The Official Disney Movie Club Blu-ray Exclusives Thread (1 Viewer)

[darkrock17]

Read the quote above the post you are quoting. But now that you mentioned it, yes it does very much make me sick to my stomach that the Sherman Brothers' two worst works, both created in 1964, are their most popular ones. They spent the rest of their careers creating the antidotes to their own poison.

I don't have a problem with It's A Small World, but once is enough for me when it comes to that ride though. What other work of The Sherman Bros. came out in 1964 along with Small World? Poppins?

 

[skylark68]

I agree with Jason. I'm not sure what the last several posts have to do with the Disney Movie Club exclusives line, which is what the primary focus of this thread is intended to be.

Well my post was a joke because of the back and forth that had occurred before and there hasn’t been much news on the Disney movie club exclusive line anyways to be perfectly honest.

 

[Jason_V]

Well my post was a joke because of the back and forth that had occurred before and there hasn’t been much news on the Disney movie club exclusive line anyways to be perfectly honest.

Sure there isn't. But this isn't the place to talk about It's a Small World music, either.

 

[Arthur Powell]

So when can we get back to griping about Disney not putting out the films we want?

 

[skylark68]

So when can we get back to griping about Disney not putting out the films we want?

Where the heck is The Light in the Forest on 4K???

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes, back on topic please.

 

[MatthewA]

So when can we get back to griping about Disney not putting out the films we want?

I thought we were. I think Disney seriously has the potential to put out great quality discs but they would rather take the path of least resistance (and least amount of money upfront). That is the root of most people's disappointment.

 

[Arthur Powell]

I thought we were. I think Disney seriously has the potential to put out great quality discs but they would rather take the path of least resistance (and least amount of money upfront). That is the root of most people's disappointment.

Agreed. One of my JFK grassy knoll type suspicions is that the Disney home video division intentionally chose "Babes in Toyland" - a flop upon its release and a film that has never really gained much of a following - as its first deep catalog vintage live action blu-ray release so it would fail and they could say to their superiors - "see, these old films don't sell on the mass market so leave us alone about them." Remember that flyer that was distributing ca 2012 advertising all of those upcoming mass market blu-rays releases? Cancelled. Some of them have been put out via DMC, but others are still waiting to be released. Yes, they could put out all the films that we've been begging them for for years. Many of these films already have the necessary HD masters ready. However, they would prefer not to so they can focus on what they perceive as more lucrative activities. Again, this just an instance of me thinking as a conspiracy theorist. If you will excuse me, I will now proceed to binge watch "Ancient Aliens" and then stay up half the night listening to "Coast to Coast AM."

 

[darkrock17]

I thought we were. I think Disney seriously has the potential to put out great quality discs but they would rather take the path of least resistance (and least amount of money upfront). That is the root of most people's disappointment.

Disney has become a major CHEAP*** of a company in last couple of years. Whoever took over the home entertainment division after 2009 seriously knows how to keep those purse strings closed tight and ONLY open it up when it's on a cash cow title.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The Platinum/Diamond/Signature Collections

Disney spends all the bells and whistles on them, but when it comes to recent films like the Dumbo remake or Captain Marvel, they're not going to be treated as such, both will get 4K picture quality and maybe UHD as well, but when it comes to the features that's were it differs. The cash cow titles get mostly full knowledge of the film while the recent films get fluff pieces you can find on YouTube.

 

[darkrock17]

Agreed. One of my JFK grassy knoll type suspicions is that the Disney home video division intentionally chose "Babes in Toyland" - a flop upon its release and a film that has never really gained much of a following - as its first deep catalog vintage live action blu-ray release so it would fail and they could say to their superiors - "see, these old films don't sell on the mass market so leave us alone about them." Remember that flyer that was distributing ca 2012 advertising all of those upcoming mass market blu-rays releases? Cancelled. Some of them have been put out via DMC, but others are still waiting to be released. Yes, they could put out all the films that we've been begging them for for years. Many of these films already have the necessary HD masters ready. However, they would prefer not to so they can focus on what they perceive as more lucrative activities. Again, this just an instance of me thinking as a conspiracy theorist. If you will excuse me, I will now proceed to binge watch "Ancient Aliens" and then stay up half the night listening to "Coast to Coast AM."

Babes In Toyland is great example of how Disney has treated it's live action library, it was presented in full screen when it should of widescreen, all of the earlier live action DVD's where mostly in that ratio. It wasn't until The Ugly Dachshund came out that some at the home entertainment division decided to show them in their sorta right ratios, some of sizes might of been off; but they were at least in widescreen.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think Disney seriously has the potential to put out great quality discs but they would rather take the path of least resistance (and least amount of money upfront).

