User talk:Canadiana/Archive1

Archive of discussions that ended on or before October 31, 2006. Canadiana 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
I really like your userbox saying : This user's Canada includes Québec :p --Deenoe 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

VHS release of Robin Hood source
Can you please put a link to where you found the Dec. 9, 1984 VHS release date of Robin Hood? Thank you. Imax80 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put a link to the Toronto Star archive site. There is no way to link to a specific page and you need to have a subscription to access the archives. The exact quote is "Disney will release their animated feature Robin Hood Dec. 6, priced at $123, ..." (That's Canadian dollars, by the way, equivalent to $79.95 or $89.95 in US dollars.) Canadiana 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew it, Robin Hood was $79.95 like Pinocchio was. How did you find the Sword in the Stone and Pinocchio dates? Imax80 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese General Government Building, Seoul
Thanks a bundle for the picture you added to Japanese General Government Building, Seoul. I was worried we'd never find one, and the shot from behind the palace makes the point about why the Japanese built it clear. If you've got any more, please add them as well! Regards,  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 07:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I found out...
...that the Classics edition of Dumbo was 1985. You were right all along, this is because I saw a 1984 WDHV ad on eBay, and on the ad was a bookcase and all the Disney characters around it. Among the books were three Disney videos, Tron, Dumbo, and Alice in Wonderland, all in the original "Sorcerer Mickey" white covers from the early 1980s. Also,, you mentioned that the Spring 1985 catalogue showed the version Dumbo in the "Sorcerer Mickey" box, so it must've been released in the summer of 1985 at a price of $79.95 like Pinocchio was. Imax80 17:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

About the WDHV releases
On the Walt Disney Home Entertainment article, it says titles were released for sale in October '80. I went to this video historian website saying,"Disney announces it will enter the rental market" next to the caption December 1980. Maybe these were titles from Disney and not Fotomat.

Oh, and one more thing, I remember you saying to me on talk page for Walt Disney Classics that you don't remember when Dumbo was repackaged in the black/pink cover. But I might be able to refresh your memory. Was it during the holiday season? Because if it was, Dumbo was released as part of the Classics collection December 1, 1985.

Any thoughts? Imax80 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was me who said the title were for sale. Unlike most of what I write, that was really speculation.  I presume that something happened in 1980, but I don't know what and there was no reference to check it against.  The sentence didn't make sense in the article unless I could say what actually happened in December 1980.  They had already released rental-only titles through Fotomat in March, presumably the same titles in essentially the same packaging, so what happened in December.  Either they expanded the rental program to anybody (and not just Fotomat) or they started offering them for sale.  At the moment I'm not sure which, but I was hoping that whoever came up with the December 1980 date would know the actual answer.


 * I can't remember when Dumbo was repackaged, but I know that if I had ordered it at the time, I would have ended up with one in the original white packaging that the distributor still had in stock. I can picture myself standing in front of the rack in the distributor's warehouse wondering who was going to buy those last few copies of Dumbo, so I could get a black one.  Even though I have about 180 Disney movies on cassette, I still don't have a tape copy of Dumbo to this day.


 * I couldn't have afforded $84.95 at the time, so I'm pretty sure that the black one came out for the 1985 Christmas promotion. That advertising sheet that someone is selling on eBay clearly shows that the 3 Classics were in black clamshells for the sale. I think I'd be willing to bet that the Classics packaging for Dumbo was released December 1, 1985. There is absolutely no mention of Dumbo in the Spring 1985 mini-catalog except for a one-line listing. You seem to think I said there was a picture of the cover.  There was no picture or logo or other significant promotion of Dumbo at that time. Some releases in 1985 had an insert announcing Pinocchio.  On this there was no mention of either Robin Hood (which was probably secretly on moratorium) or Dumbo. Canadiana 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I saw a Pinocchio video press kit on eBay for it's 1985 video release. Did you happen to actually see it? I think Dumbo was released in December 1, 1985 because what I dug up, I didn't see the black case of Dumbo anywhere prior to Dec 1985. Imax80 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the summer 1985 release? No, I didn't see that.  I have some original Pinocchio stuff somewhere, but it's buried under piles of paper that I haven't had time to look through.  In addition to the black and white ad slick that you saw, there was also a colour poster for the 1985 Christmas promotion recently for sale on eBay, but it didn't show any of the packaging. Canadiana 23:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the summer '85 release. Also, do you happen to know when Dumbo, Robin Hood, Pinocchio, and The Sword in the Stone were repackaged in the white clamshells with the same artwork from the black ones? I am assuming summer 1986. Imax80 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Skymac
I've been chatting with Skymac; if he continues to damage articles, there will be consequences. If I happen to miss something he does that you think needs some admin intervention, please let me know. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He renamed himself Mr. Wheeler, so look out for him, he's still at it. Imax80 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I already noticed. He can't fool me that easily. Canadiana 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney Home Entertainment Article Edit
Alice in Wonderland was not released in November 1982 for sale, because my copy has a sticker on it from "VCA" and it says "10/18/82." Or it might have been a pre-order. Can you help me out here? Imax80 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in reply to one of your other comments before, I pretty sure that VCA was a duplicator. The date on the sticker would be the date that the duplication was done.  It's there so they can trace back any quality control problems to what was happening on the date of duplication.  It certainly is not the date of sale.  The sticker you speak of is on the cassette shell, right?  I know someone here speculated that it might be the date of sale put on by the shop that sold it.  It couldn't be that because they would have had to open the package to put the sticker on.


 * For major releases, duplication starts several months in advance, often before the title's release date is actually announced. The information comes from the New York Times, which is very highly respected for their fact-checking (not that they can't make mistakes). Read the section on "Verifability, not truth" in the verifiability policy. The exact quote from the Times says, "On cassette, for example, there are 'Swiss Family Robinson' (Disney, $69.95) and 'Alice in Wonderland' (Disney, $84.95 - November release) ..." Canadiana 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The sticker is on the top of the tape. The tape label says for "FOR SALE ONLY. NOT INTENDED FOR RENTAL." It's also a screen before the FBI warnings on the tape itself. When was this included on the videos? Imax80 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have 6 BS and VS tapes with this wording. Alice in Wonderland is the latest one like this that I have.  I also have at least 23 BF and VF copies which say "FOR SALE ONLY. RENTAL PROHIBITED." I haven't yet found a satisfactory explanation for why some are "S" and others are "F". I think it was about the beginning of 1994 when they stopped labelling videos "for sale only".  It seems to coincide with the time they changed the font on "Home Video" from Handel Gothic.  They finally dropped the "F" and "S" at the end of 1994 ("Robin Hood" is the newest title I have with BF and VF). Canadiana 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WDHV notes I found
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was re-released to VHS and Beta in 1985 with HI-FI sound and cost $79.95, which was the cost of Pinocchio and Robin Hood.

