Page 3 of 20
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:40 pm
by 271286
monks19 wrote:Seriously, we all knew (for years now) that Disney is doing that mess just to cut corners and make money out of the mainstream. We, fans and collectors alike, represent nothing. So whatever they do for mistakes, ommition alterations, censoring and all, they don't care if we rant at it since we do not represent the mainstream. They're more concerned about small group that want to make scandals on them (IE:Song of the South) instead and the value of the stock market with their marketing manipulations (yeah, the damn vault...). So... It's a shame that they don't allow a smaller company (Kino, Criterion, Image-Entertainment) to re-release their more vintage and risky stuff, like they use to do with Anchor Bay and the live action library. Hell, they can do it themselves sice the names "Disney" and "Buena Vista", among others, are all part of the same big trust like ABC & ESPN. I mean, Kino, Criterion, Image-Entertainment are now on for years, so... Anyway, they're just hurting themself. At least some other companies like Warner did something to it (even if we're still waiting to see Tex Avery and the Censored 11 getting a release). So now what ?
Having Criterion release the classics in a restored yet untampered way is a great idea though... I never thought of that. The releases would not be as polished and squeaky clean as the ones they are releasing today, but there would definitely be an audience...
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:44 pm
by Disney Duster
Could they do that? Have a Criterion restoration of the original negatives?
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:54 pm
by SpringHeelJack
They COULD, but Disney would never license their titles to Criterion.
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:22 pm
by Lazario
SpringHeelJack wrote:They COULD, but Disney would never license their titles to Criterion.
Other than
The Rock, Armageddon, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:44 pm
by Marce82
Lazario... I think he meants they would never license their ANIMATED CLASSICS to Criterion...
We all know Disney treats their Platinum/Diamond titles different from any other film they own.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:22 am
by ajmrowland
And Criterion wouldnt buy them anyway. They said so themselves but Im too tired to look.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:43 am
by Marce82
Since DisneyDuster posted he had gotten the screencaps of the "before" from the "Rags to Riches" documentary, I decided to pop in my dvd and watch it again.
It kinda hurts. When one watches the clips of Cinderella pre-restoration, the difference is staggering. One can tell how the dvd version has been scrubbed to the point of painting over the original art.
The quality of the clips in the documentary is pretty good...why couldnt have they put THAT version as the main feature?
Or they could have gone the Peter Pan way: have the restored version on dvd 1, and the unrestored version on dvd 2, as a "read-along" feature...
Dammit.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:44 am
by monks19
Or they could have gone the Peter Pan way: have the restored version on dvd 1, and the unrestored version on dvd 2, as a "read-along" feature...
What do you mean by that ? They didn't do that for the Peter Pan DVD, to what I rememder...
Criterion was just an exemple, but indeed, I'm afraid that no other company will be able to do so, even with the shorts (I didn't meant just the classic features but also other vintage stuff). Remember that Disney has also a reputation of been barely negociable on rights and bargain with other companies that are not theirs.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:35 pm
by Marce82
Hey Monks19,
If you own the Peter Pan PLATINUM edition, on the second disc there is a feature about learning to read, or a read-along, or something like that. It IS actually the entire film with "special" subtitles (with the face of the character who is speaking on them).
Look up the dvd review on here... or pop in your disc 2 of the Platinum edition if you have it!
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:43 pm
by rodis
Color is one thing, grain is another.
I would rather have the picture "touched-up" to look smoother and more aesthetic than have it look grainy, which looks very bad in HD.
Which reminds me, Little Mermaid has quite a bit of grain, I hope they're not gonna leave it that way on Blu ray. I understand it's part of the original art, but those films were made before HD was available so now there's a new standard...
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:06 pm
by Marce82
Rodis...
Just cause they removed the grain from Cinderella, doesn't mean the image is more pleasing now. But if thats your attitude toward grain, I assume you are also in favor of colorizing black and white films...
