DVDizzy Forum

the 16 minutes actually includes the 8 minutes so it's just under 3 hours.

A BD-50 can have like 10 hours of HD video

KubrickFan wrote:

BK wrote: Fantasia 2:05
Pinocchio 1:28
Lion King 1:27
Beauty and the Beast 1:24
Snow White 1:23
Fantasia 2000 1:15
Sleeping Beauty 1:15
Bambi 1:10

I know everyone wants to defend Disney here but that excuse is pathetic.

Only Hercules, Mulan, Treasure Planet and Atlantis of catalogue Disney are longer than The Lion King. Might as well start the "it's okay that all the package features are on one disc because they're not really that long and no one cares about them" or "it's so great they've given us Herc, Hunch, Tarzan and TENG on one disc so we can expand our Disney collections faster".

I'm not defending Disney, but the fact is that they can fit a lot of material on a single 50 GB Blu-ray, and technically there's no need to let a single, hour and a half movie have a Blu-ray all by itself. There are many examples of great looking Blu-rays that are three or even four hours in length, so you could even fit in several bonus features in HD on the same disc. Not to mention stuff in SD, that takes even less space. The Thin Red Line Blu-ray by Criterion has a 170 minutes movie, along with many bonus features also in HD on a single BD 50. So by that standard, The Lion King could have three and a half hours worth of HD bonus material without letting the quality suffer, if you don't go into the fact that it needs seamless branching for the Special Edition.
Also, we haven't seen a single press release, have we? How do we even know it's true?

I apologize, I was getting ahead of myself.

It's just that Disney's one disc editions haven't been great. It's just been kind of beaten in that if they don't produce a 2-disc edition you'll be getting the treatment the 80s flicks and CGI flicks got.

It may also be the industry as a whole. If Avatar could fit 3 hours and look amazing why can't they do that for LOTR? Why can't they give us proper extra features for Harry Potter? Why have they left off so many exclusive features floating around for movies like Ratatouille (bonus disc, UK extras) and Cars (bonus disc, Aussie extras)? Why the hell does Toy Story 3 have the movie reproduced on the second disc at a lower bitrate for the commentary?

ajmrowland wrote:the 16 minutes actually includes the 8 minutes so it's just under 3 hours.

A BD-50 can have like 10 hours of HD video

Explain the questions I posed above then.

Especially Toy Story 3.

zackisthewalrus wrote:Also,

Why can't THAT be the Bu-ray cover?! I really like this one. Give a bit of a 90's era marketing vibe (a tad like the VHS cover perhaps) to it but still looks new.

-Skyler

Does no one else find it a little bit unfair that you can get a standalone DVD version but not a standalone Blu-Ray version? If your going to put out a combo pack that should be the only thing you put out.

The only thing I don't like about the DVD cover is the title. I think it's too simple.

Mmmadelon wrote:The only thing I don't like about the DVD cover is the title. I think it's too simple.

I was thinking the same. However, its still a helluva lot better than the sideways Blu-ray title.

BK wrote: I apologize, I was getting ahead of myself.

It's just that Disney's one disc editions haven't been great. It's just been kind of beaten in that if they don't produce a 2-disc edition you'll be getting the treatment the 80s flicks and CGI flicks got.

It may also be the industry as a whole. If Avatar could fit 3 hours and look amazing why can't they do that for LOTR? Why can't they give us proper extra features for Harry Potter? Why have they left off so many exclusive features floating around for movies like Ratatouille (bonus disc, UK extras) and Cars (bonus disc, Aussie extras)? Why the hell does Toy Story 3 have the movie reproduced on the second disc at a lower bitrate for the commentary?

It's true that they haven't given much attention to most of the single-disc releases, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. A Bug's Life's single Blu-ray release had most (if not all) of the features the 2-disc release had, and even added a couple. That's why people shouldn't be so hung up on how many discs are included. The Lion King's Laserdisc had a long documentary on it that could easily be ported over. If there are good features already available in standard definition, then I don't see the need to add new ones in HD just for the sake to have features in HD. Just like I don't see the need to add a second disc if you're not going to fill it with features. If it fits on the first disc, then put it on that one.

LOTR is actually a different story, since apparently it was a very early digital intermediate. Unlike physical film, which you can keep scanning in various resolutions (as long as the film survives, that is), with a digital intermediate, the film is scanned before even editing is begun, so it will never look as good as Avatar (which obviously is a ridiculous comparison) unless they re-do the entire post-production process (editing, special effects, color grading, etc.)
As for Harry Potter, the reason is simple: money. Warner knows that the series isn't done yet, so even though the previous movies have been re-released under an Ultimate Edition banner (a ridiculous term, but I digress) there's bound to be a final release version, with all eight movies in a big box, with a lot of bonus features. David Yates said he recorded an audio commentary for Order of the Phoenix, and that hasn't appeared anywhere yet, and there must be tons of other stuff as well.

And the odd choices Disney makes for including/not including bonus material brings me to the point I made earlier. Disney seems so hell bent on making new features, that they seem to forget they already have great documentaries or featurettes that already exist. Most of the Laserdiscs had more material than the subsequent DVDs. DVD sets like the Ultimate Toy Box or the Fantasia Anthology had a lot more features than the Blu-ray releases. I guess that all has to do with the fact that Disney want their movies to seem timeless. That's also why the movies to which it applies to, all have their grain removed, and have gotten new colors. Or the 7.1 remixes on the Blu-ray. Or the new cover art that the movies get. Or the new logo that seems to be plastered on every re-release. It's sad, but there's nothing we can do about it.

yamiiguy wrote:Does no one else find it a little bit unfair that you can get a standalone DVD version but not a standalone Blu-Ray version? If your going to put out a combo pack that should be the only thing you put out.

