Talk:Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

message: Shouldn't this article change its name to Buena Vista Home Entertainment in order to better reflect the video/DVD business of the entire Walt Disney Company, rather than to only focus on the Disney-branded stuff?RicJac 23:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change article name to Buena Vista Home Entertainment 

message: The FBI warnings should have their own article along with other FBI warnings of other home video divisions. Imax80
* Um, no. The logos are barely notable enough for an article; video FBI warnings are definitely not. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Also, this page is intended for discussing the article, not logos and whatnot. I've deleted all comments that aren't related to the article. —tregoweth (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBIs should have their own article 

message: This page is intended for discussing the Walt Disney Home Entertainment article. If you want to compare your various video collections, please find an appropriate discussion area somewhere else. This is not the place for that. —tregoweth —tregoweth (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a message board for discussing logos or videos. 

message: I think we should ad more trivia to this article. Imax80
:There is already too much trivia.  Good articles do not contain lists of trivia.  They should be put into sentences and incorporated into paragraphs in the main article text.  Trivia usually causes negative votes for Good Article or Featured Article status discussions. Canadiana 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more trivia 

message: I am confused because when the videos come out, they have a stock number. The initial video release of Pete's Dragon has the stock number 10 VS, that's the lowest Disney stock number I've seen. Does that make it the first video? Imaxination 80 --Imax80 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 10 is the lowest stock number, so Pete's Dragon was the first title for Walt Disney Home Video, though I'm fairly sure it was one of several titles shipped on that day. Canadiana 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock Numbers 

message: Have a look at this:
http://images5.theimagehosting.com/dis1.GIF
http://images5.theimagehosting.com/dis2.jpg
Can anyone help me? As these are not the covers the "Black Diamond" series had.
--The Track Master 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would guess so, but I don't definitely know. —tregoweth (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course the Classic movies were released in the UK.  Who said they weren't?  Since all those pictures include UK ratings symbols on them, they are definitely UK videos. Canadiana 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: Talk:Logos of The Walt Disney Company - Strictly Logos
My private forum. --The Track Master 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at this 

message: When the Brother Bear DVD came out in April 2004, the discs were just like the November 4 Finding Nemo release. Was Disney trying to be Pixar? I couldn't resist asking. Imax80 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, but what I do know is "why the heck did they do that?". --The Track Master 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why did they do that?" Why did they do what? Canadiana 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In what way were the discs like Finding Nemo?  Disney owns Pixar and Disney has released all of Pixar's movies to date, so any configuration of Pixar DVDs to date was Disney's doing anyway. Canadiana 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Disney owns Pixar now, but all the Pixar feature movies have been distributed by Disney from the beginning.  They can't be copying Pixar, because Disney's Buena Vista Home Entertainment designed the Finding Nemo DVD in the first place. Besides that, the "Vista Series" release of Who Framed Roger Rabbit already used a similar configuation in 1993.  One disk has the "full screen" version with special features that appeal to children, while the other one has the wide-screen version with special features that appeal to adult collectors. Canadiana 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney being Pixar 

message: The first titles released on October 1980, can we please get the day they came out?  Imax80 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer, but I would like to remind you to please sign your posts on talk pages.  Thanks!  Powers T 15:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's official: October 21, 1980 (sale) and March 4, 1980 (rental). --Ryanasaurus0077 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October ??, 1980 

message: I am fairly sure that there were two cassettes from the mid-1980s that were a predecessor to Disney's Sing-Along-Songs. They were DTV: Rock, Rhythm, and Blues, and the other one was DTV: Golden Oldies. Imax80 21:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were five: three in 1984 and two more in 1985.  There is an article at D-TV.  They're not at all the same kind of thing as Sing Along Songs. DTV was non-Disney popular music with Disney visuals. Canadiana 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally saw some footage from those tapes. Were they by any chance intended to be hit sellers? Because I don't remember hearing any popular thing about D-TV. Imax80 02:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were intended to be hit sellers.  Actually, they were the main focus of the WDHV's Christmas ad campaign for 1994.  I don't know how they sold.  They didn't sell very well for us in Canada, where I think many people had never heard of MTV at the time and didn't really "get it". Canadiana 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor to Sing Along Songs 

