I have the single disc. Should I get the two disc? I never have time for bonus features, but I would upgrade for an improvment in picture and sound. Has anyone compared the two?
Thanks,
Steve

Disney is also double dipping with all the re-releases. I have the single disc of most titles and I am happy with that. Don't really need two copies of the same movie.

My 2-cents.

It's a choice only you can make. There hasn't been much about an improvement for sound and picture. So looks like it's just extras.

I have no problem making the chioce, expect I can't see/hear the video/audio difference without buying the two disc : )

Based on the review here at DVDTalk, sounds like it is pretty decent, although the aspect ratio is wrong (original DVD release was 1.85:1 while the new release is "Family Friendly" 1.66:1).

I sold my original disc a few months back, anticipating this release. I made more than enough to cover the cost of buying this version. I have been selling all my non-anamorphic DVD's lately.

I'm not certain on Mulan, but I believe most animated films since the late 80s have been done on a compter assisted system that does all the animation at 1.66. The 1.85 movies are just matted down for the theaters. While I'm generally a stickler for OAR, this is one practice I can live with.

Pixar did the computer-assisted shots in Aladdin (Cave of Wonders), so that's true.

1.66:1 is the aspect ratio of Mulan and other animated films created with Disney's CAPS system. This SE DVD is showing the original film's aspect ratio.

The Limited Issue DVD is showing it in non-anamorphic 1.85:1, I think.

It looks like the DVDTalk review has been corrected.

1.66:1 is NOT a "wrong" aspect ratio, flix1! It's indeed the correct one. Of course you should get the new edition if you have the old disc. Not only is it overmatted to 1.85:1, it's non-anamorphic. Plus you have a commentary and many extras. Mine's on the way and I can't wait to watch it.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have the original and have been upgrading dozens of my nonanamorphic discs at blockbuster. Now it's a no-brainer for me.

I still say this is debatable. The CAPS ratio they use to create the film is irrelevant. It was shown theatrically in 1.85:1.

It's no different than a "normal" film where they expose the negative in 1.33:1, then project it at 1.85:1. In that case, everyone argues that 1.85 is the proper ratio.

Animating a little extra on the top and bottom is no different than filming a little extra floor and ceiling. In both cases, that extra was never meant to be seen.

The correct ratio is 1.85:1. Essentially, this is an open matte dvd.

return it blockbuster for an $8 trade in towards teh replacement

Ive gotten rid of so many one-view chick flicks that my girls buy and never watch again and gotten the special edition double-dips of titles that I want - I returned GoodFellas single-Flipper, Princess Bride crap edition, Monty Python and HG single edition, and all teh stupid chick flicks to get teh SE versions of these.

There is such a thing as an intended aspect ratio, you know. American theaters don't project in 1.66:1.

1:66 is Disney trying to be different and it NOT working - this is a stupid AR - everything should be 16:9 at a minimum

I'd agree that it is debatable. Typically when filming in Open Matte director may ignore flaws in that area (boom mic, etc.). It fair to say that Open Matte can be distractingly worse than the projected ratio. With animated films the whole frame needs to be pristine prior to matting, so it is a viable argument to say that the Open Matte version is 'better'.

There is always the argument that the 'intended frame' is lost but that's also debatable. Pixar is a good example of the progression of approaches to framing. In A Bugs Life they went through a whole mess of work to develop the two aspect ratios for the home audience, in Nemo they just left it to matted and open matte for simplicity's sake.

Sorry, I based my statement on the DVDTalk Review, which has now been revised. Now, my statement can be changed to "The new release has a DIFFERENT (not wrong) aspect ratio than the original release." Since this is apparently the intended Aspect ratio AND the original release is non-anamorpic, as everyone else has stated, this is a no brainer.

Really? So what do theaters do when they do revivals of movies form the pre-widescreen era?

And what about all the people swearing the new Robocop DVD is wrong because it isn't 1.66.1?

Either way I would say animation is different. Not like somebody looking through a camera and thinking that can stay because it's outside the matte lines.

How can an aspect ratio be stupid? That's a horribly infantile comment.
1.66:1 has been used by several features that were not under the Disney banner.

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/As...tios/1.66_:_1/

How does 1.66 does show up on an Widescreen monitor? On full mode, will I still lose some top and bottom edges since my screen is 1.85?

The 1.66:1 frame is slightly windowboxed, so you'll have tiny blank spaces on the sides of the picture.

Mulan is one of the better movies after Aladdin. It was a no brainer for me being a 2 disk set and all.

doc

Here is the definitive answer to those who still might think that 1.66:1 is an incorrect aspect ratio:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare6/mulan.htm

This guy's review doesnt agree with you with regards to the video...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=215173

Aspect-ratio talk aside, my only disappointment is the lack of participation from the voice actors! No Ming-Na or B.D. Wong. Glad I got some sweet Lea Salonga footage though.

I plan on watching this in Chinese tonight with English subtitles.

Question though - will the English subtitles just be the original English words, or will it "translate" the Chinese - I have a feeling if you translate the chinese into English, there will be some definite differences... especially on cultural references.