DVDizzy Forum

Well, the colors were indeed changed for the 2002 DVD from the original theatrical presentation, so I'm not sure what someone on these boards would argue about unless its your color preference.

Personally I like the theatrical version. I'm getting into the animation industry myself and had to learn about the importance of colors and how it reflects the mood of the characters/shots. I can't pretend to know the directors' original intentions on look and feel but I do know that the 2002 version just "feels" wrong. Shadows don't come across right and it kills some of the dimensionality of the shot and the nighttime romantic atmosphere is none existent in the new version.

The footage shown in the Princess and the Frog trailer looks like a combo between the theatrical presentation and the 2002 color palette. The still that PatrickvD posted has accurate theatrical colors but looks to be a tad too bight. We can't take any of those as evidence that the theatrical colors will be restored for the new 3D presentation and blu-ray release but we can hope.

It's funny, before I found this site I never even knew they changed the colors as I never bought the DVD. It wasn't until my teacher was showing us some of James Baxters work that I felt something was off as I didn't remember the movie feeing like one of the Beauty and the Beast cheapquels before. Found this site and confirmed my suspicions.

jpanimation wrote:
It's funny, before I found this site I never even knew they changed the colors as I never bought the DVD. It wasn't until my teacher was showing us some of James Baxters work that I felt something was off as I didn't remember the movie feeing like one of the Beauty and the Beast cheapquels before. Found this site and confirmed my suspicions.

Funny, before I found this site, all I really could remember was the DVD. I was too young when we had the VHS to recall how the colors were, o I still like the DVD presentation. I just would rather have it the way it was originally, as an option.

Beast_enchantment wrote:This video is too good not to be posted!

6:30 is when it becomes more evident! and 8:27 is laughable!!!

Wow! I've never gotten the chance to see the two compared before! It's shocking how much it has been altered on the 2002 release. Is there a logic or a reason behind it? (Yeah, as if Disney would make any sense!)

The 2002 version looks like a Saturday morning cartoon compared to the 1991 edition.

Marky_198 wrote:But according to some people here, everything you own, stills, screenshots, theatre cards, memorabilia with shots from the film, the making of books, trading cards, lithographs, have ALL faded in the exact same way........yeah right.

You're missing my point, Marky.

It's not about all the old materials anyone owns and how they compare to the VHS. Because even if they look like the VHS, it's still not a correct presentation of what the original colours and look of the film was. It's a mass-produced series of merchandise and books and even if you think it's accurate, to a certain degree it isn't. The only way to get that is to have your own first generation film print direct from the CAPS source, and I doubt many fans have that. It's obvious that the 2002 DVD is different colours than the 1992 VHS/laserdisc. The filmmakers chose to do that, for whatever reasons they had. Having people complain and saying that the filmmakers screwed up the colours, then saying "Here's the right ones!" with caps from a decades-old laserdisc or some lobby cards is not showing the right colours anyway. They're not examining the film prints, the actual digital files, or anything really truly related to the production. They're examining mass-produced merchandise. It's apples to orangutans.

And it's not about how the filmmakers decided the colours should look brighter for IMAX. They didn't need the audience's permission to do so. It's their film, that's how they wanted to present it. There is no "right" or "wrong" to this. As a consumer/moviegoer, yes, you have a right to say, "Well I won't see it then" but you don't have the right to state as fact that that the filmmakers made the wrong decision. You can have that opinion, but it's never fact. It's not your film. People often get the misconception that just because *they* fell in love with a film, that they "own" it in a sense beyond "I have it on home video". They don't. It's like the George Lucas edits of Star Wars, though some will chime in that it's not the best example, when really it is. It's his films, he can do what he wants to them. People may not agree with what he does, and they may even go about on their own to produce what they want (fan edits, bootleg DVDs of the laserdiscs, etc.). But ultimately, the decision on how to officially present the film belongs to Lucas, as it does to Disney for their films, even if people feel they're doing it the "wrong" way. I'd mention Disney's lousy treatment of a majority of their live-action titles, but since so few of the more devoted arguing posters seem to care about that, I'll skip it.

And it's certainly not about what's the correct colours. If anything, it's what the preferred colours are. If you like the darker look, stick to your VHS and laserdisc. If you like the brighter look, stick to the 2002 DVD. Even though PatrickvD posted a cap that could likely be the 3-D version, we won't know for sure which types of colours they use until it's in theatres, so everyone should hold off judgment until then.

