tinkcomparison.jpg tinkcomparison.jpg

New Peter Pan DVD Ruined?


I haven’t seen the new Peter Pan 2-Disc Platinum Edition, but according to the prolific UK animation director Oscar Grillo, the dvd is a mess. Many animation enthusiasts have complained about Disney’s film “restorations” in the past, and knowing Grillo’s keen eye, it’s easy to believe this is as bad as he says. I’d be curious to hear more comments from other Brew readers who have watched this new dvd release, particularly if you’re familiar with earlier theatrical releases and home video versions. Here are Oscar’s thoughts:

Yesterday I saw a copy of the newly released “Peter Pan Special Edition” and I ALMOST HAD A HEART ATTACK!!! Granted, Peter Pan is no Pinocchio, but I like it very much. The transfer, digital enhancing, sound and image ARE ALL HORRIBLE!! They’ve “strengthened” all the lines and darkened the backgrounds and altered the colours to a degree that now Peter Pan looks like one of those classic “Porky Pigs” rotoscoped in Korea in the Seventies using Rapidographs. I must have seen Peter Pan more than three hundred times and most of them in the cinema. I know the film very well. This version truly shocked me. I won’t talk much, I suggest people compare this version with any of the previously released video or DVD editions and you’ll see for yourself what I mean and complain to those responsible. When a madman damages the “Night Watch” by Rembrandt (it actually happened), he ends up in a psychiatric hospital; when a corporation ruins an animation classic, they sell it as a “special edition.”

UPDATE: Here’s a gallery of still comparisons from various home video release of Peter Pan. (Thanks, Steve)

  • I don’t know how much worse the revamped dvd could be than the sorry theatrical print I saw when I started as an usher back in ’69 (“Peter Pan” as I remember was double-billed with a John Wayne film, “The War Wagon” ). The print was in horrible shape. The worst was when they got to the Wendy lullabye and the soundtrack just disappeared, only to fade in and out over the next five minutes or so, right through the “Captian Hook” production number. Saddest thing I ever saw in my life.

  • Huh. That’s too bad. I had been debating whether or not to pick up the new release. If it’s really that awful, I won’t bother.

  • One of the most obvious mistakes is the FX on Tinkerbell. In the original film, she had a double exposed glow over the top. Now the glow us underneath her. Digital sharpening is used so much, backgrounds become busy contrasty messes and lines on the characters get crunchy and thick.

    Here’s a side by side screen grab of the difference between this edition and the first release…

    …and here is a gallery of comparisons of the various video releases of Peter Pan by Chuck Pennington.

  • I remember watching The Little Mermaid with friends in class(“digitally restored” as well…for what? a film made in the late 80’s? i’d figure that’s a lot newer than something like Peter Pan and less in need of “restoration”…) and several of us commented on how everything looked…well…”re-lit”. The backgrounds as well seemed oppressively dark, moreso than I remember them being, and all the colors far too bright. It’s like popping a heap of “Brightness/Contrast” over these films constitutes as “digital restoration”.

    I just watched a bit of the new Peter Pan DVD though, and nothing really jumped out at me as being horrendous (though I haven’t watched it in years and not nearly as much as Mr. Grillo) but everything did look a little TOO good…a little TOO crisp. As if they need to echo how “clean” and “digital” animated films from them are now.

  • Milton Gray

    Amid, Oscar Grillo’s comments regarding the newly released DVD, “Peter Pan Special Edition”, are absolutely true. The Disney Corporation has been tampering with the colors of the classic cartoon features in their home video releases for years, and I’ve written detailed articles about this in Apatoons. If the Disney Corp just made a simple video transfer from a Technicolor (not Eastmancolor) print, or from the original Technicolor negative, like the Warner company routinely does with their Looney Tunes shorts, the results would be absolutely beautiful. A great example is the 1990 laserdisc release of Bambi, which someone forgot to alter (I believe these alterations are being done for the worse, deliberately) — and the result of the 1990 laserdisc is absolutely beautiful! I’m really glad that you posted Oscar Grillo’s comments because there really needs to be an organized public outcry about this. The colors in the cartoon features made by Walt were very carefully chosen, like the colors in a fine art painting, because those cartoons used stories that were sincere (rather than just slapstick humor), so they relied greatly on color for their mood and atmosphere and sense of magic. This is all lost when the colors are altered in home video releases, but only those people who are familiar with the way they looked in their original Technicolor releases will be aware of how much is missing.

