DVDizzy Forum

All the scenes these came from were stationary camera shots that didn't pan up/down/left/right.

Anyway, I was just using them to prove that there's always extra image made that's not always intended to be seen, regardless if it's captured on film (like SB due to its Technirama process or the Academy-drawn 60s/70s DACs) or not. Plus, even the film zooms in on the cel. Look at the first one with Snow White at the well. Half a bucket, a side of the vine, and much of the actual well is lost, and the vine is in the foreground with the character. Plus, it provides a sense of irony for many of the "I want all that's drawn!" fans, as the film doesn't provide all that's drawn, just all that's intentionally shot and framed (and in the case of the 60s/70s DACs, all that's framed for matting).

albert

Look, it's common sense that any framing of almost any visual has a little leeway on all sides. Most physical pictures when framed have the frame physically blocking off some of the image. Artwork on full-bleed pages of books is larger than the final cut page. etc.

So yes, I'm sure all animated films were made with some picture information being "lost" to the sides and/or top/bottom. But it doesn't mean it was ever intended to be shown.

Perhaps the artists went to the trouble of creating the extra imagery just so when it came to actually photographing the scene, there was a little leeway in the choice of composition actually exposed to film?

To claim that Walt wanted the full 2.55 ratio to be seen is stupid, it really is. It was made with the technology of the time, with the limits and/or working of the technology fully understood, especially as it was (presumably) started after tests from Lady and the Tramp were complete and viewed. Walt may be considered magical by some people, but even he can't magic away the laws of physics!

The only way to get a 2.55 ratio would be to matte the top and bottom of the image. Something Walt didn't do, and I'm pretty sure if you could look at and read all the background notes and meeting information, this option was never even brought up.

I'm against this new framing, because I think that ultimately it's pointless. Has anyone ever complained about Sleeping Beauty looking cramped even once in its 50 years of existence? Has anyone ever watched it thinking "I wish I could see a little more of the tree to the left of the frame?" Of course not.

It's just another symptom, along with (mostly) pointless extended/unrated/director's cuts where people automatically assume "more equals better".

What equals better my friends, it what the creators KNEW you were going to see - even if the creators at the time were working within constrained limits imposed on them by the technology at the time.

Isn't it amazing how the vast majority of films today have less imagination - less soul even - than films made in simpler times. The original Alien still stands head and shoulders above any of it's sequels. For all Lucas' CGI obsession, the original Star Wars trilogy (crude effects or not) is infinitely more watchable than the prequel trilogy. Countless remakes (The Haunting, The Invasion, Alfie, Bedazzled etc) are inferior to the originals. And to date, no Hollywood remake of a J-Horror title has even come close to matching the (often lower budgeted) original.

It's not the effects or about scraping out every little fraction of unexposed content. Its about how the film makes you FEEL.

[Disclaimer: The following sentence was posted to stir-the-pot]
Regardless of the framing, the film's still boring, has little plot and is populated by shadows of real characters, motives and emotions.

netty wrote:Look, it's common sense that any framing of almost any visual has a little leeway on all sides. Most physical pictures when framed have the frame physically blocking off some of the image. Artwork on full-bleed pages of books is larger than the final cut page. etc.

So yes, I'm sure all animated films were made with some picture information being "lost" to the sides and/or top/bottom. But it doesn't mean it was ever intended to be shown.

Perhaps the artists went to the trouble of creating the extra imagery just so when it came to actually photographing the scene, there was a little leeway in the choice of composition actually exposed to film?

Which is exactly why I posted the caps from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Why, the third cap alone (with the dwarfs around the bed being cut off) shows that extra image was drawn but not necessarily used.

netty wrote:To claim that Walt wanted the full 2.55 ratio to be seen is stupid, it really is. It was made with the technology of the time, with the limits and/or working of the technology fully understood, especially as it was (presumably) started after tests from Lady and the Tramp were complete and viewed. Walt may be considered magical by some people, but even he can't magic away the laws of physics!

