The_Iceflash wrote:
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.
Disney marketing and merchandising made it match the release back then.
I understand that it's different than what came become and that its jarring to people. I'm able to accept it and understand that those who don't understand why would feel the way they do. We of all people should be more accepting of it since we understand what happened and why the colors currently look the way they do. What I can't accept is those in denial who are claiming revisionism and creating conspiracy theories and basically calling the creators liars. The color changes definitely isn't a Lucas-like change and it shouldn't be treated that way by fans. I starting to understand why creators, actors, etc can't stand fans.
2Disney4Ever wrote:
The_Iceflash wrote: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.
I can bet all the money I have that had the colors been reversed in their release you guys would think the current colors are better and correct than the "original" colors. Guaranteed. I don't buy for a minute it's about it looking good. It's that change can't be accepted.
2Disney4Ever wrote:
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.
I can bet all the money I have that had the colors been reversed in their release you guys would think the current colors are better and correct than the "original" colors. Guaranteed. I don't buy for a minute it's about it looking good. It's that change can't be accepted.
No, because in the end of the day, I find that the colors they didn't want to have add a lot more richness and quality to the look of the overall picture than what they consider to be the "correct" colors. It doesn't matter to me whether or not it was how they intended for it to look. Paul Rudish thinks the way he redesigned Mickey Mouse looks good, but I call it trash. Again, creative people don't always know what works best for animation.
JeanGreyForever wrote:
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.
Except the creators of Beauty and the Beast said the 3D colors are the correct ones. So then why have all the 2D home-releases in the past decade for Beauty and the Beast not been those colors that the creators claim to be correct? That itself renders this a moot point imo. It is obvious that the film has been tampered with.
We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one. "I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren "I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey
unprincess wrote: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.
I don't think it looks anywhere near CGI. I just find it to look like they are trying to add light and shade to the art because, well, in art, usually artists try to make things have light and shade if they can but in animation it's too time-consuming to do all that. These images have outlines. If you want to make something look CGI, you don't have outlines. That's hand-drawn-looking. I do agree with you though that if they are going to add light and shade and other effects, they should draw images that are wholly new, no tracing of frames. Even though it looks like none of the images are exact frames.
PatrickvD wrote:They re-animated a scene of Cogsworth because the animator never liked his original work.
Actually the artist who was the main animator of Cogsworth didn't get to animate that scene either the first time to the IMAX time. He said neither animation fit the character and he wish he didn't somehow miss the chance to animate him in that scene.
Best Buy is offering an alternative cover for the Aladdin Blu-ray. Honestly, why does Disney keeps hiring Eric Heunz to do the cover art for these things? His skills are obviously limited. There a ton of better illustrators out there who can actually draw Disney characters on-model.
oh yuck! they should have just used the Japanese teaser poster which has a similar style to the Sleeping Beauty art they used for that version's exclusive cover.
Flanger-Hanger wrote:Looks like a rough draft of a cover to me, or at least I hope it is.
Agreed. To be perfectly honest, that current cover looks like it was based on bad DeviantArt fan-art. They couldn't even get the lamp right. Honestly...
We can only assume its a rough edit of it, but even so ... it looks like there was zero creativity involved here.
With Disney being obsessed by being cheap and not bothering with pretty much any home release ever anymore (especially in the UK ) it really does make me wonder why they don't just reuse their old poster art ? Especially the teaser images for the Renaissance films; they were just glorious. I know I would certainly be extremely happy with an image like that used on a (so called) Special Edition home release. I mean, they certainly do like going back and reusing old home release images anyway, as all the UK vanilla release Blurays have had the old UK VHS images slapped on them. So shows they do go into the back catalogue of images.
Well, the genie looks good on that cover cause it is literally lifted off a frame from the movie (when he is about to get his freedom).
Aladdin looks almost grotesque: his eyes are absurdly uneven... and he is hideously off model.
That Best Buy cover is absolutely hideous. Makes you wonder if the illustrator has ever actually seen Aladdin or any merchandise associated with it except for a fleeting glance at some bad fan art. Aladdin is so off-model it's not even funny.
This is the one time I would pass on the exclusive packaging (if I had that option in the first place).
I guess they'll tweak it. They always do.
Settling Soul mates? That is grim. And I've played Monopoly alone.
As was the case last year with Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin has a larger selection of merchandise at Disney Stores and online, including non-Jasmine items (gasp!) and a limited edition doll of that character:
Marce82 wrote:Well, the genie looks good on that cover cause it is literally lifted off a frame from the movie (when he is about to get his freedom).
Aladdin looks almost grotesque: his eyes are absurdly uneven... and he is hideously off model.
Well, tbh, we know Disney does not care about Aladdin (the character). As long as Genie is prominently featured to cash in on mourning Williams fans' nostalgia and Jasmine looks princess-y enough, they really couldn't care less about the main character. It's just odd to me after the 2000's, where they were trying to heavily pursue boys (following a thought in another thread), that they turn around and sabotage one of the few genuinely popular male protagonists they have in Aladdin. What a shame.
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
) it really does make me wonder why they don't just reuse their old poster art ? Especially the teaser images for the Renaissance films; they were just glorious. I know I would certainly be extremely happy with an image like that used on a (so called) Special Edition home release. I mean, they certainly do like going back and reusing old home release images anyway, as all the UK vanilla release Blurays have had the old UK VHS images slapped on them. So shows they do go into the back catalogue of images.
It's just odd to me after the 2000's, where they were trying to heavily pursue boys (following a thought in another thread), that they turn around and sabotage one of the few genuinely popular male protagonists they have in Aladdin. What a shame.