How do Disney label their films?

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:06 pm

This is utterly mad! I've been noticing it for a long time. When it comes to DVDs, Disney seems to intentionally try to trick the consumer into thinking that certain animated films are part of the official canon. This is most apparent in Region 2. Films like "Mary Poppins" have been labled as "Walt Disney Classics". OK maybe we can pass Mary Poppins, but things get ridiculous when we see the "Walt Disney Classics" banner on "Pete's Dragon", "The Jungle Book 2" and "The Wild".

Visit http://www.disney.co.uk/ to see "The Wild"'s DVD packaging!

castleinthesky · Post by **castleinthesky** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:13 pm

The only reason the Classics banner is probably on those three you mentioned are because they were released theatrically by Disney. It is really weird with the Wild, because unlike the other 2 (Pete's Dragon and Jungle Book 2), Disney did not make the film, and just distributed it.

ichabod · Post by **ichabod** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:56 pm

OK. The UK Classics banner explained:

The 45 animated Disney films are classics.

Furthermore so are the 5 live action films which feature animation, So Dear to My Heart; Song of the South; Pete's Dragon; Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Perfectly acceptable IMO.

Jungle Book 2 was a slip, later reissues had pictures presents.

The cover for the Wild is only prelease so we can but pray that it is just a mock up mistake. The mock ups for Scamp's Adventure and Piglet's Big Movie also said classics, but the real things said 'pictures presents'.

I don't think there's is any tricking involved people are aware that Poppins etc are live action and I for one am perfectly happy to have them included as so. They are not part of the numbering, there are still only 45 "classics".

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:28 pm

Well, thanks for clearing that up, ichabod.

However, I have one more question for you. When entering the Disney DVD Shop page on Disney.co.uk and clicking the "Animated Classics" tab, one can see a line-up of what, he/she assumes are the 45 animated classics and 5 part live-action/part feature animation movies, with DVD information and price. There are about 6 movies per page and you have to keep clicking "next". Unbelievably, scattered among these animated classics, one can find the likes of "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" and "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure". It's very confusing.

By the way, a bit off topic, but I'm curious about this one... 1980 saw the release of the Disney/Paramount co-production "Popeye". (Incidentally, it was filmed in Malta). I only saw it when I was younger on a video tape copied from another video tape taken from the original copy. The picture was very bad. However, even like that I could deduce that whilst not being terrible, the movie was rather boring.

Anyways... I found out a couple of years ago, that it had been released on DVD by Paramount, under the banner of "Widescreen DVD Collection". It had a picture of Popeye and Olive Oyl on a blue background for the cover art, with the tagline "The sailor man with the spinach can".

To my shock, I also saw "Popeye" for sale on Disney.co.uk with similar cover art (same pic of Popeye and Olive with a different background), and with Disney DVD written all over it.

This is confusing! Who should be releasing the film to DVD? Disney or Paramount? I mean, I think the original distributor of the film should release it on DVD. Take "Master and Commander" for example. At the beginning of the movie you see three logos: "20th Century Fox", "Universal Pictures", and the Disney-owned "Miramax Films". However, 20th Century Fox distributed the movie, so the DVD release was a Fox DVD. We didn't get two other DVD releases: A Universal DVD and a Buena Vista Disney DVD release!

Can someone please explain this hotchpotch to me?

Wonderlicious · Post by **Wonderlicious** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:38 pm

Julian Carter wrote:Can someone please explain this hotchpotch to me?

I'm guessing that whilst Paramount can release the film within the United States, Disney has the international distribution rights to Popeye, along with the other Paramount co-production Dragonslayer (which I believe was also released on DVD by Paramount in America and by Disney in the UK). These sort of things happen all the time; Titanic, for example, was a co-production between Fox and Paramount, and whilst it was released by the latter in the USA, 20th Century Fox screened it abroad (such as over here in the UK and I'm guessing your native Malta too).

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:44 pm

Wonderlicious wrote:
Julian Carter wrote:Can someone please explain this hotchpotch to me?
I'm guessing that whilst Paramount can release the film within the United States, Disney has the international distribution rights to Popeye, along with the other Paramount co-production Dragonslayer (which I believe was also released on DVD by Paramount in America and by Disney in the UK). These sort of things happen all the time; Titanic, for example, was a co-production between Fox and Paramount, and whilst it was released by the latter in the USA, 20th Century Fox screened it abroad (such as over here in the UK and I'm guessing your native Malta too).

Wow! That makes perfect sense. My family used to have a video tape of Titanic. It opened with the 20th Century Fox logo. When we rented it on DVD in Region 1, it opened with the Paramount logo.

Regarding Popeye, I think the Paramount release is better than the Disney release. On Paramount I think it was remixed in 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound, whilst on the Disney release it's in simple Mono 1.0.

I still find it weird to find a film released in 2 versions by 2 different studios.

ichabod · Post by **ichabod** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:04 am

Julian Carter wrote:However, I have one more question for you. When entering the Disney DVD Shop page on Disney.co.uk and clicking the "Animated Classics" tab, one can see a line-up of what, he/she assumes are the 45 animated classics and 5 part live-action/part feature animation movies, with DVD information and price. There are about 6 movies per page and you have to keep clicking "next". Unbelievably, scattered among these animated classics, one can find the likes of "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" and "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure". It's very confusing.

Check virtually every thread in the international forum, you will soon learn that BVHE UK are crap and don't care.

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:10 am

ichabod wrote:Check virtually every thread in the international forum, you will soon learn that BVHE UK are crap and don't care.

That's sad and disappointing.

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:53 pm

ichabod wrote:The cover for the Wild is only prelease so we can but pray that it is just a mock up mistake. The mock ups for Scamp's Adventure and Piglet's Big Movie also said classics, but the real things said 'pictures presents'.

