Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy They keep coming out with these newer or multi-disc DVD sets for films that I already have. I've got the "original" versions of: --Peter Pan --Little Mermaid --Mary Poppins (I know, mostly live-action) My question is, what is on these newer re-releases that I'm "missing out on"? Anything worth enough to warrant me buying them? I do love deleted scenes, "making of" stuff, documentaries...anything meaty that actually has to do with learning of the film, or vintage things about the film, no "fluff" (sing-alongs, trivia, music videos, kid games, etc.). Thanks.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Hey, I was just wondering where you had been the past few days. LOL I was also wondering the same thing myself. I'm going to rent the new Peter Pan and compare it to the dvd we already have. I really wonder if the remastering (or whatever the term is) really makes all that much of a difference. About the newest Little Mermaid dvd...it has a virtual LM ride that is pretty cool. My daughter is devastated that it was never built.
Originally Posted By avromark Let us know Mele! I'm on the fence on purchasing Peter Pan, although I did buy Mary Poppins (cuz I just love that movie)
Originally Posted By FiveBearRugs TDG, remember that conversation we had a while back about me not buying any of the Disney films unless they were in the fancy 2-disc special editions? I'd buy this, but... I already bought Peter Pan when 'Return to Neverland' was released in theatres. Curses!
Originally Posted By mawnck Kirby's review of the new Pan should help answer your question there. Short version: Most of the extras are recycled from previous editions. The new Mermaid included many new, fabulous extras and a genuine widescreen transfer (as opposed to letterboxed) but suffered from an overprocessed, inferior-sounding "Disney Enahnced Home Theater" audio mix (with no English-language alternative). While the widescreen was an improvement, I was not impressed with the quality of the remastering. Too dark, too artifacty. The remastered Dumbo was also nothing to write home about. It looked to me like they just used heavier denoising on the same source. The original release looked better IMHO. As for Robin Hood, I haven't actually sat down and watched the new edition yet, but a quick check revealed that the widescreen on it was created by zooming in on the fullscreen negative and cutting off the top and bottom of the picture. I believe this was the way it was supposed to be projected, but you'll get more picture by watching the old full-screen version. Someone else will have to speak to Mary Poppins -- I didn't own the first one, but the new one looks and sounds fine to me. And I thought the work they did on Bambi, Snow White, Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping Beauty was fabulous.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Mary Poppins is very worth the upgrade to the 2 disc version. The movie is noticeably cleaner than the Classics version and there is a lot more bonus content and behind-the-scenes stuff. As for Little Mermaid, Mawnck is right about the film itself, but since the only previous release of the movie was in a no-frills version, it's worth it to just get the bonus features. Peter Pan, is much better looking, but the features are mostly recycled.
Originally Posted By DAR When it comes to these release I always wait for the two disc. So to me it's like a brand new release.
Originally Posted By pecos bill I dont place so much emphasis on extras as I do picture quality. Some of the older disks look good as they are, and its hard to justify buying the new version, unless the restoration is dramatic, and in most cases, it is. I just wonder what will happen when we start seeing the new high definition releases that are sure to follow. We can all expect to buy these titles one more time.
Originally Posted By sun-n-fun I tend to only get them if I don't aleady have it. Today is my birthday and my husband bought me Peter Pan!!
Originally Posted By basil fan Mary Poppins has that wonderful short about the cat and the king, and Little Mermaid has an even better short of The Little Matchgirl. Henchmen, Minions and Goons: Disney's Second-Class Villains <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/henchmen.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/henchmen.html</a>
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <a genuine widescreen transfer (as opposed to letterboxed)> What's the difference? <the widescreen on it was created by zooming in on the fullscreen negative and cutting off the top and bottom of the picture. I believe this was the way it was supposed to be projected, but you'll get more picture by watching the old full-screen version.> That whole thing is just odd... The "Peter Pan" box says it has deleted songs, an alternate opening, and footage of Walt Disney discussing the film. Several people here say the extras are mostly recycled from the first DVD release, but I don't recall any of those being on there---are they?
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle These two-disc releases drive me nuts, because I'm a sucker. I finally got my entire Disney collection together, about two months before they started talking about this wonderful new invention called "DVD" (which dad told me stood for Disney Video Death). So of course, I had to start buying my favourites on DVD. Then they started bringing out 2-disc DVDs. There are some (only a couple, but still) that I own on video, single-disc DVD *and* 2-disc DVD. I'm annoyed, broke, out of space in my video cabinet and vowing never to fall for it again, until of course the next 2-disc DVD comes out.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ Just wait until DVDs get replaced by HD-DVDs -- you'll have to repurchase your entire collection all over again! ;-)
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I'm curious about that. For films that were not created in HD, how much better could they truly look? You need an HDTV and an HD-DVD player(or Blu-Ray, whichever wins out) to really see the difference. But on a film like Peter Pan or any of the older films, can they truly benefit from HD?
