DVDizzy Forum

Escapay wrote:Anyone can have authority on the internet. Especially at UD.

Care for a Milk Bud, Kubrick? It's easier to sit back and watch these kind of discussions unfold rather than try to enter the mess.

albert

Never had them. But if a guy who likes both Disney and Wallace and Gromit enjoys them, they can't be all that bad .
Oh and: In Paris, the cafes are many .

EDIT: Damn, too late!

too late, ugh.. there goes my authority...

And my apologies for breaking into the milk buds vault. I did notice the colors were off in there. They were clearly not vault-like and way too bright.

PatrickvD wrote:And my apologies for breaking into the milk buds vault. I did notice the colors were off in there. They were clearly not vault-like and way too bright.

I've never been to the vault in person but if I do go and its not all pixalated, murky and blurry like my laserdisc copy of "Journey Into the Vault, Buds!" I'll be very disappointed and inclined to rant online involving conspiracy theories regarding Popcorn Home Entertainment.

Cordy_Biddle wrote:We probably won't get the PERFECT release until Hahn & Company have passed on, and the fanboys invade the studio to play with the film to their heart's content.

All kidding aside... I *never* complain about coloring or supposed changes. You have never seen me do that on this forum. For instance, others saw fault with the Cinderella dvd, which I thought looked fine. So I'm not in the category of 'fanboys' who pretent to know more than Disney itself on their products.

But! I looked at the music video of Celine Dion and the clips from the movie shown in that video are considerably darker. That music video was originally put out when the film premiered. So I think those were the right colors. It would make more sense to me, because the kind of much brighter colors we see on the dvd are usually not used in theatrical cartoons (there are exceptions, like Dumbo, but most of the time not, because it's too considered too hard on the eyes).

Too bad this can't be talked about in a normal manner without the usual suspects derailing the entire thread with their so-called 'funny' Milk Buds jokes... AGAIN! It seems all you have to do on this forum is saying "Milk Buds" and you'll get instant laughter and applause. But the people who are seriously discussing a topic... no, *they're* the silly ones!

Don Hahn, the producer of ths film, has taken a moment to explain why the colors are brighter/more intense/more Saturday morning/more MS Paintified/whatever you want to call it than what we saw in the original theatrical release. One can say he's lying, that he doesn't know what he's talking about, that the darker palette is better, that it's not the "original" since it differs from the first theatrical print, that he and anyone else there at the studio is crazy for working in this palette in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that he has stated the colors of the most recent release are the closest to the original vision they had during the production.

As I've said before, I'm cool with people having a preference of the darker colors, and I'm cool with seeing proper discussions of them. But it's kinda sad and perhaps disrespectful to see people completely dissing the word of the film's producer and get into heated debates over all this. So yes. Some of us sit back and poke fun with the Milk Buds. Why? I'm not going to point fingers at anyone here, but the thing is that some are very tired of seeing the same arguments over and over, some that have gone on for literally years, making up crazy conspiracy theories and taking the whole issue far too personally.

It's the debate that never eeeennnds! Yes it goes on and on my friends! some people started arguing not knowing what it was, but they'll keep on debating it because this is the debate that never ends..

Time to start lashing ourselves to palm-trees again...

enigmawing wrote:Don Hahn, the producer of ths film, has taken a moment to explain why the colors are brighter/more intense/more Saturday morning/more MS Paintified/whatever you want to call it than what we saw in the original theatrical release. One can say he's lying, that he doesn't know what he's talking about, that the darker palette is better, that it's not the "original" since it differs from the first theatrical print, that he and anyone else there at the studio is crazy for working in this palette in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that he has stated the colors of the most recent release are the closest to the original vision they had during the production.

As I've said before, I'm cool with people having a preference of the darker colors, and I'm cool with seeing proper discussions of them. But it's kinda sad and perhaps disrespectful to see people completely dissing the word of the film's producer and get into heated debates over all this. So yes. Some of us sit back and poke fun with the Milk Buds. Why? I'm not going to point fingers at anyone here, but the thing is that some are very tired of seeing the same arguments over and over, some that have gone on for literally years, making up crazy conspiracy theories and taking the whole issue far too personally.

