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

[Robert Harris]

We don't know for certain that Disney wishes to keep the original production dates a matter of eternal mystery.

Unless, there is some copyright anomaly of which I'm unaware, there is no benefit to not posting a proper notice.

But most important, for a studio which properly prides itself on its own history, as the central entity of high quality animation through the decades, one would think that they would be pushing that history.

The fact that these films were made 50-75 years ago, and can still amaze a modern audience should be thought of as a positive. The education of cinema oriented youth should also be a priority.

Possibly someone from Disney might be willing to comment.

RAH

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I too have been perplexed by Disney's omission of the historical original production date. LasersEdge.com often lists this date and I always try to include it in my review stats as I personally feel it's of great value. I'd love to see it on the back of the packaging as well.

Curious...has anyone bothered to call that customer-service number and let the reps know you'd like to see the production date on DVD packaging? I'll bet that even just a moderate-size group of callers would have an impact on this particular issue. I'll ask my rep and see if he's got anything he can share as well...

 

[Craig Beam]

At least the original release dates are readily available via the internet nowadays. I remember starting a Disney collection on VHS in the early 90's and having no clue about the chronology of the releases. I ended up going to the public library to research it, and having to wait a few weeks for a book to become available.

 

[george kaplan]

I've always assumed that it was some long shot to hope that copyright wouldn't expire if they pretended they weren't made back then. But it's always baffled me, and irritated me, but in the grand scheme I guess it's a small price to pay. I'd certainly be willing to let them omit the release year on Song of the South if they'd just put out the damn film.

 

[ScottR]

We probably won't have to wait much longer for Song of the South....its 60th Anniversary is next year, and there are rumblings.........

 

[Robert Harris]

Having now had the opportunity to spend some quality time with Walt Disney's new DVD of Cinderella...

only a few words are necessary, in agreement with Mr. Boulet, who will return with a full review...

Undeniably, unarguably perfect!

Hats off to Walt Disney Home Entertainment and Lowry Digital.

RAH

 

[Al (alweho)]

Just another reminder in case you missed the previous thread - this new edition of Cinderella is now showing on the big screen at the El Capitan in Hollywood through Sept. 25th.

It's well worth the time and effort to see it this way as the digitally projected image quality is terrific. Who knows with the DVD now being released if we'll ever get to see it in a movie theater again.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Al,

thanks for sharing that news.


HTF review:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...24#post2804998

-dave

 

[Ira Siegel]

RAH, if by "production date" you mean the date that the DVD itself was produced, that is important to me so that I would know which version I am getting (e.g., the first or second DVD release of "The Sting").
If you mean the date that the movie was made, that is important to me so that, among other things, I can place the movie in historical context.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Siegel,

I would think that both of these dates are of importance.

The date of original release for historical perspective, as well as the date of DVD release to give some idea of current transfer and compression technology.

Criterion has been using "printings" for a number of years. Disney has been giving us the production date of the DVD.

RAH

 

[Adam_S]

I was going to go to a tuesday afternoon show of Cinderella but it was sold out before be left, and only the ludicrous 22$ VIP seats were available. :frowning:

 

[Seth Paxton]

Not only should the production date be on the back cover, but I really am annoyed that no info standard was ever established for all critical info.

Release/original production year, running time, aspect, anamorphic or not, primary soundtrack format (DD 5.1, DTS) should all be listed in the same place on every DVD in a standarized info box.

I understand that companies like their own art, but the UPC code never kept them from doing the rest of the packaging as they see fit.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Universal has a great "legend" area that details all of these types of stats...I think that production date might be one of them...but certainly all languages and formats (like 2.0 or 5.1), aspect ratio, 16x9 or 4x3, subtitles...I think that the rest of the industry should simpy follow their lead and use the same format on the back of their discs as well...

 

[Cees Alons]

The original release date is of decisive importance to the identification of a film. Some years ago, I tried to find out how a film could be exclusively identified in a database.

It appears that the title isn't enough (remakes, same title for different films), nor the addition of the director's name alone (some directors remade their own film, made different films with equal titles, etc.) and only Title, Director, Year-of-Release together deliver an almost unique identification (leaving out the director isn't good either: to my surprise some films with the same title were made in the same year). And directors make more than one film in a year too, so the title has to stay.

It's still not 100%, but only one or two "administrative doubles" remain this way, in the mainstream films domain, that is.

So my answer to (this part of) the original question is: utterly important!

Because more than one releases on tape, LD and DVD have been produced for the same movie, the production year of the DVD is very important too - but not sufficient, because often different versions are produced. So some additional info is needed to uniquely identify the proper release.


Cees