Beauty & the Beast original colors - in upcoming platinu

[The_Iceflash]

2160p?

What do they want...to prove that people can be blinded by too bright of a picture of a movie..... I mean 1080p...thats good enough..you know some concern of people might lose their hearing at concerts....now they don't even have to go to see Jonas brothers live to kill their hearing...apparently they can do that and kill their eyes by watching the concert on blu ray and if they come out with 2160p...I think we will have people eyes falling out and people going tone deaf instantly....isn't 1080p good enough...god now I see what my mom means by technology is going to be the end of us.....

It makes me wonder why I bother to own Disney movies at all.. You no sooner get a good collection going and then a new format comes out and what you currently own gets the description of looking like crap. Then you get the usual people who go "If you're a real fan you'd want to watch [insert movie here] the best way possible." It's a repetitive cycle that coming sooner and sooner every time.

[jpanimation]

OK, I see my comment about Quad HD is scaring a few people. Let me put those fears to rest. To fully benefit from 1080p, it is suggested that your TV be at least 50", to fully benefit from 2160p it is suggested that your TV be over 100". Now all this is also dependent on how close you sit to your TV but I'll venture to guess that most people can handle/afford/fit a 50" but NOT 100".

So unless your one of those home theater fanatics trying to replicate the theater experience in your home as best as possible with a 100" LCD or projector, which I assume your average joe is not, than Blu-ray should suffice. I may get into Quad HD (if I have the money) but I can guarantee that 95% of Americans will just find it asinine and not beneficial for the size television that they're looking for.

Unlike Blu-ray, Quad HD will not benefit everyone and Disney wouldn't be backing this [Blu-ray] format so adamantly if they knew it wasn't going to to last a decent amount of time.

[Kyle]

2160p?

What do they want...to prove that people can be blinded by too bright of a picture of a movie..... I mean 1080p...thats good enough..you know some concern of people might lose their hearing at concerts....now they don't even have to go to see Jonas brothers live to kill their hearing...apparently they can do that and kill their eyes by watching the concert on blu ray and if they come out with 2160p...I think we will have people eyes falling out and people going tone deaf instantly....isn't 1080p good enough...god now I see what my mom means by technology is going to be the end of us.....

It makes me wonder why I bother to own Disney movies at all.. You no sooner get a good collection going and then a new format comes out and what you currently own gets the description of looking like crap. Then you get the usual people who go "If you're a real fan you'd want to watch [insert movie here] the best way possible." It's a repetitive cycle that coming sooner and sooner every time.

We've changed movie formats twice. thats it. unless you count the ill fated HD DVD, but I dont. I dont think its fair to think of it as a cycle. cycles are movie releases, video game consoles, cars, that sort of thing. but movie formats so far (all 2 of them, not counting the ones that die near instantly) have lasted over a decade. and there actually Is a a limit to how faithfully they can replicate the theatrical experience. the next upgrade will likely be the last. at least when it comes to classics and most movies already out. the only way to go from here, aside from matching film resolution is to set a 3d standard, maybe further down the line hologram. but I dont see those ever truely taking off like an actual format, it'll just be a feature. one that we should have before the next format any way.

[Elladorine]

It makes me wonder why I bother to own Disney movies at all.. You no sooner get a good collection going and then a new format comes out and what you currently own gets the description of looking like crap. Then you get the usual people who go "If you're a real fan you'd want to watch [insert movie here] the best way possible." It's a repetitive cycle that coming sooner and sooner every time.

Alrighty, I normally don't try to hop on the old DVD vs. Blu-Ray debate, but here goes . . .

Why bother owning Disney movies at all? Because regardless of the format you own them in, it's a way for you to enjoy them over and over again. Why are so many so hyped up about what other people own and think? People are free to say my DVD collection is crap and that I'm not a "real fan" for not converting to the latest technology, but whatever. I absolutely love what I own and enjoy, and nothing anyone else can say or do will change that. Why care what the "usual people" say?

Regardless of how you watch your favorite films, whether on a fuzzy VHS recorded in EP off of old-school Disney Channel, Betamax, 16 mm film, VCD, Blu-Ray, DVD, HD-DVD, DIVX, or even if you view silent clips on one of those old little Fischer-Price crank toy thingies, it shouldn't matter what people say about what your collection as long as you enjoy it for what it is.

[Cordy_Biddle]

There's no way I can ever upgrade again. Blu-ray was enough of a strain, and it's already eating up more of my money than I'd care for it to; and collecting both DVD and BD concurrently is EXPENSIVE! At least for me.

DVD is still fantastic for me as well, so I applaud your previous comment, enigmawing.

[Elladorine]

I'm pretty sure I'll be upgrading to Blu-Ray in the coming months, and just because I'll be getting a Blu-Ray player doesn't mean any of my DVD collection is suddenly shoddy or obsolete. I'll be hanging on to those babies while I'll enjoy picking up new material.

There's no way I can ever upgrade again. Blu-ray was enough of a strain, and it's already eating up more of my money than I'd care for it to; and collecting both DVD and BD concurrently is EXPENSIVE! At least for me.

DVD is still fantastic for me as well, so I applaud your previous comment, enigmawing.

Thanks. And yeah, I do understand how upgrading can be a strain, which is probably why I've held out so long myself. Collecting movies can be a pretty expensive hobby no matter how you look at it!

[CampbellzSoup]

2160p?

What do they want...to prove that people can be blinded by too bright of a picture of a movie..... I mean 1080p...thats good enough..you know some concern of people might lose their hearing at concerts....now they don't even have to go to see Jonas brothers live to kill their hearing...apparently they can do that and kill their eyes by watching the concert on blu ray and if they come out with 2160p...I think we will have people eyes falling out and people going tone deaf instantly....isn't 1080p good enough...god now I see what my mom means by technology is going to be the end of us.....

