CINDERELLA DVD - digital restoration gone too far?

[Escapay]

well then the 60th must have been unbareble

I've got the 60th edition, and compared to the BTE (which my brother has), there's improvement, but nothing spectacular enough for me to double-dip.

Plus, sometimes I like my films to have that "aged" look to them, makes it feel more vintage.

Escapay

[Jules]

well then the 60th must have been unbareble

"Well, then the 60th Anniversary Edition must have been unbearable."

Watch your spelling and punctuation or I'll report you to the head. Welcome to the forums! Wow! We have another BambiFan!

[Lars Vermundsberget]

well then the 60th must have been unbareble

Not really, in my opinion.

[Jules]

Not really, in my opinion.

Then it wasn't bad? If that's the case, then the Big Top Edition must be pretty good, considering it improves upon the 60th Anniversary Edition.

For comparison purposes: I think an example of exceedingly bad picture quality can be found in the Region 2 edition of Fantasia. Apparently the print is the same used for the 1990 VHS release. In Region 1, it had a restoration and was THX-Certified. I haven't seen that version but I assume it's better than the Region 2. (Not to mention that in Region 2 we got the edited version without the intermission and such stuff, and not the original uncut version...)

Now, if the Dumbo 60th Anniversary Edition (Region 1) looks anything like Fantasia (Region 2), then it's very bad (in my opinion).

[TheSequelOfDisney]

(Not to mention that in Region 2 we got the edited version without the intermission and such stuff, and not the original uncut version...)

It should be noted that our Region 1 DVD wasn't COMPLETELY uncut. I wish it was because I could finally see everything that was made of my favorite movie. Let's hope that by 2008/2009, Disney will change their ways and have a COMPLETELY uncut version of Fantasia. That would be my dream

[Jules]

It should be noted that our Region 1 DVD wasn't COMPLETELY uncut. I wish it was because I could finally see everything that was made of my favorite movie. Let's hope that by 2008/2009, Disney will change their ways and have a COMPLETELY uncut version of Fantasia. That would be my dream

I knew that. LOL! I was expecting someone to point it out!

What I mean is that in Region 2, the film appears even more "cut" than in Region 1. I believe in Region 1, the film opens immediately with the orchestra; it has an intermission, and during that, you see the title card. It has no Disney logo.

In Region 2, the film opens with the blue Walt Disney Pictures Logo, then the title card, and then the film starts. It has no intermission, and strangely, Deems Taylor's voice has been rerecorded. But I think that can also be found on Region 1.

What I don't understand is why Taylor's voice was rerecorded. On VHS, the movie had Taylor's original voice. The new voice annoys me.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

What I don't understand is why Taylor's voice was rerecorded. On VHS, the movie had Taylor's original voice. The new voice annoys me.

There was a feature on the Anthology set about that. I, think, that Mr. Taylor's voice was rerecorded because the original voice recordings were not kept when Disney cut his part out of the film (later when the film was re-released). And since it wasn't kept, the only way that Disney could put back Mr. Taylor's voice was to have someone else record the original lines that he said, and that's what we see in the 60th AE of Fantasia. I think I said that right, I'm not positive, but I think that's kind of accurate.

[BATBfan1]

What I don't understand is why Taylor's voice was rerecorded. On VHS, the movie had Taylor's original voice. The new voice annoys me.

There was a feature on the Anthology set about that. I, think, that Mr. Taylor's voice was rerecorded because the original voice recordings were not kept when Disney cut his part out of the film (later when the film was re-released). And since it wasn't kept, the only way that Disney could put back Mr. Taylor's voice was to have someone else record the original lines that he said, and that's what we see in the 60th AE of Fantasia. I think I said that right, I'm not positive, but I think that's kind of accurate.

Why couldn't Disney just get the voice from the VHS tape and remaster it?

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Why couldn't Disney just get the voice from the VHS tape and remaster it?

Those parts exist, of course. The problem is that the longer version of Fantasia ("original"/"roadshow") had longer versions of Deems Taylor's "speeches" than the late-40s re-release/early-90s VHS/LD version. The extra length has been lost, apparently - and to recreate the long versions they had to record the commentaries with a new voice actor.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Why couldn't Disney just get the voice from the VHS tape and remaster it?

