How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Dusterian » January 11th, 2015, 1:08 am

Hello everyone. I have been putting this off for far too long, I should have made this thread a long time ago so the new Cinderella Diamond Edition release could fix these problems or actually restore the entire film over again the right way, but here it is, the hard proof that for the 2005 Platinum Edition release of Cinderella they restored the film wrong, and even may have re-painted or changed things in it on purpose.

IN ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES, THE FIRST PICTURE IS FROM BEFORE THE 2005 RESTORATION, THE SECOND PICTURE IS FROM THE 2005 RESTORATION. LIKE BEFORE AND AFTER.

The first thing is an example of where the artists, in trying to make everything look like clean and perfect solid color, (and perhaps also to match the rest of the times that color was in the film, depending on the lighting) have accidentally colored a part wrong. It is the first proof that Disney doesn't merely/actually restore their animated films, they also paint/re-color parts of them in trying to make them look like they're perfectly, pristinely restored.

So here we have Cinderella before the 2005 restoration, and then Cinderella from the 2005 restoration. In these images, look at Cinderella's brown top and skirt:
Image
Image

Did you notice that in the 2005 restoration they accidentally made Cinderella's skirt the same color as her top? It's the first evidence they don't restore things in a way that naturally returns things back to their original form. They do other things which just try to make it look like the original, except even snazzier for a new modern generation.

The next one is of the stepmother, Lady Tremaine. In these pictures, take a look at Lady Tremaine's shawl and the light parts of her hair:

Image
Image

Notice that in the 2005 restoration the blue-purple color of her shawl runs into her hair? It looks to me like the lighter parts of the stepmother's hair were originally the same grayish silver color of her shawl, or very close to it. So it looks like evidence that they are changing the colors of the film from not what they are really supposed to be, because maybe her shawl and hair were both supposed to be the same gray color but the heads at Disney wanted them to make the shawl bluer, much like they made Cinderella's silver dress bluer, hm, right?

Speaking of, here's an example of this re-coloring that seems to prove more than ever that they paint over these films instead of just actually restore them. In the first image, before the 2005 restoration, Cinderella is in a very silver gown with a bustle (the puffy material at her hips) that is a lighter silver while her sleeves and gloves are more white. In the second image, from the 2005 restoration, not only is her dress bluer (which I've kept wondering if it's to match the Disney Princess marketed blue dress that they think looks better...), but it's quite obvious they didn't restore it properly, but rather, painted over it, because the bustle is now the same shade and color as her sleeves and gloves. In fact, when taking the image into MS Paint, for each bustle I just clicked once on an area with the paint can tool using red paint, and it filled in a big solid color space from her bustle to her gloves, even covering where the inked outline should at least be to seperate the bustle and gloves from each other! In fact you'll notice many of the outlines and details, like those on her dress, are gone, probably painted over as well. The 2005 restoration picture was taken exactly as is from Disney Screencaps, you can take the images from there and try it yourself if you want. Anyway here's the pictures:

Image
Image

The next example is one of the Fairy Godmother's appearence, which looks like to be an example of a causality of the restoration's efforts to remove dirt and grain, which I've heard one way of doing so is cutting out the animation and "dustbusting" the frame and then putting back in the animation. I don't know what went on, maybe they didn't bother to carefully cut out all the animation, or maybe in removing grain and dirt they removed the tiniest details like the stars of the magic fairy dust, but...

In the first picture, notice the stars of fairy dust on the Fairy Godmother's coat. In the second picture, the one from the 2005 restoration, the stars are gone. And yes, I swear these are the very same frames:

Image
Image

So Disney has removed actual animation in their restoring. It's very bad, very careless, and not okay at all.

Finally, the biggest tragedy to me, of course. The debauchery of Walt Disney's, and my own, favorite piece of Disney animation, the transformation of Cinderella's gown. In these sets of pictures, all you have to do is look closely at the Disney dust, the magic fairy dust around her, most especially looking at the dust around her arms and head:

Image

Image

So did you notice that in the second picture of each set, the ones from the 2005 restoration, that they have diminished and even possibly somewhat removed some of the magical special effects animation? It even looks like the magic dust above her arms and head has mostly disappeared. And this was Walt Disney's favorite piece of animation.