It makes me wonder why I bother to own Disney movies at all.. You no sooner get a good collection going and then a new format comes out and what you currently own gets the description of looking like crap. Then you get the usual people who go "If you're a real fan you'd want to watch [insert movie here] the best way possible." It's a repetitive cycle that coming sooner and sooner every time.

Who ever said that? Making dumb stuff up to support your agenda isn't fun tsc tsc. Also Blu Ray is it for me too

[The_Iceflash]

It makes me wonder why I bother to own Disney movies at all.. You no sooner get a good collection going and then a new format comes out and what you currently own gets the description of looking like crap. Then you get the usual people who go "If you're a real fan you'd want to watch [insert movie here] the best way possible." It's a repetitive cycle that coming sooner and sooner every time.

Who ever said that? Making dumb stuff up to support your agenda isn't fun tsc tsc. Also Blu Ray is it for me too

I quoted that from a thread in this forum. That's not made up. I'm not going to say who it was though. That's just asking for an argument.

[yukitora]

That made me laugh (though I remember the quote you are referring to).

[Escapay]

Hoo boy, where to start?

Before I begin to quote bits and pieces of everyone's posts, let met just get this out of the way...

I love Beauty and the Beast. It's one of my favourite movies of all time and ties (and sometimes overtakes) Aladdin as my favourite Disney Animated Classic. I love the story, I love the characters, I love the music. I can forgive some of its animation flaws because there are still sequences that take my breath away. The Argument. The Ballroom Dance. The Transformation. Lots of things. Even little moments like Belle kicking her foot up during the "Belle" reprise ("...his little wife" *kick* "no sir, not me!"), or Beast's deadpan "Stupid!" remark at his new haircut. Perhaps the only thing I dislike about the film is the continuity issues, but even that I can overlook because of the general mood and romantic nature of the story. And at the end of the movie, I don't sit and think to myself "Gosh, Belle's face was never consistent and the townspeople sure could have looked a lot better." I'd just be humming along with the Celine and Luther, content that Belle and Adam lived happily ever after. I love the film for all its faults and for all its wonders.

And yet, as much as I love the film, and as much as I'm sure many other people love it (and some likely love it even more), it's not my film. And it's not their film. The film belongs to nobody but the filmmakers and studio that made it.

Yes, there are always arguments and opinions made that once it's out there for public exhibition, it belongs to the public. But even so, the public does not have any rights to say how it should be changed or how it should remain the same. That right will always and only belong to the filmmakers. That's not an opinion, it's fact. Joe Bob Greenberg can't call up Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale and say, "Hey, when you put Beauty and the Beast on home video again, matte it down to 2.35:1!" I don't expect Wise & Trousdale to start a UD account and post here saying "Calm down, Marky, we didn't use Microsoft Paint for this" or "Cheer up, Rudy Matt, in 2021 we'll re-animate all the bad and dodgy parts!".

The filmmakers don't have any obligation whatsoever to let the 1991 version be the *only* version out there or the *only* version available. It's their film, and provided that they have the means and capital, can change things and make new versions of the film. These new versions are not necessarily replacing the old versions (despite what some people think), merely serving as enhanced versions, director's cuts, etc. You didn't hear of any sacrifical bonfire of all the 1991 film prints or the deletion of the unaltered CAPS files after the 2001 IMAX version was released. That version still existed, even if it wasn't being released anymore. Perhaps in 2021 we'll see yet another version of Beauty and the Beast, or perhaps they'll have let well enough alone. The fact of the matter (and this is indeed fact, not opinion) is that no matter how many changes and versions there are, no matter which ones they release and which ones they don't, the original version still exists.

What seems to irritate fans, though, is which version is available. And some fans skew that to the point of "what I want to see should be the only version available!" which does a disservice to everyone, from the original filmmakers to the die-hard fans, to the casual movie-watchers. Because even if 10,000 ardent Disney fans want the original 1991 theatrical version of Beauty and the Beast on Blu-Ray, there are more who enjoy the film in whatever incarnation it will exist in, and there are the original filmmakers who want to present the film in the version that they are most proud of.

In an ideal world, every version made is released to people who want whatever particular version they want. They can watch it and be content that it's available for them.

But this is not an ideal world. Even when every version (more or less) of a film is made, there will always be people who complain. Compare the multiple releases of something like Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. There are five official versions: The 1982 Original Workprint, the 1982 US Theatrical Release, the 1982 European Theatrical Release, the 1992 Director's Cut, and the 2007 Final Cut. And I'm sure somewhere in the world, someone complained about how unnecessary the Final Cut was, even if that's the one that Ridley Scott calls *his*, the version where he had complete artistic control on the content, the editing, etc.

It's a lose-lose situation. The filmmakers can't release the version they want, because there will be fans who say, "We don't want this, give us the first version." And the fans can't get the version they want because the filmmakers want *their film* to be presented *their way*.

If the filmmakers want to present their movie a certain way, to be able to say "This is the version of the movie that we're most proud of and want to share with our audiences", then they should. As filmmakers, they deserve that. It's their time and devotion, their blood, sweat, and tears, their vision.

At the same time, yes, it would be nice (and some may say mandatory) that they respect their previous work by keeping it intact. And they do. I'm sure the original CAPS files and film prints still exist. But if the filmmakers want to present the version that *they* want on home video and theatrical re-releases, that's their right.

Mike Duster said "Disney should respect their fans", and I agree.

But honestly...if Disney wants to respect their fans, the fans should respect Disney as well.

Now then, to everyone else's posts...

It seems random to me that a filmmaker--who works for a corporation--can do whatever s/he likes, regardless of whether it's for the worse.

Yes, but we as consumers only judge if it's "for the worse" after it's already been done. And if there was already a lot of "outrage" over the 2001 IMAX version, then the 2010 3-D version would have used the darker colours and removed "Human Again". But as far as we know, "Human Again" still exists and from screen caps coming out, we can assume (but not fully know) that the older colours are being used.

