DVDizzy Forum

I can not put into words how much i love Pocahontas everything about i gives me chills. I think i may even like it better than The Lion King In fact all of the films after lion king up to Tarzan are great in my opinion. I just dont understand why these so called fab 4 are thought to be so great and the others are not. Dont get me wong though! I do really love TLM BATB and Aladdin. So basically Disney + 89 to 99 = AMAZING!!!!

drfsupercenter wrote:Also, it seems the Platinum Edition line only includes the "Disney Classics", which I along with many people consider to be Snow White through The Lion King... obviously not including Pocahontas.

The Platinum line originally was comprised of the 10 bestselling titles on VHS: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Bambi, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Every year for a new title would be released in the fall, starting in 2001 with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

The original tentative schedule:
Fall 2001: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Fall 2002: Beauty and the Beast
Fall 2003: The Lion King
Fall 2004: Aladdin
Fall 2005: Bambi
Fall 2006: The Jungle Book
Fall 2007: Cinderella
Fall 2008: The Little Mermaid
Fall 2009: Lady and the Tramp
Fall 2010: 101 Dalmatians

Each title would have a 10-year moratanium that would start the January of the following year. So Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs would be vaulted January 2002, Beauty and the Beast would go OOP January 2003, etc.

Then, in May 2003, Disney decided to add the next four best-selling titles to the line: Pinocchio, Fantasia, Peter Pan, and Sleeping Beauty. In addition, each title would only have a 7-year moratanium instead of 10 years.

Also, they moved up the schedule by changing it from one Platinum a year to two, with the Spring Platinum and the Fall Platinum.

The new tentative schedule was as follows:
Fall 2003: The Lion King
Fall 2004: Aladdin
Spring 2005: Bambi
Fall 2005: Cinderella
Spring 2006: Lady and the Tramp
Fall 2006: The Little Mermaid
Spring 2007: The Jungle Book or 101 Dalmatians
Fall 2007: 101 Dalmatians or The Jungle Book
Spring 2008: Pinocchio - I think
Fall 2008: Fantasia - I think
Spring 2009: Peter Pan - I think
Fall 2009: Sleeping Beauty - I think

However, there was soon news in 2006 that Peter Pan would be moved to Spring 2007 for release (to promote Tinker Bell), and it was initially believed that it was being removed from the Platinum. Instead, it bumped the 2007 releases down one slot, with The Jungle Book coming in the fall and 101 Dalmatians the following spring. Either that or 101 Dalmatians was moved from Spring 2007 to Spring 2008 and The Jungle Book was always going to be Fall 2007. I remember forum talk about the two flipping back and forth in those slots.

Anyway, Peter Pan came and went and has become the most disappointing Platinum ever.

Then, of course, the 2008-2010 slots were ever-changing, and never set in stone though for awhile it was believed that the Spring slot would be for the "new" Platinum, while the Fall would be for the "re-release" Platinum. For the longest time, it was believed that the cycle would restart in Fall 2008 with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but that rumor was debunked when a Brazilian(?) site posted the schedule.

Finally, news broke that Alice in Wonderland was being added to the line, though AFAIK Disney never really officially stated it (the way they did in May 2003), it's based all entirely on the facts that it's gone out of print, and several foreign Disney sites are listing it in the schedule.

Either way, I welcome a new edition, regardless if it's called Platinum Edition, Masterpiece Edition, Shrooms Edition...

drf wrote:As to what Disney considers to be their classic line, I have no idea...

Basically just whatever animated films were made in Walt Disney Feature Animation (now Walt Disney Animation Studios).

drf wrote:Alice In Wonderland... that just recently had a 2-disc set too... but I guess they want to double-dip on that one.

Given how...well, lightweight the two-disc is compared to early Platinums (and yet it's rather packed compared to later ones), I'd want to double-dip on it as well. Don't get me wrong, there's a nice amount of material, but there's a great deal from the laserdisc that wasn't carried over (Disneykid has a complete list, I believe). And there's really nothing in terms of new and retrospective material. Kathyrn Beaumont was brought in to introduce a couple pieces ("Beyond the Laughing Sky" and I think "I'm Odd") but beyond that (and the horrid Virtual Wonderland game), everything else was all vintage material.

Albert

You know, reading about the original Platinum schedule is kind of frustrating. The original plan was perfect and it made each one seem more special, more like a big event. Only avaiable for a few months, and just once a year? Now, with the botched rush jobs they all get, it's obvious qualty is sacrificed.

