Aladdin - Diamond Edition

[unprincess]

I havent liked the more recent DS lithos but these are even worse in(what I assume) is their lame attempt to make them look like theyre CGI stills. Who you fooling Disney?

[Kyle]

Wow, the shading on those look like bad fanart from deviant art.

[Disney Duster]

I havent liked the more recent DS lithos but these are even worse in(what I assume) is their lame attempt to make them look like theyre CGI stills. Who you fooling Disney?

No, they are not trying to make them look CGI. No fool would think they were.

[Vlad]

I love them!

[unprincess]

I havent liked the more recent DS lithos but these are even worse in(what I assume) is their lame attempt to make them look like theyre CGI stills. Who you fooling Disney?

No, they are not trying to make them look CGI. No fool would think they were.

so why the pointless shading? To make them look "nicer"? B/c they failed big time...

I have the original litho set from the 2000's that utilized untouched stills from the film and those look fantastic.

[Disney Duster]

In all Disney movies since Beauty and the Beast, they have used shading in their films. These images just use more.

Recent princess storybooks for films that haven't had any shading, like Cinderella and The Little Mermaid, have had shading added to their illustrations just to look even nicer and also probably to mimic how great the shading was in the films since Beauty and the Beast.

[unprincess]

yeah but the illustrations in books is completely original art. I dont mind shading there b/c its an artist's interpretation of scenes from the film(just like I dont mind shading used in fan art) but with these lithos they just took stills straight from the movie and added some tacky Photoshop filter to make them look more 3 dimensional. If you like it that's fine but I dont b/c it just looks like a cheap attempt at looking like today's CGI films, whether that was their intention or not.

[JeanGreyForever]

The restoration is the same as the platinum edition one right? How accurate is that supposed to be? I was under the impression that the platinum edition boosted up the colors for the film, but others say it was more accurate than the VHS/laserdisc.

[2Disney4Ever]

The restoration is the same as the platinum edition one right? How accurate is that supposed to be? I was under the impression that the platinum edition boosted up the colors for the film, but others say it was more accurate than the VHS/laserdisc.

Well I myself believe that Disney's "restorations" of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King did indeed make the colors way brighter (which is a problem I've always found in most of today's 2D cartoons on television that are colored digitally compared to cel animation), whereas the older theatrical prints on VHS/LaserDisc had darker, richer looking coloring that I find much more pleasing on the eyes, regardless of if it was supposed to be accurate or not. This is really the reason why I invested in owning these particular Disney movies on LaserDisc rather than buying them on Blu-Ray, along with animation changes in most of the Special Editions.

However unlike Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, I find that Aladdin's Special Edition was not heavily altered animation-wise since there are no glaring differences in the animation whatsoever. I've found that the real alterations were in the audio department (muting that infamous scene where Aladdin supposedly told teenagers to "Take off your clothes").

[JeanGreyForever]

The restoration is the same as the platinum edition one right? How accurate is that supposed to be? I was under the impression that the platinum edition boosted up the colors for the film, but others say it was more accurate than the VHS/laserdisc.

Well I myself believe that Disney's "restorations" of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King did indeed make the colors way brighter (which is a problem I've always found in most of today's 2D cartoons on television that are colored digitally compared to cel animation), whereas the older theatrical prints on VHS/LaserDisc had darker, richer looking coloring that I find much more pleasing on the eyes, regardless of if it was supposed to be accurate or not. This is really the reason why I invested in owning these particular Disney movies on LaserDisc rather than buying them on Blu-Ray, along with animation changes in most of the Special Editions.

However unlike Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, I find that Aladdin's Special Edition was not heavily altered animation-wise since there are no glaring differences in the animation whatsoever. I've found that the real alterations were in the audio department (muting that infamous scene where Aladdin supposedly told teenagers to "Take off your clothes").

