Why isn't Dragonball on DVD?
Daffyfan15
with both English and Japanese audio?The only Dragonball DVD they ever released
was "Mystical Adventure". In fact when I looked at this Dragonball preview for
the Red Ribbon Army saga on one of my DBZ DVD's, the Narrator of Dragonball
(who should've narrated DBZ in my opinion) said "Coming soon to VHS and DVD".
Well all I've seen them release is the uncut english version on VHS. I like the
english version, but they take out the inserted songs and replace it with the
BGM from the Theme song. Will they EVER release Dragonball on DVD, and how much
longer till Demon King Piccolo saga will hit our TV or video shelves? I have a
good feeling that will be a very popular Dragonball saga.
Jeff Leadbeater
news:20020719121927...@mb-ff.aol.com...
Kidmark still owns video distro rights to the first 12 episodes and first
two movies of Dragon Ball. I don't know when the contract is up.
I do know that Pioneer's distro rights to the first 67 (condensed to 53)
episodes and first three movies of DBZ elapse next year. It's my hope that
FUNimation at least re-dubs these first episodes to get back the lost time
and get rid of "The Next Dimension" forever!
As for Demon King Piccolo, don't count on seeing him until 2003 at least.
This coming season will likely be the battle between Goku and Tao, and
probably also the second tournament, where he fights Tenshinhan (Tien) and
Chaozu. Then 2004 will likely bring the final tournament, where he faces Ma
Junior (the Piccolo we all know and love).
--
Jeff Leadbeater
NOYB Somewhere In
Orlando, FL USA
jeffSPAMBL...@cfl.REMOVEME.rr.com
Adaml
From AoD...JBHustler (in charge of DVD stuff) said that Vol 3 and 5
will be out by the end of this yr. Volume 1 and 2
(1-13) will be out when the KidMark liscense is expired...2003.
Vol 3 will include eps. 14-20, Vol 4 will contain 21-28.
That's right...6-7-8 episodes per disc!! of course on a DVD-9.
no screenshot coverart either.
English and Japanese Languages
English subtitles
MSRP: probably 29.99
Ja Ne,
Adam L.
KaidoYuji8Adam
Derek Janssen
Jeff Leadbeater wrote:
>
> "Daffyfan15" <daffy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020719121927...@mb-ff.aol.com...
> > I'm just curious, How come funimation has yet to realese any Dragonball
> DVD's
> > with both English and Japanese audio?The only Dragonball DVD they ever
> released
> > was "Mystical Adventure". In fact when I looked at this Dragonball preview
> for
> > the Red Ribbon Army saga on one of my DBZ DVD's, the Narrator of
> Dragonball
> > (who should've narrated DBZ in my opinion) said "Coming soon to VHS and
> DVD".
>
> Kidmark still owns video distro rights to the first 12 episodes and first
> two movies of Dragon Ball. I don't know when the contract is up.
According to last AX, the contract IS up (and Funi dubbed versions of
the Kidmark and Pioneers have been running on CN since May); they're
just thinking about it.
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Jeff Leadbeater
news:3D38A15E...@rcn.com...
>
>
> Jeff Leadbeater wrote:
> >
> According to last AX, the contract IS up (and Funi dubbed versions of
> the Kidmark and Pioneers have been running on CN since May); they're
> just thinking about it.
Actually, the Kidmark HASN'T been showing. They re-dubbed 1-12 already (you
can tell because they don't show Bulma doing any of her flashing in Episode
3, and in the air version on CN they show the second flashing.
The Super Saiya-jin Jedi
>5 will be out by the end of this yr. Volume 1 and 2 (1-13) will
>be out when the KidMark liscense is expired...2003.
>Vol 3 will include eps. 14-20, Vol 4 will contain 21-28. That's
>right...6-7-8 episodes per disc!! of course on a DVD-9.
>no screenshot coverart either.
>English and Japanese Languages
>English subtitles
>MSRP: probably 29.99
That's not necessarily true...as far as I know, FUNimation has
kicked around the idea of having something like 6 episodes per
disc, but nothing's official as of yet. As for the first 13 episodes
(and Movie 1: The Legend of Shenlong/Curse of the Blood Rubies
[Leech Stones]), I believe KidMark's license doesn't expire until
AFTER 2003...which means that an uncut dub of those episodes
won't be released for a while. And if they do end up doing 6-7
episodes per disc, I sincerely hope that it turns out better than
KidMark's half-assed work.