Strangely enough, his name seems to magic away common sense at times, especially on fan forums.

netty wrote:I'm against this new framing, because I think that ultimately it's pointless. Has anyone ever complained about Sleeping Beauty looking cramped even once in its 50 years of existence? Has anyone ever watched it thinking "I wish I could see a little more of the tree to the left of the frame?" Of course not.

Ditto. 50 years ago, the filmmakers knew they'd be making the thing for theatres, and knew that it'd be shot on a certain film and projected at a certain ratio. Who are we to suddenly say "oh wait, we 'found' more image, this is what they really wanted to be seen!" It's one reason why I'm so adamant for matted theatrical ratios of the 60s/70s films. Too many people only know it as an open-matte VHS or laserdisc and conveniently forget or purposely ignore the fact that they were made for theatres, during a time when it was cheaper to simply shoot Academy and matte in theatres.

netty wrote:What equals better my friends, it what the creators KNEW you were going to see - even if the creators at the time were working within constrained limits imposed on them by the technology at the time.

And yet a lot of people seem to throw that idea out the window when it comes to the 60s/70s DACs, which are animated Academy and matted Theatrically.

netty wrote:Isn't it amazing how the vast majority of films today have less imagination - less soul even - than films made in simpler times.

I always thought that Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day has a lot of soul to it, and comes off as something that could have easily been made as a romcom in the 40s (as it nearly was) or 50s. Of course, if it was made back then, we wouldn't have those gorgeous shots of Amy Adams with just a towel, or the remarkable chemistry between Amy Adams and Lee Pace.

(Then again, if it were made in the 40s/50s, it might have easily been remade into the film we have today!)

netty wrote:The original Alien still stands head and shoulders above any of it's sequels.

Definitely agree there. As much as I enjoy the Alien franchise (in all its downhill glory) I couldn't bring myself to even watch AVP or AVPR after seeing their trailers. And apparently I wasn't missing much anyway. Aliens functioned well, though, because you only saw the aliens when you needed to, not just to show off the new animatronic or CGI (like in Alien Resurrection). And Alien 3 is still an anomaly to me that requires further viewing and study.

netty wrote:And to date, no Hollywood remake of a J-Horror title has even come close to matching the (often lower budgeted) original.

I will never understand Hollywood's fascination with remaking J-Horror (most of which, I never really understand their appeal, then again, I'm not one for horror films anyway.)\

netty wrote:[Disclaimer: The following sentence was posted to stir-the-pot]
Regardless of the framing, the film's still boring, has little plot and is populated by shadows of real characters, motives and emotions.

albert

2099net wrote:[Disclaimer: The following sentence was posted to stir-the-pot]
Regardless of the framing, the film's still boring, has little plot and is populated by shadows of real characters, motives and emotions.

that is so true. Sleeping Beauty may be visually stunning, but its story is and always will be way below par when it comes to films from Walt's era.

Snow White was a logical choice for the DVD debut back in 2001 (well 2-disc debut) In my opinion, either Pinocchio or Beauty and the Beast would have been a perfect Blu-Ray debut. Because they are not only popular films, but probaply the most critically acclaimed two films Disney ever made. They are both arguably even better than Snow White.

Sleeping Beauty, beautiful as it is, always ends up letting me down a bit when I watch it.

Netty wrote:[Disclaimer: The following sentence was posted to stir-the-pot]
Regardless of the framing, the film's still boring, has little plot and is populated by shadows of real characters, motives and emotions.

I find it funny that you mentioned that because as a kid Sleeping Beauty always fascinated and held my attention, while I found Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin to be boring and rather "eh" to me. And this is coming from someone who had ADD as a kid.

