Page 27 of 30
Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:09 pm
by Disney Duster
Yes, the original theatrical version of any film should always be available, if perhaps in limited qualities because the filmakers prefer a different version, unless they have a good reason for not allowing the original version anymore (they think it's bad for people, they feel horrible whenever they think of someone seeing it?).
As for Walt, his original and latest approved versions should be available. In Walt's case, the latest approved version is probably the one that should be priority. Walt Disney is gone and can no longer say anything and his wishes should be respected.
You know, I think we found common ground Albert.
We feel the filmaker's desired version is most important. But where we differ is that while still one is more important, they have an obligation to release both.
And maybe if Disney is only letting them release one version...they really, really, should think about the fans, and then about how much they really like/want their version. If the new colors really, really matter to them, so be it, but if not that much, and they care about the fans, then they should do the right thing that doesn't bother them all that much.
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:49 pm
by Escapay
Mike Duster wrote:As for Walt, his original and latest approved versions should be available. In Walt's case, the latest approved version is probably the one that should be priority. Walt Disney is gone and can no longer say anything and his wishes should be respected.
So, hypothetically, if he decided in 1964 that he wanted to re-animate
Cinderella and change a few scenes, and it was done, then that version should be the one with the highest priority, and not the 1950 version?
Mike Duster wrote:You know, I think we found common ground Albert.
We feel the filmaker's desired version is most important.
Yes, we have common ground there.
Mike Duster wrote:But where we differ is that while still one is more important, they have an obligation to release both.
Yes, we differ there.
Mike Duster wrote:And maybe if Disney is only letting them release one version...they really, really, should think about the fans, and then about how much they really like/want their version. If the new colors really, really matter to them, so be it, but if not that much, and they care about the fans, then they should do the right thing that doesn't bother them all that much.
We'll have to disagree here again, then. Even if they factor in what the fans want, they can't say "we're doing this because it's the 'right' thing." Again, there's no right or wrong about it for the
fans. It's the filmmakers' decision, and whatever decision they make is the final one.
albert
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:49 am
by 2099net
Disney Duster wrote:Yes, the original theatrical version of any film should always be available, if perhaps in limited qualities because the filmakers prefer a different version, unless they have a good reason for not allowing the original version anymore (they think it's bad for people, they feel horrible whenever they think of someone seeing it?).
As for Walt, his original and latest approved versions should be available. In Walt's case, the latest approved version is probably the one that should be priority. Walt Disney is gone and can no longer say anything and his wishes should be respected.
So why should Walt's "latest" approved version be available, but not Trousdale's/Wise's "latest" approved version? Don't you see how illogical that is? As far as I can see the only difference is YOU cannot remember any version other than Walt's "latest" approved version, yet you can remember an earlier version of BatB?
Look, logically we have to assume the new colours are approved. Especially if they carried across (more or less) to the 3D version (which, Goofystitch who has seen some of the 3D version says they are). Even if the DVD/IMAX was a mistake, they've had opportunity to fix it, and have clearly choosen not to - even though they are in effect reformatting the entire film. I'm sure reverting to the "original" colours for the bulk of the film and simply adjusting the colours of the new Human Again sequence would be child's play compared to 3D-ifying the whole movie!
So I can only assume these "new" colours (or close approximations to them should the 3D have slightly different colours) are what the creators want.
You said before that there was no logical reason for changing the film. But art isn't about logic. If it was, the whole of BatB falls apart narratively. Art is mainly about intuitive and emotional responses. The whole of BatB work more as an emotional journey than a logical journey.
As I stated before, I feel the various screen grabs, old theatrical trailers on the original DVD etc are too dark in many places. Much as you may find it hard to believe, I think its unlikely the filmmakers' wanted the movie that dark. It doesn't mean I don't think in places the "new" colours are too bright but...
Lots of films have been created on the CAPS system. None of them (as far as I know) have had complaints about the colours when transferred (digitally) to DVD. Most of the CAPS films have a generally similar look and feel - Aladdin, Hercules, Pochanontas all have vastly different art styles and designs - but their colouring style/method remains pretty consistent from film to film. If we look at the CAPS films from the first to the last it's Beauty and the Beast's original presentation which stands out as the most different.
