The Fox and the Hound: 25th Anniversary Ed. DVD - Fact Sheet

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:39 am

disneyfella wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong (I'll have to go home and check my DVD now...), but wasn't the original theatrical trailer on the GC DVD of F&TH?

You just gave me an idea...To anyone who owns the Gold Classic disc, is the trailer shown in widescreen? If it is, do you think you could take screencaps and compare it with the same shots in the film itself? Maybe that could help a bit with this mystery...

Pasta67 · Post by **Pasta67** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:59 am

Aren't most theatrical/re-release trailers presented in pan-&-scan on Disney DVDs, though? Aladdin's trailer was, so was The Emperor's New Groove's, and they were both filmed in 1.66:1. If TF&tH's re-release trailer is in fullscreen, then we still won't be entirely certain.

But I suppose it would be a start...

BATBfan1 · Post by **BATBfan1** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:58 pm

ichabod wrote: I'm glad Bambi didn't have a music video, and it prefer it if none of them did. i find them such a complete waste of space!

What would you have had? Hilary Duff singing "Drip Drip Drop Little talentless tween star"?

Not all are a waste! Some are really annoying but we've had some good ones. Jessica Simpson and her Ex did a nice job for the rendition of A Whole New World. Steve Tyrell did a nice classy version of Bella Notte. Baby Mine performed by Jim Brickman and Kassie DePaiva was great as well, etc. You get the idea.

MichaeLeah · Post by **MichaeLeah** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:25 pm

boiiinng wrote:
I checked it in Photoshop. It's 1.66:1 exactly.

I find your observation very interesting. Can you share a little bit more of the details of how you discovered the ratio of the picture on the screen. I think you might have reached a conclusion for us on a very old mystery. Can you tell us a little more please about the process you used with Photoshop to reach your conclusion?

By the way, welcome to UD.

MouseHouse55 · Post by **MouseHouse55** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:26 pm

Hey. Sorry, too many posts to determine if there was ever a definite answer as to the original aspect ratio of Fox and the Hound, so I thought I'd post what I found. According to IMDB, the movie was intended for 1:75:1 and shown in 1:66:1. Either way, it's in widescreen, despite the way it has been chosen to be shown. Frankly, disappointing is a vast understatement if the anniversary edition, which should pay homage to the film, is modified in any way; especially in a way that cuts off 30% of the film itself. In my opinion, of course.

Pasta67 · Post by **Pasta67** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:49 pm

Keep in mind that IMDB is about as reliable as a barefooted jackrabbit in the middle of August with a tan.

........

They're not reliable.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:27 pm

Disneykid wrote:
disneyfella wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong (I'll have to go home and check my DVD now...), but wasn't the original theatrical trailer on the GC DVD of F&TH?
You just gave me an idea...To anyone who owns the Gold Classic disc, is the trailer shown in widescreen? If it is, do you think you could take screencaps and compare it with the same shots in the film itself? Maybe that could help a bit with this mystery...

The (1988 re-release) trailer is in fullscreen, but I don't have screencap capabilities...

Escapay

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:30 am

MouseHouse55 wrote:Hey. Sorry, too many posts to determine if there was ever a definite answer as to the original aspect ratio of Fox and the Hound, so I thought I'd post what I found. According to IMDB, the movie was intended for 1:75:1 and shown in 1:66:1. Either way, it's in widescreen, despite the way it has been chosen to be shown. Frankly, disappointing is a vast understatement if the anniversary edition, which should pay homage to the film, is modified in any way; especially in a way that cuts off 30% of the film itself. In my opinion, of course.

It won't be cutting off any of the image, as it is being presented OPEN MATTE rather than Pan and Scan.

Billy Moon · Post by **Billy Moon** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:41 am

If the film was shot in 1.66:1 and is presented on DVD 1.33:1, how can it be open matte?

I double checked the screenshot in photoshop and I got 1.56:1, but the image is a little skewed, so it is actually a bit wider. I think it is safe to assume that the 1.66.1 AR is correct. Thus the DVD is definately pan&scan.

ichabod · Post by **ichabod** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:20 am

Billy Moon wrote:If the film was shot in 1.66:1 and is presented on DVD 1.33:1, how can it be open matte?

The film could have been shot in 1.33:1 (open matte as was the Disney animation tendencacy) and cropped to be presented in 1.66:1.

ichabod · Post by **ichabod** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:42 am

BATBFan1 wrote:
Not all are a waste! Some are really annoying but we've had some good ones. Jessica Simpson and her Ex did a nice job for the rendition of A Whole New World.

That was the worst! and 72% of people are in agreement
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 9108#79108

I hate to sound grumpy but it really ticks me off that Disney put out a 2 disc SE of Bambi, fantastic restoration, lovely rich colours, an amazingly innovative feature playing walt's story meetings with concpet art alongside the film. An hour long documentary, deleted scenes, galleries, an excerpt from Tricks of the trade, a piece about the film's restoration, trailers and a piece inside the archives where Andreas Deja looks at the original artwork.

Not to mention the film itself is amazing.

And yet regardless of all the amazing stuff here, just because it didn't have Smiley McTweenStar murdering something from the soundtrack you say "We were cheated with the Bambi release"!

