The Lion King: Diamond Edition

[Sky Syndrome]

I went to Wal-mart yesterday and found shelves with Lion King merch in the toy section. It was mostly young Simba and young Nala stuff. I bought a young Simba plush and a young Nala plush.



The action figures are Wal-mart exclusive according to stickers on their packaging. I didn't see any hyena toys, which was disappointing. I wouldn't have been able to resist buying hyena toys if they were there.

Are those the ones that kiss? as I saw all the new stuff today, and honestly the figures looked awful. The plushies look good thought except for the Scar beanie which didn't have his claws exposed.

They're not the kissing set. They're part of a set of five indivdiually sold plushes. The other three are Pumbaa, adult Simba, and the Scar one you mentioned. I would have got Scar but his pastel pink nostrils bothered me. I want his nostrils to be tan like his muzzle.

[MattDean]

If anyone's interested...I received the French Blu release of Lion King this morning. It's coded for all regions and has all menus/trailers/features in English - no subs (unless you select them!). Even the icon when you load it in your player (I use a PS3) says The Lion King Diamond Edition (in English not French). The audio is DTS-HD MA English or DTS-HD HR French.

Matt

Just realised: The Morning Report has been taken out and is now just a special feature (under music and more) with a note referencing to it being created for the DVD Platinum release and Disney being 'pleased' to offer it 'here'!

[Dr Frankenollie]

I actually hope it does really well how do you NOT want to see your favorite movies in the cinerma again? I love taking my little brother, and maybe my son one day to the mvoies to share in the same experience I did.

How do you know The Lion King is one of my favourite movies? The reason I want it to flop is because I want Disney to realise that turning their films to 3-D is not the way to go. 3-D is stupid for countless reasons, and anyone who likes it is an easily amused fool.

On the bright side, those toys of young Simba and Nala look quite cute.

[Scamander]

If anyone's interested...I received the French Blu release of Lion King this morning. It's coded for all regions and has all menus/trailers/features in English - no subs (unless you select them!). Even the icon when you load it in your player (I use a PS3) says The Lion King Diamond Edition (in English not French). The audio is DTS-HD MA English or DTS-HD HR French.

There is no Disney Blu-ray worldwide (and for 8-9 years also no DVD) which is not fully english friendly.
Also- Disney does not use region codes since Spring 2010 (also worldwide)

[MattDean]

If anyone's interested...I received the French Blu release of Lion King this morning. It's coded for all regions and has all menus/trailers/features in English - no subs (unless you select them!). Even the icon when you load it in your player (I use a PS3) says The Lion King Diamond Edition (in English not French). The audio is DTS-HD MA English or DTS-HD HR French.

There is no Disney Blu-ray worldwide (and for 8-9 years also no DVD) which is not fully english friendly.
Also- Disney does not use region codes since Spring 2010 (also worldwide)

I was just letting people know

As for DVDs being English friendly for 8-9 years...

Matt

[CampbellzSoup]

I actually hope it does really well how do you NOT want to see your favorite movies in the cinerma again? I love taking my little brother, and maybe my son one day to the mvoies to share in the same experience I did.

How do you know The Lion King is one of my favourite movies? The reason I want it to flop is because I want Disney to realise that turning their films to 3-D is not the way to go. 3-D is stupid for countless reasons, and anyone who likes it is an easily amused fool.

On the bright side, those toys of young Simba and Nala look quite cute.

See I don't actually care if it's YOUR favorite Disney film, I was talking in general about many. When these films are converted into 3D they also (IMO) do a great restoration job on the 2D version as well, and getting to see classic handdrawn films in the movies again is something I cherish.

[SWillie!]

I actually hope it does really well how do you NOT want to see your favorite movies in the cinerma again? I love taking my little brother, and maybe my son one day to the mvoies to share in the same experience I did.

How do you know The Lion King is one of my favourite movies? The reason I want it to flop is because I want Disney to realise that turning their films to 3-D is not the way to go. 3-D is stupid for countless reasons, and anyone who likes it is an easily amused fool.

