DVDizzy Forum

Some people here need to realize the difference between personal tastes and what the filmmakers actually wanted. Movies are made for theaters, it's a simple fact the theatrical aspect ratio is what is meant to be seen and presented to an audience. You don't make a theatrical release for home video or TV especially if one didn't exist at the time of the films release. Don't bring up the argument about Disney re-issuing films pillarbox for theaters in the 90s from 101 Dalmatians on. Scott McQueen put out an unmatted laserdisc of Bedknobs and Broomsticks, because he wanted to preserve the animated frame of a 20 minute sequence. Does that make him right?

Just because a person happens to prefer seeing an unmated negative for a film doesn't make it right. There is only one correct ratio for a film, I'm not saying Disney has always given us the right ratio, but the theatrical ratio, in other words how it's going to look in a movie theater, is the way the film is meant to be seen. In the 60s no one made movies specifically in the academy ratio and wanted them presented in this way, it was a way of saving money and that's why Disney did it (unless you got a quote from the director and until you do I'm not listening to your personal opinion, your allowed to have it but don't act like it's the "right" one).

People have given facts on this thread before, including pictures, links and other such information providing information on how certain films are made and still some people believe that their personal opinion is still the right one.

The only thing that anyone seems to agree upon here is that for certain films more than one ratio should be put on the disc (like Don Bluth's The Secret of NIMH). This I agree with because it's an easy thing to do and it satisfies a person's curiosity (and should be treated as a bonus extra, not the main feature), however if one ratio is released than let it be what the filmmakers wanted. Even if that means putting out Hunchback in it's 1.85:1 form or The Aristocats in 1.75:1.

gregmasciola wrote:And when Escapay said that these movies weren't made for home video I think he meant that when they were made home video didn't even exist; not until the 80s.

True, but theatres who didn't matte did exist, and the films in question were "intended" to be seen in those theatres in their open-matte version, which was also the "intended" version for future tv airings and therefore arguably the eventual home video releases. And at least SOME people at Disney feel 1.33:1 is the "intended" theatrical ratio for these films, as that's how many of them were reissued to theatres in the 90's!

As for the laserdiscs, I was responding to the debate about whether wide tvs were the main reason these DACs in question were matted. And my point was, wide tvs didn't exist during the heyday of laserdiscs, or not in a very mainstream way, anyway. They do exist and are quite common now, and, that's why IMO we are getting matted versions of Jungle Book etc, now. If those tvs didn't exist, and EVERYONE was watching on 4:3 tvs, I'd be shocked if Disney would have cropped the films and inflicted black bars on the public knowing full well the bars were taking away more picture than they were adding!

I doubt they would have matted the films in a marketplace that consisted SOLELY of 4:3 tvs. The "intended ratio" purists may or may not make up the majority of die-hard film fans, but I would bet money that people willing to accept black bars knowing they are losing picture just to preserve "theatrical framing" are in the overwhelming minority of the public at large - considering most people prefer to fill their screen and avoid bars even if the bars would gain them more picture, they CERTAINLY wouldn't want the bars if they were COSTING them picture!

Don't bring up the argument about Disney re-issuing films pillarbox for theaters in the 90s from 101 Dalmatians on.

I'm with you on that one. A few years ago, some theatres in my area were showing some older Christmas movies on the big screen again. So my family and I went to see Christmas Vacation. Funny thing, though, because they were showing the open-matte version STRETCHED OUT accross the screen. I'm pretty sure that that wasn't the way the movie was originally intended to be seen.

Flanger-Hanger wrote: Just because a person happens to prefer seeing an unmated negative for a film doesn't make it right. There is only one correct ratio for a film, I'm not saying Disney has always given us the right ratio, but the theatrical ratio, in other words how it's going to look in a movie theater, is the way the film is meant to be seen. In the 60s no one made movies specifically in the academy ratio and wanted them presented in this way, it was a way of saving money and that's why Disney did it (unless you got a quote from the director and until you do I'm not listening to your personal opinion, your allowed to have it but don't act like it's the "right" one).

I NEVER said open-matte was the only "right" one, or the ONLY correct one. Just that there is no proof it isn't in certain cases, and that the animators would NOT have drawn the entire bloody frame if they didn't intend for this info to be seen by someone, somewhere, at some time. Since I now know that this info exists, and am used to seeing it on home video, I expect to see it, and have a right to want to, and I feel CHEATED if it is cropped from the release as it is part of the material created for the film.

