User talk:Canadiana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archives

/Archive1

If you leave me a message on this page, I will leave the reply here. Canadiana 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Volume 2, Issue 50 — 11 December 2006

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

1 Disney rental tapes
2 Pinocchio $79.95 price
3 Promotion
4 Greber Boulevard
5 For Walt Disney Classics
6 The Black Cauldron
7 Tregoweth wants Sources on Walt Disney Classics
8 == Turkish cross-links
9 Re:Name
10 HI-FI
11 Fotomat Title Question
12 Logos
13 Walt Disney Home Entertainment expansion

[edit] Disney rental tapes

Hey, Canadiana! If you happen to find any pre-1984 Disney videocassettes that were former rentals, please notify me and post the link! Make sure they're from eBay. --Ryanasaurus0077 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinocchio $79.95 price

You said that buyers of Pinocchio at $79.95 were mad when the price was to drop. Why were they mad? Weren't videocassettes expensive back then? --Imax80 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Disney said from the beginning that Pinocchio was available for a limited time only, and that it might not ever be available again.

People who normally didn't buy movies might have bought Pinocchio because it was possibly their only chance and they wanted to have it so their children could watch it; and later, their grandchildren. Even people who didn't have children and people who didn't have a VCR might have bought it because it might be their only chance. They were mad because they could have waited a few more months and saved $50.00 and still have had the movie to pass down to their grandchildren; and if they didn't have a VCR, getting the movie before the sale price started was of no benefit to them.

Stores that sold movies were mad because they might have bought extra copies to sell. When the movie is no longer being made and people can't find a copy anywhere, they really appreciate a store that has some to sell. The problem is that those stores probably spent about $67.00 wholesale for each copy and only 1 ½ months later they found out that they were mow only worth $29.95, so they would have to sell them for much less than they paid for them.

Rental stores were also very unhappy because they found out that the price was going down only six weeks after the movie first came out and they hadn't even rented it enough times yet to pay for the cassette.

The first two groups were able to send the movie back to Disney and get a refund, but the last group was out of luck. Disney never did anything quite like this again, and I think other studios also learned from this. After this, most movies were put on moratorium long enough for all of the unsold copies to be sold before a sale price or permanent price drop began. (I have to learn to write shorter posts.) Canadiana 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is why I didn't hear anything about Robin Hood being a decent seller in 1984/1985. Robin Hood was $79.95 in 1984 and 1985, and during the X-Mas promo, it was $29.95 like all the other cassettes available. I wonder how Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland did back when they were made for sale. --Imax80 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion

Weren't any Disney videos promoted by any fast food chains like Burger King or McDonalds? The earliest cross-promo I saw was the Crest give-away for the 1989 Bambi video release. --Imax80 22:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been writing too much in talk pages and not enough in the articles, but you'll see the answer in one the Disney articles by the end of the weekend. Canadiana 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greber Boulevard

Thanks for that. Yeah, the three Park and Rides that I made referenced which are Les Promenades (at les Promenades de l'Outaouais), Pierre-Lafontaine on a side side one block east of Greber and one block south of les Promenades as well as Greber/St-Louis are still in operation according to the STO site. The third one was done as a temporary park and ride I think during the construction on Maisonneuve Boulevard in 2004. However, it seems they made it permanent.

The only thing that I will have to check is the exact names of the strip malls in the vicinity of les Promenades. --JForget 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Walt Disney Classics

I started adding release info under the titles. Do think this will make a better article? BTW, when are ou going to upload the pictures of Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone into the article? --Imax80 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that having the info is good. I think that having it in the list is bad. It cuts things up too much and makes it hard to read. It also makes it hard to follow the "story" because it breaks it up into title-by-title pieces. I think it's better chronologically (ordered by date). I'm going to upload my first version of the whole thing tonight before I go to bed. More details will be added later. I'm not putting any more pictures up until I get the basic story up. Canadiana 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I ran out of time, but the "prehistory" section I did add should at least tell you why Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland were not considered Classics at the beginning. Canadiana 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I expanded it a bit. Hope you like it. --Imax80 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's shaping up into a real article. It needs a lot of work and somne big changes are still to come, but it's a good start. I separated the one sectioln into two. It may end up a bit different once most of the info is there.

