The Black Cauldron special edition?

[Escapay]

As exciting as a 25th Anniversary Edition sounds...that means it should come in 2010, not 2009 as the site says. Then again, it could simply be Disney being sneaky in dates, given that Lady and the Tramp is labeled 50th Anniversary even though it came in 2006 rather than 2005.

I'd love for it to be a two-disc (even if it's just a two-disc with widescreen on Disc One, fullscreen on Disc Two, and a halfway-decent amount of supplements spread across the two), but this is The Black Cauldron we're talking about. One of the least successful Animated Classics that Disney ever made. And I can't see them making it a two-disc set if the bastards can't even see it fit to give Peter Pan a proper two-disc treatment, or upgrade worthy titles like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules to two-disc, not to mention forever stalling the two-disc of Lilo and Stitch. With the movie only 81 minutes long, it'll be easier for Disney to offer widescreen and pan&scan on one disc (one on each layer, presumably), and thus a small amount of bonus features.

At best, I think it'll be the restored anamorphic widescreen transfer that the R2 French DVD got, with the same supplements as the old GC (still gallery, trailer, "Trick or Treat", and game), the new game mentioned, and maybe the legendary deleted scenes (since every DVD studio knows deleted scenes is the supplement most consumers enjoy over others ). Heck, we may even lose the trailer, which would only piss me off even more. I'm not holding out on any interviews (new or vintage) because the only time Disney will interview you about a lesser-known part of general knowledge Disney history, it's if it's being released as part of the Treasures or Legacy DVDs (making it even more slim since they canceled future Legacy titles...).

Was there a laserdisc release that had a bunch of special features?

No.

Albert

[Flanger-Hanger]

Was there a laserdisc release that had a bunch of special features?

The Black cauldron was never given a laserdisc release in North America. I think only Japan and France had a laserdisc release for this film and the French one I think was p&s!

And Merlin, do tell about the deleted footage and how you got to see it. If reinserted that would make the film 100 minutes long instead of 80!

EDIT: I think Disney realizes the fact that this isn't exactly one of their more popular titles and that it only appeals to a niche market. Therefore if Disney has any hopes of making money off this reissue I think they would be smart to put together a decent package that would a) be appealing to those who already know about the film and b) encourage others to buy it who may not know what the film is. Escapay's description is the most likely one to happen but even that is better than the re releases of Robin hood and The Sword in the Stone.

[Disney Duster]

(since every DVD studio knows deleted scenes is the supplement most consumers enjoy over others ).

What is your beef with deleted scenes? It's more movie! Albert, it makes so much sense. You want the movie...it's more movie. It should be the number 1 bonus feature right after the feature presentation, it's like an extension of the feature presentation! It's like missing movie, no longer missing. You own the whole, entire, movie. You own as much movie as possible. As you could ever own.

[2099net]

Well, I'll make an exception for animated deleted scenes - especially those in storyboard only format, but generally deleted scenes are deleted for a reason.

I'm certainly against deleted scenes being re-edited back into a movie for no reason other than the prospect of making more profit. I'm against most deleted scenes being slapped on discs willy-nilly too - but I support them if they have introductions or, even better, commentary explaining exactly why they were deleted.

I'll say (quick guesstimate) about 60% of all "extended", "unrated" or "directors cuts" are substantuially worse than the theatrical cut.

Examples that spring immediately to mind: The 40 Year Old Virgin (far too long and loses focus), Mallrats (the opening is simply not needed), Fellowship of the Ring (far too much nothing happening throughout the movie), Gladiator (even Ridley Scott seems to disown this in his introduction! But then, its not "his" Directors Cut, which he still claims is the theatrical)...

[merlinjones]

>>If reinserted that would make the film 100 minutes long instead of 80!<<

Well, it seemed like 20 minutes, maybe only 10 or even less. But there was quite a bit. Nothing stands out to memory.

Reinsertion will never happen because the whole film would need to be remastered and remixed, which costs money - - and it doesn't make the movie any better at all. not to mention there is practically no audience for this picture due to its reputation.

But they could easily put the trims in as a special edition "extra" for only the cost of telecine. That is, if the trims haven't been tossed in the ensuing years, which is possible.

[KubrickFan]

Well, I'll make an exception for animated deleted scenes - especially those in storyboard only format, but generally deleted scenes are deleted for a reason.

I'm certainly against deleted scenes being re-edited back into a movie for no reason other than the prospect of making more profit. I'm against most deleted scenes being slapped on discs willy-nilly too - but I support them if they have introductions or, even better, commentary explaining exactly why they were deleted.

