DVDizzy Forum

sunhuntin wrote:i think treasure planet would be amazing in 3d, if it was done right.

thelittleursula wrote:Aladdin would be good too. * hint hint *

estefan wrote:The Lion King's 3D release making as much money as it did surprised everyone, including Disney. However, this sadly created expectations for the other re-issues. $40 million is admirable enough for re-issues of films already widely available on DVDs and in most homes. But Disney expected them to reach $90 million domestic or $177 million worldwide like The Lion King did.

The Lion King: Making Disney consistently disappointed, since 1994.

Kyle wrote:Its easy to go crazy with 3D wish lists, but if they only did one more after Mermaid I would hope they do Aladdin. Not only Do I think theres a lot of depth to play with there, I would like to see it in theaters, period, because I never have.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

estefan wrote:The Lion King's 3D release making as much money as it did surprised everyone, including Disney. However, this sadly created expectations for the other re-issues. $40 million is admirable enough for re-issues of films already widely available on DVDs and in most homes. But Disney expected them to reach $90 million domestic or $177 million worldwide like The Lion King did.

The Lion King: Making Disney consistently disappointed, since 1994.

Best post of this thread, right here.

thelittleursula wrote:Be Disappointed

pap64 wrote:
2) Was the "first" 3D movie of its kind. I mean, everyone at that point knew how a CG and live action movie would look in 3D, but many were curious as to how a hand drawn (albeit a digital) movie would translate into the 3D medium and if it would benefit from it.

ajmrowland wrote:Also its close to christmas and movies released closer to christmas dont do great business.

Disney Seeks Emergency Stay of Judge's Order on 3D Movie Conversions


The studio is troubled by a decision that could mean it won't have the ability to turn 2D movies 3D without fear of being sued.


Walt Disney Studios has filed an emergency motion in federal court looking to stay a recent ruling by the judge handling the bankruptcy of Digital Domain Media Group. At stake might be Disney's ability to create 3D movies without fear of being sued for patent infringement.

Digital Domain was the visual effects studio co-founded by James Cameron in 1993. In September, after declaring bankruptcy, most of the company's assets were sold out of bankruptcy to Galloping Horse America and Reliance MediaWorks for $30.2 million.

But parent DDMG still has significant debts and has sought to auction off some of its remaining assets for the benefit of its creditors. Among the most prized remaining assets is patents relating to the 2D-to-3D conversion processes, which DDMG acquired when it purchased 3D stereo studio In-Three in late 2010.

The prospect of the patents being sold has caused concern in Hollywood. Marvel sought to protect rights related to The Avengers and Lucasfilm sought to protect The Nightmare Before Christmas. But it was Disney who expressed the loudest objection, contending that the proposed sale could impair its rights to distribute such films as G-Force, Alice in Wonderland and Tron Legacy.

In December, Delaware bankruptcy judge Brendan Linehan Shannon approved the patent sale with certain stipulations. The judge also addressed Disney's concerns with a specially directed ruling concerning the company.

The judge noted the "long and complex history" of the dispute, which we detailed here and which began when Disney contracted In-Three to provide services on the films G-Force and Alice in Wonderland. As part of that agreement, the studio got an option to be granted a full, nonexclusive license for the patents as well as extracted "covenant not to sue rights."
In his ruling, Judge Shannon summed up the dispute this way: "Does the G-Force Agreement operate to grant Disney a right to use the In-Three Patents on a going forward basis? And to put a finer point on it, for purposes of the Debtor's Sale Motion, will whoever buys the In-Three Patents from the Debtor be required to permit Disney to use that technology, gratis, in perpetuity?"

The answers, say the judge, are, "No."

The judge concluded that Disney enjoyed a limited license to the patents and could rest easy that it wouldn't be sued over Alice in Wonderland and G-Force. But the judge also decided that Disney hadn't exercised an option under the G-Force Agreement for a perpetual license and that there was "no contractual privity between Disney and the Debtor that would enable Disney to enforce the G-Force Agreement against the Debtor."

The covenant not to sue applied to films that had been made under the original agreement, the judge ruled, not those that had yet to come. Disney's objection to the asset sale was thus overruled.

