DVDizzy Forum

Probably the same as Snow White's, at best.

ajmrowland wrote:Probably the same as Snow White's, at best.

Good lord, if Snow White's sub par DVD is the 'best' Disney can come up with, then I shudder to think what may lie in wait for us dont the line !!

Still, it has to be said though, I am appreciating the movies themselves a lot more, as they are the now the only main attraction of buying a Disney DVD. Not that I didnt appreciate them before, but I really stop and think about how I'm lucky to be owning a film that hasnt been around for however long a time, and am able to watch it whenever I wish. If you see what I mean ?!

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:Probably the same as Snow White's, at best.

Good lord, if Snow White's sub par DVD is the 'best' Disney can come up with, then I shudder to think what may lie in wait for us dont the line !!

Still, it has to be said though, I am appreciating the movies themselves a lot more, as they are the now the only main attraction of buying a Disney DVD. Not that I didnt appreciate them before, but I really stop and think about how I'm lucky to be owning a film that hasnt been around for however long a time, and am able to watch it whenever I wish. If you see what I mean ?!

I say you give in and update already.

I'd love to, but can't afford the player. So have to stay put for now

I am buying the Blu-ray Combo Pack and the 2-Disc DVD! This is my favorite Disney movie and I want all formats of it!

Matt wrote:I am buying the Blu-ray Combo Pack and the 2-Disc DVD! This is my favorite Disney movie and I want all formats of it!

Hahaha now THAT'S a fan!!!

and atlanticaunderthesea: if you already have the platinum edition, you should make an investment and go for the combo pack! That way, you'll have the majority of the good bonus features already on the PE, you'll be able to watch the new restoration on the new DVD, and you'll already have the Diamond Edition for in the future sometime!

I know I sound like I'm being paid to promote blu-ray or something... but I'm not. That's just my two cents. You get the most bang for your buck with the combo pack.

SWillie! wrote:

Matt wrote:I am buying the Blu-ray Combo Pack and the 2-Disc DVD! This is my favorite Disney movie and I want all formats of it!

Hahaha now THAT'S a fan!!!

and atlanticaunderthesea: if you already have the platinum edition, you should make an investment and go for the combo pack! That way, you'll have the majority of the good bonus features already on the PE, you'll be able to watch the new restoration on the new DVD, and you'll already have the Diamond Edition for in the future sometime!

I know I sound like I'm being paid to promote blu-ray or something... but I'm not. That's just my two cents. You get the most bang for your buck with the combo pack.

I agree!

Well, it depends if anything is new on the second disc lol. If not, I won't get it, just the combo pack.

KubrickFan wrote:

AlwaysOAR wrote: Not this consumer...
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Which means I won't be buying till they get it right. Just my opinion/preference.


Scott

So, let me get this straight, you don't own The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King and many other titles just because they differ slightly from the theatrical aspect ratio? The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is really too small to complain about. As long as the colors look the way they do in the trailers, and we get the original cut (surely Disney wouldn't be that stupid, would they?), I'm happy.

I don't expect most will agree/understand, but like I've stated before whether the difference is .05 or .5 is besides the point. I can't support a release if it's misframed from the theatrical ratio, or edited, etc. It's my preference to have for my collection the original version the way it was shown.
If I want to watch any of these titles, I can always rent/ borrow from someone anyway. I mean after all, how often do we watch a particular title from our DVD/Blu collections, once every few months if that. As our collections grow, sometimes it's not as often as that...

Scott

i just wanted to but in and say i'm so excited for the blu-ray come home to mama!

AlwaysOAR wrote:

KubrickFan wrote: So, let me get this straight, you don't own The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King and many other titles just because they differ slightly from the theatrical aspect ratio? The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is really too small to complain about. As long as the colors look the way they do in the trailers, and we get the original cut (surely Disney wouldn't be that stupid, would they?), I'm happy.

I don't expect most will agree/understand, but like I've stated before whether the difference is .05 or .5 is besides the point. I can't support a release if it's misframed from the theatrical ratio, or edited, etc. It's my preference to have for my collection the original version the way it was shown.
If I want to watch any of these titles, I can always rent/ borrow from someone anyway. I mean after all, how often do we watch a particular title from our DVD/Blu collections, once every few months if that. As our collections grow, sometimes it's not as often as that...

Scott

Hahah. I don't get it.

So would you buy a film if the directors came out and said something like: "This is how we always intended the aspect ratio to be. It wasn't our decision to release it to theaters the way it was shown."

What do you do then? Are you for the original way it was actually shown? Or the way it was intended to be shown?

Hes for the way it was shown originally. Doesnt matter what was planned, nor that he'll be waiting another 10-20 years for the movie before the .5 image is removed and he's satisfied.

you dont exactly have forever to wait for an aspect ratio change, so I dont agree.

I heard there was a PatF Doll and DVD combo coming out, and possibly the same thing for BatB. Any more info? I hope this doesn't replace a Snow White like Collector's edition offering. However, the PatF one seems limited to 5,000 (not that its a small run).

They're doing it for all the "Princess" movies. They did for Snow White.

ajmrowland wrote:Hes for the way it was shown originally. Doesnt matter what was planned, nor that he'll be waiting another 10-20 years for the movie before the .5 image is removed and he's satisfied.

you dont exactly have forever to wait for an aspect ratio change, so I dont agree.

