The Lion King: Diamond Edition

Disney's Divinity · Post by **Disney's Divinity** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:58 pm

I love the trilogy set cover--just because the indentations/outline sketches look better than clip-art does.

I most likely won't be getting this though. I love the film, but--being sparce with money at the moment--I'm willing to settle for the Platinum DVD box set I already have.

SWillie! · Post by **SWillie!** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:03 am

Disney Live On wrote:The last DVD was a joke as it had no structure to where the bonus material was placed and so accessing what you wanted was like navigating through a mind field. lol.

A field of minds??

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:46 pm

I wonder if the Blu-ray will include the real theatrical version. Apparently, they changed quite a lot of things in the film:

SWillie! · Post by **SWillie!** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:01 pm

How anyone thinks that the waterfall shot, at least, is not an improvement on the original is beyond me.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:07 pm

SWillie! wrote:How anyone thinks that the waterfall shot, at least, is not an improvement on the original is beyond me.

It's not a matter of the changes being an improvement or not, it's a matter of releasing the original version unaltered. If the directors want to make changes and release "a new and improved" version, that's fine as long as they provide the public with the original theatrical version too.

SWillie! · Post by **SWillie!** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:21 pm

Sotiris wrote:
SWillie! wrote:How anyone thinks that the waterfall shot, at least, is not an improvement on the original is beyond me.
It's not a matter of the changes being an improvement or not, it's a matter of releasing the original version unaltered. If the directors want to make changes and release "a new and improved" version, that's fine as long as they provide the public with the original theatrical version too.

I agree with that, definitely. But there are at least a few people on here that are just repulsed at the thought of looking at that waterfall. To me, it's a clear improvement.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:01 pm

SWillie! wrote:But there are at least a few people on here that are just repulsed at the thought of looking at that waterfall. To me, it's a clear improvement.

Really? Well, I agree with you; it's an improvement although the previous one wasn't that bad either.

Marce82 · Post by **Marce82** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:52 pm

At the risk of sounding like an idiot....in that comparison of the VHS and the dvd, the last shot...the one w Mufasa on the clouds...aside from the framing (fullscreen vs wide)...whats the difference?
Can someone explain?

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:44 am

Marce82 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an idiot....in that comparison of the VHS and the dvd, the last shot...the one w Mufasa on the clouds...aside from the framing (fullscreen vs wide)...whats the difference?
Can someone explain?

I'm not sure either. I didn't make that comparison; I just found it online.

Mmmadelon · Post by **Mmmadelon** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:15 am

Marce82 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an idiot....in that comparison of the VHS and the dvd, the last shot...the one w Mufasa on the clouds...aside from the framing (fullscreen vs wide)...whats the difference?
Can someone explain?

I think it's just the colors, the DVD looks more bright.

rodis · Post by **rodis** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:40 am

I don't understand why the crocs were reanimated... completely redundant...

As for the waterfalls shot, I don't mind the falls themselves being altered, rather the fact that the b/g was changed from pink to orange. I always loved that pink-ish background... I guess they figured orange fits the "sunsetty" mood better.

CampbellzSoup · Post by **CampbellzSoup** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:13 am

The crocs being reanimated has no significance on the film what so ever. Their 3 second piece is really no reason to get up in arms over something at all the way it has been in the past.

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:24 am

CampbellzSoup wrote:The crocs being reanimated has no significance on the film what so ever. Their 3 second piece is really no reason to get up in arms over something at all the way it has been in the past.

The fact that the new crocodiles don't fit stylistically at all with the rest of the number isn't enough? It's not the fact that it's only three seconds long, it's that Disney promised us the original theatrical version would be available on DVD when it was released.

Oh, and the changes listed don't mention both the changed Disney logo at the beginning of the movie (it's the black and orange one, instead of the blue and white one that's supposed to be there) and the credits, that now are a slide show, instead of scrolling. Of course, with Disney's past of altering their logos, it's almost to be expected to not be corrected this time around.

The_Iceflash · Post by **The_Iceflash** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:43 am

KubrickFan wrote:
CampbellzSoup wrote:The crocs being reanimated has no significance on the film what so ever. Their 3 second piece is really no reason to get up in arms over something at all the way it has been in the past.
The fact that the new crocodiles don't fit stylistically at all with the rest of the number isn't enough? It's not the fact that it's only three seconds long, it's that Disney promised us the original theatrical version would be available on DVD when it was released.

Oh, and the changes listed don't mention both the changed Disney logo at the beginning of the movie (it's the black and orange one, instead of the blue and white one that's supposed to be there) and the credits, that now are a slide show, instead of scrolling. Of course, with Disney's past of altering their logos, it's almost to be expected to not be corrected this time around.

