60's & 70's Aspect Ratios (from Sword in the Stone)

[Flanger-Hanger]

For Bedknobs definitely not. I mean, do you want to see more of the piano/fishing wires in other scenes of the movie? I think that it was the one mistake Scott McQueen made with that part of the restoration. And as for Poppins weren't the fullscreen versions of that movie always pan and scan anyway? I always thought that it along with some of the other live action films of the 60s were actually shot in 1.75:1 instead of being matted to that. If you look at The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band, you can tell that the 4:3 ratio on the DVD does not show the entire image. Unless it's a pan and scan job of the matted image like Blackbeard's Ghost.

[Escapay]

For Bedknobs definitely not. I mean, do you want to see more of the piano/fishing wires in other scenes of the movie?

The silly little nitpicker in me wants to, but the theatrical purist doesn't. I've always wondered why MacQueen didn't just have the entire Naboombu sequence also available as open-matte, rather than compromising the whole movie by making it all open-matte for the sake of like...15 minutes of animated footage.

And yeah, the Mary Poppins VHS was always a pan and scan of the widescreen frame (I believe it was P&S of a different 1.66:1 than what's presented on the 2004 DVD).

If you look at The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band, you can tell that the 4:3 ratio on the DVD does not show the entire image. Unless it's a pan and scan job of the matted image like Blackbeard's Ghost.

It's probably another Blackbeard's Ghost fiasco, only less of the bastardization that BG got. Some scenes look cramped and suggestive of a Pan&Scan job, but it all is rather fixed to the center. At the same time, however, a few scenes look open-matte.

Albert

[disneyfella]

I almost brought up "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" myself Albert. Great minds must truly think alike


My take on this would still be to strive to preserve what the artist intended. In the case of special editions/director's cuts/etc., hey, if they are what the filmmaker intended then that is the way I want to watch the film. I'm not saying that the animators COULDN'T have intended the DACs from the 60s/70s to be seen in fullscreen, and as I've said before if they were I'll eat my hat. My desire has always been to be true to the intent of the artist........if only to show my respect.

I just don't believe, though, that they were intended for fullscreen release. And I'm on a mission to prove it...lol. Still no luck on finding any authoritative source, though. Has anyone tried emailing Dave Smith?



p.s. I think the whole Scott McQueen 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' fiasco is only proof to support the idea that Disney doesn't care about releasing the film the way it was intended to be seen (heck look at all the P&S releases!). I know for absolutely sure that Bedknobs was a widescreen picture. I've sold a bunch of my old film magazines, but one of them specifically talked about the picture and how it was a holiday, widescreen, roadshow picture. I appreciate Mr. McQueen's work in restoring these old films (seriously...look at Pollyanna!), but I've got two words with regards to that release.........

No respect



::steps off his soap box and passes the wet noodle to the next forum member::

[Escapay]

p.s. I think the whole Scott McQueen 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' fiasco is only proof to support the idea that Disney doesn't care about releasing the film the way it was intended to be seen (heck look at all the P&S releases!).

I can understand McQueen's desire for animation fans to see the whole frame, but truly disagree with his idea that the whole movie should be open-matte simply to preserve the animated portions. B&B is a widescreen film, anything else would be wrong, and I'm surprised that McQueen elected to go with open-matte simply for the animated sequence.

Thank god they got it right with the 2001 DVD. Matted widescreen, yippee!

Albert

[disneyfella]

Seriously!!! It's not like they stopped the film in the middle of the screenings and changed the projector lense to open the matte for 15 minutes and then stop the screening again to replace the matted lense.


This actually could be further evidence to support the notion that sometimes animation (while animated full frame) was still intended to be matted. Bedknobs and Broomsticks was most definitely intended to be matted....animated sequences and all. I know that one's intended ratio for sure...lol. Now if I could just straighten out JB, SitS, and Robin Hood. lol

[drfsupercenter]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Academy ratio print of LatT ever actually got released.

Actaully, it was. It was released on the most recent laserdisc release, and is nearly impossible to find... it's actually the one laserdisc I'm looking for everywhere (for the sake of putting on DVD) and can't find.

