Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Disney's Robin Hood: Most Wanted Edition - 11/28/06!!

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 of 33 OFFLINE   Beast


    Second Unit

  • 483 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001

Posted September 02 2006 - 01:27 PM

Davis DVD just put up the cover art and the prelimiary information for this release on their site. I've been waiting for this one a long time, as it's one of my favorite classic Disney animated features. The extras sound like they're definatly going to make double-dipping for this one worth it. Posted Image

Cover Art: http://www.davisdvd....hi-res/dvd.html
R.I.P. Master Splinter - Mirage Comics - May 1984 / June 2003

#2 of 33 OFFLINE   Bill Thomann

Bill Thomann

    Supporting Actor

  • 581 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2003

Posted September 02 2006 - 04:29 PM

Yep. I'll be double dipping on it. A highly underrated Disney animated classic. Now I have to figure which nephew/niece gets my old copy when I upgrade.

#3 of 33 OFFLINE   Tarkin The Ewok

Tarkin The Ewok

    Supporting Actor

  • 654 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2004

Posted September 02 2006 - 06:27 PM

The only new extra feature is the deleted ending. I may make this one a rental, but I won't rebuy the title for this edition.

#4 of 33 OFFLINE   Beast


    Second Unit

  • 483 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001

Posted September 02 2006 - 06:39 PM

Remember that Disney/BVHV often doesn't put all their extras in the early information. Look at the recent release of Dumbo. Up until very close to the release date it wasn't even certain if the Audio Commentary from the 10th Anniversary Edition was going to be ported over.
R.I.P. Master Splinter - Mirage Comics - May 1984 / June 2003

#5 of 33 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer

  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted September 03 2006 - 02:06 AM

Frankly, deleted scenes are the only extra I really care about, and would upgrade for. However, for me it's always about the movie, and since there's a new transfer, that would be the primary reason for someone to upgrade.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...

#6 of 33 OFFLINE   MarcoBiscotti



  • 4,798 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 02 2003

Posted September 03 2006 - 03:21 AM

Not necessarily, especially when it comes to animated features... This is definitely a "wait for reviews" purchase for me.

#7 of 33 OFFLINE   Colby


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 179 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 17 2004
  • Real Name:Colby
  • LocationUSA

Posted September 03 2006 - 08:05 AM

I don't have the old disc, so I'll be getting this one. Hope it has the original sound mix, though. The current info just emphasizes the new 5.1 track.

#8 of 33 OFFLINE   Jay Gregory

Jay Gregory

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 237 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2000

Posted September 03 2006 - 08:16 AM

Did Disney primarily frame this picture for the "Wonderful World of Disney" TV show?

I saw this theatrically and owned the soundtrack album. I loved this movie some 33 years ago. I listened to the soundtrack album repeatedly.

Presumably it was framed for some sort of widescreen ratio when I saw it in the theater. Was this movie and The Jungle Book framed with the assumption that it would be shown most regularly on the Disney TV show?

#9 of 33 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,501 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted September 03 2006 - 08:54 AM

No Ernest Rister commentary? Posted Image

#10 of 33 OFFLINE   Evan Case

Evan Case


  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 2000

Posted September 03 2006 - 09:57 AM

No, but there may be one by an "Emilio Epson". Posted Image

"               " - Buster Keaton
S&S (1992 & 2002), The 1930s : Finished! S&S Club : 311 seen (Recent: Bigger Than Life)
AFI Challenge Stars: 36 left, Songs: 11 left, Passions: 2 left, Cheers: 4 left, Quotes: 2 left, Top Tens: 1 left; (Most Recent: Camille [Passions, Stars]) 

#11 of 33 OFFLINE   jim.vaccaro


    Second Unit

  • 425 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2005

Posted September 03 2006 - 10:06 AM

Am I missing something? Why all the excitement about a kiddie movie?