Word. Any chance for serious discussion on BATB colors gets derailed because it's degenerated into such a laughable topic egged on by all sides (the "we know better than Don Hahn" camp, the "we believe Don Hahn" camp, the "shut up and let the rest of us enjoy the movie" camp, and any variations thereupon). Between 2002 and 2010, the same things have been said time and again in various sentences by various people with the same examples and the same results. Nothing new is learned, and when someone with *real* authority (read: Don Hahn) explains the why-for of the next home media transfer, it's met with skepticism and/or general complaints of "why didn't they do the colors *I* want?". On UD, it seems the point of arguing is stemmed more on who's side has louder supporters rather than on what colors are "right"/preferred. The benefit of the 2010 Blu-Ray is that Hahn has himself stated in interviews that what we're getting is closest to what they intended, and yes, that will tick off people who fell in love with a now-19-year-old multi-generational film print from various sources, and they insist that is what they deserve on the next mass produced home media release. At this point, Disney should let them have it (or just give them instructions on how to calibrate their television to look dark, murky, and faded) simply so everyone can shut up and move on to complaining about another restoration.

It's easier to sit back and let the arguments play out whilst offering some or interrupting with ridiculous banter in between, because the argument itself has become ridiculous. The whole issue of colors is nothing but personal preference now, only some people continue to misconstrue preference into (refutable) fact. I'm sure it can be serious discussion...on other forums. But on UD, thanks to some members*, it's become a joke that has been brought on by all sides of the discussion, and likely will remain so until Don Hahn himself ever comes here and says "We did this-and-that because of that-and-this, and that's that."

Pass me the...dare I say it?

albert

*Myself included, I gave up on serious discussion on the topic when my point was not getting across to some after re-explaining it half a dozen times. I figured it'd be less stressful and more enjoyable to just poke at the colors with a stick since there was no point in arguing with a few brick walls.

Goliath wrote:But the people who are seriously discussing a topic... no, *they're* the silly ones!

By no means are you silly; you've made a sensible post simply expressing your concerns over a particular transfer, and why you think it doesn't look right.

Basically what a lot of us find annoying is how a few members constantly bring up the colour issue in Beauty and the Beast and many other animated films, as though it is something worth losing a lot of sleep over and that anybody who doesn't agree automatically has no credibility in what they say. What's more is that some of these people are now insulting the directors' and producer's judgement as a means of trying to satisfy their own arguments; it's one thing to say that you disagree with someone's points, it's another to say that people with a good few decades' experience in the field of film don't know what they're doing. The most infamous of these members generally acts in a patronising and arrogant manner, constantly making bitchy remarks and snappy comments at those who think differently to him (this can be said in both colour and non-colour threads). He too often claims rather arrogantly to know better than the actual film-makers and industry experts, and his arguments often don't have much ground. Sometimes a lot of his statements are pretty vague and/or lacking in the right sort of knowledge to discuss the topic at hand, and he often twists people's meanings to try and suit his own argument. Oh, and he once famously told me to practically leave the forum just because I didn't get one of his vague rants.

Don't think that people are criticising you with the whole mention of the Milk Buds thing. As I've said, you've stated a clear, well-rounded opinion, and want to try and discuss something in an intellectual, civil manner. But the constant too-and-fro "No! I'm right! No! You're wrong!" bickering about the colour issue from some people that seems to weigh down any discussion on Beauty and the Beast has become a laughing stock and a sort of bad smell. Scaps put it well with this:

Escapay wrote:I'm sure it can be serious discussion...on other forums. But on UD, thanks to some members*, it's become a joke that has been brought on by all sides of the discussion, and likely will remain so until Don Hahn himself ever comes here and says "We did this-and-that because of that-and-this, and that's that."

And even if Don Hahn came over here, I bet some people would still valiantly say "no, you're wrong, you're arrogant and blind just because two animated films you produced won so many Oscars and Golden Globes!"...

Escapay wrote:Pass me the...dare I say it?

A lemonade?

