Beauty & the Beast original colors - in upcoming platinu

[Jack Skellington]

It's a freaking shade lighter

Personally I could care less, as I don't think the movie is that good anyway.

That's what I thought.
Scaps admit it your not into BATB either.

[Marky_198]

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 "

albert

I'm sorry but you are really missing the point.

If artists/filmmakers produce something, and the world falls in love with that, the people do "own" it in a way. People pay money for it, it becomes part of their lives. If it would only be the filmmaker's film, they wouldn't have to release it to the public in the first place. Actually, the most important thing is respect for your audience. They can change things, but it is extremely disrespectful.

It also doesn't matter what the filmmakers think 20 years later, because times have changed, different things are "in", and if the filmmakers happen to be in a happy time of their lives, they might prefer bright, cheery colors, and if someone close to them just passed away, they might be in the mood for darker colors. My point is, it DOES NOT matter what they want 20 years later. All that matters is what the filmmakers chose and decided when the film was actually made, and that product they have given to the world.
Who knows what they might like in 20 years from now?

Also, IF they feel the need to change things (like the've done for the 2002 dvd), they should present it as an altered version.

A good example is the American "National Anthem".
A beautiful song.
The composer is probably dead by now, but if he'd still be alive, and would wake up one day and decide that he was in a certain mood and "change" the melody of "And the rocket's red glare", and make that sentence go down instead of up.
And present it as the new song.
And he would make sure that every recording that will ever be available has this melody changed.
And he would claim that he could do that because he is the composer?
And his opinion is the only thing that counts?
Would you agree?

I wouldn't. Because as soon as you release a song into the world, people are going to love and cherish it, and it becomes part of THEIR lives.
The song became part of people's lives and part of the world. It's the audiences that actually "made" this song big.

You cannot just change things. Because then it's not the same song anymore.

[Marky_198]

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.

The fans do not have a say in how a film should be presented.

albert

No one has a say in how the original film should be presented. Because there is only one way, and that is how the film was released when it was made.
If anything is changed, it is NOT the same film anymore, so it should be presented as something different.

[Marky_198]

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,
albert

You know, Albert, you really had me in your corner in all your posts, even if I didn't agree with them. But really, that ended just now.

What on earth are you talking about here?
It has NOTHING to do with making different/new films.
It's all about the original, existing films here, that they should leave alone.
It really shows how much respect you have for the originals.

[Marky_198]

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.

Well said. You are right.

It's not BATB anymore. The film on the 2002 dvd comes across as shallow, childish, sequel-ish, distant, and the general impression of the film is cheap.

This will definitely influence the general opinion people will have of the film, and make it less popular over time.

Waste of money Disney, is that what you want?

[Elladorine]

I dunno . . .

Some of you know that I'm an artist. Sometimes I like to go back and revisit a piece I've released/posted. Sometimes I'm not entirely happy with what I did and will change a few things around, alter the colors, rework the proportions, or just do some old-fashioned touch-ups.

And it's amazing how often I get harshly criticized for posting an altered version at a later date, even when I leave the original version of the artwork up.

But the way I look at it, it's my creation, it's my piece, and if I want to alter it, I'm free to do so. My work doesn't "belong to the world" any more than a Disney film. I may dislike changes Disney may make to any of their films and I may criticize it, but I still respect their right to do so in a situation like this.

And really, people are free to criticize me for altering something of my own as long as they respect me as the artist and keep in mind that I'm entitled to make those kids of decisions.

But that's just my point of view on all this. Animated features are done on a schedule are often rushed and finalized just in order to make a set release date. If the creators want to return to a film to tweak and add at their leisure, more power to them.

[Jules]

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?

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

NO!

NOOOO!

A film-maker makes a film only for artistic purposes. Please distinguish between The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Animation Studios. The Walt Disney Company wants to make money. Walt Disney Animation Studios and the artists that run it want to make excellent, artistic films. Now sometimes The Walt Disney Company will grab Walt Disney Animation Studios by the neck, pointing a gun at its head, and say:

"I don't like the films you've been making matey. They suck big time! People don't want to see this artistic shit you're doing. Make sure the money starts rolling in fast, or else!"

At which point The Walt Disney Company will leave Walt Disney Animation Studios gasping for air in a dark alley. Unfortunately, Walt Disney Animation Studios will have no choice but to make popcorn movies following that unpleasant encounter, but its dedicated artists still do their utmost to create a good movie.