Originally Posted By pecos bill They can take films that were not shot in high-def and transfer them to that format, the results are a mixed bag. I have invested in a high-def setup, with television and player. For movies that were filmed in that format, the results are awesome, but I have some classics like The Searchers and The Adventures Of Robin Hood that have been released in the High-Def format that are still subject to the medium they were filmed in. While they are sharper than the standard dvd, the sharpness can serve in bringing out other flaws in the picture. While computer animation seems custom made for high-def, the classic style does not seem to benefit as much from the higher resolution transfers.
Originally Posted By pecos bill Let me correct myself. Since no classic animation has been released in High-Def, I can only base my comment on the most recent releases played on compatible High-Def equipment. The computer animation is stunning.
Originally Posted By mawnck >><a genuine widescreen transfer (as opposed to letterboxed)> What's the difference?<< Most DVDs use an anamorphic process to create the widescreen. Simplifying a bit, the picture is recorded as "tall and skinny" 4x3. If you have a widescreen TV, it's your TV's job to stretch it out horizontally and fill the screen. If you don't, it's your DVD player's job to smoosh it vertically and add the black bars. On a letterbox DVD, the picture is actually intended to be shown as 4x3 (no stretching or smooshing), and the black bars are recorded on the disc as part of the picture. If you have a 4x3 TV, you won't notice a difference. However, on a 16x9 screen, the letterboxing causes problems. You're faced with either watching a small picture with a thick black border all the way around (top and bottom from the disc, sides from the TV), or "zooming in" on it until the screen is full. Either way, you get a fuzzier picture, because they've used a third of the available picture area to bring you the black bars. You can usually assume that if a DVD is letterboxed, they're using the same master tape they prepared for the Laserdisc (a format that didn't do anamorphic) - IE they were too cheap to do it right. (Probably should put a side note here: Many movies are shot originally with an even wider picture than 16x9. Those show up on DVD as anamorphic letterbox, with black bars on the widescreen picture, so nothing is cut off at the sides. This is as it should be. Confused? See Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, The Incredibles.)
Originally Posted By mawnck >>For films that were not created in HD, how much better could they truly look? You need an HDTV and an HD-DVD player(or Blu-Ray, whichever wins out) to really see the difference. But on a film like Peter Pan or any of the older films, can they truly benefit from HD?<< They WERE created in HD! 35mm film is a certified card-carrying High Definition format. Anything shot and edited in 35mm, from Birth of a Nation to Gilligan's Island, already exists in HD and is just waiting to be transferred to digital so we can see it that way. The only limitation is the quality and condition of the source materials, and the march of film technology (IE a movie from the 40s will not be as sharp as one from the 80s). Last Christmas, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and the Grinch both aired in true HD on the network broadcasts, and they looked fabulous (although they went a bit nuts with the color correction on Grinch). I understand the original Star Trek is being readied for HD broadcast even as we speak. More to the point, I saw the restorations of Bambi and Little Mermaid, projected digitally at the El Capitan. That was super-high-def DLP theatrical technology, much higher def than 1080P, and it was razor-sharp. You will NOT be disappointed when Disney starts releasing these puppies on the HD disc formats. Unless they mess them up. ONE MORE THING . . . just to clear up confusion that some people have. Widescreen and HD are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT THINGS. You can (and sometimes do) have HD with black bars on the sides of your widescreen. It doesn't mean anything is wrong, it just means that the original picture was 4x3 and they are keeping it in its original format. Learn to love the black bars. They are your friends. They keep Kate Moss from looking fat.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ Kate Moss looks too thin without the bars -- much healthier when she's stretched out a bit.
Originally Posted By mawnck I am VERY disappointed in the video quality on the new Peter Pan. It's going to be Exhibit 1 in my demonstrating the fine line between restoring a movie and scouring the life out of it. It's been scrubbed so clean that it doesn't even look like a film anymore. All the film grain has been totally eliminated. So have all traces of the artists' brush strokes. It looks . . . digital, like it's been completely recolored by a computer algorithm instead of people. And like the latest edition of The Little Mermaid, it also looks considerably fuzzier than the earlier Platinum releases, including Snow White. Dang, this is frustrating. With the way quality keeps slipping at BVHE, I shudder to think what kind of garbage we're going to be getting on the HD formats. I suppose I'm the only one who's bothered by this, or has even noticed it? That's even more frustrating!
