DVDizzy Forum

I have no idea about Suncoast, but Beat Buy always has a solid amount of Platinum giftsets in stock. In fact, the last time I went, they still had a Lion King giftset or two as well as some Aladdin ones. If you plan on buying Cinderella's around the time of release, I can pretty much guarantee you that Best Buy will have it.

I second that. I was at Best Buy just yesterday (where I got my Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh DVD. Yes, Yes) and they had a whole shelf full with Aladdin Gift Sets. It made me mad because I wanted the gift set and only got the Platinum by itself.

More Cinderella supplements, including the ESPN nonsense:

00:06:46:09 (STORYBOARD COMPARISON
00:04:27:12 (DANCING ON A CLOUD)
00:22:07:14 FROM WALT'S TABLE: A TRIBUTE TO NINE OLD MEN
00:01:52:04 DON HAHN'S DELETED SCENES INTRO
00:06:18:04 CINDERELLA AND PERRY COMO
00:14:55:24 THE ART OF MARY BLAIR
00:00:54:16 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMATH
00:00:19:15 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMATH
00:02:48:17 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMATH
00:00:19:15 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMATH
00:02:29:23 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY PELE
00:00:22:02 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMETH
00:03:40:20 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY US HOCKEY TEAM
00:00:24:12 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY MIA HAMM
00:02:55:14 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY MIA HAMM
00:00:23:05 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMETH
00:03:11:00 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY NC STATE UNIVERSITY
00:00:15:20 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY VENUS & SERENA & JOE NAMETH
00:02:20:04 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY VENUS & SERENA WILLIAMS
00:00:24:09 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY KIRK GIBSON
00:02:49:15 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY KIRK GIBSON
00:00:21:22 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JACKIE JOYNER KERSEE
00:02:53:21 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JACKIE JOYNER KERSEE
00:00:18:12 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMETH
00:02:45:11 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
00:00:20:02 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY LANCE ARMSTRONG
00:02:51:07 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY LANCE ARMSTRONG
00:00:18:23 CINDERELLA STORIES PRESENTED BY JOE NAMATH - PLAY ALL
00:00:05:02 COURTESIES

That has got to be the biggest waste of dvd disc space I have EVER seen. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie. What do european Disney fans care about a US hockey team or Venus and Serena?

maybe they like sports too

Isidour wrote:maybe they like sports too

We like our own sports. But we have no interest in Ice Hockey Teams, Basketball Teams or the like. Heck, as far as I know, there isn't even an ESPN in any European country, so the marketing synergy isn't even there.

Geez, 33 mintues' worth of ESPN crap. The only other feature on the DVD that's longer than that is the main documentary (38 minutes), and only barely so. We're losing a commentary for THIS?

On the optimistic side, we so far have 135 minutes' worth of substantial material on disc two, not including the "Work Song" deleted scene, trailers, the 1922 Laugh-O-Grams short, and the Mickey Mouse Club excerpt. In the end, we should have about two and half hour's worth of bonus material on disc two, which is quite nice. That's about how much Snow White and Aladdin's Platinums both had.

Thanks for posting these, Netty!

PatrickvD wrote:What do european Disney fans care about a US hockey team or Venus and Serena?

The question is more like what do any Disney fans care about a US hockey team or Venus and Serena? lol

Mario wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:What do european Disney fans care about a US hockey team or Venus and Serena?

The question is more like what do any Disney fans care about a US hockey team or Venus and Serena? lol

Well, one reason why we would care is to make sure they won't be in the Disney DVDs.

Edit: I know some people thought it was "cute" but did you guys like the 'A Whole New World' sung by Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey for Aladdin? I found it rather annoying they put it on the DVD. I think it was a marketing strategy? But of course, I'd understand if you guys like it.

So this ESPN stuff is going to be on the R1 DVD? And, I didnt watch the Jessica Simpson thing because I HATE DISNEY COVERS! It doesnt matter who it is or what song, I hate them. But, of course theres an exception to every rule, because I really like when Usher did You'll Be in My Heart.

I definitely do not like it when Disney songs are covered. It's kind of irritating.

and this new version of the song are good?
because I have heard that some are awfull

The Disneymania songs aren't that bad... Anyway, I too saw the music video. The song itself is alright. I was hoping they would do more interesting things like put the Disney channel stars in some of the scenes from the movie, but whatever. But I was really mad when I saw...

