups, it could look good.

this cover could turn out really well, by adding and fixing a few things here and there like, Mimi would be nice to see on the cover, tweaking Wart, Merlin, and Archamedies (I bet that's not how his name is spelled, but I can't spell to save my life) and make these three more like cartoon, than real life.

I agree with the Sweeny Tood reference, the logo needs to be more in the style of the movie, I'd also like to see more flying objects, especially the infamous "Sugar Bowl"

Merlin looks like Dumbledore with a bad hair day

Upon closer inspection, the cover does need major work. Wart and Merlin are really off model and Merlin never had a curvy branch for a staff it was a simple straight stick. The composition is great and I don't mind the Sweeney Todd esque font. It reminds me more of the recent King Arthur movie......o.k. now I hate it.

magicalwands wrote:Maybe they just look off-model because they made the characters a 3D look. But anyhow, it is still beautiful!

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:make these three more like cartoon, than real life.

*sigh* Okay, all they are doing is adding shadows and textures to the drawings, instead of only lines like they do for animated films. You see, it would be harder to add so many shadows and details for a whole film than just a cover. Notice they've added all the extra light and shadow and detail to every other Disney animated film cover! Without the extra details, the characters are still very off-model. Trust me, they are not drawn correctly.

This cover looks awful. Really, I guess the only good thing is the colors.

I don't think this is the final cover.

Either way, I'll be buying it.

PeterPanfan wrote:I don't think this is the final cover.

Either way, I'll be buying it.

You and every one else are abosolutely right. I mean, how many times have we seen a "draft" for a Disney DVD?

Well:

1.Peter Pan
2.The Jungle Book
3.101 Dalmatians
4.The Aristocats
and now
5.The Sword in the Stone

TonyWDA wrote:

PeterPanfan wrote:I don't think this is the final cover.

Either way, I'll be buying it.

You and every one else are abosolutely right. I mean, how many times have we seen a "draft" for a Disney DVD?

Well:

1.Peter Pan
2.The Jungle Book
3.101 Dalmatians
4.The Aristocats
and now
5.The Sword in the Stone

exactly, with the odd exception that personally I
like the original draft for 101 dalmatians much better!

REINIER wrote:

TonyWDA wrote: You and every one else are abosolutely right. I mean, how many times have we seen a "draft" for a Disney DVD?

Well:

1.Peter Pan
2.The Jungle Book
3.101 Dalmatians
4.The Aristocats
and now
5.The Sword in the Stone

exactly, with the odd exception that personally I
like the original draft for 101 dalmatians much better!

And speaking of drafts, what about other DVDs that have the cover drafts? Not to mention other SE DVDs or PE DVDs.