Sleeping Beauty DVD AND BLU-RAY Discussion Thread Vol. II

[PatrickvD]

well, what's the status on those region free Blu-Ray players?

I'm on the verge of going Blu

I think you'll be very lucky to get a region free player, and due to the fact that they are firmware updatable (and updates can even be placed on discs, or virtual java machines can scan and report back on the hardware) I doubt you will ever be 100% sure a region free player will remain region free.

so it's like hacking an iphone. Constantly trying to make sure it's not updating or anything.

sounds complicated and tiring. It would suck if Disney started releasing Treasures-like material on Blu-Ray and make it excusive to the US again.

I mean they released 2 waves of treasures here and then just sort of forgot about the line again. I could totally see this happening again on Blu-Ray except we won't be able to import the Region A discs this time.

[2099net]

UK DVD and Book Gift Set

Even though I've got the Blu-ray, I couldn't resist getting the DVD and Book gift set.

And Bloody Hell, it really is a book. This time it has words and stuff. Actual word imparting actual information. It has 158 pages, most of which have about 1/4 of their area covered by text and the text is written by Jeff Kurtti. It would appear for Europe each language will get its own book.

My Gast is Flabbered after the somewhat non-localised, generic Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians books I missed.

[ichabod]

sounds complicated and tiring. It would suck if Disney started releasing Treasures-like material on Blu-Ray and make it excusive to the US again.

I mean they released 2 waves of treasures here and then just sort of forgot about the line again. I could totally see this happening again on Blu-Ray except we won't be able to import the Region A discs this time.

This is precisely why I'm so reluctant to go Blu just yet.

I have to say there are possibly ways round it.

I'm considering 3 things.

a) Buying a US Blu ray player. That way I can simply just buy US region A blu rays and have no problem. The majority of UK / European blu rays look as though they're tending to be region free, so if i fancied picking up a UK blu ray I know it would work on my US player. Naturally youd need a socket adapter / step down transformer because of the differences in sockets and voltage.

b) Buy a US PS3, same as above. But apparently it has an in built step down transformer to deal with the different voltages.

c) A laptop / PC with a blu ray drive. Virtually all LCD and Plasma TVs nowadays can be connected to a laptop / PC to be used as a monitor. So set the laptop to region A and hook it up to the TV.

Of course there's probably more kinks and issues to this such as firmware updates, which I'm still not completely sure of. But there may be a glimmer of hope for us.

Anyway for now I'm happy to just sit and wait, after all blu-ray player prices will come crashing down eventually, also some better resolution may come along. Also I can live without blu-ray for now and let's face it, even if I miss Sleeping Beauty this time around, it'll be out again anyway and hopefully next time round they'll do a proper job for us international folk!

Stupid blu-ray. If HD-DVD had won we wouldn't have had this problem!

[Fflewduur]

Stupid blu-ray. If HD-DVD had won we wouldn't have had this problem!

Except that lack of region coding support is one of several reasons HD DVD <i>didn't</i> win.

[Jules]

I found this old review (supposedly by a top critic) for Sleeping Beauty on the TIME website:

Sleeping Beauty (Buena Vista), if she could see what has happened to her in this full-length feature cartoon by Walt Disney, would wake up screaming. As on a couple of previous occasions (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella), Moviemaker Disney has tangled with an innocent and lovely old folk tale, and this time he can be charged with a particularly unpleasant case of assault and battery. The story itself, as preserved by Charles Perrault, is a legend that elucidates one of life's darkest mysteries: how the human soul lies sunk in a deathlike trance until it is awakened by the heroic spirit. Yet as presented in this "herculean," $6,000,000 version, the myth is just crude continuity for a colossal comic strip, and the more boings and EEEEEEEKs the moviemaker can get into his story, the better he seems to like it.