1. MGM DVDs - many of their live-action catalogue titles that release both versions (a widescreen and a fullscreen) have open-matte fullscreen if the widescreen is 1.85:1. Cases in point from my collection: The Sure Thing, The Princess Bride (old barebones DVD), and Spaceballs (old barebones dvd).

Oh, really? I never knew Spaceballs was open-matte... I only have the 2-disc collector's set since the old one looks like it was ripped from a VHS...
And way to exaggerate my quote there

Anyway, here's a bit of a conundrum that no one's brought up yet and I'm eager to hear responses: what is everyone's take on the animated sequences in Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon? Should they all be open-matte fullscreen and not matted widescreen just because the animated sequences were done in fullscreen? After all, Scott MacQueen decided that the 1996 laserdisc for Bedknobs and Broomsticks would be released open-matte for the entire movie just to preserve the complete animated frame for the Naboombu sequences. And when the 40th Anniversary Edition of Mary Poppins came out, there were immediate comparisons of its 1.66:1 frame to the GC version (1.85:1) and the Japanese laserdisc (which I forget the frame ratio, but it still had more picture than both the US DVDs).

Well, it depends on how it was shot. Was Mary Poppins filmed in Academy too? Or was only the animated part Academy?

And yeah, the Mary Poppins VHS was always a pan and scan of the widescreen frame (I believe it was P&S of a different 1.66:1 than what's presented on the 2004 DVD).

I have an old VHS (I actually can't figure out which one, as it has a 1986 Neon Mickey bumper but looks like an early 80s release...), and some parts like the opening credits are just vertically stretched.

Regarding Mary Poppins, is it true that the only way to get a non-n00bcropped version is from a laserdisc? I read (might have been UD's review, can't remember), that the 2-disc DVD is just cropped from a 4:3 version... but compared to the 1.85:1 version on the Gold Classics Collection and Masterpiece DVDs, as well as my VHS, it does seem to have more picture than both (it appears to be the same vertical height as the VHS, and more on the top and bottom than the 1.85 version)...
I haven't really looked into it as it's not one of those films that was "butchered"... if anything it was only a slight error. I'm just curious if the 1.66:1 version on the DVD was the original framed version or if it's cropped from some version with more picture.

I can understand McQueen's desire for animation fans to see the whole frame, but truly disagree with his idea that the whole movie should be open-matte simply to preserve the animated portions. B&B is a widescreen film, anything else would be wrong, and I'm surprised that McQueen elected to go with open-matte simply for the animated sequence.

Thank god they got it right with the 2001 DVD. Matted widescreen, yippee!

Last time I checked, the aspect ratio of that DVD is 1.66:1... which is apparently still not the original theatrical ratio? Isn't that where the whole argument comes into play around movies like Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid?

This actually could be further evidence to support the notion that sometimes animation (while animated full frame) was still intended to be matted. Bedknobs and Broomsticks was most definitely intended to be matted....animated sequences and all. I know that one's intended ratio for sure...lol. Now if I could just straighten out JB, SitS, and Robin Hood. lol

I agree with you for the live action stuff, but that's because of the camera wires etc. that you can see in the open matte frame. (I might have to get that laserdisc just to share it with people )

The thing about animation, though, is that Disney took the time and effort to animate the entire 1.33:1 frame. If I were animating a film, even if the pieces of paper I drew on were 1.33:1, and I really wanted it to be widescreen, I would just stop drawing once I hit the magic matted mark, and not bother filling in the rest. I think the fact that they actually animated the entire frame, and not just stopped, indicates that they want it to be seen. Either that or they were intentionally wasting countless hours drawing. And why would they do that when they could be making another movie?

[Escapay]

Was Mary Poppins filmed in Academy too? Or was only the animated part Academy?

It was discussed at length in this old thread from a few years ago.

What <IS> Poppins OAR?? - pics -

Thank god they got it right with the 2001 DVD. Matted widescreen, yippee!

Last time I checked, the aspect ratio of that DVD is 1.66:1... which is apparently still not the original theatrical ratio?

It is the OTR.