Open matte IS right from a certain point of view, and that is, the point of view of wanting to see everything protected on the film print as the work of art, rather than the cropped version shown in theatres. It's not the way everyone looks at film, but that doesn't make it wrong, IMO. The film print IS the film, in my opinion, particularly with animation (you notice, I DID say opinion.)

You, however, are saying matting is the only correct version, and I strongly disagree with this. I will NEVER accept that the theatrical version is the only valid version of a film in all cases, or else director's cuts that only appear on home video should be considered garbage too, by that logic!

Or what about films like Shaggy Dog and Merlin Jones which were originally conceived, shot, and FRAMED for Walt's tv shows, and then changed their minds and released theatrically instead. They were cropped, er, matted in theatres, but they were filmed with 4:3 tvs in mind, so CLEARLY this matting wasn't INTENDED in the framing!

I hope all the people watching them matted on their 16:9s enjoy all the intended picture they aren't seeing

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
People have given facts on this thread before, including pictures, links and other such information providing information on how certain films are made and still some people believe that their personal opinion is still the right one.

Never said that it was the ONLY right one, just that it is A right one, from a certain point of view, (original frame ratio) and possibly it IS what the animators considered their primary "intended" ratio. Because even if it was, the blasted, bloody theatres would have matted the darn things anyway! (like with Shaggy Dog)

Flanger-Hanger wrote: Don't bring up the argument about Disney re-issuing films pillarbox for theaters in the 90s from 101 Dalmatians on.

I'll bring up what I please as long as it's on-topic, which it is, and doesn't break forum rules, which it doesn't!

And my point about the 90's theatrical reissues is that if Disney took the time to windowbox/letterbox these films within the film print to ensure an Academy theatrical rerelease, at least SOME people at Disney (and not just fans) feel the Academy ratio WAS the intended THEATRICAL ratio for these films. (and THEY would have access to what was "intended" more than us)

And as for Scott MacQueen - if the live-action sequences of Bedknobs were shot and protected for open matte - than I support his decision one hundred percent. We will have to agree to disagree. If someone like Scott MacQueen, a highly respected professional, took a stand like this, this tells me right there that this is NOT a black and white issue with ONLY one right way to view these films. Even some qualified professionals in the industry feel like seeing the entire animated frame is a valid way to present animation.

Are you F*****G KIDDING ME? That is probably the stupidest theory I've heard regarding why The Jungle Book finally got a theatrical ratio release.

I'm willing to believe that new-to-widescreen-so-they-don't-know-anything-about-film-ratios-and-how-they're-chosen HDTV buyers are one reason why Disney suddenly decided, "Hey, we should finally release the theatrical version, the TV fits it now!". But I'm certainly not going to believe it's the only reason.

Well, I'll use a different example. Pokémon movies 4-7
Why only 4-7? Because those were the only ones released by Miramax, and therefore those are the only ones that are released by Disney.

All the Pokémon movies were made in 16:9 widescreen... (Some may have been 1.85, though the exact numbers don't matter), not open-matte, but actual widescreen. In Japan (The country they were originally created in), all the DVDs are widescreen.
In America, though, the Pokémon movies are all 4:3. But why? The first 5 movies were shown in theaters, and of course, they were widescreen. Since it's not open-matte, the way these DVDs are made 4:3 is a pan-and-scan. And it's the ONLY way you can buy Pokémon movies in America! Now, what reason would they have to release a 100% widescreen movie (with no disputed OAR) in 4:3? I'll tell you why. Because Pokémon is aimed mainly at children, and there are those all-too-common people who think their TVs are broken because of letterboxes. I've even seen some movies say "The widescreen presentation is the way it was seen in theaters. The black bars are intentional and are not a problem with your TV." So instead of giving the finger to those n00bs who want everything to match their TV's ratio, they released them entirely in fullscreen with no choice of aspect ratio.

Luckily, in Europe, these movies were in their original aspect ratio. (Pokémon Heroes, the fifth one, though isn't... For some reason it CLAIMS to be anamorphic widescreen, and what they did was pan-and-scan it, then add black bars to the sides, and make it anamorphic with automatic pan-and-scan in the IFOs. Could someone please explain the logic behind that?)