Even the drawing in Sleeping Beauty is crude: a compromise between sentimental, crayon-book childishness and the sort of cute, commercial cubism that tries to seem daring but is really just square. The hero and heroine are sugar sculpture, and the witch looks like a clumsy tracing from a Charles Addams cartoon. The plot often seems to owe less to the tradition of the fairy tale than to the formula of the monster movie. In the final reel it is not a mere old-fashioned witch the hero has to kill, but the very latest model of The Thing From 40,000 Fathoms.

If I were that critic I'd poison myself with cyanide and go bury myself.

[universALLove]

If I were that critic I'd poison myself with cyanide and go bury myself.

To be fair, you'd have to get someone else to bury you but the cyanide could easily be done on your part

[Jules]

Oh! All right!

If I were that critic I'd first bury myself and then take cyanide. Wheee!

[Escapay]

If I were that critic I'd poison myself with cyanide and go bury myself.

To be fair, you'd have to get someone else to bury you but the cyanide could easily be done on your part

Well if you take the cyanide first and dig really really fast, I'm sure you could do it in that order.

I forget where I read it, but I think that TIME magazine was always critical of Disney (back in the Walt era), so that likely is why the review is so...spot on?

albert

[Disney Duster]

I forget where I read it, but I think that TIME magazine was always critical of Disney (back in the Walt era), so that likely is why the review is so...spot on?

I might think that this sounded like your real thoughts on the film, if it weren't for the fact that the reason you have any interest in the film at all is because you think the art is so good, the opposite of what the reviewer said and Julian bolded. Or maybe you just like the backgrounds, not the drawings and animation? But the drawn characters were designed to fit the backgrounds, which also looked very cubist and squae. In fact, one other critic I read didn't think the film was artistically great and the backgrounds just looked flat, which indeed they are. And Tim even said the art looked a lot like the new modern flat square style going on in the late 50's.

I like reading very different takes on the films like this. It's like peeking at another world. Obviously that critic is pretty smart, or at least knows a lot, which can be the same thing. I liked hearing a very different reading of something I'm familiar with, as well as seeing different things in general...

I think I saw what he meant, like, I could see what he was talking about, but in all honesty, it's true that he was a little harsh and didn't note the very good things the film does indeed have going for it.

[Escapay]

I forget where I read it, but I think that TIME magazine was always critical of Disney (back in the Walt era), so that likely is why the review is so...spot on?

I might think that this sounded like your real thoughts on the film, if it weren't for the fact that the reason you have any interest in the film at all is because you think the art is so good

I said "spot on" because the Time critic was able to effectively compress negative criticism of the film into a mere two paragraphs without making it seem like a film snob turning their nose up at the film (or perhaps a fanboy's ranting by today's standards). At least that's how I read it.

I think I saw what he meant, like, I could see what he was talking about, but in all honesty, it's true that he was a little harsh and didn't note the very good things the film does indeed have going for it.

True, though I think he did acknowledge one good thing about the film...

the witch looks like a clumsy tracing from a Charles Addams cartoon.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like Maleficent could indeed be something from his work (and that would be a compliment to both Charles Addams and Maleficent's animator Marc Davis), if she was less of a ranting bitch and more of a cold and calculating one. Perhaps she's a distant relative to Morticia.

Of course, that's not saying that the Time critic meant that as a compliment (he probably doesn't like Charles Addams either?), but it's actually a nice comparison (if you remove "clumsy").

albert

[Disney Duster]

I was talking to Tim about what the critic said, and he said "film snob" before I read you said "not a film snob"...to be honest, I think he leans more towards snob. But I still like hearing such a vastly different side.

And did you forget "tracing" is still an insult? Remember how the Disney animators got angry whenever people didn't know they referenced, not traced, live-action? And saying someone took an idea from something else is usually not good either.

I'd like to think Maleficent only got inspiration from fairy tales and medieval art...not funny comic strip characters turned into shows with laugh tracks. Yea, the Addams are cool...but they're not for a fairy tale masterpiece. Disney films may have been made into comic strips, but not vice versa, and the word comic is used liberally, they merely have the fact that they are drawn in common.

And the critic might agree with that, since he says the film should be more fairy tale and less monster movie. But now I can totally see the old horror flick in Sleeping Beauty and that is as cool as it is funny. Hey, at least it makes it more unique among the princess films. Shut up Queen/ Witch with your dungeons!