I don't think anybody would argue the first few Platinums that came out, when it was a once a year schedule, were far superior to the more-recent ones. And I know some like The Lion King aren't exactly perfect, but even that one is so much better than some of the recent ones. It just seems like Disney destroyed a perfect plan by adding four more to the line, having them come out twice a year, and shortening the vault time.

"the fab 4" means nothing to me, cause it includes Aladdin, which I detest more than Pocahontas.

And honestly, I'm glad they changed the platinum line: Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty are amongst Disney's finest, and I have no idea why they didn't make the cut. It's surprising Fantasia didn't make it either, but I guess it had that "anthology" thingo going on.

I, too, am glad Pinocchio, Fantasia, Peter Pan, and Sleeping Beauty were added, but I also agree with those who say they should have stuck with one a year, kept the bonus features on par with Snow White for each, and made each release the BIG EVENT that the Snow White release felt like.

Anyway, Peter Pan came and went and has become the most disappointing Platinum ever.

Really? That's one of my favorites... it's one of only three others that doesn't have something wrong with it (audio/video edits, cropping, etc.)
And I thought the restoration job looked great... they even left in the RKO bumper!

Anyway, it seems that lots of movies get 2-disc special editions, they just aren't called "Platinum Edition". Stuff like Toy Story 10th Anniversary Set, etc. have tons of bonus features, they just aren't PEs.

"the fab 4" means nothing to me, cause it includes Aladdin, which I detest more than Pocahontas.

Aladdin is my all-time favorite Disney Classic... I'm surprised you don't like it. The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are tied at a close second for me.

I'm not saying I don't like Pocahontas, but what's wrong with the new 2-disc set? (Other than a possible fake OTV)

drfsupercenter wrote:

Anyway, Peter Pan came and went and has become the most disappointing Platinum ever.

Really? That's one of my favorites... it's one of only three others that doesn't have something wrong with it (audio/video edits, cropping, etc.)
And I thought the restoration job looked great... they even left in the RKO bumper!

The reason has to do with the bonus features. It's the skimpiest of all the Platinums. Disc 2 waste 70 something minutes on another version of the film with a "read along" subtitle track that could have just been done as an extra subtitle track on disc one!

People point out, rightly so, that this space could have been put to better use. There is a Disney Christmas tv special that promoted Peter Pan from the early 50's that most thought would be on the disc, and unfortunately wasn't.

Just read the review and you'll get the idea: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/peterpan- ... ition.html

In and of itself, I don't think there is anything "wrong" with the release's content if you don't consider it a Platinum (other than the silly read-along feature on Disc 2) It just wasn't up to the higher standards of the other Platinums (bonus feature wise) which is why many consider it a disapointment, in the context of being a Platinum.

Also, there were some issues with the transfer's color timing; many felt it was off, and tinted too "golden". I'm not an "expert" on what it "should" look like to have an opinion on this, but I do remember it was a concern that caused a lot of interesting debate shortly after the release.

Didn't anyone find Peter Pan's new transfer very blurry? I think I actually prefer the Special Edition restoration, in all it's grainy wonder.

"the fab 4" means nothing to me, cause it includes Aladdin, which I detest more than Pocahontas.

Aladdin is my all-time favorite Disney Classic... I'm surprised you don't like it. The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast are tied at a close second for me.

I'm not saying I don't like Pocahontas, but what's wrong with the new 2-disc set? (Other than a possible fake OTV)

It's probably the way I first watched it (in class), there was no impact. And all the characters just rubbed off the wrong way - I think I preferred the cartoon series.

