Disney Classics Screenshot Comparisons

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

I'd just like to add that not only has this thread been mentioned in the Disney reviews on this site, but other sites are also indirectly referring to it.

http://www.bigscreenanimation.com/20...ay-review.html

Hee hee, Kenneth Brown is watching us as we speak.

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by yumny

In conclusion I guess I have no choice and will definitely be buying RDE the way it is and enjoy it.. I've never seen it before. Right now, it and The Rescuers are the only Disney movies beside the CGI crap and the 40s package films I haven't seen.

I know this is an old quote but except for The Rescuers movies, you're not missing much. I've seen every official Disney animated film (except Wreck it Ralph) and the CGI/package movies were among the hardest to sit through.

On topic: Cinderella is the first movie I ever saw in the theatre (late 80s re-release, I'm still in my 20s guys ) so I've been wanting to check out the Blu-ray for awhile now. Too bad they messed up the transfer, although I'll still get around to watching it one of these days...

[yumny]

Originally Posted by metaridley

I know this is an old quote but except for The Rescuers movies, you're not missing much. I've seen every official Disney animated film (except Wreck it Ralph) and the CGI/package movies were among the hardest to sit through.

On topic: Cinderella is the first movie I ever saw in the theatre (late 80s re-release, I'm still in my 20s guys ) so I've been wanting to check out the Blu-ray for awhile now. Too bad they messed up the transfer, although I'll still get around to watching it one of these days...

I've come around to watching every Disney movie besides Chicken Little, and "Meet the Robinsons" really wasn't as crappy as I expected it to be, so.

As far as the package movies went, I thought
- Saludos Amigos was enjoyable and funny and cool
- The Three Caballeros was fun but way too long and a bit tedious
- Make Mine Music was terrible except for Peter and the Wolf
- Fun and Fancy Free was terrible
- Melody Time was sort of well done, but some segments were way better than others
- The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad is as brilliant as the Disney movies from the 50s and deserves more recognition. This is the only one I'd actually buy on its own for Blu-Ray.

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by yumny

I've come around to watching every Disney movie besides Chicken Little, and "Meet the Robinsons" really wasn't as crappy as I expected it to be, so.

As far as the package movies went, I thought
- Saludos Amigos was enjoyable and funny and cool
- The Three Caballeros was fun but way too long and a bit tedious
- Make Mine Music was terrible except for Peter and the Wolf
- Fun and Fancy Free was terrible
- Melody Time was sort of well done, but some segments were way better than others
- The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad is as brilliant as the Disney movies from the 50s and deserves more recognition. This is the only one I'd actually buy on its own for Blu-Ray.

Yeah there are some good segments in a few of the package films but overall they're very hit/miss. I pretty much agree with you.

[Lnds500]

I have updated the Peter Pan comparison. The 2 Blu-rays use the same restoration after all.

[Freddy2]

Looking good, so... good to know!
Thanks again!

[telzall]

Concerning Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio on Blu-ray. The official reviewers on this site all love the video restorations/revisions of these titles. How is it there is so much controversy? Are the reviewers all "in the tank" for Disney?

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by telzall

Concerning Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio on Blu-ray. The official reviewers on this site all love the video restorations/revisions of these titles. How is it there is so much controversy? Are the reviewers all "in the tank" for Disney?

It's because the restoration process itself is controversial. They strip the movie apart and scrub it and put it back together. It looks "good", but many question the authenticity. The more straightforward approach WB takes on their cartoons also makes people question why Disney bothers.

[telzall]

Thanks, that's a good summary! IYHO, which of the Blu-rays or DVDs is, overall, the most authentic? I'm defining "authentic" as true to the original image(s).

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by telzall

Thanks, that's a good summary! IYHO, which of the Blu-rays or DVDs is, overall, the most authentic? I'm defining "authentic" as true to the original image(s).

The whole purpose of the effort Disney has done on these is for them NOT to look authentic, but more like if the original animators had access to modern animation capture tools. There is no grain, and they look nothing like a film. So authentic to the artwork (though the color intent is disputed) but not authentic to the finished original product shown in theaters. I personally like the "restorations", but they are inherently inauthentic.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Zot!

The whole purpose of the effort Disney has done on these is for them NOT to look authentic, but more like if the original animators had access to modern animation capture tools. There is no grain, and they look nothing like a film. So authentic to the artwork (though the color intent is disputed) but not authentic to the finished original product shown in theaters. I personally like the "restorations", but they are inherently inauthentic.