Doesn't that counteract the point of making movies these days (to make money)?

No, not really.

The filmmakers have the freedom to change the movie - or I should probably say, make a newer version of the movie - as they see fit, if they feel it is worth the time/money and will get an audience.

To me, it seems that most fans seem to think (as far as I can tell) that if *they* think it's a bad idea, then the filmmakers made the wrong choice. As if the fans know the movie and the business of moviemaking better than the filmmakers do. That's a big slap in the face to any filmmaker, regardless if it's Disney or Warner or indie films, or whoever. No one but the original filmmakers should have a say in how a movie is presented in whatever official capacity it's being presented in.

Fans can watch the film 100 times a day, invest their money in loads of merchandise, read every book and watch every bonus feature. But the film is not theirs. Lasseter may think otherwise, but the fans do not have a say in how a film should be presented.

But, you see, you're going into opinion now.

I don't think I am.

A fan is a paying customer, he's not the filmmaker.

I disagree with Lasseter's (and anyone's) opinion that a fan "owns" a movie once it's released because to own anything means you have a say in how it's used/treated/discarded/whatever. As far as I know, no fans ever hold that right or have truly influenced a filmmaker to make a change for the fans. And if it ever is done, it's a rare once-in-a-blue-moon thing. And the only thing I can think of is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. He's has gone on record that the theatrical editions are his director's cuts, and he compiled the Extended Editions "for the fans" who want every little detail included. They're interesting curios but really, IMO they only serve to over-extend three movies that are long enough already.

If even Lasseter believes fans should have some role in how a film is released (since they are the ones who will ultimately be paying to have it), then that shows that some people do believe that fans should have a say in how a film their going to fork money over for should be presented.

The problem with that is it's thinking from the mindset that the fan has as much rights to a movie as the filmmaker, simply because they pay for it.

When someone donates blood to Red Cross, do they tell them, "Make sure it goes to only people in Such-and-Such, I don't want it going anywhere else"?

When someone makes a contribution to UNICEF, do they say "I want this money to support a child in Zambia, but not Madagascar"?

Sure, paying to see a movie is not the same as a donation, but even so, the same rights apply. You're freely giving your money/time/etc. to something you believe in or are interested in. Whether or not you're dissatisfied with the results after it's been done doesn't matter anymore. They already have your money anyway. People often say, "I wish I didn't spend my money on that lousy movie" or whatever they wasted money on, and very few times can they get that back.

In our money-centric society, anything is up for grabs so long as there is $$$, but from an artistic point of view, creativity has no price and IMO, it shouldn't. The filmmakers may lose money if they present a film in a way that people dislike, but it's their creative vision and a risk they have to take. And very rarely does a filmmaker get full creative control over that vision.

Yes, they can make a film like they want. But to change a film that has already been released, one that is well-known to the general public at that, doesn't fall under the same category as demanding that an artist paint a similar type of painting to what you've seen before. Nobody would want the Mona Lisa after it had become famous to have been re-done because the artist thought, "There should be a little more color here, maybe something else going on here, maybe get rid of the smile, blah, blah," and still be placed on the same pedestal as the original (ignore the fact that I know zip about the Mona Lisa or its painter's history). Mostly because it would not be the same piece of art that had become renowned. And that's how I feel about the 2002 DVD. It's not B&TB, it's some highlighted imposter parading around with that movie's name slapped on it, manipulating people out of their money by pretending it's the same movie they saw in 1992 (or 91?) when it's not.

But they're not changing it. They're making a newer version. The 1991 version still exists, as I said, it's not going anywhere. The filmmakers are simply choosing to present another version to the audiences. If they don't want to see it, they don't have to see it. They're not being forced to like the new version because the filmmakers want them to. For people who love the 1991 version, yeah, that may suck. But the 1991 version is still out there for them. Just because it's not the one that's on the Blu-Ray doesn't mean that it doesn't exist anymore.

I would rather the filmmakers make up their mind about what we should see the first time, rather than change their impression 10-20 years later.

Believe me, so would I. But if they feel inclined to present a new version for audiences to enjoy, I would be open to watching it.

I was watching Steven Spielberg's 20th Anniversary Edition of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial a couple days ago, along with the bonus features, and Spielberg himself says that he knows that the 1982 version has its fans, and that he felt it was perfect as it is. But he did the 20th Anniversary Edition because there were some things he still wanted to do with the film, fix shots and such that he was dis-satisfied with and always wanted to change, and was able to do with modern technology that didn't exist in 1982. He basically says that both versions will co-exist peacefully and that fans can choose which one they want to watch.

Unfortunately, Disney is of the mindset that only one version should *officially* be out there for Beauty and the Beast, which is why all these stupid arguments about it come up. And even more unfortunately, I'm apparently in the rare group of fans who feel that if only one version of Beauty and the Beast can be released on the next home video release, it should be the version that the original filmmakers approve of and want to be presented.

Scaps admit it your not into BATB either.

Actually, it's one of my favourites.

If artists/filmmakers produce something, and the world falls in love with that, the people do "own" it in a way. People pay money for it, it becomes part of their lives.

Fine, then please write to Disney and tell them that since you are one of the millions of owners of Beauty and the Beast, to release it the way you want to.

Again, it's not about fan ownership of a film or about what's "right" or "wrong". The filmmakers have more say in how a film is released than the fans ever will. If they want to release a new version of Beauty and the Beast in 3-D, they will. And oh my, they are!

Because you fell in love with the 1991 version, maybe you shouldn't see the 3-D version even if it goes "closer" to the colours you care so much about. After all, it will be in 3-D, something that wasn't done in 1991.

