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

[Escapay]

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".

Here it is

The film originally opened with a prolog and different Main Title sequence. A small girl is seen in the woods playing with a doll. The WATCHER’S presence (a roving camera POV) sneaks up to the girl from behind. She suddenly turns to the camera and screams, dropping her doll and running off. The camera changes it view from the running girl to the doll. There is a growl, the doll floats upward, becoming air borne, and is swiftly launched against a tree where it is struck by a blue beam of light igniting it. The Main Titles are played over the burning doll face which melts as the credits continue accompanied by striking “psycho-like” musical strings. This important beginning set up a tone for what would follow casting a much darker atmosphere on every scene to come.

The story behind Anchor Bay and Disney's clashes on how Anchor Bay would release The Watcher in the Woods on DVD is very...well, it makes the whole Robin Williams versus Katzenberg look like a little playground fight.

Albert

[disneyfella]

"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.)

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.

After a cursory glance, I found an interesting article about The Sherman Brothers. While it in no way states what is missing, it might be a clue:








Copyright Walt Disney Productions 1967

"Sherman Brothers Write 42 Different Approaches to Get the Nine Songs for New Disney Musical

The number of songs that finally appear in a finished musical comedy is usually not indicative of the labor and time invested in the score by the song-writers.

"Take it from us," say Bob and Dick Sherman, Academy Award winning composing team, who just completed the songs for Disney's new musical, "The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band," "very few of the songs we wrote appear in the final cut of the film."

"For every number used in 'Family Band'," explained Dick, the more outgoing of the two distinguished brothers, "we composed at least three other approaches for the same situation using different lyrics, before we came up with a tune and feeling that we considered appropriate to the story."

"It is difficult to compose a song for a motion picture anyway," interjected brother Bob, fingering his pipe. "We have to please the screenwriter, the producer, the director, the star and, of course, ourselves."

"We've found," continued Dick, "that if we please ourselves, we will ultimately please the rest of the production team. All in all, we wrote something like forty-two different approaches to songs for 'Family Band,' fourteen of which we perfected for use in the film. But because of the necessary editing and time limitations, only nine are actually on the soundtrack."

"It's not really frustrating," concluded Bob, "because at the end of every picture, we feel certain that only the best of our efforts have been used."

In color by Technicolor, "The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band" stars Walter Brennan, Buddy Ebsen, Lesley Ann Warren, John Davidson, Janet Blair and Kurt Russell. Lowell S. Hawley adapted the autobriographical novel by Laura Bower Van Nuys for the screen. Bill Anderson produced and Michael O'Herlihy directed the Buena Vista release."






Now I don't know if they are referring to the film soundtrack, or the LP soundtrack. Either way, I can't think of any songs from the film that aren't on the LP soundtrack (barring the occasional reprise). It kinds of makes me wonder what is missing?

[disneyfella]

Here it is

The film originally opened with a prolog and different Main Title sequence. A small girl is seen in the woods playing with a doll. The WATCHER’S presence (a roving camera POV) sneaks up to the girl from behind. She suddenly turns to the camera and screams, dropping her doll and running off. The camera changes it view from the running girl to the doll. There is a growl, the doll floats upward, becoming air borne, and is swiftly launched against a tree where it is struck by a blue beam of light igniting it. The Main Titles are played over the burning doll face which melts as the credits continue accompanied by striking “psycho-like” musical strings. This important beginning set up a tone for what would follow casting a much darker atmosphere on every scene to come.

The story behind Anchor Bay and Disney's clashes on how Anchor Bay would release The Watcher in the Woods on DVD is very...well, it makes the whole Robin Williams versus Katzenberg look like a little playground fight.

Albert

Thanks for that link Albert. It had everything I was wanting to know about it. I seriously hope that Disney fixes all of their mistakes with "Watcher" when the Blu-Ray release rolls around. I also found the whole "Scott McQueen" take rather interesting. I know people swoon all over him, and it is rather interesting to read a really derogatory take on him. It sort of supports my distaste with some of his restorations. I really like his work and definitely appreciate some of his restorations (Pollyanna totally comes to mind), but that doesn't give him cart blanche to go messing with things like Bedknobs aspect ratio!

[AlwaysOAR]

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.


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.

Thanks for that info Disneyfella! I too have been wondering about Mary Poppins, and will be waiting for it's correct OAR release on DVD.

[Will Barks]

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.


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.

Thanks for that info Disneyfella! I too have been wondering about Mary Poppins, and will be waiting for it's correct OAR release on DVD.

What's the correct OAR for Bedknobs and Mary Poppins then?
I always thought 1:1.66 is right

[KubrickFan]

What's the correct OAR for Bedknobs and Mary Poppins then?
I always thought 1:1.66 is right

Well, perhaps 1.66:1 is right. American theatres weren't able to project (and still aren't able, since every CAPS-film is still masked) 1.66:1, so those films were masked into 1.75:1. In Europe it probably was projected at 1.66:1, because a lot of European films were that aspect ratio, and so they could still project it.

