Official HTF "Peter Pan - Platinum Edition" review? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

The R2 captures look really weird. It's like there's a Photoshop cutout filter added, making the lines smudgy. Is the R2 2-disc the one with the silent Peter Pan included?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Patrick: Did you click on the bar above each pic to expand to the full image? The lines look much better that way.

 

[Chris S]

I always loved this shot. Is the person that did the background paintings on Peter Pan the same person who did paintings for Sleeping Beauty? Really great stuff!

 

[baracine]

And this is what it should look like:



(Unless the indians have struck oil, the trail shouldn't stick out like a glow-in-the-dark 3-D pipeline. And smoke is blue-grey, not red.)

 

[Steve Christou]

...and here are some more.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I thought it was that at first, but it still looks odd. The lines variably smudge at spots (like on Pan's face or Wendy's hands). Whites of eyes have rough edges. The 2007 has smooth lines and no blown-out whites.

I'm tired of arguing, but there's only three possible references for how Peter Pan should look: 1953 prints (maybe the YCM Labs restoration prints for the 1989 re-release), dye-transfer timing sheets (as mentioned before - made by Technicolor) and the original production artwork (cels, backgrounds, model sheets). The video transfers, cel reproductions, posters, frame blowups in books are not. Sure, we don't know how the 2007 should look color-wise, but it's still superior in all other aspects no matter how you cut it. You can at least mess with the color on the 2007, but you can't get rid of all the ugly edge enhancement and DVNR filters added to the 2002.

I wish people would focus more on the fluffy extras Disney padded out the DVD with. After the "animation school in a box" releases for Snow White, Bambi, Dumbo, and Fantasia (and I guess the Behind the Scenes at Disney Studios WDT set), having a "storybook" version of the film and a bunch of dumb games is embarassing. I would have loved to have seen the live-action reference footage, the hour-long TV special, and some trailers.

 

[Matt-Z]

Hey Chris S,
If you dig that painting I strongly suggest you check out Mary Blair. She did a lot of conceptual stuff for a lot of Disney features back then. There's a bunch of great stuff out there, I recommend "The art and flair of Mary Blair". I actually bought two because I liked it so much.
Matt

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Matt,

there was a Plat. DVD that had some GREAT special features on Mary Blair. I think it was Alica in Wonderland. Others...am I right? Whatever the DVD... it was worth getting just for the bonus material about her for anyone who's a fan.

EDIT: It's Cinderella. Thanks Mark!


There was some cool reference footage of the actress who modeled Tinkerbell.

 

[baracine]

I think Mary Blair will be turning in her grave when she hears what was done to her colour concepts in the 2007 DVD Edition!



Mary Blair's colour concept for the Indian Encampment: The Men are red.



Mary Blair's Mermaid Lagoon: Peter Pan is dresed in green.



Lots of blue everywhere.

 

[Mark-P]

DaViD, actually it was the "Cinderella" Platinum DVD that had "The Art of Mary Blair" documentary on it.

 

[Chris S]

I don't recall that feature but it's been a while since I've played through the extras on that disc. Looks like I'll be throwing that in the player tonight. Thanks!

 

[baracine]

Chuck, I agree with you on most things but I also highly approve of the latest Cinderella DVD transfer. For one thing, in that shot, the colour of the eyes suggests to me that the stepmother is green with envy, and lying in wait in the shadows, and the colour of that chair is "vieux rose" ("old pink"), a very difficult colour to pull off and get right, and it's the only colour that makes sense here. It's the colour of faded gentility and bygone luxury...






Hook's eyes are also green in his conversation with Tinker Bell. Or rather, they were green in all previous versions. They turned golden yellow in the PE DVD... The characters of Hook and Lady Tremaine (the wicked stepmother) were both animated by Frank Thomas, by the way.



Both Cinderella's ball gown and wedding gown are two-tone opalescent white and pearl grey as befits a lady who trails cinders and has led a cloistered life...

 

[Matt-Z]

Hey Chris S,
I think you'll like it. I'd call myself a fan of Disney, but not really a fanatic. Thusly, that book really was an eye opener for me regarding the stylistic influences of specific individuals on Disney's animated films of that era. In this case seeing behind the curtain really opened up my enjoyment of the films. Plus, reliving the terror that is "It's a small world" through the production art brought back a ton of memories. I'm looking through it right now!
Matt

 

[DaViD Boulet]

So your personal opinion/preference for the color on any given Disney DVD is the basis for which we should consider it properly or improperly mastered?

Or should you and Chuck flip a coin and we'll pick the position of whoever gets heads?

Or should we consider using historical reference material to decide instead... naturally taking care to omit previous video incarnations which cannot in any way be considered objective/accurate portrayals of the color of the original film media without verification from these same historical sources?

 

[baracine]

I ventured an opinion on Cinderella because Chuck apparently hadn't noticed that the problem wasn't the whites of the eyes of the stepmother being blue but the eyes themselves being green on that DVD, which I think the screen capture I posted pretty well establishes.

But, you're not attacking me on that point, are you, DaVID? You just don't like anyone venturing opinions about public domain subjects like colours... But there's just no way around it, DaVID. The latest DVD incarnation of Peter Pan is an abomination. I only bought it so I can synchronize the sound with the 2002 SE. I just watched it again and Peter Pan's costume gradually changing into a two-month old wilted, overcooked yellowed leek before my very eyes made me sick to my stomach. You are so concerned with the technicalities of DVDs that you fail to see the big picture: this is not the film we know. These are not the colours that have been merchandised in a thousand incarnations since the fifties. This is an experiment that even its perpetrators have not tried to justify. I understand you have to defend your position as a reviewer and save face but forums like this were created so the consumer can liberate himself from the diktats of pundits and make up his own mind.

 

[TravisR]

No offense but it seems like making up your own mind seems to mean that we all have to agree with you.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The ONLY position I've put forth is that none of us, including myself, have enough knowlege of the facts of the matter to determine the intended look of the colors by the artists because we don't have access to the proper reference materials. That includes you and me. How exactly is my position one of improper judgment? My stance isn't the opposite of yours (ie, I'm not declaring that the colors *are* correct either). My stance is one of balanced reasoning.

 

[baracine]

Your position is that this DVD has a good transfer and few artefacts despite its fuzziness and low bitrate and that is reason enough to buy it. You have no opinion at all on the colour values because you never thought about this subject before it was brought up by people like me who are scandalized by what they see on the basis (in my case) of having seen the film in a theatre in 1958 and kept up with every one of its incarnations over the years. You don't need to be a wonk to perceive that Mermaid Lagoon isn't supposed to look like an abandoned sun-dried cabbage patch. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that Peter Pan is supposed to be dressed in green. You don't need to have made the cover of Time magazine to know that part of the joke in "What Makes the Red Man Red" is that the characters are red. And you have just as much access to the original art as I have.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If your photographic memory of your 1958 theatrical screening is so crystal clear, your memory has my respect. Your absolutist position boasting some sort of mystical certainty about the intended look of this film does not. Many experts who care a great deal about this film worked long and hard to research and restore the color balance to what they determined was the most historically accurate representation for this latest dvd. Even if their well-grounded conclusions are in error, your characterization of their efforts as "perpetrators" paints your position as one of ignorance despite what validity may or may not reside in your other claims.

 

[ScottR]

Mr. Boulet, I completely agree with your review. I watched this last week and felt like a kid again. The magic is timeless. And I respect the people who put in the time and effort of research for this wonderful restoration. If anyone is sitting on the fence about this...don't. It's a gem.