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

[AlwaysOAR]

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.

Actually, SB was animated in a 2.55:1 ratio, but framed for both a 70mm(2.20:1) and 35mm(2.35:1) release. The 1992 reissue would show more on the top and bottom, but less on the sides. But my point remains the same, that the intended framed ratio is the one most of us cinephiles want to see.

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!

These films were FRAMED to be matted, just like all theatrical films for this time, a decade or more after the transition to widescreen. I really don't know more that I can say about this.

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

Shaggy Dog was framed for a 1.33:1 television release, so obviously it would be wrong to matte. The DACs in question were framed for a theatrical release, that is 1.75:1, the way I and most cinephiles want to see it.

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 don't have to back off. You have a right to your opinion, one that I strongly disagree with. One in which, in my view, goes against all evidence and logic to the contrary. The open-matte may exist for hundreds of films, but I want to see a film in it's intended framed ratio.

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.

I am in favor of having the open matte alongside the intended framed ratio for these films on DVD, just never at the expense of the intended framed ratio, as I've stated many times. And I did consider the open matte as a possibility for future TELEVISION broadcasts, if only to protect the intended framed vision, but again, these films were made for the THEATRE, the way I and most cinephiles wish to view them.

[AlwaysOAR]

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.

Agreed on that.

[David S.]

Actually, SB was animated in a 2.55:1 ratio, but framed for both a 70mm(2.20:1) and 35mm(2.35:1) release. The 1992 reissue would show more on the top and bottom, but less on the sides. But my point remains the same, that the intended framed ratio is the one most of us cinephiles want to see.

If it gained any on the top it would not be nearly as much as what was lost on the sides. I don't think it would be right to cut so much off the sides in this case, because that doesn't open up the frame, it tightens it.

But in ANY case, my point remains, that in an era when Disney was trying to be faithful to the correct ratio of the ACADEMY DAC films, JB and 101 and possibly others got re-released in academy - which casts a HUGE cloud of doubt on ANY black and white claims that matted is the SOLE intended ratio for these films.

These films were FRAMED to be matted, just like all theatrical films for this time, a decade or more after the transition to widescreen. I really don't know more that I can say about this.

The were framed to be PRESENTABLE matted. That is NOT the same as INSISTING that matted is the one and only one true acceptable way they were considered "valid" especially if they were animated with both ratios in mind, which evidence suggests that they were.

Shaggy Dog was framed for a 1.33:1 television release, so obviously it would be wrong to matte. The DACs in question were framed for a theatrical release, that is 1.75:1, the way I and most cinephiles want to see it.

They were framed to be ACCEPTABLE for a matted theatrical release. You have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the animators did not consider the open matte valid, or possibly even their primary intended ratio.

You don't have to back off. You have a right to your opinion, one that I strongly disagree with. One in which, in my view, goes against all evidence and logic to the contrary.

What evidence is that?

Would it be the evidence of the animators bothering to draw the ENTIRE frame?

Or the cramped framing on the matted DVDs?

Or maybe you are referring to the academy theatrical reissues in an era when other academy DACs were made sure not to get the hacked treatment in theatres?

The open-matte may exist for hundreds of films, but I want to see a film in it's intended framed ratio.

But for these films, we don't know what that is (as the primary "intended" ratio). Evidence supports both sides, and most likely that these films were created with both in mind.

I am in favor of having the open matte alongside the intended framed ratio for these films on DVD, just never at the expense of the intended framed ratio, as I've stated many times. And I did consider the open matte as a possibility for future TELEVISION broadcasts, if only to protect the intended framed vision, but again, these films were made for the THEATRE, the way I and most cinephiles wish to view them.

Actually, unlike most studios who turned their snobby noses up at television, Walt EMBRACED tv and created content simultaneously for BOTH mediums. He knew his theatrical features would end up on his tv show, where they could be shown for years to come, and many projects that started out for tv got released theatrically, either in US or abroad.

