DVDizzy Forum

yukitora wrote:The R4 release removes all trailers all together

For some that might be a good thing. Certainly not for me.

Don't feel bad,over here there n trailer neither (They used to have trailers but now they stopped,they"re only special features on Little Mermaid PE and Hannah Montana-Best Of Both Worlds 3D Concert,in Enchanted for exmaple there are no trailers at all).

There's an interesting tidbit that's been added to the Wikipedia article of the film:

The former trend in Disney's hand-drawn features where the characters were influenced by a CGI-look has been abandoned. Andreas Deja says "I always thought that maybe we should distinguish ourselves to go back to what 2D is good at, which is focusing on what the line can do rather than volume, which is a CG kind of thing. So we are doing less extravagant Treasure Planet kind of treatments. You have to create a world but [we're doing it more simply]. What we're trying to do with Princess and the Frog is hook up with things that the old guys did earlier. It's not going to be graphic…". He also mentiones that Lasseter is aiming for the Disney sculptural and dimensional look of the '50s. "He quoted all those things that were non graphic, which means go easy on the straight lines and have one volume flow into the other -- an organic feel to the drawing.

I understand what Deja is trying to say, but I don't see why the "Treasure Planet" look cannot be utilised again. I'll just say that I think that film is a visual stunner, and I think most wil agree. Of course, certain films lend themslelves better to the simpler look ... but why disregard CG add-ons and stuff like Deep Canvas entirely?

In my opinion, the only problem with visual extravaganzas like Tarzan and Treasure Planet is money. There's no way Disney is going to spend more than $100 million on a hand-drawn feature again. I believe I read somewhere, in fact, that The Princess and the Frog is being consciously made on a modest budget (perhaps around $60 - $80 million). Of course, those numbers look miniscule next to the amounts spent on such films as Tarzan, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, and the films Pixar churns out. I doubt Disney will ever make another highly budgeted hand-drawn film even if The Princess and the Frog is a huge success. They'll still be hurting from Treasure Planet's loss.

Which is a shame.

I actually greatly dislike the Deep Canvas look.

I mean, when I first saw Tarzan, I thought it was great, but they just started to use it less and less effectively after that. Using three dimensional images to animate what they couldn't be bothered to rather than to create an immersive atmosphere it was built for.

I'm quite excited to hear that their aiming for the look of the 50's Disney films. I just hope it doesn't look like a tacky imitation like Lady and the Tramp II, Kingdom of Kindess and the Cinderella sequels. Digital paint looks really tacky compared to the classic cell-painted films.

yukitora wrote: Using three dimensional images to animate what they couldn't be bothered to

The ship in Return to Never Land bothers me- the CGI just sticks out like a sore thumb to me- I'd much rather have had it be a hand-drawn ship.

yukitora wrote: Digital paint looks really tacky compared to the classic cell-painted films.

I've always thought that as well. That's why it's so hard for me to get the same (visual) joy from the modern Disney films. Of course, I've never mentioned it because I figured people would say I didn't know what I was talking about.

I don't mind digital paint, but i just wish it looked a bit more stylized. I feel like it's hard to administer a personal style through a digital system. A lot of people give (in my opinion) too much credit to the men and women who physically draw with pencil or whatever a character and not enough to the people who actually went in and painted the character afterward. I can't imagine the stress of filling in a character with color when it wasn't drawn by you at all. I know it's mentioned a little bit in a documentary while talking about Snow White's production, but i'd have to go through them all to make sure which one it was...

What is so different about Hand-drawn vs. CGI that i love so much is that it is fully a person's creation. You are literally seeing someone's life in a character. With CGI i feel like that is lost to a degree. With that said though, i guess i don't mind digital paint all that much in that it looks very clean and in return looks good in HD right away. It's just sad watching old techniques die lol.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

yukitora wrote: Digital paint looks really tacky compared to the classic cell-painted films.

I've always thought that as well. That's why it's so hard for me to get the same (visual) joy from the modern Disney films. Of course, I've never mentioned it because I figured people would say I didn't know what I was talking about.

I absolutely agree.

And I've mentioned it before.

Unfortunately there is a group of people that just doesn't understand this and live in some kind of bubble that everything newer, computers and digitally painted is "better". I can't stand the "computer-ish" look of for example Cinderella 3 and the Lady and the Tramp sequel.

i dont like computer coloring either..the caps systems at its infacy looked quite good, aided by the grains on film. but it lack the shading styles wonderfully evoked in the 40s animation..

i would love to see future projects handpainted to reveal artistic strokes and brush textures..my favorite cel painted artwork would be from fantasia's nutcracker suite.

Doesn't everyone remember? In the restorations being done today on these cel-painted films, they remove brush strokes and all you love to make solid grain-free block of color!

Cinderella suffered immensely from this. This is why I am against the grain-reduction and paint "fixing" done in the restorations. The grain "looks like noise". Well, why not release it with the grain in and change it if you get complaints...and then still, release a one disc kiddy grain-free version along with a 2-disc pure original version for real fans.

For heaven's sake I read Snow White actually had specific textures applied to the clothing to make it feel more like real clothing. Are we gonna see all that smoothed into flat color, too?!

