shocking discovery on beauty and the beast!

[Marky_198]

Don't. Make. Me. SICK!

Try telling that to the professional animators who worked on the sequence.

Have you actually compared the 2 clips and seen the difference in animation quality?

[Mouseketodd]

I don't understand what would be the point of re-animating that bit with Cogsworth.... In addition to the character change, notice the room's shadowing is gone, too.

Thankfully, I haven't noticed anything major like this with the other Platinums (besides the "wave" over Ursula's cauldron, the suggestive knee of TLM priest disappearing, and the edit of the questionable lyric in Aladdin). This and TLK were probably most affected because they went to Imax. If the rest had, we'd most likely see more animation clean-ups (such as, say, added faces in the PP flying scene).

Please explain, what's being referred to regarding added faces in 'Peter Pan?'

[Matt]

So we have both versions on the DVD?

[drfsupercenter]

No...

The "original theatrical version" on the DVD is NOT the original theatrical version! That scene with Cogsworth may not be different, but there are still some huge changes.

What you have on the DVD is the IMAX version, and a shorter IMAX version without Human Again. In a nutshell.

[nomad2010]

personally i think it's stupid how much of beauty and the beast got re-done. i mean seriously it looks like a third of the whole movie is this cheap redrawn crap. it looks awful and this better now be on the blu-ray or next pe.

[Prudence]

Yes, yes! I noticed that when I first bought the second edition, and I wondered if anyone else had noticed! How fitting that Cogsworth's question was what it was.

[KubrickFan]

Yeah, the "original theatrical version" on the DVD is not the original theatrical version.

The "stuttering Beast line" is still changed on the DVD, the top and bottom were cut off (whether or not you agree with me on what the OAR is), the colors are way brighter, etc.

The original theatrical version had an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, which is the same as the dvd. So it has the original theatrical aspect ratio.

By the way, the filmmakers actually do comment about it. They were under pressure for time, and they never really liked that bit. So it got changed for the dvd. I'm not bothered at all by that.

[drfsupercenter]

Well that's hardly the consumer's fault if the directors were pressed for time!

What's wrong with wanting it exactly the way it was in theaters?

As far as the aspect ratio goes... I said I wouldn't argue about that in this thread... it was made with CAPS and the original negative ratio is 1.66:1 (as it appears on the laserdisc)

And for that matter, I have a screenshot that shows part of Be Our Guest with all the dishes lined up...
http://usotsuki.info/batbld1.jpg vs. http://usotsuki.info/batbdvd1.jpg
And by the way the framing looks, I'd say that shot looks better on the 1.66:1 version.

[Matt]

No...

The "original theatrical version" on the DVD is NOT the original theatrical version! That scene with Cogsworth may not be different, but there are still some huge changes.

What you have on the DVD is the IMAX version, and a shorter IMAX version without Human Again. In a nutshell.

I was talking about Cogsworth's hand movements. Someone stated that they saw it on the DVD in the Original Version. The Special Edition was the only one that got edit if I'm not mistaken.

[Disney Duster]

Please explain, what's being referred to regarding added faces in 'Peter Pan?'

I think this should give you the answer you seek, if you scroll down and look through it all:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... n&start=20

Hope so!

[Disney's Divinity]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. When they start flying in the sky, all their faces are blank until they get closer to the screen and their faces appear one by one. It always stood out to me and, if the alterations had continued for all the Platinums, I would've expected that to be one of the scenes affected.