Albert

[disneyfella]

'Bedknobs and Broomsticks' was supposed to be 1.66:1 when it was shown. I'm not sure about Mary Poppins, but I know about B&B. While it isn't cinemascope or anythhing, it is still the widescreen ratio it was supposed to be. I can't remember the magazine now, but when I got the DVD years ago and watched the special on there about restoring the film and saw that it was going to be a "roadshow" length picture and all the stories behind it I did a little research and bought magazines, etc. and referenced the DVD aspect ratio and sure enough, one of the magazines talked about a 1.66:1 ratio and that is what the DVD offers. I remember because I was like "Finally, a clear cut answer on an intended ratio, and a correct one offered to boot!"

What I was referring to, though, as evidence is that even the 15 minute animated segment for this film was animted full frame however it was intended to be matted to 1.66:1. Why Disney animated the rest of the frame when they framed the film for matting is indeed a conundrum, but this film in particular proves that that is indeed what they did. I'm only assuming that they did the same for the DACs from the 60s/70s.

What if the animators animated even MORE than the 1.33:1 ratio, but the camera used to film the background and cels and such was only Academy aperture. This isn't that far fetched, because there are numerous examples where an animated portion of some sort even leaves the screen on an open matte print. Perhaps a cel:negative comparison would reveal that the animators animated even more than the camera allowd them to show! I still think, though, that they only intended what's inside the matte to be seen (as evidenced by B&B).

[drfsupercenter]

Well the thing is, films like The Lion King and Aladdin were released in their "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.66:1, and Beauty and the Beast and the new version of The Little Mermaid were released in their "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.85(78):1.

Surely they were all shown in one format? What's with the inconsistency?

And surely no films are pillarboxed in the cinema... I think the actual screen is about 1.85:1 and yet anything that isn't 2.35:1 (of course, I only remember films from like 1998 onwards) is shown on those screens with no bars anywhere. Are they just cropped by the theater?

So is the Japanese laserdisc of Mary Poppins the one with the most picture? Which one has the original negative aspect ratio (if it was even released?)

[2099net]

Well the thing is, films like The Lion King and Aladdin were released in their "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.66:1, and Beauty and the Beast and the new version of The Little Mermaid were released in their "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.85(78):1.

Surely they were all shown in one format? What's with the inconsistency?

And surely no films are pillarboxed in the cinema... I think the actual screen is about 1.85:1 and yet anything that isn't 2.35:1 (of course, I only remember films from like 1998 onwards) is shown on those screens with no bars anywhere. Are they just cropped by the theater?

So is the Japanese laserdisc of Mary Poppins the one with the most picture? Which one has the original negative aspect ratio (if it was even released?)

Theatres change the width of the screen to match the width of the picture - usually by opening or closing curtains. The height of the image remains more or less consistent. Therefore there is no need for pillar-box bars.

However, DeathieMouse who was for a time a cinema projectionist will tell you that a lot of the time the aspect ratios for theatrical showings are incorrect - not because of misunderstandings of the aspect ratio requested, but often down to laziness on behalf of the projectionist, resulting in shoddy or incorrect matting.

Think about the Back to the Future DVD mistake, and imagine how easy it would be to do something like that when you a projectionist repeatedly adding, removing or adjusting the matte between performances of different films (and sometimes between the previews and the movie itself).

As for Theatrical vs Extended/Director's Cuts - absolutely. I always want the theatrical cut first and foremost. Something I have stated many times on this forum. This is mainly because when you read about the reception and criticism of a film, it is referring to the theatrical cut, so I think its vital that you can view the theatrical cut to see if you agree or disagree with the criticisms.

My biggest complaint (living over in the UK) is that a lot of films these days are only released in the "unrated" extended cuts over here. I think is more to do with the market being smaller than spite (it's the same was some films on BD in the US are only the extended cuts its just not feasible for the smaller market to support two different releases). Thankfully branching is becoming more popular on current Blu-ray discs.

I feel I can quite confidently say, 60% of the time the theatrical releases are better than the extended releases. Personally, for example, I think the extended Fellowship of the Ring is vastly inferior to the theatrical, the extended 40 Year Old Virgin just feels too long and drawn out for a comedy, and the Morning Report adds nothing to the Lion King.

Listen to Ridley Scott introduce the Extended (Not Director's Cut – as he states many times!) Gladiator DVD and you can tell he personally is less than enthused by it. The same can be said for the Extended Ghost Rider – the director seems indifferent to the additions on the commentary (sadly, the BD only comes with the extended cut so I've still not seen the theatrical).

