Pinocchio Platinum Edition Discussion Thread

[singerguy04]

ugh, CampbellzSoup you totally did not help my angst about getting this on tuesday. I had been depressed the past couple of days because I didn't think i was going to be able to go out and get it at midnight (which has been a tradition with me since the Aladdin PE), but my dad gave me money today so I could get it while i was at lunch with him today! I was thrilled because 1.) that means i don't have to break my tradition and 2.) my dad supported my disney obsession. It was a remarkable day... sigh

[Marky_198]

2003 SE DVD


Platinum Edition


Blu Ray Edition

Thanks CampbellzSoup!

It's really interesting. I can see that the images look clear and clean, but they don't do it for me.
It's a shame they look extremely flat and dead, sterile.
Where is the source of light?
Imagine the flame on Pinocchio's finger would go out, would it make any difference on the background and Pinocchio's face? It sure would in the first dvd screenshot. The sources of light are so important.
They make or break a film. Where is the atmosphere, warmth, lightsources, effects?

There are also this other 3 screenshots in the link you posted, where Gepetto is painting Pinocchio. That one is even worse. No source of light whatsoever. It could be anywhere really, inside, outside, who can tell. And it's impossible to tell where the source of light comes from, because there just isn't any. It's just flat.
The first dvd screenshot just looks stunning, warm and alive compared to the 2 new ones.
Can you please post those screenshots here too?

So although I can see why people like it because of the sterile look, to me the film has lost it's feel, I don't understand the image anymore because too many things don't work or make sense.
If you "pause" the film at any scene and will study each frame to check what it looks like, and have to look for objects like a candle to see what the scene is supposed to "portray", that's not the same as getting the feeling, the glow of the candle, the warmth, the whole message of the scene immediately.
I have this with cgi films too. I have to pause each scene to study objects to see what it's supposed to mean, inside? outside? office? Shop?
Because without proper depth, sources of light everything becomes extremely unclear and one-dimentional.

[I am the Doctor]

The new DVD and Blu-Ray definitely look more cleaned up, but overall I'm still hanging on to my original DVD version (most likely will buy the Blu version simply for the extras).

Based on those screenshots, the film looks much darker than in the original DVD, which looks much brighter and, at least to me, more vibrant. I do think they did a very nice job cleaning up the noise and imperfections, but why did they mess around with the color contrast?

So, while I will most likely buy a copy of the film when it comes out on Tuesday for the extras, I'll be hanging on to my original DVD for the film itself.

[a-net-fan]

Is it my computer screen or does the 2003 images look better??

[Rudy Matt]

Where is the source of light?

I think you mean "Who fixed the contrast and brightness so it's not as blown out like it was the last time it came to home video?"

[ajmrowland]

Is it my computer screen or does the 2003 images look better??

It's the lighting. They've changed it.

[blackcauldron85]

someone @ DVD Talk forum posted the Best Buy price for Pinocchio and the freebie. Its $25.99

The standard DVD is $25.99? Or the Blu-ray? I've lost most of my faith in Best Buy since Circuit City closed...Target seems to have the better buys now.

[Marky_198]

Where is the source of light?

I think you mean "Who fixed the contrast and brightness so it's not as blown out like it was the last time it came to home video?"

No, I mean "WHERE IS THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT".

There isn't any. And this is beautifully done in the first dvd version.
It can't be the case that it would make absolutely no difference on Pinocchio's face whatsoever if the flame on his finger would burn or not.
It DOES NOT work. So this is a real problem.

[ajmrowland]

someone @ DVD Talk forum posted the Best Buy price for Pinocchio and the freebie. Its $25.99

The standard DVD is $25.99? Or the Blu-ray? I've lost most of my faith in Best Buy since Circuit City closed...Target seems to have the better buys now.

I'm guessing the Blu-ray. That's usually pretty accurate.

[Brink!]

What about Dutch dubbing? I prefer watching the English original versions, but sometimes I just want to see the version I grew up with. To this day, I can only enjoy Robin Hood when watching the Dutch version. The original voices just don't work for me. Blasphemy, I know... Sorry, Peter Ustinov-fans...

I started collecting Disney animated classics on vhs in the early 90's , when i was in my early teens, but even back then i wouldn't be caught dead with a dubbed copy, so i went out on a limb to get me the enlish and american tapes, even tapes and later dvd's with dutch translated titles like "Frank en Frey" (The Fox and the Hound), "Taran en de Toverketel" (The Black Cauldron) and "Merlijn De Tovenaar" (The Sword In The Stone)
would not get a place on my shelf with those titles, strange thing is that for the platinum editions (atleast the ones released after Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella and Snow White) Carry the original titles on the sleeve , so much for consistency

[Rudy Matt]

I think you mean "Who fixed the contrast and brightness so it's not as blown out like it was the last time it came to home video?"

No, I mean "WHERE IS THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT".

There isn't any. And this is beautifully done in the first dvd version.
It can't be the case that it would make absolutely no difference on Pinocchio's face whatsoever if the flame on his finger would burn or not.
It DOES NOT work. So this is a real problem.

