WDT Wave 3 delayed until May (1 Viewer)

[Aaryn Chan]

Amazon.ca reported this just right now:

Greetings from Amazon.ca.

We have contacted the publisher by phone concerning the status of our
order for "Mickey Mouse in Living Color, Vol. 2."

The representative we spoke with indicated that this book has not been
published and is not expected to be released until May 31, 2004.
Release dates tend to fluctuate, however, so there is a chance that
this will change. If we receive additional information about this, we
will let you know.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

DVD File have just commented on this, including the suggestion of possible censorship of the Front Lines:

Treasure Tales - 12:21am

Where's Walt? Last week, Buena Vista Home Entertainment announced a five-month delay for the latest four releases in the studio's highly popular Walt Disney Treasures collection, which has caused a small furor across the Internet about the true reasoning behind the postponement.

The Treasures collection, a series of limited edition tins that contain extensive collections of classic Disney animated shorts, television specials and vintage archival material, are usually released every December to commemorate Walt's birthday. The four titles - The Chronological Donald Volume 1, Mickey Mouse in Living Color 2, Walt Disney on the Front Lines and Tomorrowland - were originally scheduled for a December 2nd street date, and have now been pushed back to May 18th. But it is Walt Disney on the Front Lines that is causing all the controversy among enthusiasts, with many fans speculating that Disney has intentionally delayed the release to make alterations to the set in lieu of potentially controversial content.

To quell the mounting backlash, Disney has publicly denied the accusations of self-censorship, instead citing a simple problem of supply and demand. "We had the fortunate problem of having much higher demand than we had anticipated," says Disney executive Lori McPherson. "We thought orders would be a little bit higher because we knew there was going to be a lot of demand for the Disney on the Front Lines volume, but orders came in about fifty percent higher than even our most aggressive projection."

Unlike most DVD releases, which come in standard keepcase-like packaging, the Walt Disney Treasures series is also housed in a custom collectible tin, which must be imported from overseas and necessitated the delay. "There was no way (the studio) could get them in time," McPherson adds. "We were in a situation where we would have to allocate orders out to retailers, and that, combined with the fact that it is such a busy fourth quarter led us to decide that the best thing to do with these releases was to move them to May 18th."

And in what McPherson calls an "incorrect supposition," internet speculation has many fans worried that the Walt Disney on the Front Lines that will premiere in May will be different from what would have arrived in December. But "we are not changing anything," McPHerson assures. The discs "are already done and have been done for a number of months. I think some consumers were just surprised that we were releasing the war shorts, because we have never released them before."

Like all of the Walt Disney Treasures titles, Walt Disney on the Front Lines will be available only for a limited time, which McPherson believes is the main reason for the sudden surge in interest. "Retailers are realizing that we are only releasing them once. We are not repromoting them all year long. They really do go away."

 

[Scott Strang]

Isn't anyone fearing that this will ultimately mean cancelation?

 

[LukeB]

Isn't anyone fearing that this will ultimately mean cancelation?

Yeah, because Disney's just going to have so many orders to fulfill that they're going to just cancel all of them all together. That makes sense.

 

[Steve Y]

On the bright side, if it HAD been released this week, some of us non-internet-orderers wouldn't have found them at the B&M level (if they're ALL accounted for). I'd rather not pay $100 each on ebay for these, thanks very much.

s

 

[oscar_merkx]

perhaps they did not want to have the discs released when Roy Disney would "leave" the company.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Disney marketing has inflated the value of most big words, but these are IMO worthy of their name (Treasures), so I would pay a hundred dollars for each of these sets if I had to.

But, of course, I hope I won't have to...

 

[Tim Fleming]

Beats me why they couldn't have just released the tins in December in a limited run of the numbers previously settled on, and then at a later date released an unlimited run in a regular case.

 

[MatthewA]

I just hope they get released at all. Now that the board is "Eisner's rubber stamp," there's no knowing what they will do.