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:33 am

But after all this confusion, is there yet, a CONFIRMATION from Disney of how F&H is going to look on DVD? (OAS/Pan&Scan)

BATBfan1 · Post by **BATBfan1** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:42 am

ichabod wrote:
BATBFan1 wrote:
Not all are a waste! Some are really annoying but we've had some good ones. Jessica Simpson and her Ex did a nice job for the rendition of A Whole New World.
That was the worst! and 72% of people are in agreement
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 9108#79108

I hate to sound grumpy but it really ticks me off that Disney put out a 2 disc SE of Bambi, fantastic restoration, lovely rich colours, an amazingly innovative feature playing walt's story meetings with concpet art alongside the film. An hour long documentary, deleted scenes, galleries, an excerpt from Tricks of the trade, a piece about the film's restoration, trailers and a piece inside the archives where Andreas Deja looks at the original artwork.

Not to mention the film itself is amazing.

And yet regardless of all the amazing stuff here, just because it didn't have Smiley McTweenStar murdering something from the soundtrack you say "We were cheated with the Bambi release"!

That is a great "OPINION" by you, so that's fine.

On the other hand not everyone hates renditions to Disney songs. Yes, you do have the original to fall back on and ignore any rendition you want, that's fine with you.... BUT I am a fan of them. Like I said before, not all are bad and I find it cool that Disney remakes SOME not all SOME of there Classics.

Just like you I am intitled to my own opinion!

Lars Vermundsberget · Post by **Lars Vermundsberget** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:42 am

Billy Moon wrote:If the film was shot in 1.66:1 and is presented on DVD 1.33:1, how can it be open matte?

I double checked the screenshot in photoshop and I got 1.56:1, but the image is a little skewed, so it is actually a bit wider. I think it is safe to assume that the 1.66.1 AR is correct. Thus the DVD is definately pan&scan.

Is this so certain that it should be considered fact, not just an assumption? Honestly, I really don't know, but to me it doesn't seem typical for Disney to make a mistake like this with one of the "classics".

anger is pointless · Post by **anger is pointless** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:35 pm

why do they think we wanna see the fox and the hound in fullscreen when the movie is in widescreen

why cant they release a widescreen version and a full screen version then everyone will be happy

oh and hi lars i saw your post in the fox and the hound thread at the home theature forum

MichaeLeah · Post by **MichaeLeah** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:17 pm

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:
Billy Moon wrote:If the film was shot in 1.66:1 and is presented on DVD 1.33:1, how can it be open matte?

I double checked the screenshot in photoshop and I got 1.56:1, but the image is a little skewed, so it is actually a bit wider. I think it is safe to assume that the 1.66.1 AR is correct. Thus the DVD is definately pan&scan.
Is this so certain that it should be considered fact, not just an assumption? Honestly, I really don't know, but to me it doesn't seem typical for Disney to make a mistake like this with one of the "classics".

You are correct. This is still an assumption. I began this discussion on the screencap to examine the evidence. I figured it was evidence worth examination despite the fact it is impossible to draw an absolute positive conclusion.

You are also correct that it is not typical for Disney to make a mistake with one of its classics. However, it has long been considered that this was a possible exception. Luke has a rather long dissertation on the subject here. http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm In short, F&TH has many people perplexed because The Rescuers was released on DVD (and created) in 1.66:1. Furthermore, there is not enough space on the top and bottom of the frame for significant matting. It just seems very strange that Disney would create a 1.33:1 film as late as 1981.

Luke has not yet learned if this new DVD release will be released in 1.66:1 or 1.33:1. If the former occurs, there will be great rejoicing. If the latter occurs, the mystery will continue.

Pasta67 · Post by **Pasta67** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:43 pm

MichaeLeah wrote:Luke has not yet learned if this new DVD release will be released in 1.66:1 or 1.33:1. If the former occurs, there will be great rejoicing. If the latter occurs, the mystery will continue.

It's been confirmed for a while that the re-release will be in fullscreen. Not only has UD posted that news, but other sites as well.

anger is pointless wrote:why do they think we wanna see the fox and the hound in fullscreen when the movie is in widescreen

We don't know for sure if it's widescreen or not. That's what we've been talking about for the last three pages.

BATBfan1 · Post by **BATBfan1** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:46 pm

[quote="Pasta67"
It's been confirmed for a while that the re-release will be in fullscreen. Not only has UD posted that news, but other sites as well.[/quote]

I am gonna jump in on this conversation.

Hopefully if it is a open matted full screen then that wouldn't be to bad. If it is a pan & scan job, then yeah that would be bad lol.

But hey, didn't we have this conversation with BATB and TLM on the aspect ratios and what the directors want? If they want it to be in fullscreen so it shall?

Lars Vermundsberget · Post by **Lars Vermundsberget** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:09 am

BATBFan1 wrote:Hopefully if it is a open matted full screen then that wouldn't be to bad. If it is a pan & scan job, then yeah that would be bad lol.

Yes, that is the all-important difference - even though it would in either case be "full screen".

Lars Vermundsberget · Post by **Lars Vermundsberget** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:12 am

anger is pointless wrote:oh and hi lars i saw your post in the fox and the hound thread at the home theature forum

Yes, that was me - and I guess I said basically the same thing there.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

The Fox and the Hound: 25th Anniversary Ed. DVD - Fact Sheet

Aspect Ratio

Re: Aspect Ratio