What were they thinking when releasing TLK and Aladdin?

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
Hob
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:02 am

What were they thinking when releasing TLK and Aladdin?

Post by Hob »

I can not possibly imagine what they were thinking when deciding not to release the original theatrical versions. The new coloring is bland and looks like it is from one of those direct-to-dvd sequels. If they only had released a collectors edition with the original theatrical colors.

Does anyone know whether Bambi, The Little Mermaid and other upcoming PEs will suffer from this problem? Also, is there any way of getting the original TLK and Aladdin movies on DVD? I do have them both on VHS from the original release, but VHS does not stand up to time too well. :(

God damn. I have all other Disney DVDs I want to have with original movies, I'd really like a shot at these two. Hopefully they publish a new release in the future.
Wonderlicious
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4661
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Wonderlicious »

First of all, I'd like to welcome you Hob to this forum. Secondly, from what I read, the DVD version of Aladdin is pretty much the same edition as what was released in 1992 (with only a few audio changes which you should find out about on this site's review). The thing that you've pointed out to be different is not different; those colours are as the directors wanted them to look, but due to technology at the time, the filmakers couldn't do a direct digital (what Aladdin's source is) to film transfer, so the colours looked darker. Therefore, you're seeing the original theatrical cut with just a few brighter colours.

With The Lion King, this is where things get a bit more complicated and sadly, the case is only the same as Aladdin when talking about the colours. As pointed out in this review, the images have been changed. Personally, I could handle this, but as you can tell from that review, this is something that some Disney fans have been given sleepless nights from.

Bambi, The Little Mermaid and the other platinum titles are going to be the original cuts (or at least I think so), only they are getting a big DVD restoration in the same vein as Alice in Wonderland and Snow White, so that the image looks like the true colours of the cells and backgrounds, but I don't think that they're going to get new animation etc.

I hope that this information helps and that you don't get worried about the Aladdin DVD.
orestes.

Post by orestes. »

I remember when I first saw the Lion King and I saw those crocodiles and I thought they looked horrible but I came to love their style. I instantly noticed that change. I also noticed when they changed that hidden word. I honestly never noticed the waterfall change though.

I wish Star Wars would have released the original and the new version together on DVD. Ultimately it would be great to have all three versions but I would always want the first and most recent. I wonder if there will be any more versions to come? :P I just hope Disney doesn't start adopting the Lucas way more.
User avatar
Riki
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:09 am

Post by Riki »

Why did they even change appearnce of the "cloud Mufasa", and could anyone post a picture of the original and then the new one?
Hob
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:02 am

Post by Hob »

Wonderlicious wrote:First of all, I'd like to welcome you Hob to this forum.
Thank you. Nice to be here.
Therefore, you're seeing the original theatrical cut with just a few brighter colours.
This comforts me a little. I only have the original VHS as reference, and that looks considerably darker in coloring. Also the "A Whole New World" music video from 1992 (with Peabo Bryson and Regina Belle) shows segments with different colors.

I think I compare the coloring scheme changes with the ones made in Beauty and the Beast. The deluxe set which included the original version and the newly colored showed the differences plainly, and I very much preferred the older, darker look.

On Lion King the changes are not so noticeable: the movie was always brighter, although I would have preferred to have the original there as well. Regardless on how good the changes are, the old version is the one I saw eight times in theatre.
Bambi, The Little Mermaid and the other platinum titles are going to be the original cuts (or at least I think so), only they are getting a big DVD restoration in the same vein as Alice in Wonderland and Snow White, so that the image looks like the true colours of the cells and backgrounds, but I don't think that they're going to get new animation etc.
Thank god. The Little Mermaid is the best movie ever, bar none. I have four VHS versions of it and the DVD. I've been wondering about getting a Laserdisc player just to be able to get that film.