[drfsupercenter]

That's why I want 1.66:1 for the CAPS films... Just because it was shown in theaters a certain way doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to be!

When I saw The Day After Tomorrow, there was something stuck in the projector that caused interference in the video... and once the projectionist removed it, it was too far back and cropped off a bunch on all sides. So you're telling me that because it was shown in theaters uber-cropped, it's meant to be seen that way? (I realize this was a single incident, but the point remains the same.)

The theaters here aren't the best when it comes to knowledge about projecting... it seems that there are numerous problems with aspect ratios and the like, and I'm sure stuff is cut off that shouldn't be. Disney probably made the CAPS films 1.78 or 1.85:1 to make it easier for the theater... and to ensure that they didn't butcher it any more than it had to be.

[disneyfella]

Bedknobs and Broomstick's OAR is actually 1.66:1. It was instructed to be matted in that ratio upon its premiere. I was referring to a laserdisc release that Scott McQueen did where the film was contemplated release in an open matte full screen version just because the animated ratio for the 15 minute segment was animated fullscreen. Bedknobs was never shown fullscreen (read: 'open matte') before (btw).


What I'm referring to, though drfsupercenter, is not just that a film is randomly shown widescreen in theatres. A CAPS film can totally be shown full aperture in theatres if that's what the projectionist/theatre owner wanted to do (or that's what the film was made for). Indeed many contemporary films are made in the Academy ratio like documentaries and such. The full aperture is shown because that is how it was framed, and that is how it is instructed to be shown. However, widescreen films are framed for specific ratios, and film makers are thus instructing theatre houses how to matte them in order to attain that framing. If CAPS was the intended ratio of a film, then it would be shown in that ratio.


Again, no one is saying that the CAPS ratio doesn't exist, or that open matte prints don't exist. I'm just of the opinion that the film was made for theatres and a specific aspect ratio. It is then screened in that aspect ratio. It should, therefore, be preserved on that aspect ratio for DVD. If they want to release other versions of the film, then do so.....but supplementary to the film itself.






EDIT:

That's why I want 1.66:1 for the CAPS films... Just because it was shown in theaters a certain way doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to be!

It's not about how it was shown in theatres, but rather how it was instructed to be shown in theatres. What the film was framed for.

[drfsupercenter]

I've never seen a 1.66:1 film in theaters... even the ones that say that's the OAR.

My point is that American theaters are cheap and will most likely improperly matte the picture... so Disney did it themselves to prevent any further problems.

I've even seen 1.85:1 movies on 2.35:1 screens with pillarboxes...

[Poppins#1]

I've even seen 1.85:1 movies on 2.35:1 screens with pillarboxes...

Um, what's wrong with that? A 1.85:1 SHOULD HAVE pillarboxes when projected on a 2.35:1 screen. Would you rather they cropped it to 2.35:1 to fit the screen? Are you saying that the movie was not projected correctly just because they didn't pull the curtains to hide unused sides of the screen?

[drfsupercenter]

No, I'm saying the theater just does whatever it can to get the most customers. If they have more of one type of movie than another, they'll show it on a different size screen... and I've never seen a 1.**:1 movie or a 2:**:1 movie with letterboxes or pillarboxes on their own size screen.

Since there are no curtains at some of the theaters, I'm almost certain they matted it.

Does anyone know the OAR of The Incredible Hulk (new movie)? Some of the scenes (like whey they're using the binoculars that have an on-screen display) looked like the sides were cut off... and if it's something other than 2.35:1 I'd bet that they cropped it.

[KubrickFan]

No, I'm saying the theater just does whatever it can to get the most customers. If they have more of one type of movie than another, they'll show it on a different size screen... and I've never seen a 1.**:1 movie or a 2:**:1 movie with letterboxes or pillarboxes on their own size screen.

Since there are no curtains at some of the theaters, I'm almost certain they matted it.

Does anyone know the OAR of The Incredible Hulk (new movie)? Some of the scenes (like whey they're using the binoculars that have an on-screen display) looked like the sides were cut off... and if it's something other than 2.35:1 I'd bet that they cropped it.

All screens nowadays are 2.35:1, simply because there are more 2.35:1 films released than 1.85:1 films. So, because some theaters don't have curtains, they are matting their films? Please elaborate, I don't understand.
The aspect ratio of The Incredible Hulk is 2.35:1. But if the sides were cut off in the 2.35:1 ratio, it couldn't have been cropped. Changing it from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 results in less image in height, not in width. Some cinematographers frame differently than others, you shouldn't blame the theaters for that.

[Poppins#1]

I've even seen 1.85:1 movies on 2.35:1 screens with pillarboxes...

and I've never seen a 1.**:1 movie or a 2:**:1 movie with letterboxes or pillarboxes on their own size screen.

You're contradicting yourself drfsupercenter. I think we're all confused about what you are talking about. If a movie was projected on a screen that matched its aspect ratio of course it wouldn't have letterboxes or pillarboxes.