[Escapay]

I was talking to Tim about what the critic said, and he said "film snob" before I read you said "not a film snob"

...to be honest, I think he leans more towards snob. But I still like hearing such a vastly different side.

Normally I would consider it film snobbish too, but that's if the comment were made today. We have to remember that that review/critique was written in 1959 when this film was "contemporary" for them (regardless of its art design). And when you have only 15 Disney movies to compare it to, the sudden change in style and the sudden focus on design over story is sure to make any critic think of the film as less-than-stellar.

With the Time critic's review, I had to think from the 1959 mentality, where you've got all these beautiful pictures that came before it, and then you're suddenly confronted with this movie that looks like it's trying to be a painting and a cartoon at the same time. And it just would not click with them. Not to mention the criticisms that Disney took for the music changes as well. There's a lot of things that was "wrong" with Sleeping Beauty (from a 1959 point of view), that when it first came out, it both overwhelmed and underwhelmed the public and the critics.

Sure, today we can just say "oh, that's a film snob's review", but at the same time, who's to say how people will feel about, say Chicken Little 50 years from now? For all we know, critics will look back and say, "You know, this film isn't as bad as all the press and word of mouth made it out to be all those years ago. It's got a great underdog hero and succeeds in telling an entertaining story. Sure, the CGI is a bit crude for its time and came only because of the success of previous non-Disney CGI films. But it's a nice little film and one that perhaps didn't deserve as harsh a backlash as it did."

(Of course, I'm sure 50 years from now there will still be a large faction of fans/critics who'll hate Chicken Little and think of it as "that CGI film that killed 2D and as a result failed badly with everyone except the few who actually find it to be a genuinely good film.")

And did you forget "tracing" is still an insult?

I was really focusing on the comparison between the style of Maleficent and the style of Charles Addams. The whole tracing idea flew right over my head actually.

And saying someone took an idea from something else is usually not good either.

True. That's why people should say it's "inspired by" or "an homage to" in order to get away with it.

I'd like to think Maleficent only got inspiration from fairy tales and medieval art...not funny comic strip characters turned into shows with laugh tracks.

Addams' work is far from just funny comic strip characters. There's a contemporary and dark humor to them and a unique style that may look goofy or cartoony, but is just as artistic as a centuries-old piece of art. Then again, all opinion on art is subjective, so feel free to disagree, especially since I disagree that Maleficent was solely inspired by fairy tale and medieval designs. There's likely to be some contemporary influences in there, Addams included.

Disney films may have been made into comic strips, but not vice versa

I'll likely be lynched by a mob for this (because they hate the graphic novel = comic strip comparison), but, um...The Rocketeer was a graphic novel before it became a film.

And while Dumbo was a storybook before it was a Disney movie, I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that it started as a cereal box comic strip.

But now I can totally see the old horror flick in Sleeping Beauty and that is as cool as it is funny.

Now that I think about it, it actually would have been quite interesting if the Sleeping Beauty filmmakers/animators had conceived the film as a Hammer Horror-esque film, except animated. Of course, that likely would have never happened, since they were still in the "keep it all family friendly" years. But it probably would have fit better (a Hammer Horror version of Sleeping Beauty) if it came about in the late 70s/early 80s, when Disney was experimenting with more mature themes (The Black Hole, The Watcher in the Woods, Tex, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Trenchcoat, The Black Cauldron, etc.).

albert

[PrincePhillipFan]

Addams' work is far from just funny comic strip characters. There's a contemporary and dark humor to them and a unique style that may look goofy or cartoony, but is just as artistic as a centuries-old piece of art. Then again, all opinion on art is subjective, so feel free to disagree, especially since I disagree that Maleficent was solely inspired by fairy tale and medieval designs. There's likely to be some contemporary influences in there, Addams included.

Yay! Somebody else who appreciates Addams's work as much as I do. I have like five books full of nothing but his New Yorker cartoons.