I would argue otherwise. While 3D in and of itself is not really anything that special, I believe it is the most logical step towards virtual-reality, or films that completely envelope the viewer. While that's certainly a long ways off, I do think that it will eventually be the future of film. I think all this talk that 3D is just going to die again is foolish.

And honestly, even for the people who are simply easily amused by 3D, is there something wrong with that? If people think it's neat, and they deem it worth their money, that's all that matters, right?

[disneyboy20022]

How do you know The Lion King is one of my favourite movies? The reason I want it to flop is because I want Disney to realise that turning their films to 3-D is not the way to go. 3-D is stupid for countless reasons, and anyone who likes it is an easily amused fool.

I would argue otherwise. While 3D in and of itself is not really anything that special, I believe it is the most logical step towards virtual-reality, or films that completely envelope the viewer. While that's certainly a long ways off, I do think that it will eventually be the future of film. I think all this talk that 3D is just going to die again is foolish.

And honestly, even for the people who are simply easily amused by 3D, is there something wrong with that? If people think it's neat, and they deem it worth their money, that's all that matters, right?

When it comes to me seeing 3D movies or a movie in 2D I take into account price, is it worth the extra mile to see it in 3D, and if I do decide to see a movie in 3D, it's usually during the week at a matinee.


Here's Doug Walker from thatguywithglasses.com reviewing Transformers 3. go to the 8:47 and his opinion about 3D. how I usually use to decide if I want to see a movie in 3D


<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/gbk7gsa0bQI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="392" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

[Dr Frankenollie]

I can't believe there are people here who actually LIKE 3-D (I thought most of you were intelligent). If I must, here are the reasons why 3-D is unequivocally a stupid gimmick:

1.It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience.

2.It can cause nausea and headaches if used too frequently.

3.It is popularised by Hollywood largely to sell more expensive projection equipment.

4.It is popularised by cinema chains to sell more expensive tickets.

5.The image is quite darker than standard 2-D footage.

6.The objects flying out from the screen don’t add anything to the plot or entertainment value.

7.The objects flying out from the screen are annoying, childish distractions.

8.The objects flying out from the screen look gimmicky.

9.It doesn’t work for serious adult films that aren’t action-centric.

10. It limits the genres a director and/or writer can use.

11. It limits the type of scenes a director and/or writer can use.

12. It can’t be used for films unless the film is action-packed or animated.

13. Only easily-amused imbeciles would want to try and grab a character or object that appears to fly out of the screen.

14. It’s a waste of a dimension; our imaginations can add the other dimension in there. In Star Wars, do you ever think to yourself: ‘That spaceship looks too flat and 2-D.’ Of course not. Our minds use the principle of perspective, and usually if the film is good enough you won’t care if you can pretend to grab objects from the film or not.

15. In tests for 3-D televisions, viewers were found to have sore eyes afterwards.

16. 3-D televisions cost £2400 each, and only 2 pairs of 3D glasses come ‘free’ with it.

17. For 3-D televisions, if you need more than 2 pairs of 3D glasses you have to buy them separately...

18. ...For £100 each.

19. Test audiences felt ill after watching 3-D televisions for only 2 minutes.

20. You might have the expensive 3-D television, but you need a lot of compatible hardware, including a 3-D Blu-Ray player.

21. There’s no point in getting 3-D televisions, because only a few American channels are running 3-D shows.

22. 3-D can’t work for people blind in one eye.

23. 3-D is bad for eyes, as it makes them work in an unnatural way.


24. Avatar’s 3-D was good only because it was James Cameron’s original vision; most directors and writers are forced by executives and producers to use 3-D in their films, even if they don’t want to. This often happens. There have been accounts of executives not releasing films because the director didn’t want to use 3-D.

25. The reason for the planned re-releases of Star Wars and Titanic in 3-D won’t add anything to the popular movies. The only thing they’re adding to are the directors’ wallets, that is if audiences are dumb enough to go and watch the 3-D re-releases.

