DVDizzy Forum

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.

Thank you! I'm not directing this at anyone of the forum, but I feel that very often people are led by such labels when it comes to forming an opinion of one of the films, leading to undeserved reputations for some movies and a complete lack of recognition for others.

Mike wrote: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?

Or maybe Korea. Both were overlapping during Sleeping Beauty's theatrical run.

nomad wrote:They may be more sophisticated in terms of allowing the audiences to interpret them but they don't have as much heart.

And that's where we'll just agree to disagree.

nomad wrote: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.

nomad wrote:but has any Disney movie really done as well and lived on as much since the Lion King? No.

That's not quite a fair assessment because it's only been 14 years since The Lion King, and you're speaking as if a Disney movie has to have instant success within its first 5 years and make sure that it lasts forever if it's meant to be a classic when that's not true at all. In Disney's past there have been films that weren't well-received at first, only to get its due years later (Fantasia, Sleeping Beauty, Bedknobs and Broomsticks in a way, even cult favorites like Tron and Newsies.) And then there are films that were huge successes in its time but have really only developed a smaller niche audience years later (much of the successful live-action films, Robin Hood...).

nomad wrote:Why do you think Pocahontas, Mulan, Tarzan etc. have not been inducted into the Platinum line?

Never mind the fact that netty already summed up my feelings about this, but you have to remember that when Disney devised the Platinum line, they based it on financial statistics (namely: the top 10 best-selling VHS's circa 2000). It really has nothing to do with whether or not a movie is "worthy" of being part of the line.

nomad wrote:we'll never know.

Exactly. Which is why your speculations (that if Disney did another fairy tale post-TLK, it'd be a surefire hit) and my speculations (that if Disney handled Thumbelina, it still could have flopped or soared) are all nothing but bullcrap that will never amount to anything.

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

Let's say that a man makes pies. He's known for his pies, and he makes all kinds. He's got a great clientele, and they know that when they order his pies, they'll get something great. He'll be a great piemaker no matter what kind of pies it is, because that's how good he is.

Over time, he experiments with new types of pies, and these are just as good, some even better, than the pies he made before. And with these pies he is able to bring in a whole new clientele in addition to the ones he already has. His status is elevated even more, to the point where people expect his pies to always be good.

And so, he experiments again, with even newer and even better pies. Pies that would knock you out of your socks and back a couple yards. And these pies are awesome to a lot of people, but not to everyone. Because no matter how good these pies are, to some of his clients, they're not the pies they're used to. They're something too new and different and it bothers them. So they don't get those pies, but always ask for his older kinds, the ones they are reliant on and will stick with to their dying day, even if a new pie is better.

So...did the piemaker lose it or did some of his clients lose it?

netty wrote: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.

*bows down repeatedly in awe and respect*

drf wrote: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?

Never ever listen to Disney Enhanced Home Theatre Mix. Those things are the plague, especially when they did it to Mary Poppins (it's pretty much on record that I HATE Disney's new mix for the film, and I always choose the original 2.0 Stereo).

drf wrote:movies like Mulan are far more CGI-made and less hand-made, so they look great, just too new to be a classic.

I'm not picking on you, but this is just a general complaint of mine...

"Classic" does not have to equate "old", and something that's "old" isn't necessarily "Classic". Seriously, would anyone really consider a movie like The Conquerer to be classic just because it was made in 1956? Likewise, a movie like Atonement has such a powerful draw and makes such an impact on its audience that I can easily call it a "Classic" even if it's less than a year old.

But either way, the word "classic" is far too overused when it comes to labeling films, especially Disney (with their "Disney Animated Classic" branding).

Also, surely there are Disney fans who were around in the 1950s have a much different opinion towards the 90s films than Disney fans around in the 90s. Perhaps to some 1950s fans the "Fab 4" look too new to be considered "classic" to them.

steve wrote:I feel that very often people are led by such labels when it comes to forming an opinion of one of the films, leading to undeserved reputations for some movies and a complete lack of recognition for others.

So true (the bold). It's hard to find Disney fans who actually acknowledge the importance that the package films had when it came to the 1950s films, and I HATE HATE HATE when a Disney "fan" will completely write off anything CGI just because it's...well, CGI.

(And don't get me started on the fact that live-action films are not as popular as animated ones because most people think Disney is just a cartoon studio.)

Albert

Never ever listen to Disney Enhanced Home Theatre Mix. Those things are the plague, especially when they did it to Mary Poppins (it's pretty much on record that I HATE Disney's new mix for the film, and I always choose the original 2.0 Stereo).

Yeah, I hate how everyone's obsessed with crystal-clear video and dazzling audio... These films are OLD. They didn't even have stereo (movies like Snow White)... why ruin it with 5.1 surround? Of course, I wouldn't mind a bit of cleaning on the audio... but the DEHT's are taking it too far. I always go with the original too... but it kind of irks me how they only include the original mix as an extra. Look at Lady and the Tramp. It was 4.0 in theaters (if my sources are correct), and the Limited Issue has a 5.1 that's basically not messed up too badly. Then we get the PE release. It has the "new and improved" DEHT, with the "restored theatrical audio" in MONO. I mean, you've got to be kidding... 4 channels down to 1? Show a little more effort, Disney!

I can see cleaning up a movie, but when you destroy its character, you destroy IT.

I thought the LatT new DVD had a 3.0 mix, not a 1.0?

My DVD player said mono... unless it's doing that itself.

When I hit the Audio button, it had 5.1 and 1.0, nothing else. Seems Disney is skimping on the audio selections now... almost saying "if you don't like our 5.1, deal with the crappy other track"

Odd, they included French and Spanish on most of their DVDs.

French and Spanish were 5.1 DEHT as well. I was merely saying there was no 3.0.

And is it just me, or is it odd that movies like Aladdin have mono commentaries? Usually those are stereo... but in some of the Disney movies they aren't.

drf wrote:there was no 3.0.

There is. Some players read it as mono (on the display screen), but rest assured, it's the 3.0 mix.

drf wrote:And is it just me, or is it odd that movies like Aladdin have mono commentaries? Usually those are stereo... but in some of the Disney movies they aren't.

I've never really paid attention to what the commentaries are recorded as. One would think stereo would be the default...hmm, wonder why Disney would present them in mono.

Albert

Oh so it IS 3.0?

Wasn't Lady and the Tramp originally recorded in 4.0? That seems odd to me... I know movies like 101 Dalmatians have "restored mono", so I just thought LatT was mono too. Guess I shoulda looked it in reauthor mode like I did the other movies

I've never really paid attention to what the commentaries are recorded as. One would think stereo would be the default...hmm, wonder why Disney would present them in mono.

That's what I was wondering myself, however the one good thing is when I watch it with headphones it doesn't give me a headache like Toy Story's does (They have the speakers either on the far left or far right and it's constantly switching which is torture when wearing headphones)... And I guess it's because Aladdin has like 5 other tracks already... though it wasn't a complete dual layer (IIRC), so I don't even know if "saving space" is a valid reason.