On eBay, I saw an ad for a Robin Hood VHS. I am not sure what year it was. The full Classics logo can be seen on the bottom. I am fairly sure it's the 1991 VHS version because the print of the Robin Hood logo was the way it was on the 1991 VHS cover. The font was more feather-like, while on the 1984 cover, the logo is more stylized with the "H" in Hood being a bow and arrow and the second "O" being a target. Do you know what year this was?

20,000 Leagues was initially released on home video sometime around 1980, possibly a Fotomat rental. And what were the 13 titles put to Fotomat for rental? Now as I said earlier somewhere, I saw a 1983 video release for "Tron" up for auction on eBay months ago. The original price sticker was on it, and I can assure you it was $99.95, and it was on Beta.

And also, did Disney do mostly VHS copies rather than Beta, LD, and CED? --Imax80 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

20,000 Leagues

 * There's a poster for that release on eBay: . It doesn't say what year it is, but I'm sure it's 1985 like you say. Canadiana 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It has to be. It has the red FBI screens, HI-FI sounds, it was priced at $79.95, and the 1983 WDHV logo is used. Imax80 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood

 * Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure the poster you saw is 1984 (this one: ). The logo on the video cover is actually the one from the 1973 theatrical release, whereas the poster uses the 1982 theatrical logo. If you look closely, you'll see that it says under the logo "for the first time ever on videocassette and videodisc".


 * Another poster for sale on the web is the one for the 1991 video re-release.  The illustration is similar, but you'll notice there's a space for a price and if you zoom in you'll see that it says the suggested price is $24.99.  There is no price printed on the original poster. Canadiana 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably was the 1984 poster because the full Classics logo is on it. Imax80 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the "first time ever" confirms it anyway. Canadiana 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ads for the 1993 Pinocchio video release on the previews on the Beauty and the Beast cassette say "first time ever." Now why? Pinocchio was 1985. Or maybe they meant the restored version for the first time on video. Imax80 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Pinocchio previews on my copy of Beauty and the Beast do not say any such thing. You have to listen carefully to exactly what they say.  For example they might say, "Available for the first time on videocassette at only $24.95."  If it was available before at $26.95, this is true but it is a little misleading, because it sounds like it was never on video before. Canadiana 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Original 13

 * The original 13 titles were stock numbers 10 through 22. I don't have time to list them right now, but 20,000 Leagues was indeed one of them. Canadiana 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was right, they were all for rental first. So the first were Pete's Dragon, Black Hole, and so forth. Since it goes up to 22, I guess Mary Poppins was late 1980 because, #1, the stock number is 23, and #2, Disney A to Z says this. Imax80 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right about Mary Poppins. I've updated the article with all the 1980 info. Canadiana 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tron

 * I'm not saying you're wrong about the price. You could be right, but I have no way of checking that you didn't make a mistake.  For example, how do you know it was the original price sticker? Canadiana 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the seller said it was. And the sticker looked stained, so it must be dated. Imax80 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sellers say a lot of things if they think it makes what they're selling seem more valuable. If the sticker was pre-printed as part of the packaging, I'll believe it was the suggested price; otherwise, it's just something a dealer put on. Canadiana 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

VHS/Beta/LD/CED

 * Disney made formats in whatever quantities people bought. In 1980, when Disney entered the videocassette market, there were 1.8 copies of VHS movies sold for every Beta copy (industry-wide).  By 1987, it was about 10.5 VHS for every Beta and Beta continued to decline from there.  I ordered Beta Rescuers and Beauty and the Beast in the fall of 1992 but never received them. I somehow talked them into making me a Beta copy of the Pinocchio re-release in 1993.  I'm sure that one is extremely rare. Canadiana 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pinocchio 19983 on Beta, that must be extra rare. The latest Beta copy I saw was The Rescuers. Imax80 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * CED players were only produced from March, 1981 to April, 1984. Disc pressing continued until sometime in 1986, but only 12 titles were released that year, and I don't know if any of them were Disney.  Pinocchio and Robin Hood must have been released late in 1985 (not listed in Spring 1985 catalog).  Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland were released in their original white packaging and never repackaged.


 * Fantasia was the biggest title ever on Laserdisc at the time it was released (about double the previous record), but there were about 80 tapes sold for every Laserdisc, so I'm sure that title was at least 98% VHS. Canadiana 00:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is my biggest question, where did they get the idea to create Walt Disney Classics come from? Was it because there were a few animated features on video at the time?


 * The only titles on video before the Classics line were Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, Fun and Fancy Free, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and The Three Caballeros. Imax80 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll have to wait till I have time to write more to find out. The titles you mention all have one thing in common: edited parts of all of them had been on TV.  The Classics had never been on TV ever. Canadiana 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

One Last Note about Dumbo
In the X-Mas 1985 poster, it says,"buy Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Mary Poppins and more." But yet the poster doesn't note that Dumbo was a new release. However, an ad on eBay with a large Dumbo image from the cover on it, with the $29.95 price. This was probably another X-mas 1985 promo. But however, all promos don't say that Dumbo was a new re-release whatsoever.

Any thoughts? --Imax80 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it woudl be a lie to say it was a new release because it wasn't a new release. It was really only a new release in 1981.  They could have said it was newly released for sale in 1982, but that was about the end of it being "new".  At some point it was even for sale at $39.95 and I don't suppose they ever really had enough orders after that to produce any more at full price, but it certainly asn't a new release in 1995.  I have numerous newspaper articles about Robin Hood and Pinocchio mentioning that Robin Hood and Alice in Wonderland had previously been released. It was only a price reduction as was the case with all 21 titles that were $29.95 in that promo. I know you think the black clamshell is a big thing but it wasn't too important to WDHV at the time.


