Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:20 pm
They're going to release TLM on IMAX?? I'm in heaven!
Disney, DVD, and Beyond Forums
https://dvdizzy.com/forum/
what? they are?roswellian wrote:They're going to release TLM on IMAX?? I'm in heaven!
Disneykid wrote:No, no, no. The Little Mermaid and Aladdin were both prepped for IMAX screens around the same time The Lion King was. When the film lost money, Disney decided it wasn't worth it to release films exclusively to IMAX. When Aladdin hit DVD, Disney used the tweaked version that was meant for IMAX screens. Compared to Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, though, Aladdin wasn't changed very much. All Disney did was add twinkling stars to the nighttime sequences and redrew background character animation (if Aladdin had been released to IMAX without any tweaking, the extras in the marketplace would very clearly have no faces). For The Little Mermaid, the version prepped for IMAX will probably be used. If it's in the same lines as Aladdin, though, the only real difference should be more clearly defined animation for background characters.
TheSequelofDisney wrote:What would you change to the TLM cover? I would change Ursula's position. She's too close to Flounder, and since Flounder is right beside Ursula, I think that putting her there would be "odd" I would move her closer to the left side of the cover, but that's just IMO
But keep in mind that Aladdin had little to no flaws in terms of background animation (nature, houses, etc.) while The Little Mermaid has many. In every other sequence I can spot rushed or even unfinished backgrounds. Granted, Mermaid dates back to a time when no computer animation was used and thus the minor flaws, but I hope that for this release they'll redo some of the backgrounds and add detail.Disneykid wrote: If it's in the same lines as Aladdin, though, the only real difference should be more clearly defined animation for background characters.
I've always hoped they'd made many of those backgrounds more blurry to give the scenes even a little underwater feeling. Anyway, the less they change the film the better.rodis wrote:Again, I will give you an example:
when Ariel first talks to Ursula, right before Ursula starts singing, the background looks blurry.
I hope they would change all this.
Yeah, and Flounder is like 2 feet (I mean 2 fins) from Urusla, and he's smiling. What's with that?MerXAN wrote:oh yeah....It really is "odd" 'cause it looks like Flounder is Ursula's sidekick.
It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.TheSequelofDisney wrote:Yeah, and Flounder is like 2 feet (I mean 2 fins) from Urusla, and he's smiling. What's with that?MerXAN wrote:oh yeah....It really is "odd" 'cause it looks like Flounder is Ursula's sidekick.
I agree with you!magicalwands wrote: It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.
I know that it's only a cover. I just find that it's weird that the evil villianess would be right next to a happy-but-really-scared-of-ursula/anything-that-seems-scary fish. And I would find Urusla scary, and that Flounder would be too close to Ursula. I'm not depicting the cover like it's the movie. This movie is in my top 3 favorite movies (of all time). It just seems that the villian wouldn't be very close to a sidekick. I guess it's just my opinion on things. And I know that the cover and movie are two totally different things, and I appreciate each diffrent aspects of the film & the cover.magicalwands wrote:It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.
I totally agree with you. I mean, it's just our opinion. Everyone has one, right?TheSequelofDisney wrote:I know that it's only a cover. I just find that it's weird that the evil villianess would be right next to a happy-but-really-scared-of-ursula/anything-that-seems-scary fish. And I would find Urusla scary, and that Flounder would be too close to Ursula. I'm not depicting the cover like it's the movie. This movie is in my top 3 favorite movies (of all time). It just seems that the villian wouldn't be very close to a sidekick. I guess it's just my opinion on things. And I know that the cover and movie are two totally different things, and I appreciate each diffrent aspects of the film & the cover.
magicalwands wrote:It's only a COVER. They had to overlap Flounder and Ursula so what? It was the artist's choice to leave him like that because Ursula would be cut off if they place her on the edge away from Flounder. And what next, the ocean looks two feet deep? My point is, you guys are depicting the cover like it's the movie; not as in "the cover is ugly" but its "hidden meanings." Just because the cover shows a character too close to someone, it doesn't mean anything. The cover and movie are two entirely different forms of art.
Who knows? It's been 17 years since the movie was released; maybe Ursula & Flounder are buddies now.TheSequelofDisney wrote:I know that it's only a cover. I just find that it's weird that the evil villianess would be right next to a happy-but-really-scared-of-ursula/anything-that-seems-scary fish. And I would find Urusla scary, and that Flounder would be too close to Ursula.
What I meant was, it is okay for Flounder to be next to Ursula on the cover because it's only a cover, but it wouldn't be okay if he was next to her in the movie. That's what I meant by you depicting the cover as a movie.TheSequelofDisney wrote:I'm not depicting the cover like it's the movie. This movie is in my top 3 favorite movies (of all time). It just seems that the villian wouldn't be very close to a sidekick.
Don't you see Eric on the ship!? He's a little dot on it.Tarzan. wrote:and also I was hoping to see Eric on the cover because he's one of the main characters or at least more important than Scuttle.
I know that we can assume that he's on the ship and that it represents him, but it would have been better to have his face on the cover.Lucylover1986 wrote:Don't you see Eric on the ship!? He's a little dot on it.