Thread reopened after removal of extraneous discussion. Please continue with discussion of the DVD. No further discussion of the film's target audience is necessary or appropriate.
Maybe its because I was just the right age when the film was released, but Disney's Robin Hood has always been one of my favorites. I think it has more to do with the Robin Hood legend, since, even as a kid, I loved the Errol Flynn movie and subsequent adaptations. The Disney film had cool style, fun songs and great characters. I've always felt the movie deserved more respect.
I love this movie but I think I'll wait for the reviews and more information on the specs before I double dip. The alternate ending seems to be the only additional extra over what was on the original disc ( did the US version have the large art gallery that featured on the R2 edition? ). If this alterate ending is fully animated then I'll certainly pick it up, but if it's just sketches and narration then I'll probably give it a miss. As for the new cover artwork... can't say I like it much. Maid Marian in particular looks considerably off model.
I think it's getting a little overshadowed by the massive Superman releases this week. I know this was on my radar to buy today, but I'm holding off for a while. Superman is just more important, I guess.
One thing to note is that - unlike the previous release - the new DVD is in widescreen, which is quite a surprise:
Taken from ultimatedisney.com: "It's been confirmed from actual cels that Robin Hood (1973) was animated in the 1.37:1 Academy Ratio, and thus the fullscreen DVD presentation is correct."
So, The Fox and the Hound is P&S even though it should be in widescreen, but Robin Hood is now in widescreen even though it should be fullscreen? What the...??
it was probably animated at 1.37 with an eye towards long term TV life and that may be the preferred ratio of the creators. And it may have exhibited in 1.37 at houses that still had the capability (such as in major cities), but been matted like a conventional 1.85 film in most theatres at the time.
1.37 may have been photographed but that doesn't mean all of it was meant to be seen. Without seeing the entire exposed image area of the entire film (as opposed to random cel samples), we can't be sure.
To wit: In the 80s I saw a re-release of The Rescuers*, I believe, that was badly projected, revealing more of the bottom of the frame than we were intended to see. How do I know it wasn't meant to be seen? Because one could see where the painting stopped at the bottom of the cels, loosely along a line that was part of the Xeroxed animation drawings, with uncolored lines crossing slightly beneath.
For all we know, an "open matte" version of Robin Hood would reveal similar "mike boom" scenarios.
Would be nice to know for sure, though.
*it might actually have been Robin Hood. I know it was one or the other but they were both re-released within a couple years of each other and I saw them both during those releases. So it's hard to recall which film was the one exhibited incorrectly.
I really don't understand about the aspect ratio. Is the image cropped from what we've seen before? I've only EVER seen this movie on the old dvd and it looked nicely framed. To crop it would be to destroy too much of it. Has anyone made any comparisons?