I do hope, though, that they'll re-release the first 67 episodes of
DBZ uncut...as long as they don't lay so much as a pinky on the
dubs of movies 1-3. Those were great, and FUNimation's dubbing
efforts on the TV specials and movies 4 and 5 have stunk like a
cow that's been dead for a week or two, buried to its neck in
manure (I did hay-baling work on a friend's farm yesterday...can
you tell?).
--The Super Saiya-jin Jedi.
Corey M. Barnes
what's being charged for Fruits Basket.
- CMiB
dave
news:cH_Z8.68547$DS.17...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Actually, when I was first exposed to Dragonball in the States, I recall
thinking that "the next dimension" was a rather unique way to forewarn an
individual to their impending demise. I see nothing wrong with "the next
dimension", hell its not like they stay dead for long anyway, so in fact
they were sent to a next dimension. I think "the next dimension" should
stay on the future releases. The purists can always switch languages.
That's my $0.02.
Love and peace, y'all.
Fish Eye no Miko
news:ahguf2$n5...@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com...
> Actually, when I was first exposed to Dragonball in the
> States,
You mean DBZ... please make that distinction, as there is a
difference.
> I recall thinking that "the next dimension" was a rather unique way
> to forewarn an individual to their impending demise. I see nothing
> wrong with "the next dimension",
Other than the fact that Hell's not another dimension, you mean?
> hell its not like they stay dead for long anyway,
Actually, all the people Vejita sent to "another dimension" did indeed
stay there.
> so in fact they were sent to a next dimension.
Ah, no. They were killed.
Besides, they didn't even keep it consistent. Sometimes it was "the
NEXT dimension", sometimes is was "a NEW dimension"., How many
dimensions are they saying are out there, anyway? If you're gonna
make up your own terms, FUNi, at least keep them consistent.
> I think "the next dimension" should stay on the
> future releases.
Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
> The purists can always switch languages.
Actually, they CAN'T. The episodes that use that line haven't been
released in uncut, subbed form.
Catherine Johnson.
--
dis "able" to reply
"Oh, he makes me so mad! The horrible puny-brained meat child, with
his little glasses, and his... head! 'My name is Dib, with my pointy
hair! Pointy hair! I eat food and have stuff!'."
-Zim, during one of his funnier rants, _Invader Zim_.
Lord Craxton
"Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote in message
news:56Z_8.50465$L02.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > I think "the next dimension" should stay on the
> > future releases.
>
> Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
>
Well, when you think about it, he has a point. Dead means gone, destroyed,
irrevocably out of action. Where DBZ chars go when they "die"... well, it's
probably more accurately another plane or somesuch, but the idea is the
same- they go to some transcendental somewhere else where their
consciousness is preserved until they can re-establish their existance in
the physical world. Which means both statements have some truth to them...
-Lord Craxton
Fish Eye no Miko
news:ahibu9$72b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote
>
> > > I think "the next dimension" should stay on the
> > > future releases.
> >
> > Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
>
> Well, when you think about it, he has a point. Dead means gone,
destroyed,
> irrevocably out of action.
That depends on how you look at death.
And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say, so
that's not what it should be dubbed as.
Besides FUNi didn't dub it that way because it made since or not, they
did it that way to avoid talking about death. It was not some sort of
artistic statement or creative decision to try to make the show
better. It was a cop-out based on their trying to dumb the show down
for kids. Period. And since they don't worry about that any more,
saying "another/a new dimension" isn't needed.
Catherine Johnson.
--
dis "able" to reply
"Mr. Boone's never met a princess before... just some queens."
-James Whale, _Gods and Monsters_.
Lord Craxton
"Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote in message
news:uM3%8.52713$L02.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:ahibu9$72b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote
> >
> > > > I think "the next dimension" should stay on the
> > > > future releases.
> > >
> > > Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
> >
> > Well, when you think about it, he has a point. Dead means gone,
> destroyed,
> > irrevocably out of action.
>
> That depends on how you look at death.
> And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say, so
> that's not what it should be dubbed as.
Whoa, easy on the moral judgements, ma'am. We don't want to get into that
particular can of worms right now when everyone seems to be getting along,
do we? ^_^;;;;;;;;;
-Lord Craxton
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote:
> > "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > > I think "the next dimension" should stay on the
> > > > > future releases.