Those parts exist, of course. The problem is that the longer version of Fantasia ("original"/"roadshow") had longer versions of Deems Taylor's "speeches" than the late-40s re-release/early-90s VHS/LD version. The extra length has been lost, apparently - and to recreate the long versions they had to record the commentaries with a new voice actor.

Thank you for saving my self for watching something about Fantasia

[Lars Vermundsberget]

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Nevermind Lars. Just forget about it.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

All right. Nevertheless, anytime's a good time to watch something about Fantasia!

[BATBfan1]

Why couldn't Disney just get the voice from the VHS tape and remaster it?

Those parts exist, of course. The problem is that the longer version of Fantasia ("original"/"roadshow") had longer versions of Deems Taylor's "speeches" than the late-40s re-release/early-90s VHS/LD version. The extra length has been lost, apparently - and to recreate the long versions they had to record the commentaries with a new voice actor.

I was going to say, why Disney couldn't do that lol.
But then what is added back into the film?
I am still lost lol.
I wish Disney would stop editing there films already and leave AS IS!

[Jules]

Now here is something that really annoys me in the Cinderella Platinum Edition. There are some moments during the film where the camera seems to go out of focus. I don't think this has anything to do with restoration, but I just want to make sure.

For example, in the scene where the Fairy Godmother is changing the mice into horses, and Gus is caught in a bowl by Lucifer...while the fairy Godmother changes Gus into a horse as Lucifer is on top of him, the image gets blurry.

Another example can be found during the song "So This is Love". While we have the close-up of Cinderella and Prince Charming dancing in front of the camera, the image blurs and actually starts looking double for about a second. This ruins the effect of the last spin while Cinderella's and Prince Charming's heads turn.

This is what it looks like:



What do you guys think? Do you think you can check your own versions of Cinderella and see if you can spot it too?

[Dottie]

Maybe it's just the DVD changing layers?

[Jules]

Maybe it's just the DVD changing layers?

I don't suppose so. I got that screenshot by inserting my Cinderella DVD in my PC DVD-ROM Drive, running POWER DVD, and finding the frame I wanted using the frame by frame advance. After viewing a lot of those "out of focus" frames by pressing "forward" and "reverse" all the time (in "frame by frame advance mode"), I picked that one and took a snapshot of it using POWER DVD, which was saved on the clipboard. I then opened MS Paint and pasted the image in it, saved it as PNG, uploaded it to Photobucket, and linked it here...voila!

[Disneykid]

Yeah, I noticed both instances, too. The one from "So This is Love" is definitely a stylistic choice and not a restoration choice. That shot has always been out of focus, and I think it's to give us the sense that everything we see in the number after that shot isn't really happening. Notice how later on when Cindy and the Prince are on the bridge and are about to kiss, we fade back to the terrace they were at at the beginning of the song.

As for the shot with Gus turning into a horse, I don't remember if that shot's always been like that. It's possible that it was a mistake when the cels were filmed, and Lowry decided not to fix it. There are two times in Alice in Wonderland where something like this happens, and they've showed up on every version of the film.

[Jules]

I see, Disneykid...so the blurring of Cindy's and Princy's face was intentional. That's good to know. Thanks.

Regarding the Gus/Lucifer part...it's very brief so maybe that's why you failed to notice it. Even if it is a filming error, it's minor and no cause of worry. It's shorter than the blur seen when Cindy and Prince Charming are dancing.

Oh well, thanks for clearing it up! I was terribly curious and always wanted to know whether it was intentional or whether it was a mistake. This thread was just right for it.

EDIT: I'm so sorry, but when I reread your reply, I realized that you did notice the blurry effect in the Gus-turning-into-a-horse shot. I'm so silly!

By the way, next time I see Alice in Wonderland, I'll keep an eye out for these "blurry" moments that you mentioned.

[Disneykid]

By the way, next time I see Alice in Wonderland, I'll keep an eye out for these "blurry" moments that you mentioned.

To save you the hassle of searching, the two moments in question are during The Walrus and the Carpenter sequence and the jury room scene at the end. In the former, The Walrus's arm leaves a trail behind him for a second while he's underwater (I can't remember which specific shot at the moment). In the latter, Alice says, "I'm NOT a mile high, and I'm not leaving!" As she's sayng this, she puts her hands on her hips, and her arms also leaves odd trails behind them. I think this is called aliasing, but I'm not sure. The Gus/Lucifer shot in Cinderella isn't exactly like these, I admit, but it's similar.