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

[Brian W.]

I finally bought the Blu-Ray today, and I have to say what bothers me even more than the missing dialogue is Pinocchio's shirt turning white during "I Got No Strings."

It absolutely is an accident, because when it first turns white, there is a bit of "crawling yellow" in the middle of his shirt, almost like pixelated yellow, which then disappears. I checked the old DVD, and no such thing occurs. It seems to be some sort of digital video noise reduction artifact. I can't believe no one noticed this anywhere in the making of this disc.

Aside from that, it looks incredible. I don't know that it looks like FILM... it looks, as did the "Sleeping Beauty" Blu-Ray, like they rephotographed it from the original cells. I do wonder about the contrast (seems a little low). The only thing besides the yellow shirt faux pas that I think they got really wrong was the glow around the Blue Fairy. What is up with that? It's more like a fog than a glow. When her star descends from the sky and into Gepetto's window, you can't even tell it's a star... it looks like a circular mist. I don't care what it looked like on the cells, on the original late '80s laserdisc, it looked like a bright star was coming down from the sky, and I believe that's the way it looked in the original release.

I could say the same about the glow of the coals in Gepetto's fire when Jiminy is walking up to it in the opening sequence. In the old DVD, they really looked like they were GLOWING. In the Blu-Ray, they look animated.

And I was surprised at how much I liked the Disney View feature. I loved it, actually. Very clever idea. I did find one or two of the frame borders distracting (the "stars" border at the opening when the camera moves into the book), but aside from that and a couple of errors (at 1:26:22, the frame changes color about two seconds after the shot change), I didn't think it detracted from the film at all.

 

[rich_d]

I apologise for my condescending tone in my earlier post. Regardless of my emotion in that particular post, there are dozens of other posts by me and others that discuss the same facts in a less passionate manner. Continuing to hear people post mis-informed judgements (ie: Disney picking colors that they like without regard to historical integrity) is worthy of taking-to-task on this board, though the manner I attempted to do this wasn't delivered in the best way. This board should be about (civil) discussion that illumates the facts, and exposes falsehoods before they become popularized from myth into fact-by-assumption.

Apology accepted.

I don't have much time at present but wanted to add that claiming that posts are misinformed or "worthy of taking-to-task" is fine as a viewpoint, but, by itself, is nothing more than another viewpoint.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

HTF is about dispelling myth in favor of fact-based information. That's not just a viewpoint. That's one of the forum's goals.

 

[PaulDA]

Seconded (and it's not just about this particular title--I've seen discussions in other fora about whether "enlist" is better or worse than "enroll" as a snippet of dialogue from a movie trailer where this "error", in the eyes of some, is nearly apocalyptic in its proportions).

Of course there are problems worthy of noting and complaint--but just because we can parse out elements that are exceedingly short in duration does not mean we need to make them a federal crime. There has to be a point of diminishing returns somewhere, no?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

While I agree that sometimes the nitpicking can become excessive, I'd think how much any particular issue bothers each individual will vary. We all just don't experience these movies in exactly the same ways, to the same degrees, etc. etc. Some of us will find certain tiny flaws distracting enough to ruin the experience while others might find certain other flaws to be showstoppers.

Personally, I think it's best to adopt a more forgiving attitude whenever/wherever/however one finds doable while still letting the folks in charge know about issues discovered so they can be fixed if/when feasible -- and of course, the degree of such will again vary from person to person (and issue to issue). It's really the only way one can maximize one's enjoyment of the hobby -- and this applies to most any other things in life too, IMHO. And if there's some particular issue(s) one cannot really forgive/overlook -- and a feasible fix does not look likely or forthcoming -- then it's probably best to just move on after airing things out a bit. Of course, I say that now, but my beef w/ Storraro will probably show up again at some point (until that day if/when I get TLE, et al in OAR).

_Man_

 

[rich_d]

It's a valid viewpoint but let me ask you ... what's worse, those that complain about trivial details or those that complain about those that complain about trivia details?

The Bond thread I previously mentioned went something like:

1. Nitpickers bringing up problems
2. Those telling us how happy they were with the Bond DVDs
3. Those telling the nitpickers to go away
4. Those asking how the nitpickers know that this isn't the way the film was meant to be seen.
5. More problems identified
6. Many wondering whether the problems will be corrected for the inevitable Blu-Ray release.

The topic of color timing on the last Wizard of Oz DVD release was a pretty bloody affair on this board. Now, if it is true that they are going back to source material again, the DVD will be colored timed yet again. If the warm tones are cooled this time around, the question will be, what was the basis for the change?

Upon first viewing a film should wash over you like a dream. One should be absorbed in it rather than analyzing it. Upon subsequent viewings, people will look at a film differently. Some of that depends on how seasoned a film viewer you are. If someone is seeing their second or third action film they will be at one point, if they have seen several hundred perhaps they may be at another point. Me? I'm guessing it's a 40/60 bet that the action film's climactic scene will have someone hanging for their lives at great height and 25/75 that someone from above will be holding onto them by one hand. So, my mind wanders to other aspects of the filmmaking.

Btw, is it just me or does Jiminy Cricket look, dress and sound much like Fred Astaire and does Lampwick look and sound like Mickey Rooney?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

You suggested that the folks at Disney just choose colors that they like without regard to historical accuracy. That's absolutely false, and that's been explained repeatedly in this thread. As I mentioned earlier, that doesn't mean mistakes are never made even by "experts" as there is always a subjective element involved in every decision. But to suggest that Disney doesn't care about the integrity of their films or that they aren't following stringent guidelines when researching historical records to ascertain correct color is wrong. As explained by RAH and others.

