Talk:Walt Disney Classics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Walt Disney Classics article.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.


Contents

[edit] Page on fortunecity

(Reply to /Archive3#The so called "False Information" is REALLY TRUE!!!!!)

I'm happy to hear that you "know everything", but as for that website on fortunecity.com, they don't know everything. The page you referred to (with the lovely title "New Page 0" says that The Little Mermaid was dropped in 1990 due to controversy over banned cover art. In fact, the video was still being produced up until April 1, 1991 along with Peter Pan and Disney promoted both of these in an insert in copies of The Jungle Book, released on May 3, 1991. There was an extensive advertising campaign with the slogan "Disappearing Classics" in the spring of 1991 to tell consumers to get their copies while supplies lasted. Art identical to the supposedly "banned" cover art appeared in the Jungle Book insert, almost a year after The Little Mermaid's release. According to the Snopes Urban Legends page about The Little Mermaid art, the controversial bit had appeared on theatrical posters long before the video release, but the LaserDisc, which was released later than the videocassette, used different art. They also say that one supermarket chain pulled the tapes from their shelves for 24 hours. That doesn't amount to a "ban" either. Canadiana 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean that! What I meant by, "You might see something you least expect about "The Little Mermaid"", I meant to say, look at the 2 blank tapes & THEN you might see something you least expect about "The Little Mermaid". Skymac207 20:42, 7 September (UTC)
My point, in case you missed it, was that the page you mentioned was not a very reliable source of information. So, what is it I wouldn't expect? Possibly that some copies have paper labels and some are silk-screened. So what? At some point Disney started silk-screening their labels to make piracy more difficult. They may have switched to silk screening once they used up their supply of labels. Canadiana 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So, everybody thinks "Bambi" was the last 1 to use the old style tape style. So I pointed that website out, so I could show everybody that "The Little Mermaid" was the last 1 to feature the old style tape label. Skymac207 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
& now I just discovered that Peter Pan was the last 1 to use the old style tape label. Skymac207 17:22, 29 Octobber 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is another case where "everybody" may be wrong. I have a Great Mouse Detective with a paper label on the cassette. This would be a Canadian copy, but I don't think there's any way to know that just by looking at it. It could be that the Canadian duplicator got equipment for silk-screening later than the American diplicator(s). Cassettes may have been duplicated by more than one facility, especially if Disney suddenly got more orders than expected on any particular title. Canadiana 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Canadian copies don't matter! Where talking about American copies! Everybody at Youtube thinks "Bambi was the last 1 to use the old style tape label. I had to point that website outm, that way everybody would learn that "Bambi" wasn't the last 1 to use the old style tape label. Skymac207 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And how do you know the one in the picture is not a Canadian copy? There's no way you can tell. Canadiana 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The Canadian 1's french & the American 1's english. Skymac207 11:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
About 80% of Canadian copies are English copies. I'm talking about English ones. Canadiana 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, Candian copies have a special preview bumper for the Aladdin trailer & American copies dosen't have a special preview bumper. Skymac207 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, your be surprised about this, but I went to my neighbor's house, they had a Rescuers Down Under tape, WITH THE OLD STYLE TAPE LABEL! Do you believe that? Huh? Is that somethin'? Skymac207 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The Little Mermaid was also not the only black diamond series title to be released for less than a year, as that fortunecity.com page claims. The Little Mermaid was available for almost 10 1/2 months, but Lady and the Tramp was only available from October 6, 1987 until March 31, 1988, a little under 6 months. That's one of the main reasons that it's very scarce. Canadiana 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
One more thing I just noticed: Peter Pan was also released for only 6 months. The fortunecity person doesn't know what they're talking about. Canadiana 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just found out that there ARE right that Peter Pan dropped out of print 1993. Here's how I see it, 1990 print has a vertical white label with the classics logo on top, the title in the center & the tape info on the bottom. re-print from 1991's the vertical silk screening. re-print from 1992's is the horizontal silk screening edition with the classics logo on the left & the title on the right. re-print from 1993's the horizontal silk screening edition with the classics logo on the left & the title in the center. & finally after that print, it dropped out. Skymac207 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, people