As for Pocahontas, isn't the whole point of the DVD you can choose which version to view?

[David S.]

As for Pocahontas, isn't the whole point of the DVD you can choose which version to view?

Yes, I think a major point of DVD is to be able to have choice as consumers and fans - whether that is what version of the film to view, what sound mix, which aspect ratio when there are more than one which could be considered valid, etc.

I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't watch the original version of Pocahontas, if that's how you took it. I was just using the extended version as an example of how something may be closer to what the director intended, and not be the theatrical version. And also an example of how a version that never got released in theatres can sometimes offer an enhanced experience (which is of course subjective) even though that isn't the way it appeared in theatres.

But people should always have a choice, I totally agree with that - whether that choice they make is for the more "purist" option or otherwise, the point of the technology IMO is to offer choice.

[AlwaysOAR]

Anyway, here's a bit of a conundrum that no one's brought up yet and I'm eager to hear responses: what is everyone's take on the animated sequences in Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon? Should they all be open-matte fullscreen and not matted widescreen just because the animated sequences were done in fullscreen? After all, Scott MacQueen decided that the 1996 laserdisc for Bedknobs and Broomsticks would be released open-matte for the entire movie just to preserve the complete animated frame for the Naboombu sequences. And when the 40th Anniversary Edition of Mary Poppins came out, there were immediate comparisons of its 1.66:1 frame to the GC version (1.85:1) and the Japanese laserdisc (which I forget the frame ratio, but it still had more picture than both the US DVDs).

So...should we say that 1.33:1 the "intended" ratio for these films just because they have animated sequences done that way? IMO, it isn't, but what I want to know is everyone else's take on it.

Albert

I'm sure you already know my response to this, and of course I would want it on DVD the way it was intended to be seen in theatres, that is matted widescreen.

[Escapay]

Anyway, here's a bit of a conundrum that no one's brought up yet and I'm eager to hear responses: what is everyone's take on the animated sequences in Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon? Should they all be open-matte fullscreen and not matted widescreen just because the animated sequences were done in fullscreen? After all, Scott MacQueen decided that the 1996 laserdisc for Bedknobs and Broomsticks would be released open-matte for the entire movie just to preserve the complete animated frame for the Naboombu sequences. And when the 40th Anniversary Edition of Mary Poppins came out, there were immediate comparisons of its 1.66:1 frame to the GC version (1.85:1) and the Japanese laserdisc (which I forget the frame ratio, but it still had more picture than both the US DVDs).

So...should we say that 1.33:1 the "intended" ratio for these films just because they have animated sequences done that way? IMO, it isn't, but what I want to know is everyone else's take on it.

Albert

I'm sure you already know my response to this, and of course I would want it on DVD the way it was intended to be seen in theatres, that is matted widescreen.

I know. My question was mainly asked to see how people stand on fullscreen-animated segments that are part of meant-to-be-widescreen-no-matter-what live-action films.

Albert

[AlwaysOAR]

But we are talking in circles. We can argue about which version was most intended, or if both were intended, to the end of time and no one is going to change any minds.

Agreed on that, and like I've always said, I'm all for having the open-matte released alongside the matted version.

[David S.]

My question was mainly asked to see how people stand on fullscreen-animated segments that are part of meant-to-be-widescreen-no-matter-what live-action films.

And you can probably quess what my answer would be too

I've honestly never even thought about this before, and haven't seen Bedknobs for awhile or studied the ratios much, so I'm not that familiar with them. But now that I know the animation was done in open-matte...

If the live-action segments of Bedknobs were filmed in and protected for open-matte, I'd choose the entire film in open matte, if given that option. Although I would strongly support the original theatrical matted version should also be available for those who want it and would view that version from time to time to get the "best of both worlds". Because matted widescreen just doesn't bother me the same way in live action like it does in animation.

If the live-action was not filmed in open-matte, or not protected for open-matte, or deemed that it was just not going to be released with the live-action open-matte, I'd want the film to be widescreen (which on my display would be letterboxed) and then have the option via seemless branching to "open the mattes" during the animated sequence (such is the beauty of DVD that you won't have to stop the projector) or you could choose to continue the film with the animated sequence matted.