Therefore, it is quite concievable that most material created by Disney on Academy ratio film in this era could have been created with both ratios in mind - therefore making open matte VALID, and would also explain why Disney historically has more open-matte home video releases than other studios.

[AlwaysOAR]

Actually, SB was animated in a 2.55:1 ratio, but framed for both a 70mm(2.20:1) and 35mm(2.35:1) release. The 1992 reissue would show more on the top and bottom, but less on the sides. But my point remains the same, that the intended framed ratio is the one most of us cinephiles want to see.

If it gained any on the top it would not be nearly as much as what was lost on the sides. I don't think it would be right to cut so much off the sides in this case, because that doesn't open up the frame, it tightens it.

But in ANY case, my point remains, that in an era when Disney was trying to be faithful to the correct ratio of the ACADEMY DAC films, JB and 101 and possibly others got re-released in academy - which casts a HUGE cloud of doubt on ANY black and white claims that matted is the SOLE intended ratio for these films.

We've already had this debate about the re-releases. I stand by what I've already said.

These films were FRAMED to be matted, just like all theatrical films for this time, a decade or more after the transition to widescreen. I really don't know more that I can say about this.

The were framed to be PRESENTABLE matted. That is NOT the same as INSISTING that matted is the one and only one true acceptable way they were considered "valid" especially if they were animated with both ratios in mind, which evidence suggests that they were.

Shaggy Dog was framed for a 1.33:1 television release, so obviously it would be wrong to matte. The DACs in question were framed for a theatrical release, that is 1.75:1, the way I and most cinephiles want to see it.

They were framed to be ACCEPTABLE for a matted theatrical release. You have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the animators did not consider the open matte valid, or possibly even their primary intended ratio.

You don't have to back off. You have a right to your opinion, one that I strongly disagree with. One in which, in my view, goes against all evidence and logic to the contrary.

What evidence is that?

I've already presented the evidence, from what you've quoted above and what was said earlier in this thread. You can go back and read it. I'm not going to type it all again.

We'll never agree on this. I will continue to petition Disney to release all of their films in the correct framed ratios along with the open mattes, as I would want them as an extra. Hopefully, this will be the case for future releases, as I won't purchase them otherwise.

[disneyfella]

I know this is slightly off topic, but I didn't want to post it in another whole forum. I recently purchased a copy of the ad pad for "The Watcher in the Woods". According to the press materials in this ad pad, it was suggested that the film be matted to "a spirited 1.75 to 1" ratio. However, the Anchor Bay version that I have is over matted to 1.85:1. I'm assuming the Disney DVD is the same print.

I must clarify too, though, that the ad materials I have is for the aborted 1980s release. After the initial preview, the film was pulled and the ending was redone. Mary Poppins was released as "filler" and "The Watcher in the Woods" was rereleased the following year. The aspect ratio matting may have changed, but I seriously doubt it.....but it's possible.





Just another example of how Buena Vista Distribution does not respect the films they release. One cannot trust the DVD boxes for true aspect ratios....which is sad.

[Sky Syndrome]

Just another example of how Buena Vista Distribution does not respect the films they release. One cannot trust the DVD boxes for true aspect ratios....which is sad.

Really, why print them on boxes at all when they're not reliable? Could save some ink!

[Poppins#1]

First of all, let me say I haven't read through this entire thread - way too much repetitive ranting going on. But one statement I keep seeing over and over again is that "The Shaggy Dog" was made for TV, then released theatrically instead, so that the open-matte version must be correct. Have you guys even LOOKED at the screen caps in this very website's review?
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/shaggy.html
Look at this side by side comparison with the little bit of extra picture on the sides, the comfortable cropping out of extra head-room and tell me it wasn't meant to be widescreen!
<IMG SRC="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/q- ... .jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/q-s/sd-08.jpg">

[disneyfella]

This may explain your comparison. If you look at the colorized version, it is actually a pan & scan of the matted widescreen image.