OK. Now it's confirmed on the UK Announcment Thread, that Buena Vista UK have released "The Wild" officially as the #46 Disney Animated Classic. Lasseter and Ed Catmull have gotta do something!!

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:19 am

Julian Carter wrote:
ichabod wrote:The cover for the Wild is only prelease so we can but pray that it is just a mock up mistake. The mock ups for Scamp's Adventure and Piglet's Big Movie also said classics, but the real things said 'pictures presents'.
OK. Now it's confirmed on the UK Announcment Thread, that Buena Vista UK have released "The Wild" officially as the #46 Disney Animated Classic. Lasseter and Ed Catmull have gotta do something!!

Or people could just stop being so anal about the whole classification thing and just buy/watch/ignore/destroy what they want?

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:54 am

2099net wrote:Or people could just stop being so anal about the whole classification thing and just buy/watch/ignore/destroy what they want?

Here goes! DESTROY! DESTROY! DESTROY!! (Wait for the animation to load).

JamesDFarrow · Post by **JamesDFarrow** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:12 am

Yeah, kinda strange. I think it is false advertising. But I guess if you can get away with it.... Now, if Ford Motor bought cars made by Honda or Toyota and slapped a Ford label on the grill they would probably end up in court but US laws have always been selective applied. So it's buyer beware - nothing is sacred anymore.

James

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:19 am

JamesDFarrow wrote:Yeah, kinda strange. I think it is false advertising. But I guess if you can get away with it.... Now, if Ford Motor bought cars made by Honda or Toyota and slapped a Ford label on the grill they would probably end up in court but US laws have always been selective applied. So it's buyer beware - nothing is sacred anymore.

James

Well, it is a Walt Disney film. More so than, as Escapay points out, early Paramount films are Universal, or most pre-1986 MGM films are Warners.

For example the upcoming Forbidden Planet release is Warners, even though its an MGM film and King Kong (Classic) was a Warner release, with a Warner Logo on the box (or Tin

) and video opening for Warner Home Video, when it was an RKO film.

As for "classic", how can Home of the Range be called a classic, when it was just released?

It's all just marketing, and as a result I don't care one way or another.

JamesDFarrow · Post by **JamesDFarrow** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:32 am

That's true. How does one define "Classic" anymore. There should be some sort of time frame involved. A certain amount of "years" go by and the work is still as, or even more so, popular as it originally was.

We could, I guess, have real classics defined as "Classics" with a capital C and "classics" (strictly as a marketing gimmick) with a small "c".

James

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:58 am

It is very possible that I wont be able to sleep tonight after reading about this sacrilege.

PD. I saw The Wild when it was released and I bought and watched the DVD. I give it a 7.1 from a 10.0.

darth_deetoo · Post by **darth_deetoo** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:16 am

What's worse than the supposed sacrilege of Disney calling The Wild an animated classic is that people have no life and can afford to spend their time doing childish animations and writing hate campaigns to Disney UK. Wouldn't those efforts be better channeled into doing something worthwhile? Get a grip!

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:24 pm

darth_deetoo wrote:What's worse than the supposed sacrilege of Disney calling The Wild an animated classic is that people have no life and can afford to spend their time doing childish animations.

Um...what's wrong with "doing" a "childish animation" may I ask?

And ichabod and I are childish just beause we're ticked off by what has happened, and are simply considering of e-mailing BV UK?

goofystitch · Post by **goofystitch** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:46 pm

Julian, I LOVED your animation and got a big laugh out of it.

Darth_deetoo, I don't have anything against you and I enjoy most of your posts, but your last one was pretty rude.

What's worse than the supposed sacrilege of Disney calling The Wild an animated classic is that people have no life and can afford to spend their time doing childish animations and writing hate campaigns to Disney UK. Wouldn't those efforts be better channeled into doing something worthwhile? Get a grip!

No one is writing hate compaigns. They are just complaining about something the care strongly about. If you don't care about whether or not they count "The Wild" as a classic, there is a much nicer way of stating that. You are meant to be able to debate about topics on this forum. That's what it is here for. However, a good example of a weak argument is one where you simply put down everyone elses views in a manner that implies that your view is right and everyone else should think like you. You say the people who want to complain or make humorous animations should do something worthwile and get a grip? A good use of your time would not be to criticize people. Simply state the fact that you don't care if it's counted or not and move on with your life. You say people have no life for discussing something that interests them. How much more of a life do you have to basically tell people how dumb they are and who gave you that right? I'm not trying to start a fight with you, but I'm tired of people being rude and picking fights just because someone's view isn't the same as theirs.

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:03 pm

Oh! Goofystitch...thanks for sticking up for me and everyone else! That was written perfectly, and was explained well.

To be honest, I felt my own reply might have been a bit rude aswell, as I don't think I could really restrain from showing that I was angry. I think I may have sounded aggressive, which I am not.

And I'm glad I gave you a good laugh from that animation. That's precisely why I made it; in order to lighten the mood, and not for it to pass harsh critical analysis. I suppose all of us are childish and immature sometimes, but when writing posts I always try to write well and maturely, and try to debate the topic properly. Heh...that animation was a different way of debating. It shows my general distaste at the banner at the top of the DVD cover of "The Wild".

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, anyway.

darth_deetoo · Post by **darth_deetoo** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Well quite honestly I think many of the comments and criticisms being levelled at The Wild are rude and disrespectful to the makers of the movie, and it would appear that many people posting comments have dismissed the movie without even giving it a chance. I almost didn't bother buying it because of the dismissive nature of many of the posts, fortunately, I'm not a sheep and form my own opinions.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

How do Disney label their films?

How do Disney label their films?