Now I can't explain that. Something was obviously done in the process of transferring it to film which made it this way (I don't believe its simply down to it being early in the CAPS development cycle as Rescuers Down Under always had bright colours and that was the first). But being as we don't know the whys and wherefores of the reason (combined with the apparent preference of the filmmakers' on subsequent presentations of the same film) I find it just as easy to believe the "original" presentation was the mistake over the Platinum DVD/Imax/3D is a mistake.
In fact, more so, because as I've pointed out if the Imax was a mistake, they have opportunity to "fix" it for the DVD and/or 3D version.
Something I don't believe is that Disney has a policy of "Brightening" up old films regardless to make them look "new". Look at some of the last Disney films made in their hand-drawn animation cycle post 2000 - Fantasia 2000, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet all have "dark" scenes. Look at the latest restored Pinocchio - again full of "dark" scenes. I can see no evidence of modern Disney deliberately wanting to brighten up movies when [re-]releasing them in order to appease younger audiences.
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:20 pm
by Disney Duster
2009net, I almost forgot, you said that they were re-painting the scene because of fading or whatever. Well, in the scene they showed re-painting, it looked like they were painting some blue over some yellow that accidentally went out of the lines onto the blue, and so that was the kind of thing they were "fixing". If they were re-painting it for the reason you said, I would think they would have to re-paint the whole thing since the whole thing would have been fading! No, they didn't do that.
Escapay wrote:So, hypothetically, if he decided in 1964 that he wanted to re-animate Cinderella and change a few scenes, and it was done, then that version should be the one with the highest priority, and not the 1950 version?
ONLY if you agree with that, I mean, wouldn't that be what Walt finally, finally decided he wanted? But if you don't agree, well, then I won't either, just because the original versions Walt made were the better ones, I mean, they edited Fantasia doesn't look so good...I wish Sunflower had not been in it originally, but she was edited out very poorly and it looks worse now. But the main point is honoring a dead man's decisions when he can't change them now or know how people feel.
2009net, the difference is Walt is dead, but Don Hahn and the others are still alive and so we still have the ability to voice the version of the film which we want, and have them hear it and consider it.
Also, I did not have to use the word logical for a reason they had, it just has to be a good reason. In art, there are reasons for the colors, often. And as you said the mood of a film is what matters, well, the mood of Beauty and the Beast has changed, and to one most fans like much less than before. It does not feel like the same film to many of them. And how a film feels to you is one of the reasons we even watch films.
As for the brightening of films, Atlantis and Treasure Planet were made before the noticeable brightening in restorations, and Pinocchio has never been a film I claimed was restored too bright, in fact I actually couldn't believe the cooler, less lit-looking restored scene of the candle. It makes sense to me that Disney knew fans caught on to their brightening of films or heard complaints and cut it out.
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:41 pm
by Escapay
Mike Duster wrote:Escapay wrote:So, hypothetically, if he decided in 1964 that he wanted to re-animate Cinderella and change a few scenes, and it was done, then that version should be the one with the highest priority, and not the 1950 version?
ONLY if you agree with that
But what does my opinion on the hypothetical situation have to do with your opinion of the hypothetical situation?
Mike Duster wrote:I mean, wouldn't that be what Walt finally, finally decided he wanted?
It kinda does go into the whole "I respect the filmmakers' intentions more than the fans'" that I've said time and again.
Mike Duster wrote:But if you don't agree, well, then I won't either
Why?
Mike Duster wrote:But the main point is honoring a dead man's decisions when he can't change them now or know how people feel.
No, the main point was which version do you think should stand as the "highest priority" and "official" version. The original or the changes? Cause if you say the Walt-approved changes, then you have to accept that for Wise & Trousdale's decisions on
Beauty and the Beast. And if you say the original, then it's back to being about what the fans want and not what the filmmakers want and we've done that debate a million times already.
Mike Duster wrote:2009net, the difference is Walt is dead, but Don Hahn and the others are still alive and so we still have the ability to voice the version of the film which we want, and have them hear it and consider it.