27. Hollywood should use MaxiVision48 instead, which creates an experience one thousand times better than 3-D. It uses 48 frames per second rather than the standard 24 frames per second, and looks so much better. This is a rarely-used style, which can be used for any type of film, and makes 3-D look even shittier.

28. Wearing 3-D glasses looks stupid (and wearing them on top of prescription glasses looks even worse).

29. 3-D glasses have become fashionable. When people wear 3-D glasses outside the cinema and in public, they probably think that this look is proclaiming that, yes, they just went to see a 3-D movie and are happy to unleash their inner geek. Instead, it says: “I got conned into seeing a 3-D movie, and am unleashing my inner idiot. I also get to look dumb in public...and it says ‘Real 3-D’ on the sides of the glasses. That’s cool, right? Right?”

30. When 3-D has objects appearing to fly out of the screen, the viewer’s attention is drawn to a particular part of the screen; thus, a lot of the work of a cinematographer or animator is wasted as 3-D makes us focus upon a particular thing in every shot.

[Scarred4life]

I personally don't enjoy 3D, and I always avoid if I can, but I will be seeing The Lion King in theaters because I've never gotten the chance to see it there yet.

[MJW]

I can't believe there are people here who actually LIKE 3-D (I thought most of you were intelligent). If I must, here are the reasons why 3-D is unequivocally a stupid gimmick

Some people might call popcorn and Milk Duds a stupid gimmick, but a lot of people buy them to "enhance" their movie going experience. The same can be said for 3D.

It all comes down to personal preference; you could write a 30 item list about the negatives of smoking too, but..well, you know...

I'm neither a huge fan of 3D or completely against it. I rarely go to the movies and only own 2 3D Blu-rays so far. I don't have a TV capable of 3D, but I'll get the 3D combo packs when available. Half the time their the same price or cheaper than their 2D counterparts (during release week) and it looks like Disney is going to favor the 3D packs with their coupons from here on out. As long as 3D doesn't go completely extinct, I'm sure my next HDTV will be 3D capable and I'll then be able to watch certain films in 3D, if the mood strikes me.

[disneyboy20022]

I'm neither a huge fan of 3D or completely against it. I rarely go to the movies and only own 2 3D Blu-rays so far. I don't have a TV capable of 3D, but I'll get the 3D combo packs when available. Half the time their the same price or cheaper than their 2D counterparts (during release week) and it looks like Disney is going to favor the 3D packs with their coupons from here on out. As long as 3D doesn't go completely extinct, I'm sure my next HDTV will be 3D capable and I'll then be able to watch certain films in 3D, if the mood strikes me.

I agree with this above. Except I don't see me having a 3D TV in the near future of any kind....I don't see a lot of films in 3D....just some....Harry Potter wasn't that good in 3D.....I don't want to watch 3D at home through the glasses and such.....besides, watching them at home can make one's eyesight more worse than seeing it in the theaters....It varies. I'm going to see Smurfs tomorrow with my Fiance, however I am not going to the 3D viewing. One Reason it's cheaper, second reason they don't have it in 3D at the moment.....

[DisneyJedi]

Be that as it may, I do plan to see this movie in its 3D theatrical re-release, because I love this movie to a T. It's one of my favorite 'coming of age' Disney stories.

[singerguy04]

I can't believe there are people here who actually LIKE 3-D (I thought most of you were intelligent). If I must, here are the reasons why 3-D is unequivocally a stupid gimmick:

Well aside from many of those points completely being your personal opinion, I do agree with many of them.

I would much rather see 3D films disappear, than have the classic films be re-released in the format. My reason being mainly that I feel it very difficult to focus on anything in the picture that isn't being focused for me. It seems incredibly difficult for me to actually become immersed in an environment because the actual environment comes out as blurry. That could be bad use of the technology, but I can't imagine that taking a film make to be 2D and forcing it to be 3D is THAT good of a use for the technology either.

I am buying the 3D releases on home release though, only because the collector in me wont let me settle for anything but the best I can get (such a sick addiction it is lol). Because of that, I do hope that 3D does sort of become a standard feature on HDTV's so that I might be able to enjoy them someday if I choose.

