If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The original versions of movies are usually the best ones: they shouldn’t have been meddled with just because our TVs keep getting bigger, wider, and fancier. That’s what some people think, especially when it comes to Disney classics.
The sad reality is that some restorations and remakes of old animated movies completely ruin the atmosphere, details, and ‘spirit’ of the originals. Take for instance one of Disney’s animation classics—’Cinderella.’ Many fans agree that the original on tape is far superior to the modern Blu-ray movie edition.
Some Disney fans were disappointed that the restoration of ‘Cinderella’ for Blu-ray reduced the quality of the movie, here are some examples:
Image credits: stephen_duignan
1.
Where are her arms, where is the detail in her gown!? Even parts of sparkles are gone
2.
Big parts of the Fairy Dust in the sky are missing
Imgur user i124nk8, who is one of the critics of the ‘Cinderella’ movie Blu-ray restoration, had this to say to Bored Panda: “They misnamed ‘Cinderella’ if they think they restored it. Restored should restore detail and not remove it completely.”
They continued: “The live-action Disney movie remakes are soulless. Don’t ask me, ask my 4 and 6-year-old daughters. They will always choose the animated original over the live-action remakes.”
However, they conceded that Disney “did a good job with ‘Fantasia.’”
3.
Where is his right hand touching her arm? Where is the red of his trousers?
4. The lining on his shoulder parts is the same color but darker as the parts themselves
Here the lining on the shoulder parts is blue instead of the brownish color it should be
Some ‘Cinderella’ fans lament the loss of details, as well as the changes in color, hue, and lighting. While other Disney fans think that the changes are not that bad and people are getting angry without a sufficiently good reason.
While restorations, remasters, and remakes aren’t exact synonyms, they do have one thing in common—they fiddle around with what works and usually make it worse. For example, some Disney fans who grew up with ‘Beauty and the Beast’ were disappointed by the live-action remake starring Emma Watson. According to some fans, the remake was ‘soulless’ and ‘boring.’ Then again, others enjoyed seeing the famous characters in the new movie.
5. Here the sparkles are bright white and the lines in the red curtains are dark red as they should
Where are all the creases in the fabric of her grown? Where are the lines in her left hand?
6. Here she has arms, her gown sparkles and shows detail and the stairs are royally red
Left marble staircases yellow!? Blue spots around her head and yellow lines on the stairs?
7.
The Fairy’s light blue blouse is missing
8. Bright sparkles and a detailed gown. Detail on street. Warm glow coming put of the palace
Everything cold greenish. Blue shadows on stair cases, green shadow on carriage top piece?
9. Pumpkin lines on the carriage and copper brasses on the horses’ harnesses
Blue and Green horses!? With no detail and Pink tales!? No driver’s jacket slip
10.
Where is the warm glowing light coming out of the palace?
Restoring movies is similar to restoring artwork. It takes patience and dedication to restore a masterpiece to its highest possible visual quality. You don’t start ‘painting’ whatever you want and messing with the colors.
Restoration should never, ever be about turning a classic into “a crayon sketch of a very hairy monkey Jesus in an ill-fitting tunic,” which is exactly what happened to the 19th-century fresco ‘Ecce Homo.’ While not as drastically bad, the Blu-ray edition of ‘Cinderella’ is, according to some, atrocious.
Image credits: stephen_duignan
Image credits: stephen_duignan
Image credits: stephen_duignan
Image credits: stephen_duignan
What do you think of restoring and remaking movies? What’s your favorite Disney animation? Do you think that we should try to improve films that are already beautiful and lauded as being classics? Do you think that the Disney live-action remake of ‘Mulan’ made a mistake by not including Mushu the legendary animated character of a dragon spirit in the trailer (“Dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow”)? Share your thoughts with us in the comments!
The story’s similar with other Disney classics
Image credits: Freddy2
Look at the loss of detail in the grass on the BD. Look at the fuzziness of every single line. Look at the loss of detail and shades on the trees
Image credits: Freddy2
Image credits: Freddy2
The wanted poster looked like old paper with sharp printing on it. Now it looks flat and out of focus. Not to mention the DNR effect on the wood structure and the loss of contrast in the closet
Image credits: Freddy2
Other Disney fans noticed the same drop in detail after animated movies were restored
Image credits: Chewi105
Image credits: rachaelccamp
Let's not forget that it took Disney two years to make the film..all without the aid of computers. And these techs couldn't restore it with the same detail using the high tech equipment..especially after movies like Moana and Zootopia. This sounds like poor management that was more worried about meeting deadlines than respecting the work of those that came before them.