Choosing the open-matte branch of the animation would work smoothly on a fullscreen tv since it is the same shape as the academy film print and the characters would stay the same size, etc.

Unfortunately a widescreen tv would not be tall enough for this option to work as well, as branching from an anamorphic widescreen version of the live action to a fullscreen animated sequence (if this is even possible - I'm no tech expert) would not keep the proportion of the film in balance, as the animated sequence would be just in the center of the tv.

What is interesting to me is that Scott McQueen made a controversial decision like this to preserve the entire animated frame.

McQueen is certainly no hack or amateur but a well-respected professional, and if he took a stand like this that at least indicates to me that the desire to see/preserve the entire animated frame is a valid one, and not just silly fanboy wishes.

As much as we all got a good laugh out of your dart-throwing post regarding the aspect ratio of the 60's/70's DVDs, I also think it's possible that just as we are divided about what the "correct" or "intended" ratio is of the 60's/70's DACs, perhaps the producers and execs at BVHE also have different opinions, and that could be why about half turned out one way and half the other.

I think it is also possible that they were originally going to matte Sword on the re-release, (hence the originally quoted 1.66:1), but then maybe someone either had a change of heart, or looked at the comparison and felt the matted was too compromised.

It all comes back to choice though. Release those DACs in both ratios, and everyone's happy

Agreed on that, and like I've always said, I'm all for having the open-matte released alongside the matted version.

Good, hopefully there are no hard feelings, then

[AlwaysOAR]

Well the thing is, films like The Lion King and Aladdin were released in their "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.66:1, and Beauty and the Beast and the new version of The Little Mermaid were released in their "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.85(78):1.

Surely they were all shown in one format? What's with the inconsistency?

The Lion King, Aladdin, BatB & TLM were all animated at 1.66:1, but were released and framed for a 1.85:1 ratio. They were never released initially at 1.66:1. I don't know if in subsequent re-releases they were or not. After the Snow White false matting and Disney's overreacting by re-releasing the DAC's we've been debating about in the open-matte instead of their intended matted versions, it's possible they could have done the same stupid thing with these titles.

Actually, I believe all of the films after the DAC's we have been debating about have been animated in one ratio, and framed and projected in another ratio. Of course, there should be no debate on the intent of these, though I know you and DavidS. will want the animated ratio.

Escapay had a list of all the DACs, in another thread I don't remember at this time which, showing all of their animated ratios and their framed and projected ratios. I don't know if he has a list also of the Disney live action films and the Pixar ones. I know I'd be interested to see those as well.

[AlwaysOAR]

As for Theatrical vs Extended/Director's Cuts - absolutely. I always want the theatrical cut first and foremost. Something I have stated many times on this forum. This is mainly because when you read about the reception and criticism of a film, it is referring to the theatrical cut, so I think its vital that you can view the theatrical cut to see if you agree or disagree with the criticisms.

I completely agree with you here. After all, Han shot first! I do however like to have all of the deleted scenes and/or an extended cut with those scenes in them to have alongside the original theatrical cut. I don't at this time own any movies made after 2003, I wait at least 5 years, due to the inevitable double and triple dipping that will take place. Because you know the studios will release after the initial release, a special edition, then extended edition, and so on. It's less frustrating and cheaper this way to just wait.

[AlwaysOAR]

Agreed on that, and like I've always said, I'm all for having the open-matte released alongside the matted version.

Good, hopefully there are no hard feelings, then

None at all. When doing these posts, it may sometimes seem that way, the whole lost-in-translation thing, and I'm better at debating in person. I just get impatient typing and don't get down everything I want to put down half the time.

[David S.]

Actually, I believe all of the films after the DAC's we have been debating about have been animated in one ratio, and framed and projected in another ratio. Of course, there should be no debate on the intent of these, though I know you and DavidS. will want the animated ratio.

The debate would still follow along the same lines as the 60's/70's titles, just with different ratios

But as the theatrical framing is less imporant to me than what the animators took the time to draw and put on the frame, I would still want the 1.66:1, of course. And I'd be saying that the 1.66:1 was also "intended" to be seen, because why would they bother to animate in areas that they knew would get chopped off?

But please lets not go there, because we all know each others views and we'll just end up talking in circles again.