"The Shaggy Dog" was shot full aperture Academy ratio (which was common for television films), and then matted for theatrical release (again...common for films of the time). The exact intended theatrical ratio, however, is unknown to me.

What the colorized version did, is zoom into the matted widescreen image, so that now you are losing picture from both the top and bottom (as can be seen in the widescreen version), as well as from the sides (as can be seen in the side by side comparison). Now the colorized version is not a direct zoom from the restored black and white version, but rather a print from the colorization process used in the 1980s for a tv airing on The Disney Sunday Movie program (which could explain slight framing discrepency about a direct zoom).

When people are referring to a full frame version of "The Shaggy Dog" they are referring to an open matte transfer which is not shown in your above picture. Basically the black bars on the widescreen image are lifted to reveal more image behind them.

My thought on the whole Shaggy Dog thing is this. What was the film intended to be shown in, and then what was the film actually shown in? I know through research that "The Shaggy Dog" was originally going to be a television movie (like Escapade in Florence, The Horsemasters, etc.). However, somewhere along the line Walt decided to release it theatrically (which is only further proof of the high quality of television entertainment that Disney was producing if he could substitue television programs for theatrical features). The question is, was the Shaggy Dog intended for theatrical release before/during the shooting so that the director and cinematographer knew how to frame the film? If it was only decided to release the film to theatres after the shooting was completed, then a film that was framed for Academy ratio would have probably been matted as suggested by the times.

I really don't know all of the details on this one, but have always been curious as to Disney's take on it. They, of course, have access to all kinds of material that can declare what the ratio was framed for, and what it was shown in. However, they have lost my trust in being honest and true to the material by releasing many, MANY films with improper framing.

[David S.]

This may explain your comparison. If you look at the colorized version, it is actually a pan & scan of the matted widescreen image.

"The Shaggy Dog" was shot full aperture Academy ratio (which was common for television films), and then matted for theatrical release (again...common for films of the time). The exact intended theatrical ratio, however, is unknown to me.

What the colorized version did, is zoom into the matted widescreen image, so that now you are losing picture from both the top and bottom (as can be seen in the widescreen version), as well as from the sides (as can be seen in the side by side comparison).

In the screencap posted above, it looks more to me like the colorized version was created by zooming into the open matte image, which explains why you can see more on top and bottom than the widescreen but less on the sides. By my tastes, neither one is completely correct since I want to see everything on the frame and you need to watch both the widescreen AND the fullscreen version on alternating viewings in order to eventually see the entire image available on home video (instead of creating one transfer that accomplishes this). All they would have to do is zoom out a little to show the entire horizontal frame included with the additional vertical picture, but alas, this doesn't seem to be the norm in these things, as illustrated by this example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Open ... ration.jpg

In that example, the yellow area doesn't show everything in the red, and the red doesn't show everything in the yellow, and neither shows everything on the film frame. If the entire vertical frame is not protected for open matte viewing, the red area should STILL be extended horizontally to include the entire yellow area.

I think if they are going to do a "widescreen" and a "fullscreen" version, the widescreen should conform to the theatrical ratio even if this is not exactly 16:9, and the fullscreen should show everything protected on the frame, even if this is not exactly 4:3 but more like 1.37:1 or 1.45:1, as I've stated elsewhere in the thread.

[AlwaysOAR]

First of all, let me say I haven't read through this entire thread - way too much repetitive ranting going on. But one statement I keep seeing over and over again is that "The Shaggy Dog" was made for TV, then released theatrically instead, so that the open-matte version must be correct. Have you guys even LOOKED at the screen caps in this very website's review?

Actually, no. But then, I only vaguely remember seeing this as a kid, and was assuming what someone had said that it was intended for television exhibition and later released for the theatre was true. As it was part of the larger debate about framed ratios, and had no reason to believe it to be untrue, it seemed pertinent to the discussion

[AlwaysOAR]

"The Shaggy Dog" was shot full aperture Academy ratio (which was common for television films), and then matted for theatrical release (again...common for films of the time). The exact intended theatrical ratio, however, is unknown to me.