 * I couldn't find that "ad" you're talking about on eBay. Is it still there? Can you give me a link to it? Canadiana 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is still on there. Try 1985 Pinocchio ad, I don't know how to give links. I remember reading from a site somewhere that Dumbo was in a blue case when it was for rental. Is this true? I was assuming it would be the white clamshell.

But do you when the black clamshell versions of The Classics were redone in white clamshell with removable artwork? Imax80 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Pinocchio was offically withdrawn at the end of February 1986, but it was back again as one of the 5 other Classics available for the release of Sleeping Beauty (October 14, 1986). I found a video in my collection showing the Disney booth at the VSDA show in the summer of 1986 and all the animated features are in white clamshells. Canadiana 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have Pinocchio in the black clamshell with the old tape master, and the print date is August 8, 1986. Strange, isn't it? That's when the re-master came out though. Maybe mine was later printing, although if Pinocchio was withdrawn in Feb 1986, my version must be extremely rare then. Imax80 02:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the February date comes from a Newsday article (from March 21, 1986) and they had lots of quotes from Ben Tenn (VP for WDHV), so they should have known what they were talking about. (There were rumours back in December that it might be withdrawn after January.)  Although Tenn said that Pinocchio "exceeded our expectations", other reports say that Disney was stuck with a lot of excess copies before the sale price started.  It could be that they were trying to use up the supply of black clamshells as they prepared copies for the 4th quarter 1986 promotion.


 * About the rental-only titles, they were packaged in a hard plastic Amaray-style case so that there was no similarity between rental copies and sales copies and it was impossible to confuse which were which. Not many are still around because they had to be returned to Disney at the end of the lease.  If you want to know what one looks like there is a picture here.  Canadiana 03:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw a 1989 Bambi commercial
Yes that's right! A commercial for the 1989 video release of Bambi. In it was a promotion for Crest products. Do you remember this ad? Imax80 22:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember the promotion. I don't remember the ad, but I've seen it now. Canadiana 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Disney Video Clamshells
I found out that at certain times, Disney used various clamshells throughout the 1980s.

Now throughout 1980-84, they used the heavy white clamshells with the artwork embedded into it. From 1984-86, they used rounded clamshells, very few with embedded artwork.

For the classics series from 1984 to 1986, they used the puffy black padded clamshells, Dumbo and Pinocchio have The Classics logo inside the case in plastic.

In 1986, they used these clamshells that had a lined detail going down the sides of the spine that connect with the front back.

From 1987 to 1990, they used clamshells by Blair Industries, they were boxy, and square. In 1990, they changed to Mercury Foam whcih ended in 1992.

Interesting? --Imax80 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know all of this (maybe not about Mercury Foam). Once they changed to generic clamshells with no logo, they were able to use any kind they could get, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Blair Industries ones were mixed with ones from other suppliers.  The same with cassette shells or entire blank cassettes.  I think they switched suppliers often and I would not expect a single title to have to same brand of tape or the same style of shells for every copy.


 * I have at least 3 different varieties of the original heavy white clamshells: two different embossed logos, and one with a frosted logo (Petes Dragon #10). I think I have some with no logos, but I have to check.  Canadiana 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True. The Walt Disney Home Video logo was prominently embossed into clamshells in the early 1980s. My Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, and Tex videos have them. Imax80 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stock number question
Hey Canadiana, I just noticed something. A stock number on the video indicates the # cassette made by the company, right?

Well, there are some goof-ups, The Sword in the Stone has the stock number 229, yet that was released in 1986, after Pinocchio that has the stock number 239. Another thing, Sleeping Beauty is 476 and Lady and the Tramp is 582, but Cinderella, which was released in 1988, has the stock number 410.

Same with Bambi and The Little Mermaid. Bambi's stock number is 942, but Mermaid's is 913. This is odd because Bambi came to video before The Little Mermaid came to theaters, and the video has the trailer for it on there.

Maybe those numbers depend on when they were mastered for tape, maybe Sword was somewhere around 1984 because Robin Hood has the stock number 228.

In 1991, the same thing occurs. The Rescuers Down Under and Robin Hood have the stock numbers 1142 and 1189, but Fantasia whcih was released in November 1991, has the stock number 1132, ten after The Jungle Book which has 1122. Any thoughts? --Imax80 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the stock numbers are whatever numbers they wanted to give to the movies. Looking at the titles announced in various publications for release in 1980 and 1981 and comparing these to the stock numbers, I have found that they were all numbered consecutively in the order they were released (#10 to #40).


 * Stock numbers 41 through 47 were all released in late 1981 or early 1992. After #47, stock numbers are no longer consecutive and are not necessarily assigned in any particular order.  For example, Cartoon Classics, Vol. 1 is #146 and Vol. 2 is #145!


 * The "Come on home where your video's playing" trailer contains title cards for all the stock numbers from 10 through 47, with the exception of the 6 collections of shorts and Snow White Live. There was supposedly a dispute over royalties for Snow White Live, so it wasn't available for long and was likely discontinued by the time the trailer was made. Outside of those first 48 titles, the trailer also includes the following stock numbers: 53, 66, 67, 68, 73, 75, and 120. I think it's safe to assume that numbers were no longer assigned consecutively after #47.


 * I've never seen of heard of a #48 (at least in North America) and #49 (Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree) was released much later as part of the mini-Classics collection. Canadiana 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen know what titles were between stock numbers #24 and #36? Thanks. Imax80 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi,

Thanks for the tip. Actually I usually use a subpage of my User page to test tweaks to that and the other Korean name tables. I let myself get sloppy this time because I was adjusting a feature (the "logoimage" attribute) that is used in only a very small number of koreanname instances. However, it was still rather foolish of me. Thanks again, for being so cordial in reminding me of that fact. Cheers, -- Visviva 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Skymac/Mr. Wheeler/Mr. Walker
He just won't stop. We gotta stop him from being rude and saying that he is the "master" of Disney. You know more about the videos than he does. He says he grew up with "Disney." I highly doubt it, he acts like a little kid, and he must be one, he just wants everyone to believe the "wrong" he calls "right."

