DVDizzy Forum

carter1971 wrote:

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

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

No no, no problem at all!

carter1971 wrote:I am glad someone who prefers the matted version agrees with me about releasing both. They've released pan and scan versions for true widescreen films, and those "reformatted" Pixar versions, so why not do this?

Yes, why not? Although I WOULD like the studios to put an end to P&S versions...

Now I feel dumb cause the link was right on this last page right under my nose.

carter1971 wrote:Now scroll to the bottom of that thread and read Luke's reply. Luke said the same things in his review of the MWE of Robin Hood. Like it or not, there are two sides to this, and neither has yet to be proven right or wrong. As Luke said, the best solution is for Disney to offer both.

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

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

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

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

Any response to these questions would be appreciated.

As i mentioned in my post above when the chinese theatre hosted the world premiere for the jungle book back in 1967 it was presented in a flat widescreen aspect ratio 1:75:1, and it was subsequently played durring its entire run in the theatre is the flat aspect ratio format.

it might have been animated open matte but it was not intended to be viewed that way.
the reason why they would animate it this way is because, it wasnt as expensive to do so, it had nothing to do with time.

as for your question about 1:85:1 opposed to 1:75:1 it really wouldnt require changes to equipment just a simple adjustment of the masking, its not the same as switching over from scope to flat which incidently every 35 mm projector currently in use can do, in fact some theatres will show scope movie trailers before a flat movie or along with flat trailers, cue tape read by the projector can trigger the cues in the projector to adjust the lens and masking durring the presentation to make this possible. in older style projectors this can be acomplished manually

durring the tour i give of the chinese theatre we have a short 5 min featurette on the theatre we show which is in the 1:75:1 format and the masking adjusts slightly for this durring its presentation then adjusts back for the feature film when it begins for the movie patrons.
and heck our double a norelco at the chinese can show movies in 35 mm in both scope and flat and also present movies in 70 mm and that projector is nearly 60 years old

also every theatre in the country still uses 35 mm projectors, even when presenting a movie in DLP, theatres (if they are not stupid)run a back up 35 mm print in sync with a DLP presentation incase any bugs or glitches pop up durring the presentation so they can switch over imeadiately to the film with little interuption to the audience.
95 percent of the films in the country are still shown via film only about 5 percent are digitally presented.

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

Out of curiosity is this why Louie isnt featured in the JUngle Book 2?

I had never heard about this before its really rather interesting, i would love to learn more about it

Ltinker1976 wrote:

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

Out of curiosity is this why Louie isnt featured in the JUngle Book 2?

I had never heard about this before its really rather interesting, i would love to learn more about it

Yeah, that's the reason. After an unsuccessful attempt to put him in "House of Mouse", they (regretfully) decided to exclude him from the sequel.

Hey! Guess what! I saw a preorder from The Jungle Book Platinum Edition at Amazon.com.

Guys, let me tell you what is really worrying me with the matted widescreen.

Were the prints used for Robin Hood on the MW Edition and Jungle Book on the forthcoming PE in their original aspect ration to begin with?

Confused?

Let me explain ...

Now that Disney is issuing these 60s and 70s films in their OAR, is it because they found a widescreen print of these films and decided to restore it?

Or did they simply take the unmatted fullscreen print and cut off the top and bottom!!? In a matted film, the film-makers don't simply symmetrically chop off the top and bottom. Sometimes the area to be shown varies from the top to the bottom of the frame. Disney, must know this of course ... and if they did what I think they did, they must have been careful to frame the film properly.

However, that means that the film can never be the way it was originally seen on its theatrical release! If you decide to reformat the film nowadays, how can you be sure that you framed every scene the way it was seen in widescreen back in the 60s and 70s!?

Is there anyone who thinks Disney are working this way, like I do? I sure do hope I'm wrong.

Julian Carter wrote:Or did they simply take the unmatted fullscreen print and cut off the top and bottom!!? In a matted film, the film-makers don't simply symmetrically chop off the top and bottom. Sometimes the area to be shown varies from the top to the bottom of the frame. Disney, must know this of course ... and if they did what I think they did, they must have been careful to frame the film properly.

However, that means that the film can never be the way it was originally seen on its theatrical release! If you decide to reformat the film nowadays, how can you be sure that you framed every scene the way it was seen in widescreen back in the 60s and 70s!?

Eh, I think how it worked is that those 60s-70s animated features would be matted during projection. We're not talking about "active" framing and composition measures here. The "full frame" was on the actual film, but the top and bottom parts would be covered up in the projector. If it weren't like that, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had the "full frame" video versions either during all these years of home video.