They're also not riddled with cel dust and cel scrawl. An "authentic" Pinocchio might be unwatchable on Blu-Ray.

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

They're also not riddled with cel dust and cel scrawl. An "authentic" Pinocchio might be unwatchable on Blu-Ray.

I concur, having watched a few movies that were upgraded into high def from original negatives without cleanup.
I am totally okay with these "revisions" since they bring out the best way the movie has ever looked, even better than in theaters. I start to say they've overdone it only when there's too much detail scrubbed away, but that's rarely ever the case.

[telzall]

Originally Posted by Zot!

The whole purpose of the effort Disney has done on these is for them NOT to look authentic, but more like if the original animators had access to modern animation capture tools. There is no grain, and they look nothing like a film. So authentic to the artwork (though the color intent is disputed) but not authentic to the finished original product shown in theaters. I personally like the "restorations", but they are inherently inauthentic.

I can live with the "restorations" looking nothing like a film; if that is the price for authenticity to the artwork.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by telzall

I can live with the "restorations" looking nothing like a film; if that is the price for authenticity to the artwork.

I think you will be happy then.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by yumny

I concur, having watched a few movies that were upgraded into high def from original negatives without cleanup.
I am totally okay with these "revisions" since they bring out the best way the movie has ever looked, even better than in theaters. I start to say they've overdone it only when there's too much detail scrubbed away, but that's rarely ever the case.

The usual argument is that the MGM/WB stuff (Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry) looks quite great without sacrificing a filmic look. I'm ambivalent, but probably prefer the MGM/WB approach. Either way I think the BDs are a huge step forward from what was previously available.

[telzall]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Dude -- that's not "dye-shift" -- YCM did their Fantasia restoration work from the original negatives as well, and you even see the guys doing work on the original negatives with RAZORBLADES in the original restoration features from 1990. They "shifted" (or color timed) as much black into the movie as possible to hide the cell dust. Premiere Magazine had an extensive write up about it 22 years ago, and it is a damn shame the mag went bust, because it would be very illuminating for the present discussion.

What was the Premiere Mag article about? Fantasia, specifically? I want to try and get it off eBay. Thanks, in advance for any help!!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Zot!

The usual argument is that the MGM/WB stuff (Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry) looks quite great without sacrificing a filmic look. I'm ambivalent, but probably prefer the MGM/WB approach. Either way I think the BDs are a huge step forward from what was previously available.

The MGM/WB approach can be somewhat shaky, on DVD the shorts were (as Ernest said) almost unwatchable due to all the noise from the cel dust.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The MGM/WB approach can be somewhat shaky, on DVD the shorts were (as Ernest said) almost unwatchable due to all the noise from the cel dust.

Not sure what you mean, the old DVD collections don't seem relevant to this discussion...not to mention generations of kids 'suffered' through the cel dust to watch these on film and broadcast TV before the advent of home video.

The current WB releases on BD have recieved deservedly high marks.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Zot!

Not sure what you mean, the old DVD collections don't seem relevant to this discussion...not to mention generations of kids 'suffered' through the cel dust to watch these on film and broadcast TV before the advent of home video.

The current WB releases on BD have recieved deservedly high marks.

High-marks -- but usually with caveats about the production artifacts, excused because of the age of the shorts.

I get the issue about grain, I don't get the issue about the dust. Walt Disney did what he could to eliminate cel dust and scrawl in his animated films, but nature and static electricity defeated him. It's always dangerous to put words in Walt's mouth, but in the case of being able to eliminate the cel noise from a labor of love like Pinocchio or Bambi or Fantasia, I have a really hard time believing someone like Walt would be against it.

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

High-marks -- but usually with caveats about the production artifacts, excused because of the age of the shorts.

I get the issue about grain, I don't get the issue about the dust. Walt Disney did what he could to eliminate cel dust and scrawl in his animated films, but nature and static electricity defeated him. It's always dangerous to put words in Walt's mouth, but in the case of being able to eliminate the cel noise from a labor of love like Pinocchio or Bambi or Fantasia, I have a really hard time believing someone like Walt would be against it.

I'm not arguing AGAINST the Disney restorations, if you read above, I say that I like them. I personally don't mind what they're doing, all I said is that I prefer the WB style restorations. One of my favourite gags ever is the hair caught in the frame from Tex Avery's Magical Maestro. Without the context of the short having film-like properties the entire joke is lost. I can't help but think that some mojo is lost even from those films that don't necessarily indulge this kind of direct meta-humor. Call me old-fashioned if you must.