You f***in' dumba**es! For god sakes I'm 14 yrs. old! Would You ever see a little kid on a account on a website? Would ever see a little kid swear? Think again, you faguttes! Skymac207 17:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on his attitude. --Imax80 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't really stop anyone from being rude. You can ask, but ultimately he has to change his behaviour and his attitude himself &mdash; you can't really change his attitude for him.


 * The we have to do is to fight bad information is with good information, to fight rudeness with politeness, and to fight immaturity with maturity. Not "acting like a little kid" is not as easy as it sounds.  The "did not, did too, did not, did too" kind of argument doesn't get anyone anywhere and has to be avoided.  "I'm going to tell on you" also doesn't do much to advance the cause.  You never hear adults acting like that.


 * Once there's a whole story in the article, changing the dates won't make any sense since it would be obvious that it won't fit in with the history of how things went.


 * If people knew where I got my information and where he got his information, they could decide which one is more likely to be true. If he refuses to say where his information comes from, there is no way to verify its correctness or incorrectness.  Verifiable information always beats unverifiable information.  Facts beat speculation and speculation cannot be put into Wikipedia.


 * There's no use arguing with a troll. That just feeds the desire for attention. When someone is flaming, you have to resist the temptation to take the bait. Canadiana 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well is there a way to block his account (s) for good?

He will stop at nothing to say Dumbo was put on the Classics line December 1, 1984. That doesn't make sense at all. If Robin Hood was December 6 on a Tuesday, Dumbo would've been on a Friday. Also, he thinks the re-releases of Dumbo was October 23, 1991 to coincide with when the film came out back in 1941, but not all anniversary editions come out the same day they came to theaters. --Imax80 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what? Every early video I know has come out on Friday,so it's gotta be Friday! (a la Shrek) End of story! Bye, bye! See you later! Skymac207 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Because, the Toy Story 10th Anniversary Edition hit DVD in September 2005, but the film really came out in November 1995. And he also thinks The Sword in the Stone was December 25, 1991. Nothing is open on Christmas day.

You did a good job knocking sense into him on a long rant he posted on Talk:Walt Disney Classics, complete with immature language. And what is that "I am the master of Disney!" thing? There is hardly anyone is the world who knows "everything" about The Walt Disney Company. That's for sure.

And furthermore, he puts Dumbo as 1978. Now Disney was not making videocassettes then, but he puts it there anyways, even if there is a source cited next to it with a different release date. And when it's actually the right date, he is really childish. I mean, I posted that Dumbo was 1985, and he yells,"He's lying! Don't believe him! Dumbo was 1984 morons!" If someone grew up with watching Disney stuff (like he says he does), they wouldn't know every single thing about Disney.

I remember when he was an anonymous user making edits since March 2006 I believe. He tries to rename himself and pretend to be someone that believes Skymac. He can't fool us.

But what really annoys me about his edits is when he replaces "and" with an "&" symbol. That's definately vandalism. For now he is blocked. But is there a way he can be blocked for good?

--Imax80 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we know that there were no Disney videocassettes in 1978 and there wouldn't likely be two release dates 5 days apart and that things don't ship on Christmas day. Anyone who can see that these are the case can patrol nonsensical changes.  I'm quite sure that no-one knows everything about Disney.


 * There is a process for dispute resolution and permanent bans sometimes happen. See Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-16/Arbitration_report for this week's arbitration report.  It's pretty hard to stop someone from creating sock puppets, however. Canadiana 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that may happen to Skymac and his sockpuppets. --Imax80 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland, Davy Crockett, and Tron questions
When Alice in Wonderland hit the Classics line in July 1986, was it in a cardboard slipcover case first?

All I know is that I have a 1986 Alice print, but in a white clamshell, and it was printed July 14, 1988. I remember you mentioned Disney put their classics on sale again in 1988, and I guess Dumbo and the other ones available were part of the collection. Maybe this was the first time it was put in the clamshell, so the slipcover case was in print from 1986 to 1988.

Also, you said the 1981 video release of Alice in Wonderland went out of print in 1983. But why is it featured in that 1984 ad I mentioned?

As for Tron, the video was 1983, because #1: The film was released in 1982, and #2: The 1983 video release of Tex has the same cover artwork style, no Walt Disney Home Video logo on the top, only on the spine.

Also, when was Tron repackaged in the case with the Mickey on the top? Because I saw it up for auction, and Disney was putting the videos in clamshell cases with a small WDHV logo on the top in 1985-86.

For Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, the original 1980 video release just plain says Davy Crockett. I have a 1980s copy, but I am not sure when it is from. It has a cardboard slipcover case, with a small WDHV logo on the top, but the tape master inside has the same style label that Disney videos from 1984 used (the WDHV logo between two red and orange lines with the words "HOME VIDEO" in a bubbly font). Do you suppose this is a rare variant? because in 1985, they switched to a label that used a bigger WDHV logo between blue lines. --Imax80 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of replies. In case you're wondering, I was away for a few days, so I'm sending replies now.  Here are three sepearrate replies in sections:

Alice in Wonderland

 * The Classics collection version of Alice in Wonderland was originally released in a cardboard slipsleeve and it was actually in late May 1986, and not in July. It might have been May 28, but I can't find that reference right now.


 * There was a set of 6 Classics available when Sleeping Beauty was released (fall 1986). Since they all should have been in the same style packaging and none of the others were in slipsleeves, there had to have been a new clamshell package for Alice at that time.  Chance are they would have used up the cardboard packages for singles until they ran out.


 * I already gave my opinion on that 1984 poster somewhere on Wikipedia. I believe it really is 1984 because it has the new logo WDHV started using around early 1984, but the covers on the poster all use the old Handel Gothic logo.  Alice was on sale in summer 1983 and they may have been wanting to sell off existing stocks.  Also, they were really pushing the CED discs and Laserdiscs for sell-through more than the cassettes at this time and Alice was still on disc.


 * I know it wasn't available because it was not in the "1984 mini catalog". That catalog came out in late 1983 because it has a 1983 copyright and a couple of titles are marked "RELEASE: NOVEMBER 1983". Canadiana 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tron

 * Tex and Tron are the first two pages of that "MINI-CAT '84". They were both released around October.  I know this from when they appeared on rental or sales charts that I saw years ago.  A major reason why the packaging is different for Tex and Tron (downplaying the Walt Disney logo) is that they were rated PG and Disney movies were never expected to be PG.