And the cycle goes on and on and on. That why we have movies like Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty and Pocahontas and The Black Cauldron and Treasure Planet (the artistic films) sitting side by side with Robin Hood, The Fox and the Hound and Chicken Little (the more commercial films).

*sigh*

Have I made my point?

To recap, TPatF and Rapunzel were both initiated by artistic reasons. Just look at all the research and passion Glen Keane poured into Rapunzel!

[blackcauldron85]

That's very insightful, engimawing! As for me, I don't mind the colors on the 2002 DVD- I'm happy while watching it. BUT, it does bother me when the castle is clean when it's supposed to still be torn apart! BUT, I understand that the creators wanted to include "Human Again", and altering the backgrounds was the only way to have the included "Human Again" really fit in.

I think that the theatrical and Special Edition versions can and should coinside on the next release, with the theatrical version being the true theatrical version (meaning no altered backgrounds), and the Special Edition being the one that includes "Human Again" and the altered backgrounds.

As far as the colors go, I notice it, but I don't understand why they're different. Well, I guess I should say, I notice the brightness of the 2002 version more than the colors- the 2002 version is brighter than the 1991 (or 1992 VHS) version. Once I understand why, then maybe I can make a judgment.

[Mickeyfan1990]

Update and exciting news!:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3395

"Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment have formally announced the Diamond Collection, which represents 14 of the most beloved and historic animated films the studio has ever made. Each title will be thoroughly restored for the highest level of picture and sound. Additionally, each Blu-ray will feature ground-breaking special features that promise to push the limits of Blu-ray.

Bob Chapek, President of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment commented, "Because today's family rooms are more technologically-advanced and consumer expectations are higher than ever, we are excited to announce the launch of the Diamond Collection. We believe that the collection offers consumers the opportunity to enjoy these timeless classics like never before, and underlines Disney's commitment to continue to bring the best quality product and immersive experiences in to the home."

The first title to be released will be the October 6th Blu-ray release of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', after which two titles will be released each year from the collection. For 2010, 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Fantasia and Fantasia 2000' have been scheduled for Blu-ray release. The remainder of the titles - 'The Lion King', 'Bambi', 'Cinderella', 'Lady and the Tramp', 'The Little Mermaid', 'Peter Pan', 'The Jungle Book', and '101 Dalmatians' - will be released sometime in 2011-2015, completed by re-releases of 'Sleeping Beauty' and 'Pinocchio' as part of the Diamond Collection.

Disney promises that each title will be remastered from the original negative (when available) for a pristine 1080p picture and stunning 7.1 soundtrack. As with all special Disney releases, these titles will only be available for a limited time."

[jpanimation]

Wow, I wonder if its possible for Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty to get better releases lol By the time they are release, Quad HD and Blu-ray's successor will be out (possibly digital). Gotta love those LONG release schedules.

I'm glad to hear Fantasia/2000 is still on track.

[Jules]

What is QuadHD?

[jpanimation]

Its four times the resolution of a 1080p TV or 2160p. Its the equivalent of the original 35mm film print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2160p

So unless it was filmed on 70mm or Imax, you'll be experiencing the full picture. These TVs have been out for a while but the prices are absurd and there is no format that currently supports that resolution. Although most studios have been restoring movies at 4K or 8k, so they should be covered when the time finally comes.

[The_Iceflash]

Really, who hangs out at Blu-ray.com. If that's not obsessive I don't know what is.

@Mickeyfan1990: If Blu-ray's successor is released around 2015, there's a problem. There's absolutely no reason for new formats to be introduced every decade.

On Topic: At least we'll see Beauty and the Beast and Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 being re-released next year.

[Jules]

Blu-ray.com have excellent reviews. I love reading them.

[Disney's Divinity]

Have I made my point?

Yes. After telling me something I pretty much knew already. Regardless of whether the animators make artistic endeavors within these movies, the fact that they are princesses who sell and can subsequently be capitalized on for eternity is the main reason the movies were decided upon in the first place. Which was the point. Cinderella did it, and TLM and B&tB did it again. I would never say that those movies are without merit, but the motivation for making them initially had almost nothing to do with artistic possibilities, etc.

And this is more likely true for TP&TF than Rapunzel (considering that one's been worked on for forever it seems like), but I think Rapunzel was forced to be finished faster so it can come after The Bear and the Bow (another princess movie). So, yes, some of the artistic integrity is a bit compromised for the sake of money.