Oh, and I think drfsupercenter's point was that on the packaging for the CAPs films, sometimes the 1.66:1 is listed as the "original aspect ratio" and sometimes the 1.85:1 is listed. I guess it depends of if the producers of the given DVD feel that the full animation frame is the most important thing, or the theatrical cropping, but both are valid for different reasons and depending on the individual's point of view.

PS.

I though of another example where the "intended" version of a film is not the original theatrical version - George Lucas has emphatically stated repeatedly that his "intended" versions of Star Wars IV, V, and VI are the special editions modified years later, and not the original theatrical cuts. But of course, the fans have the right to prefer either version.

EDIT - I see you referenced Star Wars above - I honestly didn't see that when I wrote this! (I was typing the first part of this post)

I don't at this time own any movies made after 2003, I wait at least 5 years, due to the inevitable double and triple dipping that will take place. Because you know the studios will release after the initial release, a special edition, then extended edition, and so on. It's less frustrating and cheaper this way to just wait.

And I tend to wait awhile to buy new movies also, to avoid the double-dip traps. Of course, since the majority of my interest are "catalogue" titles anyway, I always have a lot on my "buy" list to keep me occupied and don't mind waiting.

For example, Cars and Ratatouille. LOVED 'em in theatres, and even saw each twice! But I don't want to get burned on the bare-bones single disc versions, especially given the established Pixar precedent of releasing solid 2-disc sets. So I'll record them when they come on television and watch that version until the more substantial DVD comes out down the road. If they NEVER release a better version, I guess I'll eventually relent and get the single disc, because I love these movies, but always take a methodical "wait and see" approach in an attempt to buy each title just once on DVD. If the studios were more forthright and less sneaky, they'd get more of my money upfront!

None at all. When doing these posts, it may sometimes seem that way, the whole lost-in-translation thing, and I'm better at debating in person. I just get impatient typing and don't get down everything I want to put down half the time.

Interesting where you said you are better at debating in person. I feel that I express myself better in writing than any other way, I guess because that's my background and also I'm more shy in person! For what it's worth, you expressed yourself well and made your points clearly.

[disneyfella]

I just went through a handful of my Disney DVDs to check out what the box says about their aspect ratios. They have a handful of stock phrases that include:

Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio
Original Created Aspect Ratio
Widescreen
Fullscreen
Family Friendly Widescreen
etc.

The Lion King, for example, is framed on its Platinum DVD release as 1.66:1 and it is stated as "original created aspect ratio". This leads me to believe that this is NOT the original theatrical aspect ratio, but simply the open matte CAPS image.

The Aristocats, on the other hand, is framed for 1.75:1 on it's reissue DVD release and it has the label "original theatrical aspect ratio" on the box.

Beauty and the Beast also has the statement "original theatrical aspect ratio" and it is matted to 1.85:1.

Mulan, on the other hand, is 1.66:1 on it's 2 disc special edition and labeled as "family friendly widescreen". Which also leads me to believe that this is an open matte CAPS image and not the theatrical aspect ratio, or simply a random misframing.

Also, there are several films that are simply labeled as widescreen or fullscreen without any explanation as to where the image was coming from or why the framing was chosen for the DVD (i.e. Robin Hood, The Jungle Book, The Fox and the Hound, 101 Dalmatians, etc.). This doesn't mean that their presentation isn't the original theatrical ratio, or the open matte prints.....we just have absolutely NO clue as to what they are, though.

My ultimate conclusion is that Disney is completely inconsistent with their releases. They release neither original theatrical aspect ratio consistently nor open matte full frame ratio consistently. Often the DVD could be misframed and neither camp is appeased, and we have no indication if it is open matte, original theatrical aspect ratio, or just simply a framing chosen at random because Disney wants to appease a "widescreen" or "fullscreen" tv crowd.

I'm researching Disney films from the 1980s, and as I go through some of this stuff I'd like to eventually compile a list of original aspect ratios, and attached short subjects/featurettes with each release (including subsequent reissues. It appears that this information has never been compiled anywhere. I've only ordered a few press releases ("Baby...Secret of the Lost Legend", "Trenchcoat", etc.) and as they come in I'll see if they carry any of this information in them. If so, then at least I have a starting point where I can go for this. Does anyone else have any ideas on where to start compiling this kind of information?