 * I'm not sure when Tron was re-packaged, but I guess it was at the same time that all the others were re-packaged. Canadiana 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Something Wicked this Way Comes also has no Disney logo on the front of it, on the original video release from late 1983. The Watcher in the Woods probably had the same problem too since it's original video release in 1981-82. --Imax80 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier

 * I don't believe that the original release of Davy Crockett didn't say "King of the Wild Frontier". I only have the second release (014-2), which has "King of the Wild Frontier" written much smaller than "Davy Crockett".  If you look on the back, at the end of the second line up from the bottom, I think you'll find that yours is "(014-3)".  Could you confirm that?


 * Both Davy Crockett movies in the cardboard slipsleeves with the green beveled border around the pictures on the front cover were released as part of the "Disney's Wonderland Sale" in the summer of 1986 (same time as Alice). This sale continued until after Christmas and I think your copy probably comes from that period.


 * The 014-3 release was replaced by 014-4 which is part of the "Studio Film Collection". I don't have time to go through my pile of stuff right now, but I may actually have the date for when that was released.


 * As for the label on your cassette, I don't think that is unusual at all. If they still had a supply of cassette labels in stock, they certainly didn't worry about throwing them all away and print up new ones just because they changed the packaging.  I think the whole point of the cardboard sleeves was to make them cheaper to produced and throwing away a stock of perfectly good tape labels seems counter-productive. Canadiana 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tex was 1984? The stock number reads 142VS, so that means "Return from Witch Mountain" was 1984 as well (stock number is 148VS). Yes, my Davy Crockett video has the green outline around the picture, although I have "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" in slipsleeve case, and it has a blue border. My "Return from Witch Mountain" tape is in a clamshell with the same design as those other two I have.

Yes, the cardboard cases were a cheap way. I have a large book called "Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation" and one section says that Disney switched to a lower price/higher volume strategy that proved wildly successful. Higher volume? Does this mean better video and audio quality?

The back of my Davy Crockett video does says 014-3, yes. But I saw the 1980 cover up for auction and all it said was in big letters "Davy Crockett," I couldn't see "King of the Wild Frontier." I have been watching my copy for a while, when the tape begins, the FBI screens are offscreen. When the movie itself starts, I see it slide quickly offscreen even a bit more. Does your copy do that? Look when it says "Walt Disney Presents."

Yes, I am well aware that the WDHV logo used Handel-Gothic font for "HOME VIDEO" because I saw this on 1984 video releases such as,"Winnie the Pooh and Friends," "The Gnome-Mobile," "Follow Me Boys," "The Incredible Journey," "Black Arrow," and a few others. Those were 1984 I believe.

Also, to close the comment, I am making a full list of Disney videos complete with release dates on a word proccessor. Do have you all the titles that hit video from 1981 to 1986. I know quite a lot of them, the first tape in 1981 was Dumbo (024) and the last tape in 1986 was I believe Flight of the Navigator.

--Imax80 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tex was October 1983, not 1984. Above #48, similarity in stock numbers doesn't guarantee anything about similarity of release dates. Borders came in blue, green, red, and orange. I think there might be a pattern (like comedies are red), but I'm not sure.


 * Higher volume means larger quantities of cassettes. They switched from smaller numbers of copies at $79.95 to larger quantities at $29.95 (later even lower).


 * I checked eBay earlier today and I could find no copies currently on sale that just said "Davy Crockett". I don't think it is likely that such exists, but I suppose it's not impossible.  As for the "sliding offscreen" I think it may be poor transfer to the videotape master.  My Kids is Kids picture doesn't go all the way to the right edge of the screen.  The blank part is normally hidden by overscan, but I was surpised when I tried to make a digital backup.  I'm sure it's poor mastering for that one.  I'll check my Davy Crockett later.


 * The Handel Gothic logo was used on everything from the beginning until sometime early in 1984. I think they may have used it a bit longer on the Cartoon Classics collection to keep them all consistent.


 * I have virtually all the titles, but I only have a printout right now, not a computer file. It took a lot of time to research and I don't want to give it away at the moment.  I have some dates, but certainly not all.  Flight of the Navigator was released January 27, 1987.  There are many titles of which I'm not sure whether they were after 1986 or not.  You can't go by the stock numbers. Canadiana 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the 1985 releases, Davy Crockett has a green border, so that must mean "adventure" and my "20,000 Leagues" print has a blue border, so that must mean "action" if you said "comedies were in red." I nhever saw any with ayellow or red border at all.

My Tex print is another story. When I got from a rental store that was closing and selling all its titles, it has no rating on it. A sticker on the tape says "Not Rated." I don't have Tron yet, but that probably doesn't have a rating.

My collection may have over 35 titles but it's really small for a WDHV collection. You can actually see my collection list on my user page.

It will expand once my birthday rolls around this Friday. I will spend some of my money on eBay and at tag sales. And I'll be sure to pick up a 1980 Davy Crockett video, and I could've sworn that I coudln't see "King of the Wild Frontier." It's on eBay being sold with "Davy Crockett and the River Pirates," just serach under "walt disney home video." It might have been sold. --Imax80 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bedknobs and Broomsticks also has a blue border. I'm really not sure there is any meaning to the border colour.  I'm just guessing that there might be.


 * Tron has no rating on it either, but both of them are listed as PG in imdb. The thing is that if Tron had a huge Walt Disney on the front, many people would assume that it was only suitable for small children and would not consider renting or buying it if they had no small children.


 * I've seen your collection list. I searched for Davy Crockett on eBay yesterday and I looked at every one that had a picture and wasn't River Pirates.  I didn't see any that had no "King of the Wild Frontier".  It might have been sold like you say. Canadiana 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Davy Crockett isn't the name of the item, it's "Two Walt Disney Home Videos" or something, there, you'll see the 1980-81 videos of DC. --Imax80 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've found it now. That would be the original release that came before my 014-2.  (Back then it wouldn't have been labelled 014-1.)  You're right that it only says "Davy Crockett" on the front but it's still Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier in reality.  Interesting. Canadiana 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, true, the name of the film is still "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier." --Imax80 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1982 Disney Video Promo Question
On eBay, I saw a 1982 WDHV promo, and on it was "Disney's American Summer Sale" or something like that. The video shown on the ad was hardly visible, so I am not sure what video it was. I saw a Mickey Mouse on the picture on the lower half of the video featured in the ad. Do you remember the promotion?