This is an encyclopedia. Information needs to be referenced, not something you "heard somewhere." Also, please be civil; telling people they "heard wrong!" and saying "He's lying! Whatever he says is not true! Don't believe him!" isn't constructive. — Tregoweth (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry Tregoweth, fans do that, I don't think it is right. Believe me that Dumbo was 1985 because the Classics edition wasn't in the 1984 ad, but the white cover was in there. Imax80 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll say what ever I want to on here! It's a free country, I'll do what I want, so shove it up your stinkin' butts! I believe Dumbo was 1984! I remember hearing stuff around here somewhere & I stick with it! I'll tell people if they heard wrong, lying, whatever he says is not true & don't believe him, morrons!!!!! Skymac207 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you threatening us? Imax80 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No! I'm saying I'll do what I'll do 'cause America is a free country, where 'ya can like say whatever 'ya wanna say, when 'ya wanna say & where 'ya wanna say. So I'm saying I'll do what I wanna do, so shove it up your stikin' butts! Whatever I see 1st, I believe it. I tell everybody at my school, even my relatives, the real info of these logos is the info I say. So, let me be, idiots!!!!!
    • But Wikipedia isn't a freedom ground, and the administrators may have you banned for good. Keep up the angry comments, and you might be banned, don't say I didn't warn you. Imax80 16:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Whatever, girlpants! Skymac207 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is you believe the wrong things from unexact sites. My info comes from what Canadiana posted because he ran a video store in the 1980s and he would know. Imax80 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No! Your the problem! Those "exact" sites always have the right information & your too stupid to know that! Skymac207 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh no. Imax80 23:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, never. Imax80 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, yes, ever! Skymac207 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! That's what I thought! No respond back! Ha, ha, I was right! Mr.walker 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't respond because I would be "feeding the trolls." --Imax80 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need more releases, seriously needed

Sorry I ask so much, but we gotta do more research. Next time I visit the Disney Store, maybe I can ask if they know any release dates.

So far we have all the Japanese laserdisc release dates. But we have no exact Europe release dates, and we have exact U.S-Spanish releases thanks to Ryanasaurus0077. But we seriously need the Classics premiere release of Dumbo. If Dumbo appears in the Spring '85 mini-catalogue as the white cover, it could have been released in Christmas 1985, because I saw it in a B&W X-Mas 1985 ad. That deal was offered from December 1, 1985 to January 1986. So for now, I'll put Dumbo for December 1, 1985.

Because anything earlier in 1985 I saw didn't have Dumbo, but yet Pinocchio and Robin Hood. The re-release date I heard hit the stores the same times as Bambi in Sept. 28, 1989, so I'll put Dumbo and Alice for September 28, 1989. We just need the 1991 Dumbo, Sword, and Alice releases.

If anyone could help, please take action now, thank you everyone! --Imax80 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got 1 thing to say... DUMBO WAS NOT 1985! It was 1984, Dumbo was released on video. You're going to keep the release date for Dumbo at July 18, 1984 & no arguments! Skymac207 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything you know is wrong. You aren't the master of Disney and don't know every single d*mn thing about Disney. If you do know everything, then tell me the exact times when the movies hit theaters and at what hour? We'll see who is the master! Imax80 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah? How many movies? Skymac207 17:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Skymac, this immature behavior is getting out of hand. Stop changing everything, my sources are right because I saw the real deal and you didn't so end of story! And you can't threaten us that we are stupid and wrong. I am currently alerting admins on you. Imax80 23:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, shut the f*** up! Skymac207 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Immaturity at finest. --Imax80 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent Question about Dumbo

This may be irrelevant, but I need to know why the 1985 video release of Dumbo has a different text for "Dumbo" on the spine, and a different one on the cover and the back. What is it? The text was too big to fit on the spine? Imax80 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1991 Dumbo, Alice, and Sword re-release dates

I put them in as May 23, 1991 because if Dumbo was released at the time, those other two must've been there as well, because all three titles were in general release, so those three tapes must've been sold as a promotion or something. Imax80 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No they were weren't! Alice in Wonderland was May 3, 1991 'cause that's the same day The Jungle Book was on video! Dumbo came out October 23, 1991 for there 50th anniversary that time! As for The Sword in the Stone, that came out December 25, 1991 for there 28th anniversary that time! Jeez, you people are so dumb! Skymac207 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't Disney has ever released more than one big title on the same day; they've always spread them out as much as possible. —tregoweth (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, nothing is available on X-Mas Day, and there are only Anniversaries if they are 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and so on. --Imax80 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Alice in Wonderland came out July 12, 1991 for 2 reasons. 1. That's same day Robin Hood was out. 2. To celebrate its 40th anniversary edition. Skymac207 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbie Rides Again