All screens nowadays are 2.35:1, simply because there are more 2.35:1 films released than 1.85:1 films.

Whoa there KubrickFan, did you really mean to say "ALL"? Most of the Muliplexes I have attended nowadays are using constant width, meaning that when they switch from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 motorized black mattes drop into place from the top and bottom of the screen. There are some theaters that do the opposite (constant height) where the motoized mattes adjust from the sides.

[disneyfella]

I've also seen at a few multiplexes where the hieght and width would adjust according to the framing of the film presented. From my old days working at Disney I remember many a time at Downtown Disney's AMC Pleasure Island the screens changing both vertically and horizontally.

That was a long time ago, though, and they might have updated to constant width now. I was down there last year and seem to remember this being the case in one of the smaller screens.

[KubrickFan]

All screens nowadays are 2.35:1, simply because there are more 2.35:1 films released than 1.85:1 films.

Whoa there KubrickFan, did you really mean to say "ALL"? Most of the Muliplexes I have attended nowadays are using constant width, meaning that when they switch from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 motorized black mattes drop into place from the top and bottom of the screen. There are some theaters that do the opposite (constant height) where the motoized mattes adjust from the sides.

I'm sorry, I meant all screens in Holland (well, apart from some arthouse theaters). I just assumed that it would be the same for you guys.

[drfsupercenter]

Well, I'm pretty sure the theaters here just have different rooms with different screen sizes.

Why else would they show a 1.85:1 movie on a 2.35:1 movie with large pillarboxes? If the screen sizes change, couldn't they just do that?

What I am saying is that I have never seen a movie that is 1.66:1, 1.78:1, etc. have pillarboxes on one of the 1.85:1 screens.
Or a movie that is 2.20:1 have pillarboxes on a 2.35:1 screen.

If they do indeed change the size of the screen, they must have some very good cloaking method, because every time I walk in the theater, the sizes of the screens in their respective rooms are the same size... they just show different movies in them.

What I'm saying about The Incredible Hulk is that it's possible that the projectionist had the projector too far away from the screen, so that all four sides got cut off (of course, by a very small amount). Unless the cut-off text was intentional... I just saw it and thought it wasn't meant to be that way.
I guess I'll wait until the DVD comes out to see what it looks like there. If I can find some movie screenshots I'll see if the scenes I'm referring to are in there.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Now I don't know if they are referring to the film soundtrack, or the LP soundtrack. Either way, I can't think of any songs from the film that aren't on the LP soundtrack (barring the occasional reprise). It kinds of makes me wonder what is missing?

I recently check both Leonard Maltin's The Disney films and his movie guide and this is what I found out. The movie guide says the film's running time is 117 min, like this press kit but his Disney Films says 110 min like the DVD. Nothing from the soundtrack LP is missing from the film so there can't be any songs missing. My guess is that there were some last minute trims done to the film that have never been put back in.

This looks like a question for Dave Smith. Also just what did the missing 5 min from Pete's Dragon consist of?

[disneyfella]

EDIT: This list has been updated and re-posted later in the thread...

[Escapay]

NOTE: I've updated the previous catalog of aspect ratios with "Night Crossing" and thought I'd repost the list of VERIFIED aspect ratios.

Thanks for these, fella!

What I wanna know is why the hell didn't anyone over at WDSHE bother just calling up the Disney archives and saying, "We're getting ready to put together a DVD for (insert title), can you look up the pressbook to see what aspect ratio it should be in?" Alas, if only Disney cared enough about their live-action catalogue to start re-releasing them in their OTRs.

I'm still concerned about the 7-minute discrepancy regarding The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band.

albert

[disneyfella]

I found an auction on ebay for a pressbook of "Pete's Dragon" from its 1977 premiere. This clearly states the aspect ratio of the film.....(and the current DVD release of it is in an improper aspect ratio!!!). Check out the link:


http://cgi.ebay.com/1977-MOVIE-PRESSBOO ... 18Q2el1247



If you read the top left of the pressbook picture it says:

"So Elliott the Dragon can be seen at his brazzle dazzle best please project "Pete's Dragon" at the aspect ratio of 1.75 to 1".


Usually there is a special message explaining how important it is that the film be screened in the proper ratio, and I'm wondering if the black box next to this caption is that message. I couldn't make it out, and can't quite afford to purchase a bunch more pressbooks right now (I do have a few more on the way so I can update here accordingly).

Now, the movie was filmed as almost EVERY movie was (and has been) in a full frame ratio and screened in theatres widescreen (1.75:1). It has also seen a VHS release in an open matte transfer (1.33:1). Also the Gold Collection DVD release of the film is (1.66:1).

Three different aspect ratios for this film have been released. Which is the Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio? Why isn't the original theatrical aspect ratio available to the public? Is there a widescreen laserdisc out there in the proper ratio? Come on Disney!! Get your act together and preserve these films as they were originally seen!!!!