Julian Carter, when films are matted for widescreen, the projector does the matting. There is no movement from top to bottom in the frame. So there's (almost) no chance that Disney could screw this up.

Ltinker1976, thanks for your posts. I was also in the theatre industry for a number of years, as a projectionist and later theatre manager. I share your passion for movies and would normally be dead set against watching an open matte of a flat movie. The only exceptions I make are for this handful of Disney animated titles, and as I have said, I'd like to have both, not one or the other.

I left in 2000 before DLP started to take off, so I had no idea that a backup 35mm print was in place in most cases. And if you're allowed to post it, I'd love to see a pic of that old Norelco projector! You must have one of the coolest jobs in the world. Sometimes I miss being in the industry, but I got out because the hours can be pretty brutal.

Thank you Lars and carter1971 for clearing that up. It makes sense now. So if only fullscreen print exists and the film would be matted in the projector, it's perfectly easy for Disney to matte the film themselves. I'd never known a film could be matted while being projected. Thanks for the tasty tidbit!

I'm glad I received a reply because this "theory" of mine had been haunting my brain for a couple of weeks now.

Julian Carter wrote:I'm glad I received a reply because this "theory" of mine had been haunting my brain for a couple of weeks now.

Nice to eliminate those troubling thoughts, don't you think?

Wow. So, I'm gone for four days on a band trip, and THIS is what happens?! I feel so out-of-the-loop!!!!! But, anyway I AM SO EXCITED FOR THE JUNGLE BOOK PE!!!!!!!!!!!! I was actually a little dissapointed by the coverart. What's up with the random monkeys? And everyone's so off model! (Espeically Baloo, Mowgli, Shere Khan, and Kaa!) And why is Kaa smiling while Shere Khan is choking him?

But I do agree with you guys on two things: 1- Where in the WORLD is Bagheera! He's (one of) my favorite characters! 2- I'm glad that TJB got a green banner. That was what I was hoping before we got the new coverart for Peter Pan, and I thought that because of it that TJB wouldn't get a green banner.

As far as the new specs for the DVD, It's sounding to be a pretty sweet release! (Which I'd hope so since I've waited for this release for over 2 years now!!). I wonder how long the "Making of..." will be....As far as the Aspect Ratio.....well, it's as I feared. I'm just hoping that (as someone was hoping) that Disney will have both the FS and WS versions on the Platinum Edition, and not just the WS version. If Disney doesn't include the fullscreen (OAR) version on this set, I will be forced to buy the Limited Issue of TJB as well.

Anyway, I hope Disney revises the coverart soon, posts more specs (running times!) soon, and includes trailers, art galleries, audio commentaries, and anything else they can to make this the best Platinum to date!

Long live The Jungle Book!!

-BB

I originally said that I thought the cover felt way too green and that if the Platinum bannar was changed, it would feel less overwhelming. I made a version with a yellow banner and while I do feel it makes it feel less green, I don't particularly like this shade of Yellow. I do think it would look better yellow, though. Maybe Disney will change it to a more fitting shade if they decide to change it (they did with Peter Pan). Anyways, here are the two for everyone to compare. (thanks UD for the pic)

I still prefer the green banner.

Meh, I'm not digging the cover art. The bonus features sound great, though! A major improvement when compared to the Peter Pan: PE supplements!

Can't wait!

Prince Ali wrote:A major improvement when compared to the Peter Pan: PE supplements!

Ten minutes of Kathryn Beaumont picking her nose would be a major improvement over the ridiculous new materials presented in the PE (T-Squad and Read-Alongs anyone?)

Escapay

Escapay wrote: Ten minutes of Kathryn Beaumont picking her nose would be a major improvement over the ridiculous new materials presented in the PE

Honestly, that alone would probably be worth the buy! Disney should consider releasing that on DVD alone, they would make major bank!

I can see it now:

Prince Ali wrote:

Escapay wrote: Ten minutes of Kathryn Beaumont picking her nose would be a major improvement over the ridiculous new materials presented in the PE

Honestly, that alone would probably be worth the buy! Disney should consider releasing that on DVD alone, they would make major bank!

I can see it now:

The pay-off would be worth it too! Does she find a booger or doesn't she? Much more stimulating and climactic than "Could T-Squad butcher the song any more than they already are?"

Escapay

I think that'd be the first Disney DVD I'd actually pre-order.

I watched the jungle book trailer on the new peter pan dvd and it truly boggles the mind. No way did the film look like that when it first came out. They're putting millions of different kinds of green everywhere and it looks way more vibrant than it oughta. Why can't they just update the damn thing without tinkering with the colors so much?

Anyway, i've got the limited edition now and i'm not going to buy this unless somebody can prove me that the restauration is how it really looked like to begin with...