In general, I am against the changes done on movies on a later date. We can always hope Disney understands the mistake made and publishes a new batch of disks at some point in time. I would pay for yet another round of DVDs just to get the original VHS versions updated to digital time. And truth to be told, I think at least on Lion King the Mouse House will publish a Collectors edition, Deluxe set or somesuch with the original film on it. They can smell the money from all the complaints. ;)
I hope that this information helps and that you don't get worried about the Aladdin DVD.
I don't worry. After all, I have an original VHS in good shape that oughta serve me for at least seven more years, until the time for a new DVD release has come.

One thing I really hope: please Disney, don't screw up on TLM release. That movie, for some reason, is always really expected when it comes out, either to movies or DVD. The potential is huge, and all they would need to do is to release the original movie in unchanged form. Us Arielholics are a loyal bunch.

Edit: fixed quotes.
User avatar
Andy
Special Edition
Posts: 981
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:57 am
Location: UK

Post by Andy »

Could anyone post 2 images, one from the original and the other from the dvd?? AS i cant tell the difference.... :)
hiiiii
lolopimp

Post by lolopimp »

Riki wrote:Why did they even change appearnce of the "cloud Mufasa", and could anyone post a picture of the original and then the new one?
To tell you the truth, I haven't noticed any changes made on Mufasa's ghost. I think they look the same.
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~jland/tlk0015.jpg

The link above shows a change that was made on the DVD. Mufasa's teeth were deleted, and I don't know why.

As well as other changes, like the one when Mufasa rescues Simba from the hyenas and then the camera moves to the top of a rock and you see Scar moving his head. In the original he just stood still.

These are small changes that only a Lion freak like me can notice.
Last edited by lolopimp on Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5207
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

Little Mermaid was intended to go to IMAX and therefore it has been touched up a little (I think). Just like BatB and LK, who both actually made it to IMAX and Aladdin and Pocahontas, intended for Imax but never made it. so If Pocahontas was ready for IMAX then Mermaid has certainly been prepared as well. Thank God I have the barebones disc, so i'll always know what the movie used to look like back in the good ol days :) That doesn't mean I'm not ready to see a new transfer with animation that will blow me away :D
Lars Vermundsberget
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2483
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: Norway

Post by Lars Vermundsberget »

What the colours look like (and how dark or bright they are) may also depend upon how your "display device" (TV set) is adjusted. As far as I've been told, there really is no exact reference level.
Key
Special Edition
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:53 am
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Post by Key »

I think the colors look fine in both DVDs... They looked crisp, vibrant, and all-around wonderful. Of course, I hadn't seen either film for about 6 years so my memory regarding them may be a bit dull. ;)

I am upset about the changes made in The Lion King, however. Changing the crocodiles was so unnecessary that it makes me wonder why they even bothered (there's the entire "peculiar angle of the crocodile's mouth" story but changing the ENTIRE sequence seems a bit extreme and anal, even for Disney).

Then there's the false advertising. "Original Theatrical Version." Pfft.
Last edited by Key on Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day.
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Post by deathie mouse »

Color design being part of the original theatrical version, i'm not saying the DVDs' don't look wonderful and vibrant but the question might be, are they the "original"?

Original Aspect Ratios are not the only part of the original Cinematography that can be changed...

It's one thing that a movie might've looked slighly muted compared to prints today or before cus in the 80's Eastmancolor print dyes weren't as saturated as the previous Technicolor process, and that on video they can look more colorful (actually i think very few prints (or videos) look as saturated as the best color that can be achieved ;P), another is that the color design may be altered or changed in mastering. It becomes a different version.
Paint your house fire engine red and your rooms turquoise blue and bright yellow and your outlook on life might change ;)

Lars Vermundsberget wrote: What the colours look like (and how dark or bright they are) may also depend upon how your "display device" (TV set) is adjusted. As far as I've been told, there really is no exact reference level.
Lars is right, display calibration and ambient light levels, and even the color of the curtains in your room! affect everything (Thank nature humans have what's called memory color and adaptation, and things don't look as bad as they are cus our brains do a lot of processing to make things look right again :P) so you can actually change the "look" of a video a LOT from what's actually recorded on the DVD.