And also, I just got Robin Hood on Beta. --Imax80 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Summer of 1982 was before my time, so I don't remember it. I have a 1983 Canadian promo which involved Alice in Wonderland.  I'll be posting it on my blog soon.  That looks like an "all-American" campaign that's been "translated" to Canadian.  It's actually possible that it ran the year before in the United States.  I seem to remember a Disney rep telling me that once long ago.


 * In 1982, though, it wouldn't have been a sale on Alice. I've seen reference to a sale on Dumbo which would have been summer 1982 probably.


 * As for the Mickey Mouse on the lower half of the video, that has me puzzled. I you sure he was on the video cover?  Is this something currently on eBay, or something you saw a long time ago? Canadiana 02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw it recently. As for the video, it was probably a compilation. --Imax80 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Disney DVD Question about The Wild
I have the new Disney DVD release of The Wild but the film is not really Disney, but it's by C.O.R.E Feature Film, which is based in Toronto, Canada. There is no C.O.R.E logo in the opening, and I didn't see it on the credits. I am sure C.O.R.E's credit should be in there, because I saw the film in theaters and I have the DVD. --Imax80 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's kind of strange isn't it? Aaron Wallace's Review at Ultimate Disney strongly objects to it being called Disney's 46th animated classic on the European packaging.  Since it says, "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" that indicates that it is released by Disney but not produced by Disney.  As I understand it, Disney actually hired C.O.R.E. to do the production, but it may have been their idea and their money behind it. C.O.R.E. should definitely be mentioned somewhere.  I don't know why they wouldn't be.  I haven't seen it yet.  I think it's currently playing in Imax 3-D, and I was considering it, but I really want to see Nightmare Before Christmas on Imax.


 * In other news, despite my earlier guess that Cars might not be listed as "Walt Disney Home Entertainment" on DVD, the press release clearly shows it as a WDHE release. Canadiana 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly reccomend The Wild. Do not listen to moronic critics calling it a rip-off of Madagascar. I still imensely enjoyed that film, but it had its flaws, but I thought The Wild was perfectly flawless. Steve "Spaz" Williams has been trying to write it since 1991, that several years before Madagascar, Finding Nemo, and Madagascar, like all the critics say it's a rip-off of. I happen to be a reviewer on IMDb.com under the name macmillen and I gave The Wild a 10 as I gave the competitor a 9.5.

And the animation in The Wild is stunning and extremely realistic, and Cars has extremely excellent animation too. One critic rudely said that The Wild has cheap animation slummed out of a budget can. No it wasn't, for a few seconds, I thought I was looking at live-action animals and how can it be cheap if the production cost was $80 million? That's more than Madagascar that cost $75 million.

I reccomend The Wild if you like Disney and animation. And see Nightmare Before Christmas as well, I may see it myself because I also like that movie a lot. I don't think The Wild is theaters in Canada anymore because Domestic Box Office gross is USA and Canada, and according to Box Office Mojo, it's done. The DVD is probably out in Canada.

All I can say is that The Wild is original and it is pretty funny, and as a teenager, I enjoyed it all the way through. I think the best part is the animation itself. --Imax80 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the Imax movie I was thinking of was Open Season (animated, wild animals, somewhat similar theme). It's Sony's first animated feature, but it look pretty good.  I've bought about 10 DVDs in the last 2 months, so I have to cut down.  I'll wait till I can get a used The Wild.  Being a Canadian, I really have to support Canadian animation production.


 * The closest theatre showing Imax Nightmare is a two-hour drive for me and I've got a really bad cold so I'm up to a four-hour round trip. I hope it suns for at least a week, then I'll see it. Canadiana 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw Open Season. I reccomend that too. I give it a 9.7. If you think it looks good, definitely see it, because I thought that and I was satisified. You can watch The Wild on youtube.com. It's split into eight parts. But it would be better just seeing it on DVD because the files on youtube are a bootleg copy. --Imax80 02:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney Classics
I have a good question, the 1985 Classics editions of Dumbo and Pinocchio have the diamond logo inside the clamshell molded in plastic. But Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone don't have it. Was thise because Dumbo and Pinocchio were 1985 and were older than Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone or was it an experiment they tried. I have a 1985 Pinocchio copy and the packaging has the Classic logo inside the clamshell. --Imax80 18:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have 3 Robin Hood covers, Beta English, Beta French, and VHS English, and all of them have the diamond logo molded into the inside of the clamshell. My Sword in the Stone and Sleeping Beauty are in white Beta clamshells.  After that the Beta movies all came in VHS-sized clamshells.  I don't think there was ever a black clamshell for Beta Sword.


 * I wouldn't classify the molded logo as an "experiment". It was just the usual thing until they changed the packaging later on. Canadiana 20:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a Sword black clamshell on Beta. There numerous copies on eBay. A friend of mine who has Robin Hood says the case didn't have the diamond inside it. Beta English of Robin Hood is coming to me in the mail, so I'll see what mine has. But how can a Beta cassette fit in a VHS sized case. What do the interiors look like? Because from the outside, they are large enough to fit a VHS. I guess there is extra room for the Beta cassette.

What made "The Classics" series so special to have the diamond in there? Oh, and if you need to know, the black clamshell of Sword has a different style spine. On the spine of Robin Hood, it says "Walt Disney Productions" and the diamond is on the bottom. Pinocchio and Dumbo have the WDHV logo on the top. Dumbo has a diamond on the spine, but Pinocchio doesn't. Sword has the text "WALT DISNEY'S" and the diamond on the bottom says "The Classics" and "Walt Disney Home Video." Do you have the black clamshell of Dumbo? I am really trying to get my hands on it. It's my favorite WDHV release.

Oh, what is the oldest Disney video you own? Mine is Alice in Wonderland (10/18/82) --Imax80 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to not answer questions here that really should be written into the articles. I'm going to try to put some stuff into the articles sometime today and you can read it there.  I won't have time to put in all the references, but those can be filled in later.