message: We need it so we can remove the cite source tab. Imax80 01:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, we need to know where the December 16, 1978 date comes from.  The Blam site, which is cited, and which most of the rest of the DiscoVision information comes from, says that all the Disney DiscoVision titles were released in 1979.  The first batch of DiscoVision players went on sale December 15, 1979, and were sold out within an hour or so.  Were the first Disney titles actually available the next day, or did DiscoVision begin releasing them in the new year?  (Blam is possibly basing their information on which catalogues titles appeared in.) Canadiana 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the DiscoVision releases 

message: I removed the letters on the end of the initial release stock numbers because the ones listed only applied to the VHS and not the Beta tapes and because I think the "S" may stand for sale and was not necessarily on the "rental-only" tapes.  Many stock numbers also end in "F" but I'm not sure why. After the "S" designation was discontinued, the "sale only, rental prohibited" tapes ended in "VF" and "BF" for two years or so before the "F" was dropped (and the "rental prohibited" notice). Canadiana 05:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have been half asleep when I wrote that because it's kind of confusing.  Actually, what I meant was that the "sale only" notices disappeared two years before they stopped the "F" (and possibly the "S") labelling. Canadiana 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VS, VF, BS, BF on the end of stock numbers 

message: Should we include them in the article? Becuase Disney leads home video sales because The Lion King sold 55 million copies, Finding Nemo with 25 million, and Toy Story with 79 million. Imax80 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best-selling releases? 

message: I don't like having the list of notable releases here.  I think it would be better in its own article.    The problem is that the list is bigger than the article already and it is probably getting bigger.... Canadiana 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move list of notable releases 

message: Hi, folks.  I'd do this myself but I'm short on time.  All those dates in this article need to be wikilinked.  Powers T 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As things stand, I agree, but given the "proposal to move list of notable releases" above and the discussion currently taking place at Talk:List of Walt Disney video releases, I think wikilinking the dates at the moment is premature.  If the list is moved as I'm proposing, the dates may have to be in a different format anyway.  See the discussion there and leave your comments. Canadiana 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilink dates! 

message: The amount of missing citations is ridiculous; most of this is common knowledge. Also, why delete a new section? If it needs more information add it, don’t delete the section that needs help. This page is all about Walt Disney Home Entertainment, so why does it stop at 1985? Why is everyone against expanding it passed 1985? 
Until recently this was the last paragraph
July 16, 1985 saw the home video premiere of Pinocchio ($79.95). After the price was lowered to $29.95 in late 1985 to encourage more consumer sales, Pinocchio became the bestselling video of that year. The prices on other videos available at the time had their price reduced to $29.95 as well.
That makes no sense, last time I checked it was 2007. I have tried to add information but I need help. I don’t want to sound like a whiney lazy person, but I am trying, and no disrespect to anyone. 53180 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: :Image:Kidnapped on DiscoVision.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kidnapped on DiscoVision.jpg

message: :Image:Pete's Dragon front cover (1980 release).JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pete's Dragon front cover (1980 release).JPG

message: :Image:Robin Hood front cover (1984 release).JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Robin Hood front cover (1984 release).JPG

message: Here's something completely esoteric: I have a copy of The Adventures Continue: SuperTed III (752 V) and on the tape label, it says "(C) MCMLXXXIII Kit Parker Films" and "Character Art (C) Walt Disney Productions". Kit Parker has nothing to do w/ SuperTed; the back of the box says "(C) MCMLXXXIV Petalcraft Demonstrations Ltd. and S4C". Obviously, as far as the Kit Parker copyright goes, some boob left the copyright line for The Fabulous Fleischer Folio on the printer when the labels for SuperTed III were made. Just weird, that's all. --99.167.195.150 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre label error 

message: The image :Image:The Black Hole cover (1980 release).JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:The Black Hole cover (1980 release).JPG

message: There have been multiple reports reliable sources covering Disney Second Screen. Being reported on by these sources establishes notability, and while this technology/feature doesn’t yet warrant its own section, its inclusion would be beneficial under the “Disney Blu-ray” section of this article to ensure comprehensive (though not overly-detailed) descriptions of the subject of this article. I would like to point out that Disney is a client of my company, so I understand this may be a potential conflict of interest. In order to make for a clear visualization, there is a draft saved in sandbox: User:HipJorge/Bambi – are there any thoughts/input on implementing these edits? HipJorge (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "Second Screen" 

message: I have some sources that indicate "The Sword in the Stone" was actually first available on March 25, 1986. This calender indicates that the 24th is Monday, and I was taught by my good friends (Imax80 and Ryanasaurus0077) that they don't ever release anything to home video on Monday, but rather the next day on Tuesday. So, that's why "The Sword in the Stone" is the 25th, not the 24th. Here's the link that confirms it:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1986&country=1
Plus, I found another link that confirms that the new Blu-Ray release of "Dumbo" will be out in either May or June this year, take a look:
http://www.dvdizzy.com/disneybluraylist.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.233.32.44 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Studio releases are generally on Tuesdays or Fridays in the US - however, studios have been known to use other dates if it suits them, such as after or before holidays. However, some international markets have different release dates. So, unless you have specific references for specific release dates, please stop edit-warring over them. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention, Everyone! 