It also doesn't matter what the filmmakers think 20 years later, because times have changed, different things are "in", and if the filmmakers happen to be in a happy time of their lives, they might prefer bright, cheery colors, and if someone close to them just passed away, they might be in the mood for darker colors. My point is, it DOES NOT matter what they want 20 years later. All that matters is what the filmmakers chose and decided when the film was actually made, and that product they have given to the world.

You might as well tell Richard Donner that he never should have made Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut because the Superman II that was made 20-odd years ago should be the only version out there.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that the 1991 shouldn't be tampered with. I've already stated in my earlier post that filmmakers usually get it right the first time and that version should be preserved. But if filmmakers have an opportunity to revisit a film and change it and present it in a new way, they have that right! It's not like they're erasing the original version of the film from collective memory. They're not recalling every VHS or DVD or whatever made and hiding them. They're simply presenting an alternative look at a movie they already made.

Who knows what they might like in 20 years from now?

Personally I'm hoping for Wise & Trousdale to co-direct a live-action version and saying, "Forget the animated version, we want this to be our official version". Simply to annoy everyone in this thread.

A good example is the American "National Anthem".
A beautiful song.
The composer is probably dead by now, but if he'd still be alive, and would wake up one day and decide that he was in a certain mood and "change" the melody of "And the rocket's red glare", and make that sentence go down instead of up.
And present it as the new song.
And he would make sure that every recording that will ever be available has this melody changed.
And he would claim that he could do that because he is the composer?
And his opinion is the only thing that counts?
Would you agree?

If he says that his new version of "The Star Spangled Banner" be the official version for whatever reasons he has, then yes. He has that right.

What you're trying to do is come up with a scenario where what the composer/filmmaker/creator wants will go against everything that the fans want. And honestly, that will never happen because the filmmaker/composer/creator will already be aware of what made fans love what they created in the first place.

Obviously any creator will be aware of a fan's love for something they created. And obviously they have to take that into consideration when they want to present a new/different version of what they created.

Fans can like it, fans can hate it, fans can be indifferent towards it.

But ultimately, what the creator wants will outrank, outstrip, outlast any amount of love or ownership a fan feels they have over whatever it is they're loving.

You cannot just change things. Because then it's not the same song anymore.

People should open their minds to more than one song.

No one has a say in how the original film should be presented. Because there is only one way, and that is how the film was released when it was made.

Opinion, not fact.

If anything is changed, it is NOT the same film anymore, so it should be presented as something different.

And it is. You didn't hear Disney call the 2001 re-release "Original Theatrical Edition". It was called the "IMAX Special Edition". The 2010 release is being called the 3-D Edition.

The problem, again and again, is that fans feel they're being slighted when the original is not being released along with the new version. But really, why should Disney release two versions of the film to theatres when they're intending to promote the 3-D version?

What on earth are you talking about here?
It has NOTHING to do with making different/new films.
It's all about the original, existing films here, that they should leave alone.

I'm talking about the respect for the filmmakers. Filmmakers aren't little puppets that do what fans want them to do. Fans shouldn't tell filmmakers how to make their films.

It really shows how much respect you have for the originals.

I guess you didn't read what I said in my post:

I'm not trying to make it seem like I don't want the original 1991 theatrical version available. I'm all for having the original theatrical version of *any* film be released when possible. Most of the time, they get it right the first time and revisionist editions that come later are unnecessary.

So next time you wanna spout out that I don't have respect for the originals, re-read the parts of my posts that you might actually agree with.

Here's the later part of the post that you'll likely disagree with:

But I don't close my mind to the idea of other versions becoming available, be it a Director's Cut or an Extended Edition. So long as the film reflects what the filmmakers wanted, I'm all for it. I would rather respect the filmmakers' intentions for the film (even if sometimes I don't agree with them) than the audience's.

And honestly, it's worth saying again. I'd rather respect the filmmakers than a bunch of whiny fans, even if I may agree with a part of what they're whining about (that the 1991 version be made properly available on the next home video release).

Some of you know that I'm an artist. Sometimes I like to go back and revisit a piece I've released/posted. Sometimes I'm not entirely happy with what I did and will change a few things around, alter the colors, rework the proportions, or just do some old-fashioned touch-ups.

And it's amazing how often I get harshly criticized for posting an altered version at a later date, even when I leave the original version of the artwork up.

But the way I look at it, it's my creation, it's my piece, and if I want to alter it, I'm free to do so. My work doesn't "belong to the world" any more than a Disney film. I may dislike changes Disney may make to any of their films and I may criticize it, but I still respect their right to do so in a situation like this.

And really, people are free to criticize me for altering something of my own as long as they respect me as the artist and keep in mind that I'm entitled to make those kinds of decisions.

Thank you, Sunny Wing!

Yes, you may love the film and like to watch it now and then, and have as much merchandise as you can get your hands on. But to imply that the people who made this film their passion in life, the ones who spent years in development, the ones that are essentially pouring their souls into their work trying to meet the demand of shrinking deadlines, stockholders, and a public to match past work all of the sudden have absolutely no ownership or say in that films future past it's initial release... well that's one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard on this site.

Thank you, singerguy!

I mean, is it really that hard to understand?

If only one version of Beauty and the Beast can be released on the next home video or theatrical release, it makes perfect sense for it to be the version that the original filmmakers approve of and want to be presented. Sure, it might annoy a lot of people that the 1991 version isn't presented, but come on. That version still exists, regardless if it's available or not on the 2010 Blu-Ray and DVD. Disney didn't burn all the negatives and film prints in a sacrificial bonfire or delete the original CAPS files. There are still the 1992 VHS and Laserdisc releases that people have in their collections.

It saddens me that some of the Disney fans come across as being more concerned about what *they* want rather than what the *filmmakers* want. Half the time it doesn't even seem anyone's using the more plausible "the 1991 version should be preserved on the next release because it's how the film was first released" argument anymore. Most of the posts here come off as "I want it this way because that's how I remember it and how I want it" and there's little to no concern for the filmmakers' rights or intentions.