So I don't think it's too uncommon for a studio to release movies in a certain aspect ratio just because of the typical American n00bs. The Pokémon DVDs came out quite a few years ago, when 4:3 was still the most popular kind of TV (And HDTVs were way too expensive to afford)

You did say you accepted the tvs were one reason for the matting, just not the only reason. I just feel it is the main reason, and one without which, the matting would most likely not have happened on those DVDs.

Yeah. I maybe went too far by saying it was the ONLY reason, but without widescreen TVs there's no doubt in my mind that it wouldn't have been released that way.
At least they listened to all the complaints about The Jungle Book and released 101 Dalmatians in Academy... it seems maybe they DO care about their reputation.

PS In a semi-related note, I absolutely DETEST the ridiculous invention known as "overscan" in commercial tvs and wish I knew how to disable it on mine. Ideally, I wish I could slightly "zoom out" my tv so my fullscreen DVDs would be surrounded by a small black border on all four sides of the screen, so I'd know I'd be seeing EVERYTHING encoded on the disc that way!

Unfortunately, there's no real way to get rid of overscan. All I can suggest is watching movies on your computer. Overscan is so extreme, that when I put in movies like Aladdin, I don't see any bars on the sides... just the top and bottom. That's some pretty huge croppage!
Now, there are some movies that are encoded to compensate for overscan. Pokémon 4ever's European release comes to mind (the USA version was a complete n00b job)... It had a few pixels of black on all sides, most likely to compensate for overscan. I don't think many other movies do that, but hard-encoding it with a frame is the only real way to avoid it.

This is an issue where I find it very hard to decide where I stand. When I look at screenshots of The Jungle Book, I feel like I do prefer the full-frame, but the matted widescreen looks fine to me when I watch it in motion. If they were only thinking of widescreen, they probably would have just done the widescreen shot with empty white space at the top and bottom, rather than more artwork. I feel that they were just trying to make it so that it would work both ways. Again, the previews for the Jungle Book's Platinum Edition shows the fullscreen version restored, so there is definitley no reason why they couldn't provide both. I can't honestly say which version I would prefer to watch. I have a copy of the earlier DVD, but the picture quality on the Platinum Edition totally kicks the other one's butt So right now, the restored widescreen version is the one I watch.

Right, and that's where a random unnamed project comes in as far as the fullscreen version with better colors...

The previews can be a bit misleading, though... The Little Mermaid's is also 4:3, and possibly some of the other CAPS movies are (I don't collect them or anything), so that could just be a default. Though yes it is strange that they restored the whole thing.

Personally, I think it was a last-second change, just like The Sword in the Stone. That was announced as 1.66:1 until right before the release when it was changed at the last second. They probably were planning on releasing The Jungle Book in 4:3 and decided at the last second that they'd try it in widescreen...

As far as colors go, I don't prefer to watch either DVD
I have my Walt Disney Classics VHS for that. I really only use the DVDs for archival purposes... for watching once or twice there's nothing wrong with VHS.

Additionally, last time I checked, The Jungle Book was made after 101 Dalmatians... so I'm bringing up the quote by whoever it was who said it:

Don't bring up the argument about Disney re-issuing films pillarbox for theaters in the 90s from 101 Dalmatians on.

So there you go. It would have been shown at least once in Academy in theaters...

David S. wrote:

AlwaysOAR wrote:
Well, these films were made for the theatre, not for home viewing. They were intentionally framed to be matted in the theatre.

But I am buying these dvds of the DACS in question for... home viewing, for which the open matte is aguably the intended ratio and part of the reason the full frame was animated (also for theatres who didn't matte). I am not taking them down to the AMC and slipping the projectionist some cash to screen them for me after hours . They are purchased to play at home, on my 4:3 monitor, for which the open matte version was intended to be seen!

The open-matte for any film, animated or live-action, isn't intended for anything, it's just there, as it's just cheaper to animate or film on a particular film stock. These DACs were intentionally framed to be seen a certain way, and no amount of wanting to see the entire negative will change that.
Those of us who are cinephiles, while maybe in the minority, know this, most of us anyway, so in that regard, IMO, you're in the minority amongst cinephiles.
We want to view films in the ratio that was intended to be seen in theatres, whether it's on a laptop, a 4:3 tv or 16:9 tv. But, like you said, we are talking in circles again. The only thing we will agree on is having the intended ratio of the DACs, with the open-matte along with it, on future releases.

David S. wrote:Also, instead of the cases mentioned above where the widescreen version of a live-action film loses on top and bottom and the alternate open-matte version loses some on the sides, WHY can't this alternate version just show EVERYTHING protected on the film print instead of cropping the sides to preserve a 1.33:1 ratio!