 

[Chad A Wright]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. But, on a side note, today Wal-Mart had all the price tags out for the releases. Unfortunately, there were no DVDs to accompany the price tags.

 

[RafaelB]

To put more speculation to the mix, Jim Hill has posted an interesting report on what BVHE is saying in different avenues and what may really be the reason for the delay:

Read Here!

I've found his stories be be pretty spot on, and I'm not truly surprised at how low Eisner can go either.

Rafael.

 

[george kaplan]

As pathetic as that would be, I

a) believe it, and won't be at all surprised to see those wrappers gone/changed

b) think it's possibly good news, if it means that the real reason isn't to change any content. Then again, if Roy is on the actual dvds, the content might change. :frowning:

 

[Brian Kidd]

Eisner needs to be sent packing with a kick in the ass instead of a golden parachute.

 

[JustinCleveland]

As long as I get all the content, I could give a flying **** what's on the wrapper.

Though, as Matt and Trey said once, Eisner's a douche, who should get his fingers out of the pie before he spoils the whole thing.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The Jim Hill article was a bit odd in at least one respect. He seem sto suggest that there are three different reasons being put forth for the delay, but the first two are so close that there's no pint in trying to portra them as different.

The fact that their production facilities are strained for capacity with Pirates and Nemo and that the production requirements for the Treasures series are complicated and high volume due to unexpected demand are not really inconsistent with each other. The "vendor delay" explanation doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm not a big Eisner fan, and I would not be all that surprised if his ego was a factor, but I think it is still unfair speculation given what is known right now.

Regards,

 

[Steven Wesley]

Until Hill has more support for this idea, I'm pretty leary about it. The overall theory that Ei$ner would have these changed out makes sense, but one might wonder if that's just a Disney fan doing more anti-Ei$ner talk.

If it was true, you'd have to wonder at the cost of changing these things out and if older versions were available?

 

[Randy A Salas]

The fact that their production facilities are strained for capacity with Pirates and Nemo and that the production requirements for the Treasures series are complicated and high volume due to unexpected demand are not really inconsistent with each other. The "vendor delay" explanation doesn't make any sense at all.

Actually, it does. Disney is relying on a third party to manufacture the tins, for example, and that adds a harder-to-control layer to the manufacturing process that can affect scheduling and quantity. For example, if that company retooled for a big project with another customer, it might take time for it to be able to produce more tins. Such a third party would be considered a "vendor."

All three reasons point to a manufacturing sticking point. That doesn't negate the conjecture about Roy Disney--after he left the company, I feel compelled to point out--but it does kill the conspiratorial nature of it.

 

[James Reader]

It doesn't take 6 months or so to reprint the cardboard bands for the sets.

It's obvious the demand was too high for the sets. You only have to look at the order charts on online sites, the fact that Disney announced revised print runs a week or two before the delay and the fact that Disney would be unlikely to go to the expense and accounting problems of a late delayed release unless it meant they would get MORE money in the long run - not the same.

I'm sure the prime reason for the delay is the higher than expected demand. But that's not to say Disney won't take this opportunity to remove Roy's name.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Jim Hill has contacts high HIGH up in the land of the Mouse, so I'd think twice before doubting him. He's rarely wrong and always fair. He's not a huge Eisner fan, but he's not one to dismiss the things that Eisner has done for Disney since 1984. While I don't doubt that there is an increased demand for the sets, I still wouldn't put it past Eisner to issue an edict to wipe Roy out of everything he can.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Brian,
Whether the Eisner spiting Roy Disney by altering the releases of the DVDs thing is right or wrong, I don't honestly know, but the argument that this theory is supported by significantly different reasons for the delay put forth by various sources doesn't hold water. The only reason I thought the third explanation differed may boil down to semantic confusion over what is meant by "vendor".

If his theory is based on inside information, so be it, but it is not supported by the alleged inconsistency because there really is no significant inconsistency, IMHO.

Regards,