<object width="400" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BAoc8JUdnIE?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BAoc8JUdnIE?fs ... 2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="300"></embed></object>

I finally got around to watching Beyond Beauty yesturday and I throughly enjoyed it. I watched almost all of the optional material, and I just love how it all flowed together seemlessly switching from the documentary to said material be it an alternative opening/sequence on Howard Ashman etc and back to the documentary as of they were all one in the same. Very impressive and it makes my glad I own a Blu-Ray player, I do however feel bad for DVD-Only owners who are being deprived such insightful bonuses. Still need to check out what else the Diamond Edition has to offer, will take a look at the Classic DVD Bonuses later this week if I get a chance it's been a while since I watched my Platinum Edition so it will be good to re-watch these features!

miklc wrote:Very impressive and it makes my glad I own a Blu-Ray player

That's exciting to hear! I won't have a Blu-ray player until Christmas, so I am looking forward to being able to access all the bonus features on the Blu-ray discs I have, in addition to watching the movies in HD, of course! The DVD of Beauty and the Beast looked beautiful, so I am looking forward to seeing it in Blu.

Escapay, Wondy, Goliath, enigmawing ...

It feels odd to bring up such a question in the midst of such lengthy and well-thought out posts, but I have yet to be able to picture a single Milk Bud.

What is a Milk Bud anyway? Oh, what is a Milk Bud? I must find out today! Is it a chocolate-coated biscuit? Is it sweet? Is it a milk-flavoured treat?

What is a Milk Bud anyway?

Watching this movie in Blu-Ray was amazing. The colors were exceptional with my favorite part being "Be Our Guest". BatB is my favorite Disney movie, so this was a release I was really looking forward to.

I haven't got around to the Bonus features yet, but I really want to, especially the new one with Alan Menken.

Julian Carter wrote:Escapay, Wondy, Goliath, enigmawing ...

It feels odd to bring up such a question in the midst of such lengthy and well-thought out posts, but I have yet to be able to picture a single Milk Bud.

It originated last year in another thread where the usual "sits back and grabs a bowl of the popcorn" remark that signifies "this argument will be hilarious, I can't wait to watch what happens!" didn't seem like enough, so I mentioned Milk Duds (an actual chocolate caramel candy by Hershey) to go with the popcorn. Then Sunny Wing changed it from genuine Hershey's Milk Duds to the rip-off candy Goodtimes Milk Buds, mirroring and mocking how the Special Edition of Beauty and the Beast is considered by some to be a tainted rip-off because of the colors. And since then, Milk Buds have become a way of saying, "This topic is doomed, but let's sit back and watch the chaos unfold anyway!"



albert

No. You misunderstand. I know perfectly well the significance of Milk Buds in the world of UD. However, the pictures you posted answer my question. Apparently Milk Duds (and Buds, as I was mistakenly referring to them) are "Milk Chocolate Covered Caramels".

They sound delicious. I can't taste them though ... they're not sold here.

@ all: I can understand how discussions like that can be become tiresome, but I still don't see why a *serious* post couldn't be taken seriously. I don't pretend to know better than Don Hahn.

BUT! I'm also not saying Don Hahn automatically knows better because he works for Disney and even produced the film. Generally, I see that the UD community is always, on every topic, very eager to accept the 'official' version of the Disney Company (especially when it comes to "Walt always said..."). It seems many don't realize it's all marketing. That's what it all comes down to. Even *if* Don Hahn was not right and Disney really *did* fuck up the DVD transfer, you really think Hahn would be allowed to acknowledge that openly? Hahn is employed by Disney; he gets his paychecks from Disney. That alone is a reason to not *automatically* accept his word --no matter how many films he has produced or how many awards he has won.

miklc wrote:I do however feel bad for DVD-Only owners who are being deprived such insightful bonuses. Still need to check out what else the Diamond Edition has to offer, will take a look at the Classic DVD Bonuses later this week if I get a chance it's been a while since I watched my Platinum Edition so it will be good to re-watch these features!

I am one of those 'DVD-Only owners' and I'm not sad at all!