See, this is my whole problem with your side of the debate. It is focused far too much on what the fans want rather than what the filmmakers want. You can't keep saying "it's the right thing to do" without explaining why it's the right thing to do (and "it's the right thing to do, because it just is!" doesn't cut it).
albert
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:17 am
by 2099net
Disney Duster wrote:2009net, I almost forgot, you said that they were re-painting the scene because of fading or whatever. Well, in the scene they showed re-painting, it looked like they were painting some blue over some yellow that accidentally went out of the lines onto the blue, and so that was the kind of thing they were "fixing". If they were re-painting it for the reason you said, I would think they would have to re-paint the whole thing since the whole thing would have been fading! No, they didn't do that.
OK, I just watched it again and you're right in that they didn't repaint every cell. They used a computer to calculate normalisations of the colour flicker and apply it (which I can only assume means the colour timings were altered programatically frame by frame) meaning any notion that the old SE/LD of Sleeping Beauty were the original colours is ridiculous. But you're wrong about the painting. The only painting they show is removing a "blob" from the image - a blob which obviously isn't a mistake or intended to be there but an object which has been created through wear.
Absolutely no recolouring is shown. Absolutely no repainting of lines is shown. Absolutely no altering of the original intent or actuality is shown.[/quote]
Escapay wrote:So, hypothetically, if he decided in 1964 that he wanted to re-animate Cinderella and change a few scenes, and it was done, then that version should be the one with the highest priority, and not the 1950 version?
ONLY if you agree with that, I mean, wouldn't that be what Walt finally, finally decided he wanted? But if you don't agree, well, then I won't either, just because the original versions Walt made were the better ones, I mean, they edited Fantasia doesn't look so good...I wish Sunflower had not been in it originally, but she was edited out very poorly and it looks worse now. But the main point is honoring a dead man's decisions when he can't change them now or know how people feel.
2009net, the difference is Walt is dead, but Don Hahn and the others are still alive and so we still have the ability to voice the version of the film which we want, and have them hear it and consider it.
Why should that matter? Walt isn't going to haunt anybody who releases or views a prior version of his film(s). Disney are perfectly capable of making such decisions for themselves. They made one about the re-voicing of Deems Taylor in Fantasia. The fact Walt (reportedly) changed his mind about some issues means these "Walt" approved versions aren't definitive anyway. If Walt lived, who's to say he wouldn't have made more changes as society changed? People complain about the removing of cigarettes from the package films? Well Walt died from Lung Cancer caused by smoking as I understand it. Who's to say removing the cigarettes wouldn't have been a Walt decision had he still been alive? Does that mean such "censorship" would be acceptable? Even though, being as it was done post-Walt most people here think its not?
Also, I did not have to use the word logical for a reason they had, it just has to be a good reason. In art, there are reasons for the colors, often. And as you said the mood of a film is what matters, well, the mood of Beauty and the Beast has changed, and to one most fans like much less than before. It does not feel like the same film to many of them. And how a film feels to you is one of the reasons we even watch films.
But that's assuming the "original" colours were what the creators wanted. Which - again, looking at the evidence - I have to conclude is not the case.
If you were an artist and created a wonderful abstract image - and when it was first presented to the public the colours looked wrong - let's say they looked different under artificial light in the gallery than they did when you were creating it under natural light - wouldn't you insist subsequent showings did their best to show the colours as you saw them when you created it?
Were Trousdale/Wise unhappy with the IMAX and/or DVD results, then I really couldn't see them retaining them for the 3D version. I'm sure colour timing is a trivial "fix" compared to recomposing each and every frame in 3D. So, to put it bluntly, "demanding" the return of the "original" colours seems disrespectful to the directors. You may say they're being disrespectful to the audience - but I'm sure they see it the other way if they even think about it. They're giving the audience their definitive, as it was supposed to be seen version.
As for the brightening of films, Atlantis and Treasure Planet were made before the noticeable brightening in restorations, and Pinocchio has never been a film I claimed was restored too bright, in fact I actually couldn't believe the cooler, less lit-looking restored scene of the candle. It makes sense to me that Disney knew fans caught on to their brightening of films or heard complaints and cut it out.
I don't accept what you say about Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Is your TV optimised using the THX set up they included on the discs? Are you viewing on a PC which a wider colour palette anyway? There's too many variables when watching something at home - and indeed when watching something at a theatre. The colours may not be the same - but I don't accept that they are purposely "brightening" things up to look more dynamic for the sake of looking more dynamic. They may slightly tweak the colours aware that most people will be watching in a brightly lit room rather than a darkened cinema.