Also, to explain my first post a little more, I honestly have no interest in restoration debates, etc. I don't even really care that much for B&tB itself. But we know that B&TB was deliberately changed for the 2002 version and, yes, that bothers me. It bothers me more that a release for a movie that has been made what it is by fans/the public completely disregards what impressed those people the first time. (And, no, it's not likely I'll change my mind on a film being changed by the makers years later because they feel like it, so I might as well just agree to disagree with anyone who doesn't see it as being so bad).

[DisneyJedi]

2160p? What?! You've gotta be kidding me! I'm already happy with 1080p, so I won't be upgrading too soon unless I really have to. Or I might get it because I'll probably be living on my own by the time it's out.

And I'm already pleased with my Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio blu-rays, so I won't be double-dipping those.

On topic, can't wait to see BatB in its original negative

[Jack Skellington]

Really, who hangs out at Blu-ray.com. If that's not obsessive I don't know what is.

*Raises hand in the air while searching the yellow-book for the nearest shrink.*

I think the only way Disney might makes us (me at least) buy all those movies all over again is if they remaster all of them for 3D, QuadHD is kind of pointless, and Disney won't release all of their 3D rendered movies to theatres, it's eventually gonna be a direct-to-video kind of thing.

[ajmrowland]

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)?

Not entirely true, or maybe Musker/Clements head the entire friggin' company now and we just don't know it yet. Blame the board, because the filmmakers make movies to make movies. Executives make movies 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)

once again, executives.

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?

With all the video/game rental services, and access to DVD reviews and youtube videos that the net provides us, how could you not have an idea whether or not you'll like it?

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!

agreeable.

[Disney's Divinity]

Not entirely true, or maybe Musker/Clements head the entire friggin' company now and we just don't know it yet. Blame the board, because the filmmakers make movies to make movies. Executives make movies to make money.

Unless I'm mistaken, Musker/Clements make movies because their bosses want to make money--a means to an end. Not that they don't get paychecks for making movies, too. If it was all up to them though, then Treasure Planet would've happened a lot sooner (and maybe would've got more of the respect it deserves).

[singerguy04]

Not entirely true, or maybe Musker/Clements head the entire friggin' company now and we just don't know it yet. Blame the board, because the filmmakers make movies to make movies. Executives make movies to make money.

Unless I'm mistaken, Musker/Clements make movies because their bosses want to make money--a means to an end. Not that they don't get paychecks for making movies, too. If it was all up to them though, then Treasure Planet would've happened a lot sooner (and maybe would've got more of the respect it deserves).

I doubt that Treasure Planet would have gotten the respect it deserves no matter when it was released. The whole concept is what threw off audiences. Being a film that followed Lilo & Stitch I think people were already expecting great things to come from Disney again, but a Treasure Island story set in space wasn't exactly what people had in mind. Granted it could've received better publicity but it's major overlying flaw was the film itself and I don't think people can look past it. If they had they would've seen how awesome it really was.

As far as TP&TF, I think it is a bit obvious that there was pressure to put out a princess film because of the never ending popularity of the princesses. However I refuse to believe that Walt Disney Animation Studios is purely working out of trying to make money. They are artists, and they wanted hand drawn animation to make a come back. If you wanted to bring it back, why wouldn't you do a princess film? In order for 2D animation to make a return it needs to be successful and out of many options for this film a princess film seems ideal. After finalizing on that then they went on to form what has now become TP&TF. I cannot believe that anyone on this forum can sit here and say such rubbish that the Disney animators are only doing it for the money. It's insulting beyond belief and not only for the animators but for anyone who enjoys the wonderful films these people have made!

In the case of BatB, I see why many are upset with the 2002 release. Overall I'm with you on that. The thing is, the change really isn't as drastic or detrimental to the overall film as I think a lot of people are acting it was. Are some of you seriously telling me that you are incapable of enjoying the film because some of the colors are off? If thats the case how did any of you ever survive the time of VHS? I'm in your corner in that I wish the 2002 release was darker, but from what it sounds like the new release is going to be a lot closer to the original so what is there left to complain about? What else is there really to post over and over and over again other than what you originally said but rephrased? I just think it's time to get over it since there's nothing to be done about it. I also think it's wrong for any of us to pretend we absolutely know what the original intent of the artist was. It's incredibly ignorant for any of us to speak for these artists and the direction in which they want their film to go. Yes, you may love the film and like to watch it now and then, and have as much merchandise as you can get your hands on. But to imply that the people who made this film their passion in life, the ones who spent years in development, the ones that are essentially pouring their souls into their work trying to meet the demand of shrinking deadlines, stockholders, and a public to match past work all of the sudden have absolutely no ownership or say in that films future past it's initial release... well that's one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard on this site.