An interesting case on copyright, EULA, ...

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The only reason they stay in such high demand is the misguided belief that the Disney version is any better than a no-name version. A collection such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/10-Movie-Prin.../dp/B00AOCDDGC

works just as well for kids to watch them over and over again.

Have you actually watched some of those cheap ones?

The animation is poorly done.
The dialogue is awful and the voice acting is worse.
They generally don't have songs, which are the kids' favorite parts of the movies.
And parents get nostalgic watching the Disney ones with their kids.

I can tell you from experience that the knockoffs aren't good enough to sustain interest for multiple viewings.

[GlennD]

If I remember correctly, Disney started the bundles. At the time it made sense - most people didn't own a Blu-ray player yet, so you could buy the bundle and build a little bit of a collection so that when you did upgrade a device you already had some material. Also, homes with multiple players (but only the main TV had a Blu-ray player connected) had copies for the DVD players too.

Personally, I like the bundles as DVDs are simpler to rip for viewing on a mobile device. I like having both the DVD for ripping and the Blu-ray for viewing on the TV.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Not really. That's like saying text-to-speech recordings work just as well as professionally narrated audiobooks. There's no comparison in the quality of the animation, let alone other aspepcts.

That only matters to adults. Small children that are still at an age to watch the same over and over could care less about quality. Sometimes you can get lucky and they decide to watch something half way decent - currently our grandson incists on his daily repeat of the movie Monster Trucks.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I was going to see E.T., but I watched Mac and Me instead. They're essentially the same, right?

Different thing. Different story. If you noticed it wasn't random anything movies, but the same ones Disney also made.

Man, if you're looking for alternate animated versions of fairy tales, at least find good ones.

They are good ones. Maybe not by your grown up standard, but neither is Barney, Dora, and Teletubbies.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Have you actually watched some of those cheap ones?

Yes, of course. More than I care to remember.

The animation is poorly done.
The dialogue is awful and the voice acting is worse.
They generally don't have songs, which are the kids' favorite parts of the movies.
And parents get nostalgic watching the Disney ones with their kids.

It is not necessary to sit down and watch the movie with them - while they are busy watching, perfect time to get work done in the house.

I can tell you from experience that the knockoffs aren't good enough to sustain interest for multiple viewings.

And I can tell you from my experience that they are. (At least the knockoffs that I have). Not all of the ones in a set used to get watched - leaving the choice to the little ones, and they usually picked something they already seen than try something new.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Different thing. Different story. If you noticed it wasn't random anything movies, but the same ones Disney also made.

Mac and Me and E.T. likely have more in common than Disney's Aladdin and Dingo Pictures Aladdin.

Tod Browning's Dracula and Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula are worlds different. If one person watched one of those movies and another person watched the other, they would have a very difficult time comparing notes.

Sharing the same title doesn't mean the two movies will be anything alike. I don't even know why I'm arguing this. I think you know this and are just having fun.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sharing the same title doesn't mean the two movies will be anything alike. I don't even know why I'm arguing this. I think you know this and are just having fun.

Fairy tales are fairy tales. Each is aimed to teach certain morals. If a certain movie fails to communicate the basic idea and story of the fairy tale, then it shouldn't have that name. It is not necessary to watch a Disney adaption to be entertaining for the target audience was all I was saying.

Fortunately Disney does not own any copyrights on the (classic) fairy tales themselves.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Fairy tales are fairy tales. Each is aimed to teach certain morals. If a certain movie fails to communicate the basic idea and story of the fairy tale, then it shouldn't have that name.

Disney's among the worst “offenders“ here; they completely altered the stories and meanings of the Little Mermaid, Cinderella, and the Snow Queen (though at least they had the good grace to rename the latter Frozen).

But that also means that going back to the original isn't going to be very close to the Disneyfied versions in most cases; people want to watch Ariel live happily ever after, not commit suicide, or hear the Let it Go song and see sisters supporting each other rather than the (unrelated) friendship of the original and hearts turning to ice.

Personally I prefer the original stories most of the time, but they're not really interchangeable given the level of alteration Disney generally layers into their adaptations.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by sjfan

Disney's among the worst “offenders“ here; they completely altered the stories and meanings of the Little Mermaid, Cinderella, and the Snow Queen (though at least they had the good grace to rename the latter Frozen).

But that also means that going back to the original isn't going to be very close to the Disneyfied versions in most cases; people want to watch Ariel live happily ever after, not commit suicide, or hear the Let it Go song and see sisters supporting each other rather than the (unrelated) friendship of the original and hearts turning to ice.

Personally I prefer the original stories most of the time, but they're not really interchangeable given the level of alteration Disney generally layers into their adaptations.

That I agree with. Disney's adaptations aren't good adaptations of the original. But to say that they are of the same quality level of the low-budget schlock Duckie linked to is not true.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Fairy tales are fairy tales. Each is aimed to teach certain morals. If a certain movie fails to communicate the basic idea and story of the fairy tale, then it shouldn't have that name. It is not necessary to watch a Disney adaption to be entertaining for the target audience was all I was saying.

Fairy tales are fairy tales, but the movie making abilities of two different animation studios adapting the same fairy tale don't lead to identical results.

I like the Italian animated take of Pinocchio as much as the Disney version. But that doesn't mean that any bottom-of-the-barrel adaptation churned out by a studio trying to cash in is of equal quality to one of the top animation studios in the world.

Fortunately Disney does not own any copyrights on the (classic) fairy tales themselves.

And since Disney doesn't own copyrights on those fairy tale, any fly-by-night studio and come along and churn out their own take and call it The Little Mermaid or what-have-you, even if it doesn't live up to the standards you set above. It is up to you to learn that not all animated versions of a fairy tale are of equal quality.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And since Disney doesn't own copyrights on those fairy tale, any fly-by-night studio and come along and churn out their own take and call it The Little Mermaid or what-have-you, even if it doesn't live up to the standards you set above.

A more general point is that titles are not protected by copyright, regardless of the copyright status of the work that the title applies to.