It's probably farcical to even expect the same colours under different viewing conditions and variables anyway. Nobody expects a CD to sound the same on their CD walkman played through the headphones as it does on an expensive CD sound system with calibrated speakers and bass. Its the same when you go to the cinema - they have seriously expensive equipment which (should) be calibrated professionally for viewing in that location on that screen, from a source that isn't as removed from the original as a DVD or Blu-ray. (unless its a digital projector - but people on AVS and HomeTheatreForum sometimes complain about digital projection anyway).
As for Pinocchio again I don't accept what you say about Disney "catching on". For a start plenty of people did complain about Pinocchio Platinum - check out some AVS or HomeTheaterForum threads. Secondly, Pinocchio's restoration looks similar to the old Platinum Snow White restoration to me - a restoration done many years ago on a film with similar colour schemes and with similar results.
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:15 pm
by Disney Duster
Scaps, you are trying to say I can only have one way. No. People are more complicated, and each matter is different. People are able to think different things even about slightly different matters you know! So anyway, my opinion is the version Walt last wanted should be shown. But by all means, showing other versions he made, especially the first originally versions, can indeed be shown as well.
As for "the right thing to do", it is as plain to me as saying you shouldn't hit a person. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. I can't explain it much more than that. You know that the right, kindest thing is to give the fans what the original things they saw when releasing that thing (in addition to the version you want) unless it is harming you.
Now to Netty
I just watched it again, too, and what I had thought was repainting some paint that accdientally got onto the cell, it may have been, or it could have been a hole, or it could have been dirt that wasn't dust-busted. I suppose that is fine since it is removing dirt and not paint, if it is clearly not paint (how would they know? It looks the same color as the outline of Aurora's skin), but even in doing something like that, there is always the possibility they could accidentally paint out of the hair over the outline of the hair. They just have to be very careful. Anyway, that was one look at one frame in one restoration. I'm not going to say anymore or any less for now.
Okay, it seems you have gotten very deep into wondering what Walt would have wanted. There is no way to tell what he would want later, but we always know what he wanted last. That means the last version. Though showing the other versions is fine to unless he specified never wanting them to be shown again. So basically it means Walt's originals just be left alone and untampered with. This is the most sure and important thing, but alas, they go in correcting mistakes and re-painting parts.
As for the original Beauty and the Beast colors, well, it's weird that in theatrical exhibition the colors weren't what they wanted. Why did they not have control over the colors then but they do now? The answer is they didn have control back then. Nothing was stopping them from making the colors how they wanted. But now they have apparently changed their minds. If you change your mind about your art is it still the same peice of art you made before? No, it's not. So keep the original and make your new one and let both be shown unless you think the original is bad for people and bothers you that much.
As for are TV and PC settings, it's interesting we all have different ones but yet we all see how freaking bright the bright ones were.
Snow White was not one of the ones I thought was bright, though the reds looked too orange. This was one that only Marky said was bright, and I remember him more saying it had "clown colors". In the new restoration, reds look red and overall things look better except Snow White's skin is less white and more pink and you can see how that makes little sense but I know her skin was never pure white so I am going to let that one go, while still wondering about it.
As for Pinocchio, were people complaining it was too bright, or other things? As far as I know it was other things.
Re: Sleeping Beauty: Platinum Edition
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:58 pm
by Escapay
Mike Duster wrote:Scaps, you are trying to say I can only have one way.
No. I'm trying to say that you can't have one rule for one thing and one for another when it's the same concept that you're arguing about (changes to a movie). You're so against the new colours for BATB and insistent that the old one be available, and yet you're skirting around my Walt/Cindy question by saying that because he's dead, it's a different matter. The matter is the same. Which version of a movie gets higher priority if it has the filmmakers' approval (dead or not)? And you've got a double standard with BATB & Fantasia, as you say "Walt's last approved version of Fantasia should be the one available!" but then you say "The first version of BATB should be the one available!"
Mike Duster wrote:As for "the right thing to do", it is as plain to me as saying you shouldn't hit a person. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. I can't explain it much more than that.