My little play about the five ranters was because when it comes to arguments like these, people seem to forget that there is more to Beauty and the Beast than just the colours and the "feel" or whatever other excuses are made up to complain. Wondy said it best when he was discussing people who are vision-impaired. Sometimes I think some of the complainers would be better off blind and just listening to a Disney movie. Then they can make it whatever they want it to be in their head.

albert

Thanks, Soups.

albert

I just watched the BATB comparison clip again.

And I didn't expect to be so shocked again, but I was.

The 2002 dvd version has nothing to do with a Disney Classic anymore. It really is a cheapquel.

I can't really explain what it is. It is not even about the colors or brightness. It's about the whole texture and detail.
It looks INCREDIBLY cheap.

The look that makes a classic is just gone.
Basically is just doesn't look mature anymore, but cheap and childish.
This Disney classic look is magical and one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. The dvd look has nothing of this. It is just not Beauty and the Beast, the Disney classic. No matter what some people might say.

About that still image Disney released recently to promote the upcoming 3d theatrical re-release of the film, there is something strange looking about that.

Although the colors are accurate, it doesn't look like a film still.
More like a picture in my 4 year old cousin's colour book. Really weird.

I'm just watching the video now. Is there any reason that IMAX films need to be bright? And, shouldn't the video say 1991 vs. 2002, since the VHS came out in 1992? Small detail, I know, but still.
Are the colors on the original VHS exactly the same as they were in the theater?

*edit*
Look at 8:30 or so: would the 1991 version be too dark to show in IMAX?

Escapay wrote:And it's not about how the filmmakers decided the colours should look brighter for IMAX. They didn't need the audience's permission to do so. It's their film, that's how they wanted to present it. There is no "right" or "wrong" to this. As a consumer/moviegoer, yes, you have a right to say, "Well I won't see it then" but you don't have the right to state as fact that that the filmmakers made the wrong decision. You can have that opinion, but it's never fact. It's not your film. People often get the misconception that just because *they* fell in love with a film, that they "own" it in a sense beyond "I have it on home video". They don't.

I agree with you 100%. Art should always belong to the artist, not the observer. Unless you think like John Lasseter, who recently mentioned his movies and characters belonging to the audience after seeing the enjoyment a child had with a Woody doll at an airport. Too bad not every artist shares that mentality.

While I don't agree with the the color changes implemented in the 2002 DVD, I'm more upset by the false advertising. When you select Theatrical Version on the menu, you expect the theatrical version, colors and all. It should only be the Special Edition that has the color changes implemented. When Lucas made his changes, he at least made the distinction by calling it the Special Editions, so there was never the illusion that you were seeing the original theatrical presentations.

Marky_198 wrote:About that still image Disney released recently to promote the upcoming 3d theatrical re-release of the film, there is something strange looking about that.

Although the colors are accurate, it doesn't look like a film still.
More like a picture in my 4 year old cousin's colour book. Really weird.

Yeah, the colors appeared accurate to me too but it looked too bright or a little whitewashed.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Look at 8:30 or so: would the 1991 version be too dark to show in IMAX?

No, the darkness is just the VHS. Its the colors you should really be observing for comparisons sake.

The right thing to do is make the original theatrical version available to those who want it.

The only exception is if there was something about that version that the artist is extremely against, like they had to compromise to make their movie look like how someone else wanted, or the colors were a mistake. Or, somehow, the original movie that was made is later seen by it's creator as something bad for people!

But even then, it is the right thing, or the better thing, for an artist, or more accurately, artists, to realize that once an audience loves something and wants to see it again, and they're not going to destroy humanity with it, they should get to see it and own it forever as they loved.

Disney should respect it's fans. That's the right thing. The better thing. Duh.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I'm just watching the video now. Is there any reason that IMAX films need to be bright? And, shouldn't the video say 1991 vs. 2002, since the VHS came out in 1992? Small detail, I know, but still.
Are the colors on the original VHS exactly the same as they were in the theater?

*edit*
Look at 8:30 or so: would the 1991 version be too dark to show in IMAX?

There's no reason for IMAX films to be brighter than regular films, unless they're 3D which is often dimmed by glasses. I've seen one or two movies in IMAX(neither in 70mm native) and brightness is the same on their respective DVDs.