> > > >
> > > > Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
> > >
> > > Well, when you think about it, he has a point. Dead means
> > > gone, destroyed, irrevocably out of action.
> >
> > That depends on how you look at death.
> > And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say, so
> > that's not what it should be dubbed as.
>
> Whoa, easy on the moral judgements, ma'am.
Which one? The "looking at death" one, or the "that's not what they
said" one? Are you suggesting it's a good idea for them to just make
up dialogue (even worse than they do now)? They should talk about
sending people to another/a new/the next dimension (forgot about that
one) instead of just saying they killed them? And maybe they should
say that those guys in that plane blew up had parachutes so they'll be
ok, too.
Lord Craxton
"Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote in message
news:Xt6%8.53082$L02.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:ahirgr$6ct$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote:
> > > "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > > "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > I think "the next dimension" should stay on the
> > > > > > future releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
> > > >
> > > > Well, when you think about it, he has a point. Dead means
> > > > gone, destroyed, irrevocably out of action.
> > >
> > > That depends on how you look at death.
> > > And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say, so
> > > that's not what it should be dubbed as.
> >
> > Whoa, easy on the moral judgements, ma'am.
>
> Which one? The "looking at death" one, or the "that's not what they
> said" one? Are you suggesting it's a good idea for them to just make
> up dialogue (even worse than they do now)? They should talk about
> sending people to another/a new/the next dimension (forgot about that
> one) instead of just saying they killed them? And maybe they should
> say that those guys in that plane blew up had parachutes so they'll be
> ok, too.
>
*sigh* Alright, don't say I didn't warn you...
Here's how it works:
Art is, by it's nature, the product of an artist. An artist who is not
naturally beholden to anyone but himself. Art is communicative by nature: it
is meant to express ideas or concepts. Ergo, an artist's first and primary
duty is to please his own aesthetic sense: he must assure that his work
sends the message he intends it to effectively. And in an idealised world,
that would be the end of it. But the world does not function in ideal terms.
Although it is the artist's right to be the only person who has a hand in
his work, most of them opt to waive that right. They will cede their rights
to the work to a salesman or intermediary. There are a number of reasons for
them to do this, but two are vitally important. First is money. An artist
who does not profit off his work must find some other means of income, which
will often take time away from their artistic pursuits, or starve, an
unpleasent scenerio to say the least. Second, and more important, is
exposure. Art being communicative in nature, it must be experienced by other
people to serve its purpose, and there is a limit to how far an artist's own
efforts can take his work. In addition, a large campaign of publicity can
also take time away from his artistic pursuits.
It is the obligation of the salesman to the artist that these needs be
fulfilled, and in both cases, the solution is to sell the work to as many
people as possible. Any editing or alteration to the art that may occur is
not, as you and others on this group seem to believe, a judgement of morals
("This is wrong, the art should not ethically be like this."), but rather a
judgement of business ("This will hinder the art's sale.") Ergo, it is not
only acceptable for the salesman to make alterations, but it is his moral
imperitive, his obligation to the artist.
In other words, your interpretation of the situation is backwards. Making
moral judgements on what art can and cannot do is wrong, yes, and in
violation of the principles of free expression. However, it is not the
salesman who is doing this. Rather, it is *you*. You have looked at the
salesman's actions, executed in pursuit of his contractual obligation to the
artist, and have said "This is wrong, the art should not ethically be like
this." You would do well to hold such arrogance in check, Catherine, because
your right to complain does not extend to censoring forms of expression you
don't like.
-Lord Craxton
Fish Eye no Miko
You didn't want me.
Seriously, you didn't. I didn't realize that defending accurate
translations would lead to an essay on art in the modern economy.
> Here's how it works:
> Art is, by it's nature, the product of an artist. An artist who is
not
> naturally beholden to anyone but himself. Art is communicative by
> nature: it is meant to express ideas or concepts. Ergo, an artist's
first
> and primary duty is to please his own aesthetic sense: he must
assure
> that his work sends the message he intends it to effectively. And in
an
> idealised world, that would be the end of it. But the world does not
> function in ideal terms.
No shit, Sherlock
<artists sell their work, and the salesmen have to make decisions to
make it profitable>
> Any editing or alteration to the art that may occur is not, as you
and others
> on this group seem to believe, a judgement of morals ("This is
wrong, the art
> should not ethically be like this."), but rather a judgement of
business ("This
> will hinder the art's sale.") Ergo, it is not only acceptable for
the salesman to
> make alterations, but it is his moral imperitive, his obligation to
the artist.