Then I see no need to debate anymore if you can't explain anything beyond "Why? Because!"
albert
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:47 pm
by jlppr
i've had the movie for quite some time now but i just decided to watch it for the very first time and i have to admiti thought it was very good. definitely deserves a spot in the platinum collection. better than some of the other titles in the series. who voiced malificent and merryweather? they both sounded very familar. everything i heard malificent i couldn't help but think of lady tremaine from cinderella.
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:52 pm
by schoollover
Since this thread was brought up, I have to say did anybody else just love the backstage disney to games ratios. I mean, there a documentary, 3 to 4 featurettes, trailers and stills. While the games section got two games which weren't even that good. I hope disney takes this route when making the other diamond editions/ the underpromoted aladdin.
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:59 pm
by Disneykid
jlppr wrote:i've had the movie for quite some time now but i just decided to watch it for the very first time and i have to admiti thought it was very good. definitely deserves a spot in the platinum collection. better than some of the other titles in the series. who voiced malificent and merryweather? they both sounded very familar. everything i heard malificent i couldn't help but think of lady tremaine from cinderella.
Your ears are right; Eleanor Audley (who voiced Lady Tremaine in Cinderella) also voiced Maleficent. As for Merryweather, she's voiced by Barbara Luddy, who voiced Lady in Lady and the Tramp.
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:06 pm
by jlppr
Disneykid wrote:jlppr wrote:i've had the movie for quite some time now but i just decided to watch it for the very first time and i have to admiti thought it was very good. definitely deserves a spot in the platinum collection. better than some of the other titles in the series. who voiced malificent and merryweather? they both sounded very familar. everything i heard malificent i couldn't help but think of lady tremaine from cinderella.
Your ears are right; Eleanor Audley (who voiced Lady Tremaine in Cinderella) also voiced Maleficent. As for Merryweather, she's voiced by Barbara Luddy, who voiced Lady in Lady and the Tramp.
i knew it, usually i'm not too good with voices when it comes to those classics. as for merryweather i knew she also sounded familiar but i couldn't tell from where. in her case i kept thinking of marry poppins. not julie andrews but one of other actresses, can pin point on which one though, but i knew it couldn't be. i would've never guessed lady, but now that you mention it yes
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:32 pm
by ajmrowland
Yeah. come to think about it, even thought they're different actresses, Ludy and whoever was the Mom in Mary Poppins do sound similar.
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:39 am
by jlppr
yep, it's the mom that i'm referring too and they do sound familiar. but at least i got one right. it was a great movie, can't wait to see the special features. hopefully they are good
DVD or Blu-ray?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:16 am
by SmartAleck25
I got a Blu-ray Player on Friday, and I'm not sure if I should get the Sleeping Beauty DVD PE or Blu-ray before it goes OOP in January. The DVD PE would look better in my collection, but the blu-ray looks more substansive. Which one is the better?
Re: DVD or Blu-ray?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:32 am
by Just.A.Friend
SmartAleck25 wrote:I got a Blu-ray Player on Friday, and I'm not sure if I should get the Sleeping Beauty DVD PE or Blu-ray before it goes OOP in January. The DVD PE would look better in my collection, but the blu-ray looks more substansive. Which one is the better?
This is the same problem I've had.
And this is what I have for you!
I would go ahead and just get the Blu-Ray version (since it comes with a DVD anyway). Most everything Disney is putting out from now on will be focused on Blu-ray anyway, so within the next year you'll have a Blu-ray collection started up so it won't look so odd.
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:34 am
by SmartAleck25
K, thx Just a Friend! I guess the Blu-ray would be better, and it has everything on Disc 2 anyway.
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:47 pm
by PrincePhillipFan
I agree to go with the blu-ray. Not only is the picture quality even more amazing than the DVD, but the blu has other special features that are not on the DVD, such as the Cine-Explore with commentary, the Maleficent Dragon Encounter feature, and the restoration of the soundtrack featurette.
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:01 pm
by SpringHeelJack
I love the dragon encounter... it's like the most ridiculous thing Disney's spent money on to be on disc in some time. NOT TO MENTION THE EDGE-OF-YOUR-SEAT CLIFFHANGER ENDING, AMIRITE?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:10 pm
by ajmrowland
Yeah, it's really just meant to show off your HD system.