 Farr saw the 1946 colour version as poorer than the black and white original ; he said it had lost its " vibrancy " and " atmosphere " , and that the new depiction of the Congolese landscape was unconvincing and more like a European zoo than the " parched , dusty expanses of reality " . Peeters took a more positive attitude towards the 1946 version , commenting that it contained " aesthetic improvements " and " clarity of composition " because of Hergé 's personal development in draughtsmanship , as well as an enhancement in the dialogue , which had become " more lively and fluid . " 
 Farr saw the 1946 colour version as poorer than the black and white original ; he said it <a href='been_done' title='1'><mark>had</mark></a> lost its " vibrancy " and " atmosphere " , and that the new depiction of the Congolese landscape was unconvincing and more like a European zoo than the " parched , dusty expanses of reality " . Peeters took a more positive attitude towards the 1946 version , commenting that it contained " aesthetic improvements " and " clarity of composition " because of Hergé <a href='null_genetive' title='2'><mark>'s</mark></a>personal development in draughtsmanship , as well as an enhancement in the dialogue , which <a href='been_done' title='3'><mark>had</mark></a> become " more lively and fluid . " 
Farr saw da 1946 colour version as poorer den the black and white original ; he said it done lost its " vibrancy " and " atmosphere " , and dat tdanew depiction of the Congolese landscape was unconvincing and more like a European zoo tdenthe " parched , dusty expanses of reality " . Peeters took a more positive attitude towards the 1946 version , commenting that it contained " aesthetic improvements " and " clarity of composition " because of Hergé  personal development in draughtsmanship , as well as an enhancement in the dialogue , which done become " more lively and fluid . "