DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:42 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:47 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:41 am
Posts: 37
I went back and forth on if I should start a separate thread for this, but since there was a mix of straight "movie news" as well as issues pertaining to the DVD release, I put up a new topic. Whoever wields supreme power around here, feel free to fold this in with the appropriate topic if I've gone too far.

So I went to the opening night of "Sleeping Beauty" at the El Capitan Theater last Thursday (8/28 ) - there's a thread discussing the El Cap experience elsewhere on the board, and I'd join those in saying that it really is something unique, even at $13 for a movie you've already seen (Tinker Bell, the film which follows 'SB', maybe not so much). But the El Cap is truly an effort to maintain that quasi-magical "night at the picture palace" which has faded in the megaplex era. But no matter...

As has been tradition, Disney rolls out its animated classics shortly before a new DVD release. House organist Rob Richards was already cranking out Disney tunes, pretty much in chronological order from "Snow White" on down the line, by the time I took my seat at 6:45. Probably the most impressive thing is that he needed no obvious breaks in order to re-route himself; he segued beautifully for a solid 40 minutes before wrapping up with "Once Upon a Dream" - music with a tie to that night's feature is always the sign that his time is up as the organ descends below stage.

Now, as also become custom, the film was preceded by a filmmaker's panel hosted by a current Disney name (Don Hahn in this case). Don introduced everybody one-by-one on stage, taking time at the beginning to note, "We're in the presence of royalty tonight". Gee, who could he be talking about?

Blaine Gibson (better known for his Imagineering work but who made his bones animating at Disney in the '50s), Tony Baxter (Senior Imagineer at WDI), Frank Armitage (one of the key background painters on the film under Eyvind Earle), & Bob Thomas, author of "The Art of Animation" coffee-table book which extensively features "SB" all came out, followed of course by Mary Costa herself to a standing ovation.

Don pivoted to Armitage, seated in the middle of the panel, to talk about how he joined the Disney studio - Frank started what became a recurring theme of the night with a little vignette that included a slight "wink, wink" innuendo to things that, if explained, might run contrary to the Disney image of nothing but wholesome family fun. Armitage recalled that it was after meeting a woman in Mexico and happening to reunite with her in LA, she mentioned a friend of hers that he should meet who turns out to be Milt Kahl. The two immediately hit it off and Kahl invited him for a tour of the studio, at the end of which he postured to Frank, "So, what do you think?" Frank wasn't quite sure what he was asking about, but turns out Milt was wondering if Frank wanted a job. On a whim, Armitage said "Sure", picked up the phone in Kahl's office and got one. Don Hahn then got the evening's first big laugh as he noted, "All of you out there of course can relate, since that's how easy it is to get a job at Disney."

Discussion transitioned to the influence of Eyvind Earle and included a clip from the DVD, one I think can safely be assumed is part of the "The Man and His Art" featurette and features some audio of Earle culled out of the 2003 DVD features, as well as recollections from Don Bluth and comments by Pete Doctor and Michael Giamo. Another clip from this same piece is currently up on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi559743257/

The conversation than turned over to Bob Thomas, who Hahn praised effusively for "The Art of Animation", citing how influential the book was for the current generations of animators ("On me, too", Tony Baxter chimed in) and asked about how the idea was hatched. Thomas got the biggest laugh of the evening by relating how he'd gone up to Walt's office at 11:30 AM, where the first order of business between the two of them was a round of vegetable juice. "I don't know if he had a little something extra in his, to help get him through the day", Bob recalled. The primary motivation for "TAOA" was, as Thomas remembered, Walt's desire to get the artists who are truly responsible for an animated film some time in the spotlight. "Since we don't have stars, it's always fallen to me to get the credit for the films", he told Bob, but a book like the one Thomas ended up writing would finally shed some light over how many talented people are needed to create an animated movie. Showing a kind of "aw-shucks, it was so much simpler back then" quality like Frank Armitage, Thomas remembered the actual offer as being along the lines of "Walt said, 'You wanna do it?', and I said....'Sure'."

Mary Costa took a turn explaining how she got to audition for the part, apparently being "discovered" by a Disney studio employee while singing near the piano of the home of a friend. She went to the audition "never expecting to get the part, but hoping to meet Walt Disney." She felt totally at ease signing, but became worried when several men approached her in the recording studio. One of them was Marc Davis, who asked what might be done about her accent (Mary apparently tipped her Tennessee roots much stronger then), and she replicated her Southern-twang response of "What aaack-cennt?" Davis helped coach her through it by doing a sort of "droll English gentleman" routine which she instantly responded to, since she and her father had often entertained each other back home by speaking in faux British accents. By the end of the day, Davis had her feeling confident, saying that if Vivien Leigh could convincingly play a Southern belle, "we think a Southern belle could surely play an English princess."