If the "protected" version would yield a ratio of 1.45:1 or 1.5:1 or 1.6:1 than SO BE IT.

Unfortunately, these secondary "fullscreen" versions in these cases are being marketed to people who want to fill their 4:3 screens and not like me who want to see everything protected on the film print.

In the question Escapay asked about his example pictured above, I would say the widescreen IS the correct theatrical version, but neither version is the correct film negative version.

The fullscreen version preserves neither the theatrical framing NOR the full protected area of the negative so IMO should not even exist! If they wanted to do a second version for home video, IMO it should be whatever preserves the ENTIRE protected area of the frame!

As I've stated before, you're in for a lot of research and frustration if you hope to get live-action films in the negative filmed ratio. While there are hundreds of films protected open-matte, even these aren't the entire filmed negative. I doubt the directors and studios of these will ever allow the negative filmed ratio to be released on any format that would take away from the director's vision and intended ratio.

AlwaysOAR wrote:
The open-matte for any film, animated or live-action, isn't intended for anything, it's just there, as it's just cheaper to animate or film on a particular film stock. These DACs were intentionally framed to be seen a certain way, and no amount of wanting to see the entire negative will change that.

WRONG!

In animation, the open-matte version is, I REPEAT IS INTENDED FOR SOMETHING. The animators would NOT have bothered to draw detail in the entire F***ING frame if they did not expect it would be seen by someone, someday, somewhere. (peace and quiet and open air, et cetera and so forth)

Namely, theatres that didn't matte, and television airings.

Since I am buying them to watch in a format for which they considered open matte valid, the full frame version of Jungle Book, etc. is indeed at least one VALID way of viewing these films.

And you do NOT know for a fact that the animators did not consider the open-matte negative the "intended" version for television airing, or theatres that didn't matte. There isn't even proof that matted was the "intended" theatrical version. I wish you people would stop stating as FACT that the HACKED and BUTCHERED theatrical matted version of these films is what was the sole "intended" version just because that's how the majority of films from the era were framed for theatrical exibition.

What about Shaggy Dog? Shot and framed to be seen on television in FULLSCREEN, as unbelievable and sacriledgious as that may sound to some people. Yet it got matted in theatres.

Why for?

Because that's how the shots were originally framed?

Nope. Because ANYTHING released to theatres got matted in those days, whether intended to be or not.

THE SAME COULD BE TRUE FOR JUNGLE BOOK etc.

AlwaysOAR wrote:
As I've stated before, you're in for a lot of research and frustration if you hope to get live-action films in the negative filmed ratio. While there are hundreds of films protected open-matte, even these aren't the entire filmed negative. I doubt the directors and studios of these will ever allow the negative filmed ratio to be released on any format that would take away from the director's vision and intended ratio.

Why not, if they allow pan-and scan of the same films which is even MORE OF A COMPROMISE of their "intended vision" than an open negative cut would be?

I am aware that the open-matte is not always the entire negative.

Nor am I suggesting the negative ratio should replace the alleged "intended" cropped theatrical versions.

What I AM saying is that in cases where they release a pan-and-scan or open-matte ALTERNATE "fullscreen" version that does NOT preserve the entire width of the frame, just to preserve the 1.33:1 ratio, this alternate version instead should be at the "sweet spot" of whatever preserves everything PROTECTED on the negative, without zooming in to adhere to the silly 1.33:1 mentality.

If this alternate version is 1.41:1 or 1.43:1 or 1.57:1 or 1.51:1, then SO BE IT.

But at least the viewer would have peace of mind that the entire FILM PRINT has been preserved on that version, and that they are not missing ANYTHING protected on the film. (Providing they can get rid of any overscan issues, of course).

DVD is "home theatre", right?

Well if the entire film print gets released intact to theatres who then can choose to matte it, I feel it should be released as an option for "home" theatre, too.

Each DVD could come with intructions on what ratio was "intended" as well as what the actual negative ratio is. Ideally technology, especially with Blue Ray storage space, could allow for multiple ratios per release. People could also choose to zoom or crop to 1.78 or 1.33, if that tickles their fancy for some odd reason.

But I firmly believe that the film print IS the film. It might not always be the exact shape the director "intended", but it IS what is on the film.