Unfair that you're getting MORE for the same price?? As it is, the combo packs are usually available for about $5 more than the super barebones DVD. If they released a standalone blu-ray, it would have to be the same price as the combo pack. They're not going to make it a measly two bucks more than the DVD. So, basically, you're getting a DVD and often a Digital Copy for free. I think it's pretty ridiculous to complain about free stuff.

SWillie! wrote:As it is, the combo packs are usually available for about $5 more than the super barebones DVD

Not to mention that there is usually a coupon for the Combo Pack.

Thanks for posting that lovely trilogy set. I just pre-ordered with my $8 coupon. Hopefully each movie has it's own packaging, because I would hate to pay all that money for them to throw it in a foam box together like how they did with toy story.

SWillie! wrote:

yamiiguy wrote:Does no one else find it a little bit unfair that you can get a standalone DVD version but not a standalone Blu-Ray version? If your going to put out a combo pack that should be the only thing you put out.

Unfair that you're getting MORE for the same price?? As it is, the combo packs are usually available for about $5 more than the super barebones DVD. If they released a standalone blu-ray, it would have to be the same price as the combo pack. They're not going to make it a measly two bucks more than the DVD. So, basically, you're getting a DVD and often a Digital Copy for free. I think it's pretty ridiculous to complain about free stuff.

I don't believe that they're free (I can't think of any title that has a standalone blu and triple play). It's more than just the "free" stuff though, it's the craptacular giant DOUBLE/TRIPLE PLAY banners that get plastered on things. It was just an observation though, why a standalone DVD and not a standalone BD? Why do DVD buyers get a choice?

P.S.: I'm in the UK, there's no coupons over here.

I can understand not liking the ugly DOUBLE PLAYAYAIOUDHSDA shouted on your guys' releases. But I think your logic that DVD buyers have the advantage is very silly.

You should just stop living in the UK. Come live over here, and bring Princess Kate with you.

I don't mind the DVD disc included with the Blu-rays at all. They are very useful for me, and I wish more studios released combo packs. The discs that are a waste are the digital copies. I wish they would stop putting the discs in and just issue a code. I've seen a few Blu-ray combos like that, but it needs to be more common.

estefan wrote:That FernGully VHS snuck in there almost seems like you want us to play a game of "which one of these is not like the other?"

One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell which one is not like the other
By the time I finish my song.
(...)
Did you guess which thing is not like the other?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this thing is not like the other,
Then you're absolutely right!

Because 25 of these things are great, or at least enjoyable movies!
While Ferngully is..... erm......... well, you know.

Oh man I am excited for the whole LK trilogy! My aunt stole my copy of the Platinum edition & The Lion King 1½ and when I got it back (I made my cousin steal it back for me, but I didn't get LK1½ back) it was scratched up so it skips a bit. Now I can replace it!

I guess my only critique is that the cover artist got lazy-ish because Timon, Pumbba, and Rafiki look pretty much the same as they appear on the LKII cover but it's not that big of a deal really haha
<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2ZX6HHibQnc/T ... JBko7L.jpg[/img]

It is kind of neat how the LK cover has that blue mystical kind of feel it had on the vhs cover. Part I and Part II seemed to have swap themes on their special edition covers. Lion King was orangey and Simba's Pride was bluey. Maybe part II will revert back to it original orange theme! idk haha

yamiiguy wrote:Does no one else find it a little bit unfair that you can get a standalone DVD version but not a standalone Blu-Ray version? If your going to put out a combo pack that should be the only thing you put out.

yes, especially since you're not paying for the DVD in the combo nor does it really take any more space inside the case than it does outside and most people only have one or two Blu-ray drives in their house.

Want2beBelle wrote:Thanks for posting that lovely trilogy set. I just pre-ordered with my $8 coupon. Hopefully each movie has it's own packaging, because I would hate to pay all that money for them to throw it in a foam box together like how they did with toy story.

look at the pic on Amazon for the trilogy set.

yamiiguy wrote:

SWillie! wrote: Unfair that you're getting MORE for the same price?? As it is, the combo packs are usually available for about $5 more than the super barebones DVD. If they released a standalone blu-ray, it would have to be the same price as the combo pack. They're not going to make it a measly two bucks more than the DVD. So, basically, you're getting a DVD and often a Digital Copy for free. I think it's pretty ridiculous to complain about free stuff.

I don't believe that they're free (I can't think of any title that has a standalone blu and triple play). It's more than just the "free" stuff though, it's the craptacular giant DOUBLE/TRIPLE PLAY banners that get plastered on things. It was just an observation though, why a standalone DVD and not a standalone BD? Why do DVD buyers get a choice?

P.S.: I'm in the UK, there's no coupons over here.

sorry for tping, but they are very much free......at first. Disney doesnt make multiple disc sets any more expensive than single-disc sets unless they're optional. They just dont lower the price as most studios do over time. so you''re half-right i guess.

GAH! Why is the DVD cover better?!