Albert, when I said "Duh", I thought I wrote something so obviously true, everyone would agree. I thought people would read it and say "well, yes, Disney should respect their fans. That is right, that is better." I actually don't see how that statement could be false in anyone's opinion, unless someone's opinions are like...the better thing to do is whatever you want without any regard for anyone else, or something. But I just don't see that as opinion. I see that as clearly right.

It really sucks that it is hard for me to convey what I mean in just text on the internet. As I have said before, it's great that everyone thinks differently and uniquely, but then it means we don't always get what everyone means.

I never meant to offend you or anyone or suggest they were stupid.

Thank you for explaining, Mike.

I wasn't offended by your remarks or opinions, just that you felt you had to use a "Duh" to support them.

Hope you understand now.

It's just about getting the original version, without any alterations. Yes, filmmakers can do whatever they want with their movies but if they have just a little bit of common sense they always include the original versions.

I'm not against releasing the original versions, I actually prefer most of the originals to later Director's Cuts or Extended Editions (since so few Director's Cuts these days seem more of a gimmick than a proper vision of the director).

I can't understand what's wrong with having the original version of a movie?

There's nothing wrong with that.

What I've been arguing for in this thread is not for a purging of the original. I'm trying to get people to accept that if the filmmakers want to present another version as the definitive version, they have that right.

The original still exists, it will always exist. Nothing will change that. The problem Disney fans have is they don't have the ability to own it on the newest home video release. If the filmmakers choose not to release the original theatrical edition in the next home video release, yeah, I'll be annoyed too. But I'll still be grateful to have the film in the version that they feel most proud of.

Anyway, I think I've ranted enough about my thoughts on filmmakers' rights versus fans' wishes so I think I've come to the end of this post. If anyone sat through the whole thing and read it all, for you.

albert

[SpringHeelJack]

Personally I'm hoping for Wise & Trousdale to co-direct a live-action version and saying, "Forget the animated version, we want this to be our official version".

I'm hoping it's with the two of them playing every part. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking Mr. Trousdale would make a fetching Belle.

[Disney Duster]

Well, the duh was kind of supposed to be something funny (to me at least) and something that underscored the obviousness at the same time. I want to let my posts have some emotion...

Albert, okay, so we should respect the artists as they respect their fans. Okay, so then, if that happened, it would be: They can release the version they want, and then they would release the version they originally made.

I am an artist too, and I never realized until recently that fans might want my original work if I changed my work, and that I should provide both. Even enigmawing at least provided both.

The only real exception is if the artists were extremely embarassed by their work, and even then, sometimes you sacrifice your feelings and yourself for your fans when you already released this "embarassing" work, unless it was not done how you wanted it (other people changed it/ didn't let it be what you wanted when you first released it). Or the artist feels the original version is bad for people, somehow, bad messages in it or something.

And true, we don't know the reasons why Disney's artists have changed their movie. So if those are the reasons they changed it well, okay...now tell us that, artists, as that is what's right. Respecting the fans also means letting them know why you changed what they fell in love with.

Albert, really think about this: If you make art, and sell it to other people, how on earth is it only yours then? I mean really. If it's just for you, you wouldn't sell it to other people, and you might not even show it to other people because you wouldn't care what they think.

But these artists obviously do care what people think. So excited about getting their Best Picture Nomination which really tells them what people think.

Now they're going to change their movie agianst what people think. It's wrong, and WTF.

I mean, they re-animated Cogsworth because the artists was disatisfied with how it looked. But then the re-done scene lost shadow and other elements that the old version had, and that made the old version so great!

And of course...if Disney says they are releasing the original theatrical version, and then don't give the original theatrical version...well, that's not just wrong, that's a flat out lie.

And can say "well, if you want the original version, just watch your VHS and laserdisc!" And maybe we would...if we could, you know, actually get the old VHS and laserdisc these days, maybe we didn't buy them when they first came out, especially that laserdisc, even though we saw it in theaters. And if we did get them, yes we could watch them...until they deteriorated!!!!

You know the right thing is to keep releasing the original version alongside their new fangled one. The good thing, the kind thing, the better thing. And yea...the right thing.

[Marky_198]

I mean, they re-animated Cogsworth because the artists was disatisfied with how it looked. But then the re-done scene lost shadow and other elements that the old version had, and that made the old version so great!

.

That's what I am a bit worried about. The new version of that scene looks incredibly cheap. (does anyone have the link to that comparison clip again?) Oh here it is, thanks Akhenaten!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzxxBZUD-o

But the thing is, if they go back to the original caps files, with the original colors and charm of the film, and the proper shadows and all, then all those newly drawn things won't be in there.
All the new drawings, changes and complete scenes are just not present in the original version.
So my fear is that for the next release they just use some tampered, newly drawn version again, as that's the only version that contains all the new and changed stuff.

The newly animated scene with Cogsworth doesn't even exist in the original colors. Neither does the scene Human Again.

For some reason I don't think Disney is going to leave the original caps files alone, and is going to completely transform the Cogsworth scene and Human again to make it fit in the original version....

I have the same fear for Cinderella, I wish they would go back to the original nagatives for the next release, but they don't contain the changed Lady Tremaine outfit, etc.

[blackcauldron85]

They're not recalling every VHS or DVD or whatever made and hiding them. They're simply presenting an alternative look at a movie they already made.

But there is no DVD of the theatrical 1991 version... ?

The problem, again and again, is that fans feel they're being slighted when the original is not being released along with the new version. But really, why should Disney release two versions of the film to theatres when they're intending to promote the 3-D version?