I think the main reason why Sleeping Beauty resonates so much with audiences is that the story is like the definition of a classic fairy tale: beautiful princess, handsome prince, fairies, an evil villain, and a dragon. And while a few said they found the story to be weak, I only ever really found it to be boring in th middle of film with the fairies in the cottage. The ending and the story points added such as the capture of Phillip I think pace the story really well together in the third act and contribute to the story, while scenes of the mice in Cinderella I felt were a tad extraneous and went on for too long. Also, granted Aurora and Maleficent could be added a bit more depth to them, I feel the movie makes up for it in the characterization of the fairies and how much emotion we see their characters go through. And while Phillip isn't as heavily defined as a character of say Aladdin or Hercules, he makes a more amiable and well rounded hero for the story rather than the previous Charmings.

For me personally, I never got the huge appeal of Bambi and Jungle Book. I thought Jungle Book was the weakest of the Walt era films in how thin the plot was. Granted I think it has wonderful character animation and personalites, but the plot of the film is so incredibly thin to me since it's just all about taking Mowgli back to the man village, it just quickly loses my interest. And while Bambi has gorgeous animation, to me it felt a bit unbalanced. All the characters in the beginning and most of the film are played up so overly nauseatingly cute for me that when a serious moment comes along like the forest fire, it just seems so depressing and out of place for that kind of story. I know there are people on these boards who love these two films, and more power to them for really liking them. But they just personally never caught my attention or appeal with me, like how Sleeping Beauty doesn't with others. I think it's just all matter of what you look for in an animated film and what attracts you.

Esteemed motion picture archivist Robert Harris had this to say about <i>Sleeping Beauty's</i> aspect ratio in response to my private email:

Robert Harris wrote:I'll be posting an interview / Q & A with the archivist in charge of the project shortly before release, and yes, <b>2.55 is correct as that was the aspect ratio when the project began</b>.

<b>Prints were all cropped in initial release to either 2.35 or 2.21.</b>

As for the ongoing confusion regarding the BD audio specs---BVHE's email reply says that

according to our records and sources, the upcoming Blu-ray release of Sleeping Beauty will contain a <b>7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio </b>(48kHz/24-bit) track.

^I personally think everyone's beloved Peter Pan is way below par in terms of story within Walt's era.

But I also personally think that Walt's own era of animation wasn't necessarily about plot, but about characters (a great example of this is The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland), which is why I think his movies really stand the test of time, as they are restraint by storylines that only appeal to their initial audience.

Having said that, I still think Sleeping Beauty was magnificently written and deals with quite complex plot mechanics which may not be so obvious at first. For example, compare Maleficent's attack on Aurora compared to The Queen's on Snow White. In SB, the antagonist had to search for her for 16 years, and only succeeds due to the fault of the fairies being caught up in their own personal endeavors (getting their favorite color on the dress). She hypnotizes her but realizes that it's not over yet, and must find her true love and capture him as well. She does so, and taunts him through brilliantly cruel fairytale ending that "yes, true love will conquer all - except he'll have aged horribly". To me, this was a nod that the animators were aware of the criticisms of unrealistic fairytales, but chose to give the film a "happily ever after" inspite of such criticisms, commenting that it's what these endings promote are whats important, not their realistic likeliness.

Meanwhile the three good fairies sum up their courage and confronted the evil witch whom from the beginning of the movie, accepted that they were no match to her. Now compare this to what happens in Snow White. The Queen realizes Snow White is still alive, puts on a disguise (and in the process, loses all her beauty), and poisons her with an apple. Then is chased away by the Dwarfs and dies. And somehow both these movies that similar runtimes.

Now I'm not saying that Snow White had a horrible plot - it was brilliant despite the limitations of its time and lack of experience of its animators. Rather I'm arguing that Sleeping Beauty's plot is not as simple as it seems, which can be seen when comparing to the other oh-so-highly-regarded Disney films.

Sleeping Beauty Platinum Edition Sweepstakes:
http://disney.eprize.net/movierewardsiw ... F2B7D61%7d
Grand prize:
One night in Disneyland Dream Suite and 2 nights at a Disneyland hotle.
Other priezes:
Sleeping Beauty Talking Vainty Kit.
Horse toy.
Enchanted Call (How original!).
Magic Fairy Light Sleeping Beauty doll.
Some Aurora Enchanted Tale doll.
Those prizes sucks,only the grand one and the Magic Fairy Light doll seems the only things that worth it.
So that mean no video game? if there won't be one,it will be odd and stupid .
Anyway the Enchanted Tale sweepstakes were much better.