Yes, that is what I was thinking, because I too prefer the way Aladdin looked on VHS/laserdisc/original trailers etc. The sequels and TV series also seem to correspond more with these colors than the new ones. Actually even the aforementioned shaded lithographs at least seem to have more accurate colors than the DVD.
Beauty and the Beast is a debacle on DVD AND Blu-Ray. If the rumors of its re-release under the diamond edition in 2016 are true, then I'm expecting a return to the original colors. I know Lion King wasn't very accurate on the platinum edition, but I heard the Blu-ray diamond edition changed the colors back to be more accurate.

[PatrickvD]

If the rumors of its re-release under the diamond edition in 2016 are true, then I'm expecting a return to the original colors.

I haven't heard this yet. Do you have a source? It would be great if they release a fixed version.

[The_Iceflash]

If the rumors of its re-release under the diamond edition in 2016 are true, then I'm expecting a return to the original colors.

I haven't heard this yet. Do you have a source? It would be great if they release a fixed version.

The colors don't need to be fixed. It was wrong theatrically due to a poor CAPS to film transfer. The resulting colors were not the intended colors by the creators. Because that was what was released, some can't accept anything else but the wrong colors. That would drive me crazy if I were the creator. We got to get over that and accept the correct colors.

[2Disney4Ever]

I haven't heard this yet. Do you have a source? It would be great if they release a fixed version.

The colors don't need to be fixed. It was wrong theatrically due to a poor CAPS to film transfer. The resulting colors were not the intended colors by the creators. Because that was what was released, some can't accept anything else but the wrong colors. That would drive me crazy if I were the creator. We got to get over that and accept the correct colors.

I still say it's the so-called "restored" colors that are poor. They're way, waaayyy too bright than they need to be, and none of the other Disney movies done in CAPS really had colors that bright. It just shows how sometimes the creators themselves don't always know what's better for their work or what gives off the better results. Nobody should intend for the animation to have an extremely bright eyesore of a color palette, cause it just doesn't look good (this is why I think My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is so painful to look at). Those movies just looked better when they were on film.

[PatrickvD]

I haven't heard this yet. Do you have a source? It would be great if they release a fixed version.

The colors don't need to be fixed. It was wrong theatrically due to a poor CAPS to film transfer. The resulting colors were not the intended colors by the creators. Because that was what was released, some can't accept anything else but the wrong colors. That would drive me crazy if I were the creator. We got to get over that and accept the correct colors.

Then why was all promotional material... including WDAS sculpts, lithos, coloring books, dolls - you name it - with different colors than what was restored? Belle's hair is red in certain scenes now.

I understand and accept their reasoning, but it simply makes zero sense. They must understand that fans of the film cannot accept the restoration. The 'step into the light' scene is so cringeworthy.

[JeanGreyForever]

If the rumors of its re-release under the diamond edition in 2016 are true, then I'm expecting a return to the original colors.

I haven't heard this yet. Do you have a source? It would be great if they release a fixed version.

Someone on this forum posted some time back about how he/she went to some Disney expo in Brazil and they confirmed that the next diamond release after Aladdin would not be Pinocchio as often believed, but instead Beauty and the Beast and Snow White, both in 2016 in that order. I'm not sure how credible it is but I would like it to be true.

I haven't heard this yet. Do you have a source? It would be great if they release a fixed version.

The colors don't need to be fixed. It was wrong theatrically due to a poor CAPS to film transfer. The resulting colors were not the intended colors by the creators. Because that was what was released, some can't accept anything else but the wrong colors. That would drive me crazy if I were the creator. We got to get over that and accept the correct colors.

Besides the rest of the evidence that has already been used against your claim, also consider why the film has had such an inconsistent color scheme in the last decade. The platinum and diamond 2D were completely off, yet the diamond 3D is supposedly what the developers had in mind. If that is so, then why did it take them so long to return to the original colors? Why were the platinum and diamond 2D editions not those colors that are supposedly the real ones too? I will say that the 3D colors are the closest to the original colors, but even then quite a bit is off.

[The_Iceflash]

The colors don't need to be fixed. It was wrong theatrically due to a poor CAPS to film transfer. The resulting colors were not the intended colors by the creators. Because that was what was released, some can't accept anything else but the wrong colors. That would drive me crazy if I were the creator. We got to get over that and accept the correct colors.

