DVDizzy Forum

Actually, Disney re-dubbing voices for commercials is kind of common practice. I would be shocked if the original film recordings were altered or if Disney brought in new voices. If you watch the U.S. PE trailor for Bambi, there were lots of re-dubbed dialogue. I think they just want the film to sound newer on the previews. They spend all the money to clean up the picture and they rarely use original music from the films. Using original dialogue in some cases might make it sound old. If they present you with the cleanest, newest sound possible, it might make people more inclined to upgrade their current release. I know alot of kids who don't like watching movies that they know are "old" no matter how good they realy are.

And there is also one feature that is on the DVD is the audio commentary track featuring Roy Disney, Walt nephew and his former husband. That was also heard on the audio commentary version. This is the first time in 6 years where every Platinum Edition DVD has an audio commentary track. "Snow White" and "Fantasia" both had audio commentary tracks as well on previous Disney DVD's. "Peter Pan" has that one. Other DVD's did not have any audio commentary track are "Cinderella", "Bambi", "Alice in Wonderland" and "Lady and the Tramp".

This DVD has one the best restorations ever. Looked so beautiful, clean and fresh, but still like a Classic Disney, unlike Cinderella.

But what I was most shocked about was how good the audio was! I had kinda gotten used to the crackly old version, but hearing the DVD is just breathtaking! The sounds team really outdid themselves there, I feel.

The special features were good! I enjoyed them anyway, although the 'Making Of' should have been MUCH longer.

I have one question though; in Peter's Playful Prank, when Wendy comes out and says "Hello children, I;m Wendy...." It sounds so much like Kathryn Beaumont, is it her do you think?

Here is how I would rank the DVD:

Picture - 9/10

Sound - 10/10

Bonus Features - 7 and a 1/2 out of 10

A wonderful DVD, and a must for everyone's collection; I believe in faith, trust and pixie dust now more than ever !

It could be her in the storybook. I know that she was called in to do voices for "Return to Neverland" (thanks to UD's interview! ), but was re-recorded when the plot was changed. I know she does voices for Alice in the parks, so it is entirely possible that she recorded the storybook.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I have one question though; in Peter's Playful Prank, when Wendy comes out and says "Hello children, I;m Wendy...." It sounds so much like Kathryn Beaumont, is it her do you think?

Yeah, that's her. She always voices Alice and Wendy for anything Disney needs. She even narrated the Alice in Wonderland DVD storybook and trivia game that were on the old Alice disc (they didn't get ported over to the Masterpiece Edition, though). Sometimes she does voice work for Disney things that aren't even Wonderland or Never Land-related. On the Bedknobs and Broomsticks DVD, she reads the instructions to you on how to use the DVD's scrapbook.

Just found out something strange about the "You can Fly"-making of featurette.
Everywhere on this site it is listed as being about 16 minutes long.

On my region 2 (France) release of the 2007 Peter Pan-platinum edition it's running-time is only 10,5 minutes!
I compared it to my Dutch (region 2) edition of the 2003 special edition and it's 10,5 minutes as well.

Can anyone explain to me why this making of, which is already far too short, has been cut on the Region 2 releases?

And can those who might own a region 1, as well as a region2 release please tell me, what's missing?

mvd24 wrote:Can anyone explain to me why this making of, which is already far too short, has been cut on the Region 2 releases?

It has been edited to exclude references to Marilyn Monroe and the deleted Pirate Song. There is also more footage of the silent film shown in the 16 minute version, as well as more talk about the stage production, if I remember correctly. All previous region 2 releases have had the edited making of.

Thanks for the information.

It's a pitty I never knew about this before, otherwise I would have certainly imported the US-version. As I did with Lady & the Tramp and Little Mermaid.
As far as I knew, the region2 version was exactly the same as the region1.

This edition is already so poor on bonus features, you would think they could make the effort to include the full featurette this time!

Thought I'd shre this:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/new-p ... dvd-ruined

In short, animation director Oscar Grillo condemns the new Peter Pan transfer. And judging by those screencaps I agree. I haven't picked up Peter Pan yet, and based on the fact that I already have the old French 2 disc SE and given the crapiness of the platinum editions bonus features coupled with the abysmal transfer, I don't think I will be.

I like that it links it back to UD. I don't fully agree. I know the guy has seen Peter Pan many times in theaters and on home video, but without an image from the film in 1953 to compare the new transfer, how can he honestly say the new transfer is wrong? I know that the restorations Disney has done aren't perfect and sometimes go overboard (*cough* Cinderella *cough*), but I really like the restoration. Peter Pan is my favorite Disney film so I would be livid if I felt they had done something severely wrong. The digital restoration team looked at the original backgrounds and cells, which have no sun fading seeing as they are stored in air tight drawers with hardly any exposure to light in the Disney Archives. I've said before that they should be considdering the difference in color when printed on Technicolor film because the Ink and Pain Department were aware of that change and painted acccordingly to make the colors come out a certain way on screen. However, when I look at the comparisons, I prefer the new restoration by far to the past home video releases.

