The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition Press Release, Discussion

[Princess Stitch]

Oh no! I hate when they do that! Living in Canada, for YEARS they had this big yellow circle, about an inch in diameter with the words "Version Francais Incluse" (French version included) actually printed on the front cover of the DVD!

They just recently started putting a sticker on the cover instead of actually printing it on, but alot of my DVDs are blemished now in my opinion.

[BackgroundActorman1976]

If wouldn't say offering both aspect ratios is unnecessary in this case. I'd say that it's the right thing to do. The movie was animated in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, and shown this way in many theatres. The "widescreen" version is going to be a matte of the picture, as TonyWDA pointed out. Of course it will make owners of widescreen TV's happy because they won't have black bars on the sides of their sets, and I suppose that's the reason they're doing it. It's the old pan and scan philosophy in reverse.

To quote a comment i read in a dvd fourum elsewhere "Original aspect ratio: its not about more image or less image, its about being presented the intended image."

haveing said that when this was released into theatres is was released in a flat widescreen aspect ratio. so the jungle book is finally being visually presented as it was when first seen in theatres durring its initial release!!

As some of you may know iam the senior tour guide at the legendary graumans chinese theatre(and its my job to know about the presentations of movies that have premiered at my theatre over years), and we hosted the world premiere for the jungle book back in 1967,and for that premiere the movie its self was presented in a widescreen flat aspect ratio format for its world premiere.
i talk about this premiere often durring the tours i give daily, (not about the aspect ratio of the movie mind you, but about the event itself) in fact the projector that the movie premiered on is still in use in the theatre today!!!


haveing said that this release is looking to be a return to the truly wonderful platnium dvd releases, i hope they feature some footage of the premiere at the theatre.

i cant wait to pick this up and watch the jungle book finally at home for the first time in its original flat aspect ratio presentation!!!

[carter1971]

Yes, I'm well aware that this was presented matted in most theatres when it was released. I'm not arguing that. But as I stated in another thread, I like the see the full scope of the artwork since the artists took the time to create it that way. Why did they? It was most likely because some older theatres still showed films in that ratio, but that's just my theory. If someone has a definitive answer, please pass it on. I also stated in that thread that I believed both versions of these films should be released on DVD, not just one or the other. And another question for those more well-versed in cinema history that me - when did the standard flat aspect ratio change from 1.75:1 to 1.85:1?

[Farid]

Final cover artwork can be found here:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/ ... -book.html

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Final cover artwork can be found here:

That says early coverart.

[Farid]

Early, final... it's the same.

Maybe they'll tweak it a bit. Mowgli's head seems a bit pushed too much to the left.

[DisneyFreak5282]

Maybe they'll tweak it a bit. Mowgli's head seems a bit pushed too much to the left.

I think they might remove King Louie from the cover. Wasn't there a whole big thing about Louis Prima's wife being mad about the usage of King Louie or anything related to him?

I'm sure the re-release of this movie will be an exception, but how will she handle King Louie being on the COVER of the movie? Oh, boy!

Honestly, she must be stupid. Why would you NOT want to have your husband depicted in a Disney movie? It's not like it was in a negative way or anything.

[SpringHeelJack]

It's not about portrayal, it's all about disputes over money, as are many things. His wife claims there was unpaid royalties (something not unheard of from Disney) and sued, which was settled out of court. To avoid another lawsuit potentially, Disney has refused to use the character in any other medium save for the original film. She's not stupid, I can't really blame her for suing if that's indeed true, which it certainly could be.

[singerguy04]

I would like to see Baghera somewhere on this cover art, but I don't think they could just push him in without it looking bad. The amount of green seems a bit overwhelming too, but overall the cover art has been growing on me.

Overall this realease is sounding awesome! Even though it's not one of my personal favorites I'm starting to really look forward to it.

[Gabrielkat]

1.75:1 Widescreen

5.1 Surround Sound with Disney's Enhanced Home Theater Mix

It's all on the front page.

Didn't I say it would get matted?

Why would you want the film to be matted? It looks better in the ratio that it was created and animated in - 1.33:1!

Surely, this widescreen must be a hoax??

[my chicken is infected]

People in this thread keep talking about the cover art, yet all I've seen in this thread so far are fan covers. Have I missed the link where the official cover art is or something? I've searched this thread and can't find it.

[Disneykid]

People in this thread keep talking about the cover art, yet all I've seen in this thread so far are fan covers. Have I missed the link where the official cover art is or something? I've searched this thread and can't find it.

Psssst...there's more to this site than a forum.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/coverart.html#oct

[Gwildor]

Final cover artwork can be found here:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/ ... -book.html

There you go!

[Escapay]

1.75:1 Widescreen

5.1 Surround Sound with Disney's Enhanced Home Theater Mix

It's all on the front page.

Didn't I say it would get matted?

Why would you want the film to be matted? It looks better in the ratio that it was created and animated in - 1.33:1!

Surely, this widescreen must be a hoax??

Oh lordy.

Hopefully for the last time....

Disney Animation 101: Theatrical Aspect Ratios

From the 1960s to the 1970s, with the exception of The Rescuers, all the Animated Classics were animated in 1.33:1, with the intention of being matted in theatres to the 1.75:1 aspect ratio. The artists knew this, and so they kept all the action, all the important animation, within a the 1.75:1 frame of the animated cel. Thus, anything on the top and bottom that would not appear in theatres is dead space, with nothing important going on.

One of the main reasons people keep clamoring for "the whole picture, the whole picture!' is because for the past twenty-odd years, that's all we've gotten in VHS and DVD releases, when in actuality, they're getting the whole (intended) picture, along with a nice bit of dead space at the top and bottom that just so happens to be colored in with the rest of the picture.