There is supposed to be an exact reference level. The problem is (or actually are) that they seem to be various variations! :lol: AND, on top of that apparently many people don't know exactly how to work them or how they are SUPPOSSED to work. (i'm not talking only about consumers, i'm actually talking aboout people working on video). That's probably the main reason NTSC is called Never Twice the Same Color (I prefer Never Twice the Same CONTRAST)

It's one thing to brighten/darken masters slightly another is to change things all around. I usually try to watch my DVDs in calibrated conditions but sometimes watching them like that makes them look worse making me wonder how the Telecine monitor was set up at that facility..

Maybe I should start a topic about it in off topic :P

Anyway, even with the range of display setting variations, what's recorded on Beauty and The Beast DVD looks different that the projection prints and other video transfers. For example to make the candle lit ballroom scene look candlelit and semi dark as i remember it i have to turn down the INDIVIDUAL blue channel of the RGB, it's not just a matter of turning down the black level (called brightness in most TV's). Turning down the blue channel not only makes the scene warmer and darker (as if lit by GASP! candles! :twisted: it also changes the color of the gown and the Beast jacket goes down from neon blue back to navy blue. etc.

mm maybe similar to Riki's avatar (but less "greenish" ;P ) (maybe that avatar needs slight "Tint" adjustment :P)
(or maybe i should find the experimental pic i made a long long time ago somewhere and post it here :P)

But the average TV set doesn't let you do that, and that's just for that one individual scene!, so you'd probaly would have to "remaster" all the DVD scene by scene to get it to look exactly (or close) to the original version. (Altho turning down the black level (or the gamma) and the saturation a bit might be a partial "overall" solution if you want to aproximate it to the original.)

This means, as has been discusssed before here, that this was done on purpose for this edition. It really looks good and attractive on a calibrated monitor, my PAL Beauty and the Beast always gets gasps when i show the opening colorful opening of the castle scene.
But is it the same dark and serious "movie" we saw?

Color is as much an art as it is a science and with todays tools you can practically get any look out of the flat un'equalized (to use an audio metaphor) original negative or print (or computer render :P)

Even tho i don't mention it in my profile i love color, and actually I haven't really ever discussed much about color in this forum (be afraid, be very afraid :twisted:) cus it's complicated there are many variables, from the original dyes on the negatives (or the B/W RGB records on Technicolor negatives) to the RGB phosphour set being different on every tv (and TV system!) and mixed up by the variations in gamma, black level, white point, ambient light, etc (and curtains! we can't forget curtains! :P)

But a dvd producer should be able to get the originally designed look of a movie with no problem if that's what the dvd producers wanted.

Sometimes they want a new version done. (Don't forget the Star Emperor ;) )


Same thing happens in the audio disc world (or in movie soundtracks) where audiophiles seek original pressings and unmixed un'equalized to the jazzoo CD versions of their favorite albums
(How many people here know that if they've only heard it on the current CDs, you haven't heard the real "Yesterday" or "Strawberry Fields Forever"?)

I have the LD's of Beauty (but not of the Lion) so mmm i don't think too much about it but if they don't ever make a "restored to the original theatrical version" disc one day there will be people that will have never seen the original dark/serious color design and they will be the majority.
Image
User avatar
rodis
Special Edition
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:12 am

Post by rodis »

I absolutely agree with you! The same thing already happened with "The Little Mermaid" in 1998. They brithened the colors to an extent where it looked too grainy and unaesthetic. The colors were too bold, too. Whereas the 1990 image looks so realistic, clean (yes, ironically) and the colors are breathtaking.
Mr. Toad
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Post by Mr. Toad »

Deathie - I have to buy curtains for the new home theater. What color should they be?
Disneyland Trips - 07/77, 07/80, 07/83, 05/92, 05/96, 05/97, 06/00, 11/00, 02/02, 06/02, 11/02, 04/06, 01/07, 07/07, 11/07,11/08, 07/09