On the first archive, someone said Herbie Rides Again used the prototype diamond from 1990 to 1992. Is it true!? --Ryanasaurus0077 12:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Herbie was printed from 1990-92, Herbie's next printing was the mid-1990s I believe. Herbie couldn't have used the logo, because it is not an animated feature, and isn't as important as other Disney films, although it was a box office success.
That user was seeing things. Imax80 18:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe it's the result of a video editing error. --Ryanasaurus0077 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was a question of the film's importance; Classics were always full-length animated features, which excludes the Herbie movies. —tregoweth (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For WDHV to call something a "Classic" it generally had to meet two criteria: (1) feature-length (2) contains at least some animation. This allows movies like Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon which are sometimes included. Once, WDHV even listed DuckTales: The Movie in its list of Classics, but that didn't last long.
I think I have something that calls Old Yeller a Classic, but not Herbie Rides Again. Canadiana 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the element? --Ryanasaurus0077 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
For the ad in which Disney (sort of) called Old Yeller a Classic, see my latest blog post. Canadiana 05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The blog says that Old Yeller was a FILM classic released with the 1997 Masterpiece videos, it actually was in the Masterpiece Collection, but dosen't show it & it featured the Masterpiece logo & all the other stuff the 1997 Masterpiece editions did. I've acutally seen that copy & that's what's on there & that's what happened. Skymac207 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasia and Pinocchio

They use the Classics logo, but say "Walt Disney's Masterpiece." Are they really part of the "Classics" collection, or any promos witha black diamond around? --Imax80 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you should go by the packaging. Fantasia was always a "Masterpiece," and I think I remember one of the Pinocchio releases coming after Snow White, when everything was upgraded from "A Walt Disney Classic" to "Walt Disney's Masterpiece." —tregoweth (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
When they started using the word "Masterpiece" on the domestic packaging, it designated a classic that was "fully restored". Advertising for the first Pinocchio release was very clearly labelled with the "Classics" logo. The new packaging for the re-release described the movie as "the all-time classic" and carried a quotation "Pinocchio is a classic ..."
Fantasia was different than all the other "Walt Disney Classics" collection, because it is a package film with numerous individual segments rather than one continuous story. Nothing on the packaging connects it to the Classics collection except the diamond-shaped picture on the spine. (DuckTales: The Movie also had a diamond-shaped picture on the spine, however.) Canadiana 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The Pinocchio video has a black corner flap reading "Restored To Its Original Brilliance!" It's kinda similar to "The Original Animated Classic!" Therfore, I call it a Disney Classics video, even though it DOES have the logo at the beginning. --71.192.122.49 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If it has a diamond logo somewhere on it and it's an animated feature, it's in the Classics line. --Imax80 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps we could...

Get images of the first four classics releases in their original black clamshells. I may help because I have 3 of them. --Imax80 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I only have two (Robin Hood and Sword) in VHS plus Robin in Beta both English and French. I tried to get an American distributor to sell me a Spanish one, but he said they weren't allowed to.
I took a picture with some Beta, some VHS, one Spanish and one French that I thought would cover everything with one picture. I thought that would be better than a lot of individual pictures. It turned out a little out of focus, so I'm going to re-take it. Canadiana 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE?

I am currently beginning work on a gallery section of this Classics page for the American VHS releases. The guy who runs that fortunecity page plans on shutting down that page and moving most of his info to this Wikipedia article. That way, we can make the info and pictures as accurate as possible.

Now, most of the pictures I submitted are from my video collection, but the Bambi and Robin Hood pics are from other Wikipedia articles. The 1985 Pinocchio and Dumbo pics I got from a few friends. So scan the covers of YOUR Classic videocassettes and upload them here! --Wile e2005 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the 1986 Alice in Wonderland cover -- Damess