You're seriously saying that disguising the fact that people die in
DBZ was some hindrance to it's being sold, and that these changes HAD
to be made for it to be profitable?
> In other words, your interpretation of the situation is backwards.
> Making moral judgements on what art can and cannot do is wrong,
> yes, and in violation of the principles of free expression. However,
> it is not the salesman who is doing this. Rather, it is *you*.
So, I'm making moral judgements because I want anime translated as
accurately as possible?
> You have looked at the salesman's actions,
I have. And I've decided that there was no need for them to make the
changes they did.
> executed in pursuit of his contractual obligation to the artist, and
have
> said "This is wrong, the art should not ethically be like this."
I'm saying it didn't have to be.
I understand changes have to be made to put stuff on tv. Do you hear
me complaining about removing nudity or "forbidden" words like "shit"?
But disguising the very idea of death? I saw an episode of GI Joe
last night--a show made in the 80's--and there was a reference to
death. So it's not as if this was something new on kid's tv.
> You would do well to hold such arrogance in check, Catherine,
I'm being arrogant by saying altering anime unnecessarily (note that
word, please) is bad? And that the "salesmen" don't always know what
they're doing? Fine, I guess I'm arrogant, then.
> because your right to complain does not extend to censoring forms
> of expression you don't like.
It's not a matter of my not liking it. It's WRONG. There is no
"other dimension" mentioned in the original DBZ. There were no
parachutes. There was blood. There was DEATH. And I see no proof
that removing those things from DBZ would made it more profitable.
It's still doing quite well now with all those things in it, in fact.
Lord Craxton
"Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote in message
news:BAp%8.55101$L02.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
Erm, well, I *do* have a girlfriend, right now...
> Seriously, you didn't. I didn't realize that defending accurate
> translations would lead to an essay on art in the modern economy.
>
I said I wasn't particularly interested in getting into this. But since you
apparently want to...
Wether or not violent content was a detremental factor is irrelevent. There
was evidence that suggested it might be, and little or no evidence
suggesting that not changing it would help any, ergo it was a reasonable
decision to edit. Note that DragonballZ is marketed most effectively to
young boys, older people often find it sluggish, melodramatic, and dull.
This target demographic's artistic preferences are often carefully monitored
and screened by caregivers for anything that has a chance of promoting
mischief, agression, promiscuity, drug use, or gang behavior. Tripping any
of those figurative alarms could result in a loss of many customers. It was
a defensable decision on the salesman's part.
Opinions, and the expression thereof, are of course your right as a human
being. But opinions must be recognized as such, and not expanded into moral,
ethical, or legal absolutes. (Your doing so is what makes you arrogant.) The
fact that the end result displeases you, or anyone, for that matter, does
not overrule the fact that the salesman's actions were executed in just
pursuit of his obligations to the artist.
-Lord Craxton
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote in message
> news:BAp%8.55101$L02.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:ahl508$8lr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > > *sigh* Alright, don't say I didn't warn you...
> >
> > Seriously, you didn't. I didn't realize that defending
> > accurate translations would lead to an essay on art in
> > the modern economy.
>
> I said I wasn't particularly interested in getting into this. But
> since you apparently want to...
Yes, that's right, Craxton, I'm twisting your arm and forcing you into
this discussion.
> Opinions, and the expression thereof, are of course your right
> as a human being. But opinions must be recognized as such,
> and not expanded into moral, ethical, or legal absolutes.
As sometimes happens, I've let myself get swept up. Let's get back to
the actual comments I made that you replied to:
Him: I think "the next dimension" should stay on the future
Him: releases.
Me: Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
<snip stuff about the nature of death>
Me: And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say, so
Me: that's not what it should be dubbed as.
You: Whoa, easy on the moral judgements, ma'am.
I was saying that's it's FACTUALLY incorrect ("That's not what they
say...").
Where in this discussion--the ONLY things I said on this topic before
your comments at the end--do I say it's wrong, morally, legally, or
ethically to change it? I'm saying that since it wasn't in the JP
version, adding it to/putting it in the NA version makes the NA
version wrong, factually speaking.
Lord Craxton
> "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:ahnov9$dce$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote in message
> > news:BAp%8.55101$L02.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > > "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ahl508$8lr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > > *sigh* Alright, don't say I didn't warn you...
