A few words about Cinderella... (1 Viewer)

[Casey Trowbridg]

Well, I can't wait for the review of Cinderella or Cinderalla as the case may be.

Oh, and you all are in trouble as I claim ownership of the entire alphabet in English, French, Greek, German, Spanish, Hebrew and Chinese languages.

 

[ZacharyTait]

"And now this planet is hereby claimed for the Earth in the name of DUCK DODGERS IN THE 24 1/2TH CENTURY!"

This is one weird and funny thread so far. I can't wait till Cinderella comes out. I was blown away by how good Bambi looked and I expect the same from Cinderella.

 

[John Kilduff]

I have claimed ownership of the word "sincerely". If you use the word, pay up, preferrably in small bills.

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

You can't touch me!

 

[Reagan]

You think you guys have it good, my great-great-great-grandfather patented the patent process.

-Reagan

 

[TonyDale]

Heck, I might as well lay claim to the word FUNNY.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

RKO logo is missing...but original intro music overlays the new "Disney" logo so the soundtrack is fully intact.

 

[Cees Alons]

Note the plural!

In the compilation thread, I solved this as follows: all links already refer to a post instead of a thread. So I made this one point to post #7.

From that point on this will be considered RAH's thread.


And no need to close it when David's review is published.


Cees

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Since I'm Norwegian, that leaves me with the letters Æ, Ø and Å.

 

[PaulP]

Well you all will be hearing from MY lawyers soon, as the act of typing has been just copyrighted by me. Unless you use copy-and-paste, then you're good.



Can you at least post obscene Norwegian words with those?

 

[Robert Harris]

To return to something a bit more serious...

How important does the membership feel about a properly annotated production date on a DVD?

 

[PaulP]

Most studios do indicate production dates on their discs or cases. I think Disney is the lone exception, and it definitely shouldn't happen.

 

[GlennH]

I think it sure would be nice. You shouldn't have to go to IMDB.com to find out when the movie in your hands was actually made.

But I guess it isn't important enough to prevent me from buying, since I have a lot of Disney DVDs in my collection.

 

[ScottR]

I feel it is important.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It should be listed. Even if Disney is trying to pretend that somehow these are "new" movies, they could at least throw a bone to history and have a small-print "Originally released in 1950" on the back.

They've been doing this for years - when I used to work in video retail in the 80s, their VHS boxes always just said "(c)Disney" with no date on them.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Clearly, Disney does this intentionally.

I think it is a strategy to keep people from looking at a title and saying "Oh, that's old, I don't want it."

I think it is important--and that the heritage of a film should be embraced, not denied.

- Steve

 

[MatthewA]

Actually, the first Disney videos had copyright dates. It's not until the late 1980s that they dropped them.

 

[Ruz-El]

I prefer it, the original production date. I guess there is an argument that this release could have a 2005 date, as that would be the date of the digital "recreation" for lack of a better term.

 

[Kevin M]

A consortium of Knights of the order of...Ni I believe it was..has asked me to copyright the word "it" and then to charge $1.00000000.000.3 for anyone who dares to use this hideous and totally unnecessary word.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Regarding the production date question, I would say that it should be included and that I would like it if it were, but its not a deal breaker for me.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

What year the movie was released should definitely be there on the back of the cover.

How about the date of the actual production of the DVD itself? That way we could avoid buying DVDs older than six months, for instance, if someone would prefer it that way...

As for Disney not wanting their old movies to appear old... that's pretty lame.