I think that the IMAX and 3D issues are alright for theatrical events. I'm happy enough with my Platinum Edition DVD, and, as I said somewhere earlier, I'm not thrilled with the backgrounds being all cleaned up (I don't mean dust particles, I mean since the enchanted objects cleaned up!), but I always thoroughly enjoy watching my DVD. I think one complaint is that we were lied to- the theatrical version was supposed to be on the DVD, but wasn't. Same thing with The Lion King. The changes aren't big. It's still the same movie, in terms of the story and the vast majority of everything else being the same. For me, the alligators in TLK stand out like a sore thumb, for example, but it doesn't make me not enjoy the movie. Had the 2001 PE of B&tB had the not-tampered with version on it, I think that the arguing would be less than it is now; the vast majority of us have moved away from VHS, and so, even disregarding the fact that Disney lied to us, we wish that Disney would release the original version on the new format (DVD and/or Blu-ray).

The original still exists, it will always exist. Nothing will change that. The problem Disney fans have is they don't have the ability to own it on the newest home video release. If the filmmakers choose not to release the original theatrical edition in the next home video release, yeah, I'll be annoyed too. But I'll still be grateful to have the film in the version that they feel most proud of.

Let's say that an album was released on 8-Track only. Would you say that 8-Tracks are obsolete? Can you even buy a new 8-Track player anymore? In a few (I don't know how long a few is...) years, VCRs won't even be available anymore. DVDs last longer than VHS tapes, and many people have worn out their VHS tapes. DVDs apparently can't be worn out. What I'm rambling on about and trying to say is, one would think that Disney would put the original movie on DVD and/or Blu-ray, since those are the mainstream formats now. I don't know how I feel on the issue of the IMAX version being the definitive one. I enjoy the IMAX one, and it really isn't all that different, but it's still not the original. I have mixed feelings. Yes, I respect the filmmakers, but at the same time, the original version is the original version. I was going to say, how would we all feel if "Music in Your Soup" was added to Snow White in a new, definitive version, and they weren't releasing the original anymore, but I guess that'd be different, since the original filmmakers aren't alive anymore (there are some people alive who worked on it, surely, but not everyone...). My main point was, you say that it still exists, but it's not being released anymore. Especially when VHS goes the way of the dodo (will it ever?), will the original theatrical version of B&tB be considered a "lost film"?

And true, we don't know the reasons why Disney's artists have changed their movie. So if those are the reasons they changed it well, okay...now tell us that, artists, as that is what's right. Respecting the fans also means letting them know why you changed what they fell in love with.

I agree. We watch the new version and are kind of asked to accept it as the new version, but we don't know what was wrong with the old version to begin with.

I mean, they re-animated Cogsworth because the artists was disatisfied with how it looked. But then the re-done scene lost shadow and other elements that the old version had, and that made the old version so great!

I always forget about these when I'm mentioning the changes. I don't know why. I'm pretty much against redoing the films, since I guess I'm a purist. I know, I know- it doesn't matter what I think since I'm not one of the filmmakers. I guess it's just like above- a case of, please tell us what was wrong with the way Cogsworth used to be animated, or the way the shadow had been. One of my favorite "mistakes" is in Snow White, when the bird kisses Prince on the teeth. I love that more than I should, but it brings me great joy. If they changed that, I'd be saddened. I'd still enjoy the film, but a little part of me would be missing that. I feel the same way about the alligators in TLK.

And can say "well, if you want the original version, just watch your VHS and laserdisc!" And maybe we would...if we could, you know, actually get the old VHS and laserdisc these days, maybe we didn't buy them when they first came out, especially that laserdisc, even though we saw it in theaters. And if we did get them, yes we could watch them...until they deteriorated!!!!

You know the right thing is to keep releasing the original version alongside their new fangled one. The good thing, the kind thing, the better thing. And yea...the right thing.

But the thing is, if they go back to the original caps files, with the original colors and charm of the film, and the proper shadows and all, then all those newly drawn things won't be in there.
All the new drawings, changes and complete scenes are just not present in the original version.
So my fear is that for the next release they just use some tampered, newly drawn version again, as that's the only version that contains all the new and changed stuff.

Is that a reason, then, why they're not releasing the original version? Because then all their new hard work won't be there? Like, I guess that doesn't make sense the way I typed it or thought it. Will they always keep the original version somewhere? Or will they eventually get rid of what they changed (old Cogsworth animation, shadows, etc.)?

[akhenaten]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzxxBZUD-o thanks for watching my video )

its been said that the 3d version uses the platinum edition.then whats with the new slightly intermediate version?

[Disney Duster]

Thank you so much Amy! I like what you have said, too.

I actually found a site where an animator said he didn't like how he first animated Cogsworth, I think it was too exaggerated or something, and then he got a chance to re-animate the scene for the IMAX release.

But that's only on some site. Disney should explain why they did what they did in some feature somewhere on the DVD. Doesn't anyone think a seperate Special Edition commentary for that cut of the film would be a good idea? Or even brancing with the original film's commentary some things pertaining to the new cut.

But actually, Cogsworth's original animation fit more for me, because he seemed more sad and desperate, not an uptight anal guy for once, because he was at such a loss for why the Beast would do such a thing, knowing the answer must be a serious one.

[blackcauldron85]

I either read that animator say that, or you just mentioned it before, but I remember hearing something about that.

Should Julie Andrews re-shoot some scenes in Mary Poppins because, all these years later, she thinks that she didn't do a good enough job? Same sort of thing, no?

And I agree with the special commentary for the new cut- that's a really great idea. I hardly ever listen to commentaries (I know I should and I know that I'd learn things! I need to start...), but did the old one mention anything about the IMAX version at all?

[User1357]

Thank you so much Amy! I like what you have said, too.

I actually found a site where an animator said he didn't like how he first animated Cogsworth, I think it was too exaggerated or something, and then he got a chance to re-animate the scene for the IMAX release.