[SWillie!]

I can't believe there are people here who actually LIKE 3-D (I thought most of you were intelligent). If I must, here are the reasons why 3-D is unequivocally a stupid gimmick:

Well aside from many of those points completely being your personal opinion, I do agree with many of them.

Agreed. But Frankenollie, you have to see that singerguy's right - most of those are your opinion, and many of them repeat themselves. That said, there are some I agree with.

But, to argue your overall point, that 3D adds nothing essential to a viewing experience, I would use How To Train Your Dragon as an example. The 3D in Dragon is absolutely incredible, and while it takes nothing away from the experience (there are no distracting "straight or pointy objects coming right at you" gimmicks, and the brightness was turned up to counteract the dark of the glasses), it adds to it quite a lot, in my opinion. Especially the flying sequences. While every film done in 3D is unfortunately not as well done, I think it goes to show that 3D CAN be a very effective tool.

As I said, I wouldn't consider myself an advocate of 3D, but I think that to believe that 3D will die out again is just being ignorant by choice. If anything, it is a step towards something bigger, as I said before.

[ajmrowland]

frankenollie, i expected something more mature from you than to call people who like 3D unintelligent. it's a format that has untapped potential, even if it still gives headaches. many filmmakers clearly see that, otherwise the only 3d would be converted.

and nothings flown out of the screen for years. it's layers of depth. if your gonna make an argument, at least make it relevant.

and im not an advocate

[iconda]

cover of special edition TLK2



and TLK 3 (or 1 1/2)

[Mason_Ireton]

Those are pretty good but I like the 20004 edition covers of Simba's Pride/ 1.5. So do we know which new Disney actor/ actress will butcher circle of life?

[Dr Frankenollie]

Well aside from many of those points completely being your personal opinion, I do agree with many of them.

I gave examples and evidence for why my opinions are valid.

But, to argue your overall point, that 3D adds nothing essential to a viewing experience, I would use How To Train Your Dragon as an example. The 3D in Dragon is absolutely incredible, and while it takes nothing away from the experience (there are no distracting "straight or pointy objects coming right at you" gimmicks, and the brightness was turned up to counteract the dark of the glasses), it adds to it quite a lot, in my opinion. Especially the flying sequences. While every film done in 3D is unfortunately not as well done, I think it goes to show that 3D CAN be a very effective tool.

I've seen How To Train Your Dragon in both 2-D and 3-D, and whilst I grudgingly admit that the film is a rare occasion where 3-D is visually immersive at times, it doesn't really add anything important to the film. It's just as funny, original and touching in 2-D as it is in 3-D, and I was still immersed, but not only by the visuals, but also by the story and characters.

Yes, the 3-D in the film was quite good at times, but nonetheless it's not absolutely necessary; I never wished whilst watching it in 2-D that Toothless would appear to fly out of the screen more. I don't know about you, but I cared more about what would happen to Hiccup than whether or not it looked '2-D', and as I said in one of my points, when watching a film we use the principle of perspective; it FEELS like 3-D to us if we are immersed by the world, the story and the characters.

And as for your claim that 3-D will just keep getting bigger, I doubt it, as test results for 3-D TVs have been poor, George Lucas is considering only releasing one Star Wars movie in 3-D due to fan backlash online, and no matter what you say, it's just a pointless, stupid gimmick for the easily amused.

[Dr Frankenollie]

frankenollie, i expected something more mature from you than to call people who like 3D unintelligent. it's a format that has untapped potential, even if it still gives headaches. many filmmakers clearly see that, otherwise the only 3d would be converted.

and nothings flown out of the screen for years. it's layers of depth. if your gonna make an argument, at least make it relevant.

and im not an advocate

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how people who are more entertained by a movie if the action appears to come out of the screen due to a cheap gimmick (rather than it being due to an immersive, intriguing and original story) are able to function as capable and productive members of society.

And by the way, 3-D films still have things flying out of the screen, thank you very much.