If WALL-E is wandering around and finds a film without instructions on how to "matte" it, he can just enjoy it for what it is, and I feel I should be able to do that as well - ESPECIALLY with animated films that have been OPEN MATTE THEIR ENTIRE F***ING HISTORY OF HOME VIDEO.

My dad shot a lot of home movies in the 70's on our trips. If they ever got theatrically released, they would probably be butchered and cropped to conform to multiplex dimensions. After all, anything created in the 70's was "intended" to be matted, right?

The more this discussion goes on, the more determined I am going to be to state (and unfortunately, restate) my point, not just here but to Disney via phone calls, snail mail, and e-mails supporting open matte releases.

Especially when people keep stating their opinion as FACT, that they "know" for sure that the animators did not consider the full frame version a valid way of viewing these films.

I WILL NEVER CHANGE MY MIND AND NEVER BACK DOWN.

By the way, I ran some of this past people I know in "real life" and they were ALL shocked that there would EVER be a case where black bars would TAKE AWAY picture rather than add it. They all said "the black bars are supposed to expand the sides, not just take away the top and bottom!"

That is NOT what we as CONSUMERS bought into when we were sold on, and accepted black bars.

Frankly, when I told them what happed to Jungle Book, Robin Hood, and Aristocats they were OUTRAGED and said they would be contacting Disney about it.

MATTED WIDESCREEN SUCKS

But animators don't animate for a specific aspect ratio, there is always information cut off. So basically, you're never seeing all of the animation work done. So should we ask for a complete animation version of every film? I don't think that's feasible.
And somehow it's great you actually think you know better than the makers of the films, who intended it in widescreen.
The Shaggy Dog was shot for television, so that doesn't really count now, does it?

KubrickFan wrote:But animators don't animate for a specific aspect ratio, there is always information cut off. So basically, you're never seeing all of the animation work done. So should we ask for a complete animation version of every film? I don't think that's feasible.
And somehow it's great you actually think you know better than the makers of the films, who intended it in widescreen.
The Shaggy Dog was shot for television, so that doesn't really count now, does it?

I never said they should show all the animation that didn't get photographed on the frame, just what's on the film print.

Sure Shaggy Dog counts. It did get a theatrical release, and therefore there are those who would clammor for a matted version to preserve the almighty cropped theatrical dimensions, and make all sorts of arguments that it is "intended" since that's how it was seen in theatres.

And I NEVER said I knew better than the animators, how nice of you to twist my words. I NEVER said open-matte was the ONLY valid ratio, just that it is A valid ratio, and the creators thought so too, or else they would NOT have drawn the entire frame. If you look over this thread I NEVER said I was 100 percent sure that matted was NOT intended as a valid ratio. If anything, I suggested they were animating with both ratios in mind.

I am merely stating the obvious that you can look at the frames and see the level of detail in the matted areas would NOT F****ING be there if they never intended it to be seen.

And how do you know the animators would endorse the cropped version shown in theatres over the open-matte? Remember, everything that got released in theatres got cropped vertically in those days, such as Shaggy Dog (thus my point in bringing it up) and even Snow White reissues.

I never said open-matte was the ONLY one that was valid, just trying to defend the idea that the open-matte IS valid.

It's really the people who are soooooo sure the open-matte is wrong and invalid and matted is the ONLY correct way to see the films that are acting like they can speak for the animators. I mean, how the **** do they know Walt wouldn't say something like "Well, people and theatres wanted widescreen in those days, but our equipment was still fullscreen. So we tried to keep most of the important info within the center area, but went ahead and drew the full frame for theatres who wanted to show it that way, and future tv airings".

And HOW can they arrogantly presume to know he wouldn't say as an answer to this question:

"So if I watch the full frame on my television, am I desecrating and disrespecting the artists original vision?"

"No, they are created to be watchable in both formats. In fact, on your TV you'll even get to see some little details you missed in the theatres!"

I am not saying he would say this, although I think it would be likely. But what really GETS me in this thread is when people act like they ABSOLUTELY KNOW FOR SURE that he wouldn't, and that the filmakers would consider the open-matte an unholy desecration of their work, instead of the viable alternate version it was (IMO) intended to be.

They were outraged about losing some picture at the top and bottom of a TV frame? They were going to complain to Disney about it?

If only they we as outraged about any of a hundred thousand other things going on in the world of deeper concequence.