Going home that afternoon, she felt disappointed at not having met Walt, until the phone rings at her house - she lived with 3 cousins at the time, all of whom got phone calls, so there was mad dash to the telephone that was won by Mrs. Costa (Now that's a scene straight from a Howard Hawks movie, or perhaps The Rocketeer). Mrs. Costa didn't tip off who was on the other end of the line at first, before chuckling and whispering, "It's Walt Disney!" Apparently Walt broke the ice by saying, "Mrs. Costa, I think you've been hiding the Princess Aurora in your house!"

Another clip from the DVD up next, this one looking back on the almost back-breaking level of work required to make the film. It's the last 30 seconds or so of this clip, also at IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi576520473/

Don turns to Blaine Gibson next and wonders about the actual nuts and bolts his animation on the film. Blaine spoke glowingly of his old friends, remembering that on Sleeping Beauty he worked primarily under Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston, mainly doing what today we'd probably call the in-between, clean-up work for the fairies, mostly while they were shrunken or in flight. Gibson recalled, "I wasn't strong enough with dialogue", but did proudly point out his one "line" in the film, recalling that he was tasked to animate King Stefan's line of "Seize that creature!" Blaine's thoroughly "in-character" performance on the stage got a big applause and Don promised that everybody would be watching for it in the film - where it once again got a huge response from the crowd (more on the film in a bit).

Finally the conversation turned over to Tony Baxter, who talked about the great influence of Sleeping Beauty in the parks, specifically how (in what would never happen today), a major theme park attraction - the Castle Walk-Through - opened nearly 2 years before the film's debut, in 1957. Tony noted that those of us who don't remember Disneyland before 1978 don't really remember the walk-through, since it was changed into a more linear, "windows on Main Street" attraction before closing post-9/11.

Clip from the DVD feature on the attraction's history got shown, Tony and several other WDI vets discussing several of the what now seem quaint but at the time were very effective tricks behind the scenes. For instance, there was a scene with several elaborate doors where, when one peeked through the keyhole, you saw Malefiecent's goons - but small mirrors were positioned where the eyes would be and angled to reflect the other side of the keyhole, meaning the eye of the goons were actually the guest's own eyes.

Tony then noted that, while in the midst of preparing this feature with the home video unit, he was able to alert the higher-ups at Disneyland (another short burst of applause greeted his comment, "Disneyland has gotten some new management") who were never aware that anything existed inside Sleeping Beauty Castle. Baxter commented, "Ed (Grier, the President of DL) was adamant, 'This has got to be reintroduced here'." And so as a by-product of virtually recreating the Sleeping Beauty walkthrough for Blu-Ray, the real deal as Eyvind Earle and Walt Disney intended it to be seen will re-open sometime this fall/winter at The Happiest Place on Earth. Corporate syngergy uses its power for good! Baxter slyly noted, "We'd love to have a firm date, love to have it done in time for this disc release, but we've committed that, 'Before the last leaf of autumn falls, Sleeping Beauty will once more grace the Castle walls'." He actually said that, I couldn't make that up. More chuckles as he noted, "In California, the leaves fall all the way through January!"

Don went back to Mary Costa one last time, who told a very moving story on Walt's advice to her before she went in to record her lines - he wanted her to meet Marc Davis, study the artwork of her character and the world they were creating, thinking in terms of colors - how would she see each thing developing, how would each emotion register - and as she went into the studio after all that, to "paint with her voice".

I wish I had a video/transcript of the whole panel, as it was very engaging yet appropriately laid-back enough - nobody was doing any hardcore shilling, just swapping stories. It was like all Don Hahn was doing was dropping a quarter into a machine and pulling the lever to hear another tale of the studio golden age. On the topic of video, I saw plenty of people out there with personal video cameras so maybe one of you's a poster on this forum? Hm?

Finally the show itself begins, but not without a few more comments from Don Hahn. First, he actually has the screen of the El Cap lifted up to show off the theatrical sound system, noting that the film's run at the EC will be featuring the new, digitally-remastered sound mix done by Terry Porter. The chorus signing of "Once Upon a Dream" begins to play in standard 2.0 audio, but about halfway through the remixed, digitally optimized version kicks in and the effect is startling. Every note and every voice is coming through in pitch-perfect clarity. Plenty of surround-sound owners are going to love using their system to show this movie off.