  • I touched on this in my review of the DVD for Toon Zone News, with this image from the “What Makes the Red Man Red?” sequence showing the real mixed bag that the remastering job is. The Chief’s face is clearly a lot less saturated in the older, 1999 release than it is in the 2007 remastered, though this might be to avoid entanglements over the caricatured Indians as for any techincal reason. Both sets of shirts look desaturated as well. On the other hand, the teepee in the background has gotten much more color to it, which (after seeing some comments here) does seem like the scene was “relit.”

    I don’t know that the remastering in the 2007 release is so horrid as to ruin the movie, but I also don’t think it’s good enough to warrant a double-dip on the movie by itself. In general, the movie has slightly less color saturation than my original 1999 DVD release, but I didn’t even notice until someone pointed it out and I went to look for myself.

  • Jenny

    The color differences do seem pretty obvious….what a shame.

  • i, too, have just bought it….and was agawk!! I had only seen the film maybe twice….and it was 3 decades go (when they were re-releasing allllllll the classics in the mid-70s!) The vibrance & colors are to die for. I guess I don’t have that “keen eye” for “restoration” like you guys! I can’t wait to see all the other goodies on its other disc!!

  • Doug

    Gee whiz, having just watched it for the very first time on this new dvd release I was awed by how beautiful it looked. In fact I said this to my wife several times (while also marveling at the animation). I am in support of releasing films “untampered” from the original visions of the directors. Guess I’m glad I hadn’t seen it before so I don’t know what I’m missing.

    Thanks for this post!

  • E

    Bambi LD: Miilton–I sure hope you’re NOT referring to the “50th Anniversery” LD of “Bambi,” because that was an atrocity from top to bottom. Easily the WORST of all of what Disney has done to their features.

    That said, I’m sure you’re not talking about that particular release.

  • I dunno. I’m the absolute last person to assume that Disney hasn’t titted this up, and I’m also a massive AV nerd about these things. One of those Star Wars purists you hear about – but I’ve looked at all those screen-cap comparisons and in almost every instance the new release seems the best image.
    The 2002 release does indeed look like one of those horrible median-filter ‘restoration jobs’, but this 2007 edition looks to be a happy compromise between the zealous clarity of the 2002 version and the more familiar palette of the older versions cited.

    In this instance, it all feels suspiciously to me like a bunch of people who have gotten all familiar with their rusty video transfers and are just being frightened by what is probably closer to the true image.

    None of us can possibly have seen it 50 years ago, so we only have abstract memories by way of comparison. That and default message-board indignation.

    It all reminds me of years ago, the first time I watched digitaly produced anime on DVD, and discovered that all those ‘still’ moments are actually still. Really still. Not covered in dancing video artifacts. It took some getting used to, but I was just being a fuddy duddy.

    This one looks okay to me. But I’m prepared to admit I might not know what the hell I’m talking about.

  • Brad Constantine

    Including the vhs releases as well as the dvd releases, I my have four different prints of this film. All different in hue and contrast and
    saturation. It seems to me to be actually losing color each time it’s restored. All I have to do is throw on some old Disney special from the day and watch a scene from an original 50’s print and “bang”, there’s the color back. Wendy’s dress has color, the skin has color, and even the nursery walls have color. I like the new print better than the 1999 restoration..In that one, when wendy is singing to the lost boys, she’s green… at least the new one is more consistant.

  • Sullivan

    I don’t agree.

    I think the 2007 dvd is far, FAR more authentic to the color as designed for the film. When Disney does a digital restoration, they pull the artwork from the ARL to match it.

    Yes, it’s more subtle than the oversaturated monstrosities of the old laser discs. That’s not the film anyway. I think the new version is warmer, subtler and has far more charm than the color saturated awful laserdiscs.

    I think that image of glowing tink has more to do with color-bleeding and the pumped saturation that sold home-video in the past, than with what the artwork really looked like and how it was exposed.

  • Shirley

    Would someone please explain why Disney would do this kind of thing if they didn’t think the fans were going to like it? After all, they are artists too who work there, aren’t they?

  • Ogg

    I’m not sure if the UK release is identical to the American, but even with color issues (they do indeed look muted and different), the samples from the Region 2 UK DVD I have seen have noise reduction issues. They do indeed look like the Korean colorizations since lines are smudged and all fine detail is eradicated. However, the new R1 US DVD has no noise reduction problems and lines are always kept intact. Even Bambi had occasional noise reduction smearing (never hurting ink lines, but some background detail has slight problems). Peter Pan has a lot of rapid camera movement, but this problem is completely absent. The previous 2002 American DVD has serious DVNR artifacts and artificial sharpening (creating “haloes” around lines), as well as some wonky contrast.