Look, it you have a rectangle and you want to make it fit inside a square you have two options - you make it longer or you make it shorter, losing space at the top and bottom. Due to the historical nature of film and due to the methods which produce 'true' widescreen images being more expensive than the methods that simply shoot a square image for matting/cropping later in the production process, the most common method is to matt the image.

You friends better have a lot of time on their hands - they going to be complaining to every studio and DVD distributor that exists.

No, they are Disney fans and were just planning on complaining about JB, Aristocats, and Robin Hood reissues. They have historically had more picture in previous versions than they do now.

"Outraged" may have been a strong word, but they certainly felt ripped off in the same way film fans historcally have felt burned and cheated about horizontal cropping. But I keep forgetting losing the top and bottom is not supposed to bother people as much as losing the sides

If you want to trivialize their concerns by comparing that to all the bad things that happen in the world, than that is also true of anyone who complains about ANYTHING relative to their fandom that in the big picture of world poverty or whatever is relatively insignificant.

But things can still be an "outrage" in the context of the discussion at hand, like when you got ticked off about Disney slacking off on some recent releases (and I agree by the way

I am not planning on complaining about lack of open-matte in cases where the fullscreen version has always been a pan-and scan of matted widescreen. In those cases, the widescreen has the most picture and therefore the best available version on-market from my POV.

I am NOT on a crusade to create open-matte versions of live-action films that don't have one. Just to preserve the ones that ALREADY exist, particularly with animation.

However, if the studios are going to waste their time on some of these films on a fullscreen version that does NOT preserve the entire frame (even the width!) why not zoom out more even if it results in something like 1.40:1 (if the top is not completely protected for true open-matte)

That way, instead of reviewers having to say:

a) "the widescreen shows less vertical info and the fullscreen loses some on the sides",

they could instead say:

b) "the widescreen loses some on the top but preserves the theatrical dimensions, and the fullscreen loses nothing on the sides while gaining some additional vertical information as found on the original negative"

That second scenario of the two transfers on the market certainly sounds better to my ears, don't you think

That's all I was trying to say with this, in response to people saying that the open-matte version doesn't always preserve the width - it's silly when it doesn't.

Besides, for live action I can accept the argument that things just "happened" to be caught in the camera and they weren't actively meaning for them too, because they were looking at a 1.85:1 line, etc.

As a hardcore Disney animation fan, however, I want to see everything that they took the time to draw and photograph for the films, especially when these elements are historically part of the home version of these films.

So really there is only a small handful of films I could see myself writing to Disney about this issue (60's and 70's DACs)- unless of course, they do something silly like try to matte Snow White and others from those earlier eras on future releases - and I doubt they would go that far, for awhile, anyway.

And I still say, as a consumer, I was taught that black bars are supposed to GAIN you picture, NOT take it away.

"Outrage" may be a strong word in your opinion, but as a consumer, it certainly seems like a rip off to me, for them to take away picture you are USED to seeing in a film, and replace it with bars while either getting nothing on the sides to justify these bars, or a few pixels (in the case of JB because the original was zoomed too tightly)

David S. wrote: In animation, the open-matte version is, I REPEAT IS INTENDED FOR SOMETHING. The animators would NOT have bothered to draw detail in the entire F***ING frame if they did not expect it would be seen by someone, someday, somewhere. (peace and quiet and open air, et cetera and so forth)

Namely, theatres that didn't matte, and television airings.

Since I am buying them to watch in a format for which they considered open matte valid, the full frame version of Jungle Book, etc. is indeed at least one VALID way of viewing these films.

And you do NOT know for a fact that the animators did not consider the open-matte negative the "intended" version for television airing, or theatres that didn't matte. There isn't even proof that matted was the "intended" theatrical version. I wish you people would stop stating as FACT that the HACKED and BUTCHERED theatrical matted version of these films is what was the sole "intended" version just because that's how the majority of films from the era were framed for theatrical exibition.

Hacked and Butchered? That's your opinion, and really, you need to settle down. Just because a live action or animated film was later shown open matte on television or early home video doesn't change the fact these films were made for the theatre. And that's the way most of us cinephiles wish to see a film, in its intended framed ratio. Almost all films from this era, live-action and animated, were filmed or animated with the intent for matting, so you really think that out of all the hundreds of movies made during this time, these DACs would be the only ones that wouldn't be? You can go on thinking/hoping that.

David S. wrote:What about Shaggy Dog? Shot and framed to be seen on television in FULLSCREEN, as unbelievable and sacriledgious as that may sound to some people. Yet it got matted in theatres.