Wasn't like 4 years? No matter.The poor guys (only guys because disney had a thing about women) who produced this work were chained (figuratively) to their tables for hours and hours and hours at a time. I don't know how folks managed such a brain numbing job without going nuts. And I'm sure uncle walt didn't make up for it in wadges.
Load More Replies...
Some of these, I can understand. But when you have to literally zoom in to 5 or 10 times normal view then you are getting a little too critical. Could it have been better? Sure.
It depends on what you consider to be "normal view size" In theatrical release, these films were shown on screens at least 20' on the diagonal (in a small theater). Someone watching the BluRay release could theoretically have an 8' diagonal television, and they deserve the same warmth and image quality of the theatrical release. Go dig around in your local thrift store for a VHS copy of Cinderella, and watch it on a 13" TV/VCR, all the original theatrical detail is still there, just at lower bandwidth.
Load More Replies...
When not even Disney is willing to pay enough for professionals.. all of those mistakes were completely avoidable. And those neon green shadows... I f*****g can't, man.. that is so sad...
I understand... that it looks "cleaner" and "sharper"... but with what is presented here, the samples shown... what was removed/erased... it takes away the depth of the picture - to me, anyhow. It's like there was a detailed piece of work that showed depth and intricacy... and then replaced by a flat-photocopy with little to no shading or detail, like a simple colouring book paperdoll cut out.
They seem to have used some type of median filter to "restore" the images. These filters, if used without care and attention, will really mess up an image, especially lineart and little details get all smudged up. For extra "why on earth did you do that?": our eyes actually *like* a bit of noise and grain in images to suggest details that aren't actually there. Make things too smooth and the brain protests. So there is no need to filter it to death.
Load More Replies...
IIWY, Disney Animation, I'd overlay the before and after, and adjust transparency depending on the specific scene. More specifically, when the film cuts to another scene adjust the transparency to bring out some of the older detail on top of the brighter-but-plainer, cleaned up images. Right now, it just looks cheaply done. I know you have to keep it within budget, but this process would only add a few days for each film.
I was young when I first saw "Cinderella", and her dress' color and sparkles greatly influenced me to become an artist. I've loved that specific shade of blue for the past four decades; I can't resist things which are that color! Seeing this just makes me sad and disappointed. So many generations of children loved the film as it was, and these damned restorations have ruined much of its appeal! Argh! 😥😭
The restorations seem lazy, but let's be real, they never put out a movie without a half hearted sequel, cheap is what they do.
They sacrificed their soul on the altar of "only money counts" decades ago.
Load More Replies...
Disney seems hellbent on destroying its own classics with not just horrible remakes but also "restoration" that bleeds all the life out of the original animation.
Reminds me of when Turner redid "Wizard of Oz" - including colorizing the Kansas scenes! Subtlety is apparently lost on him.
Looks like the clean-up crew might have automated the entire "restoration," then while it was running they went over to Google for playtime in their offices.
How does this even get approved? Someone obviously doesn't understand that this is art, these are drawings and all the beauty sits in the details, in every single pencil stroke. I remember going to the cinema to see Disney movies more than once on the big screen and I remember the delight I took in observing the pencil artwork from close-up, the lines, the dots. Stories alone don't make Disney movies special. It's both stories AND execution. Each movie has a specific style that differentiates it from other movies. I'm so glad I have the old DVDs and VHS for my little boy to appreciate in the future.
It isn't just Disney movies. The people working on restorations often over use "DNR" (Dolby noise reduction) to the point where nothing looks real. It's bad in animation, as seen above,but in live action movie, actors often end up looking....plastic. The Blu-ray for the film "Patton" is considered one of the worst restorations ever done, due to massive overuse of DNR. The same happened with the Kirk-era Star Trek films onBLu-ray. While Star Trek II received an exceptional restoration, the other 5 films look terrible. The actors look like mannequins.
Wow, the new version is just shockingly bad! The two clearest examples, to me, are where she's wearing the ballgown and surrounded by sparkles, and the one where her horses have been colorized in pastel. How could any artist or supervisor think this is acceptable work? It looks like they just colored it in with flat acrylic paint. Not carefully, either.