THE RESTORED CINDERELLA CLIPS:
I don't know if anyone else noticed(I really thought Disneykid would say something), but I think there are things about the restored Cinderella that have been messed with. I watched the music video over and over since I had taped it, and then popped in my Cinderella Masterpiece Collection VHS to compare it to the restored clips in the music video. Cinderella's gown, as some of you know, is more of a silver/white when she first get's the gown and is with her fairy godmother. In some scenes when she's with the Prince, her dress looks very blue, but it's only in certain lighting and shadow. Also, her hair is a light brown/red. In the clips, where they show scenes of Cinderella where her dress was silver on my VHS, it now looks blue. Also, her hair through the whole things is lighter and more blonde.

I wonder if some of the people who restored Cinderella looked at the unrestored Cinderella and thought, "Wait a minute! Here her dress looks so white and her hair looks so brown. But in all the images I've seen of her on merchandise, her dress is blue and her hair is blonde! Well, I guess I'll have to fix that, then." So, In short, I think they deliberately tried to make her gown look more blue and her hair more blonde just because almost all of the pictures of Cinderella Disney puts out, that's how she looks.

And finally, I'm REALLY mad about this: In the scene where Cinderella's tattered dress is transformed into her ballgown(which Walt Disney once said was his favorite of all the animation that was done at his studio), it looks like some of the Disney dust/fairy dust/stars/whatever you call it has been removed. I think that when Disney cleaned the frames and removed the dust, they accidently removed some of the fairy godmother's fairy dust! I know that doesn't sound like a huge deal, but Disney said this was his favorite scene of animation, and removing some of that fairy dust is removing some of the animators' hard work! Think about how long it must take to ink every little star and dot in the fairy dust just to have it be erased carelessly. I was so mad when I noticed this! I really hope that when the full restored version of the movie is released on the Cinderella DVD it is not messed up like I think it is.

OHHHHH i will buy it just for the mary blair featurette!!!

I ***LOVE**** mary blair!!! she & marc davis are my favorites of the disney artists!!!!

Disney Duster wrote:I don't know if anyone else noticed(I really thought Disneykid would say something), but I think there are things about the restored Cinderella that have been messed with. I watched the music video over and over since I had taped it, and then popped in my Cinderella Masterpiece Collection VHS to compare it to the restored clips in the music video. Cinderella's gown, as some of you know, is more of a silver/white when she first get's the gown and is with her fairy godmother. In some scenes when she's with the Prince, her dress looks very blue, but it's only in certain lighting and shadow. Also, her hair is a light brown/red. In the clips, where they show scenes of Cinderella where her dress was silver on my VHS, it now looks blue. Also, her hair through the whole things is lighter and more blonde.

I don't think Disney have gone and changed the colours so it looks as how Cinderella would look in the merchandise; I think what the restoration team are trying to recreate the colours of the characters how they would be painted on the cells. When shooting onto film, the colours would have gone darker, thus the colours on the video would despite being acceptable, actually not quite be as the animators had intended, so there's no need to panic.

Disney Duster wrote:I don't know if anyone else noticed(I really thought Disneykid would say something), but I think there are things about the restored Cinderella that have been messed with. I watched the music video over and over since I had taped it, and then popped in my Cinderella Masterpiece Collection VHS to compare it to the restored clips in the music video. Cinderella's gown, as some of you know, is more of a silver/white when she first get's the gown and is with her fairy godmother. In some scenes when she's with the Prince, her dress looks very blue, but it's only in certain lighting and shadow. Also, her hair is a light brown/red. In the clips, where they show scenes of Cinderella where her dress was silver on my VHS, it now looks blue. Also, her hair through the whole things is lighter and more blonde.

I did notice her hair looked a tad lighter, but it's still definitely not blonde like in the merchandise. I think her hair was always meant to be a light brown, and years of wear caused the film to make her hair a darker, reddish color. Her dress looked fine, though. It was blue in the scenes where she's in shadow (as always), and silver in the light. I never noticed it looking blue when she was under bright light (the shot of her first entering the palace definitely showed it in silver, albeit a much brighter silver than ever). Like Joe said, I trust Disney with these restorations. They always look back at the original animation cels to determine their proper colors. If things look differently from older masterings, it's because you're seeing what the animation cels would look like with no film or camera lens in the way. Sadly, I stupidly didn't tape the video because I wasn't expecting them to use restored clips in it, but as soon as someone posts it online, I'm going to make screencap comparisons and post them in this thread.