My thought on the whole Shaggy Dog thing is this. What was the film intended to be shown in, and then what was the film actually shown in? I know through research that "The Shaggy Dog" was originally going to be a television movie (like Escapade in Florence, The Horsemasters, etc.). However, somewhere along the line Walt decided to release it theatrically (which is only further proof of the high quality of television entertainment that Disney was producing if he could substitue television programs for theatrical features). The question is, was the Shaggy Dog intended for theatrical release before/during the shooting so that the director and cinematographer knew how to frame the film? If it was only decided to release the film to theatres after the shooting was completed, then a film that was framed for Academy ratio would have probably been matted as suggested by the times.

I really don't know all of the details on this one, but have always been curious as to Disney's take on it. They, of course, have access to all kinds of material that can declare what the ratio was framed for, and what it was shown in. However, they have lost my trust in being honest and true to the material by releasing many, MANY films with improper framing.

Thank you Disneyfella! You saved me from some research and typing. And, I couldn't agree more concerning Disney's releases.

[Poppins#1]

I found this reference in Leonard Maltin's book "The Disney Films" which was originally published in 1973. This may be one of the sources that started the rumor that SD was filmed for TV.

<i>"Disney later revealed that the story was being originally considered as a TV series, and the film most definitely has its genesis in TV situation comedy..."</i>

[Flanger-Hanger]

I thought The Shaggy Dog was proposed for TV, then ABC turned it down (probably because it wasn't a western) and then Walt decided to make it a movie. I think had he shot it for TV he would have made it in colour like all the other episodes of Walt Disney Presents. I think the reason it was shot in both black in white (very unusual for Disney to do) and in the academy ratio was to cut down cost since he was already making three expensive film for 1959.

[disneyfella]

That's a good point Flanger. I never realized that all of the Wonderful World of Disney movies were shot in color. However films like "The Shaggy Dog", "The Absent Minded Professor" and "Son of Flubber" were shot in black and white. Maybe to help with the special effects?

[Flanger-Hanger]

The Absent Minded Professor was shot in black and white because they thought the special effects wouldn't be convincing in colour. I assume it was the same for Son of Flubber. This leaves Shaggy Dog as the one oddity. Walt later regretted shotting in B&W because he knew he couldn't show it later on the WWoC.

[disneyfella]

Just so this information makes it out there on the internet somewhere (because I can't seem to find it listed on any sites, and imdb.com is not incredibly trustworthy). What follows is ver batum recommendations from Press Kits and Ad Pads for Disney Films. I will try to identify if it was a rerelease or premiere instructions.


"The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band" 1968 Premiere Release Information

(NOTE: The theatre kit states that the running time of the film is 116 minutes 58 seconds, while the DVD release is only 110 minutes. That is a loss of almost 7 minutes.)

"Mr. Exhibitor - An Important Note
Give your patrons the best possible picture on your theatre screen. For top projection results in the presentation of "The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band" you must use aspect ratio 1.85:1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing is 1.85:1, the DVD release is 1.33:1)










"Son of Flubber" 1970 Re-release Information

(NOTE: This Re-release was attached with the premiere of "Dad, Can I Borrow the Car?" featurette. Also, the theatre kit states that the running time is approximately 100 minutes while the DVD runtime is 103 minutes. That makes an extra 3 minutes.)