I understand the disappointment, but I don't think it's a matter of wanting to take the path of least resistance, or the least amount of money upfront. (I would argue that the purchase of Fox for something like $70 billion, along with the expectation that Disney+ will lose a billion dollars a year for its first five years of operation, is evidence that Disney has no issue with spending money upfront for products they believe in.)

I think a simpler and more likely, but still disappointing, explanation is that Disney is simply reading the changing winds in the marketplace. Physical media sales have declined 50% over the past five years. The average consumer no longer wants to have to purchase a physical object in order to consumer the content that they're interested in. Beyond that, the average consumer is less interested in a la carte pricing for individual titles when subscription services allow them unlimited viewings of a wider range of content for a smaller fee than a single physical media or digital purchase would cost them.

Simply put, I think Disney read the tea leaves and saw that the widest consumer group, the one that ultimately is responsible for the overwhelming majority of their business, is much more interested in spending $7 a month for unlimited Disney content than spending $25 for a single disc.

I agree it's disappointing that Disney seemingly has little interest in placating both the larger average consumer market and the smaller niche collector market, but that doesn't surprise me in the context of Disney's shift from releasing all kinds of films to only making tentpoles.

The ones that must be selling best through DMC at the moment must be the newer, 90s-era content, which is probably why we're getting more films from that era through DMC than we're getting Walt-era material.

 

[MatthewA]

Babes In Toyland is great example of how Disney has treated it's live action library, it was presented in full screen when it should of widescreen, all of the earlier live action DVD's where mostly in that ratio. It wasn't until The Ugly Dachshund came out that some at the home entertainment division decided to show them in their sorta right ratios, some of sizes might of been off; but they were at least in widescreen.

They didn't have remasters ready in time to meet the demand. I do recall that they pushed back the Gold Collection discs of Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon from November 2000 to early 2001 so they could get 16x9 transfers and enough extras to fit on a single DVD-9 without compromising picture and sound quality; the first to come close to the theatrical ratio. Except that some of the films from this era could play equally well either way.

Agreed. One of my JFK grassy knoll type suspicions is that the Disney home video division intentionally chose "Babes in Toyland" - a flop upon its release and a film that has never really gained much of a following - as its first deep catalog vintage live action blu-ray release so it would fail and they could say to their superiors - "see, these old films don't sell on the mass market so leave us alone about them." Remember that flyer that was distributing ca 2012 advertising all of those upcoming mass market blu-rays releases? Cancelled. Some of them have been put out via DMC, but others are still waiting to be released. Yes, they could put out all the films that we've been begging them for for years. Many of these films already have the necessary HD masters ready. However, they would prefer not to so they can focus on what they perceive as more lucrative activities. Again, this just an instance of me thinking as a conspiracy theorist. If you will excuse me, I will now proceed to binge watch "Ancient Aliens" and then stay up half the night listening to "Coast to Coast AM."

If they wanted a movie with Annette Funicello in it — and it was shameful that they didn't have anything else of hers ready for release after her death — 1959's The Shaggy Dog might have been a better choice. I remember the Pollyanna flyer for a disc that ended up being only available through DMC. That's an interesting theory; they chose one of the less popular Walt-era titles in order to justify not releasing the more popular ones. How would one test that theory, though? I can't even figure out who's in charge of home video anymore.

 

[darkrock17]

They didn't have remasters ready in time to meet the demand. I do recall that they pushed back the Gold Collection discs of Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon from November 2000 to early 2001 so they could get 16x9 transfers and enough extras to fit on a single DVD-9 without compromising picture and sound quality; the first to come close to the theatrical ratio. Except that some of the films from this era could play equally well either way.



If they wanted a movie with Annette Funicello in it — and it was shameful that they didn't have anything else of hers ready for release after her death — 1959's The Shaggy Dog might have been a better choice. I remember the Pollyanna flyer for a disc that ended up being only available through DMC. That's an interesting theory; they chose one of the less popular Walt-era titles in order to justify not releasing the more popular ones. How would one test that theory, though? I can't even figure out who's in charge of home video anymore.

Disney held back on Bedknobs, so they could release it to celebrate the films 30th anniversary, which was very smart of them to do that. Pete and Bedknobs were the first two releases that had decent and worth-while features, up till then it was mostly stuff that a 5 year old might enjoy. I was confused for a time by the Gold Collection and it's aspect ratios, as at that time I got 95% of my movie facts from IMDB and it said that a lot of those titles were originally in widescreen.

I didn't know Annette was in The Shaggy Dog, it's one of the many live action films from the Golden Age I still haven't seen. When it came to Fred MacMurray I enjoyed him in Flubber more, and what young kid wouldn't; turning into a dog is cool, but a flying car is way cooler though.