I think he's getting at the contradiction; what if the movie shown in cinemas was not according to the director's vision but was corrected upon home video release?

What meaning is there in the OAR if it is not true to the way it was intended to be shown? The term becomes superfluous.

ajmrowland wrote:They're doing it for all the "Princess" movies. They did for Snow White.

Are the Snow White ones still around? Are these worth collecting? I really liked the Collectors Set (Red Box), but if that doesn't happen for all the movies perhaps this would be neat to have. I'm not a doll person though.

EDIT: Awww just saw that it was the DVD+Bluray package. I prefer the other way around.

BK wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:Hes for the way it was shown originally. Doesnt matter what was planned, nor that he'll be waiting another 10-20 years for the movie before the .5 image is removed and he's satisfied.

you dont exactly have forever to wait for an aspect ratio change, so I dont agree.

I think he's getting at the contradiction; what if the movie shown in cinemas was not according to the director's vision but was corrected upon home video release?

What meaning is there in the OAR if it is not true to the way it was intended to be shown? The term becomes superfluous.

Exactly. I don't know if that has ever happened before, but I'm curious as to what AlwaysOAR would do in that situation. Does the fact that it was shown in theaters that way overpower what the directors and artists want?

Let's say, for example: With all the ridiculous interference at WDAS right now, for some reason Tangled gets released to theaters in 1.85:1 (please forgive me for probably getting the example wrong or backwards or something. I know absolutely nothing about the numbers, because it doesn't really bother me when it's not OAR.). Then next year, for the blu-ray release, we get a statement from Nathan Greno, Byron Howard and Glen Keane that it will be presented in 1.75:1 on blu-ray/DVD, because that was the way they had always planned on it being released.

Then, like you said... the meaning of "Original Aspect Ratio" becomes questionable. My vote goes for whatever the artists want it to be shown in. But what about you, AlwaysOAR?

Many 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (Warner does it to all their releases). Most DPs have to take several things into account when they're shooting a movie, so nobody frames that precise.
Plus, as was already revealed, the Beauty and the Beast dvd might have the correct aspect ratio, it was zoomed in quite a bit compared to the trailer we saw. So you still didn't get the correct picture.

This has probably already been discussed, but I'm praying that they'll release the Enchanted Christmas on Blu-ray that November. I know it's highly unlikely, but a boy can dream!

I don't think they will be Chaz, as Disney are trying to forget they ever started sequels to the Classics .... but yup, feel free to dream !

Think you guys are right, I'll get the combos from now on; with the huge LACK of DVD features (they don't deserve the term 'special' anymore), I'll just combo it up and wait until I'm old and grey and can finally afford a Blu player !!

SWillie! wrote: Hahah. I don't get it.

So would you buy a film if the directors came out and said something like: "This is how we always intended the aspect ratio to be. It wasn't our decision to release it to theaters the way it was shown."

What do you do then? Are you for the original way it was actually shown? Or the way it was intended to be shown?

SWillie! wrote:

BK wrote:


I think he's getting at the contradiction; what if the movie shown in cinemas was not according to the director's vision but was corrected upon home video release?

What meaning is there in the OAR if it is not true to the way it was intended to be shown? The term becomes superfluous.

Exactly. I don't know if that has ever happened before, but I'm curious as to what AlwaysOAR would do in that situation. Does the fact that it was shown in theaters that way overpower what the directors and artists want?

Let's say, for example: With all the ridiculous interference at WDAS right now, for some reason Tangled gets released to theaters in 1.85:1 (please forgive me for probably getting the example wrong or backwards or something. I know absolutely nothing about the numbers, because it doesn't really bother me when it's not OAR.). Then next year, for the blu-ray release, we get a statement from Nathan Greno, Byron Howard and Glen Keane that it will be presented in 1.75:1 on blu-ray/DVD, because that was the way they had always planned on it being released.

Then, like you said... the meaning of "Original Aspect Ratio" becomes questionable. My vote goes for whatever the artists want it to be shown in. But what about you, AlwaysOAR?

I put less and less stock in what filmakers now say in how they wanted their films shown. Look at Lucas, constantly tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy. Other examples include Criterion's release of The Last Emperor, or Paramount's release of Apocalypse Now, where the director of photography of these two films, not the actual directors(credit to KubrickFan for that info) says he always wanted them at the 2.00:1 ratio instead of their original theatrical aspect ratios. The option for the original ratio of 2.35:1 is not given.

Filmmakers sometimes change their minds more than once in how they wanted a film to be shown, evidence the director cuts put out by some, then later on change their minds again. That's why I like Scorcese, he doesn't go back and tinker with the original release, saying you make a film under the conditions your given at the time.

Now it's all fine and well if the director wants to release a film altered, whether it's content added/taken out or an alternate ratio, but in those few instances, and they are far and few between fortunately, the option should be given on DVD, and especially Blu, between the original release and the alternate version/ratio. Many of the studios for years have been giving us the option of the original ratio and a full screen/ pan & scan, so why not have the option on these. And again, whether the ratio difference is .5 or .05 is besides the point, preserving the film as it was originally presented should be the first option.