Beauty & the Beast original colors - in upcoming platinu

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:53 am

Marky_198 wrote:It's only the filmmakers film.

Yes it is.

And if they want to make it look Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini (thanks Mooks

), they can and should.

So there!

Marky_198 · Post by **Marky_198** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:17 am

Yes, but why do I have the feeling that the filmmakers suddenly will "change their minds" if no-one will buy the film anymore?
Perhaps because they realize the audiences are actually the only thing that matters for the success of a film?

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:53 am

Too true, unfortunately.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:27 am

Kubrick, look carefully, look at his pony tail and that candle!

Kubrick, it is okay if the film is re-animated a little for the 3-D release, they have to seperate the elements and everything, they're supposed to! However, there needs to be the original version available along with the new 3-D version, of course.

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:52 am

Duster, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Belle and Beast might have been animated on twos in that shot while the CG background moved on ones, hence for that particular frame of animation of Belle and Beast there are two in succession over the moving background, and the DVD cap happened to be the first frame, and the promotional still the other.

Confused or not?

Elladorine · Post by **Elladorine** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:01 pm

If the one on the right is a promo pic from the 3-D version, it makes sense that it's from the 3-D version. And if so, of course portions of the image are gonna be different to compensate for the effect.

View those two side-by-side pics like a stereogram, you might get a preview of the 3-D effect.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:08 pm

No I understand Julian, as I know animation as well.

But if you look at the two original images, you should see the background has not moved a frame. Belle and the Beast are slightly smaller/farther away in the 3D promotional image.

There is nothing wrong with having to change a little something for the 3-D release, as long as they keep the 2D original the, um, original!

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:08 pm

Disney Duster wrote:Kubrick, look carefully, look at his pony tail and that candle!

Kubrick, it is okay if the film is re-animated a little for the 3-D release, they have to seperate the elements and everything, they're supposed to! However, there needs to be the original version available along with the new 3-D version, of course.

Again, those caps are from a moving shot, if I remember correctly. So there is a possibility that they are two different frames and because of that would differ from each other.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:25 pm

Sunny Wing wrote:I'm afraid I got really lazy with the background as I usually do. This was just a quickie to see if I could get something decent out of a pixelated little coloring pic.

Actually, I think it's more romantic with the background you did. It puts more emphasis on Belle and the Beast (and the EO's, but that's minor), and the way the moon contrasts with the stark darkness of the night and castle...*shudders* makes me feel all "candlelight and roses" inside.

But it's your picture, so whatever you decide to do with it is fine by me.

Jules wrote:Duster, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually the mountain isn't entirely proportionate to the molehill, as there's a 0.005% difference in the shape of the peak. Also, the mountain is a brighter colour than the molehill now, as Mother Nature added snow to it, something the molehill never had. I'm sure some people want her to have kept the molehill as the original and disregard the mountain entirely since fans fell in love with the molehill. I've said time and again that the molehill is still available for those who want it, but if Mother Nature wants the mountain to stand as her proper creation, she has that right. Even if the shape of the peak is different by 0.005% and there's some snow on it. Fans can always just climb the mountain themselves and shovel away the snow (of course, they don't really have that right, but whatever floats their boat).

(You know, this made sense like, two minutes ago, but re-reading it, it doesn't really. But it's funny, so I'm posting it)

albert

CampbellzSoup · Post by **CampbellzSoup** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:30 pm

What would I do without you Scapes?

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:33 pm

Soups wrote:
What would I do without you Scapes?

Probably lead a less fantastic online life as you'd have no one to tease about Seven Dwarfs plush toys or be in your corner on UD After Dark chats.

albert

Elladorine · Post by **Elladorine** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:21 pm

Escapay wrote:Actually, I think it's more romantic with the background you did. It puts more emphasis on Belle and the Beast (and the EO's, but that's minor), and the way the moon contrasts with the stark darkness of the night and castle...*shudders* makes me feel all "candlelight and roses" inside.

But it's your picture, so whatever you decide to do with it is fine by me.

Thanks.

I did sorta want to make Beast and especially Belle "glow," and it actually kinda annoyed me that the EO were there, but mostly because I was starting to run out of steam about halfway through the pic.

But seriously, I'm rather concerned about that Lumiere . . . Belle's dress is gonna catch fire if he isn't careful!

pap64 · Post by **pap64** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:04 pm

I don't know where to post this, but look at the Blu Ray cover in this article...

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/tech/ ... 17672.html

I KNOW someone at UD made that cover. Who was it?

Mooky · Post by **Mooky** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:06 pm

Steve.

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:15 pm

You know, were it not winter garb, i might be okay with that. It'd be a step up from the DVD's clip, er, box art. Still not great, but whoever made that is doing better than Disney, sadly.

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

it was someone on this site who did it, I think.

Coolmanio · Post by **Coolmanio** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:54 pm

I am kind of glad that this is not the actual cover. It doesnt feel, ok, "awesome" enough for the movie, and neither was the original DVD. Not to say the artist isnt talented, cause he is. It just doesnt do it for me.

Anyway, the artist originally posted it here.

UmbrellaFish · Post by **UmbrellaFish** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:22 pm

The original concept (that the cover itself would be 3D), I thought, was awesome.

zackisthewalrus · Post by **zackisthewalrus** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:39 pm

Coolmanio wrote:I am kind of glad that this is not the actual cover. It doesnt feel, ok, "awesome" enough for the movie, and neither was the original DVD. Not to say the artist isnt talented, cause he is. It just doesnt do it for me.

Anyway, the artist originally posted it here.

I think it's funny that I commented saying that I could leak it across the web and people would think it's real (I didn't leak it), and now people ACTUALLY think it's real. Props to steve.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:02 pm

I just remembered something.

Disney will say "this title not currently available" when talking about films that are OOP.

Escapay...even Disney admits such a thing...that's why they need to make the original version available, even if only for "a limited time".

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Beauty & the Beast original colors - in upcoming platinu

Beauty and the Beast Original Colors

Beauty and the Beast Original Colors

Re: Beauty and the Beast Original Colors

Beauty and the Beast Original Colors