Then why was all promotional material... including WDAS sculpts, lithos, coloring books, dolls - you name it - with different colors than what was restored? Belle's hair is red in certain scenes now.

I understand and accept their reasoning, but it simply makes zero sense. They must understand that fans of the film cannot accept the restoration. The 'step into the light' scene is so cringeworthy.

I'm surprised in a thread in which on the last page discussed how bad the Aladdin covers and lithographs look you have to ask why promotional material looks different than the films themselves. The understand how fans can't accept change, even if it is to what it is supposed to look. You would think fans would want it too look like how it is supposed to.

[The_Iceflash]

The colors don't need to be fixed. It was wrong theatrically due to a poor CAPS to film transfer. The resulting colors were not the intended colors by the creators. Because that was what was released, some can't accept anything else but the wrong colors. That would drive me crazy if I were the creator. We got to get over that and accept the correct colors.

Besides the rest of the evidence that has already been used against your claim, also consider why the film has had such an inconsistent color scheme in the last decade. The platinum and diamond 2D were completely off, yet the diamond 3D is supposedly what the developers had in mind. If that is so, then why did it take them so long to return to the original colors? Why were the platinum and diamond 2D editions not those colors that are supposedly the real ones too? I will say that the 3D colors are the closest to the original colors, but even then quite a bit is off.

2D and 3D are going to look different by nature. The "original colors" are wrong. Period. Inconsistent color scheme can easily be explained by medium, resolution, etc. plus they aren't that inconsistent. At least not as inconsistent as you want it to be. You guys can either pretend everything's all wrong and bad in the Beauty in the Beast home video world (and every other Disney blu-ray's for that matter) or you can accept the creator's word and get over it. The "it looks different so it's wrong" mantra is getting very old. Looking different doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. In fact with few exceptions, evidence seems to point to the contrary.

[2Disney4Ever]

You would think fans would want it too look like how it is supposed to.

I think what some of us want is for it to look good. And to us their ideas of how the coloring is "supposed" to look doesn't look good.

[PatrickvD]

Then why was all promotional material... including WDAS sculpts, lithos, coloring books, dolls - you name it - with different colors than what was restored? Belle's hair is red in certain scenes now.

I understand and accept their reasoning, but it simply makes zero sense. They must understand that fans of the film cannot accept the restoration. The 'step into the light' scene is so cringeworthy.

I'm surprised in a thread in which on the last page discussed how bad the Aladdin covers and lithographs look you have to ask why promotional material looks different than the films themselves. The understand how fans can't accept change, even if it is to what it is supposed to look. You would think fans would want it too look like how it is supposed to.

What I'm saying is the 'intended' colors didn't show up until 10 years after its theatrical release. You'd think if it were 'intended' it would have shown up at least in something related to the film.

Also no, fans want things to look the way they remember it, not the way the filmmaker suddenly decided it was always supposed to look. Hence why the things George Lucas did to Star Wars are universally rejected. Even though he intended for giant CGI lizards to grace the backdrop of scenes for no damn reason.

They re-animated a scene of Cogsworth because the animator never liked his original work. How is that different from this:



Like I said, I accept their reasoning that the CAPS screens made it look different during production and that they wanted their original vision released. But you (and they) have to understand that it comes out of nowhere to audiences. And it looks jarring to people who grew up watching the film. I've even heard people who normally don't notice these things say it looks too bright on dvd and bluray.

[2Disney4Ever]

Also no, fans want things to look the way they remember it, not the way the filmmaker suddenly decided it was always supposed to look.

Not to mention that the Platinum Edition DVDs of Lion King and Beauty and the Beast claimed to include the original theatrical releases when they were really just the Special Editions with the extra songs edited out so the movies would play out like the theatrical releases.

When Steven Spielberg first released the 20th Anniversary re-release of E.T. on DVD, he knew that fans were going to want to have the actual original release to watch too, so he included it on a 2nd disc. And that's why Steven gets more appreciation from fans than George Lucas or Disney.