How Cinderella's 2005 Release was Restored Very Wrongly

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
Lnds500
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:14 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Lnds500 »

271286 wrote:
atlanticaunderthesea wrote:What is the best restoration that they have done then ?

I thought Cinderella's backing track was known as well for being of terrible quality....I thought that was restored well, no?
I think Aladdin, Bambi and Lady and The Tramp all had good restorations...
I wouldn't count Aladdin since it's a digital film.
User avatar
271286
Special Edition
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Denmark

Post by 271286 »

Lnds500 wrote:
271286 wrote: I think Aladdin, Bambi and Lady and The Tramp all had good restorations...
I wouldn't count Aladdin since it's a digital film.
Well so is BaTB and TLK, and both had lots of mistakes done to them...
Just because they are digital does not mean the transfers and restorations are great. Look at Home on The Range and Tarzan.
User avatar
Scamander
Special Edition
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Scamander »

There just ARE no restorations with these films. That's the point.

There was never a problem with Aladdin, BatB has only a new colour scheme (which has nothing to do with a restoration), Tarzan's problem isn't a bad restoration either, but a bad compression. The film itself looks without these problems just like back in 1999. It's a technical issue, just like with HotR.
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15773
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

I know the scene where the fairy godmother appears (on the 2005 version) always stood out to me as if something was missing, and now I'm glad you've pointed this out. Of course, the colors in general were more garish, but that scene in particular always annoyed me for some reason.
Lnds500 wrote:
atlanticaunderthesea wrote:TLM isnt as altered as this is it ?

I don't think that it was that bad, but some lines are missing and who knows what else. That one is guaranteed to have a completely new restoration due to its 3D release unlike Peter Pan and Cinderella, which will probably use the old DVD master
At first, I was glad to hear that (considering I didn't really like the Platinum), but I guess after looking at Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast, there's a definite chance they would screw the film with alterations. :(
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
Marce82
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Marce82 »

Hey everyone,

Someone on here complained about the Peter Pan Platinum restoration. What was wrong with it?

I see it as a bit blurry at times... and I know they have fixed some paint inconsistencies... is there anything else?

As far as Little Mermaid goes, I liked the restoration... except for the changing of the Priest's knee, and a paint correction they applied to Ariel's hair in Part of yr World (reprise)....
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15773
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Marce82 wrote:As far as Little Mermaid goes, I liked the restoration... except for the changing of the Priest's knee, and a paint correction they applied to Ariel's hair in Part of yr World (reprise)....
Paint correction? :?

I didn't mind the priest's knee, although it was a change--the same with the wavy-ness added to Ursula's cauldron (to imply heat). I don't like changes, but I don't consider them significant. I was more bothered by how tacky the yellows looked, and how Ariel's tail and Ursula's skin seemed slightly different shades of color (probably wrong on my part, but it seemed that way to me).
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
User avatar
Lnds500
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:14 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Lnds500 »

Marce82 wrote:Hey everyone,

Someone on here complained about the Peter Pan Platinum restoration. What was wrong with it?

I see it as a bit blurry at times... and I know they have fixed some paint inconsistencies... is there anything else?

As far as Little Mermaid goes, I liked the restoration... except for the changing of the Priest's knee, and a paint correction they applied to Ariel's hair in Part of yr World (reprise)....
The whole movie was out of focus. Or it seemed like it was. I'm not an expert on colours but they were also tampered with to a great degree in comparison to the older editions. Disney has said that the newer restorations are more faithful to the originals since they are now scanning the original negatives instead of second generation masters etc. but yeah... That's debatable for sure.
I'm planning on making a comparison between the DVD and the HDTV which has the same colours but the clarity is 100% better.
Marce82
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Marce82 »

Hey Lnds,

Thanks. Yeah. About Peter Pan... thats what I meant when i said it seemed blurry... out of focus. But I wouldnt call it terrible. As far as the colors, I think the platinum colors make more sense than the previous ones...
Looking forward to your comparison though!

DisneyDivinity... yes, there used to me one frame where they had made a mistake, and they fixed it for the Platinum release of TLM (its there in the original DVD release).
During the reprise, when Ariel sings "what would I pay...", there was one frame where there is a space between her hand and her face, which is supposed to be her neck, and in one frame they painted as if it was hair.
User avatar
271286
Special Edition
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Denmark

Post by 271286 »

Scamander wrote:There just ARE no restorations with these films. That's the point.