BTW, I fully support folks expressing that they may dislike the colors, question the correctness of such decisions, or anything else on this disc. That can be done without suggesting that Disney isn't taking outstanding measures to do a well researched job as they attempt to maintain historical accuracy to the original intent of their animated library (ie a worthy attempt and a success are not the same thing).

 

[rich_d]

Let's strip the smoke and mirrors away, shall we? People repeatedly saying things on this thread (including me) doesn't make it true. "Experts" stating their viewpoint does not make it fact. Disney folks saying this and that does not make it fact. I don't buy into hype described as authoritative. By itself, that's just a five syllable word.

My stated viewpoint is that the color timing on the last video release of PETER PAN was disgraceful. Do I think there was an agenda other than being 'historically" accurate' and what others have called the GoldenVision version? Absolutely. Do I get that same sense with Pinocchio? I do not.

When it is something you agree with it you use the word "explained." Au contraire, it has merely been discussed - nothing more and without the F-word (fact, not the other F-word).

Time to move on. You may have the last word.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I look to the original intent of the thread, which was that RAH was giving a recommendation with respect to this title. I, like many others on this forum, respect and value RAH's opinion, as a lover of film and as someone who knows what it's supposed to look like, because it is his life's work. He gives his recommendation, @ which point all the framegrabbers start crawling out of the woodwork and saying, "Hey, @ timecode blah blah blah, I see edge haloes or disappearing animation lines or the colour is wrong." What is the basis for their opinion? It's what they see, but is it an informed opinion? There are those who base their opinions on accurate colour timing on LD releases, on whether or not it looks "lifelike", etc. I'd like to believe that everyone has their displays calibrated accurately and keeps them that way, but when it comes down to it, the only opinion I'm going to trust is the one at the top of this thread.

As for your last comment, the only reason I complain about the complainers is because they make it impossible to look away.

 

[Edwin-S]

So nobody should complain if an automated coloring program causes colour to momentarily disappear out of a shirt or causes the shirt to momentarily have blotches of colour appear? That sort of thing is acceptable as long as the rest of the movie looks fantastic according to Mr. Harris?

If someone spots disappearing ink lines or haloes then their opinion is uninformed because Mr. Harris maybe missed it or never saw it in the first place because he only has enough time to, possibly, spot check movies? He covers a lot of films. I find it hard to believe that he has time to watch every film that he is commenting on in its entirety......except in special circumstances. He is also commenting on the overall fidelity of the transfer to the original film. He is not necessarily inspecting it on the minute level that some people here and on other sites approach.

After watching the film, I would have to say that it looks very good. In fact, in some respects it looks too good. The film, as Mr. Bill Hunt on Digital Bits said, looks a little too clean. A lot of the handpainted nature of the cels appears to have been erased in this restoration. I also think removing almost all of the original film grain was wrong, but that is just my opinion.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I haven't actually seen any of these cleaned up titles in action yet, but yeah, I too have some reservations about how much cleaning they did to them (judging from the frame grabs). Still waiting for Amazon to send mine out...

_Man_

 

[Edwin-S]

I'd be lying if I said that it wasn't a really impressive restoration, because it is. The "blend" technique that was widely used on the film really pops on this film: sometimes almost too much. There is a rouge-like blend used on Jiminy Cricket's face that really stands out. Sometimes, to me, it was a little distracting. At times, it made me think that Jiminy had had a few too many pops.

Although I think it was cleaned a little too much, I doubt that you will be less than impressed when you watch it. For the most part, I think they got more things right than wrong with this restoration.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Doesn't anybody look for materials in the Disney morgue to check out actual color references?

I have come to the realization that, in the age of DVNR, film restoration is officially an oxymoron, like "hamburger steak", "Military Intelligence", and "happily married".

That being said, I would like to see the original "Last Supper", as painted by Michelangelo, per John Cleese's vintage sketch with Cleese as the Pope, where he demands the painting be historically correct, whereas Michelango painted 28 disciples, a kangaroo, and three Christs (the two skinny balance out the fat one). "I tell you what you want, mate...you want a bloody photographer!!"

"I may not know much about art, but I know what I like!"

 

[ATimson]

They do. But the color of the cels is different from the colors as they end up when exposed to film. Which is "right"?

 

[Ethan Riley]

And with that, this thread is officially locked in a vicious cycle!

Actually, all kidding aside, my favorite part of this restoration is that they somehow managed to get rid of the "Disney Dust." That yuck always bothered me; it's so distracting! Now I hope they can get it out of certain shorts that suffer from it badly; "Barnyard Symphony" being one of the best (worst?) examples.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Yup; no matter how many air compressors or other implements the photographers used, they were never successful @ getting rid of all the "Disney dust."

 

[Ethan Riley]

It drove me nuts. Especially when you could see it traveling upwards, vertically. I would end up watching the dust more than the movie. I thought early-generation vhs tapes showed the worst of it. No. Early dvds were even worse. I think "The Old Mill" also suffers from it. Very, very distracting! But now it's gone--

 

[ATimson]

Sorry.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And as RAH and others have said, when every release print had different color timing, which is "right" even when talking about "film"?

Disney doesn't pick colors at random or just based on what they like: lots of historical research goes into color using historic cels, art, negatives, release prints, notes... basically everything they can get to try to figure out what the artists wanted you to see.

This doesn't guarantee they always get the right answer: only that they do a good job trying and typically have a lot more information making their decisions than fanboys crying foul based on colors that look different than their laserdisc copy.

 

[Michael Rogers]

Oddly enough, I find the absense of it (especially in the Jimney Cricket sailing through the air sequence) distracting because I knew it used to be there. But it doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing it so clean.