DVDizzy Forum

Does anyone realize that Belle and the Beast are slightly smaller/farther away in the 3D release promotional still? As in...you can see more of the background, like the column next to the Beast's back.

And I forgot to say I have an answer to your riddle Escapay, if someone says I shouldn't change it and someone says I should, I either make a copy of the original and give it to the first one, I trace the original and change it how the other one wants it, and I keep the original and make whatever changes I want to that one myself.

I actually have done things like that for kids when I drew stuff in elementary school...and actually in High School I made tracings and copies and changes like that for my school play's promotional stuff.

Have we forgotten at Disney it's a lot of different artists working on one project that don't get to own the work they get attached to and give to the company? It's not the same as back in Walt Disney's day where it was all Walt's vision...yes, individual artists, but all doing what one guy came up with and wanted. Yes, he let them have their way on some things...let's not get into details, I'm just reminding you of this point. And then even Walt Disney said "Audiences want..." in response to why he went quickly to the happy ending for Cinderella instead of the longer ending he thought of, but I don't want to argue I'm just reminding you of this.

also note the HD version is relatively free of the MPEG2 artifacts found on the DVD version.
That's because most HD Blu-Ray encoding is H264, which can provide much better encoding quality.

WRT what Disney is "obligated" to do (IMHO - your mileage may vary

Disney is a publicly traded company with the key obligation of making money for its shareholders, for growth, profit, and support. Its products or "formula" would ideally support the obligation.

Walt's approach was to focus on new products that satisfied a current interest of his (Naturalist animation, theme park, EPCOT, etc.). When he lost interest in something (usually because, like animated shorts, it became a commodity item or no further improvement was possible), the focus became delivering the product as economically as possible while maintaining basic (if not top notch) quality levels.
Subsequent CEO/Presidents of Disney have varied the formula of the obligation (Eisner's was cost cutting, raising theme park prices and focus on sports and live action).

Currently, Disney's sending mixed signals. On one hand they are building on their established formulas with expansions at Disney World, the budding 2.5D feature animation unit, and publications (latter's quality is much better these last few years). However, the acquisition of Marvel and their already established products may suggest another formula change is in the works.

Disney Duster wrote:Goofystitch, but then do you think that the filmakers wanted the film to have less bit rate, have that pixelized look that it does do to three different versions of the film being on DVD? In that sense the presentation still isn't right.

I'm not GoofyStitch but Yes, I do. I think they wanted to show the WiP version for the fans, and this was the only way corporate Disney would let them - a 2 disc set. So they compromised in order to present more. Same with the Special Edition. The New song was obviously a selling point for Disney marketing - I'm sure it comes higher on any list, just above crappy DisneyChannel Music videos - so again, they compromised. Disney Marketing would probably be happy with just one version - the Special/Extended edition. It's how they've released most of their extended films in the past after all. I'm sure the filmmakers tried their very best to keep the fans happy with 2 versions and the WiP off the LD.

Also, they were so excited when Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture, saying it was like "a real movie" or something. It sounded from that and other things I read they were aiming for a more adult live-actiony feel.

And do you really think they didn't want the Beast to be covered in shadow at first, so that he didn't need to come into the light because he could already be seen so well? How on earth that was their intent...

Well, don't forget, cinemas are dark places. There's many a film (primarily older slasher flicks) which are all but unviewable in the home in the brightness of normal light (and it must be said with the compressed colour palliate of NTSC which tends to crush lots of dark shades together). So either the come into the light bit was right in the cinema but they decided to change it (the movie) for home viewing or they were never happy with the original.

It is however possible its a direct digital transfer issue - wasn't BatB one of (if not the first) direct CAPS transfer to DVD? Perhaps they tried their best to do what's right. I can't comment on the original theatrical showing, but all of the VHS images I've seen look far too dark (IMO) to be correct. Perhaps the ideal viewing would be somewhere between the VHS/LD shades and the DVD shades - and perhaps its just a result of compensating up using unfamiliar techniques. But I still say the directors were involved with the transfer, and by intent or by semi-accident, they approved the DVD. None of us were or did.

^But even so, I'll say it like so many before me, that screen cap taken from TP&F trailer is also directly from CAPS files, and look how different it is from the DVD.

jpanimation wrote:Top 2002 DVD v Bottom promotional still for theatrical 3D


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

I saw this scene in 3D at the D23 Expo and while I'm not capable of distinguishing between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 in a movie theater, I can confirm that the colors were bright, like the 2002 DVD, and did not look like the promotional image that Disney released.

If the footage at the D23 Expo was bright, then I think all of the 2002 DVD-haters just have to accept that that is what the film-makers want - whether they (the haters) like it or not (for more detail, read Escapay's posts).