Why for?

Because that's how the shots were originally framed?

Nope. Because ANYTHING released to theatres got matted in those days, whether intended to be or not.

THE SAME COULD BE TRUE FOR JUNGLE BOOK etc.

Well, that would be wrong to have shown Shaggy Dog in an unintended ratio. I would want to see it in its intended framed ratio. The same principle applies to something like Justice League, Season 1, as it was framed for matting, but shown initially open matte because CN wasn't ready to broadcast widescreen. The Jungle Book, etc., however, were framed for matting in a theatre.

David S. wrote:The more this discussion goes on, the more determined I am going to be to state (and unfortunately, restate) my point, not just here but to Disney via phone calls, snail mail, and e-mails supporting open matte releases.

Just as I will, however, supporting the intended matted versions, with the open-matte version along with them. Good night.

AlwaysOAR wrote:
Hacked and Butchered? That's your opinion, and really, you need to settle down.

Why? Because you don't like what I'm saying? Don't read it then. You "need" to not try to tell me how I can and can't express my views or what words I can use.

AlwaysOAR wrote:
Just because a live action or animated film was later shown open matte on television or early home video doesn't change the fact these films were made for the theatre. And that's the way most of us cinephiles wish to see a film, in its intended framed ratio. Almost all films from this era, live-action and animated, were filmed or animated with the intent for matting, so you really think that out of all the hundreds of movies made during this time, these DACs would be the only ones that wouldn't be?

Not the "only" ones, as there were others, but possibly. Due to:

* the FACT that they were reissued to theatres hard-matted on four sides in the 90's to preserve the academy ratio.

* the FACT that there are some awkward, cramped framing moments in the matted versions of the DVDs

* the FACT that the animators bothered to draw the entire frame

* and more!

At the VERY LEAST, all of this points to the overwhelmingly likely possibility that they were animating with both ratios in mind, making the open-matte a VALID option for presenting and viewing the film.

And again, you may feel that the matted was "intended" because that's how most films were shown at the time.

What you don't know for certain, however, is that the open-matte is "unintended", and IMO more evidence supports that it is equally valid than not.

And a case that open-matte is the "primary" intended ratio can be made just as strongly as the case for the matted.

David S. wrote:

AlwaysOAR wrote:
Hacked and Butchered? That's your opinion, and really, you need to settle down.

Why? Because you don't like what I'm saying? Don't read it then. You "need" to not try to tell me how I can and can't express my views or what words I can use.

*Sigh* That's not what I was suggesting. And I stand by what I've already said.

David S. wrote:

AlwaysOAR wrote:
Just because a live action or animated film was later shown open matte on television or early home video doesn't change the fact these films were made for the theatre. And that's the way most of us cinephiles wish to see a film, in its intended framed ratio. Almost all films from this era, live-action and animated, were filmed or animated with the intent for matting, so you really think that out of all the hundreds of movies made during this time, these DACs would be the only ones that wouldn't be?

Not the "only" ones, as there were others, but possibly. Due to:

* the FACT that they were reissued to theatres hard-matted on four sides in the 90's to preserve the academy ratio.

Snow White was reissued in a false matte, not preserving its framed academy ratio. That doesn't make a reissue right.

David S. wrote:And a case that open-matte is the "primary" intended ratio can be made just as strongly as the case for the matted.

That's your opinion. The open matte of any film is just there, it exists. The area framed by the makers of a film is intended to be seen in a theatre, the version most of us cinephiles want to experience.

AlwaysOAR wrote: Snow White was reissued in a false matte, not preserving its framed academy ratio. That doesn't make a reissue right.

OF COURSE Snow White should not have been matted! That's precisely my point!

It was matted in an era when Academy ratio films were routinely matted. Siskel and Ebert objected, and rightly so, and after that Disney took steps to ensure that the films INTENDED to be seen in Academy ratio would be preserved in that ratio on subsequent reissues. The FACT that 101 and Jungle Book were among these films (in addition to Snow White) certainly seems to indicate that these films are considered by the studio to be INTENDED for academy ratio for theatrical exhibition.

Always OAR wrote:
That's your opinion. The open matte of any film is just there, it exists. The area framed by the makers of a film is intended to be seen in a theatre, the version most of us cinephiles want to experience.

Wrong Again!

That may be the case for most live action films, but the open matte DOES NOT JUST EXIST FOR NO REASON for these DACS.