PatrickvD wrote:

2099net wrote:[Disclaimer: The following sentence was posted to stir-the-pot]
In my opinion, either Pinocchio or Beauty and the Beast would have been a perfect Blu-Ray debut. Because they are not only popular films, but probaply the most critically acclaimed two films Disney ever made.

exactly. took the words right out of my mouth. not only are both visually stunning but they are both the best written, best scored, and the best recieved of all Disney movies. I have read multiple reviews where people have called Pinocchio a perfect film. And Beauty and the Beast is probably the best fairy tale ever made. It's a story with a real heart to it. I'm very surprised still that Sleeping Beauty was chosen. I mean I love it and all but the story is so bland that a lot of people do not like it. It bores me even sometimes. If it were not gorgeous to look at no one would care for in my opinion.

Yup, merlinjones, you can't say "that's just a fact" when, if you watched the film, you would see those shots did not pan and the camera didn't move at all.

THANKS for posting those pictures, Escapay. Okay, now, I know, really, I know the artists didn't intend for audiences to see all that work while watching the film, and that the way it was meant to be seen should be available to audiences first and foremost.

BUT I really, really, really want to see all that I can, because unlike Sleeping Beauty, I really do feel like the Academy Ratio films are cramped, sometimes.

There was this bonus feature that said that widescreen is the best way to view movies because that's how our eyes work. I guess that means our field of vision can see a lot on the left and right, and maybe our eyes focus more on the middle, but at least our eyes can move more to left or more to the right.

That the Academy Ratio films miss out on this better way of watching a movie is a shame.

IN FACT...what if, had the artists had the technology at the time, and knew everything that they did from around Sleeping Beauty's time, they would have made all their films widescreen?! I bet it's possible. Yes, I know that Lady and the Tramp was widescreen, then they went back to Academy Ratio, then Sleeping Beauty and all the rest were widescreen.

BUT honestly, money was probably a factor, if not the factor. Remember how expensive Sleeping Beauty was? And the films after that were animated in the Academy Ratio, then matted to look like widescreen. The cheap way.

And since everyone talks about how a film makes us feel...well, I feel some of my favorite films are a little cramped and I'm missing something.

Aaaand...The Ring was an excellent remake of Ringu. Really, it was. If it had less soul, whatever, it was still good. It's popularity is a testament.

Speaking of popularity, that's the thing. Sleeping Beauty wasn't popular, I don't know how it did critically, I'm pretty sure it wasn't reviewed as well as the films I'm about to mention, but Snow White, Cinderella, Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin all were popular, and even critically, too, I think. Maybe even Pinocchio.

If a film is popular, that doesn't make it better than another film, that's true. But obviously these films have something Sleeping Beauty doesn't. If Sleeping Beauty just lacks their humour and slapstick and warmness and well developed lead characters, that's what it is. Also, I suppose part of the trouble was that the most developed characters, the best done characters, are the fairies, and they're looked at as sidekicks compared to Aurora, Phillip, and Maleficent. But the fairies are the real leads and the real heroes. I don't know how best to explain it, but I would say the princess, prince, and villain are the leads, heroes, and heroines in title, but the fairies are the leads and heroes in actuality.

Fflewduur wrote:Esteemed motion picture archivist Robert Harris had this to say about Sleeping Beauty's aspect ratio in response to my private email:

Robert Harris wrote:I'll be posting an interview / Q & A with the archivist in charge of the project shortly before release, and yes, 2.55 is correct as that was the aspect ratio when the project began.

Prints were all cropped in initial release to either 2.35 or 2.21.