Disneyworld Trips - 01/05

Disney Cruise - 01/05

Six Flags DK - 03/09, 05/09. 06/09, 07/09
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Cu cu curtains

Post by deathie mouse »

you had to ask didnt you ;)

mmm it depends, where they are gonna be?

the ideal for any home theater would be:

colors of walls and objects facing the monitor (that means the walls at the sides, the one behind your back, and the roof, and the floor) (just making sure we're properly oriented here ;) ) should be black so no light reflects from them and falls on the monitor/screen diluting maximum blacks and lowering maximum contrast and saturation (it's a physical process called flare, or glare by some :P)

A theoretical purely made up example:

You have a projection screen that gives out 100 ft.L in the white . In da blacks if flare didn't exist (you sitting in outer space and and all stars have gone into black hole status ;) ) the screen gives you 1 ft.L. So you have a 100 to 1 contrast ratio. Colors are 100 to 1 purely saturated too (cus a red object would be at 100 and the blue and green components at 1)

Now comes the white walls in your house. they reflect 100% (actually closer to 90% but hey i'm in theoretical mode made up example :P)
your HTscreen is white and it reflects 100% too.

Soooo you have this natural scene on the movie that is on average 18% grey (18% is the value of of averaging all the components of a scene :P), with Poppins white 100 ft.L clouds and Darth Vaderish black cloak 1 ft.L shadows (unless you're the new redoriginal Darth Vader that is actually closert to 20 ft.L blue! :twisted:) So the facing white walls reflect 100% of the 18% glow of the scene on the screen and that bounces back toward the white screen and the screen reflects 100% of what falls on it.

Sooooooooo.

original white = 100, new white 100 +18 = 118

original blacks 1, new blacks= 1 + 18 = 19

original pure red R = 100, B = 1, G = 1. New RGB = 118, 19,19. (red has now a 19% grey component instead of 1% grey component)

In contrast ratio terms, your original fabulous 100 to 1 contrast has gone 118 to 19 which is equivalent to 6 to 1 contrast ratio.

(6.21 to 1 to be exact in this made up example)

So the darker or blacker the walls the less this will happen.


oh someone says, but my DLP projector says has a 2000:1 contrast ratio.

Well same thing happens:

2000 + 360 = 2360
1 + 360= 361

(18% of 2000 whites is 360 :P)


that's
2360 to 361

or 6 to 1

(6.537 to 1 if you want to be calculatorish)

that's better isnt it? NOT

So you see, if a person with the cheap 100 to 1 projector has black walls that reflect 0% he has a much better image contrast ratio (100:1) than a guy with the $8,000 DLP with mustang 2000:1 HD2+ chip that has his walls painted 100% white (6:1). :P Wow $8,000 down the drain for the price of a bucket of black paint



Of course all this numbers i made were theoretical (as i said white things reflect about 90% instead of 100%, common black things reflect 3% to 5% instead of 0%, and we didn't take into account the distance and size of the walls vs the size of the screen) so the numbers would not be this extreme in real life situations, but i hope it has become clear why black or dark walls are good :D .

Little things like this affect image quality more than people think. Same as people that spend $$$$$ in speakers and amplification, the room furnishings and walls acoustic signature may affect more the resulting sound than all the $$$$ pumped into the hardware and end up sounding not too good..
Painting walls/curtains darker is kind of the visual equivalent of adding expensive sound absorption panels for the stereo so you hear the original ambiance on the recording , except paint is cheap and curtains cost the same if they are bright fuscia or dark muted blue

Which brings us to:
Same thing with color walls, strong saturated colors will affect the shadows and give a color cast. Neutral or muted colors would be better.

so black is better than dark grey and dark grey , or dark brown or navy blue, is better than red or green or magenta or yellow or white etc etc walls, curtains, sofas, clothing too :lol: etc
etc.

i would stay away from the magenta/green axis colors , the blue/yellow axis colors are preferable since direct sunlight is yellowish and dffuse skylight is blue (because it's from the sky ;) ) But yellow or light tan, creme, colors are bright (light) not dark.