Those crocodiles do stick out like a sore thumb. I agree they don't stylistically fit at all in that number. The waterfalls don't bother me as much though. I do hope they get it right this time around, original Disney logo and original animation. I don't think that was too much to ask for.

CampbellzSoup · Post by **CampbellzSoup** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:06 am

KubrickFan wrote:
CampbellzSoup wrote:The crocs being reanimated has no significance on the film what so ever. Their 3 second piece is really no reason to get up in arms over something at all the way it has been in the past.
The fact that the new crocodiles don't fit stylistically at all with the rest of the number isn't enough? It's not the fact that it's only three seconds long, it's that Disney promised us the original theatrical version would be available on DVD when it was released.

Oh, and the changes listed don't mention both the changed Disney logo at the beginning of the movie (it's the black and orange one, instead of the blue and white one that's supposed to be there) and the credits, that now are a slide show, instead of scrolling. Of course, with Disney's past of altering their logos, it's almost to be expected to not be corrected this time around.

Petty things like that don't bother me in the slighest, so forgive me if those tiny things aren't essetial to my enjoyment of the film.

As a huge Disney fan, things like an added musical number are more irratating to me.

The_Iceflash · Post by **The_Iceflash** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am

CampbellzSoup wrote:
KubrickFan wrote: The fact that the new crocodiles don't fit stylistically at all with the rest of the number isn't enough? It's not the fact that it's only three seconds long, it's that Disney promised us the original theatrical version would be available on DVD when it was released.

Oh, and the changes listed don't mention both the changed Disney logo at the beginning of the movie (it's the black and orange one, instead of the blue and white one that's supposed to be there) and the credits, that now are a slide show, instead of scrolling. Of course, with Disney's past of altering their logos, it's almost to be expected to not be corrected this time around.
Petty things like that don't bother me in the slighest, so forgive me if those tiny things aren't essetial to my enjoyment of the film.

As a huge Disney fan, things like an added musical number are more irratating to me.

Re-animating parts of the film is petty?

CampbellzSoup · Post by **CampbellzSoup** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:12 pm

3 second signing crocodiles isn't going to effect my enjoyment of the film.

SWillie! · Post by **SWillie!** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:42 pm

CampbellzSoup wrote:3 second signing crocodiles isn't going to effect my enjoyment of the film.

Exactly. And I really don't get why seeing the blue logo at the front is better than the orange and black one. Obviously, the orange and black one suits the film better. And if it's not that one on the new release, you can bet that it'll be the new epic castle logo.

The blue logo is history. While I do go back to my childhood everytime I see it, I don't think that's reason to be upset that they're moving forward with things.

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:05 pm

SWillie! wrote:
CampbellzSoup wrote:3 second signing crocodiles isn't going to effect my enjoyment of the film.
Exactly. And I really don't get why seeing the blue logo at the front is better than the orange and black one. Obviously, the orange and black one suits the film better. And if it's not that one on the new release, you can bet that it'll be the new epic castle logo.

The blue logo is history. While I do go back to my childhood everytime I see it, I don't think that's reason to be upset that they're moving forward with things.

Altering things is altering things. I'm getting fed up with Disney's constant need to alter things, and their refusal (or inability) to do things right.

A film's logo is part of the movie, and part of the movie's history. When a movie is bought by a different company, I can understand (not condone) the need to alter the logo. But what Disney does is simply revisionist nonsense that's ridiculous. Would anyone be confused when they see that Bambi was distributed by RKO Pictures? Would anyone think Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King is old fashioned when they see the white castle on the blue background? Of course not. So why change it at all?

Those crocodiles are also an unnecessary change. Yes, it's only a shot of a couple of seconds. So why change it in the first place? The first shot was already perfect. It was properly animated, fit in the scene perfectly. As opposed to the new version. And of course it wouldn't be the end of the world, if Disney would just allow the people who bought it, the choice of different versions to begin with. Disney should realize that not all people who watch their movies are little children who watch anything their parents put in the DVD/Blu-ray player. We should be taken a little bit more seriously.

SWillie! · Post by **SWillie!** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:02 pm

Animators always say that a film is never finished - it just gets released. So, with that in mind, when the filmmakers want to change something, I'm all for it.

It's the same argument people use for the Star Wars films. George Lucas himself WANTED to make the changes he did. I don't think anyone else should be allowed to say anything against that. If you don't like the changes, that's fine. But I don't think they "owe" us anything in the likes of giving us the original version.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

The Lion King: Diamond Edition