I saw Pocahontas in theaters when it first came out. I was pretty young. But I'd grown up with all these Disney movies. I loved it. But as I watched it again and again a little more of it annoyed me. I realized the story just wasn't that, that Disney type story I fell in love with. Beauty and the Beast is a masterpiece. I love every aspect of the film. It's probably my favorite Disney movie, tied with Aladdin. But Pocahontas, the animation is actually really well done but it feels so, so bland at times. And I'm sure it's just me. Anyways I've never considered it to be part of that infamous Fab 4. I mean even when I was little I knew those 4 movies were the best movies ever done, other than the classics from long ago. They were always placed in my mind together. Pocahontas was never there. I think yes there was a drop in story quality and songs for that matter after Lion King. Nothing ever touched me the same way. Although there are two close ones, Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules. Hunchback has it's great moments but my one problem is the songs aren't memorable. And Hercules was a little different. Meg somewhat drives me nuts. I think that the fact is, these stories, they seem like they weren't dwelled upon, thought over and really loved by the people who wrote them. I mean Beauty and the Beasts story is simple and so beautiful and so is Little Mermaid, Lion King and Aladdin. They don't have that magic that once was. And once they lost it, it never truly came back. And like I said before Hunchback got close. What I find so strange though looking at all these great films Disney in a row too is that they should have learned that it was the fairy tale aspect that drove them. That's what sold. Why they decided to stray away and never go back is what doesn't make sense. They had it going for them. 4 amazing movies, although lion king wasn't too fairy tale, but still an amazing film in it's own right. Why did they just stop? I mean there are many other fairy tales they could have done. And obviously they would have done well. Their others were huge successes. And then here's what really gets me. If they saw that these non-fairy tale movies weren't doing as well didn't they get the hint that it was the story and not just because it was animation and people wanted things like Toy Story? They had it, and they lost it. No Pocahontas nor any other films should be included in the fab 4. Never. They aren't the same. Let's hope and pray The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel are the answers to our prayers.

Well, I wasn't talking about extras... only the movie itself.

As far as the colors go... that's odd. I heard from UD's review, and from other people, that Peter Pan's restoration looked perfect, and not overly bright like Cinderella.

That scene when Peter's face lights up DOES look a little weird... but I haven't seen my VHS since I was under 10 and thus don't remember what it looks like.

Personally, I'd say the most disappointing of the Platinum Editions would be The Lion King. Being one of my favorite Disney movies, I was really upset to see that the OTV wasn't actually on there... and while there is a decent amount of bonus features, the "country organization" made me want to kill someone... each menu has 2+ things that overlaps! What's the point of that?!

Anyway, back on topic... I agree with nomad2010. Pocahontas, as well as a lot of Disney's newer stuff, is good, but it's just too... new looking. It's not a Classic, as much as just a "Disney movie". They started becoming animated mainly in the computer, instead of just partially... and went downhill from there.

^You mustn't forget, Disney still found much success after "the fab 4" in both sales and critical praise. Tarzan, Chicken Little, Lilo and Stitch grossed around the same as BatB and TLM (unadjusted), and Mulan and Tarzan in particular garnered just as much praise as Aladdin and TLM. It seems as if TLM is only regarded so highly in this forum for "starting the renaissance", and Aladdin is so popular because it was released between Disney's two greatest feats.

Walt Disney himself found a lot of success with his fairytale epics, but he still only ever did three. His other work performed just as well. I don't think it's a matter of "not learning that fairytales = lots of money"

I actually heard the term "Disney renaissance era" of the 90s waaaaay before "the fab 4". Where/when did this term surface?

nomad2010 wrote:I think that the fact is, these stories, they seem like they weren't dwelled upon, thought over and really loved by the people who wrote them.

Funny, to me the stories for movies like Pocahontas and Mulan are probably much stronger than those of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. It's like graduating from bedtime stories to book clubs. You actually have to think about why characters do what they do, more so than in TLM or BATB where it's laid out for the audience to interpret.

nomad2010 wrote:Why they decided to stray away and never go back is what doesn't make sense.

Because even though an audience would keep saying "more fairy tales, more fairy tales!" it would creatively stilt the filmmakers. And if the filmmakers are bored, the movie suffers. Why do you think Walt never repeated himself (or at least tried not to repeat himself)? There's only 3 fairy tales turned into DACs during Walt's time: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. There were 19 Disney Animated Classics during Walt's time, and 3 of them are unique and excellent fairy tales while the other 16 are unique and equally excellent non-fairy tales. Don't write off a Disney Animated Classic just because it's not a fairy tale.

People expecting a fairy tale every time the see the word Disney will surely be disappointed when they are given something as wonderful and gripping as Pocahontas.

nomad2010 wrote:Why did they just stop?

Because there are other stories out there besides fairy tales that are just as, if not more, interesting.

nomad2010 wrote:I mean there are many other fairy tales they could have done. And obviously they would have done well. Their others were huge successes.

We don't know that, nor could we ever really say that would occur. After all, what if Disney had somehow reconciled with Don Bluth and they collaborated on Thumbelina, releasing that in 1994 instead of The Lion King? Would it still have been a critical and commercial failure or would it have taken Simba's place among the Fab 4?

nomad2010 wrote:They had it, and they lost it.

