DVDizzy Forum

Sunny Wing wrote:Milk Buds, anyone?

Thank god, I was running out!

Sunny, where's the one where we invade the picture?

albert

DisneyJedi wrote:

Scamander wrote:I'm really not on any side in this discussion, but who are you to tell other users about what they may discuss? It isn't even off topic and if you are pissed off than you should simply STOP READING the posts!!!

All everyone is doing is whining about how neither the Platinum or Diamond Editions look anything like the "theatrical colors" and frankly, I'm fed up with everyone complaining about it.

I fully agree with this 100%. I feel the same way when people complain of Star wars etc

DisneyChris wrote:Um, a little bad news to report... there's one shot in the "Original Theatrical Version" on this new Diamond Edition that's actually a revised shot from the "Special Edition".

It's the shot at the very end of the "Something There" sequence where Mrs. Potts says to Chip, "I'll tell you when you're older." In the original version, Belle and Beast were behind the enchanted objects, but the Special Edition changed the camera angle, with the hallway in the background, as shown below:



Ironically the "Original Theatrical Version" on the Platinum Edition DVD retained the original shot...

Excuse me, but how in the name of fudge is that shot "revised"?

Scamander wrote:PS. Funny that this pic was posted the first time exactly one year ago.^^

Happy anniversary, I guess

Here's my first whack at it, but I can't decide which is better...

Image A


or

Image B

rodis wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: All everyone is doing is whining about how neither the Platinum or Diamond Editions look anything like the "theatrical colors" and frankly, I'm fed up with everyone complaining about it.

People are doing it out of love for the film. Otherwise, they couldn't have cared less about the colors.

. Hahaha, oh please. If they loved the film they wouldn't be whining for insignificant things. The film is still amazing and the make over looks superb and modern. Praise the film instead!!!!!

jpanimation wrote:

Scamander wrote:PS. Funny that this pic was posted the first time exactly one year ago.^^

Happy anniversary, I guess

Here's my first whack at it, but I can't decide which is better...

Image A


or

Image B

Am I a bad Disney fan if I like image B more?

DisneyJedi wrote:Excuse me, but how in the name of fudge is that shot "revised"?

Excuse me, but that's a shot that only appears in the Special Edition. I don't mind repeating again: it's the shot at the very end of the "Something There" sequence where Mrs. Potts says to Chip, "I'll tell you when you're older." In the name of fudge, please either look at the "Original Theatrical Version" on the Platinum Edition DVD or the original VHS/LD. You'll see Belle and Beast in the background instead of the hallway. I know it's a rather minor issue but it's still distracting cos you can see Lumiere and Featherduster closing the door when it suddenly cuts to Beast taking a bath.

DisneyChris wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Excuse me, but how in the name of fudge is that shot "revised"?

Excuse me, but that's a shot that only appears in the Special Edition. I don't mind repeating again: it's the shot at the very end of the "Something There" sequence where Mrs. Potts says to Chip, "I'll tell you when you're older." In the name of fudge, please either look at the "Original Theatrical Version" on the Platinum Edition DVD or the original VHS/LD. You'll see Belle and Beast in the background instead of the hallway. I know it's a rather minor issue but it's still distracting cos you can see Lumiere and Featherduster closing the door when it suddenly cuts to Beast taking a bath.

You know, after getting used to watching the Special Edition, the transition from the end of "Something There" to Beast being bathed seems more like a jump cut in the original version.

Escapay wrote:Sunny, where's the one where we invade the picture?

It took me a bit to dig it out!

Guys - you're not going to believe this, but I've just found one of the original production paintings on Google! Here it is;



... so it turns out we were all wrong! Not only is Belle black, but the Beast is a green monster and Lumiere had arm and legs.

Talk about a kick in the teeth!

I actually gasped when I saw the beast's balls.

Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god miniroll32! How did you find that?! I thought Disney had vaulted all the original production cells of this movie away (probably somewhere in Siberia) never to be seen again! I mean, look how dark and majestic those colors are! They really set the tone of the movie. Folks, those colors are why this movie was nominated for the Oscar (because we all know that it otherwise sucked. I mean a lyric like "Tale as old as time"? How does that appeal to kids?! It's old!!!)! When is Disney going to release that edition!?!?! Ugh, I am so mad at those idiots in the corporate office for screwing around with this movie, yet again!






He he... I just had to join in the fun. Continue on with the color debates.

DisneyChris wrote:there's one shot in the "Original Theatrical Version" on this new Diamond Edition that's actually a revised shot from the "Special Edition".

Ironically the "Original Theatrical Version" on the Platinum Edition DVD retained the original shot...

DisneyChris wrote:Excuse me, but that's a shot that only appears in the Special Edition.

Hi DisneyChris, aren't those statements quite contradicting?
We now know that the SE on the diamond bluray/dvd contains this altered shot. But what about the Original Theatrical Version; does it include it as well or not??