You have to avoid any speculation in the article (sentences with "perhaps", "maybe", "could be" are a sure sign of this). You can think these things, but you can't put them into the article unless you have proof or unless you are talking about someone else (someone specific) thinking these things. I'll add some more tomorrow if I get time and expand some of what you did also. Canadiana 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Cauldron

I have several things about it being suspended from video release. Maybe this is because Disney was still worried about their PG-movie policy. I remember reading something that teens during the 1980s were all saying things like,"Disney movies are just for kids." Disney tried to reach the teens with The Black Cauldron. It wasn't on video until 1998. Do you have any info on the circulation of the film outside of theatrical business? --Imax80 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're worried too much about the PG anymore, but they don't want to scare little kids who might not think it was as scary as it is, and they don't want to "scare away" older kids who might think anything from Disney is childish. It's a difficult film to market, since it doesn't fit the usual categories. I don't know if it's "suspended" exactly. Maybe they are planning a new special edition. You never know. The first release sold about 4.5 million copies; not too bad for a "flop" film, really. Canadiana 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tregoweth wants Sources on Walt Disney Classics

Read the article and see all the citation bars. Also, when are the pictures of Robin Hood and Sword going to be submitted to the article? I could take a photo of my Dumbo and Pinocchio videos. BTW, check my suer page and see my collection that I expanded. --Imax80 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me; it's the whole Wikipedia thing of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. (Also, I'm not stalking anyone; this page was still on my watchlist, and I saw my name fly by. :) ) —tregoweth (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the article needs citations. I do have references for all of the statements I have added that are so marked. My current strategy is to try to get the framework of the text out as quickly as possible (hopefully to help discourage vandalism) and to add citations and more details once the text is up. I've been away the last four days, but I will be slowly added more text as well as citations the next new days.

As for the pictures, I want to get the basic text up first. My Sword cover is very faded on the front, so I'd have to mainly stick to showing the spine. Canadiana 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Turkish cross-links

I noticed that you were recently asking an admin to add a cross-link to a Turkish article. Normally, you should be able to do this yourself (unless the article is fully pro ==

I noticed that you were recently asking an admin to add a cross-link to a Turkish article. Normally, you should be able to do this yourself (unless the article is fully protected). Just hit edit and scroll down the the very bottom and insert your link in the alphabetically appropriate place. Canadiana 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Actually it was fully protected, once the protection was removed i added the link. cheers, --Nerval 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Name

I'm aware of the problem of naming the Project. Would you be intersested in joining such a projest? It could be renamed later; the name isn't permanent. You may have noticed in my talk page I, among other people, have been trying to think of a name. The problem, as you pointed out, is how to include Canada and exlude Mexico and other Central American countries because they have much different leauge structures and status. We could use someone who knows about Canadian soccer. XYZ CrVo 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a soccer expert, but I'd be willing to join. My soccer interest swings up and down wildly between World Cup finals, but the new Toronto team and the FIFA Under 20 World Cup may help keep my interest over the next year. Canadiana 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects if you want to be a part of WikiProject Football(soccer) in the USA and Canada. The page is still under construction. Still searching for a name. XYZ CrVo 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the term USA can't be in the project title. The Football(soccer) portion of the title will have to remain the same as some people detest the term "soccer." XYZ CrVo 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that many people detest it, not the least those from the United Kingdom, which is somewhat ironic, since the word "soccer" originated in the UK as University of Oxford slang (see also Oxford "-er"). Canadiana 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The page for WP Soccer and America User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada is up and running,

but still in its beginning stages. Please leave any comments on the talk page of the project. I realize that the name is ridiculously long. It almost takes up a line in this comment! XYZ CrVo 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HI-FI