I've got a great deal of respect for Mr. Harris (his "Yellow Layer Failure" columns at TheDigitalBits are must-reads and his restorations are quite amazing), so I'm looking forward to this interview as it may hopefully put a nail in the coffin regarding the aspect ratio. After all, Walt was always about presentation, so if 2.55:1 is the alleged OAR and was always when the project began, he would have found a way to preserve that ratio for film prints that would be used in the theatrical release. The fact that he didn't shows two things:
1. 2.55:1 still is not the intended OAR despite being the animated OAR (on a silent film without the optical soundtrack, so on the final film it'd be cropped slightly anyway to make room for the soundtrack).
2. Walt had to compromise and do the 2.35:1 or 2.21:1 ratios instead.

I'm inclined to believe the first, and hope that that's what the interview uncovers. In a perfect world, when Mr. Harris interviews SB's restoration person, he'll explain that the team wanted wanted to preserve the animated frame (since that's what most animation enthusiasts are gung-ho for), and actually admit up front that it's not the intended theatrical frame.

Mike wrote:THANKS for posting those pictures, Escapay.

No problem.

Mike wrote:BUT I really, really, really want to see all that I can, because unlike Sleeping Beauty, I really do feel like the Academy Ratio films are cramped, sometimes.

Most Academy films look cramped, because that was the method used in filmmaking in those days. After all, they are working with a square-ish size and have only-so-much-room to show however many people needed. But at the same time, you'll have gorgeous shots found in stuff like How Green Was My Valley or Singin' in the Rain that are quite expansive (one sequence during Broadway Ballet comes to mind). The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, despite its staginess (as is often found in a lot of early films) has very good sequences that are not cramped at all. And there's always the unique "kaleidoscope" camera angles in a Busy Berkeley film.

Mike wrote:There was this bonus feature that said that widescreen is the best way to view movies because that's how our eyes work. I guess that means our field of vision can see a lot on the left and right, and maybe our eyes focus more on the middle, but at least our eyes can move more to left or more to the right.

I have a feeling I saw that feature before, and if I'm remembering correctly, it was one of the Todd-AO features from the two-disc Oklahoma! set, as it was explaining how the human's field of vision is a certain amount of degrees, and that methods like Cinerama, Todd-AO, etc. replicates that with its curved screen. IIRC, the field of vision for a Todd-AO film was larger than for CinemaScope, which is why some directors preferred the Todd-AO format (though it wasn't used as often as the cheaper CinemaScope).

Mike wrote:That the Academy Ratio films miss out on this better way of watching a movie is a shame.

IN FACT...what if, had the artists had the technology at the time, and knew everything that they did from around Sleeping Beauty's time, they would have made all their films widescreen?! I bet it's possible. Yes, I know that Lady and the Tramp was widescreen, then they went back to Academy Ratio, then Sleeping Beauty and all the rest were widescreen.

Widescreen dates back to the late 1920s, actually. It was mostly experimental (look up Napoleon or The Big Trail), and when the Academy ratio was standardized, became one of those blips in the Hollywood history book until 1952's This is Cinerama, the first big widescreen film that used the three-camera Cinerama process (which would be used on a few more travelogue films, as well as in The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm and How the West Was Won, before a single-camera process was created). Its popularity caused Hollywood to start developing widescreen again, as the popularity of TV necessitated them to find new ways to bring the audience back.

I wish I could say more, but I'm actually about 15 minutes late for class, so I'll get back to this post later!

albert

The funny thing is Scaps, How the West Was Won was made after the development of Todd-AO and could have been shot with a single camera process. I don't know the reason why they chose 3 camera Cinemrama but it could be that Todd-AO is 2.20:1 vs Cinerama which is 2.89:1 (As as side note I bought HtWWW on Blu-ray yesterday and it looks AMAZING).

Wire Hanger wrote:The funny thing is Scaps, How the West Was Won was made after the development of Todd-AO and could have been shot with a single camera process.

Yes, but MGM and Cinerama made a deal to co-produce HTWWW and TWWOBG, which is why they were done in three-camera Cinerama rather than Todd-AO. Cinerama wanted to get into the game of feature films (instead of travelogues) and so they partnered up with MGM.