I made this in around 10 min. Imagine what a "dedicated" team of a multi billion dollar company could do, if they really tried. 00011-3402...c6-png.jpg 
Is it all the Blu Ray versions of the classics or are there DVDs that were "cleaned up" like this as well.
Disney movies should be bright shiny and colorful everything those restored clips show.
Disney movies should be bright shiny and colorful, everything those restored clips show.
This also happened to my stick figure drawings. They got more graphic as I got older.
It is a insult to the original artists. Leave it the f**k alone you wankers!
the blu ray and original rarely look different.. it just seems like hate
Blue Ray only looks good on screens that are designed for the format. If You're not using a plasma screen TV or an LCD, the colors will be lousy.
Because CEOs are soulless and dont care about the art of animation. Just the business of it. They dont care about the quality, and you know why? because people will buy Disney even if they do a s**t restoration job, so they pick the cheap restoration because it saves them money.
I agree with the post whole-heartedly, but it makes me laugh so much as well. The person complains of green and blue horses but is fine with the concept of pumpkins turning into carriages. I know it's about the art detail being lost but that complaint in particular made me chuckle.
Actually it's more like painting over something like the Mona Lisa with bright popping colours and call it a restoration.
Load More Replies... This seems a very mixed bag: The first, yes inexplicable loss of detail (lines on dress); but three, clearly an improvement; two, on balance an improvement (don't forget it's a movie, less fairydust on this image doesn't mean there's also less on the next = 1/24th of a second later). The biggest problem is the argument's starting point of the colors "IT SHOULD BE" where that means "I AM USED TO"... e.g., (also Robin Hood) there's quite a few very sick-looking skin tones on the old version! Colors've lost tone over time, and then they were what was practical not what was the masters' absolute choice.
The adults whining about this, seemingly to the point of being Offended should get over themselves. Will they try and ruin this for the kids, who the movies are aimed at, and surely couldn't care less?
There really isn't much actual "story" to most of the vintage Disney films. They are more of a visual expression of the story than simply a retelling of it. You cannot enjoy a visual feast on a 5" screen, so quality matters.
Load More Replies... 
Who gave enough of a F to read and then comment on the post so... 🙄
Load More Replies... Let's not forget that it took Disney two years to make the film..all without the aid of computers. And these techs couldn't restore it with the same detail using the high tech equipment..especially after movies like Moana and Zootopia. This sounds like poor management that was more worried about meeting deadlines than respecting the work of those that came before them.
Wasn't like 4 years? No matter.The poor guys (only guys because disney had a thing about women) who produced this work were chained (figuratively) to their tables for hours and hours and hours at a time. I don't know how folks managed such a brain numbing job without going nuts. And I'm sure uncle walt didn't make up for it in wadges.
Load More Replies... Some of these, I can understand. But when you have to literally zoom in to 5 or 10 times normal view then you are getting a little too critical. Could it have been better? Sure.
It depends on what you consider to be "normal view size" In theatrical release, these films were shown on screens at least 20' on the diagonal (in a small theater). Someone watching the BluRay release could theoretically have an 8' diagonal television, and they deserve the same warmth and image quality of the theatrical release. Go dig around in your local thrift store for a VHS copy of Cinderella, and watch it on a 13" TV/VCR, all the original theatrical detail is still there, just at lower bandwidth.
Load More Replies... When not even Disney is willing to pay enough for professionals.. all of those mistakes were completely avoidable. And those neon green shadows... I f*****g can't, man.. that is so sad...
I understand... that it looks "cleaner" and "sharper"... but with what is presented here, the samples shown... what was removed/erased... it takes away the depth of the picture - to me, anyhow. It's like there was a detailed piece of work that showed depth and intricacy... and then replaced by a flat-photocopy with little to no shading or detail, like a simple colouring book paperdoll cut out.
They seem to have used some type of median filter to "restore" the images. These filters, if used without care and attention, will really mess up an image, especially lineart and little details get all smudged up. For extra "why on earth did you do that?": our eyes actually *like* a bit of noise and grain in images to suggest details that aren't actually there. Make things too smooth and the brain protests. So there is no need to filter it to death.
Load More Replies... IIWY, Disney Animation, I'd overlay the before and after, and adjust transparency depending on the specific scene. More specifically, when the film cuts to another scene adjust the transparency to bring out some of the older detail on top of the brighter-but-plainer, cleaned up images. Right now, it just looks cheaply done. I know you have to keep it within budget, but this process would only add a few days for each film.