message: Hey everyone, I think we should add another section after the "Disney Blu-ray" section called "Combo Packs". The DVD/Blu-Ray Combo Packs come in one of two forms. The first form is a DVD and a Blu-Ray. The second is a DVD or Blu-Ray plus a digital download (through a program like iTunes). Ever since 2008, Disney has been releasing Combo Packs. According to Disney, the idea behind the Combo Packs is to satisfy the needs of viewers that either only have a DVD player or only have a Blu-ray player. Basically they can knock out two birds with one stone and don't have to worry about people not buying the release because of format issues. Liberman Research Worldwise actually did a poll that shows that 77% of consumers polled think a Combo Pack is a better value than an individual DVD or Blu-ray. Don't mean to ramble, but just wanted to give ample reasoning and to help establish notability.
Here's a draft of what I think the section could look like (in my sandbox), thoughts? HipJorge (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combo Pack 

message: Question about whether or not this article should include a better discussion of what parts of the Disney Animated Canon have been released on Blu-ray. By my count, thirteen have popped up so far - Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Princess and the Frog and Tangled. So therefore should this be expanded upon in the article, in the same manner that the above discussion about the DVDs has? Acepilot.--220.245.88.155 (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray Releases 

message: In the Walt Disney Home Video logo in 1986. What song was it called to the synthed logo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.237.145 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1986 Walt Disney Home Video logo theme song 

message: Starting with Disney's classic film Sleeping Beauty: Diamond Edition, Disney DVDs do have BD Live.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney DVD with Disney BD Live 

message: It’s the 40th anniversary of Disney releasing Pete’s Dragon on VHS! Esaïe Prickett (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 40th anniversary

message: My opinion that the limited information on the Buena Vista (brand) article could easily fit into the Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment article. The opening line of the latter being: "Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., doing business as Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, is the home entertainment distribution arm of The Walt Disney Company." This gives me the impression that the Buena Vista (brand) article is a redundancy of the Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment article. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Buena Vista is not limited to Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. It is a brand name that has been used by Disney throughout its various company divisions. In addition to Buena Vista Home Entertainment, the name is currently used by Buena Vista Theatrical and Buena Vista International, neither of which are related to Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Oppose per Jedi94's statements above. It doesn't help that Disney's first use of the Buena Vista brand was actually for its theatrical distributor Buena Vista Film Distribution Company (presently known as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures) in 1953, decades before the home video division was even founded. IceWalrus236 (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 2 December 2020 

message: source 5 in this article is a dead link. what could be done about this? what should be done about this? i honestly have no clue i made this account 10 minutes ago just to tell someone about this. it's a dire situation --Official ALDI Account (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About source 5 

message: ‘’Lady and the Tramp’’, ‘’101 Dalmatians’’, ‘’The Jungle Book’’ and ‘’The Little Mermaid’’ on DVD were not included in the Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection line and ‘’Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’’, ‘’Bambi’’, ‘’Cinderella’’, ‘’Sleeping Beauty’’, ‘’Beauty and the Beast’’, ‘’Aladdin’’ and ‘’The Lion King’’ were never released on DVD in 2000 and these were not included in the Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection line.
’’Fantasia and Fantasia 2000’’, ‘’Make Mine Music’’, ‘’Melody Time’’, ‘’Fun and Fancy Free’’, ‘’The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr. Toad’’, ‘’The Rescuers’’ and ‘’The Rescuers Down Under’’, ‘’The Hunchback of Notre Dame’’, ‘’Hercules’’, ‘’Atlantis: The Lost Empire’’, ‘’Treasure Planet’’, ‘’Brother Bear’’ and ‘’Home on the Range’’ on DVD were not included in the Walt Disney Platinum Editions line. 2604:3D09:567F:3B00:38F9:6386:D53F:3D49 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Included Disney Animated Films on DVD in the line