Wire Hanger wrote:(As as side note I bought HtWWW on Blu-ray yesterday and it looks AMAZING).

(I'm crying because you get to experience the joy and splendour of HtWWW not only in its 2.89:1 ratio, but on Blu-Ray, while I'm still stuck with the old DVD that's an unrestored and non-anamorphic 2.35:1 print)

Anyway, my class is over (obviously), so I can address the rest of Mike's post...

Mike wrote:And the films after that were animated in the Academy Ratio, then matted to look like widescreen. The cheap way.

By the 1960s and the box-office failure of Sleeping Beauty, they knew they had to cut costs. Thus, Academy-animated films matted in widescreen. One of the most notable examples of economics forcing Disney to compromise. Plus, by the 1960s he wasn't as invested in the animated films as he was in the live-action ones and the theme park. So that's likely another reason they went the "cheap way". It wasn't a big pet project for him anymore.

Mike wrote:Sleeping Beauty wasn't popular, I don't know how it did critically, I'm pretty sure it wasn't reviewed as well

IIRC, many music critics hated Disney's re-arrangement of the Tchaikovsky score, and most critics felt cold towards the film (as the film itself is rather cold).

albert

OK OK, I'm a little lost here...

Did Disney change Sleeping Beauty's aspect ratio for the Blu-ray release or are we just discussing aspect ratios for the hell of it?

Yes, they did.

comparison

It looks like Disney's bringing the soundtrack CD back into print.

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Beauty-O ... 191&sr=1-5

Unlike Reyquila, I'm not buying. I have the original "Classic Soundtrack Series" release (Although it doesn't actually say "Classic Soundtrack Series" on it, but the artwork is in the same style of that line.) and they're not adding anything new to the new CD, so I'll just stick with that one.

If only Disney could have done the same for 101 Dalmatians. (Although I recently stumbled upon that CD too. That one DOES say "Classic Soundtrack Series" on it.)

Escapay, I saw that bonus feature on a Disney DVD, and I bet it was, because it's widescreen, Sleeping Beauty's DVD. That info about our eyes isn't known only by one studio!

You're right that they had to be cheap because of Sleeping Beauty's cost. By the way, the film actually made a lot of moolah, just 1 million short of the production cost, but that was because it was much more expensive than a usual Disney film! That reminds me...I take it back PhillipFan, Sleeping Beauty may have been popular after all, and all that stuff about the other films having something Sleeping Beauty didn't doesn't count. Though, I would revel in the fact that, whether it lacks something they don't, has something they don't, or is just different from them, Sleeping Beauty is unique among Disney films, and not just in stylization.

But anyway, just because they had to be cheap doesn't take away from the fact that they only achieved widescreen for many films afterward the cheaper way. I think if Disney had the money, and it was popular at the time, and they knew about the way our eyes worked, and they had the time, they very possibly would have made the Academy Ratio films widescreen.

So getting in extra picture ain't such a bad thing.

Escapay wrote:

Mike wrote:Sleeping Beauty wasn't popular, I don't know how it did critically, I'm pretty sure it wasn't reviewed as well

IIRC, many music critics hated Disney's re-arrangement of the Tchaikovsky score, and most critics felt cold towards the film (as the film itself is rather cold).

You know, I was watching some clips of the ballet, and while delighting in the fact it seemed Disney borrowed even more than I thought, what with the evil fairy having minions of her own, like the goons, and pantomiming that the princess would grow up, be beautiful, graceful, and sing well...I liked the score better in the places where it was in the ballet! Then again, there was no dragon fight, so the dramatic music may add alot to mere dancing, but pale in comparison to a huge action scene. But the score was still brilliant for most of the movie, I just think the three clips I saw used the music better than the movie did with those same pieces of music.

this may have already been discussed, but i'm not going to look through all 60+ pages... but i just saw that the blu-ray version is going to include a DVD with the film on it as well? i think that's awesome, since i only have blu-ray at my dad's house but spend more time at my mom's. sweeeeett.

Thank for the cover, looks great!
Where did you get it?