A Few Words About A few words about...™ Peter Pan -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Not sure that I categorize as shoddy work.

More oriented toward a different customer base, while concurrently being disrespectful of the studios’s original ethos.

Perhaps disrespectful is a better word for a disc with an image rating of 2 and a failing grade, and not just because it starts with the same three letters as "Disney." Name recognition like that is one of those things you just can't buy. You have to earn it. Film restoration technology has improved leaps and bounds since the 1980s when these films first started coming to video, but in their quest for perfection, they sometimes get carried away and do too much cleanup work. And the ones that look bad on big screens look bad on small screens, too. You can adjust color and contrast to your liking, but you can't put back scrubbed-out details. And sales analyses don't seem to take into account consumers who didn't buy a film they liked because they disliked its presentation.

I also wonder whether the actual film reissues varied as much in color as the videos did, even during the years when dye-transfer printing still existed.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Thank you Robert Harris for a honest review of Peter Pan on blu-ray. I very much wanted to add this classic to my library but know knowing the truth I will not buy this release! I am a big 4K supporter but for this title I feel a HD blu-ray would have been more than good enough if it would have been a properly done transfer. It would have been nice to have a film like transfer with proper amounts of detail and correct color. But I see no reason to spend my limited resources on a title done the way it was done and will redirect those funds to a different title! This shows how important this forum is and what a wealth of information it is so that we can stay away from releases like this once we know the truth. It is like Disney was more concerned with using digital tools to give it more of a modern animation feel so that more of the average consumers would go buy it. Guess what Disney your not getting my cash for this release!

 

[Robert Harris]

Perhaps disrespectful is a better word for a disc with an image rating of 2 and a failing grade, and not just because it starts with the same three letters as "Disney." Name recognition like that is one of those things you just can't buy. You have to earn it. Film restoration technology has improved leaps and bounds since the 1980s when these films first started coming to video, but in their quest for perfection, they sometimes get carried away and do too much cleanup work. And the ones that look bad on big screens look bad on small screens, too. You can adjust color and contrast to your liking, but you can't put back scrubbed-out details. And sales analyses don't seem to take into account consumers who didn't buy a film they liked because they disliked its presentation.

I also wonder whether the actual film reissues varied as much in color as the videos did, even during the years when dye-transfer printing still existed.

Color changed over the decades, as the technology of dye transfer printed advanced.

 

[MatthewA]

Color changed over the decades, as the technology of dye transfer printed advanced.

I suspected as much. But if you could restore one Disney animated film yourself, which would it be?

 

[warnerbro]

I guess their customer base made them decide to make all the Disney films look like a Simpsons episode.

 

[PMF]

I guess their customer base made them decide to make all the Disney films look like a Simpsons episode.

AKA Operation: "The Homer-Mobile".

 

[MatthewA]

Pretty much.

 

[Craig M Russell]

Don’t understand. What is the purpose of the scan? Why would anyone pay a fee?

For what?

I'm confused about the undercurrent of contempt towards this kind of project, Robert.

Even if some people might interpret it that way, this video doesn't advertise itself as "here's the original vs. what Disney has now done to it." I take it as "here are two different examples of ways this film could be experienced today,"

Perhaps from the archivist's perspective, the standard of judgment is always "how close is this to a properly-timed print from the virgin negative," but the archivist's goal of the perfect restoration is a Platonic ideal that exists only in the divine world. As a filmgoer, the reality is and has always been that every projection, televised broadcast, or home video presentation of a film introduces imperfections and errors that affect the experience and make it less like the creators' vision. There is no possibility of this not occurring.

Moreover, it can be part of the fun. Random example: about ten years ago a little theater in LA a few blocks from where I lived did midnight showings of every Star Trek movie for ten(?) Saturdays in a row.
When I saw Wrath of Khan (introduced by a Nicholas Meyer Q&A), it was a razor-sharp 35mm print with very good contrast, but the color had turned red to such an extent they mentioned it in the intro. Would I choose that print of Wrath of Khan to send into space on the Voyager probe as a lifeboat of human artistic production? No, but it was a cool part of the experience of that night, the reality of a theater tracking down prints of each film as a physical object in the world just like the frozen yogurt I had while I waited in line.

If I wanted to pump a digital file of Cinderella into my Epson projector to watch at home tonight, and I could choose between a 1080p version of that scan or Disney's blu-ray, it wouldn't even be a contest: give me the scan of the private collector's dusty technicolor 35mm. In fact, I've done just that with the "Grindhouse" Star Wars scans widely available online, and it's a tangibly better experience than the sterile Lucasfilms Special Edition.

I see projects like this Cinderella scan not as an attempt to archive the Truth of the film, but an attempt to archive the truths of a particular experience that would otherwise eventually be lost; a snapshot rather than a portrait.

 

[telzall]

I'm confused about the undercurrent of contempt towards this kind of project, Robert.

Even if some people might interpret it that way, this video doesn't advertise itself as "here's the original vs. what Disney has now done to it." I take it as "here are two different examples of ways this film could be experienced today,"

Perhaps from the archivist's perspective, the standard of judgment is always "how close is this to a properly-timed print from the virgin negative," but the archivist's goal of the perfect restoration is a Platonic ideal that exists only in the divine world. As a filmgoer, the reality is and has always been that every projection, televised broadcast, or home video presentation of a film introduces imperfections and errors that affect the experience and make it less like the creators' vision. There is no possibility of this not occurring.

Moreover, it can be part of the fun. Random example: about ten years ago a little theater in LA a few blocks from where I lived did midnight showings of every Star Trek movie for ten(?) Saturdays in a row.
When I saw Wrath of Khan (introduced by a Nicholas Meyer Q&A), it was a razor-sharp 35mm print with very good contrast, but the color had turned red to such an extent they mentioned it in the intro. Would I choose that print of Wrath of Khan to send into space on the Voyager probe as a lifeboat of human artistic production? No, but it was a cool part of the experience of that night, the reality of a theater tracking down prints of each film as a physical object in the world just like the frozen yogurt I had while I waited in line.