They never lost it. The general audience did. From 1989 to 1994 they got too complacent in thinking that Disney Animated Classic = fairy tale, that when Disney offered good movies that obviously weren't fairy tales, some of the audience turned away, disappointed that it wasn't another Cinderella story.

drfsupercenter wrote:Well, I wasn't talking about extras... only the movie itself.

I usually refer to the extras when discussing how Peter Pan is the most disappointing Platinum ever. Disney proved that there is such a thing as a single-disc Platinum Edition, because all the relevant/important Disc Two bonus material amount to a little over an hour (Backstage Disney is 64 minutes, and the Lost Song featurette & music video is 5 minutes altogether), which easily could fit onto the first disc.

What really pisses me off are the following things:

1. Rather than film a new documentary, as has been the case for every Platinum, Disney elected to go with the 15-minute featurette from 1998, which has already been seen by anyone with the 1998 VHS or laserdisc, or the 2002 Special Edition DVD. The featurette itself isn't too bad, but is far too brief and is more like a 15-minute trailer for a longer documentary that never came about. And it's really a testament of just how quickly and sloppily the set was put together, since it was pushed up a year to promote Tinker Bell. And ironically, and at the unfortunate expense of Peter Pan, the goddamn movie got postponed, making Pan's early release a promotional waste.

2. Perhaps the STUPIDEST bonus feature to come about - the "English Read Along" which gives us Peter Pan in inferior quality on Disc Two, with colorful subtitles. That hour and 17 minutes could have easily gone to the Walt Disney Christmas Show as well as towards the new documentary that never happened.

3. No trailer. Seriously, Disney, it's known that you guys pretty much save everything (your Animation Research Library keeps NAPKINS with character sketches on them!) and you couldn't dig far enough in your film archives for the trailer?

drf wrote:As far as the colors go... that's odd. I heard from UD's review, and from other people, that Peter Pan's restoration looked perfect, and not overly bright like Cinderella.

I've read many conflicting reports regarding the transfer, as one camp believe "yes, this looks really nice for a 50+ year old film", and another believe "OMG, they really messed up the colors...AGAIN!" (the 2002 restoration doesn't have its fans either).

drf wrote:and while there is a decent amount of bonus features, the "country organization" made me want to kill someone... each menu has 2+ things that overlaps! What's the point of that?!

To make what is really only 3 hours of material seem like 10.

Albert

nomad2010 wrote:But Pocahontas, the animation is actually really well done but it feels so, so bland at times.

While I'm not entirely with you on the Disney = fairy tales idea, I do agree with you about Pocahontas. Though the films following TLK have their moments (Mulan and Hercules in particular, imo), my biggest problem is that many of them seem to scream out their 'moral lessons.' I prefer Triton's subtle hatred of the human world (that isn't drawn out to the point that he attempts murdering Eric like the post-TLK films might have done) to the "Savages" of Pocahontas; the Beast having to overcome his primal side through his interaction with Belle vs. the repeatedly emphasized "true hero" dilemma of Hercules; and the ridicule of a flea-covered Aladdin as compared to the uncomfortable and exaggerated vegetable bash of Quasimodo.

From 1989 to 1994 they got too complacent in thinking that Disney Animated Classic = fairy tale, that when Disney offered good movies that obviously weren't fairy tales, some of the audience turned away, disappointed that it wasn't another Cinderella story.

Although there may be some who turned away from Disney because of the lack of romantic fairy tales, I'm sure there were plenty of other reasons involved. In fact, some might have simply turned away from Disney because they didn't find their later films "good."

It seems as if TLM is only regarded so highly in this forum for "starting the renaissance", and Aladdin is so popular because it was released between Disney's two greatest feats.

Well, there had to be something in TLM to start the renaissance. It's more like, because people enjoyed TLM, they gave the films that followed it more recognition, not that people only like TLM because of the movies that followed it. As for Aladdin, I do find it sort of a mimic of TLM in ways, but it stands up well on its own (one case of a formula working) whereas I really couldn't say the same for many of the other post-TLK films. Besides, Aladdin was insanely well-received in the beginning.

Truly, I think that Aladdin is an entertaining and fun film with good songs, but it is overrated. There is not one moment in the movie where I feel genuinly touched or a lump in the troath or some similar emotion. It's just a bit to much surface.