If I HAD to pick A color, i would use something like dark navy blue i guess :P., Or maybe like muted very dark brown or something (like the color of very dark wood?)

otherwise id use dark grey or black :twisted:

As example red reflects 9% compared to the 3% of black (apart from the color cast that is) DDark blue is in between. You can see this if you turn a TV color bar into black and white, the dark blue bar in b/w is darker than the red)


Now , if you mean curtains in the wall behind the monitor (or the wall the projection screen is on) (like curtains that close to cover the screen or surround it)
well if you have a huge screen that wall and curtains sould be preferably black too :P (so they dont affect your perception of the screeeeeeen image :twisted:) Under no cirscustances they should be of any bright saturated color or your screen image might color shift in your perception.

Now if the screen is not huge (doesnt cover your field of view like a movie theater) well you could use lighter GREY/NEUTRAL walls/curtains cus your eye will try to adapt what's in front of you to be overall 18% grey (thats how the eye works) (if you have a huge screen, well the DVD images themselves become your 18% on average scenes, but if youre watching a 20" monitor on the end of the room and the walls are painted black, your eye will open its lens trying to compensate, and the screen might look washed out and you adjust the black level (brightness control) down more than it should and the blacks are crushed and you loose shadow details etc , so in this case that wall or curtains should be lighter (still neutral tho, remember color adaptation) but they should be about 18% grey AS COMPARED to how bright your monitor/screen is bright.

(so mmm put a 40 or 50 IRE grey pattern (idealy 45 IRE) from a test disc on your TV and make that wall look like that. :P)

The opposite happens if the surrounding walls/curtains are lighter/brighter than 18% grey compared to the monitor: Your eyes lens closes and adapts and because of the bright surround the monitor screen starts to look darker/contrastier, so you automatically misadjust the black level up and loose deep shadows (they become milky grey) and colors loose saturation.

(That's why Lars commented about if a true reference level existed. There is one, displays should be set up using it, but as you can see, what happens when you, or the studio they are transfering the films in have the walls and/or the monitor size different :P)

(Thats one reason big huge screens are good, they fill your field of view so you're adapted to them., not the walls/light fixtures, so what you see is what you get)

On the other hand, light or white walls behind the curtains are good IF you have a low contrast LCD or some kind of display that doesnt give you true blacks even if you turn down the brighness: the lighter wall works as an advantage here making the sub-contrasty image appear darker and more contrasty, so after adjusting the low contrast display to the best black you can get from it you could vary the light intensity of the surrounding walls (that's a useful trick to overcome display shortcomings ;) )
Same would happen if you moved the low contrast display further back and you saw more white wall surrounding it without changing the light intensity, but, you get smaller apparent monitor then :P


lots of variables!


now to the last part :P

another reason black is good is: if you have lights turned on in the room, unless you're using special $$ D65 fluorescents, you're using normal fluorescents (grenish) or normal tungsten bulbs (yellowish). (or candles! :o :twisted:) SO your white grey neutral walls, even tho they are neutral, they DON'T look neutral anymore, since the monitor is (hopefully) correctly calibrated to D65 grey (average Daylight) and they are not (or the walls/lights are so bright that your eye adapts to them and they do look white/grey, but then your monitor starts looking blue. :P A constant color cordination strugle happens as you watch things on the screen and in the room may also happen.

Needless to say, if you have lights on in the room , none of it should fall on the screen: more flare, less costrast , less colors, now youre shining a light directly to a thing that's trying to form images by throwing light at you, don't give it competition, shade your screen from it. Rembember tho, that even shading the screen from it, this room lights will also bounce off the non black walls too onto the screen

so many variables!

it's good that the brain works hard and tries to fix this things before youre aware of them.