There was never a problem with Aladdin, BatB has only a new colour scheme (which has nothing to do with a restoration), Tarzan's problem isn't a bad restoration either, but a bad compression. The film itself looks without these problems just like back in 1999. It's a technical issue, just like with HotR.
Why do they always advertise them as "newly restored" then!? I get your point, but never the less they continue to screw up their digital releases by changing animation and changing colors, and adding to the backgrounds...
Lazario
Suspended
Posts: 8296
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:35 am
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid

Post by Lazario »

If you compare how many times I've watched Cinderella on DVD with the number of times I've watched it on VHS...

Well, point being: I'm in favor of it looking more like it did on the VHS. Since spending at least 40 minutes reading that EXTREMELY technical post Sotiris linked. Darker, more vibrant and less watery, less pastel colors can only do this film a big favor.

The 3rd-time re-release of Peter Pan and 2nd-go'round of Sleeping Beauty would suggest that Disney will change the colors yet again for this film. Meanwhile, Alice in Wonderland looked exactly the same ... until the Blu-Ray came out. I'm guessing whatever they do, the Blu-Ray will be better than the Platinum DVD was. Whether they revert all the changes they made with the DVD's original colors (not the film's original colors), the Blu-Ray will easily make EVERYONE on the fence or without an opinion about this absolutely love the transfer. And, then this issue will be put to bed. Sorrily, no hardcore fans will get a say in what Disney does.

Though Duster especially pointed out some very good examples of what seem to be huge mistakes. Especially the 2-brown colored maidy uniform while she goes up the stairs and... if I have this right, the sparkle on... no, not Cinderella's transformation: the Godmother's sleeve(s). On the Blu-Ray, you will see the sparkles that do show up during the transformation sharper than a tac(k). And probably bright as any brilliant white thing Disney's ever shown in their animated Blu-Rays previous. So, that I wouldn't concern myself with. It may be different but whether it's subtle or not, you'll see a lot. And remember this: Disney would never have expected audiences to see something this sharply. So... maybe a lot of animated films on Blu-Ray have already been toned down somehow. Have there been any significant Blu-Ray transfer complaints since Maleficent's eyes in Sleeping Beauty (their first, sorta-test, run with the format)?
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images
User avatar
The_Iceflash
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
Location: USA

Post by The_Iceflash »

Lazario wrote:Have there been any significant Blu-Ray transfer complaints since Maleficent's eyes in Sleeping Beauty (their first, sorta-test, run with the format)?
There was the very large debate over Pinocchio's colors and then there was the issue of colors Alice In Wonderland (which I have no problem with).
User avatar
271286
Special Edition
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Denmark

Post by 271286 »

Lazario wrote:Have there been any significant Blu-Ray transfer complaints since Maleficent's eyes in Sleeping Beauty (their first, sorta-test, run with the format)?
What incident was that? The only problem with the Blu-Ray transfer for the Sleeping Beauty PE was the one where Merryweather looked like she was drawn in Microsoft Paint...
Lazario
Suspended
Posts: 8296
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:35 am
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid

Post by Lazario »

Her eyes were white during the shot of her laughing in the King's castle just as he spoke the line, "SEIZE THAT CREATURE!" They were yellow in every other shot. And they were yellow on the 2003 Special Edition DVD.

Just for fun, I'm making a YouTube video comparison right now. Gimme 25 minutes:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KSdvp9mqZ3I" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I just did this for fun, I know everyone knows about this already. Now you can watch it and be shocked all over again.
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images
User avatar
Lnds500
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:14 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Lnds500 »

271286 wrote:
Scamander wrote:There just ARE no restorations with these films. That's the point.

