I just finished watching Beauty and the Beast on VHS and I have to say it looked really different. I'm used to watching the movie on DVD, so the old version looked rather strange to me. Belle's hair looks a lot darker, some of the backgrounds were darker, the wolves had different color of fur, and in the ballroom sequence the Beast's fur didn't look so "light". I can go on and compare how the two movies look so different.
Is it just me or Beauty and the Beast was restored...too much, to the point where it looks like a different movie.
And oh yea, I noticed Maurice's eyes were black, not green like in the PE.
Beauty and the Beast Question
You bring up a good point, which is often overlooked given the fuss about "all-new animatoin" on the DVD.
I think that the official explanation is the new DVD has the colours the makers intended the original presentation to have, but being as they couldn't do a direct digital to film transfer when B&TB was first released, they couldn't get the colour definition they wanted and thus, everything looked darker.
However, I counter this with the fact that the filmmakers would have knowledge of this when making the film, and in some cases, made and coloured the film accordingly. As a result some scenes look wrong with the new "proper" colours.
Take for example the famous "Step into the light" scene when Belle first views the Beast. With the DVD colours, the scene is a bit of a nonsense, as the Beast is clearly visible throughout the scene, even before he "steps into the light", where as before his was only partly seen in shadow. Something I think the filmmakers knew would happen when the original film was released.
But I don't totally disapprove of the new colours. They look stunning on the outside scenes, but I feel some of the darker, indoors scenes suffer from the brighter colours.
I think that the official explanation is the new DVD has the colours the makers intended the original presentation to have, but being as they couldn't do a direct digital to film transfer when B&TB was first released, they couldn't get the colour definition they wanted and thus, everything looked darker.
However, I counter this with the fact that the filmmakers would have knowledge of this when making the film, and in some cases, made and coloured the film accordingly. As a result some scenes look wrong with the new "proper" colours.
Take for example the famous "Step into the light" scene when Belle first views the Beast. With the DVD colours, the scene is a bit of a nonsense, as the Beast is clearly visible throughout the scene, even before he "steps into the light", where as before his was only partly seen in shadow. Something I think the filmmakers knew would happen when the original film was released.
But I don't totally disapprove of the new colours. They look stunning on the outside scenes, but I feel some of the darker, indoors scenes suffer from the brighter colours.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
lolopimp
But The Lion King has alway looked the same, even on DVD. The DVD's color are brighter and sharper, but it's ridiculous with Beauty and the Beast. I still love the transfer, but as someone said before, some darker scenes suffer from the restoration.toonaspie wrote:another possibility is that the IMAX reanimation was used for both versions of the film on the DVD
same way they ruined The Lion King DVD
-
ichabod
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4676
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
- Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
- Contact:
The DVD contains the IMAX version of The Lion King, not the original theatrical version. When it was released to IMAX cinemas, some sections of it were reanimated.lolopimp wrote:toonaspie wrote:But The Lion King has alway looked the same, even on DVD.
See here
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 14&start=0
While both BATB and TLK underwent the same "restoration process", BATB is clearly the one that is most negetively affected. TLK was always full of bright colors, and even though they've changed several things about the look of the movie, it still generally looks like the same film. BATB on the other hand was never a very bright movie, and employs very dramatic theatrical lighting. So when they start to mess with the colors, the dark and gloomy look of the majority of the film starts to appear drastically different.
Ever since I've gotten the DVD, I must say that the "restoration" lessens the experience for me somewhat. Its just so distracting be able to clearly see the Beast from the beginning of the movie - it takes away so much of the mystery. The ballroom scene is the only one I can think of that greatly benefits from the "restoration".
Ever since I've gotten the DVD, I must say that the "restoration" lessens the experience for me somewhat. Its just so distracting be able to clearly see the Beast from the beginning of the movie - it takes away so much of the mystery. The ballroom scene is the only one I can think of that greatly benefits from the "restoration".
I've tried to discuss this here before. they ruined the film with the restoration. take the backgrounds of the countryside when maurice leaves to the fair. compare the rich, contrasted ones in the old version. they look like 18th century paintings. and look at the flatened ones in the new version. they look like any background from any animated television series.
-
Joe Carioca
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 5:05 pm
- Location: Brazil
I have heard a lot of people complaining about the "pool of light" scene, but I don't understeand why - I have the original 1992 VHS and have seen the movie in theaters several times, and the Beast has always been clearly visible during the whole sequence, even when he is in the dark. Of course, thanks to DVD definition you see more details of him than before -but he has never been completely in the dark. And since the character is drawn, I think the only way to have him disappearing in the shadows would be painting him completely black - and we know the results wouldn't be very good, hehe.
As for the other color changes, even though the directors were responsible for them, I don't think they made the right decisions all the time. As James said, the outdoor scenes do look incredible, but the sequences in the castle lost the sense of darkness and mystery they had before. Besides, some of the scenes look so colorful they almost look like they were made for a DTV production - for example, Belle's night gown, which was a beautiful goden yellow in the original version, now almost looks like banana yellow. Overall, I though "Beauty and the Beast" looked really good, but I think they fared better with the restorations for "Aladdin" and "The Lion King".
As for the other color changes, even though the directors were responsible for them, I don't think they made the right decisions all the time. As James said, the outdoor scenes do look incredible, but the sequences in the castle lost the sense of darkness and mystery they had before. Besides, some of the scenes look so colorful they almost look like they were made for a DTV production - for example, Belle's night gown, which was a beautiful goden yellow in the original version, now almost looks like banana yellow. Overall, I though "Beauty and the Beast" looked really good, but I think they fared better with the restorations for "Aladdin" and "The Lion King".
That would darken the entire film, though. Sure, you'd make the shadowy scenes darker as they were originally, but you'd also take the brightness out of the colors that are supposed to be bright, like the outdoor scenes.ichabod wrote:An easy solution to give a quick result for all those who think BatB is too bright, you could turn the brightness down on your TVs.
-
lolopimp
As Joe said, Belle's dress DID lose its golden color for a more dark yellow color.Joe Carioca wrote:I have heard a lot of people complaining about the "pool of light" scene, but I don't understeand why - I have the original 1992 VHS and have seen the movie in theaters several times, and the Beast has always been clearly visible during the whole sequence, even when he is in the dark. Of course, thanks to DVD definition you see more details of him than before -but he has never been completely in the dark. And since the character is drawn, I think the only way to have him disappearing in the shadows would be painting him completely black - and we know the results wouldn't be very good, hehe.
As for the other color changes, even though the directors were responsible for them, I don't think they made the right decisions all the time. As James said, the outdoor scenes do look incredible, but the sequences in the castle lost the sense of darkness and mystery they had before. Besides, some of the scenes look so colorful they almost look like they were made for a DTV production - for example, Belle's night gown, which was a beautiful goden yellow in the original version, now almost looks like banana yellow. Overall, I though "Beauty and the Beast" looked really good, but I think they fared better with the restorations for "Aladdin" and "The Lion King".
