Disney's Hercules (Live-Action)

[Farerb]

All I'm thinking about is if Disney does everything with the Fab-4, where are Aladdin 3D and its Legacy Collection album?

[EricJ]

All I'm thinking about is if Disney does everything with the Fab-4, where are Aladdin 3D

It was probably in line after Little Mermaid, we'll never know--But after Monsters, Inc. 3D flopped at the box office (probably because they'd already announced it for disc ), Disney bailed on Mermaid 3D, dumped it on Blu-ray, and tried a "Cellphone interactive" theatrical re-release instead. Which did even worse, and got them out of the Theatrical-rerelease game for a while.
At least Beauty and Lion King got theirs.

But then again, Mermaid never got an 00's IMAX re-release either, after one of the others flopped, and they abandoned the ready Aladdin IMAX. (Either Beauty or LK, can't remember.)

[Ben]

Aladdin had been prepped for Imax release, which is the basis for the current Blu and 4K discs, but never made it to 3D after B&TB and LK flopped in Imax reissue and their retrofit program stopped. In 3D it went in reverse: LK came first, but then they had announced B&TB for disc, and I think it had may even *made* it to disc when they issued it in theatres, which obviously resulted in a flop and cancelled Mermaid's 3D reissue. Although it would have followed, Aladdin was either never started or was never finished as a 3D title.

[EricJ]

but then they had announced B&TB for disc, and I think it had may even *made* it to disc when they issued it in theatres, which obviously resulted in a flop and cancelled Mermaid's 3D reissue.

Just FTR, it was Monsters--Monsters Inc. had to be retrofitted for 3D to bring it in line with Monsters U, but when the fact that it was already coming to disc basically hamstrung its box office before it even opened, the flop made big wishful headlines with the 3D-Luddites that wanted to ban the discs, and the resulting stink convinced Disney their Lion King 3D days were over.
Beauty had already been on disc for two years, but got a minor release since LK's novelty hadn't worn off yet.

[Farerb]

It makes sense that the 4K is based on this, since they have the same aspect ratio, but why did the previous Blu-ray was 1.85?

[Ben]

Aladdin was shot to a 1.66 neg, as were all the 90s Disneys, but it was always intended to be seen at 1.85.

1.66 offers two benefits: it can be cropped top and bottom for a standard 1.85 presentation theatrically, and then opened up and cropped left and right for a narrower 1.33 TV transfer for video on what were then 4:3 screens.

The LaserDiscs of the time swapped between these ratios: Aladdin was 1.66, but Lion King preserved the 1.85 masking. All the films were shot to be "protected" at 1.85, and this is really how we should view them, although in recent times there’s been a bit of a fixation on seeing the entire frame of a neg, so things have shifted in that direction. My understanding is that the previous 1.85 Aladdin finally preserved the theatrical frame but when they went back to create the 4K from the Imax version, they naturally opened it up to the taller ratio and then just stuck with that. I was surprised Aladdin got a 1.85 presentation at all, but it was nice to see, after years of the slightly less epic-looking 1.66.

[Farerb]

I agree about the aspect ratios (though personally I would have liked to see Aladdin in 1.78 for consistency's sake), that's why I'm not bothered by the 1.75 AR of TJB and TSitS, just because there's more empty background images doesn't mean we need to see them (you lose all the focus on the characters and they appear relatively small compared to other films).

Anyway, what I know is that for TLK and BatB (and probably Mulan) they just upscaled the previous masters (you can tell by the same mistakes and changes appearing in the films again in 4K), so I understood from this that Aladdin went through the same process, only with the previous 1.66 master instead of the 1.85 one. But perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't know why Aladdin would get this treatment and the others don't (especially BatB which has the faultier master out of the three).

[Ben]

All the Disney’s from Sleeping Beauty on were designed to be 1.85, or even 1.75, protected, although they were shot to 1.37 Academy negs. Whenever I run a 1960s film I always blow it up to at least 1.66 or even the full 1.85, as they just look better that way. They would have been hard matted to that had TV not been around and Walt wanted to basically make the films ready for 4:3 screens as, back then, that’s where all films were presumed to end up forevermore. Who knew that we would ever be able to watch films back in the home at will, and then get widescreen displays and playback formats that now rival or even better the original projection levels that Walt himself would have seen back in the day!

What I am perplexed by is how we get these faulty masters in the first place! I mean, how do those random shots get shifted around!? How do mistakes get baked in? Well, I actually do know how, but I don’t see *why*, or how they don’t get spotted or approved. That’s just poor mastering done without due care and attention. I don’t think Aladdin should ever have been seen in 1.78...that’s just cheating and opening up the 1.66 to fit a 16:9 display, but not any ratio it was actually protected for, like the 1.66 neg or 1.85 theatrical. Really, to preserve technically an *intended* ratio, it’s only those two that should be seen for the majority if not all the 90s films.

[Daniel]

Cinematic universe potential? Could be interesting.

[EricJ]

That's what happens when you get a Russo brother. Slap 'im down quick.

[gaastra]

https://deadline.com/2022/06/hurcules-g ... 235047935/

[Daniel]

Better put the glad in gladiator.

[Ben]

And the nicest…Guy!

[Randall]

Based on how Aladdin turned out, I am neither thrilled nor terrified at the prospect of a Ritchie Hercules.

Let's just keep grinding these out! Just so long as we eventually get to a new Rescuers film.

[Ben]

We'll soon be in the territory of remaking the remakes. Already we’ve had new takes on 1990s revamps The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, so it’s only a matter of time before we get "alternate reimaginings" of current or at least recent films!