I meant to say "First Classics release to use it" because I happen to have a 20,000 Leagues video from 1985, and it says HI-Fi on it I think. --Imax80 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did go around eBay and some videos say "VHS-STEREO" or "BETA-STEREO." But this doesn't mean HI-FI, does it? The back of the Sleeping Beauty case says "Digitally Proccessed HI-FI" because later videos say "Digitally Mastered." --Imax80 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The original VHS Stereo was not hi-fi. Beta Stereo is always Beta hi-fi. After Beta hi-fi, VHS made their own version using a different method and called theirs VHS hi-fi. I think that "digitally processed" and "digitally mastered" might be two names for the same thing. I can't see how they would actually be different. Canadiana 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fotomat Title Question

I just won a Beta tape of "Pete's Dragon" off of eBay, and the seller says the runtime is 105 minutes. According to Ryanasuarus0077, the March 1980 Fotomat version has that runtime. What release it? --Imax80 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pete's Dragon article says that there were two different lengths of movie released in 1980. It could be right. I didn't know that before. I'll have to check my copy when I get home tonight. Canadiana 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So when was my copy released? Is it the Fotomat version? --Imax80 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if it's really 105 minutes, I think it's probably the original version. Mine is 128 minutes and is a "Duplicated in Canada" copy. Interestingly, it doesn't have a release number, so if it's the second release, it's the first time I've ever seen a second release with no release number on the cover. I know it's one of the oldest Disney tapes I have because it doesn't have NTSC written on the bottom of the spine (so it probably comes from before Disney started making PAL tapes). I only have two tapes like that and the other one, Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a former "rental only", so it's probably one from the "Fotomat" era, or right after. I'll be interested to know if your copy has a "Used Rental Cassette" sticker. Canadiana 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My early 1980s copies of Davy Crockett and the River Pirates, Dumbo, and Alice in Wonderland don't have a release number on the back either, so they were probably 027-1, 024-1, 036-1. However, my 1983 Tex video has it, maybe they started in 1983. Well, once I get Pete's Dragon in the mail, I'll tell you whats on it. But Fotomat copies are extinct, I wonder how somebody could ever get their hands on one. Maybe the seller ran a rental store back in 1980. I think the seller is from Texas, so it was part of their 4-city test, I'll check my eBay. --Imax80 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The highest stock number I've seen without a release number is #67 (The Devil and Max Devlin). The lowest one I seen with a "-1" is #58 (That Darn Cat). The numbers were not given out in order by this time and I don't have exact dates, but this is sometime in 1983 as you say.

All the copies that Fotomat and other rental dealers had under the rental plan had to be given back at the end of the rental period. Disney checked them for defects and if they were okay, repackaged them in a sale-only cover and sold them. I remember that it cost $20-$30 for a blank tape at one time, so they wouldn't want to just trash them.

The other way to get one would be if a store essentially stole it and refused to give it back to Disney. The Winnie the Pooh in the blue case in the WDHV article would be one of those. Canadiana 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Every Disney video has an animated intro. Many fanboys are trying to get the history of these logos of when they debuted on cassettes. All I know is the first animated intro was shown in 1978 on the DiscoVision releases, it's the "Walt Disney Home Entertainment" one with the spinning Mickey. A variant of this existed on 1983-84 Cartoon Classics tapes where the screen would rotate to a different WDHV logo that flashes.

The logo was then turned into "Walt Disney Home Video" in 1984, because the division was named "HOME VIDEO" so it made more sense. At the same time, the "Classics" logo was shown on tapes from 1984 to 1987.

Then in maybe October 1986, the Sorcerer Mickey version was introduced. Do you know when this one was introduced?

Also, did any of these logos appear on the promos? I saw the original one in the "Walt Disney and You" promo. --Imax80 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know much about the logos and, to tell you the truth, I don't care very much about when each logo was introduced, at least not right now. It's too hard to look at every tape to compare them, and actually impossible because I don't have every tape. Canadiana 22:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)