 * The VHS clamshells Disney used after they stopped making separate Beta packaging, have a hub. One of the reels of the Beta cassette fits over the hub and that's how it's held in place.  It jiggles a little bit and it can rotate slightly from side to side, but it's more or less held in place.


 * For the cardboard slipsleeves there is a cardboard insert that adapts the smaller size of the Beta cassette.


 * My copy of Sword is just as you describe, but it's in a white clamshell with a full sleeve open at the top. Canadiana 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw a variant like that on eBay. The spine had the same design as the black clamshells. My Sword copy has the usual design on the spine, with the Classics logo on top, with the WDHV print next to it. And the character profile in the diamond, which they started doing in late 1986 when all the titles were released in that $170 box set you mentioned. Can I find this box set anywhere? --Imax80 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was an expensive item. I don't suppose they sold very many. Canadiana 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've explained to you before, I have no cassette copy of Dumbo at all, only DVD. Canadiana 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you used to have Dumbo on video. I have 3 copies of Dumbo on VHS, the 1986 release, the 1991 release, and the original video release (sale). --Imax80 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In our store we had Dumbo, but probably not in the black case. They still sold the old cases till they ran out and most stores probably already had it and there was a limited demand at that time since a the number of people who had VCRs was still fairly small. Canadiana 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a sale copy of Winnie the Pooh with a 4/8/82 sticker, but I don't think that's my oldest Disney video. I think my oldest Disney video is a copy of Bedknobs and Broomsticks which was originally a "For rental only not for sale". After its rental period, it was returned to Disney and after being quality tested, was repackaged as a "For sale only not intended for rental."  I have one other ex-rental converted to a sale cassette, but it's Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck Cartoon Collections, Volume 3 and I don't think it's as old. Canadiana 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's too late to add stuff to the articles tonight. I really have to go to bed, but I'll try to do it soon. Canadiana 03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How did Disney rentals in 1980 do? I bet it did well enogun to encourage Disney to market more titles and do sales. --Imax80 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it did okay. They never really said.  Anyway, the world didn't end after they released a few titles, so they tried releasing some more after that.  I think the sale tapes started fairly early in the process, but it's hard to say exactly when. Canadiana 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dumbo video release history
This is what I know about Dumbo.

It was packaged in the blue rental cases in the fall of 1981 and kept there for a while with the stock number (024-1), then it was released in the white clamshell in the summer of 1982 with the "FOR SALE ONLY NOT INTENDED FOR RENTAL WARNING" on the tape label and the back of the cover. It was priced at $84.95 USD and remained like that until the spring of 1985. It was repackaged and unofficially put in "The Classics" line with hardly any "Classics" promotion surrounding it and it was for $29.95. Then it put into the white clamshell in Oct. 14, 1986 when all the classics were put in that $170 box set. Then it was reprinted in 1988 and released alongside Cinderella and went out of print in 1989, and repackaged in the blue cover and then a new tape master was put in it for a 1991 promotion, this is the version without the label. Then it was dropped in 1995, although the "Masterpiece" edition was out in October 1994. I bet I missed a lot and why Dumbo was intended to be the first on video?

Maybe because they said they would never release Snow White on video, and for some reason put Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland on video in 1981, although Alice had a theatrical re-release in 1981. Dumbo's last re-release in theaters would be in 1976. And also, why were the animated features in blue cases while every other feature was in a white case with artwork? --Imax80 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All Disney's rental titles (not just animated movies) were in blue clamshells while the sale copies were in white clamshells, until they finally gave up the rental-only and sale-only categories in the domestic market. In most other countries, there are still rental-only and sale-only cassettes and DVDs, but the U.S. first sale doctrine makes this unenforceable in the U.S.


 * I'm pretty sure that Dumbo was repackaged for the "Making your dreams come true" promotion ( October 14 December 1, 1995 1985). The new packaging for Tron (with the white border around the front cover) was also almost certainly released as part of this promotion. Canadiana 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * October 1995? Dumbo hit the Masterpiece line in 1994. Oh wait, Tron with the white border was in the mid 1980s. Did you mean 1985?


 * As of other countries, on a Finnish site I went to, the writer said Disney videos were for rental only from the 1980s to the early 1990s.


 * So the Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland were in white clamshells back in 1981? But they would say "For Rental Only Not For Sale," am I right?


 * Well I am awaiting the black clamshell version of Dumbo in the mail. I just got it off eBay for $25. Hope it arrives soon, it's my favorite WDHV release. Maybe that's why I found it important a while ago. --Imax80 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant 1985, not 1995. I keep getting the 1980s and 1990s mixed up.


 * Oh, so the Classics edition of Dumbo was October 1985, not December. --Imax80 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm not getting the 1980s mixed up with the 1990s, I'm getting 1985 mixed up with 1986. The 1985 Christmas promotion really did start December 1, 1985 and not in October.  Sorry about that.


 * White cases = sale only; blue cases = rental only. The idea was to make it very obvious if a dealer was illegally renting out sale-only copies.  Other studios had their own systems.  MGM/CBS put their rental-only cassettes in red cassette shells. Warner had red for VHS and blue for Beta rental-only cassettes (in certain test cities). Canadiana 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dumbo and Alice were never for sale back in 1981? Why? All the others were for sale. --Imax80 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that they were the only ones that were rental-only and not for sale at that time. Probably because they were afraid that nobody would ever go to see them in the theatre again if they had their own copies.  By only putting them out for rent, Disney could be sure that they were only temporarily available to home users (assuming nobody copied them). Other titles were not re-issued in theatres, so they weren't so much of a risk. Canadiana 06:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True, because there were several theatrical re-issues after 1981. But since Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland weren't reissued after 1981, they then put them for sale in 1982 I guess, because they were done with re-issues of those two films the videos remained as general releases. Winnie the Pooh was released in 1982 for sale because that was a current feature film. Also, the reason they wanted to put the animated titles for rental only was because their live-action films weren't as successful as their animated classics (Tron and Devil and Max Devlin were flops) However, he other videos would hit stores after their last theatrical re-release, let's put it this way.

Pinocchio may have had been re-released in 1984 and the video following it in 1985, but it's actual last reissue was in 1992, which was the restored version, and less people went to see that then the 1984 re-release.