I'll say (quick guesstimate) about 60% of all "extended", "unrated" or "directors cuts" are substantuially worse than the theatrical cut.

Examples that spring immediately to mind: The 40 Year Old Virgin (far too long and loses focus), Mallrats (the opening is simply not needed), Fellowship of the Ring (far too much nothing happening throughout the movie), Gladiator (even Ridley Scott seems to disown this in his introduction! But then, its not "his" Directors Cut, which he still claims is the theatrical)...

I agree totally with you here. Most director's cuts suffer from these, as they lose pacing and the scenes mostly (there are exceptions of course) don't help the movie. Except on The Lord Of The Rings. I disagree with you here. The Extended Cuts are totally better than the Theatrical ones. The story really gets fleshed out more, and the pacing isn't as rushed the way it was in theatres. But even Peter Jackson doesn't see this as his cut, that was the theatrical.
And Frank Darabont doesn't even want to include the deleted scenes of his films, since he's embarrassed by them. They must be really bad.

[Escapay]

(since every DVD studio knows deleted scenes is the supplement most consumers enjoy over others ).

What is your beef with deleted scenes?

netty pretty much covered most of my reasons, but in addition, it's really just my beef towards every DVD-producing studio with the misguided belief that deleted scenes are the most important part of special features, which I personally don't believe.

I enjoy watching deleted scenes, don't get me wrong, but I don't enjoy the fact that in most cases in recent years, they're tacked on simply as extra padding, and usually at the expense of more worthwhile bonus features. For example, the R1 DVD of The Good Shepherd has no supplements beyond 16 minutes of deleted scenes, whereas the HD-DVD has a U-Control Picture-In-Picture commentary with the filmmakers/actors. Heck, the Holland DVD has better supplements, with various interviews from the cast and crew, two documentaries that look at the CIA and the KGB, and the theatrical trailer.

Mainly, I just don't like how deleted footage is promoted as the be-all end-all bonus feature of all time, and how it seems DVD studios will put that as a higher priority over more worthwhile material.

When it comes to re-integrating it into the film as netty and Kubrick Fan pointed out, I'm generally against it unless there's a valid reason that the director had. For example, compare the excellent director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven versus the unnecessarily-longer-than-it-should-be Extended Edition of Troy. Or for a headscratching example of why Extended Editions aren't always necessary (and not always done correctly): the extended version of Meet the Fockers, where the deleted scenes aren't even the same a/v quality as the movie, and are sloppily edited in via seamless branching.

Albert

[2099net]

I agree totally with you here. Most director's cuts suffer from these, as they lose pacing and the scenes mostly (there are exceptions of course) don't help the movie. Except on The Lord Of The Rings. I disagree with you here. The Extended Cuts are totally better than the Theatrical ones.

We're getting off topic here, but the only LotR Extended Cut I picked out was Fellowship of the Ring, I do think the other two films are better in their extended cuts. In reality, Fellowship would be best somewhere between the theatrical and extended cut, but given those two choices, I'll go for the theatrical everytime.

[KubrickFan]

We're getting off topic here, but the only LotR Extended Cut I picked out was Fellowship of the Ring, I do think the other two films are better in their extended cuts. In reality, Fellowship would be best somewhere between the theatrical and extended cut, but given those two choices, I'll go for the theatrical everytime.

That's true. The part that could do without an extended edition is Fellowship. The book was overlong too. Although I still think it's superior than it's theatrical counterpart. But that's a matter of taste.

[AlwaysOAR]

According to this site it is informed by Disney Home Entertainment Latin America that there will be a 25th Anniversary Edition DVD of The Black Cauldron and it may be released on Blu-ray. They speak of a full screen release (?)

I can tell you exactly what they are going to do. They are going to do to TBC what they did to SB, that is putting the full animated ratio of 2.55:1, instead of the original aspect ratios of 2.20:1(70mm version) and 2.35:1(35mm version), on this release. Screwing over us that care about these things by only releasing the animated ratio, instead of having it alongside the original aspect ratios, which they could easily do, especially on Blu-ray. Oh well, i'll just add it to my list of titles that i'll wait on for a correct release.

[Disney Duster]

Oh, I understand why deleted scenes shouldn't be put back in a movie. Editing is often called the main thing that makes the movie.

Always AOR...I hope you don't miss out on some good releases, or miss out on the titles period, because now that we see how good Disney is planning on making their Animated Classic Blu-rays...they may figure we're getting as much as possible, including as much movie as possible, as much frame as possible, and thus...they may not re-release the film in the original ratio until a new format is made! Or is Disney going to keep re-releasing the films after roughly every ten years they're in the vault?