I *was*, however, when the recent Snow White DVD came out. I just can't get why Disney would treat one classic movie on DVD very good (like Pinocchio), then treat one bad (Snow White) and then put out a good one again, being Beauty.

Of course I would have preferred to have all bonus features, but hey... you can't have everything in life. (I also wanted the Alice in Wonderland and Pocahontas 2-disc DVDs in Holland as well, but like I said: Disney works in mysterious ways.) The bonus features thar *are* on the DVD are very good and offer enough insight in the making off the film.

Julian Carter wrote:No. You misunderstand. I know perfectly well the significance of Milk Buds in the world of UD. However, the pictures you posted answer my question. Apparently Milk Duds (and Buds, as I was mistakenly referring to them) are "Milk Chocolate Covered Caramels".

They sound delicious. I can't taste them though ... they're not sold here.

I . . . I . . . I have a confession to make. I prefer Junior Mints over Milk Duds. Milk Duds are rather chewy, while Junior Mints are really soft.

Goliath wrote:@ all: I can understand how discussions like that can be become tiresome, but I still don't see why a *serious* post couldn't be taken seriously. I don't pretend to know better than Don Hahn.

I hope you realize I never tried to direct any negativity at you, only offer a reply. As I tried to say, I'm cool with opinions and rational discussions. I also never thought you were trying to say you knew better than Mr. Hahn (although I may not be able to say the same for everyone at UD, lol).

Goliath wrote:BUT! I'm also not saying Don Hahn automatically knows better because he works for Disney and even produced the film.

Believe it or not, I'm not either. But coupled with everything else I've seen and heard his explanation definitely makes the most sense. I tried to offer a basic explanation a few pages back so here's a quote:

enigmawing wrote:Once again, does anyone know how extremely difficult it is to print out digitally-generated images onto physical media and match the colors correctly? Any experts wanna raise their hands? Most likely the difficulties behind the original colors with the film was due to the differences between RGB (additive) and CMYK (subtractive) colors.

Computer monitors emit light, while printed media absorbs and reflects light. RGB and CMYK both have their limits in the visual spectrum, but their ranges are not the same. Artwork produced on a monitor is RGB and must be converted to CMYK at the printing stage, and will most likely not match in color due to their differing limitations.

The original theatrical release of Beauty and the Beast had to be transferred to physical media on a relatively new system with little time to spare. And once it was printed on film, subsequent transfers relied on that physical media with the different set of limitations than seen on the original monitors. The current stance is that now they are able to go back to the CAPS files and recreate the colors as originally seen on their monitors, before they became filtered and compromised by a rushed film transfer.

People can argue all they like over which version they prefer, I really have no beef with that. But I think it's disrespectful to claim there's some kind of conspiracy going on. If that were the case, Disney would be finding excuses to alter all their films into the so-called Dora the Explorer colors, from Snow White to Peter Pan to The Little Mermaid. The negativity over the colors here is ruining this thread to the point that I don't even want to click on it anymore.

I'm not sure how much sense I'm making, but I constantly work with digital colors as well as traditional ones, and have experienced the limits in the visual spectrum first-hand and know how frustrating it can be to match things up (or fail to be able to do so) when trying to share work.

Goliath wrote:Generally, I see that the UD community is always, on every topic, very eager to accept the 'official' version of the Disney Company (especially when it comes to "Walt always said..."). It seems many don't realize it's all marketing.

Perhaps some are, but I'm afraid I'm much too cynical for to blindly swallow "facts" from a corporation as big, old, and complex as Disney . . . especially since they're out for money (and who isn't?)

* * *

Who knows, maybe Disney will see this thread and think the whole Dora colors idea has potential beyond just the colors . . .



Or maybe I shouldn't be giving them any ideas.

I'm glad I got a a "Deluxe" 2-disc edition of B&theB years ago. I can do without the new dvd-release (Belle looks really strange on the cover of the present dvd-cover too)

Do you take requests? I'd love a Rafiki holding up Dora who spreads milk buds to the animals below

PatrickvD wrote:Do you take requests? I'd love a Rafiki holding up Dora who spreads milk buds to the animals below