As for the film itself, and here's something I'm sure the purists will be interested to hear and then scrutinize:

Don touches on the restoration by showing a clip of an unrestored print, full of scratches and dots and actual fingerprints that show up on the edges of the backgrounds. Also, "notice the black bars on the edge" - the image we're watching doesn't quite fill the whole screen horizontally. This is because theaters at the time didn't project Sleeping Beauty's intended aspect ratio as the backgrounds had been drawn, so even as the film was drawn and then shot for Technirama, (with a theatrical AR of 2.20:1 on the 70mm prints), this ultimately cropped the picture differently than it existed in the Disney lot. What we're about to see, Don Hahn says in a way meant to drum up the "exclusive" angle, is what Walt Disney would've seen had he gone down to the camera department in 1958 - it's the film as it was meant to be seen and it is one that has never been shown on the big screen, or anywhere else, before tonight. "So, in many ways," Don wraps up, "we think of tonight as a world premiere."

Now, I'm not a hardliner when it comes to aspect ratio, and I certainly didn't have any screenshots of previous releases handy to reference in the middle of the exhibition, but the digital print that I saw on Thursday was absolutely flawless and spot-on true to the animator's vision. Sometimes it seemed like we weren't watching something that had been filmed but the actual cels of animation themselves move across the backgrounds - which occasionally seemed off from my memories, but that's natural. Having seen the film for so long with that slightly worn grain (often called the "filmic look"), seeing something so unbelievably clean and sharp was definitely like "seeing it" for the first time.

In five and a half weeks when the DVD/Blu-Ray hits shelves I'm sure the range of opinions will be out there, but if the version in your home matches the version shown at the theater, you'll probably come away thinking it was the most pristine presentation ever done for an animated film. People more knowledgeable about such things than me can judge if Disney once again "tinkered" with their animated classic, but it sure exceeded my expecations - and the bonus features looked pretty good too!

_________________
"The Poor Captain Has a Splitting Headache...We musn't Annoy Him!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:24 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4478
Location: The Netherlands
thanks for sharing!

I personally love the idea of such a restoration. As long as the colors stay as true as possible to what was originally intended I'm fine with it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:37 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12198
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Thanks for the very enlightening read! I wish/hope that Disney themselves had videotaped it too for posterity. Too bad it (and other live discussion panels that were done before the Platinum was released) couldn't be included on the DVD!

I really hope someone from UD was representing the site (Chris Disher, were you there?), it'd be really great if UD could post some of the video footage especially since they now have their own YouTube Account that already has a video about the TLM3 premiere, as well as an online article.

Regarding the aspect ratio, I'll keep mum on that as it's such a touchy subject at UD and both sides are adamant that theirs is the "correct" one.

Albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:12 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:33 am
Posts: 4336
Location: UK
What a lovely psot of what happened at the premiere night! Thank you so much for that. I remember The Little Mermaid panel was put on youtube right away in 2006, so hopefully this one will be as well.

_________________
… The Film That Gave Voice To A Whole Generation …

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:13 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:01 pm
Posts: 947
Location: at home apparently
I got this great warm fuzzy feeling inside when you mentioned the standing ovation for Mary Costa.

thanks a heap for your report, i wish i could've been there :cry:

_________________
www.twitter.com/victorharvey


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:23 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7064
Location: America
SNERWW22785 wrote:
Having seen the film for so long with that slightly worn grain (often called the "filmic look"), seeing something so unbelievably clean and sharp was definitely like "seeing it" for the first time.

Film should look like film. Did the Disney artists want us to feel like we're watching painted plastic move on a painted background, or did they want us to feel like we're watching a film?

I'm worried.

But thank you for all you told us. Very in-depth, more than we hoped for.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:59 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12198
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Mike wrote:
SNERWW22785 wrote:
Having seen the film for so long with that slightly worn grain (often called the "filmic look"), seeing something so unbelievably clean and sharp was definitely like "seeing it" for the first time.

Film should look like film. Did the Disney artists want us to feel like we're watching painted plastic move on a painted background

God, I hope not. I want my grain...

Albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:39 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3516
Location: Puerto Rico
Oh boy...

The official Blu-Ray transfer thread is going to be a DOOZY once the film's released. :p

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:57 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Film should look like film? Maybe for live action, since it's basically photography of real images, but for animation?