[AlwaysOAR]

Always AOR...I hope you don't miss out on some good releases, or miss out on the titles period, because now that we see how good Disney is planning on making their Animated Classic Blu-rays...they may figure we're getting as much as possible, including as much movie as possible, as much frame as possible, and thus...they may not re-release the film in the original ratio until a new format is made! Or is Disney going to keep re-releasing the films after roughly every ten years they're in the vault?

My guess is that will be their plan, recycling roughly every 7-10 years their Animated Classics on whatever format(s) are currently being used. Though beyond Blu-ray, what else could they come up with? As far as missing out, I can always borrow titles from friends or rent. After all, how often do we actually get around to watching any title we have in our collections, once every few months if that? As far as my collection goes, I won't add a title in the incorrect ratio, and Disney isn't the only studio. I'm still waiting on Paramount to release "Apocalypse Now" in the correct ratio on DVD.

[Disney Duster]

Oh, I see AlwaysAOR. Though it seems you care more about collecting than watching. Aren't their certain films you love more than the others that you would want to watch often? Honestly, I don't watch my films that often, either, but I do break them out every once in a while to check something, remember something, or enjoy a favorite scene, and sometimes I decide to watch the rest of it.

And like you said, it will take a while before we get any better than Blu-ray, so I hope you don't miss owning what Disney thinks are the definitive releases with as much picture as possible, and what they feel need to be the only releases out there for a decades!

[disneyfella]

Not to get sidetracked, but how do you know what Disney says needs to be released? They are a consumerist company that gives the public what they think they want. And for years, the public wanted fullscreen movies....regardless of what it did to the films themselves, be it cropping or open matting. Would you be feeling the same way knowing that the "bigger picture" you'd be seeing is a cropped image? Because that is how Disney has released many of their films for decades. But I don't think it is their 'definitive' version.

If Disney thought that the fullscreen image was the definitive version of the films, they would release them in theatres that way on their premiere. Unfortunately, they seem to matte them in theatres. You see, that is how they think they should be seen. That is how Disney says they definitively need to be seen.

Consumerism is what has merited any other release, not posterity.

[AlwaysOAR]

Oh, I see AlwaysAOR. Though it seems you care more about collecting than watching.

Well, I wouldn't say that. But like I said, any title I want to watch and don't have I can always borrow from friends or family, or rent. It's just that I can't and won't add a title to my collection that has an incorrect ratio and/or is edited. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that, though I may try to convince you.

[Disney Duster]

Disneyfella...I didn't really understand why you said all that to me. I want the original aspect ratios, but I also want as much picture as possible. Yes, I would like both on DVD, and I would honestly take either the correct ratio or the one with the most picture. And if it was a case of the correct ratio making me dislike the look of the film from how I loved it before, I would still accept that ratio but very badly want it to look how I loved it before, and hope that would get released someday.

Now, from what I have read and watched, Disney thinks Sleeping Beauty's incorrect ratio is the way to go because it has all the picture it could have, and what it was originally animated in, possibly what they think is the definitive version. After all, why, on the Blu-ray, which they obviously put lots and lots of effort into with the bonus features list, would they not include the original ratio of the film, even alongside the wider ratio? This will be such a good release, it's hard to imagine them making a better release, unless fans complain enough to get that original ratio.

AlwaysAOR, when you love a film so much you want to own every incarnation of it you can. This is collecting of a different type, not just all the films of a studio, but all the films you love and their differing versions.

Also, I don't know how I'd live without getting my most favorite films on quality video, regardless of incorrect colors and changes. I mean, then I wouldn't have the movie in any form except VHS's that deteriorate everytime I watch them. I get what I can get, while also hoping to get the best, even if it's later.

[Ariel'sprince]

(since every DVD studio knows deleted scenes is the supplement most consumers enjoy over others ).

What is your beef with deleted scenes? It's more movie! Albert, it makes so much sense. You want the movie...it's more movie. It should be the number 1 bonus feature right after the feature presentation, it's like an extension of the feature presentation! It's like missing movie, no longer missing. You own the whole, entire, movie. You own as much movie as possible. As you could ever own.

Well,they"re the most importent thing because it always good to know what was deleted.
(Thought Cinderella had boring deleted scenes,Tarzan had a horrible deleted opening (Don't get me started on that) and Lilo and Stitch had an awful deleted scene with Pudge).