"The Aspect Ratio for "Son of Flubber" is 175 to 1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical re-release framing is 1.75:1, the DVD release is 1.33:1)










"$1,000,000 Duck" 1972 Premiere Release Information

"The Aspect Ratio for "$1,000,000 Duck", to achieve maximum theatrical quality, is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing of the film is 1.75:1, the DVD release is 1.33:1)










"Superdad" 1973 Premiere Release Information

"The aspect ratio of SUPERDAD to achieve the best screen image is 1:75 to 1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing is 1.75:1, the DVD release is only 1.33:1)










"Mary Poppins" 1973 Re-release Information

"The Aspect Ratio to create the most Supercalifragilistic screen image is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing for this re-release is 1.75:1, the DVD release is 1.66:1)










"The Watcher in the Woods" 1980 Aborted Initial Premiere Release Information

(NOTE: The theatre kit information states that the running time of the film is approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. The DVD release is merely 83 minutes. That makes a missing 17 minutes!)

"The Aspect Ratio for a spirited image is 1:75 to 1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing for this film was 1.75:1, the DVD release is framed at 1.85:1)






I'll try to post more info as I get it. If anyone has any press kits or anything concrete on theatrical presentations, feel free to share here. Goodness knows I'm just starting to collect this information.

[Escapay]

Thanks a lot for those, fella! I'm especially intrigued by this:

"Mary Poppins" 1973 Re-release Information

"The Aspect Ratio to create the most Supercalifragilistic screen image is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing for this re-release is 1.75:1, the DVD release is 1.66:1)

The Gold Collection DVD had a 1.85:1 ratio, and the laserdisc's 1.66:1 is actually different from the 40AE DVD's, making the Mary Poppins OAR an even bigger conundrum than anything else!

"The Watcher in the Woods" 1980 Aborted Initial Premiere Release Information

(NOTE: The theatre kit information states that the running time of the film is approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. The DVD release is merely 83 minutes. That makes a missing 17 minutes!)

Approximately 13-14 minutes is from the original ending, and I believe the other 3-4 minutes could be from the original "melting doll" opening sequence (which has yet to appear on DVD, whereas the alternate endings are on both the Anchor Bay and the Disney DVDs)

Albert

[Flanger-Hanger]

"The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band" 1968 Premiere Release Information

(NOTE: The theatre kit states that the running time of the film is 116 minutes 58 seconds, while the DVD release is only 110 minutes. That is a loss of almost 7 minutes.)

"Mr. Exhibitor - An Important Note
Give your patrons the best possible picture on your theatre screen. For top projection results in the presentation of "The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band" you must use aspect ratio 1.85:1"

(NOTE: While the theatrical framing is 1.85:1, the DVD release is 1.33:1)

How very curious, what could be missing from the film? And I find it hard to believe that the DVD is an open matte presentation. Most likely a pan and scan of this 1.85:1 matted image.

[disneyfella]

How very curious, what could be missing from the film? And I find it hard to believe that the DVD is an open matte presentation. Most likely a pan and scan of this 1.85:1 matted image.

I was thinking the same thing Flanger. I'll have to go back to the original soundtrack and see if there is like a missing overture or something.....intermission maybe? The film doesn't even run 2 hours though. ::shrugs::

However, the opening credits of the film fit just fine if I recall. I was thinking that the DVD release was an open matte transfer. Things like "Son of Flubber" were obvious P&S transfers because newspaper headlines would be cut off. I don't remember that happening on this one, but I could be totally wrong. I need to watch it again.

I haven't actually had time to read through all the press materials I got on that one yet, so maybe when I sit down and go through I'll come across something. "Family Band" is possibly one of my favorite Disney films if just for nostalgia sake growing up watching that one hundreds of times with my family.

Does anyone know how the runtimes compare with the VHS and Laserdisc? I only have the DVDs with me (the rest of my collectible stuff is out of state at the moment).

[disneyfella]

Approximately 13-14 minutes is from the original ending, and I believe the other 3-4 minutes could be from the original "melting doll" opening sequence (which has yet to appear on DVD, whereas the alternate endings are on both the Anchor Bay and the Disney DVDs)

Albert

Melting doll sequence? Albert, tell me more. I've never heard of such a sequence, and don't recall Mr. Hough talking about it on the commentary. HHhhhmmmm......(spoken in robotic voice) "must - do - research".