I've already explained OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN and given evidence that the animators were in all likelyhood animating with BOTH ratios in mind for these films, with the open-matte valid for theatres that didn't matte, television, etc.

And I've already given evidence which could indicate the open matte was considered THE primary ratio.

Really, how many bloody times do I have to repeat myself?:

David S. wrote:
Due to:

* the FACT that they were reissued to theatres hard-matted on four sides in the 90's to preserve the academy ratio.

* the FACT that there are some awkward, cramped framing moments in the matted versions of the DVDs

* the FACT that the animators bothered to draw the entire frame

* and more!

David S. wrote:

AlwaysOAR wrote: Snow White was reissued in a false matte, not preserving its framed academy ratio. That doesn't make a reissue right.

OF COURSE Snow White should not have been matted! That's precisely my point!

It was matted in an era when Academy ratio films were routinely matted. Siskel and Ebert objected, and rightly so, and after that Disney took steps to ensure that the films INTENDED to be seen in Academy ratio would be preserved in that ratio on subsequent reissues. The FACT that 101 and Jungle Book were among these films (in addition to Snow White) certainly seems to indicate that these films are considered by the studio to be INTENDED for academy ratio for theatrical exhibition.

To quote myself from page 5 of this thread...

As far as reissues go, and to quote somewhat Disneyfella, there was a huge backlash when there was a theatrical re-release of Snow White and it was falsely matted, and many critics publicly lamented that decision(as well they should have). In overreacting to this, Disney decided, wrongly IMO, to reissue all of it's animated films with "more open" frames. In Sleeping Beauty's 1992 reissue, it was shown in a 1.85:1 ratio, by far a totally wrong ratio for that movie....it doesn't mean that that is also an intended ratio for SB. The initial, intended theatrical ratio is the correct one

David S. wrote:Really, how many bloody times do I have to repeat myself?:

I guess as long as you want to keep debating me and others about this. You have your opinion, and I have mine. That is, wanting to see the intended framed ratio of the DACs, not the open-matte. And that goes for all films.

Please Disney, for the love of Walt, just put both ratios on future releases!

You've got no excuse not to on Blu-ray with all that space and movies lasting typically only 70-80 minutes.

Thank you.

AlwaysOAR wrote: As far as reissues go, and to quote somewhat Disneyfella, there was a huge backlash when there was a theatrical re-release of Snow White and it was falsely matted, and many critics publicly lamented that decision(as well they should have). In overreacting to this, Disney decided, wrongly IMO, to reissue all of it's animated films with "more open" frames. In Sleeping Beauty's 1992 reissue, it was shown in a 1.85:1 ratio, by far a totally wrong ratio for that movie....it doesn't mean that that is also an intended ratio for SB. The initial, intended theatrical ratio is the correct one

That doesn't make sense, as that shows LESS pictures for Sleeping Beauty and is therefore less open - and it's irrelevant because that wasn't an academy film, so that does NOT proove open matte was not intended for Jungle Book, etc. Just because they screwed up SB, does not mean they didn't get JB right.

AlwaysOAR wrote: That is, wanting to see the intended framed ratio of the DACs, not the open-matte. And that goes for all films.

But the only thing you are using to "prove" that the matted for these DACs was "intended" and that the open-matte is "unintended" is that many/most? theatres apparently matted them on initial release in an era when things were automatically matted in those theatres regardless of intent!

Then by that logic, Shaggy Dog matted is the "initial intended ratio" since that is how it was initially screened theatrically.

WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP that REGARDLESS of what the initial intentions were on these DACs, the theatres that wanted to matte were gonna do it anyway?

Really, I would back off if you would JUST STOP STATING AS FACT that matted was the initial "intended" ratio, and more importantly, your REFUSAL to at least acknowledge that there is a good chance the open-matte version was considered a valid way to view the films by the creators and therefore at the very least "co-intended".

You may think you know that the open matte was not valid and only the matted is true to the "original vision", but you JUST DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

AS long as you keep stating it as ABSOLUTE fact, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I'll be here to refute it, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

You went from being black and white in favor of open matte being intended for these films to believing the matted is black and white the only intended correct and valid way.

Wheras I am saying they probably had both ratios in mind and both could be considered valid.

Surely, an issue complex enough to have you at one point take a stand on both sides must have some grey area, but you seem to view this an an absolute thing where ONE and ONLY one can be right.