There was never a problem with Aladdin, BatB has only a new colour scheme (which has nothing to do with a restoration), Tarzan's problem isn't a bad restoration either, but a bad compression. The film itself looks without these problems just like back in 1999. It's a technical issue, just like with HotR.
Why do they always advertise them as "newly restored" then!? I get your point, but never the less they continue to screw up their digital releases by changing animation and changing colors, and adding to the backgrounds...
"newly restored" could mean a lot of things, it's a catchy term and practical. They wouldn't say "with a new color timing" etc. the only other thing they could change in the digital films is rerendering the CG models so they don't have aliasing artifacts etc. other that that, they just need a good technical transfer.
DisneyFan09
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3708
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:28 pm

Post by DisneyFan09 »

PatrickvD wrote:Beauty and the Beast takes the cake.
The Beauty and the Beast restoration is completely unforgivable.
User avatar
Atlantica
Signature Collection
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:33 am
Location: UK

Post by Atlantica »

Goodness....there is quite a lot of inconsistency going on with what appears to be all of Disney's back catalogue ?
User avatar
Ivan
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Post by Ivan »

Beauty and the Beast really bothers me - considering it is a CAPS film, how is it that Disney was able to go and alter the colours and say it's better? I understand the new version is supposed to be closer to what the directors intended (apparently), but surely they could've just given us exactly what the original source looked like, perhaps with a few improvements for the higher-res format?
Lazario wrote:Her eyes were white during the shot of her laughing in the King's castle just as he spoke the line, "SEIZE THAT CREATURE!" They were yellow in every other shot. And they were yellow on the 2003 Special Edition DVD.

Just for fun, I'm making a YouTube video comparison right now. Gimme 25 minutes:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KSdvp9mqZ3I" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I just did this for fun, I know everyone knows about this already. Now you can watch it and be shocked all over again.
I believe there were also a lot of complaints about how the lute player's clothes change colour compared to past releases (in one edition they're green, in the other they're yellow - I can't remember which), and in only one single shot they're the same colour as the old edition, it somehow slipped past the restoration team. You'd think that if they're spending all this money cleaning up the classics that they would at least refer to the original film as well as past video releases to at least remain somewhat faithful to the original colour palette. I'm all for improvements, but believe that actually changing the colours is going too far.
User avatar
271286
Special Edition
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Denmark

Post by 271286 »

Lazario wrote:Her eyes were white during the shot of her laughing in the King's castle just as he spoke the line, "SEIZE THAT CREATURE!" They were yellow in every other shot. And they were yellow on the 2003 Special Edition DVD.

Just for fun, I'm making a YouTube video comparison right now. Gimme 25 minutes:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KSdvp9mqZ3I" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I just did this for fun, I know everyone knows about this already. Now you can watch it and be shocked all over again.
Thanks. Didn't know about this issue. Now i do.
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

THANK YOU EVERYONE who has seen and supported and discussed what I've presented here. :)

I think it's safe to say the worst restoration really is Cinderella. Unlike Beauty and the Beast, which was the colors being changed purposely to the ones the artists wanted, Cinderella not only didn't have a say or decisions from the original filmakers as to how it should be, Cinderella has had color changes and even painting over of outlines and details as well as missing details which are clearly big mistakes, that no one wanted and is essentially changing, covering, or removing not just colors, but animation and artwork from the film. That's even worse than changing colors.
Marce82 wrote:Where did you get the screencaps of the pre-2005 version? Do you have the laserdisc?
I got them from two sources: some from various Youtube videos, and some from From Rags to Riches: The Making of Cinderella on the second disc of the Platinum Edition DVD! The first example, the third example, and the final example all used The Making of.
Image
monks19
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:58 pm

Post by monks19 »

Seriously, we all knew (for years now) that Disney is doing that mess just to cut corners and make money out of the mainstream. We, fans and collectors alike, represent nothing. So whatever they do for mistakes, ommition alterations, censoring and all, they don't care if we rant at it since we do not represent the mainstream. They're more concerned about small group that want to make scandals on them (IE:Song of the South) instead and the value of the stock market with their marketing manipulations (yeah, the damn vault...). So... It's a shame that they don't allow a smaller company (Kino, Criterion, Image-Entertainment) to re-release their more vintage and risky stuff, like they use to do with Anchor Bay and the live action library. Hell, they can do it themselves sice the names "Disney" and "Buena Vista", among others, are all part of the same big trust like ABC & ESPN. I mean, Kino, Criterion, Image-Entertainment are now on for years, so... Anyway, they're just hurting themself. At least some other companies like Warner did something to it (even if we're still waiting to see Tex Avery and the Censored 11 getting a release). So now what ?
Post Reply