Anyway, about the design of Maleficent, after the discussion and great points that both you and Mike brought up, I can see in a way how she might have been inspired by Addams's work of the time. Actually thinking about it more, it doesn't really come as a surprise. Charles Addams was often noted for his sophisticated drawing style and his grim and macabre sense of humor, and Marc Davis had a sophisication to himself and impish sense of humor. Also to add to the fact, Davis himself admitted that while he was at Imagineering and working on concepts for the Haunted Mansion in the 60s, he was inspired by many of Addams's cartoons and tried to capture that macabre humor in the mansion. I think that the stretching portraits themselves alone reflect a lot Addams's inspiration for Marc.

[Fflewduur]

I dunno. Nothing about Maleficent strikes me as particularly Addams-ish, whose lines seem rather soft and rounded; I think one could as easily find inspiration for her design in the works of Edward Gorey, though I think her look is more distinctively Disney than representative of either of those artists.

But the influence of Gorey's style (and macabre humor) can be more easily found in Tim Burton's work. If you don't know Gorey and you like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride, I highly recommend him. My personal favorite is probably The Gashlycrumb Tinies, which is basically an ABC book that could cause children to wake up screaming: A is for Amy who fell down the stairs; B is for Basil, assaulted by bears...good stuff.

[Ariel'sprince]

I GOT IT TODAY!!!! the features are really great,one of the best PEs!!!! (I haven't look on everything thought,most of the features).

[MagicMirror]

I love Addams too and he's one of my favourite American cartoonists.



I think, in a few ways, Maleficent and Morticia do seem quite similar - in a more particular sense, the facial structure, and the tendrils of the dress. I don't know for sure, but I think Addams' cartoons were very well known even before the sitcom, and Marc Davis, urbane gentleman that he was, certainly would have known about them.

And I disagree that such cartoons would have been in any way an unworthy inspiration for the character. It's not like cartoonists haven't inspired Disney before:

Joe Grant, creative second in command at the studio for a time, who started out as a caricaturist;
H. M. Bateman, who visited the studio in its earlier days and was from the age of Rackham, Beardsley et al;
THE MAN Ronald Searle, who was an influence on 'Sleeping Beauty's character design - particularly in Tom Oreb's designs, and even more particularly visible in Sampson the horse - and the look of 'One Hundred and One Dalmatians';
Al Hirschfeld, probably America's very best, whose style defined the look of 'Aladdin' and 'Rhapsody in Blue';
Gerald Scarfe, who acted as Art director on 'Hercules'.
You've also got to remember that Medieval art - one of 'Sleeping Beauty's main inspirations was not even 'art' in its day so much as 'iconography'; a way of telling stories to those who couldn't read. Sort of the comic books of their day, arguably. That's why they weren't interested in being ultra-realistic - they wanted to get points across, not make the viewer stare in awe. That doesn't make it any less beautiful.

Cruella was also thought to be kind of Addams-esque: 'Imagine a sadistic Aunt Mame, drawn by Charles Addams and with a Talulah Bankhead bass' - Howard Thompson of the New York Times.

Incidentally, Maleficent reminds me a little of the illustrations of another favourite of mine, Harry Clarke, an illustrator and stained-glass artist of the Aubrey Beardsley school - very willowy, sometimes rigid figures with heavily ornamented robes.

Escapay, a Hammer acolyte too? You do have good taste. Probably my favourite colour live-action films. [/i]

[Someday...]

Incidentally, Maleficent reminds me a little of the illustrations of another favourite of mine, Harry Clarke, an illustrator and stained-glass artist of the Aubrey Beardsley school - very willowy, sometimes rigid figures with heavily ornamented robes.

I absolutely ADORE Harry Clarke, illustration and stained glass. I feel very fortunite to live near a church that is completely decked out in his work, it is very beautiful.

So anyway I picked up that beautiful box set today, and Im still loving it. The walk through was especially fantastic, as its something Ive been trying to track down information on for quite a while.