hmm i havent received my dvd copy yet but judging from the shots..everything look so sunny and warm making peter pan the least colorful of all the 50s output. im kinda disappointed but ill always have the overly sharped yet somehow near accurate 2002 dvd to fall back to..

why disney..why..im more upset about this than of cinderella's case.at least it still have colorful images.never land is lush and green!!!! tho somehow it makes sense to have a warm yellow sky than a green one. but that's what makes peter pan so magical with the bursting ood colors.arghhhhhhh i really dunno what to think!!! argh argh argh argh arghhhhhhhhhhhhh

I find it amusing, though, how so many people who rip apart the DVD restorations can't be consistent. When Cinderella's DVD came out, people were complaining that it matched the original cel animation too much when cels shouldn't be a reference due to the Technicolor process changing hues slightly. Now with Peter Pan, people are using cels as "proof" that the DVD's color palette is distorted. I'm not saying Peter Pan's DVD restoration is right (I honestly don't know), but it seems closer to the original intent than the two previous DVD versions. If you compare Peter Pan's look with the other 50s films, the 1999 DVD looks way too pale and flat, and the 2002 DVD looks way too saturated and cartoony. The 2007 DVD blends in better with the surrounding films.

goofystitch wrote:but without an image from the film in 1953 to compare the new transfer, how can he honestly say the new transfer is wrong?

Because the redskins are no longer red? Because trees are no longer green? Because Peter Pan is no longer wearing green?

It's not like they're off by a little. They're massively changed.

The formerly lush mermaid garden looks like it's dying from water deprivation.

Escapay did a wonderful post a while ago showing side by side comparisons of the two versions. You can see it here.
The main thing I like about the restoration is that the lines aren't so hazy anymore. Especially in the images of Tinker Bell on the mirror. Also, as Escapay points out, the colors of people's skin looks more natural.

This image is from the article and I greatly prefer the restored image on the right. I mean, a wooden spool is supposed to be brown, not grey, and Tink is so red it hurts my eyes. Also, the author of the article hadn't even seen the restoration. I still stand by my statement. I do prefer the new restoration to past restorations, but maybe I need to watch it a second time.

Eeyore wrote:

Because the redskins are no longer red? Because trees are no longer green? Because Peter Pan is no longer wearing green?

It's not like they're off by a little. They're massively changed.

The formerly lush mermaid garden looks like it's dying from water deprivation.

I'm not able to take screen caps on my computer. I think that if the redskins were originally bright red in 1953 like they are in the 1991 laserdisc, than perhaps some liberties were taken with this restoration for it to not be so stereotypical and offensive. Leonerd Maltin describes the indians in Pan as "a stereotype of a stereotype," but this aspect of the film has always gotten a bad rap.

And again, I should take another look at the film because I didn't notice Pan and the trees being any other color than green. Could somebody please take screen caps of scenes were Pan's clothe's or trees appear different so I can see them?

As for the mermaid lagoon scenes...

I do agree that this appears to be the most drastic change from the screen caps. Here, I do prefer the colors of the laserdisc. At the same time, the water in that picture looks too blue.

Overall, we haven't seen a perfect restoration of Peter Pan, but I personally don't mind the new restoration overall. Again, I do need to watch the film a second time to see if it changes my mind. Some call the colors muted, but I think they look more natural. I don't want to waste a lot of space re-posting images which can be seen in this topic, but skin tone looks more natural in the new restoration to me. That's just my opinion. I'm not saying this is the best restoration ever or anything like that. I just don't think it is that bad and I have no major problems with it. I'm all for films being restored to the way they were intended to be seen, but I'm not so sure Disney wanted the mermaid water to be neon blue in 1953 and technicolor prints destort colors with age, so that mermaid lagoon shot might be way off from what it was supposed to be.

goofystitch wrote:And again, I should take another look at the film because I didn't notice Pan and the trees being any other color than green. Could somebody please take screen caps of scenes were Pan's clothe's or trees appear different so I can see them?

The new yellow Pan outfit:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php ... ge=4&pp=40

Starting from message 143.

Lots of other good images all throughout that thread.

Great users like drsd2kill with his great comparisons have probably already figured out what's wrong or what's right with this latest video release, but imo the colors really stick out in a bad way.
To me it seems like it's excessively bright, glowing and way too olive-yellowish green. I didn't think too much about it when I watched it a few months ago, but viewing it again it's really chafing me. It's like they're just messing with every computer color imaginable instead of just doing what they're supposed to do. Don't get me wrong, lots of the restoration is quite admirable, it just doesn't seem right...

Please don't flame me or whatever, it's just my assumption!

Welcome to six months ago!

Hehe, you bastard!

Spring-heeled Jack lives to love
Now kissing with his mouth full
And his eyes on some other fool
So many women
His head should be spinning
Ah, but no !

Ahum...okay then, so what's the general opinion six months later?

Haha, nice song

I'm pretty sure you'll still get the majority opinion of dislike. I myself prefer the Special Edition transfer.