> > >
> > > Seriously, you didn't. I didn't realize that defending
> > > accurate translations would lead to an essay on art in
> > > the modern economy.
> >
> > I said I wasn't particularly interested in getting into this. But
> > since you apparently want to...
>
> Yes, that's right, Craxton, I'm twisting your arm and forcing you into
> this discussion.
>
> > Opinions, and the expression thereof, are of course your right
> > as a human being. But opinions must be recognized as such,
> > and not expanded into moral, ethical, or legal absolutes.
>
> As sometimes happens, I've let myself get swept up. Let's get back to
> the actual comments I made that you replied to:
>
> Him: I think "the next dimension" should stay on the future
> Him: releases.
Excuse me? I said nothing of the sort, I merely mused aloud that it was
technically correct, since DBZ fighters DO wind up in some sort of
other-where after death, rather then ceasing to exist, which the concept of
death tends to imply- and I'll add right now that as the show goes on,
transit and communication back and forth between the dead and living worlds
becomes progressively more common, until finally "death" isn't even close to
what we define as the common meaning of the world. Please do NOT misquote
me.
> Me: Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
> <snip stuff about the nature of death>
> Me: And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say, so
> Me: that's not what it should be dubbed as.
> You: Whoa, easy on the moral judgements, ma'am.
>
> I was saying that's it's FACTUALLY incorrect ("That's not what they
> say...").
> Where in this discussion--the ONLY things I said on this topic before
> your comments at the end--do I say it's wrong, morally, legally, or
> ethically to change it? I'm saying that since it wasn't in the JP
> version, adding it to/putting it in the NA version makes the NA
> version wrong, factually speaking.
>
Well, that wasn't the impression I got from your tone of voice, but forget
it. If you're objection is purely on factual grounds, then the salesman's
right to make edits covers it.
-Lord Craxton
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote:
> > "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote:...
> > > "Fish Eye no Miko" <cath...@feablenm.net> wrote:
> > > > "Lord Craxton" <cra...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Opinions, and the expression thereof, are of course your right
> > > as a human being. But opinions must be recognized as such,
> > > and not expanded into moral, ethical, or legal absolutes.
> >
> > As sometimes happens, I've let myself get swept up. Let's get
> > back to the actual comments I made that you replied to:
> >
> > Him: I think "the next dimension" should stay on the future
> > Him: releases.
>
> Excuse me? I said nothing of the sort,
I didn't say you did. The poster I was replying to did (I don't
recall who it was). Hence the "Him". When I quoted you, I listed it
as "You".
> I merely mused aloud that it was technically correct,
So, in the original, Vejita actually says something along the lines
of, "I'll see you.. if I cross you new dimension." right before he
kills Kiwi?
> since DBZ fighters DO wind up in some sort of other-where after
death,
> rather then ceasing to exist, which the concept of death tends to
imply-
Again, depending on your philosophy of death. Many religions think
otherwise, including the major Western ones.
> and I'll add right now that as the show goes on, transit and
communication
> back and forth between the dead and living worlds becomes
progressively
> more common, until finally "death" isn't even close to what we
define as the
> common meaning of the world.
All of this is, frankly, irrelevant. Is the line "another/the next/a
new dimension" or something implying that used in the original?
> Please do NOT misquote me.
I didn't.
> > Me: Well, since it's wrong, it probably won't.
> > <snip stuff about the nature of death>
> > Me: And point or not, it's still wrong. That's not what they say,
> > Me: so that's not what it should be dubbed as.
> > You: Whoa, easy on the moral judgements, ma'am.
See, this is you, quoted above. Him, Me, You. Perhaps I should have
used names, like Arthur does. Sorry for the confusion.
> > I was saying that's it's FACTUALLY incorrect ("That's not what
they
> > say...").
> > Where in this discussion--the ONLY things I said on this topic
before
> > your comments at the end--do I say it's wrong, morally, legally,
or
> > ethically to change it? I'm saying that since it wasn't in the JP
> > version, adding it to/putting it in the NA version makes the NA
> > version wrong, factually speaking.
>
> Well, that wasn't the impression I got from your tone of voice,
Well, it is what I meant. When I went back and looked at the post
quoted above, I recalled that that is indeed what I meant.
> but forget it. If you're objection is purely on factual grounds,
then the
> salesman's right to make edits covers it.
Pardon the cliche (and possible paraphrase) but, just because you
*can* do something, that doesn't mean you *should*.