Well those are the general guidelines/ideal stuff, depending how dedicated is your HT room, as opposed to a normal livingg space area (after all you have to live in it :P) you could try to implement this as much as you can or accept. Just remember all the money and time you have invested in buying hardware and movies and watching them. I have friends that ask me Should I buy that $10,000 DLP projector with the 4000:1 contrast ratio spec with the $1000 greytech screen and $600 extra lumens output light bulb and the first thing i ask them is: have you painted your walls black yet??


you had to ask ;)



hope i answered your question and helped on your quest of DisneyTheaterNirvana :)


makes you wonder how many Telecine rooms follow the rainbow



ps, Since this topic IS about different color rendition versions on DVDs :twisted:, for those who'd like to see an example of variations and might have not stumbled on it, I posted pics of the two color rendition versions (LD vs DVD) of Yellow Sub on the Yellow Sub off topic. I also added one I made doing a simple basic rebalancing of the color tempt of it, to see it that accounted for most of the differences, where you can see that some of the colors didn't really change from one into the other, so they were different.
Image
User avatar
purplebluelove99
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: Canada

I can't see the difference can you see the difference?

Post by purplebluelove99 »

I've watched both Aladdin and the Lion King a million times on vhs and on dvd and I haven't noticed any difference maybe it's your t.v. set or your dvd player that needs adjusting. Or cleaning. Or there might be a defect on your dvd. Why don't you write Disney and tell them that.
Mr. Toad
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Post by Mr. Toad »

But I thought it was a simple question?
Disneyland Trips - 07/77, 07/80, 07/83, 05/92, 05/96, 05/97, 06/00, 11/00, 02/02, 06/02, 11/02, 04/06, 01/07, 07/07, 11/07,11/08, 07/09

Disneyworld Trips - 01/05

Disney Cruise - 01/05

Six Flags DK - 03/09, 05/09. 06/09, 07/09
User avatar
toonaspie
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1438
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:17 am

Re: I can't see the difference can you see the difference?

Post by toonaspie »

purplebluelove99 wrote:I've watched both Aladdin and the Lion King a million times on vhs and on dvd and I haven't noticed any difference maybe it's your t.v. set or your dvd player that needs adjusting. Or cleaning. Or there might be a defect on your dvd. Why don't you write Disney and tell them that.
Heck no purplebluelove99! These people are 100% right, with The Lion King anyway. I'm such a huge fan of that film and you would have to be silly to not recognize the little changes.

I also saw that film at the IMax and something that really bothered me is that here was the animator's only chance to fix up the animations and there are still lots and lots of scenes where the lions are missing their whiskers. Even in "The Morning Report" sequence Simba had no whiskers.

As for Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, I have seen them plenty of time but no major reanimating was done with these films so the changes are hard to catch. But definitely with The Lion King. I suggest you watch both the VHS and DVD a million times again.
dvdjunkie
Signature Collection
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Post by dvdjunkie »

Deathie Mouse, I believe that you need to get a life. I for one think that the DVD's of TLK and Aladdin are just fine. Why have we all of a suddent become such picky people. Your post besides being too long, was very confusing and almost non-understandable from a layman's point of view. I still haven't quite figured out what you were talking about.

How about shortening your post in half, and then give us a link to it for those who are impressed with $50 words, and techno-babble. Doesn't do anything for me, personally.

This is a real lame thread for this forum. Everyone should just enjoy the fact that Disney hasn't turned its back on the whole DVD Format and just chucked everything in the vault.

I have every Disney Animated Feature from "Fantasia" right through to the "Lion King" from Thailand. They all look fine to me. I have compared TLK on both the American release and the foreign release and I sure can't tell the difference. Give up on this already and just enjoy your movies.

:roll:
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
User avatar
Joe Carioca
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2039
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 5:05 pm
Location: Brazil

Post by Joe Carioca »

I'm sorry, but if Deathie's post have no interest for you, just don't read them. I'm sure a lot of people here (me included) find them very interesting.
Lars Vermundsberget
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2483
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: Norway

Post by Lars Vermundsberget »

dvdjunkie wrote:Everyone should just enjoy the fact that Disney hasn't turned its back on the whole DVD Format and just chucked everything in the vault.
I think even Disney ought to enjoy this fact... :roll:
Post Reply