I don't agree entirely with Disney Divinity's opinion that post TLK film scream out their 'moral lesson'. First of all, in TLK itself there are some 'moral lessons' that seems forced to me, and a bit bombastic in the way they are brought ("It's time to take your place in the circle of life") wherease I find in in no way to heavy or to moral to show a scene in Hunchback where Quasimodo is tied down and pelted with rotten fruit, just because he's misshapen. It 's a way to show how cruel people can be to those who look different (reminds you of Dumbo too) I think the moral lesson flows naturally from this scene, and doesn't feel forced at all.
Maybe because the post-lion king movies are not just plain fairy-tale they seem more heavy on their 'moral lesson'. But I don't think that makes them lesser movies.

Hey..I wanted to point out that actually people didn't like Sleeping Beauty, and that may have turned people away, and they were brought back with 101 Dalmatians. I remember on the Making Of for Sleeping Beauty I think, VHS or DVD, it said "the public wasn't ready for another fairy tale" or "in the mood for a fairy tale" and I got the impression it was because something happened...but Cinderella was loved right after World War II. Was it Vietnam?

I think it had to do with Sleeping Beauty being so dark and serious and featuring certain poetic or romantic things for too long that got mistaken for boring. Thanks to today's dark-loving generation and some people looking at the film historically and finally noticing the art and pointing it out to everyone, it's now thought of far more positively. Disney wouldn't have dreamed of the film being the introducer to a new way of watching movies and showing off new technology with the public's reaction back then in their mind.

BelleGirl wrote:Truly, I think that Aladdin is an entertaining and fun film with good songs, but it is overrated. There is not one moment in the movie where I feel genuinly touched or a lump in the troath or some similar emotion. It's just a bit to much surface.

I agree to an extent--except during "One Jump Ahead (Reprise)." It must just be because Aladdin has a likable personality. The showdown with Jafar is also my favorite villain showdown--even Maleficent's transformation kind of pales in comparison for me.

wherease I find in in no way to heavy or to moral to show a scene in Hunchback where Quasimodo is tied down and pelted with rotten fruit, just because he's misshapen. It 's a way to show how cruel people can be to those who look different (reminds you of Dumbo too) I think the moral lesson flows naturally from this scene, and doesn't feel forced at all.

I disagree, but this probably just comes down to opinion. That scene is probably the moment where I begin to dislike the film, because it's extreme and is obviously intended to force you to sympathize with Quasimodo (which is unnecessary, as the viewer would have already). Simply having the audience mimicking, mocking or jeering would have sufficed. And I don't think it's anywhere as well done as in Dumbo.

Escapay wrote: Funny, to me the stories for movies like Pocahontas and Mulan are probably much stronger than those of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. It's like graduating from bedtime stories to book clubs. You actually have to think about why characters do what they do, more so than in TLM or BATB where it's laid out for the audience to interpret.

They may be more sophisticated in terms of allowing the audiences to interpret them but they don't have as much heart. I get they are more adult-oriented but either way just because they have a more polished and intellectual appeal does not necessarily mean they convict the same emotions of joy, fun and a true heart touching message the fab 4 did.

Escapay wrote:Because even though an audience would keep saying "more fairy tales, more fairy tales!" it would creatively stilt the filmmakers. And if the filmmakers are bored, the movie suffers. Why do you think Walt never repeated himself (or at least tried not to repeat himself)? There's only 3 fairy tales turned into DACs during Walt's time: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. There were 19 Disney Animated Classics during Walt's time, and 3 of them are unique and excellent fairy tales while the other 16 are unique and equally excellent non-fairy tales. Don't write off a Disney Animated Classic just because it's not a fairy tale.

point taken. but still it's been over 17 years since the last great Disney fairy-tale if you consider Aladdin to be the last. And I'm sure that they couldn't have been "stilted" this long.

Escapay wrote:Because there are other stories out there besides fairy tales that are just as, if not more, interesting.

but has any Disney movie really done as well and lived on as much since the Lion King? No. None of them are remembered as being as interesting as the previous. Why do you think Pocahontas, Mulan, Tarzan etc. have not been inducted into the Platinum line?

Escapay wrote:We don't know that, nor could we ever really say that would occur. After all, what if Disney had somehow reconciled with Don Bluth and they collaborated on Thumbelina, releasing that in 1994 instead of The Lion King? Would it still have been a critical and commercial failure or would it have taken Simba's place among the Fab 4?