I was young when I first saw "Cinderella", and her dress' color and sparkles greatly influenced me to become an artist. I've loved that specific shade of blue for the past four decades; I can't resist things which are that color! Seeing this just makes me sad and disappointed. So many generations of children loved the film as it was, and these damned restorations have ruined much of its appeal! Argh! 😥😭
The restorations seem lazy, but let's be real, they never put out a movie without a half hearted sequel, cheap is what they do.
They sacrificed their soul on the altar of "only money counts" decades ago.
Load More Replies... Disney seems hellbent on destroying its own classics with not just horrible remakes but also "restoration" that bleeds all the life out of the original animation.
Reminds me of when Turner redid "Wizard of Oz" - including colorizing the Kansas scenes! Subtlety is apparently lost on him.
Looks like the clean-up crew might have automated the entire "restoration," then while it was running they went over to Google for playtime in their offices.
How does this even get approved? Someone obviously doesn't understand that this is art, these are drawings and all the beauty sits in the details, in every single pencil stroke. I remember going to the cinema to see Disney movies more than once on the big screen and I remember the delight I took in observing the pencil artwork from close-up, the lines, the dots. Stories alone don't make Disney movies special. It's both stories AND execution. Each movie has a specific style that differentiates it from other movies. I'm so glad I have the old DVDs and VHS for my little boy to appreciate in the future.
It isn't just Disney movies. The people working on restorations often over use "DNR" (Dolby noise reduction) to the point where nothing looks real. It's bad in animation, as seen above,but in live action movie, actors often end up looking....plastic. The Blu-ray for the film "Patton" is considered one of the worst restorations ever done, due to massive overuse of DNR. The same happened with the Kirk-era Star Trek films onBLu-ray. While Star Trek II received an exceptional restoration, the other 5 films look terrible. The actors look like mannequins.
Wow, the new version is just shockingly bad! The two clearest examples, to me, are where she's wearing the ballgown and surrounded by sparkles, and the one where her horses have been colorized in pastel. How could any artist or supervisor think this is acceptable work? It looks like they just colored it in with flat acrylic paint. Not carefully, either.
I made this in around 10 min. Imagine what a "dedicated" team of a multi billion dollar company could do, if they really tried. 00011-3402...c6-png.jpg
Is it all the Blu Ray versions of the classics or are there DVDs that were "cleaned up" like this as well.
Disney movies should be bright shiny and colorful everything those restored clips show.
Disney movies should be bright shiny and colorful, everything those restored clips show.
This also happened to my stick figure drawings. They got more graphic as I got older.
It is a insult to the original artists. Leave it the f**k alone you wankers!
the blu ray and original rarely look different.. it just seems like hate
Blue Ray only looks good on screens that are designed for the format. If You're not using a plasma screen TV or an LCD, the colors will be lousy.
Because CEOs are soulless and dont care about the art of animation. Just the business of it. They dont care about the quality, and you know why? because people will buy Disney even if they do a s**t restoration job, so they pick the cheap restoration because it saves them money.
I agree with the post whole-heartedly, but it makes me laugh so much as well. The person complains of green and blue horses but is fine with the concept of pumpkins turning into carriages. I know it's about the art detail being lost but that complaint in particular made me chuckle.
Actually it's more like painting over something like the Mona Lisa with bright popping colours and call it a restoration.
Load More Replies... This seems a very mixed bag: The first, yes inexplicable loss of detail (lines on dress); but three, clearly an improvement; two, on balance an improvement (don't forget it's a movie, less fairydust on this image doesn't mean there's also less on the next = 1/24th of a second later). The biggest problem is the argument's starting point of the colors "IT SHOULD BE" where that means "I AM USED TO"... e.g., (also Robin Hood) there's quite a few very sick-looking skin tones on the old version! Colors've lost tone over time, and then they were what was practical not what was the masters' absolute choice.
The adults whining about this, seemingly to the point of being Offended should get over themselves. Will they try and ruin this for the kids, who the movies are aimed at, and surely couldn't care less?
There really isn't much actual "story" to most of the vintage Disney films. They are more of a visual expression of the story than simply a retelling of it. You cannot enjoy a visual feast on a 5" screen, so quality matters.
Load More Replies... Who gave enough of a F to read and then comment on the post so... 🙄
Load More Replies...
138
56