Film was just a way of distributing the images created on cels and backgrounds. If we can "lift" away the grain artifacts for a more clear, defined look at the original artwork, I don't see an issue. Why is it so important for it to be more like a photograph of the image than the actual image?

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Last edited by Elladorine on Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:02 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3590
Location: Sleepy Hollow
pap64 wrote:
Oh boy...

The official Blu-Ray transfer thread is going to be a DOOZY once the film's released. :p


I'm getting ready for the HOOPLA when it's released.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:05 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 136
enigmawing wrote:
Film should look like film? Maybe for live action, since it's basically photography of real images, but for animation?

Film was just a way of distributing the images created on cels and backgrounds. If we can "lift" away the grain artifacts for a more clear, defined look at the original artwork, I don't see an issue. Why is it so important for it to be more like a photograph of the image than the actual image?


That is an excellent point. I bet if the artists and animators would have had the technology at the time to have their art duplicated and represented in the clearest, cleanest form, they would have chosen it. I know that whenever something that I've created is reproduced and it doesn't quite look like the original, I often feel disappointed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:26 am 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1000
Disney Duster wrote:
Film should look like film. Did the Disney artists want us to feel like we're watching painted plastic move on a painted background, or did they want us to feel like we're watching a film?

I'm worried.

But thank you for all you told us. Very in-depth, more than we hoped for.


I agree Disney Duster, in a way I'm a bit worried too.

I have to say though, that I think a lot of releases (Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella) didn't look like film to me anymore anyway.
There's no depth anymore, it all looks like "watching painted plastic move on a painted background" to me.

So taking this restoration to a higher level, with new techniques, new ways to try to get the original colors, new aspect ratio, giving it more depth, true 50's colors, that might be closer to the original than the films mentioned above, gives me new hope and expectations.
Because the real fimish look that we love won't come back anyway.


Last edited by Marky_198 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:27 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:01 pm
Posts: 947
Location: at home apparently
Some enthusiast want to see it exactly how it was seen in theaters, which isn't exactly what the animators envisioned, as they'd be looking at the painted cells moving.

Now technology have been improved so it no longer has look like what it would've in the theaters back in the 50s, giving a clean image.

Though some people say "I want grain!" I don't think the animators were saying that at all.

I personally would like to see both. Which means when I want to see the more dated looking version, I'll just watch the SE!

_________________
www.twitter.com/victorharvey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:47 am 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1000
yukitora wrote:
Some enthusiast want to see it exactly how it was seen in theaters, which isn't exactly what the animators envisioned, as they'd be looking at the painted cells moving.

Now technology have been improved so it no longer has look like what it would've in the theaters back in the 50s, giving a clean image.

Though some people say "I want grain!" I don't think the animators were saying that at all.

I personally would like to see both. Which means when I want to see the more dated looking version, I'll just watch the SE!


The SE edition doesn't look dated.
It looks restored to 2003 (or whatever year they restored it in) standards without the right technology.
It looks quite flat and too modern for what it is. The wrong things are removed and as you can see on sceenshots someone posted earlier it looks like painted plastic moving on painted backgrounds.
The new 2008 restoration screenshots give me hope again.
If it's done correctly, it should look MORE dated, because of the original colors and look of the film. A 50's film. In everything, style, characters, voices, and overall look. BUT, like you said, crisp and clean.

I also think that the animators didn't want the audience to look directly at the moving cells, because the lighting of photography makes or breaks a movie.
And I think when people say, I want it how it was when it was shown in theatres back then, they actually mean, I want the movie to look like what it really is. And not like a movie that was made yesterday in 2008.
And flat and dead.

And actually all that matters is what actually looks better.
I know some people can't have an objective view, but I know for sure that no-one on this earth likes a flat, dead look, with bright painted plastic moving on a background, and all the atmosphere and feeling removed.

I call Cinderella a 1D movie since it's last release.


Last edited by Marky_198 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:20 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Would you like to see a photo of Van Gogh's Starry Night or would you rather see the actual painting in person? Would the grain artifacts of a photographed version add a level that didn't already exist in the original?