But that's only on some site. Disney should explain why they did what they did in some feature somewhere on the DVD. Doesn't anyone think a seperate Special Edition commentary for that cut of the film would be a good idea? Or even brancing with the original film's commentary some things pertaining to the new cut.

But actually, Cogsworth's original animation fit more for me, because he seemed more sad and desperate, not an uptight anal guy for once, because he was at such a loss for why the Beast would do such a thing, knowing the answer must be a serious one.

Actually, he didn't like the old or the new version. Maybe they'll redo it a third time:

http://willfinn.blogspot.com/2008/07/clockwork.html

[ajmrowland]

I either read that animator say that, or you just mentioned it before, but I remember hearing something about that.

Heard the same thing.

Should Julie Andrews re-shoot some scenes in Mary Poppins because, all these years later, she thinks that she didn't do a good enough job? Same sort of thing, no?

Oh, I'm sure they can make it work:P

And I agree with the special commentary for the new cut- that's a really great idea. I hardly ever listen to commentaries (I know I should and I know that I'd learn things! I need to start...), but did the old one mention anything about the IMAX version at all?

Not really. Mostly stuff for Human again, and maybe an occasional mentioning of re-animation. Stuff about how the guy who voiced lumierre would come in off of Law & Order. The usual for re-edits.

[Escapay]

Albert, okay, so we should respect the artists as they respect their fans. Okay, so then, if that happened, it would be: They can release the version they want, and then they would release the version they originally made.

Well, like I said, there is really no true "obligation" for any artist to provide the original in addition to a new version.

That many artists do is a courtesy to fans and a sign of respect for the original work. But as I've said, it's not something that's mandatory or obligatory. Fans seem to think so, because they seem to think they're entitled to the original being available when all that they're really entitled to, IMO, is the decision to see or not see the new one.

The only real exception is if the artists were extremely embarassed by their work, and even then, sometimes you sacrifice your feelings and yourself for your fans when you already released this "embarassing" work, unless it was not done how you wanted it (other people changed it/ didn't let it be what you wanted when you first released it). Or the artist feels the original version is bad for people, somehow, bad messages in it or something.

I'm sorry Mike, I'll have to disagree there.

I hardly believe the only real "exception" is extreme embarrassment. Artists for whatever reasons they want can make the decision to not allow the original version to be released *again*. And as the original artist, they have that right. Fans can complain, but if it's the artist's decision, they have to learn to respect that.

Albert, really think about this: If you make art, and sell it to other people, how on earth is it only yours then? I mean really. If it's just for you, you wouldn't sell it to other people, and you might not even show it to other people because you wouldn't care what they think.

Mainly because I don't believe that just because it's "out there" that everyone's entitled to it. If that were the case, then copyright laws wouldn't exist. Everyone's entitled to an opinion of the art, and they're entitled to legally acquiring a copy of the art. But only the artist is entitled to decisions on how to keep it as is or change it in the future.

It's not about "if it's just for the artist, they wouldn't show it to anyone." Because art is art, whether it's shown to anyone or not. If an artist is so insecure in how he/she feels about their art, then yes, maybe they won't show it to anyone. That's their decision.

But just because they do show their art to someone doesn't meant that the "someone" has as much a claim to that art as the artist.

It's like if you drew a picture of a tree, were satisfied with it, and showed it to me. Does that mean that I can tell you "never ever ever change this tree, it's perfect as is" and for you to have to follow that simply because I like it as is? What about if you show that tree to Loomis and he says, "Good effort, work on it some more and you'll have a better tree"? Based on the logic portrayed by some of the arguments in this thread, it would mean you'd have to disappoint me by changing the tree because Loomis said to, or you'd have to disappoint Loomis by not changing it because I like it as is. And since you have to listen to one of us, you're not listening to yourself, because even if you choose to change it or not to change it, it would come across to me or Loomis that you took mine or his advice instead of the other.

All the talk about how when it's out in public, it belongs to the people feeds on some idealistic belief that art and entertainment are some living being that has friends and enemies, that can go visit someone in Yonkers then spend a day in Savannah. That art is something that binds people together, and because it does, those people feel some sense of propriety over it. But IMO, art and entertainment are representations of the creative visions of lots of people, and in essence, only those behind that creativity truly deserve to "own" it. As has already been said before, Joe Bob Greenberg can't call up Wise & Trousdale and say, "Since I love this film, I feel it belongs to me, please matte it to 2.35:1 when you release it to Blu-Ray." Even if the arguments here are for the preservation of the 1991 theatrical version on the next home video release, it's still the same concept: you're asking the artist to do what you want, and believing that because you want it, it's the *right* thing to do.

And of course...if Disney says they are releasing the original theatrical version, and then don't give the original theatrical version...well, that's not just wrong, that's a flat out lie.

That I can agree with because that's the fault of Disney's marketing, not the artists.

And can say "well, if you want the original version, just watch your VHS and laserdisc!" And maybe we would...if we could, you know, actually get the old VHS and laserdisc these days, maybe we didn't buy them when they first came out, especially that laserdisc, even though we saw it in theaters. And if we did get them, yes we could watch them...until they deteriorated!!!!

It's not about whether or not someone has or doesn't have the old VHS/laserdisc, or whether it will still work and not "deteriorate".

It's about the fact that the original version is out there, and if someone's that eager to own it, they'll go about owning it.

Until home video came about, people would to go the theatre, watch a movie, and not see it again until its next theatrical release (if there is one). With the advent of home video and the ability to own a movie they like, people suddenly feel they're entitled to getting it again and again in the way they prefer. We're all guilty of this. Whenever a movie gets a double-dip, some complain about it, some praise it, and others are indifferent.