I also wish that the cels were still hand-painted. I would definitely try to get a job as an ink-and-paint girl.

About the CGI work in traditionally animated films:
I know that the technology (the computer) is supposed to make things happen that would be hard to draw, but I wonder how certain CGI elements in traditionally animated films would look if they were hand-drawn. From smaller things, like Eilonwy's bauble, to big things, like the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast. I mean, it's possible to draw anything, right?

three examples of cel fixing i can think of.

1)the uneven brushstrokes on tinkerbell's dress while she's checking her hips. (vhs n laserdisc)
2)the pigman's snout when he snores in sleeping beauty (available on the 2003 dvd)
3)the sailor on the ship's striped shirt in little mermaid. (limited issue dvd)

Disney Duster wrote:
For heaven's sake I read Snow White actually had specific textures applied to the clothing to make it feel more like real clothing. Are we gonna see all that smoothed into flat color, too?!

I'm afraid that's true. One bright patch of flat color......

And I think that is basically the biggest issue. The laserdisc version of Cinderella and the first video release of Snowwhite (which I have recorded on dvd years ago with great quality) look so realistic, some scenes almost look like live action. All the details, earthy colors, thousands of differences in shades in 1 patch of hair or dress.
You can really tell how much attention they payed to make it look realisitc.

With the restorations everything is gone.
All the patches are flat and the same color. No details, no shades, no atmoshere.
It looks extremely childish and cartoonish.
It's just 40 times flatter.
The look of the Cinderella dvd has nothing to do with the versions I know.
It changed from a Disney classic look to a sequel look.

They took away everything I love about the classics.

This restorations are not about improving the image quality, what good is a bright image if you take away the whole film?

And speaking about had painted cells.........
Does anyone know why they had so much trouble to decide what color Aurora's hair should be in the most recent restoration?
I thought the original negatives didn't fade?

I don't mind digital painting when that's how the drawings were originally colored. But I'm more sceptical to the digital make-up on the classics that were painted by hand.

These days, you can a DVD with the original King Kong, which contains two versions; the black and white movie, and the colored version.
This could be an offer from Disney too; two different versions of the cel animated movies; one that has been through a digital process, and one that has been restored by hand.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: This could be an offer from Disney too; two different versions of the cel animated movies; one that has been through a digital process, and one that has been restored by hand.

I can't see Disney doing two restorations for the same DVD of a film...that would cost extra money and be very time consuming, wouldn't it? I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I just can't see Disney actually doing that.

From what I have heard, the first step in the restoration is to actually clean to original film by hand, frame by frame. All the steps before the digital process. That's what I was referring to. Maybe the colors have faded a little over the years (but not as much as the "before and after" images on the DVD covers wants us to believe), but they still contains the original warm and soft feeling of how it looked like when fresh. Releasing this version on a disc shouldn't be impossible.

And for all we know, maybe some day not too far into the future, there will be software that is able to restore the movies the way it would have been done by hand, instead of the digital colors we see today.

The movie does indeed sound promising. And it's been a while since Disney decided to make a 2D Animated movie after Home on the Range.

And they said Home on the Range was going to be the last of the Disney 2D movies... thank goodness it wasn't.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I also wish that the cels were still hand-painted. I would definitely try to get a job as an ink-and-paint girl.

About the CGI work in traditionally animated films:
I know that the technology (the computer) is supposed to make things happen that would be hard to draw, but I wonder how certain CGI elements in traditionally animated films would look if they were hand-drawn. From smaller things, like Eilonwy's bauble, to big things, like the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast. I mean, it's possible to draw anything, right?

Anything can be drawn, but attempting something like the ballroom scene and have it work would be laughable. anything can be drawn, but animation is different beast (no pun intended) entirely. it was a miracle that Glen Keane was able to animate the two characters dancing in perspective like that, but it would be a very different scene with hand animated background. chances are it would have a much more static look instead with still paintings instead of animation. we can simulate basic camera pans fairly well without computers, but to move around in 3d space like that would be impossible as far as Im concerned.

Kyle wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote:I also wish that the cels were still hand-painted. I would definitely try to get a job as an ink-and-paint girl.

About the CGI work in traditionally animated films:
I know that the technology (the computer) is supposed to make things happen that would be hard to draw, but I wonder how certain CGI elements in traditionally animated films would look if they were hand-drawn. From smaller things, like Eilonwy's bauble, to big things, like the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast. I mean, it's possible to draw anything, right?

Anything can be drawn, but attempting something like the ballroom scene and have it work would be laughable. anything can be drawn, but animation is different beast (no pun intended) entirely. it was a miracle that Glen Keane was able to animate the two characters dancing in perspective like that, but it would be a very different scene with hand animated background. chances are it would have a much more static look instead with still paintings instead of animation. we can simulate basic camera pans fairly well without computers, but to move around in 3d space like that would be impossible as far as Im concerned.

Indeed. I'm proud to be a fan of awesome Animators.

PatF's release date is now moved to November 2009, in order to avoid the competition from James Cameron's "Avatar" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks 2".

Also, the first official poster is supposed to come out this Friday.

I read this at PatF's IMDb board.