Ok. *rubs hands like the fly.

First. Normal moden color photography can make color darker and less saturated (less pure) than in real life, BUT Cinderella (and most of Disney's color output) wasn't shot on color film, but in BLACK and WHITE film, in the TECHNICOLOR sequential color separation tri-frame process.

When you shoot IN Technicolor you use black and white film, shooting through three very pure, narrow band color filters, Red Green and Blue. So actually except for very extreme ultra pure color wavelengths along the color loccii (The edges of human color vision ) all colors are recorded without degradation cus it's filtered b/w photography. It's the purest form of making a color record. There will be no degradations, Bounty Hunter. *breathes hard

Now, Disney negatives then were printed in the Technicolor inbibition dye print process (Called Technicolor IB prints or something ) in which the black and white separations are exposed into the purest Cyan Magenta and Yellowcolor dyes separatedly and then overlayed one on top of the other to make a color image. This proccess apart from using pure color dyes and they being physically separated also offered great flexibility in manipulation, contrast control, and color masking (a proccess where you can "cheat" any color to look brighter or change hue to the way you want it when combined with others in the printing stage).

Also Technicolor color dyes don't fade (the prints just explode or catch on fire if they were made in Nitrate base ) unlike modern color dyes.

The printing sequence (simplified) is:

Technicolor RGB b/w negative --> Technicolor CMY dye assembly IB print

Sooooo in a sense , "When shooting onto film, the colours would have gone darker" doesn't nessesarily happens with Technicolor-shot films, in fact, if you want to, you can make colors be brighter and more saturated than in real life by manipulation (kind of like today when we do it in Photoshop).


With normal "modern" color film (like Eastmancolor, Kodacolor, Fujicolor, Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc), it's a totally different process than Technicolor: the 3 light sensitive silver b/w layers are on top of each other in one film, the color filters are on top of them, and the three color dyes are on top of each other piggybacked and attached to the b/w silver layers and they interact chemically and optically when exposed and have color crossover and impurities. So the colors get darker and less pure (cus they're mixing with each other). To minimize this, since color negative is not seen directly but used to expose subsequent printing elements, it includes that orange color mask that you might have seen on them: it's a chemical trick to minimize the impurities of 2 of the color layers. Modern print film of course, since has to be seen directly, can't have the orange dye mask, so it degrades the color more.

While with Technicolor prints, since the dyes are exposed directly from the pure b/w records and physically separate, don't have these multilayer interaction problems and as i said, even if any errors would occur (cus Technicolor dyes, tho being the purest, are never totally 100.00% pure) between the light passing interactions of the (almost pure) color magenta cyan and yellow dyes when laid on top of each other, they could be corrected and manipulated in the printing stage .

On the other hand, on modern color prints, the modern multilayer films printing sequence is:

negative (orange) --> interpositive (orange) --> internegative (orange) --> print

and there are 4 chances of color deviation accumulating by the time yoiu reach the print.
(The orange masks minimize the accumulation of error but dont eliminate them)

That's one reason i'm always saying that videos are not usualy made from prints since there are several earlier film elements that have better image quality and color than a print.


Now Disney Technicolor films (and shorts) might have been reprinted into modern color stock (Especially since Technicolor stopped making Technicolor prints in the 70's )

Like this:

Technicolor RGB b/w negative --> interpositive (orange) --> internegative (orange) --> print

And this could be the source (or film elements) that might have been used in various video edition tv broadcasts and film prints you might have seen in the theaters in relatively recent times

For example in the laserdisc era (90's) , when they resored Fantasia
when you went to the theater you saw

Technicolor RGB b/w negative --> interpositive (orange) --> internegative (orange) --> print

And on the Laserdisc (and the particular R2 PAL dvd variation I have (not the UK R2) made apparently from that restoration) the video master was made from:

Technicolor RGB b/w negative --> interpositive (orange)