I feel that people give the whole grain thing too much credit, as if a random texture can somehow add depth, stature, and life to animated films. Should we go ahead and use some grainy photoshop filters on the more modern productions, would that prevent them from looking "flat and dead?" :p

What created the depth, stature, and life to the visuals of animated films is the warmth and personality of the artwork itself. We're not talking about the art of capturing real people and objects with photography, it's a 2-D fantasy world fully created by the artists. They already create all the "lighting" and "photography" of the films by hand with the way they draw, color, paint, and shade. The film process often distorted artwork to the point that they actually had to do camera tests ahead of time in order to compensate for color and other film errors! There was obviously an art to doing color tests and the like for photographing the cel set-ups that make up animation, but the whole point was to get the film to represent the original artwork as closely as possible. Today's technology allows us to take a step closer to that. Walt was known to not only embrace new technologies, he excelled with them. I'm sure he would have embraced the technologies of CAPS, high-definition tv, digital film projectors, Blu-Ray, etc. I could be wrong, but I feel he would have loved the idea of allowing an audience the closest replication possible of the artwork, even when it comes to restorations of his older films.

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:30 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1000
Enigmawing, it's not about grain.

Sometimes a picture says more than a thousand words.

Can you please tell me which pictures look more flat and dead to you and which ones look more atmospheric, warmer and with more feeling and depth?

And which ones look more correct in terms of light sources and shadows, animation wise?

And can you please explain to me why that is?

Thanks!

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO9A.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO9B.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO9C.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO10A.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO10B.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO10C.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>




<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO15A.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO15B.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/drsd2kill/PINOCCHIO/PINOCCHIO15C.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:37 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 3516
Location: Puerto Rico
See, I find this whole "restoration" issue silly because what we are really debating is the perception of the film. IE, its not really about how good/bad a movie looks, its more about the images WE remember seeing, and if we see that image again, except with some changes, we are troubled.

Imagine that you lived in a white house all of your life. You move out and years later you revisit the house, only now its white AND pink. Not only that, its a different shade of white. It troubles you because all your life you grew up watching a somewhat pale white house, and now its a brighter shade of white with blue.

Most of us never saw the original films in theaters, and neither did some of the people working on the restoration. So when we saw the movies on VHS or laserdisc we were basically seeing what at the time was considered the correct transfer of the film.

The reality is that the REAL proof of how the film was envisioned was either destroyed or lost forever to the ages. The people who worked on the films have either died or are too old to remember. Most of all, Walt Disney is not around to tell people how HIS films looked like. So every time we see a new release of a classic Disney film we are seeing what other people think is the definite version, and if we see those movies we accept them as the definitive version.

Years from now, I am sure that the children of today who watched all of the Disney films through the recent DVD releases will complain as adults that the transfer of the films are too different from the version they remember watching.

Now, I'm not saying that all of the recent transfers are good or even fantastic. Like I said, these films are restored with a different vision than the one of the original filmmakers, so they are just as mistaken as we are.

The only way to see the definitive version of a movie is to go back in time and watch it when it premiered. And even then, there's a chance that it might look WORSE because not every theater could afford state of the art projectors.

So to sum it all up; when it comes to film restorations no one is right and no one is wrong. Since the proof disappeared long ago its anyone's guess as to how a movie should look. For all we know, those that are defending the VHS and laserdisc transfers could be dead wrong about those being the best versions.

Again, its all perception fueled by memories of what we saw and grew up with.

_________________
ImageImageImageImage

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:12 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Marky, I do understand your point and I hope you don't think I'm trying to stir an argument.

I could say both good and bad things about each version shown, but the fact of the matter is that I'm not psychic enough to know what the film makers were going for without being there at the time of production and seeing the artwork for myself. Any time any kind of art is being reproduced (from prints to photos to monitor settings) there are far too many margins of error to consider a single set standard for how the film frame "should" look. I can point out what I like and why, but my opinion has no reflection on the intention of the original artists. But heck, even the original cels would no longer be the same color they were in decades past, as colors fade and change over time.

I don't envy the amount of guesswork and criticism the restoration people must go through. ;)

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Last edited by Elladorine on Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:12 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 12198
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
enigmawing wrote:
Film should look like film? Maybe for live action, since it's basically photography of real images, but for animation?

Film was just a way of distributing the images created on cels and backgrounds. If we can "lift" away the grain artifacts for a more clear, defined look at the original artwork, I don't see an issue. Why is it so important for it to be more like a photograph of the image than the actual image?

Because Sleeping Beauty is a movie, it's meant to be seen as a movie, and not a montage of artwork (no matter what fans and animation enthusiasts want to believe). Sleeping Beauty as a movie is not a string of the actual images in motion. It's a string of photographs of the actual image in motion. If they meant for it to be seen as artwork, they'd showcase it in a gallery or a coffee-table book. But Sleeping Beauty as a film should look like a film, with grain intact.