Disney Duster wrote:The right thing to do is make the original theatrical version available to those who want it.

And they have. The 1992 VHS and the 1992 Laserdisc contain that. Whether or not that's what we'll see in the 2010 DVD and Blu-Ray remains to be seen.

But at the end of the day, the filmmakers can release whatever version they want. It's their film. It's their work, their time, their devotion.

Fans can watch the film 100 times a day, invest their money in loads of merchandise, read every book and watch every bonus feature. But the film is not theirs. Lasseter may think otherwise, but the fans do not have a say in how a film should be presented.

Disney Duster wrote:But even then, it is the right thing, or the better thing, for an artist, or more accurately, artists, to realize that once an audience loves something and wants to see it again, and they're not going to destroy humanity with it, they should get to see it and own it forever as they loved.

Even so, it's not about the audience's wants. It's the artists' wants.

As jpanimation said: "Art should always belong to the artist, not the observer."

You don't ask Steven Spielberg to just make family friendly films because that's the kind of Spielberg films you grew up with as a kid and you don't like that he makes more dramatic material.

You don't ask Musker and Clements to make another Aladdin because you loved that film to bits and you haven't enjoyed every other film they've done since.

They can make a film how they want, and if they feel generous, make one for the fans (a "one for me, one for them" kind of thing). But they are not obligated to do so, and fans should be glad for the filmmakers that do it because they want to, not because they're contractually obliged to (that would likely explain why a genius like director Richard Linklater had to make the mainstream remake The Bad News Bears).

Mike Duster wrote:Disney should respect it's fans.

I agree. But the filmmakers will have more clout than the fans ever could, and the shareholders more than both groups combined. I'd rather have what the filmmakers wanted us to see.

Mike Duster wrote:That's the right thing. The better thing.

In your opinion. It's always opinion, not fact.

I'm not trying to make it seem like I don't want the original 1991 theatrical version available. I'm all for having the original theatrical version of *any* film be released when possible. Most of the time, they get it right the first time and revisionist editions that come later are unnecessary. But I don't close my mind to the idea of other versions becoming available, be it a Director's Cut or an Extended Edition. So long as the film reflects what the filmmakers wanted, I'm all for it. I would rather respect the filmmakers' intentions for the film (even if sometimes I don't agree with them) than the audience's.

Mike Duster wrote:Duh.

You know, Mike, you really had me in your corner in all your posts, even if I didn't agree with them. I knew that when I'd read your posts, you wouldn't be patronising or talking down to whoever you were disagreeing with. But really, that ended just now.

Because the "Duh" is really really beneath you. A poster like you would not resort to the snide and insulting word that is "Duh". There are so many other ways you could have finished that post. "Duh" did not need to be one of them.

Whenever someone uses the word "Duh", to me it says that they can't find any other way to support their argument, so they resort to a word that basically is saying "I don't know what else to say, and can't figure out why you still don't agree with my opinion. Therefore, I'll just insult you with a word that basically implies you don't have the intelligence to understand my opinion, and anyone who does understand would know why I duh'ed you." It makes it sound like what you said is so blatantly obvious, and that anyone who doesn't see that is stupid.

Really, that was beneath you.



albert

OK, here is a comparison that doesn't involve the VHS transfer:

Top 2002 DVD v Bottom promotional still for theatrical 3D



Not the exact same as the VHS but pretty close. The Blu-ray release is still a year away so who knows what we'll get with that. If the still is any hint though then it looks like we'll be getting the original 1:66:1 aspect ratio, restoring some image

Since I'm both used to the DVD version, and am attracted by colors, The "original" feels a tad disappointing, but that may disappear when I actually watch it. Even if the top colors look like a "cheapquel", that's only a skin-deep argument, anyway.

Escapay wrote:
But at the end of the day, the filmmakers can release whatever version they want. It's their film. It's their work, their time, their devotion.

And it's our money they're trying to get. Would you think TP&TF and Rapunzel are being made because the filmmakers thought those would be nice little films to make or that the studio's just trying to make money? If princesses make more money than Atlantis messes, then that's the goal. It seems random to me that a filmmaker--who works for a corporation--can do whatever s/he likes, regardless of whether it's for the worse. Doesn't that counteract the point of making movies these days (to make money)?