    Here’s a capture from the R1 2007 US DVD, followed by one from one of the R2 UK DVDs:
    (Sorry that they’re different, but you can see the weird smudging effect on the UK DVD)

  • I haven’t seen the new release of PETER PAN yet, but after everything all of you have just said, I don’t think I will be seeing it anytime soon.

    Disney has been known to re-work these films for so-called “updating.” The last special edition I watched was LADY AND THE TRAMP, which was one of the first Disney films I ever saw in my life. I don’t know if its the fact that I hadn’t seen it in years, but I felt too removed from the film as a viewer. It just didn’t feel the same to me. But I can’t tell if it was something in the restoration of the film.

    From the looks of Stephen Worth’s images, it looks as if the guys at Disney over-did this one, and went a little too far. It seems like their neglecting their old fans, and trying to appeal to young people who have never heard of these films (as if such a thing exists).

  • D

    It is a bit too crisp. Tinker Bell seems to be what sticks out to me. Her glow isn’t as vibrant. Too clean.

  • tom

    I don’t necessarily see where super saturation is better, really. Sure, I miss the intensity of some of the effects, and maybe Hook’s jacket is a little more maroon than it ought to be, but it in no way ‘ruins’ the DVD.

    It would be nice if Disney paid more attention to these things in the future, as I am looking forward to the Jungle Book and I still don’t have a copy of Pinocchio yet.

  • KenM

    I’m not sure that I understand Stephen’s comment about digital sharpening. I do not see anything like that going on with this release. I do know that the previous special edition DVD had awful halos around high contrast edges, and that they are nowhere to be found on this one. Tinkerbell’s glow is also somewhat restored from the previous DVD, although probably not what it should be. The late 90s laserdisc and initial DVD had terribly inconsistent color. The early 90s laserdisc had consistent color, but it was oversaturated and tended to bloom, wiping out detail.

    I disagree with the part of Milton Gray’s post where he suggested that Disney do a transfer from a Technicolor print. I would definitely like them to use an IB print, the timing of which was approved contemporaneously by the filmmakers, as a color reference for their transfer, but video transfers from such prints look sub-optimal due to the inherently high contrast.

    As for going back to the negatives a la the Looney Tunes sets, I’ve heard no shortage of complaints about the color timing of those as well, so you would still need an appropriate reference. Animation art alone is not enough. You need notes on how it was photographed and preferably an unfaded print for which the filmmakers approved the timing.

    To my eyes, this is the best of the three DVD versions to date by a wide margin, although it may be a long way from perfect.

  • Paul

    Honestly, after looking at the forum link with the frame grabs, Tinker Bell is the only thing that jumped out to me as being noticeably “worse” this time around. A few of the grabs – Captain Hook in particular – are drastic improvements over the 2002 edition in my eyes.

    This might just be a case of “you can’t please everyone,” because the opinions in the article, the comments here, and the forum seem to be markedly divergent. That said, there does seem to be more people saying that they prefer the new transfer…

  • Bah, this is nothing.
    You guys should be angry about the DVD of the “Brave Little Toaster”

    Seriously, the first 20 minutes of the movie, the entire picture, backrounds and all, wiggles. And I dont even mean subtle wiggling. I mean it looks like a giant invisible hand is shoving your TV screen all around, leaving black gaps of nothingness when it strays from the edge.

    Painful to watch.

  • Speaking of DVD re-mastering by Disney, in the recent Special Edition of The Little Mermaid, they even went so far as to remove the “bulging knee” of the priest performing the Eric/Ursula wedding. This was an urban legend started by a parent who thought they saw a suggestive protuding “growth” coming from between the priest’s legs. Upon looking at the character design in a different shot, it turned out to only be his knee poking out. Apparently to avoid further controversy, Disney decided to digitally alter the animation in their latest release of the film. A little bit excessive compared to the nudie photo from ‘The Rescuers’, which was indeed legitimate.

  • I wouilda’ split the difference.