DisneyChris meant, that this shot belongs in the Special Edition, but is part of both versions in this new Diamond Edition.

Scamander wrote:DisneyChris meant, that this shot belongs in the Special Edition, but is part of both versions in this new Diamond Edition.

That sucks then, i was so happy with the restored Cogsworth animation in the Theatrical Edition...

Does anyone know whether Belle's window reflection appears in the Theatrical Edition?

I think the movie is pretty good no matter what the colors look like. They could be green and pink for all I care.

Sky Syndrome wrote:I made a black velvet poster!

I meant to comment earlier that I thought that was all kinds of awesome!

jpanimation wrote:Here's my first whack at it, but I can't decide which is better...

Image A

or

Image B

I saw this movie in the theater three times way back when I was 15. I won't get into the whole color debate but Image A definitely takes me back to that.

zackisthewalrus wrote:I think the movie is pretty good no matter what the colors look like. They could be green and pink for all I care.

Be careful what you wish for.

Well, at least it is dark.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ctE69eMYEok?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ctE69eMYEok?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

jpanimation wrote:Also, I can't believe how rude some people are being on here. Telling people to shut up because you disagree with them or quoting them with blah blah blah isn't contributing to the discussion (I think thoughtful posts is somewhere in the posting guidelines). I get it, you don't like hearing facts and quite frankly, I get tired of repeating these facts only to have them ignored as inaccurate information pertaining to the accuracy of the colors is repeatedly spewed afterwords. You can argue all you want as to whether you personally like the color alterations or whether you feel it affects the film positively/negatively or even if you think it was the director's intent but there really isn't any argument as to whether these are the original colors.

I still haven't heard any smart explanation for the following supporting the format theory:

jpanimation wrote:<b>None of this format argument explains why the original press images and trailers for the Human Again sequence would reflect the VHS colors if they weren't the original ones. </b> It also doesn't explain why the Inter-Stitch-Al, which had to dive back into the CAPS files for new animated section (as the Special Edition did for the Human Again sequence), would remain rather close to the original colors. Both new animated bits [Inter-Stitch-Al and Human Again) featured colors very close to the VHS.

I hope this will qualify as a "thoughtful post."

It's been a long while since I put on the Special Edition DVD. If you're saying the "Human Again" sequence has markedly different colors on DVD than the rest of the feature presentation surrounding it, I can't say that I've noticed, so I can't address that. Press images aren't really a fair reference for comparison. If the trailer, on the other hand, resembles the VHS, it's almost certainly because it was prepared & finished for NTSC broadcast.

Anyone who wants more data than they can stomach re: NTSC can Google it (along with "never the same color" or "never twice the same color"). For brevity's sake I'll excerpt a bit from <a href="http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/b ... l">here</a> and <a href="http://roseavenue.com/premiere/director.html">here</a>:

...what viewers saw -- and still see in all of the regular [NTSC analog] sets in use even today -- is a picture in which colors change as the image gets brighter or darker. What's more, the brightness of a scene changes along with the color.

When RCA began commercial TV broadcasting in 1941, TV was strictly a black-and-white affair. Almost immediately, RCA, CBS, and others began working on ways to broadcast in color. The best way would have been to scrap the existing system and start over, but nobody wanted to tell the thousands of TV owners that their sets were suddenly obsolete. The result was a compromise: in 1953, the National Television Standards Committee proposed a standard by which color information could be added to the existing black-and-white broadcast signal. The advantage was that programs broadcast in color could still be seen on black-and-white TVs; the disadvantage was that the images on color TVs would be somewhat muddy and difficult to control. (A joke sprang up among broadcast engineers that NTSC stands for "Never Twice the Same Color.")

Today, we still live with that legacy. Many Director users are horrified to see their sharp, brilliant colors (left, top) reduced to unpleasant, fuzzy blobs when their movie goes through the scan converter (left, bottom). Get used to it: no matter how expensive your hardware, your movies will never look as good on the TV screen as they do on the computer screen. Once you've accepted that fact, you can do what's necessary to optimize your graphics for NTSC output -- even if this requires altering your artistic vision.

The latter quote and accompanying graphics is from an old article about making animations on Macromedia Director and outputting for NTSC, but the principle is entirely relevant to CAPS and analog media & displays. The images should speak for themselves. There's no tweaking going on, no subtle manipulation---those images represent what happens when you take a digitally-created image and turn it into something you view on your analog NTSC TV. And that doesn't address the additional degradation of the original image as it might appear on a volatile VHS with poorer color reproduction and a decade's (or more) worth of use wear & potential decay.

At some point some of you are going to have to accept that you may be conflating your memories of the original theatrical presentation with whatever home media you've seen far more recently and far more often, because even with the studio's best efforts there's no way the VHS or the laserdisc experience could be said to provide a truly authentic reproduction of the artists' intentions.