From: mikkelson@breakr.enet.dec.com (snopes)
Subject: Re: pinocchio
Organization: Salivation Army
Distribution: rec
Date: 22 JUL 92 07:27:15    


In article <19430@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, 
  gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes...

> good - I hope they don't even make that. Screw them and their stupid video
>policy. This myth that they are somehow allowed to milk their product in
>anyway they choose and the public should simply sit back and drink it
>up is assinine.

My, my, aren't we filled with vitriol today.  Why shouldn't they be allowed
the "milk" their product any way they choose?  After all, it's their product.
If you don't want to watch the movie or buy the video, then don't -- it's as
simple as that.

>Someone please explain to me why I should pay 6$-7$ to see this film rather 
>then wait a couple months and see it at the 1$-$2.50 theaters, particularly 
>since I can go down to the local video store and rent it for 99 cents.... 

You could say the same thing about virtually any film.  You can pay $6-7 to see
it right away in a modern, comfortable theater, or you can wait a few months
and pay $2-$3 to see it in a small, old theater, or you can wait a few more
months to rent it for $1.  The choice is yours.  Obviously, many people prefer
seeing films, even re-released ones, in nice theaters, or Disney re-releases
wouldn't continually draw millions of ticket buyers.  Disney is a business,
after all -- why should they give up millions of dollars in ticket sales?  If
the public didn't want to see the movies, they wouldn't go.  Nobody's forcing
them into the theaters at gunpoint.

>OH MY!!! I thought they needed to wait until there was some significant
>advance in video technology before they'd re-release their films on
>video - what a pile of sh*t. 

"Pinocchio" has been extensively restored, and the upcoming video release will
be of far better quality than the first one.  Of course, I'm sure you're so
cynical as to think that they deliberately released a poorer quality product
the first time around in order to dupe the public into buying it twice.

>hmmm... could this perhaps have to do with the fact that it was already
>released on video and many of us have seen it a million times and think that
>blowing another $6 to see it again is stupid?

Then don't see it.  Obviously many people *don't* think it's stupid, or it
wouldn't have grossed over $15 million in its first three weeks.  

> No don't - don't support their idea that they can live off the past *over
>and over again* every 7-10 years. They are producing quality films and can 
>should survive off that quality along with the sales of yet to be released
>videos rather than releasing the films for limited periods of time.

Yes, and please don't go to Disneyland, where they live off the past over and
over again.  Wait until they raze the park and build all new rides, instead of
foisting the same old rides on us time after time.

Honestly, where do you come up with this crap?  Who are you to dictate how
anyone else should run their business?  Who are you to tell them they *have* to
release their films on video?  Like it or not, Disney is a *business*, and
businesses exist to make profits.  Obviously, they feel their current handling 
of their films is the best way to maximize profits.  If their policy were the 
total rip-off you claim it is, nobody would be buying their videos or watching 
their films.  How about if they never released anything on video at all?  Would
that make you happy?

>I'll be damned if I'll pay $6.50 a head to see Pinnochio or say 
>"Lady and the Tramp" when I can watch them both for nothing as it is.... 
>like they need the money....

If you can watch them for nothing, then you truly have nothing to complain
about.  Just watch them and stay out of the theaters.

 - snopes

+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                                   WARNING
| This signature under pressure.  Do not use or store near heat or open flame.
| Do not puncture or incinerate container.  Exposure to temperatures above
| 130F may cause bursting.
|
| +  David Mikkelson  Digital Equipment Corporation, Culver City, CA  USA  +
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney