Disney Duster wrote:Netty:
Alright, but there is still the people that knew the art before it was changed and loved it, and still the question of how can they feel the same way about it when it is no longer the same way it was?
If people liked the original books and paintings more, they can keep their books and prints, and shows them to and pass them onto the people they want to see the originals.
You try to get a copy of Frankenstien which only includes the text of the first printing. You'll find it just as hard (if not much, much harder) than getting BatB on VHS or LD!
But with a movie, it will be utterly wrecked after enough viewings. We cannot do the same thing.
I don't understand this. What makes a movie "wrecked" more than reading different text in a novel or viewing revised paintings?
Yes, artists have the right to alter their work. But they also should realize that they need to, it is the right thing, or the better thing, the kinder thing (as kind as they teach you should be, such as the Beast's kindness), is to also make the original available to those who want it. As an artist myself, I would do this unless the original pained me that greatly or I felt is was so wrong and bad for people, which, we do not know is the case, but if it is, they should let us know, and...c'mon, no, it's not the case with this movie.
Well, ideally both versions should be available, I don't dispute that. And I can understand people being disappointed. It is disappointing. But until somebody asks the original filmmakers, we don't know anything about the reason for the colour change. It's all just speculation, which is why, ultimately, this thread and others like it just go round and round in non-ending circles. Nobody can say definitively
why the colours have been changed, so no proper conclusion can be reached.
However, unlike some people, I don't think the colours have been changed carelessly or randomly. The orange sky in one of the examples for example makes narrative sense - the scene is set in the morning, and now appears to be set at dawn. While it may not be a change that is required (because its not) it at least goes towards communicating information to the viewer. To me, it feels more like a "creative" change than an "executive" change.
And art does not need to evolve. The Mona Lisa does not need to change, and it should not be changed. Art only needs to evolve if there are people who want it to evolve, and they evolve it themselves to make it their own. Art just does evolve. But we gotta keep those old works, too.
I believe Da Vinci painted several Mona Lisas (but I could be wrong - and no, the others don't all have "This is a Fake!" written on the back in indelible ink - Dr Who joke!). The point being Da Vinci had several attempts to get his work of art "right" - the creators of Beauty and the Beast only had one.
Painters of great masterpieces had the opportunity to evolve their art "behind the scenes" (look at the successive Sunflower studies by Van Gogh). The makers of Beauty and the Beast didn't have the means to evolve their art behind the scenes (for financial/timing reasons).
Here's the thing, there's at least one right we certainly do have. And that is the right to outcry, to voice our feelings, and yes, demand the original. We have the right to demand anything, even if we don't have the right to get it. But if only we could find some way to actually get those original artists' attentions, and have them actually answer us, instead of silence behind a smiling mouse.
You may have a right to demand, but I don't think you have a right to get what you demand.
It was awesome and... in the 1991 colors, oddly. It was nice. 
lol