I've come to the conclusion of how Disney chooses from it's library titles, they either have a giant wheel with all the films on it and they spin it a few times and where ever the arrow lands that's what we get or the other being they have a dart board with the titles on it and the close their eyes and where dart lands that's that bunch of titles for the year.

 

[Arthur Powell]

Let me be clear - I have no inside knowledge of the inner workings of WDHV. Whether that's good or bad I'll leave up to all of you. It could be a completely crackpot theory - hence why I couched it in conspiracy theory terms. I'll be the first to admit that I might be projecting certain attitudes upon Disney based upon my biases. It does fit the situation albeit in a "moon landing was staged" kind of way.

I also don't want to be too harsh on "Babes in Toyland." True, it's not the best of the Walt-era live action films, but it does have some charm to it. I own the blu-ray and have screened it a few times over the past couple of years. Any film featuring Henry Calvin and Gene Sheldon in Laurel & Hardy type roles deserves a spot in my collection. Interestingly enough, it was Annette's favorite film so there is some added poignancy knowing that. That said, I do like "The Shaggy Dog" and the Merlin Jones films better if I have to voice my preferred Annette films.

 

[MatthewA]

As for Disney and conspiracy theories, they did have Werner von Braun do a TV special about space travel. Take that for what it is worth. And there have been rumors of them being in cahoots with the CIA for years. I don't want to get too far into that because that's too far into the political realm for here, but let's just say they got by with a little help from their friends.

As for the home video division, they used to be better about correspondence with consumers. I even got a letter saying, among other things, they were thinking about how to combine all four original Winnie the Pooh featurettes for laserdisc, but that never happened. Something changed over time and it became less and less personal, and it wasn't just me getting older.

 

[darkrock17]

Let me be clear - I have no inside knowledge of the inner workings of WDHV. Whether that's good or bad I'll leave up to all of you. It could be a completely crackpot theory - hence why I couched it in conspiracy theory terms. I'll be the first to admit that I might be projecting certain attitudes upon Disney based upon my biases. It does fit the situation albeit in a "moon landing was staged" kind of way.

I also want don't want to be too harsh on "Babes in Toyland." True, it's not the best of the Walt-era live action films, but it does have some charm to it. I own the blu-ray and have screened it a few times over the past couple of years. Any film featuring Henry Calvin and Gene Sheldon in Laurel & Hardy type roles deserves a spot in my collection. Interestingly enough, it was Annette's favorite film so there is some added poignancy knowing that. That said, I do like "The Shaggy Dog" and the Merlin Jones films better if I have to voice my preferred Annette films.

I saw Babes In Toyland on the Disney Channel way back in the early 90's and loved it from what I remember. Now that I'm older I can see why it didn't do so well during it's original release, it was trying to be the next The Wizard Of Oz; something Walt wanted to do for a very long time, but never happen until 1985. The Rainbow Road To Oz they presented on The Mickey Mouse Club to Walt himself had the potential to become a good movie whether it was live action or animated.

What I remember most about Babes In Toyland then and now was the March Of The Toys. At the time that some of the best stop-motion animation around and that was done 3 years before Rankin/Bass's Rudolph.

 

[MatthewA]

At least the Blu-ray transfer was nice; much better than the DVD which was just a laserdisc port. This is what I don't get: they fiddle with the animated features which more people are going to see, but the live-action features they handle more delicately. Still, if they had put more forethought into the release beyond that, they could have included the "Backstage Party" anthology series episode, already available on a Walt Disney Treasures DVD release in a very old transfer, and cleaned that up, too. But that's the case against any kind of conspiracy being at play here: someone engaged in conspiratorial behavior and doing it right would have had thought things like that through more carefully. They would have at least made it looked like they tried.

 

[Brian Kidd]

As for Disney and conspiracy theories, they did have Werner von Braun do a TV special about space travel. Take that for what it is worth. And there have been rumors of them being in cahoots with the CIA for years. I don't want to get too far into that because that's too far into the political realm for here, but let's just say they got by with a little help from their friends.

Yeah, von Braun got a pass in the U.S. because of "Operation Paperclip," a program that offered amnesty to former "Friends of Schicklgruber" whom we felt could provide us with valuable scientific knowledge to give us an upper hand in the Cold War. We're nothing if not opportunistic. On the one hand, screw the Nazi's (then and now) and on the other hand, we made it to the moon in great part due to Wernher von Braun. He was a genius; a genius who actively worked for Hitler, but a genius. It's certainly a moral conundrum.

On a side note, for those of us who love Walt Disney World, the gorgeous mosaics in Cinderella's Castle were designed partly by Hanns Scharff. You think von Braun was questionable, take a gander at the linked Wikipedia entry. I guarantee you that only a few of the approximately 20 million visitors to WDW last year who marveled at the beauty of these mosaics (and they are truly beautiful) had any idea about the evil man behind them.