#12 of 33 OFFLINE   Rob W

Rob W

    Supporting Actor

  • 523 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 1999
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationToronto

Posted September 03 2006 - 10:26 AM

Disney did not frame this or 'Jungle Book' with the expectation it would show most frequently on their tv show. At that time it was almost unheard-of for the animated jewels to end up on tv. Except for an early tv showing of 'Alice In Wonderland' ( a box office dud ) and I believe ' Dumbo" the classics NEVER had tv showings until well into the video era, because theatrical reissues had so much value. Like 'Jungle Book", this would have been matted to 1:85 for theatres in North America and 1:66 in most of Europe. Disney obviously are aiming this at the family crowd rather than the animation buffs with the full-frame presentation.

#13 of 33 ONLINE   JohnS



  • 4,702 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2001
  • Real Name:John Steffens

Posted September 03 2006 - 10:30 AM

My friend, this is no "kiddie" movie.

This is one great Disney "Family" film.

I am for sure double dipping for this one.

Robin Hood and Little John running through the forrest.....Posted Image
Posted Image

#14 of 33 OFFLINE   Kris Z.

Kris Z.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 191 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 10 2006

Posted September 03 2006 - 12:00 PM

You are mistaken, Yu-Gi-Oh is a 'kiddie' movie, simply because if they had a choice, most parents would much rather do something else than have to sit through it with their children. The same can not be said about Robin Hood.

Besides, does it matter that it's 'kiddie' if it's good and enjoyable? I'd rather watch a good Disney animation than some trite crap like Aeon Flux or Van Helsing. Plus, this is vintage animation, which goes a long way in certain circles. Posted Image

#15 of 33 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,501 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted September 03 2006 - 04:55 PM

While this is strictly lesser lesser Disney, what makes it any different from talking cars in Cars? It's animation, so it's not like there's the rules of physics and biology have to follow. As long as a movie plays by its own rules (clearly it's simply a switch between human actors and human-like animals), there's no harm - if it's done right. Interesting concept, but it really lacks a decent story like the Flynn film. Still, Peter Ustinov as Prince John adds a lot (along with Terry-Thomas as Sir Hiss). Just not enough to make it a good movie.

I think there's even a subculture inspired by this and others like it. Posted Image

#16 of 33 OFFLINE   Jason_V



  • 5,117 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001
  • Real Name:Jason
  • LocationBothell, WA

Posted September 04 2006 - 03:49 AM

Good thing I held off grabbing this with my coupons this weekend. I'll be there since I don't have the original single disc.

#17 of 33 OFFLINE   Adam_S



  • 6,198 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2001

Posted September 04 2006 - 04:05 AM

After the cinemascope / 70mm Lady and the Tramp and Sleeping Beauty I believe all the Disney films returned to being animated at full frame until The Rescuers, I believe. 70mm presentations and Cinemascope were limited by the number of venues, whereas almost any theatre could play an academy ratio film (now most cannot). Many of the films were still composed and shown at 1.66:1 - 1.85:1 as they were at 1.33:1, but they were animated for academy, so you're getting the full image. non-scope animated films in the 80s and 90s were usually composed at 1.66:1 because that's a more international standard and not enormously different from the US 1.85:1 Does anyone know what the alternate ending was? It may be lesser Disney because of its reuse of animation from Bambi et al but Robin Hood has some terrific character animation and truly powerful moments such as Not in Nottingham. and jim, when you say, 'if that's your thing' along with all your other derisive comments are you trying to imply you're somehow superior to us in taste? because that's how you're coming off.

#18 of 33 OFFLINE   jim.vaccaro


    Second Unit

  • 425 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2005

Posted September 04 2006 - 05:45 AM

No, I did not mean to come off that way. I was honestly surprised at the level of interest in this title, as I feel it's definitely a kiddie movie. If you like that, then fine.

#19 of 33 OFFLINE   ScottR



  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted September 04 2006 - 05:53 AM

It's art, as all movies are....especially animated films. And it is a different take on the Robin Hood legend. Disney films have always been made for all audiences. If anyone here doesn't like this film, then take your comments to another thread. I haven't purchased this film yet, but will now do so!

#20 of 33 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway


  • 7,807 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted September 04 2006 - 06:13 AM

It's probably the storyboards for the return of King Richard, wherein we actually see Robin Hood and the merry men defeat Prince John rather than having the rooster step from behind a tree after Robin Hood runs away and simply tell us that "the King came back and he straightened everything out." It's not so much an alternate ending as it is an actual ending.

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users