    Digital clean-up tools can seduce the eye to the n’th-degree, so it’s always good to reintroduce some of the original so the image can breathe again. Older films, Technicolor Classics, etc., flourish well in their native film grain world but it’s fantastic to see them cleaned-up when done correctly. I’ve seen some over-indulgent digital clean up on cartoons which took out so much grain that it looked like video and rendered it plastic and lifeless –fitting for our Paris Hilton culture but like strip mining an aesthetically fragile medium .

    Also, if you’re going to go to the trouble, why not get the best copy possible from the original negatives? If not, you’re just delaying the best chance at the ultimate quality print and who knows what shape the negs will be in years down the line? The colors can be steered around to match an approved timed print.

    Then again, I like listening to Edison wax cylinders.

  • Steve Wojcik

    I think that the new DVD restoration looks far superior than any of the previous. I just think that it’s a matter of taste when it comes to these issues. It really honestly is. It’s like debating which hue of blue is better than the other.

  • I never understood why they attempted to enhance stuff, especially with so many people protesting it. I could understand if the originals were impossible to make out, but that’s never the case. If you can tell what it is, it doesn’t need to be enhanced. And besides, a lot of the people who buy the DVD aren’t analyzing it, they’re watching it for entertainment, so they’re not going to care about the sharpness, color, brightness, etc. of the footage. It’s a shame.

  • gene schiller

    It may be a matter of taste, but repainting the canvas is a form of disrespect to the original artists. However, accurate or not, on the basis of these screen grabs, the dvd 2002 edition clearly shows the widest and most vibrant range of color.

  • I’m not sure that I understand Stephen’s comment about digital sharpening.

    Here’s a great example… Check out how the excessive sharpening has totally altered the textures in the rocks making the whole composition seem overly busy and “itchy”. Add that to the horrible color imbalances, with leaves turning from green to brown and rocks all turned to a uniform hue of purple and you’ve got a royal mess.

    I’ve seen many of the Disney features on the big screen and I’ve restored many original cels, carefully color matching each one. The first release on laserdisc of just about every feature is the closest to the correct colors.

    There never was an accurate release of Snow White. Frank Thomas was asked what he thought of the colors on the laserdisc and he replied diplomatically, “Nice colors… not the ones we used back in 1937, but nice.”

  • Anonymous

    I bought the DVD and Im fine with restoration. Yeah, it’s not the best, but since I never got the movie before, except for a taped version, I didn’t really care for restoration. I just bought it becasue I wanted the movie and these really cool special features. Now, alot of people will probably think Im dumb for getting this DVD, but we both have different opinions and everybody is not going to agree with everyone else.

  • Uli Meyer

    The only people that know what was accurate are probably long dead by now. What you get to see now has very likely gone through extensive Disney customer research resulting in what you see now. I’m certain that there are many artists bodies spinning violently in their graves right now, but the numbers count and therefore none of the culprits will ever feel guilty. I have not read all the posts here, but there are a couple that seem to like the color boosts/re-grades/dis-balance. It’s selling like hot-cakes, so do you think anyone in charge really cares about what we have to say?

  • It’s not speculation. Disney is deliberately manipulating the colors. We have had Technicolor sources on those films for years, so it’s very easy to get a comparison. This version of “Peter Pan” is disgusting IMO. Anyone who says that Disney isn’t doing this purposely is in denial.

    Warners is not doing any color manipulation however. Using the old laserdiscs of the Warner shorts is a horrible comparison because those were taken from faded prints (in some cases, turning red).

    The old cels are also poor basis, because you sometimes had to use one color to get another (which is why Alice has green hair on older cels I’ve seen).

  • Grant Beaudette

    I almost bought that DVD, but now I’m sure I’ll stick with my older one.

  • vzky

    And let’s not get started with Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Every time that movie is released on video gets more butchered.

  • Sullivan

    The old cels are also poor basis, because you sometimes had to use one color to get another (which is why Alice has green hair on older cels I’ve seen).

    Absolutely true. The restoration artists are well aware of this, and do painstaking research on how this stuff was filmed and exposed and how old technicolor stock responded to this.

    Hey, here’s a question. Anyone here contact the artists involved in the restoration to ask these questions? I’m assuming Jerry Beck has some of the relevant phone numbers.

  • Nope, seeing how the conversation has panned out, I’m convinced I was right the first time. This new version is fine. Not even fine, but great.

    We have all become so accustomed to being raped by these things, that we have become paranoid and reactionary as a community to ANY perceived change.

    The more comparison images people keep posting, the more all I see is what looks like the difference between (a) sequential photography of a painting and (b) a fuzzy old video transfer of sequential photography of a painting, that they have warmed to over the years because they didn’t have anything else by comparison.