The other main reason is some misguided loyalty to see all of the artist's work, when anything that the artist wanted the audience to see was already contained in the 1.75:1 frame.

Escapay

[TonyWDA]

1.75:1 Widescreen

5.1 Surround Sound with Disney's Enhanced Home Theater Mix

It's all on the front page.

Didn't I say it would get matted?

Why would you want the film to be matted? It looks better in the ratio that it was created and animated in - 1.33:1!

Surely, this widescreen must be a hoax??

Not only is it Disney's final choice of the film's presentation, but that was it's INTENDED aspect ratio. Please read this:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... highlight=

Oh, and no it's not a hoax. The news came directly from Disney.

[carter1971]

Now scroll to the bottom of that thread and read Luke's reply. Luke said the same things in his review of the MWE of Robin Hood. Like it or not, there are two sides to this, and neither has yet to be proven right or wrong. As Luke said, the best solution is for Disney to offer both.

Having said that, after reading the thread and looking at TonyWDA's pics, I actually do believe that I prefer the matted ones. I think I'm even going to buy the MWE of Robin Hood now and check it out.

However, I still have two questions that no one has addressed:

1) Why did the animators bother to fill the entire frame if they knew it would be cut off? This would be a waste of time. As I have stated before, it is probably because some older facilities showed films in 1.33:1 into the 1970's. Changes in the exhibition side of the film industry happen over a period of years, because they're very expensive. There are still numerous theatres out there without digital sound, for example. The majority of theatres still use 35mm projectors as well, and many will continue to do so until they close. But as I said, this is only my theory as to why they did it. If someone else has a solid explanation or another theory, then please present it. I am really curious about this.

2) The proper aspect ratio for matted films is 1.85:1, not 1.75:1. Has this changed over the years? Not likely, as it would require changes to theatre equipment.

Any response to these questions would be appreciated.

[TonyWDA]

However, I still have two questions that no one has addressed:

1) Why did the animators bother to fill the entire frame if they knew it would be cut off? This would be a waste of time. As I have stated before, it is probably because some older facilities showed films in 1.33:1 into the 1970's. Changes in the exhibition side of the film industry happen over a period of years, because they're very expensive. There are still numerous theatres out there without digital sound, for example. The majority of theatres still use 35mm projectors as well, and many will continue to do so until they close. But as I said, this is only my theory as to why they did it. If someone else has a solid explanation or another theory, then please present it. I am really curious about this.
Any response to these questions would be appreciated.

I'm sure they filled the whole frame, but that's only because they didn't have the right technolegy to crop the films.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

However, I still have two questions that no one has addressed:

1) Why did the animators bother to fill the entire frame if they knew it would be cut off? This would be a waste of time.

Well, as you know we did address this in an "aspect ratio" thread a few days ago:

Quote myself:

"The fact that part of the full frame is "hidden" when matted doesn't mean that the "artwork" is "lost" - it's usually visible at another point in time as the camera moves about."

---

The "missing artwork" in question is in most cases the top and bottom part of the background - not something that would need to be replicated for every single frame. It could even be that a 1.75 (or whatever) "somewhat widescreen" ratio constitutes a better composition than the full 1.33 frame.

But, again, for this handful of 60s and 70s animated features I think both approaches could be justified - so including two versions on future releases could be the way to go. I'm basically all for the one original aspect ratio, but I believe there could be room for two in this case.

[carter1971]

Well, as you know we did address this in an "aspect ratio" thread a few days ago:

Oops, I meant that they hadn't been addressed by others in this thread. I didn't mean to disregard your response in that thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am glad someone who prefers the matted version agrees with me about releasing both. They've released pan and scan versions for true widescreen films, and those "reformatted" Pixar versions, so why not do this? At any rate, as I said in that thread, this debate could go on forever, and if it does, it should probably take place in the thread TonyWDA linked above (which I didn't know existed before -Thanks for the link), so that we don't take up too much of this one talking about it.

Now for my comments about the DVD itself - I'm really looking forward to this one. The restored images looked great in the preview we saw on the Peter Pan disc and this looks to be worth the price of admission alone. I'm certainly hoping they do a better job with the extas than they did on the last few Platinums. I would especially like to see promotional material such as posters, trailers, and merchandising tie-ins. As for the cover art - I guess I'm one of the few who likes it.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Now scroll to the bottom of that thread and read Luke's reply. Luke said the same things in his review of the MWE of Robin Hood. Like it or not, there are two sides to this, and neither has yet to be proven right or wrong. As Luke said, the best solution is for Disney to offer both.

Having said that, after reading the thread and looking at TonyWDA's pics, I actually do believe that I prefer the matted ones. I think I'm even going to buy the MWE of Robin Hood now and check it out.

However, I still have two questions that no one has addressed:

1) Why did the animators bother to fill the entire frame if they knew it would be cut off? This would be a waste of time. As I have stated before, it is probably because some older facilities showed films in 1.33:1 into the 1970's. Changes in the exhibition side of the film industry happen over a period of years, because they're very expensive. There are still numerous theatres out there without digital sound, for example. The majority of theatres still use 35mm projectors as well, and many will continue to do so until they close. But as I said, this is only my theory as to why they did it. If someone else has a solid explanation or another theory, then please present it. I am really curious about this.

2) The proper aspect ratio for matted films is 1.85:1, not 1.75:1. Has this changed over the years? Not likely, as it would require changes to theatre equipment.

Any response to these questions would be appreciated.

It was a way to save money. It's cheaper to fake a widescreen film than to actually make a larger aspect ratio (which requires more artwork and a more expensive camera to shoot with). Animation is expensive enough as it is and by faking widescreen (and using xerox machines) it was a way of preventing movies to cost way to much (like Sleeping Beauty).