I noticed something today in the main documentary about the film which made me very happy, and clarified something I had been wondering.
The tapestry behind the storybook is the final Lady and the Unicorn tapestry:D
I just noticed when they had the set behind and you could see it in full. Im so glad they payed homage to what sparked the tapestry idea

[Disney Duster]

No! It cannot be!

So she does look like Morticia. Ah, well.

But a "clumsy tracing"? Sometimes Maleficent's chin seems to change shape, but I don't think it's a real problem. Of course Maleficent's chin is just one example of the many that seperate her from Morticia.

Escapay, the thing is, the style and drawing is what is so good about Sleeping Beauty. Even if the style doesn't work, the drawing of the characters, and the backgrounds, was meticulously done to be as perfect as possible. You know, maybe the film's style really was ahead of it's time, if most critics back then didn't like it. Odd, I heard most critics at the time didn't like the story, but did like the style. Then again they said the characters got lost in the backgrounds and the style distanced the audience. OR was that the Disney artists who said that?

But yes, time (more so than Time!) is a good way to determine just how good something is, and whether it's a classic or not...

And then there's some things that may have only been good at the time they were made in, and they were good, just not so good so they could be a classic today.

I suppose if any cartoon must influence a Disney villain, Addam's influencing Maleficent fits, because she is darkly humorous.

And..."The Rocketeer" is so totally different from many Disney films, particularly their animated films, particularly "Sleeping Beauty", which aspired to be completely different from the kind of thing "The Rocketeer" is, it was made way after Walt's death, and it's actiony like a comic, aaaand "Dumbo" was meant to be kind of cartoony. So I heard, and think I remember reading in a Disney book.

But I already recognized Morticia looks hella like Maleficent anyway. And yes, there are of course other things that influence the characters, such as the actors and actresses, and styles, of the days they made the picture. That's more like drawing from real life, but I admit they probably put in other influences, too.

But it probably would have fit better (a Hammer Horror version of Sleeping Beauty) if it came about in the late 70s/early 80s, when Disney was experimenting with more mature themes (The Black Hole, The Watcher in the Woods, Tex, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Trenchcoat, The Black Cauldron, etc.).

Well, it may have been more possible in that time, but I would like to suggest it as "darker" themes, not "mature" themes. Sleeping Beauty already contained death and even some blood! And the whole thing was already dark. Those films you listed were just darker, or even just scarier. Well, I haven't seen "Tex" or "Trenchcoat". Hm...or maybe it should be..."more mature" themes?

[Escapay]

No! It cannot be!

How apropos for Maleficent-related discussion!

And..."The Rocketeer" is so totally different from many Disney films

It almost wasn't a Disney picture, as they were flipflopping between releasing it under the Disney label or the Touchstone label. Likewise, the very comic-strip-inspired Dick Tracy was flipflopping too before settling on Touchstone (and Rocketeer subsequently took the Disney label).

But still, The Rocketeer isn't too different a film from Disney's other forays into the action-adventure genre. Had it been made 30 years earlier with special effects indicative of its time, it would have been right at home with the likes of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Swiss Family Robinson, and even The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin.

But it probably would have fit better (a Hammer Horror version of Sleeping Beauty) if it came about in the late 70s/early 80s, when Disney was experimenting with more mature themes (The Black Hole, The Watcher in the Woods, Tex, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Trenchcoat, The Black Cauldron, etc.).

Well, it may have been more possible in that time, but I would like to suggest it as "darker" themes, not "mature" themes. Sleeping Beauty already contained death and even some blood! And the whole thing was already dark. Those films you listed were just darker, or even just scarier. Well, I haven't seen "Tex" or "Trenchcoat". Hm...or maybe it should be..."more mature" themes?

albert

[Jules]

It almost wasn't a Disney picture, as they were flipflopping between releasing it under the Disney label or the Touchstone label.

I've always wanted to ask my UD lists The Rocketeer as a Disney live-action film. On my DVD it starts with "Touchstone Pictures Presents". There are no Walt Disney Pictures logos anywhere.

So what do you mean, Scaps?