I also have a full HD (apparently, from Disney Screenaps again), but cropped picture of Cinderella in mid-transformation to show you all how it looks close up. On the entire thing it looks like not all the detail of the image is there, but look especially at Cinderella's hands and thumb, especially her right hand and thumb (her right, not you're right!). Doesn't it look like they cropped off some of the detail, for whatever reason, in their "restoring"?

Image

So there it is. I hope I have properly shown and explained to everyone how Disney did indeed restore Cinderella for 2005 in not just a wrong way, but a terrible, careless, disrespectful way.

I ask you to please, if you can, spread the word. Linking to this thread would be great, but you can copy my pictures and show them on other sites or forums too (I'd rather you linked to this thread with my full amount of pictures and explanations though). I'd like to show Disney, too, but I don't know how. Also, Sleeping Beauty's 2008 restorers purposely changed a scene. Click here for the information on that restoration done wrong too.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and for any help or comments.
Image

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18427
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Ben » January 11th, 2015, 5:34 am

Dusty...this is very old news. Everyone knows about the 2005 "restoration", even Disney. I believe for the Blu-ray edition the colors went back to what they should be, but since then many more "crimes" have been applied to Disney transfers, the Sword In The Stone especially.

It seems at the time of these Platinum jobs that the intention was indeed to make the films - animation history - match franchise lines, such as the Princess merchandise and the DTV sequels, in this case Cinderella II and III. We're actually lucky that we still got the film in OAR, I think.

I don't agree at all with these re-dos, and wish Disney would go back and restore their films correctly from their Technicolor negatives, but then there's a lot that I wish Disney would go back and do again and it's not going to happen.

Disney used to be known for their careful frame by frame restorations, unlike the other studios such as Warners, that liberally applied DVNR and wiped out decades' worth of animators' line drawings, but that seems a long time ago when now we just hope that each and every new release isn't worse than the one before...

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5323
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Dacey » January 11th, 2015, 4:43 pm

*studies*

*studies some more*

*studies even more*

Am I the only one not really seeing any noticeable differences here?
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 5229
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Randall » January 11th, 2015, 7:31 pm

I'm not sure, but the differences are obvious to me. Read what Dusty's saying and look again.

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5323
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Dacey » January 12th, 2015, 12:09 am

I did, but to my eyes at least they just look like minor color changes. Nothing at all like what they did to BATB.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18427
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Ben » January 12th, 2015, 5:21 am

Dacey, look again at the one of Cinders on the stairs...not only are the colors boosted, but look at her arms, where DVNR has wiped away the drawing's lines so that her arms have almost become part of her dress. Color is one thing, but wiping away the artists' drawings is quite another.

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5323
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Dacey » January 12th, 2015, 12:40 pm

Okay. THAT one was just showing up as "X's" on my laptop, for whatever reason. But I do see the differences there. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Dusterian » January 12th, 2015, 7:53 pm

But Ben, haven't you even said Disney is re-doing their restorations? There is much hope for the future. That's why I want the word spread, if you can.

OH WAIT! Did I forget to say? They used the SAME transfer for the Diamond Edition, so what I wrote here still applies to that one. What I am hoping for is a NEW restoration for the NEXT NEW RELEASE.
Image

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18427
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Ben » January 13th, 2015, 5:43 am

I don't think the Diamond BD uses the same transfer. I can't speak for the use of DVNR without going back and checking, but the colors are certainly different, as Lady Tremaine's blue hair streak was something I was definitely looking out for, and it wasn't blue anymore.

I haven't said DISNEY is redoing their "restorations". I wish they would!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: How Disney Restored Cinderella Very Wrongly (in 2005)

Post by Dusterian » January 13th, 2015, 10:13 pm

I just checked my BD and her hair streaks are still blue for that scene, in those very specific frames of that close-up, on mine.

Bambi got a new restoration after it's first DVD release. And I think there were other things I read that indicated Disney is going to re-do restorations. Actually I believe an interview posted here had a woman in charge say they wouldn't do new restorations for films all the time, but that eventually they would re-do them as technology got more advanced and such. In any case, someone actually presented my problems with Cinderella's restoration to Don Hahn and the person said they couldn't say what Don Hahn told them, but we could expect a new restoration in the future. I just wanted more word spread so that there was more of a chance.

Oh, here's a closer examination at what's wrong with the transformation scene. The top picture is before the restoration, the bottom picture is after. It's like none of the magic dust is in the after picture!

Image
Image

Post Reply