If I wanted to pump a digital file of Cinderella into my Epson projector to watch at home tonight, and I could choose between a 1080p version of that scan or Disney's blu-ray, it wouldn't even be a contest: give me the scan of the private collector's dusty technicolor 35mm. In fact, I've done just that with the "Grindhouse" Star Wars scans widely available online, and it's a tangibly better experience than the sterile Lucasfilms Special Edition.

I see projects like this Cinderella scan not as an attempt to archive the Truth of the film, but an attempt to archive the truths of a particular experience that would otherwise eventually be lost; a snapshot rather than a portrait.

As a "mere" movie viewer, I'd like my experience of a movie to approximate as closely as possible the audio and visual intent of the originators of that film. If something is deliberately altered I'd like to be informed.

 

[PMF]

[...]Perhaps from the archivist's perspective, the standard of judgment is always "how close is this to a properly-timed print from the virgin negative," but the archivist's goal of the perfect restoration is a Platonic ideal that exists only in the divine world. [...]

Great for those who enjoy serendipitous experiences with film;
but, at the same time, what's wrong with Archivists striving for perfection?

What kind of Archivist is one really if, within their pursuit and profession, they suddenly became as casual as the average ticket-buyer?

But, of that Platonic ideal that exists only in the divine world...would you prefer the older looks of VHS copies over the current BD's of "Spartacus", "Lawrence of Arabia", "My Fair Lady", "The Godfather I, II, III", "Rear Window" and "Vertigo"?

For my money, that divine world is an absolute. It's both tangible and it will continue to exist.

I am all for one enjoying their films as they deem fit;
yet to speak against attainments towards a perfect preservation seems to me like a slippery-slope of a direction to prescribe or to follow, especially in the wake of the alternative.

I won't be responding further; as I am a convert, not ever to be swayed.

 

[MatthewA]

Disney has the potential to be part of that world, if they so choose. Unfortunately, to paraphrase another film from 1989, one they didn't make but bought out anyway, they chose poorly.

 

[Craig M Russell]

Great for those who enjoy serendipitous experiences with film;
but, at the same time, what's wrong with Archivists striving for perfection?

What kind of Archivist is one really if, within their pursuit and profession, they suddenly became as casual as the average ticket-buyer?

But, of that Platonic ideal that exists only in the divine world...would you prefer the older looks of VHS copies over the current BD's of "Spartacus", "Lawrence of Arabia", "My Fair Lady", "The Godfather I, II, III", "Rear Window" and "Vertigo"?

For my money, that divine world is an absolute. It's both tangible and it will continue to exist.

I am all for one enjoying their films as they deem fit;
yet to speak against attainments towards a perfect preservation seems to me like a slippery-slope of a direction to prescribe or to follow, especially in the wake of the alternative.

I won't be responding further; as I am a convert, not ever to be swayed.

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not speaking against the archivist mindset at all; I am 100% in agreement that it is the philosophy that should underlie film restorations and commercial releases, preserving film grain, removing dust without digitally scrubbing detail, etc. I'm on your side. I not only own the BDs of every title on your list, I eagerly double-dipped both for the major upgrade in the later Spartacus BD transfer and the modest upgrade in the later My Fair Lady transfer. I stand in humble awe of Robert Harris's knowledge, expertise, body of work, and philosophy.

What I'm saying is that I can simultaneously see the value in this activity, and also see the value in a hobbyist scanning a print of a film for for fun. The hobbyist isn't competing with the archivist, any more than I'm competing with professional artists when I doodle in my sketchbook; these are two different pursuits with different aims, and I can appreciate each on its own terms.

In this specific case, and the divine world is certainly not tangible: there's no way for me to watch the archivist's ideal version of Cinderella, because the archivist's version only exists as a theoretical alternative to the digitally scrubbed Disney BD. The hobbyist in this situation isn't in competition with the archivist philosophy, but they are able to offer a DIFFERENT kind of imperfect copy in a scanned 35mm print. Thus my options are either to cross my arms and not ever watch the movie, or choose between imperfect viewing options, taking off my Archivist hat and putting on my Moviegoer hat.

 

[Dick]

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not speaking against the archivist mindset at all; I am 100% in agreement that it is the philosophy that should underlie film restorations and commercial releases, preserving film grain, removing dust without digitally scrubbing detail, etc. I'm on your side. I not only own the BDs of every title on your list, I eagerly double-dipped both for the major upgrade in the later Spartacus BD transfer and the modest upgrade in the later My Fair Lady transfer. I stand in humble awe of Robert Harris's knowledge, expertise, body of work, and philosophy.

What I'm saying is that I can simultaneously see the value in this activity, and also see the value in a hobbyist scanning a print of a film for for fun. The hobbyist isn't competing with the archivist, any more than I'm competing with professional artists when I doodle in my sketchbook; these are two different pursuits with different aims, and I can appreciate each on its own terms.

In this specific case, and the divine world is certainly not tangible: there's no way for me to watch the archivist's ideal version of Cinderella, because the archivist's version only exists as a theoretical alternative to the digitally scrubbed Disney BD. The hobbyist in this situation isn't in competition with the archivist philosophy, but they are able to offer a DIFFERENT kind of imperfect copy in a scanned 35mm print. Thus my options are either to cross my arms and not ever watch the movie, or choose between imperfect viewing options, taking off my Archivist hat and putting on my Moviegoer hat.

And, by the way, welcome to the forum .

 

[Craig M Russell]

And, by the way, welcome to the forum .

Thanks!