Robin Hood had its final re-release in 1982, so the video came out in 1984. The Sword in the Stone had its last re-release in 1983, and then released on video in 1986, and kept there and stayed in print since then.

However, the limited releases such as Sleeping Beauty and Lady and the Tramp were released after their 1986 theatrical re-releases. It all makes sense.

By the way, I remember you mentioned that when Dumbo was repackaged in 85, you were wondering who would buy the last white clamshell ones on the shelf. Did they end up selling so you could get the black clamshell? --Imax80 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever bought those last white clamshells until after they stopped making the black ones so I never did get the black one. I probably could have gotten one in VHS, but I wanted Beta. Canadiana 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I am still awaiting my Dumbo in a black clamshell in the mail. --Imax80 19:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just got it. --Imax80 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Highway 12
I think you misunderstood the succession box on this article. It's not noting the north and south termini of the entire highway, just the portion which is considered part of the Trans-Canada Highway. Bearcat 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did misunderstand it and I as a casual reader I never would have guessed what it is trying to say. Something is preceded and succeeded by Hwys. 400 and 7, respectively.  Without either mind-reading or comparing several other TCH articles, I couldn't have guessed what is preceded and succeeded.  It isn't the TCH, "TCH ON Highway 12" (in its most literal reading), or even "ON Highway 12" actually.  It's really only part of Hwy. 12 (the part that is included in the TCH).


 * In my opinion, it needs something to make it clear that "Trans-Canada Highway" refers to all three highways that are mentioned. This is my attempt to demonstrate what I am thinking of: User:Canadiana/Sandbox2.


 * It neeeds a new template of some kind and I couldn't see that any current ones are suitable, so I made a new one. I tried to keep it general (I was thinking 's-head', but I hard-coded a background colour into it.  It's probably just as well to put the text into it as well, then it could be 's-tch', put a long name is probably preferable.


 * Any thoughts on this? Canadiana 22:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything that improves the clarity of the box is a good thing; if you were confused by it, I'm willing to bet that other people were (or will be), too. So it's probably worth taking to the Canadian discussion board; in fact, I'll post it there for input right now. Bearcat 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't really sure where the best place to discuss it would be, so I appreciate your pointing it out to the Canadian discussion board. Canadiana 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Packaging Notes
Robin Hood was the first classics release, and yet one of the most different because of its packaging. The heading says "Walt Disney Productions'" because the film came out in 1973, after Disney's death in 1966. The other titles would have the heading Walt Disney's or Disney's (although I saw a Sword print with the heading Walt Disney's). Classics releases post-1987 said Walt Disney's Classic for pre-1968 features and A Walt Disney Classic for post-1968 features.

In 1984, regular WDHVs had the HOME VIDEO font changed to a different font rather than the old style back in the early 1980s.

Original Classics releases had the diamond on the bottom of the spine (except for Pinocchio). My 1984 Robin Hood Beta print has this, and so should my 1985 Dumbo VHS that's arriving soon. However, in 1986, they changed to having the diamond on the top and WDHV below, and a diamond showing the character's face on the bottom. Other WDHVs didn't have this until the 1990s.

Also, just realized my 1984 Robin Hood VHS has the picture offscreen like my Davy Crockett video, yet this one doesn't snip offscreen or onscreen. You can tell by watching the FBI warnings and 1984 Classics intro, and you see that the credits are a bit off.

Interesting factor. --Imax80 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Shareholders voted to change the name from "Walt Disney Productions" to "The Walt Disney Company" on February 6, 1986, so any post-1968 movies released on video after that would not have been appropriately labelled "Walt Disney Productions" anymore.


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "offscreen". My Robin Hoods are in Beta and I don't have a Beta machine right now, so I don't know if there's anything unusual about them.


 * What I just realized was that even though Walt Disney Home Video only recently became Walt Disney Home Entertainment, Kids is Kids has an animated on-screen Walt Disney Home Entertainment logo. Do any of your videos have this? Canadiana 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have 3 videos containing that logo, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, and Tex. All video and Discovision releases from 1978 to 1983 contained this logo. The script for Walt Disney is in his signature font. You asked the right person, I study practically everything on those tapes from FBI warnings to logos even. --Imax80 19:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Skymac
I've blocked 24.53.5.165 for 30 days for making personal attacks; if any other accounts of his pop up and cause trouble, let me know. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PG rated Disney movies
When Tron, Tex, and Something Wicked this Way Comes hit video stores in '83, there was no mention of Disney on the front covers and no ratings either.

But the Tron release with the white border shows the PG rating on the back, maybe this is because Touchstone started to release PG and PG-13 movies when they were with Disney, and produced Down and Out in Beverly Hills which was rated R.

Is this true? --Imax80 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not mentioning Disney on the front was mainly to attract older viewers. Teenagers interviewed about this time said they wouldn't be caught dead at a Disney movie, but they would take their kids to one when they had kids later on.  Nobody above the age of 10-12 wanted to be seen anywhere near a Disney film, so they partially or completely hid the Disney name on teen- and adult-oriented films.


 * Disney CEO Ron Miller also was very nervous about Disney PG-rated films and was totally opposed to R-rated films. He told a magazine, "The day Disney makes an R-rated film is the day I leave the company."  BY the time they made Down and Out in Beverly Hills he was already gone from the company.


 * This is the main reason that Disney started the "Touchstone Pictures" brand, and later the "Holywood Pictures" brand; to be able to make teen- and adult-oriented movies without using the Disney name.


 * I'm not really sure why they didn't print ratings on the packaging, then started to print them later. As members of the MPAA, they were required to list MPAA ratings on their films and theatrical posters and advertising.  It could be that the MPAA got after them to make sure they were using it on their video packaging as well. Canadiana 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
Just wondering, but what is your e-mail address? Because I want to send a good picture of my video collection to you. Would that be neccesary? --Imax80 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer to stay anonymous here and not to post my e-mail address. Upload your picture to YouSendIt (just send it to yourself; you don't have to fill in who it's from) and post the link here. Canadiana 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried that site, it wouldn't let me. I tried everything else and it would'nt work because of my wretched computer and it's really driving me mad. I guess I can't show you my collection, it's all thanks to my darned computer. --Imax80 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it takes a very long time. You just have to wait.  Other sites you can use are MegaUpload and RapidShare. Canadiana 22:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)