I personally want Disney to release the 117-minute theatrical version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks (or include it as a branching option when the movie gets a Blu-Ray release) because that's the version I grew up with when our family would rent the VHS from the store (up until 1996, when the Reconstruction came out). But just because I want it (and I'm sure there are other people who want it as well) doesn't guarantee I'll get it from Disney when they release it again. The 1996 version is the official version, unfortunately. Sure, it's great to have the film as near-complete as possible, but I still want to see the theatrical version available. And so far, the only way to get it is an old VHS, an old laserdisc, or a random airing on Turner Classic Movies.

Yes, it's rather dickhead of Disney to not upgrade all the films and tv shows in their catalogue to the latest home video format, but I talk about that more in a reply to Ames' quote later on.

You know the right thing is to keep releasing the original version alongside their new fangled one. The good thing, the kind thing, the better thing. And yea...the right thing.

A part of me is inclined to say, "Yes, it would be the right thing to present the original theatrical version" but not because it's the "right" thing to do. There is no right or wrong to this, as it's not our choice.

I can argue that they should present the 1991 version because it's a true representation of the original release and serves as a historical document. But honestly, that argument seems to fall flat on some people's ears here because they prefer the "this is the version that the world fell in love with and what they should get!" argument that is more about what the audience wants than what the filmmakers want.

Does it suck that the original version seemingly won't be released theatrically or on home video anymore because the filmmakers prefer their newer version(s)? Yes.

Does it entitle fans to say that the filmmakers' decisions are wrong, to state that as a fact rather than an opinion? No.

They're not recalling every VHS or DVD or whatever made and hiding them. They're simply presenting an alternative look at a movie they already made.

But there is no DVD of the theatrical 1991 version... ?

No, unfortunately there isn't.

But my point was that just because Wise & Trousdale & Company make a new version doesn't mean they're scuttling away the old version and erasing it from collective consciousness.

The problem, again and again, is that fans feel they're being slighted when the original is not being released along with the new version. But really, why should Disney release two versions of the film to theatres when they're intending to promote the 3-D version?

I think that the IMAX and 3D issues are alright for theatrical events. I'm happy enough with my Platinum Edition DVD, and, as I said somewhere earlier, I'm not thrilled with the backgrounds being all cleaned up (I don't mean dust particles, I mean since the enchanted objects cleaned up!), but I always thoroughly enjoy watching my DVD. I think one complaint is that we were lied to- the theatrical version was supposed to be on the DVD, but wasn't. Same thing with The Lion King. The changes aren't big. It's still the same movie, in terms of the story and the vast majority of everything else being the same. For me, the alligators in TLK stand out like a sore thumb, for example, but it doesn't make me not enjoy the movie. Had the 2001 PE of B&tB had the not-tampered with version on it, I think that the arguing would be less than it is now; the vast majority of us have moved away from VHS, and so, even disregarding the fact that Disney lied to us, we wish that Disney would release the original version on the new format (DVD and/or Blu-ray).

I agree. Disney lied because while they presented something that could pass for the original version (simply because they don't include Human Again and colours are brighter), it simply wasn't.

Let's say that an album was released on 8-Track only. Would you say that 8-Tracks are obsolete? Can you even buy a new 8-Track player anymore? In a few (I don't know how long a few is...) years, VCRs won't even be available anymore. DVDs last longer than VHS tapes, and many people have worn out their VHS tapes. DVDs apparently can't be worn out. What I'm rambling on about and trying to say is, one would think that Disney would put the original movie on DVD and/or Blu-ray, since those are the mainstream formats now.

I'm partially inclined to agree with you, since Disney obviously has the means of including however many versions they want. But just because the next mainstream format comes along doesn't mean they are obligated to immediately release their entire catalogue into that format, even if fans want it. And this goes for all their films and television shows, not just Beauty and the Beast and not just the Animated Classics.

Look at a film like The Sword and the Rose. It only received a VHS and laserdisc release, and Disney still hasn't released it to DVD (though when they do, it'll likely get the same shoddy treatment as most of their live-action titles). Does it piss off fans of the film? Hell yeah. Will enough pissed off fans prompt Disney to release it to DVD? Maybe. But the final decision on its release is Disney's and whether they feel it's financially viable to release it. At the end of the day, every release is judged by how much money it will make, not how much it will satisfy the fans who ask for it. If that were the case, I'd be watching a Blu-Ray of The Rocketeer right now.

This even effects some of their recent films. Some of them have soundtracks released only online via iTunes, without an actual CD release.

Disney Channel shows for the most part just get 4-episode compilation DVDs while the complete seasons are available on iTunes.

And there are several LP soundtracks for some movies that never got a CD release.

I know I've complained about the complaints long enough, but really, it's ridiculous how many of the arguments for the release of the 1991 version seem to skew along the lines of "it's our god-given right as fans to get the film the way we want it." And half the time it's cleverly shrouded behind "this is the version people fell in love with" which only further serves their wishes for the release to cater to what they want and not what the filmmakers want.

My main point was, you say that it still exists, but it's not being released anymore. Especially when VHS goes the way of the dodo (will it ever?), will the original theatrical version of B&tB be considered a "lost film"?

But that version still exists. It always exists. Nothing changes that. Not IMAX enhancements or re-done animation or brighter colours. The 1991 version has existed ever since it was made, and even if it's not the one *available* in home video, it does not make it a lost film.

A lost film would be something like Greta Garbo's The Divine Woman (of which only 9 minutes exist) or the many films of Theda Bara that are completely lost (only 3 exist in their entirety, and she was in over 40 films).

A film is not "lost" just because it's not available for consumer purchase, which is essentially what we have with the 1991 version of Beauty and the Beast.

Who knows? Maybe for the film's 50th Anniversary in 2041 they'll release it on the next home video format and promote it as "ORIGINAL THEATRICAL EDITION, UNSEEN SINCE ITS 1991 RELEASE!!!" I can't wait to hear what Marky will say about that in 2041!

Until then, I'll happily enjoy the version(s) that the filmmakers want released.

albert