[disneyfella]

Disneyfella...I didn't really understand why you said all that to me. I want the original aspect ratios, but I also want as much picture as possible. Yes, I would like both on DVD, and I would honestly take either the correct ratio or the one with the most picture. And if it was a case of the correct ratio making me dislike the look of the film from how I loved it before, I would still accept that ratio but very badly want it to look how I loved it before, and hope that would get released someday.

Now, from what I have read and watched, Disney thinks Sleeping Beauty's incorrect ratio is the way to go because it has all the picture it could have, and what it was originally animated in, possibly what they think is the definitive version. After all, why, on the Blu-ray, which they obviously put lots and lots of effort into with the bonus features list, would they not include the original ratio of the film, even alongside the wider ratio? This will be such a good release, it's hard to imagine them making a better release, unless fans complain enough to get that original ratio.

I was replying to your remark that somehow you believe this BluRay version is a definitive version of the film. I've never read nor do I expect to read that Disney is releasing a "definitive" version of a film on BluRay. They may release the original animated aspect ratio, the original theatrical aspect ratio, the reissue theatrical aspect ratio, or the pan and scan fullscreen version of Sleeping Beauty. However, just because they choose to release one of those does NOT mean that that is how the film was meant to be seen. Disney has released 3 differently framed versions of Mary Poppins within 4 years, and none of them are the original theatrical aspect ratio.

I guess what I'm saying is, you can want any version of the film you like, but I'd be cautious before I go around making remarks like, ..."Disney thinks are the definitive releases with as much picture as possible, and what they feel need to be the only releases out there for a decades!" ... when you really don't know what Disney is thinking, and also there have been multiple versions released for decades.

[Disney Duster]

Hehehehehehe...AHAhahahahahah!

You think so, Disneyfella? Well here's your precious proof: Sleeping Blu-ray Talk.

You have to wait a while for him to get around to saying it, but this Disney rep says "we were actually able to recreate the original aspect ratio of the film, which was 2: 55", as well as finding "the original audio tracks" to create Disney's "very first true completely seperate in 7.1 audio mix."

So, it seems Disney thinks this is the original way the film is, and the original was it was meant to be seen, or the original way the movie is and therefore the way it should be seen, or is wanted to be seen, on there so-packed-it-seems-all-anyone-could-want Blu-ray.

Sorry AlwaysAOR. Now, if enough fans complain, and there will be quite a bit I'm sure, maybe Disney will realize people want the theatrical ratio and if they see chances to make profit, they'll release it. But enough people have to want it and be willing to buy it.

There's hope Disney will never ever release what they feel is definitive or what is supposed to be definitive because what is definitive is different for every fan, but this Blu-ray re-lease seems to aim for definitive for this decade. I'm just saying...be careful, waiting for the best may mean waiting many years of your life!

Of course, the definitive definitive versions of these films would be all they could ever fit on that's closely related to the film, all that the casual and the hardcore fans say they want, including every lots of pencil and unfinished animation of key or important or well-known or beloved scenes, or the whole film, I really want that. But that may have to wait for a very distant future.[/url]

[disneyfella]

Hehehehehehe...AHAhahahahahah!

You think so, Disneyfella? Well here's your precious proof: Sleeping Blu-ray Talk.

You have to wait a while for him to get around to saying it, but this Disney rep says "we were actually able to recreate the original aspect ratio of the film, which was 2: 55", as well as finding "the original audio tracks" to create Disney's "very first true completely seperate in 7.1 audio mix."

So, it seems Disney thinks this is the original way the film is, and the original was it was meant to be seen, or the original way the movie is and therefore the way it should be seen, or is wanted to be seen, on there so-packed-it-seems-all-anyone-could-want Blu-ray.

That logic of thinking is completely asinine. 7.1 audio was not even available in 1959, nor was anyone even thinking that it might be in the works down the pipeline. What that Disney rep is saying is that they are presenting the film the way they think the public wants it.....a "suped-up" edition (unfortuantely with no regard for preserving the original's intent). All shining and glistening and sparkling with more than anyone has ever seen before (even on opening night) this new version has absolutely no input from anyone involved with the film.

Again, this is not a 'definitive' release. Did you know that every time since the late 1980s almost every single release (including every rerelease) of a Disney film is labelled "fully restored" or "digitally remastered" even when those statements are completely false (i.e. the Fantasia DVD release, etc.). It's called marketing. It's Disney giving people what they want. It's not a bad thing, in fact it's what they do best. Unfortunately, most people don't care about the posterity of the original.....all they want are jam packed discs (which Disney seems to fill with games).

I'm sorry, but your 'precious proof' is transparent and worthless.