    As various people have pointed out, there are plenty of other rubbish remasterings in the world that we should all be yelling about. I think we should be grateful that they might have gotten it pretty right for once.

  • Doug

    Question to Stephen Worth – In the example you posted, the frame on the left looks totally “blurred”. Not only the background but the characters appear out of focus. So to my untrained eye the frame on the right looks better because its clearer. Why would the frame on the left be more desirable? I’m really curious. Thanks.

  • Steve Wojcik

    I do agree that repainting a canvas is a form of disrespect towards the artist but what about cleaning the canvas? Restoring the Sistine Chapel or the Last Supper?

    We cant really complain about the artistic merit and integrity of restoring films or enhancing color because films are made for one reason and one reason only…. to make share holders lots of money. If they research and find that changing scenes to a certain hue or saturation tin order to make more money that’s there business. Is it right? I dont think so as a fine artist speaking. But that is the freedom that artists most of the time give up, working for a corporation such as this. You’re not working towards an artistic end, rather you are using your artistic talent to produce a product to make a profit. This isn’t the way Walt worked and it’s a shame.

  • Why would the frame on the left be more desirable?

    Because the overall balance of colors and contrast is correct. The fuzzier image is a video transfer from decades ago. Telecines have improved when it comes to sharpness and higher resolutions, but sharpness isn’t enough if the total balance of colors is knocked out of wack, and the sharpness has been obtained by changing the contrast levels of the image.

    Background painters are very careful to juggle value, hue and saturation in a pleasing way. They’ll put similar values next to each other and set them apart by making them different hues. They’ll work warm colors next to cool colors. And they’ll carefully control the contrasts so the eye reads the image in the proper order.

    Even fuzzy, the older image of the mermaid lagoon reads better because the balance of colors and shades is very sophisticated. The sharpened one has been manipulated to the point where every detail is fighting every other detail for attention. The textures on the mountains no longer lead the eye down to the water. The texture becomes a sharply defined center of focus itself.

    The best way to describe it is to compare an image of the grand canyon at sunset to an image of the same spot with those night vision goggles they wear in the army. There’s more detail, but it isn’t a realistic balance.

  • Brad Constantine

    ….I remember a time not too long ago when I had to pay 50 bucks to a guy named “Eddie” behind a 7-11 for a crappy 5th generation bootleg of any old disney film on video just to have it at all. It’s freakin Peter Pan and It’s Disney animation at it’s best and it’s 2 discs on dvd for under 20 bucks!!
    Priceless in my book!
    go Buy it!!

  • mwb

    Just a computer technical point. As people comment on color changes – remember that unless your monitors are calibrated correctly you might not actually be seeing the same exact color differences other may be when looking at the examples.

  • I’m not sure if this is the word Thad or Steve Worth would use to describe it, but the newest DVD’s colors look very drab. Like the skin tones of Hook and Wendy. On the 1990 Laser, the skin tones look farily normal, but on the newest dvd, their skin is almost grey-tinted. Tinkerbell’s glow, too (And I don’t understand how Disney could manipulate her skintone to be a pale yellow, especially when it’s compared to that of the other releases.)

    Disney did a great job of taking most of the fun and excitement out of the film by screwing around with its colors (it almost doesn’t even seem like the same film anymore), but WHY did it have to happen? It’s been implied that disney had an Eisner-mandated agenda to make the classic features look inferior to its modern ones, but that still doesn’t explain this wanton example.

  • Bryan T.

    I might be imagining this, but I’m pretty sure that more than one person above suggested that Disney was purposely creating bad transfers based on marketing research. You’re talking about transfers and restorations! These are not things that the ten billion people who buy Peter Pan for their kids on DVD ever think about. If they were just worried about money they wouldn’t even bother to restore it.

    I look at Stephen’s stills and, like many others, the one that is supposed to be so horrible is the one that looks better to me. Sometimes the brighter colors on the left appeal to me more, but I have no way of knowing if those were the intended colors.

    I think it’s fair to assume that the people doing the restoration were attempting to be accurate to the original intent of the filmmakers. Whether or not they succeeded I don’t know. But I think the claim that they are altering colors as some kind of conspiracy of greed have gone beyond nitpicking into the land of bizarre paranoia. I mean, think that one through. You really think that makes sense?

    Making a sequel to Peter Pan – yes, that is crass commercialism. Making a transfer that you don’t like due to arcane reasons that even a lot of us animation nerds can’t understand – that might be some other thing.