And this argument has become really old, and I'm sick of it.

And if someone still disagrees and is about to protest ... then quiet! Just friggin' deal with it, people!

If Wise and Trousdale want to blind and traumatise and mentally torment you with their colours, then they will! Because they're Wise and Trousdale! Oh you will all suffer and have to endure the blistering palette you do not wish for, but you will watch it. You will not escape it ... not in a million years! You will die watching it! You and your denial of the film-makers' authority!

I'm done.

no one will force me anything. I adjust the color settings on my TV and do an evil laugh as I watch the film as it was intended. So I can cheat whatever the filmmakers think they can force me to watch.

goofystitch wrote:

jpanimation wrote:Top 2002 DVD v Bottom promotional still for theatrical 3D


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

I saw this scene in 3D at the D23 Expo and while I'm not capable of distinguishing between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 in a movie theater, I can confirm that the colors were bright, like the 2002 DVD, and did not look like the promotional image that Disney released.

Well, were any parts of the image cropped?

PatrickvD wrote:no one will force me anything. I adjust the color settings on my TV and do an evil laugh as I watch the film as it was intended. So I can cheat whatever the filmmakers think they can force me to watch.

Exactly, and besides what's intended, I'll mess with the settings of my tv just to make the film look better.

Marky_198 wrote:Exactly, and besides what's intended, I'll mess with the settings of my tv just to make the film look better.

Howard Ashman will haunt you in your sleep.

Marky_198 wrote:Exactly, and besides what's intended, I'll mess with the settings of my tv just to make the film look better.

Oooh, and that should only take around two or three minutes to do so.

By the way, this discussion has got to 22 pages now. As much as I love Beauty and the Beast, are 22 pages worth of chat on its colours THAT worth it?

Julian Carter wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:Exactly, and besides what's intended, I'll mess with the settings of my tv just to make the film look better.

Howard Ashman will haunt you in your sleep.

You should be so lucky. Hope he performs his demo version of "Poor Unfortunate Souls"...damn that man was talented...

Wondy wrote:By the way, this discussion has got to 22 pages now. As much as I love Beauty and the Beast, are 22 pages worth of chat on its colours THAT worth it?

Only if you're Marky.

I've resigned to just make snarky comments now since I'm argued and discussed out.

Well, snarky comments and something I remembered from good ole Abe Lincoln:

"You can please some people all of the time, or all people some of the time, but you can't please all people all of the time."
-Abraham Lincoln (well, if you replace "please" with "fool")

albert

Hey, I am reading a review of the B&TB Platinum Edition, and I just found out that, and I quote: "Disney even edited an audio mistake on previous editions involving one of the Beast's lines. (Editor's Note: Well, if it was a mistake, which is debatable. Nonetheless, this has altered the original theatrical cut.)"

Which line was it that was edited?

It was when the Beast said "You wanna, you wanna stay in the tower?" I think. Or something like that line. It changed to one "you wanna" as I recall.

I think it was the line where the Beast says something like, "Mrs. Potts, you're very hot today."

if not that it was definately when he screamed, "F#$K!!!!" after Gaston stabbed him

singerguy04 wrote:I think it was the line where the Beast says something like, "Mrs. Potts, you're very hot today."

if not that it was definately when he screamed, "F#$K!!!!" after Gaston stabbed him

Very funny, dude.

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, were any parts of the image cropped?

I was more impressed with how well the 3D effect worked that I really didn't pay attention to if there was any image that I wasn't used to seeing on DVD. I wasn't trying to analyze the footage, but I did notice that the colors were bright, like on the DVD, and not dark like on the VHS.

goofystitch wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, were any parts of the image cropped?

I was more impressed with how well the 3D effect worked that I really didn't pay attention to if there was any image that I wasn't used to seeing on DVD. I wasn't trying to analyze the footage, but I did notice that the colors were bright, like on the DVD, and not dark like on the VHS.

Any moments where something "flew out" at you, if you get my drift?

DisneyJedi wrote:Any moments where something "flew out" at you, if you get my drift?

Nothing like the banana cream pies in Muppet-Vision 3-D. It was basically the same effect that they've done with all of their feature film 3-D releases, like Bolt and Up. Nothing really flew too far off the screen, but it added a lot of depth. I think what is so impressive about Beauty and the Beast in 3D is how they added dimension without making each plane flat. The only other hand drawn animation that I've seen in 3D was the short Working For Peanuts in front of Meet the Robinsons. With that short, it was like watching the film through a multiplane camera. They had about 4 planes on which the cels and backgrounds were placed to add depth. This didn't feel like that at all. I was very impressed and am eager to see the full film in 3D this February.