Chris wrote:
I bet if the artists and animators would have had the technology at the time to have their art duplicated and represented in the clearest, cleanest form, they would have chosen it.

Yes, but they didn't, that's the whole point. If they had the technology then to preserve a complete image without any grain, artefacts, imperfections, etc. they would do it. But the whole point is that they didn't, and thus, what was created in 1959 is what should be preserved. That's another reason why I'm annoyed at the whole "2.55:1 is OAR" for Sleeping Beauty. Yes, it was animated in that ratio, and yes, it was shot on the negatives that way. But it's not what was seen in theatres, what was seen was 70mm blow-ups of 2.20:1, or 35mm reductions of 2.35:1. And those ratios are as acceptable as 2.55:1, but apparently because they cut off some image (which, honestly, is superfluous anyway) they're no longer seen as "original" according to a lot of people. And it's a load of bollocks because if Walt really envisioned for the film to be a 2.55:1 affair, he would have shot it in CinemaScope55, and not settle for Super Technirama 70. But of course, we can't exactly speculate on the why-fors of its presentation. However, it's a fact that they chose Super Technirama 70 for a reason, and as such, those aspect ratios should be preserved just as much as the newfound animated aspect ratio. It annoys me that just because it offers more image - regardless if it's compromising the original theatrical presentation - that people are so embracing of it.

Anyway, minor aspect ratio rant aside, back to the whole "art vs. film" argument. I'm all for preserving their art as it was originally created, but not at the expense of preserving the film itself. And that means that grain that was present in the actual film (not grain and dirt that gets accumulated over the years, but grain that is naturally part of the film as it is created and developed), should be preserved as well. There's a difference between grain from dirt and grain that's naturally embedded in the film. Digitally removing the grain that's a part of the film is just as bad as the digital re-colouring of animated films to make it look recent/modern.

yukitora wrote:
Some enthusiast want to see it exactly how it was seen in theaters, which isn't exactly what the animators envisioned

I'm gonna be hated for saying this, but when it comes to how the film is presented in theatres, what the animators envisioned is not as important than what the director or the producer envisioned. I'm not trying to put too much emphasis on a director or producer's desires over an animator's, nor am I trying to make the animator's work seem less important. I don't want to make what they seem look little, but the animators are there to animate the film, they're not there to direct the film, they're not there to edit it. Yes, there is a lot of work that they do to make an animated film look amazing, but in the end, everything is decided by the director. The way the film is edited and finished, as well as how it's seen in theatres, it is all decided by the director, not by the animators. I'm not trying to make it all about "director's vision", but come one, he/she is director for a reason. In a movie production, the producer is God, the director is Jesus, and the animators are the apostles.

Sure, there is the argument that we should respect the work animators put into drawing/painting an entire frame, but that's taking it a little too far, IMO. I know a lot of people are adamant about the fully-animated frame, so I won't say any more about it.

enigmawing wrote:
Would you like to see a photo of Van Gogh's Starry Night or would you rather see the actual painting in person? Would the grain artifacts of a photographed version add a level that didn't already exist in the original?

I feel that people give the whole grain thing too much credit, as if a random texture can somehow add depth, stature, and life to animated films.

That's apples and oranges.

A painting is a painting, it's not meant to be photographed and projected on a screen. A film is a film. It's shot a certain way, and best seen how it is shot. When a film is shot, the grain is part of the film. It's an integral part of it, regardless if a film is old or new (yes, new films can still have grain). Animated films are not, nor should they be, an exception to this. They have grain, the grain should be preserved.

The problem with animated films is that people assume that just because it's hand-drawn, and that animators put a lot of effort into making it look breathtaking and real, that it automatically becomes "artwork" that's the same as a painting. It's not. Yes, some of it can look beautiful if it was framed as art, but animation is just another form of filmmaking. And while it's nice that today we can restore animated films to something that's not faded and dirty, we have to remember that they are films first, and "art" second. Grain is part of film. It should not be removed.

Albert

_________________
WIST #56:
Aaron: With Mary Poppins and Pete's Dragon on Blu-ray, Bedknobs & Broomsticks seems like a given. Come on, Disney! They could even call it the Naboom-Blu Edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:18 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Perhaps Escapay, but it's interesting to note that animated films are rarely shot on actual film anymore.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I'm gonna stick with mine. I'll admit I'm not much of a general film buff anyway. ;)

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: disneyprincess11, Exabot [Bot], Warm Regards and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group