And I see you are one of the "loud" advocated of HD... but I don't think you really know much about this. TLM was made before HD, yes, but it was made to be projected in a screen MUCH bigger than whatever you may have at home. And I remember seeing TLM in theaters, and it looked perfect.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:12 pm
by Lazario
Marce82 wrote:Lazario... I think he meants they would never license their ANIMATED CLASSICS to Criterion...
We all know Disney treats their Platinum/Diamond titles different from any other film they own.
I was just bored.
I've never had one good thing to say about corporate Disney.
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:25 pm
by 271286
Marce82 wrote:Rodis...
Just cause they removed the grain from Cinderella, doesn't mean the image is more pleasing now. But if thats your attitude toward grain, I assume you are also in favor of colorizing black and white films...
That's such a bull**** argument... Grain was not an artistical choice back in the day, but due to deterioration of the film, it has come with age... I prefer when grain is removed, but GENTLY... It's a no-go when they remove so much grain that it removes animation as well...
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:20 am
by Marce82
Hey 271286,
I'm sorry, I suppose I didnt make myself clear. I'm not in favor of grain. but what they have done to Cinderella is completely re-coloring the film, and changing the tones and line-weight.
I don't like grain either, but what I was trying to say was, that if I have to choose between a faithful-yet-somewhat-grainy film, or a grainless-but-tampered one, I'll take the former.
Ideally, yes, they should remove as much grain as possible, but without changing the original art.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:18 am
by Scamander
271286 wrote:Marce82 wrote:Rodis...
Just cause they removed the grain from Cinderella, doesn't mean the image is more pleasing now. But if thats your attitude toward grain, I assume you are also in favor of colorizing black and white films...
That's such a bull**** argument... Grain was not an artistical choice back in the day, but due to deterioration of the film, it has come with age... I prefer when grain is removed, but GENTLY... It's a no-go when they remove so much grain that it removes animation as well...
That is TOTALLY wrong. Grain ist part of analog film from the first minute. Every not digital-shot movie you watch in 2012 in theaters, HAS grain. And the grain preserves the detail. If you remove the grain, it will destroy the detail automatically. Of course the film deteriorates and need to be restored. To make a good restoration you need most likely a new master and remove all the flaws manually while you preserve the grain. This is expensive, which is why DNR-loving companies like Universal often use an automatic tool and re-sharp the image later to cover their mess up. Unfortunately this doesn't work and we have very bad Blu-ray Discs like the first edition of Gladiator or the Jurassic Park and Back to the Future-trilogies.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:07 am
by Disney Duster
I think I'll find some way to show this to Floyd Norman soon...
All movies have grain that is necessary for detail. Over time, the grain gets out of hand and a lot of it needs to be removed, but removing all of it removes some detail.
rodis wrote:Which reminds me, Little Mermaid has quite a bit of grain, I hope they're not gonna leave it that way on Blu ray. I understand it's part of the original art, but those films were made before HD was available so now there's a new standard...
All movies are already in "HD", it's only home video which has had to change to HD. Any movie up on the screen before HD was the highest quality it could be. Only home video is where the quality had to improve.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:33 pm
by Marce82
Amen DisneyDuster...AMEN!
Wait a sec here: you know Floyd Norman???
Sidenote: I found an uplodaded version of Cinderella sourced from the laserdisc (via torrent). Whoever posted it makes a point to say it is the pre-2005 restoration, since many people have complained about it.
It's not downloading yet...but I sure hope it does!
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:33 pm
by Disney Duster
No I don't know him but I'm hoping to find some way to contact him. Anyone here know how? Cinderella is actually one of his favorite Disney films since he saw it when it first came out when he was a kid.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:57 pm
by DisneyAnimation88
Disney Duster wrote: Anyone here know how?
I know he has a column on Jim Hill's website, you could try there for an email address. There's a comment section so maybe you could post on his latest column and see whether he's willing to get in contact.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:49 pm
by monks19
Marce82, can you tell us where to find that torrent ? I'm sure some people would be interested to know.