It's not "beautifully done", the contratst and black levels from the old YCM restoration from 1992 were way out of whack. If you want to replicate that look, stop ****************, crank up your contrast and turn down your brightness. Boom, problem solved -- either that, or just keep watching your old discs since you seem to love them so much. But please shut up already thinking those old transfers were accurate in every single thread. Have you seen the 1996 version of Bambi? It's unwatchable, the contrast is so high, with whites so blown out, you can no longer see the ink lines in Thumper's fur. Disney artificially brightened their films for home video because most people view them in very bright environments. Please stop going on and on about how these are the true look of the films, because many of us are sick of it, and home video websites are now linking to these threads and making a these forums the laughing stock of Disney fandom.

*Moderator's note: Inappropriate language has been removed from this post.

[ajmrowland]

No, I mean "WHERE IS THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT".

There isn't any. And this is beautifully done in the first dvd version.
It can't be the case that it would make absolutely no difference on Pinocchio's face whatsoever if the flame on his finger would burn or not.
It DOES NOT work. So this is a real problem.

It's not "beautifully done", the contratst and black levels from the old YCM restoration from 1992 were way out of whack. If you want to eplicate that look, stop bitching, crank up your contrast and tur down your brightness. Boom, problem solved -- either that, or just keep watching your old discs since you seem to love them so much.

Uh, that wouldn't do it. The colors still wouldn't be as strong as the "original". not even close.

[Marky_198]

If you want to replicate that look, stop bitching, crank up your contrast and turn down your brightness. Please stop going on and on about how these are the true look of the films, because many of us are sick of it, and home video websites are now linking to these threads and making a these forums the laughing stock of Disney fandom.

I don't want to replicate that look, I want an image to work, and I want it to make a difference on Pinocchio's face if a flame burns in front of him!
I'm not going to mess with my settings to make an image work!

And let them laugh, and be happy with their sterile image with no source of light, no effect of the flame, a flat/dead image.
The fact that audio/videophiles have no respect for the classics is something I learned a while ago, but the fact they have so little knowledge of what actually works in a film and what doesn't is new for me.

[ajmrowland]

Ham: "Oh, picky, picky, picky..."

[KubrickFan]

I don't want to replicate that look, I want an image to work, and I want it to make a difference on Pinocchio's face if a flame burns in front of him!
I'm not going to mess with my settings to make an image work!

And let them laugh, and be happy with their sterile image with no source of light, no effect of the flame, a flat/dead image.
The fact that audio/videophiles have no respect for the classics is something I learned a while ago, but the fact they have so little knowledge of what actually works in a film and what doesn't is new for me.

The new restoration looks totally better. In the old shots inside Gepetto's house, it looks like half of his shack is on fire. The picture is way too bright and warm.
And the example with the candle can't be used, because a later screenshot has the exact same colors, and the candle isn't present in that.
Plus, you can't even see the highlights in Gepetto's hair in the old shots.
ANnd maybe, just maybe the shots are a little darker because it actually is night in these shots? The other comparison shots look the same.
And I think there are more audio/videophiles who want to watch it the way it was in theaters than you think. That line is really insulting, and it doesn't even make sense. If you really think that's true than I'm wondering who's being more ignorant here.

[singerguy04]

i have a arguement for marky that i just thought of...

In these restorations the restorers go back to the original cells and so forth and clean/preserve them and thats how we get these pics. In the past when a film was restored they didn't have the same kind of technology as we have now. Isn't it possible that the 2003 images were tampered with and made to look "better" and that source of light you've been harping about that is apparently missing in the new restoration was actually something added. Basically who's to say that this isn't closer the the OTV. maybe the 2003 dvd is the one off...

[ajmrowland]

i have a arguement for marky that i just thought of...

In these restorations the restorers go back to the original cells and so forth and clean/preserve them and thats how we get these pics. In the past when a film was restored they didn't have the same kind of technology as we have now. Isn't it possible that the 2003 images were tampered with and made to look "better" and that source of light you've been harping about that is apparently missing in the new restoration was actually something added. Basically who's to say that this isn't closer the the OTV. maybe the 2003 dvd is the one off...

Yeah, it's been posted before. People just ignore it.

[PixarFan2006]

I cannot see any of the images.

[ajmrowland]

follow the link.

[Goliath]

It's really interesting. I can see that the images look clear and clean, but they don't do it for me.
It's a shame they look extremely flat and dead, sterile.
Where is the source of light?
Imagine the flame on Pinocchio's finger would go out, would it make any difference on the background and Pinocchio's face? It sure would in the first dvd screenshot. The sources of light are so important.
They make or break a film. Where is the atmosphere, warmth, lightsources, effects? [...]

So although I can see why people like it because of the sterile look, to me the film has lost it's feel, I don't understand the image anymore because too many things don't work or make sense.

I completely agree with you! I watched the DVD tonight, and I wasn't able to get 'into' the film. The colors were so distracting. Much, much too bright. I honestly can't guess why Disney did this. Why would they make such a bad restoration? They are capable of doing great ones, like Lady and the Tramp. And I know a lot of people on this forum comlain about Cinderella, including you, but I thought that one looked fine, too. But this Pinocchio one isn't very good. I'm not sayig it's terrible, but it's definitly a disappointment.

By the way: I don't if it's just me, but the pictures in this thread won't show.