On Wednesday, Disney brought the matter to a Delaware federal court to gain time for further review, arguing that "the Debtors' interest in patents they purchased are subject to and limited by pre-existing licenses, thereby requiring that any subsequent sale of such patents in bankruptcy remain subject to such pre-existing licenses."

Disney says that without opportunity for a meaningful appellate review, it "will suffer ongoing harm -- the risk of being sued on account of alleged acts of infringement committed by third-party vendors on future film projects and of being denied the right to practice the In-Three Patents themselves -- in an amount that is impossible to ascertain currently."
The dispute is presented by Disney as a conflict between patent law and bankruptcy law. Debtors can't sell assets they don't own, but intellectual property rights are intangible. (Read Disney's full emergency motion here.) Disney advises a judge, "As far as can be determined, this is an issue of first impression at the appellate level."

milojthatch wrote:Take a look at this:

Disney Seeks Emergency Stay of Judge's Order on 3D Movie Conversions


The studio is troubled by a decision that could mean it won't have the ability to turn 2D movies 3D without fear of being sued.


Walt Disney Studios has filed an emergency motion in federal court looking to stay a recent ruling by the judge handling the bankruptcy of Digital Domain Media Group. At stake might be Disney's ability to create 3D movies without fear of being sued for patent infringement.

Digital Domain was the visual effects studio co-founded by James Cameron in 1993. In September, after declaring bankruptcy, most of the company's assets were sold out of bankruptcy to Galloping Horse America and Reliance MediaWorks for $30.2 million.

But parent DDMG still has significant debts and has sought to auction off some of its remaining assets for the benefit of its creditors. Among the most prized remaining assets is patents relating to the 2D-to-3D conversion processes, which DDMG acquired when it purchased 3D stereo studio In-Three in late 2010.

The prospect of the patents being sold has caused concern in Hollywood. Marvel sought to protect rights related to The Avengers and Lucasfilm sought to protect The Nightmare Before Christmas. But it was Disney who expressed the loudest objection, contending that the proposed sale could impair its rights to distribute such films as G-Force, Alice in Wonderland and Tron Legacy.

In December, Delaware bankruptcy judge Brendan Linehan Shannon approved the patent sale with certain stipulations. The judge also addressed Disney's concerns with a specially directed ruling concerning the company.

The judge noted the "long and complex history" of the dispute, which we detailed here and which began when Disney contracted In-Three to provide services on the films G-Force and Alice in Wonderland. As part of that agreement, the studio got an option to be granted a full, nonexclusive license for the patents as well as extracted "covenant not to sue rights."
In his ruling, Judge Shannon summed up the dispute this way: "Does the G-Force Agreement operate to grant Disney a right to use the In-Three Patents on a going forward basis? And to put a finer point on it, for purposes of the Debtor's Sale Motion, will whoever buys the In-Three Patents from the Debtor be required to permit Disney to use that technology, gratis, in perpetuity?"

The answers, say the judge, are, "No."

The judge concluded that Disney enjoyed a limited license to the patents and could rest easy that it wouldn't be sued over Alice in Wonderland and G-Force. But the judge also decided that Disney hadn't exercised an option under the G-Force Agreement for a perpetual license and that there was "no contractual privity between Disney and the Debtor that would enable Disney to enforce the G-Force Agreement against the Debtor."

The covenant not to sue applied to films that had been made under the original agreement, the judge ruled, not those that had yet to come. Disney's objection to the asset sale was thus overruled.

On Wednesday, Disney brought the matter to a Delaware federal court to gain time for further review, arguing that "the Debtors' interest in patents they purchased are subject to and limited by pre-existing licenses, thereby requiring that any subsequent sale of such patents in bankruptcy remain subject to such pre-existing licenses."

Disney says that without opportunity for a meaningful appellate review, it "will suffer ongoing harm -- the risk of being sued on account of alleged acts of infringement committed by third-party vendors on future film projects and of being denied the right to practice the In-Three Patents themselves -- in an amount that is impossible to ascertain currently."
The dispute is presented by Disney as a conflict between patent law and bankruptcy law. Debtors can't sell assets they don't own, but intellectual property rights are intangible. (Read Disney's full emergency motion here.) Disney advises a judge, "As far as can be determined, this is an issue of first impression at the appellate level."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-es ... ource=t.co

disneyboy20022 wrote:So in English that means....