As for Disney utilizing von Braun, it wasn't really any kind of conspiracy. Disney was a dedicated futurist and truly believed in the possibilities of space travel. He used von Braun in those programs in order to give credibility to the subject matter and promote space travel to his absolutely massive TV audience. It worked. Those programs did more for garnering public support for the space program than most folks today realize.

Tying all this back to the actual topic, the seeming abandonment of the majority of Disney's historic catalog on home video comes down to the fact that today's Disney is not, in any way, the same company that was headed by Walt or those who attempted to carry on his vision until Eisner came in 1984. They are now entirely focused on profit. If, sometimes, true Art happens as a by-product of their business, it isn't intentional. Nothing brought that home to me as starkly as my vacation to WDW last November. I first went to WDW as a small child in the mid-70's. I fell in love with the place. Over the years, my visits became less-frequent due to life and money issues, but I always felt a strong emotional connection to it and learned everything I could about it. I hadn't been able to go there in 12 years and my wife had never been, so I was more than excited to introduce her to this place that meant so much to me. I doubt I'll ever go back. It has gone from a place where I could leave the outside world behind and temporarily feel like there was some magic in the world to a place where I was slapped in the face by overpriced t-shirts and hard sells for timeshares everywhere I looked. Want a good spot to watch the fireworks? That cost extra. Want to make sure you could ride a particular attraction? Either wait for an hour or more or else plan out your day months in advance and hope you can score a FastPass. Epcot is getting a Guardians of the Galaxy roller coaster and demolishing the Communicore/Innoventions area to build a beer garden and a larger Starbucks. Everywhere I turned it was, "Give us more money so you can experience the MAGIC™!"

You know what? Most people today are totally fine with that. Younger people have only known the corporate-monolith Disney, so trying to explain to them how much better it used to be when the people in charge truly cared about imagination and the guest experience just bounces off of them. As much as it pains me to admit, they're right. The world has changed and it's never going back to the way it used to be. Those of us who loved these older Disney films and TV shows are rapidly graying and are no longer the target audience. We can complain all we want to, but we'll just have to live with our DVD's and, in some cases, VHS copies of these films because their day as a going concern for Disney is done.

(I also still consider It's a Small World one of the finest attractions ever built from an artistic and experiential perspective. So, there. )

 

[Arthur Powell]

At least the Blu-ray transfer was nice; much better than the DVD which was just a laserdisc port. This is what I don't get: they fiddle with the animated features which more people are going to see, but the live-action features they handle more delicately. Still, if they had put more forethought into the release beyond that, they could have included the "Backstage Party" anthology series episode, already available on a Walt Disney Treasures DVD release in a very old transfer, and cleaned that up, too. But that's the case against any kind of conspiracy being at play here: someone engaged in conspiratorial behavior and doing it right would have had thought things like that through more carefully. They would have at least made it looked like they tried.

What may be more likely is that "Babes in Toyland" was for whatever random or undiscernable (to us) reason the first vintage live action title selected for blu-ray release. It likely didn't sell well, and the Disney execs interpreted that as consumer indifference so they pulled the plug on future live action deep catalog releases for the mass market. So instead of an evil conspiracy to avoid releasing Walt-era titles we have execs essentially choosing the wrong test title. You'd think that those execs would realize that a flop (albeit a charming one) wouldn't be the best candidate for examining the market, but that might be attributable to lack of forethought and perhaps lack of knowledge about the catalog they're handling.

Actually, I find the "Backstage Party" episode to be more interesting than the feature.

 

[LouA]

Having read the previous posts , I have a few comments :
1) I'm just wondering - how many units do classic Walt era films have to sell to be considered successful? It seems to me that a seasonal film like Babes In Toyland would only sell for about a month or two out of the year , and the potential market through the Disney movie club is a dedicated but limited one . Over a period of years I would expect BIT to sell a respectable amount .
2) To the gent who'd like to see worldwide releases for classic titles on Blu-ray , I'm all for it .
3) I can't understand why anyone would be upset at us old codgers who would still like to see films like The Shaggy Dog, Darby O Gill, and In Search Of The Castaways released on Blu-ray .
4) Lastly , I hope that DMC will resume the release of Walt era classics , but with some nice bonus features which would make the releases more attractive to those who already purchased the DVD, For example adding the Disneyland episode , I Captured The King Of The Lepricauns to the release of Darby O Gill. That kind of stuff.
I belong to DMC, and I order frequently but mostly newer stuff . Still, I'd love to be able to add Blu-rays of classic Walt era films to my collection