The Fox and the Hound: Minor cover change

[Escapay]

Not sure if this is brought up, as I only noticed it last night.

I was perusing through Once Upon A Toy, when I checked out their DVD sections, as I always do. I picked up The Fox and the Hound, simply because I enjoy the movie, and holding it feels like owning it, since I don't want to shell out $22.50 for it ($24.99, but with my discount it's 10% off. Anyways, I noticed that the case now had side snaps, which is slowly becoming the norm for DVDs.

So I decided to look at the sidesnaps, admire them a bit, then checked out the back cover where I noticed 4 things:

1. "Special Features" no longer lists the Let's Be Friends Booklet. Obviously, they discontinued it.
2. A small picture of the bear fight is removed from the bottom right corner.
3. Instead of "1.33 Aspect Ratio", it now says "1.33 Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio".
4. Because of #3, there is no longer the "This film has been modified..." on the bottom.

I looked around, and found an older Fox and the Hound DVD, where all the changes were intact (booklet, picture, etc.).

So...has Disney quietly admitted that Fox and the Hound was originally in 1.33:1?

Escapay

[Wonderlicious]

Well, they've got something wrong there, anyway, as even if the original animation dimensions were 1:33:1, the original theatrical ratio would have been 1:85:1, as it would have gotten a matting.

That's Joe's smart ass remark for the day.

[Disneykid]

Well, they've got something wrong there, anyway, as even if the original animation dimensions were 1:33:1, the original theatrical ratio would have been 1:85:1, as it would have gotten a matting.

That's Joe's smart ass remark for the day.

Though then you'd have to also say that every Disney movie from One Hundred and One Dalmatians to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh would have technically wrong packaging since those were also matted to 1:85.1.

[Wonderlicious]

Though then you'd have to also say that every Disney movie from One Hundred and One Dalmatians to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh would have technically wrong packaging since those were also matted to 1:85.1.

Listen, Kelvin, I'm trying to be Deathie Mouse today. Got that?



Well, as far as I know, some of those say that their original aspect ratio was 1:33:1, as opposed to saying that the 1:33:1 dimensions is their original theatrical ratio. To simplify the aspect ratio terms in animation, I basically simplify the whole thing and say that the original aspect ratio is the dimensions that the film was animated in, and the original theatrical ratio (which is also the intended) is the aspect ratio that the film was projected in. It may not be 100% right, but I think that it simplifies the whole thing.

An interesting tale, though; I once went into a few DVD import shops in a British town called Gibraltar (which is in Spain, proving that good ol' 'er darlin' majesty still 'as a grand, diamond encrypted empire, pip pip jolly ho!* ), and saw a copy of the Region 1 Gold Collection Edition of The Aristocats claiming that it was in its original aspect ratio of 1:33:1, that seemed normal, but in another shop, the same edition of The Aristocats was labeled as being "modified to fill the screen"! And even weirder, I remember once hearing that some copies of The Black Cauldron, of which has been confirmed to be in the original 2:35:1 ratio on the DVD, to be modified to fill screens.

*Please ignore that British stereotype. First of all, the Wind in the Willows language is a distorted vision, and Britain does not have an empire by having soreignty to Gibraltar, which is a long story...

[Jake Lipson]

Hmm. I wonder how long ago they changed this? I requested The Fox and the Hound as my free DVD for the Buy 3 Get 1 Free promotion in fall 2004 and recieved it early this year. It did not have the booklet -- I assumed, of course, that that had been discontinued -- but the case and cover artwork has not been altered in any way.

My only guess is that I either got one of the very last of the "old" versions, or that it was just old stock that was lying around the shipping company's warehouse that got shipped to me. Dunno.

[Jungleprince_55]

I noticed that also with the pocahontas gold collection dvds that were in the stores right before the 10th anniversary edition came out,they had locks on the sides and no mention of a booklet,it also was dated as being a 2004 release.

[deathie mouse]

ooh wondyyyyyyy you rule



Anyway, remember UDies, the camera aperture dimensions is not the original aspect ratio of ze film

ze shape it vas compozed for it'z ze original aspect ratio of ze picture

examples: the camera dimensions of

VistaVision : has an 1.5 shape -> matted to 1.85

Technirama: has 1.5 shape -> expanded by anamorphic lens to 2.25

USA Standard Widescreen: shot in Academy sound cameras has 1.375 shape -> matted to 1.85
shot in Super-35 Silent cameras has 1.33 shape -> matted to 1.85

Original Magnetic Cinemascope: shot in Silent cameras had 1.33 shape -> expanded by anamorphic lens to 2.66 and sligthly matted on the sides by magnetic soundtrack to 2.55

Current Cinemascope/Panavision: shot in sound cameras has 1.175 shape -> expanded by anamorphic lens to 2.35 and very sligthly matted on the sides and top and bottom to 2.39
shot in Super-35 Silent cameras has 1.33 shape -> matted to 2.39

etc etc.

The preceeding has been a wonderful public dethi announcement

[Disneykid]

There's something about all that that throws me off, though. Yes, I understand that films from One Hundred and One Dalmatians up to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh were basically created in what we'd call "open matte" dimensions which were designed to be cropped to about 1.85:1 in theaters. What's odd, though, is that none of these films on DVD look like they have too much empty space designed to be masked. In fact, cropping them to about 1.75:1 actually harms some composition. So while they may have been intended for that rough ratio, I can't help but think that the framing would've looked rather awkward in theaters. I don't doubt that these films were shown in widescreen theatrically, but I just can't help but wonder why the filmmakers so obviously designed the 60's and 70's Disney films for 1.33:1 when they knew the framing would throw things off.

[deathie mouse]

Are you totally sure those DVDs are showing the full 100% area of the open matte Academy camera 0.600" x 0.825" hole?

The fox and the hound 4:3 screencap of the above pic was missing like 4% of the sides (the horizontal) so that automaticaly means it's also missing 4% of the vertical open matte area.

So if you matted by the book shots that are partially cropped you'd be overmatting the already partially cropped image

[Disneykid]

Hmmm...but do all 60's and 70's Disney animated films (minus The Rescuers) have the same problems as The Fox and the Hound? From what I've read (I don't actually own the DVD), some shots on the Fox's DVD look open matte, and other shots look like pan and scan. I don't think this same strange case affects movies like The Jungle Book or Pooh. Their framing seems perfect to me, but I've heard otherwise for Fox and the Hound.