Shouldn't we have them in order of when the videos came out? --Imax80 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We have to be very careful about the cover images, since they are copyrighted. In the U.S. (though not in most other countries), reproduction of copyrighted images is permissible within certain restrictions, and still considered to be fair use. Among these restrictions is that you can only republish a small portion of a copyrighted work, not the whole thing, and the smaller the portion is, the better. Also, it shouldn't harm the commercial potential of the work. On Wikipedia, it has been generally agreed that only screen resolution copies of copyrighted images are really allowed, because anything that fits on a computer screen is good enough to illustrate the article; bigger ones are excessive (and involve a larger "portion" od the original than necessary). Very high resolution images could make piracy of the videos easier and cannot be permitted, since Wikipedia could be considered as contributing to the piracy. What I'm saying is that you should revise your images to about 600 pixels high at most. If you don't, they are likely to be deleted from Wikipedia at some time in the future. Many Wikipedians say that any copyrighted image that says "Download high-resolution version" on its description page is probably too big.
The description page for each image needs to say why the particular use of that copyrighted image is fair use. U.S. courts have decided that "it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it" (fair use article), so we can have small pictures of video covers as long as we are commenting on or criticizing the covers or perhaps the product contained in the covers. For this reason, image galleries of copyrighted works are generally not allowed in Wikipedia, because they don't contain commentary or criticism of the images. For this reason, I think we should move the cover illustrations out of the gallery section and put them beside the parts of the text that comment on or criticize them. I will start doing this. (This will also put them into chronological order as Imax80 has asked.)
Somebody needs to go through all of the image description pages and make sure that the images are low resolution and make sure each one has a fair use rationale, even if you didn't upload the image yourself. This should specify that it is fair to use that image in the Walt Disney Classics article, and should also explain why it is fair to use it in that particular article.
Besides all of that, there are some policies listed at Wikipedia:Fair use. Among them is this:
8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
This also goes for the previously existing images, like the screen captures of the diamond logo. Having one of them may be enough to "identify the subject of the article", but having more than one needs to illustrate something which is mentioned in the text. There needs to be something in the text that tells why each one of these is significant or important to the subject. Even with the amount of time I have spent in this article, I have no clue as to why the two different shades of blue background are significant. If anyone knows why they are important, please find a way to put that into the article. Canadiana 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, although I think it's good to have the images, several of them have bad moiré patterns and should be re-scanned. Canadiana 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article expansion

If you've been watching the page, you'll notice that I've recently done a major expansion of the article. There are still big gaps, but I want to get a basic outline done first. More details will be added and major edits are still to come. I do have references for all the statements I've added, even though I haven't put many of them in yet. Citations will be added soon. I think it is more efficient in some ways to do it this way. Also, citations take a lot of time to do, so this gets the basic text up quickly.

Imax80's recent edit says, "No citation for the HI-FI statement, the video cover itself says it all". I'm sure the cover says that it is "Hi-Fi" but I don't think it says that "it was the first release to be released in VHS HI-FI". What we need is a published source saying that it was the first hi-fi release. Also, is it the first movie in the world, the first Disney movie, or the first Walt Disney Classic in hi-fi? Statements must be verifiable from published sources. If the statement has not been published before, it is considered original research and is in violation of no original research policy. There are cases that can be exceptions, like "descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" but a claim that this title is the first hi-fi movie ever is not easily verifiable. Canadiana 18:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question II

Why's Sleeping Beauty listed as October 14, 1986 & October 6, 1987? I'm just wondering. Mr.wheeler 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Because I spotted a variant with the stock number not ending with a "V"; that variant also uses the 1984 FBI screens. (I own the version with the stock number ending with "V", which uses the dark FBI screens and that video dealer announcement) --Ryanasaurus007 02:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this 1 with the 1984 FBI warnings, have a trailer for Lady & the Tramp? Skymac207 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryanasaurus007, does the 1987 print of Sleeping Beauty have the "Duplication in Whole" logo? If it does, that probally means there were new prints without that logo in 1988 & maybe even later prints in 1989 that show the 1988 logo. Mr.sailor 11:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Death, traitor! There isn't any copy
With that "D-I-W-O-I-P-I-P"
Screen, Skymac/Wheeler/Walker/Angryman
And 0zzBandit/Mr. Sailor! --Ryanasaurus0077 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Skymac207/Mr. Wheeler/Mr. Walker/Angryman301/0zzBandit/Mr. Sailor, how come you keep using ampersands? You should be using "and"! Also, how come you keep replacing the word of a number (like "two") with the actual number (as in 2)? If you continue in this manner, I will tell Tregoweth to block you (again)!! Gabrielkat 01:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? It means the same thing & it's shorter. Skymac207 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disney Vault?

Me thinks that we sould have a seperate article for the Disney Vault. We could explain what it is, then have a list of what films are in it. Just a thought. Opinions? Comments? The Swagga 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure "the Disney vault" is metaphorical, not one actual vault. —tregoweth (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I know it's not a real vault, but that has nothing to do with my suggestion. The Swagga 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I found it!

I found the 1992 version of Walt Disney Classics. Checkitout. image:1992dhvc.PNG TVB21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/l/Talk%7EWalt_Disney_Classics_2202.html"