  • I don’t want to antagonise anyone in particular, or turn this into one of those horrible polarised forum things, but if we can look again at those two samples of the mermaids.

    The fact is, the ‘digital restoration’ process is actualy very primitive – theres little more to it than any ludite could acheive in photoshop by playing with the levels and blur filters. Hence why it usualy looks so pants, particularly with 2D animation. What CAN happen with lots of digital sharpening, is the creation of awkward halos around edge lines, the highlighting of compression artifacts, or the muddying of fine details. What CAN’T happen, is the magical creation of new art. It can’t magicaly produce NEW image information from nothing.

    The restored image on the right has more information, more detail. Lines and brush strokes are visible in the right image that are not visible in the left. Therefore the image on the right must be closer to the source image, while the blurred version is, well… blurred.

    As for the colours, theres nothing to compare them to, so we can never really know which are closer to those intended. But, it is true that an increase in saturation is the first effect of video degredation, and that the increase of magenta and a leaning towards chroma green in the left image, are also particularly symptomatic of such. Plus it seems to me that subtle colour details, like the red veins against the green leaves in the bottom corner, are totally lost in the old video image.

    Thats my call anyways.

  • Scaramanga

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who seems to think there’s something wrong with the new transfer. Personally, I’m glad I’ve got the old release (the French R2 for that matter, which was a 2-disc release and had plenty of extras). Some of their restorations I like, some I don’t … such is life I guess.

  • Glenn Erickson, a.k.a. DVD Savant, has written an editorial on the subject, quoting my letter to him: http://www.dvdsavant.com/s2242pan.html . This “restoration” has had the effect of depriving the film transfer of about half the information contained on the Technicolor yellow (negative) / blue (positive) layer, which is contrary to any “sane” restoration process.

  • Everyone here seems to be going on and on about the color enhancements but hasn’t anyone else noticed one of the most rememberable and beloved scenes has been completely cut out? Worst yet, by the commentary, it would appear they are pretending that it never was in the film at all! I’m 41 years old, and I clearly remember Peter turning to the camera and encouraging the audience to clap your hands with him if you believed in fairies. I clearly remember clapping my hands in audience participation which then appeared we had made Tinker Bell live! It was a very moving scene for me and my family in the theatre. We saw the film twice in the 1970’s when it was re-released in theatres so I know I can’t be imagining this twice wrongly. My own parents having seen it as youngsters even prompted me to get ready to clap as they remembered the scene! So, when I watched this newly remastered film, that scene was one I eagerly awaited for. Only to discover it was abruptly cut out! I’m quite exasperated over this. Why? Why?

  • gregmasciola


    Are you sure you’re not thinking of the live-action musical of Peter Pan with Mary Martin? I’ve only owned 2 copies of the Disney Peter Pan: a VHS copy and the Platinum Edition. I don’t remember ever seeing Peter ask the audience to clap on my old VHS copy (Which I don’t have anymore) but I know that this happened in the Mary Martin musical version.
    But as for my thoughts on the Platinum Edition, I think it looks fine.

  • Christopher Williams

    I finally broke down and watched the Platinum edition of Peter Pan. I think that some of the aspects of the restoration are better than the special edition; however I think that 99% of the platinum release restoration job sucks. The color tampering is SO obvious that it almost ruins the original feeling that you had all the times that you watched it before. Peter Pan’s outfit is SO yellow that it looks like someone puked on his shirt, and his pants are a brownish green. The scenes on the ship are ruined, as the detail of the floorboards, and items in the background seem to be smudged out of existence. It seems like the blue has been ripped apart from the movie, which means that the yellow negative was toned down. Perhaps the most disgusting part is of this restoration is the PC recoloring of the Redman. I have seen original cells, prints, and various other marketing items from 1953. The redmen were clearly red then. Other than the new sound enhancements, I cant think of one thing that I like about this transfer. Even though the SE in 2002 could have been a little better, at least the colors stayed close to the palette. How can Disney do this to a classic? Were they trying to match Peter Pan’s look to the newer version of Return to Neverland? I hate the golden rod color. BLAH! This is by far the WORST restoration by Disney/Lowry thus far. I didnt mind Cinderella, Lady in the Tramp, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, etc. I am scared to see what they are going to do to Pinocchio when it comes out. Note to Disney: Quit screwing with the classics, your new movies will NEVER surpass the classics!!!!!