A Delaware judge says the studio giant can't stop RealD from acquiring patents, potentially hampering Disney's ability to turn 2D movies 3D without fear of being sued.


Walt Disney Studios has lost an appeal in a dispute that could open up questions about whether it still has the right to distribute some of its recent 3D blockbusters as well as create new films using a patented 2D-to-3D conversion process.

The dispute emanates from the bankruptcy of Digital Domain Media Group, a visual effects studio co-founded by James Cameron in 1993 that sold most of its assets to Galloping Horse America and Reliance MediaWorks last year. DDMG, the parent company, remained in bankruptcy and to satisfy debts, sought to sell its remaining assets including prized patents relating to the 2D-to-3D conversion. The bankrupt company had acquired these patents when merging with In-Three, another visual effects studio, in late 2010.


Disney objected to the sale of the patents, and last autumn it warned a bankruptcy judge about the consequences.

In court papers, Disney said that "debtors appear to contend that the proposed sale of the In Three Patents can cut off or impair the Disney Entities' rights to distribute, modify, and otherwise exploit their own films, including among others Tron Legacy and Alice in Wonderland, just because those Works incorporate 3D VFX that were created using the In Three Patents -- VFX work that was previously commissioned and paid for by the Disney Entities."

The judge allowed the sale to move forward anyway. Afterwards, Disney filed an emergency appeal and got a 45-day stay in return for a $5.4 million bond. But that expired, and eventually, the patents were acquired by RealD, the giant in 3D cinema. Still, Disney pressed on in an attempt to limit the impact.

At issue were agreements made in 2008 and 2009 wherein Disney contracted In-Three to provide services on the films G-Force and Alice in Wonderland. As part of that agreement, according to Disney, the studio got an option to be granted a full, nonexclusive license for the patents as well as extracted "covenant not to sue rights."

The courts were tasked in determining what rights survived the patent sale -- a question potentially highlighting a conflict between patent law and bankruptcy law. Disney said it was an "issue of first impression at the appellate level."

On Tuesday, a Delaware federal court judge issued a memorandum order denying Disney's appeal and affirming the patent sale order.

U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson articulates the reasons why Disney can't claim a license to the patents in question.

"In the first instance, to the extent that Disney characterizes the covenant not to sue contained in §16(a) [of the In Three agreement] as equivalent to a nonexclusive license, Disney's arguments are misplaced for the simple reason that the covenant not to sue at issue is narrow," she writes. "It protects Disney from lawsuits by In Three based on work performed by third parties for Disney; it does not protect Disney or third parties from a lawsuit by In Three against Disney for unauthorized use of the patents at issue."

The judge also notes that Disney didn't go forward with the procedure as described in the agreement. Disney had to make a request and then a fee would be negotiated. But Disney never executed its option to do so.

"It simply strains credulity to think that In Three and Disney bargained to give Disney a virtually unfettered license to the patents at issue, without any obligation on Disney's part to even honor the process contemplated under the Agreement," the judge says.

The judge adds in conclusion that "Disney may not now claim that it has rights to the patents at issue that have survived the sale of such to RealD."

As a result, Disney might have incentive to come to some new agreement with RealD. Otherwise, it could face trouble on patents that were once described as being infringed by "everybody" doing 3D. Plus, RealD saw some value in acquiring them. Disney hasn't yet responded to a request for comment.

stevemcqueen wrote:Do you guys think there's any chance we'll get to see a 3D release of Dinosaur? I still haven't bought the original Blu-ray just because it was such a lazy release and the packaging didn't come with a slipcover. What are the chances of a 3D re-release or even a regular re-release for that one?

thelittleursula wrote:

stevemcqueen wrote:Do you guys think there's any chance we'll get to see a 3D release of Dinosaur? I still haven't bought the original Blu-ray just because it was such a lazy release and the packaging didn't come with a slipcover. What are the chances of a 3D re-release or even a regular re-release for that one?

If we struggled to see The Little Mermaid re-released in Cinema's, fat-chance.

Sorry.