We we'll never know. But if Disney had collaborated on Thumbelina, given it some great songs, better animation and a better story, which it is Disney so that would have happened, it would have probably been a hit. But as Thumbelina stands right now, it has no heart. It's as empty as all those other 90's animated movies not done by Disney.

Escapay wrote:They never lost it. The general audience did. From 1989 to 1994 they got too complacent in thinking that Disney Animated Classic = fairy tale, that when Disney offered good movies that obviously weren't fairy tales, some of the audience turned away, disappointed that it wasn't another Cinderella story.

Then technically since they lost their audience didn't they lose it?

nomad2010 wrote:but has any Disney movie really done as well and lived on as much since the Lion King? No. None of them are remembered as being as interesting as the previous. Why do you think Pocahontas, Mulan, Tarzan etc. have not been inducted into the Platinum line?

Who cares about the <expletive deleted> Platinum line. Who cares? It's nothing but a con anyway. All three of those movies you mention have better 2 disc sets than some of the Platinum line releases, so I couldn't care less.

And being as the Platinum flims are based on total home video sales, its more likely the older they are, the higher their totals will be.

And finally, Aladdin (one of the so-called Fab 4) was a huge disappointment to Disney when it had its Platinum release and (all evidence suggests - including the UK re-release) been removed from the holier-than-everything-else Platinum line.

I wish people would just ignore labels (that includes Walt Disney Classic, Platinum, or Fab 4, or Walt Era or whatever) and just look and appreciate each film on its own merits. None of those labels define the movie, they're carefully chosen to define how other people want the public to think about the movie.

2099net wrote:I wish people would just ignore labels (that includes Walt Disney Classic, Platinum, or Fab 4, or Walt Era or whatever) and just look and appreciate each film on its own merits. None of those labels define the movie, they're carefully chosen to define how other people want the public to think about the movie.

This is probably my favorite thing anyone has said about Disney movies in a while. The "fab 4" label is getting real old and I think people should take a step back and ask themselves are these 4 films truly exceptional or are they just good films we grew up watching five billion times as kids on VHS and automatically have a biased opinion towards them.

Pocahontas is a very well made film in all respects. Especially the extended version with the song that was intended to be kept in the first place, but was cut because kids got bored watching it.

Who cares about the <expletive deleted> Platinum line. Who cares? It's nothing but a con anyway. All three of those movies you mention have better 2 disc sets than some of the Platinum line releases, so I couldn't care less.

And being as the Platinum flims are based on total home video sales, its more likely the older they are, the higher their totals will be.

And finally, Aladdin (one of the so-called Fab 4) was a huge disappointment to Disney when it had its Platinum release and (all evidence suggests - including the UK re-release) been removed from the holier-than-everything-else Platinum line.

I wish people would just ignore labels (that includes Walt Disney Classic, Platinum, or Fab 4, or Walt Era or whatever) and just look and appreciate each film on its own merits. None of those labels define the movie, they're carefully chosen to define how other people want the public to think about the movie.

Yeah, I don't get why everyone wants Platinum Editions... nor why there's anything so special about the said line. They're good in their own regard, but they're terribly inconsistent and there's only four that aren't messed up in one way or another (talking movies only, not extras)

Aladdin's PE was great video-wise... I don't know why it was such a failure. I bought it in May 2008, technically AFTER it was Vaulted, and it even came with the slipcover! (Got it from Buy.com when it was still in stock). Audio-wise, it sucks of course... That "Good kitty" line's easily fixed, but it's still in the subtitles! It's like they muted the audio but forgot about the captions...
And Arabian Nights is obviously still edited... that one's a bit harder to fix but I managed to do it anyway (using the 5.1 track).
I kinda didn't like the Enhanced Home Theater Mix... those are fine for the old movies but if it's already in 5.1 why mess with it? It just made the vocals sound overly loud and hurt my ears (I only have a stereo system, so everything's downsampled).

And again, I'm not saying I don't like Pocahontas... I like a lot of the new ones too. (Hercules I used to watch nearly every day when the VHS came out...) Mulan's pretty good too... we watched that in history class (My teacher had 2 days to waste and since it's about China he figured it would be fine) and I saw it for the first time since it came out on VHS. I just think they're too new-looking. It has nothing to do with the stories, and more the animation methods. The Classic movies were all made by hand (even with the minimal CGI in Beauty and the Beast onwards)... but movies like Mulan are far more CGI-made and less hand-made, so they look great, just too new to be a classic.