(Yes, I know many people make movies for more reasons than making money--independent films, for example--but the more hyped movies aren't really about quality product, only about bringing in as much $ as possible)

Fans can watch the film 100 times a day, invest their money in loads of merchandise, read every book and watch every bonus feature. But the film is not theirs. Lasseter may think otherwise, but the fans do not have a say in how a film should be presented.

But, you see, you're going into opinion now. If even Lasseter believes fans should have some role in how a film is released (since they are the ones who will ultimately be paying to have it), then that shows that some people do believe that fans should have a say in how a film their going to fork money over for should be presented.

And, of course, some would say, "Don't like it, don't buy it." But how can you possibly know if you'll like it before you buy it if it changes every time it's released?

As jpanimation said: "Art should always belong to the artist, not the observer."

You don't ask Steven Spielberg to just make family friendly films because that's the kind of Spielberg films you grew up with as a kid and you don't like that he makes more dramatic material.

You don't ask Musker and Clements to make another Aladdin because you loved that film to bits and you haven't enjoyed every other film they've done since.

They can make a film how they want, and if they feel generous, make one for the fans (a "one for me, one for them" kind of thing). But they are not obligated to do so, and fans should be glad for the filmmakers that do it because they want to, not because they're contractually obliged to (that would likely explain why a genius like director Richard Linklater had to make the mainstream remake The Bad News Bears).

Yes, they can make a film like they want. But to change a film that has already been released, one that is well-known to the general public at that, doesn't fall under the same category as demanding that an artist paint a similar type of painting to what you've seen before. Nobody would want the Mona Lisa after it had become famous to have been re-done because the artist thought, "There should be a little more color here, maybe something else going on here, maybe get rid of the smile, blah, blah," and still be placed on the same pedestal as the original (ignore the fact that I know zip about the Mona Lisa or its painter's history). Mostly because it would not be the same piece of art that had become renowned. And that's how I feel about the 2002 DVD. It's not B&TB, it's some highlighted imposter parading around with that movie's name slapped on it, manipulating people out of their money by pretending it's the same movie they saw in 1992 (or 91?) when it's not.

And, no, I don't find B&tB 2002 unbearably horrendous, but that's not even the point.

Mike Duster wrote:Disney should respect it's fans.

I agree. But the filmmakers will have more clout than the fans ever could, and the shareholders more than both groups combined. I'd rather have what the filmmakers wanted us to see.

I would rather the filmmakers make up their mind about what we should see the first time, rather than change their impression 10-20 years later. Oh, pay no attention to what's behind the veil--this is how it was always supposed to be!

Too bad that the story, animation, characters, design, production, direction, music, voice artists, and performance don't make this classic the gem that it is...it's truly the miniscule tint/shade of the colors...shame.

CampbellzSoup wrote:Too bad that the story, animation, characters, design, production, direction, music, voice artists, and performance don't make this classic the gem that it is...it's truly the miniscule tint/shade of the colors...shame.

You're right--color isn't used to create mood, evoke feelings or reflect on a situation or character. I don't know why anyone bothers complaining, it's so simple now! Why in fact do we use color at all, when black and white has the same effect?

And I personally would like to see a new actor playing Belle in the future, considering O'Hara's voice irks me. You don't agree? Oh, stop being stupid, it'll still be the same movie!

CampbellzSoup wrote:Too bad that the story, animation, characters, design, production, direction, music, voice artists, and performance don't make this classic the gem that it is...it's truly the miniscule tint/shade of the colors...shame.

Yeah those are all important, but so is the cinematography it's also a factor that shoudn't be overlooked. The scenes in the castle are supposed to be dark and mysterious, it represent's what the Beast was going through before Belle came.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

CampbellzSoup wrote:Too bad that the story, animation, characters, design, production, direction, music, voice artists, and performance don't make this classic the gem that it is...it's truly the miniscule tint/shade of the colors...shame.

You're right--color isn't used to create mood, evoke feelings or reflect on a situation or character. I don't know why anyone bothers complaining, it's so simple now! Why in fact do we use color at all, when black and white has the same effect?

And I personally would like to see a new actor playing Belle in the future, considering O'Hara's voice irks me. You don't agree? Oh, stop being stupid, it'll still be the same movie!

It's a freaking shade lighter

Personally I could care less, as I don't think the movie is that good anyway I just love to see the overreactions to such simplistic things, I hope they color the beast green to show his anger as the hulk!