Same as the Gone With the Wind Laserdisc

Now with "Ultra-Resolution" -like processes and probably for the Disney modern restorations, they're probably scanning directly the

Technicolor RGB b/w negative

onto computer RGB or digital video master, and that should give the purest results, only limited by the knowledge/technical saavy of the operator, and the RGB primary phosphours of the NTSC/PAL/SMPTE 'C" or HDTV system and your color display. (Since the b/w RGB separations hold the whole color gamut and it's bigger than any modern TV system's gamut)


The versions you might have seen before , if made from modern color film stock, not Tecnicolor prints, would have less purity in colors and probably hue errors and changes of lighteness, than the original Technicolor prints or what's on the negative. Also, consumer TVs, most of them arent very good at reproducing the full color gamut of even of the limited NTSC,SMPTE, PAL etc color spaces

"I think her hair was always meant to be a light brown, and years of wear caused the film to make her hair a darker, reddish color."

Years of film wear dont make changes in color, it's the years of different color systems, changes in film stocks, copying, etc
Film wear makes scratches!

(Time and light exposure can make modern color film color dyes FADE, (become more transparent) but thats a totally different thing than colors "changing". A faded color film looses contrast , or gets an overall color tint (like reddish cus the cyan layer dissapears, or magenta cus both cyan and yellow layers dissapear, which when reversed on the nagative/positive process becomes cianish or greenish respectively, or cyan (like posters left too much time in direct sunlight in video stores ) cus the yellow and magenta layer are bleached by the sun, etc but that's not individual colors getting lighter or darker or changing hue color etc )

(Also remember that true Technicolor Print's dyes don't fade )



So hopefully these restorations are being truer to the purer original color the films were supposed to have.



Now come my dethi rant worry

"I trust Disney with these restorations. They always look back at the original animation cels to determine their proper colors. If things look differently from older masterings, it's because you're seeing what the animation cels would look like with no film or camera lens in the way"

Well that's not exactly what they should be doiing

That gives you the original colors of the original animation cels. But DETHI RANT HERE : THAT might not be the way the film originally looked or was intended to look like.
Remember the section about where with Technicolor you could manipulate and enhance or mute the colors at will and change hues etc? Well, what they should be referencing to and oogling at the same time might be a Technicolor reference print
I mean the Technicolor printing process was as much part of the intended look as the camera photography. It's like a Master Photographer printing a negative onto a custom print

The print might look a lot different than the original subject looked like or what the negative recorded

I've seen "restorations" that dont look as bright and colorful as the original look because of this . Or where they totally changed the look. Even some highly praised ones
(Think's of one that even changed the intensity of the scene so much by changing it from bathed in warm orange red color into neutral natural lighting color that it changed the intention of the original scene, which was kinda like the ending of the movie

Hopefully in the best of cases Disney and others know what they're doing and will get things right or nearfully right

UDmembers beware

Oh, why can't I get all that accurate when it comes to film preservation like Deathie! I wanna be seen as intellectual, too.

Wonderlicious wrote:Oh, why can't I get all that accurate when it comes to film preservation like Deathie! I wanna be seen as intellectual, too.

Same here. I think we both just got owned by Deathie.

WOW! THANK YOU SO MUCH WONDERLICIOUS, DISNEYKID, AND DEATHIE MOUSE! Everyone's comments were very helpful and showed you really cared. I must admit, I'm no intellectual like you, Deathie Mouse, and I didn't fully understand everything you said (I learn better visually and hands-on), but I think I got the gist and I thank you very much! I'm glad this discussion brought out one of Deathie's in depth posts and very intelligent rants! Deathie Mouse is one person whose rants have good justification and aren't just yelling.

Disneykid, I was thinking I would make comparisons of the restored and unrestored versions as soon as I can, but I look forward to yours because I remember your wonderful comparison with the "Where Dreams Begin" music video and the Brazilian trailer for Cinderella Special Edition.

I must say though, it still looks to me like the scene where Cinderella's torn dress transforms into the ballgown has less "fairy dust" than the unrestored version. Part of the restoration process is removing dirt and dust and I fear they may have mistaken some of the stars/fairy dust for dirt/real dust and removed some stars/fairy dust. In other words, they removed some of the artwork!