2099net wrote:
As for Kubrick (who was brought up earlier by someone), he was reportedly appalled by a P&S job on 2001 when it was shown on television and vowed to film his films to that they could be simply opened up for television or home video. But he always intended the matted format to be the main format - because he made films for cinema, not for television.
No motion picture director should make films for television!
Kubrick only insisted on open matte home video releases as he knew most people were still watching his cinematic films on home video, and before his death, technology was only just catching up to the widescreen format. Many would argue that even now, technology hasn't caught up - the bulk of TVs in use are still 4:3. If Kubrick had lived on, I'm pretty sure he would have approved widescreen only releases of his movies by now (or pretty soon in the future).
Just watch one of the new Directors series of Kubrick re-releases in widescreen and its vastly superior to the opened up transfers we're all used to.
But was it what he really wanted?
I was the person who brought up Kubrick and the reason why I did was this quote taken from none other than the Widescreen Advocacy site linked below!
John Berger of Widescreen.org wrote:
I hear every now and then from those who particularly enjoy Stanley Kubrick's movies. With very few exceptions, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, he framed most of his movies (including The Shining and Full Metal Jacket) for a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, this caused a problem with many because they were shown theatrically at 1.85:1. This is not because he wanted a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Instead, this happened because most modern theaters are incapable of showing a movie in anything less than 1.85:1. As a result, most people thought that the 1.85:1 version is what Kubrick wanted. This is not true.
This means that you should never find a widescreen version of movies like The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and others. I will actually come to the defense of those who say that there should be no widescreen version.
The entire column can be found here:
http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/ ... _feb.shtml
Now, if this information is incorrect I apologize, but it seemed pretty credible to me considering the source! And if this info is correct, it seems to me that he prefered 4:3 for some of his films NOT for television protection, but for artistic/framing choices.
Following this logic, would it then not be plausible that other filmakers of the widescreen-dominant era could also chose the Academy ratio as a valid ARTISTIC choice for their work?
It seems like the thought is that since widescreen is the norm in theatres, that some feel it is automatically a given that this indicates all filmakers conform to this as their "intended" ratio.
But if that info I found about Kubrick is true, it would certainly indicate that this isn't the case!
Even if that wasn't the case for Kubrick, I'm still not convinced that there has never been another case where a director preferred 4:3 as their "intended" ratio in the widescreen era, and I think it is still plausible that this may have been the case with the DACs in question.
Personally, I feel if someone wants to make their movie as a perfect SQUARE, or even in the 3:4 (yes, 3:4!) ratio, then that is their right to do so. Art should be organic and each work should be allowed to exist on it's own terms, not be shoehorned into a specfic box just because that's the dominant formant or what's "expected."
AlwaysOAR wrote:
LatT, unlike SitS, etc., was actually animated twice, one in Academy ratio and the other Cinemascope ratio, with different placement of characters, etc. The backgrounds were the same in both, only extra information animated on the sides in the Cinemascope version, hence the two intended versions.
I'm not meaning to dwell on this, but if the characters have to be repositioned in shots, how can both the Cinemascope AND the Academy be equally co-"intended"? Does that mean the reformated Pixar films are also a valid co-"intended" ratio?
I would think these would be "secondary" ratios, but what I was getting at is if they are accepted as a co-"intended" ratio with repositioned characters, they why not the same status be granted to the open-matte DACs like Sword and JB? The have no repositioned characters, and are much more faithful to the primary ratio (if the matted was even considered primary)
It seems like you are saying that this is the case because Lady was filmed twice, but in the case of Sword and JB, like I said in an earlier post, they didn't have to film twice, since they could accomplish what they wanted in both "intended" ratios in one print.
AlwaysOAR wrote:
The JB, SitS, and the films for this era, keeping in mind that theatres here and there were still transitioning to have the capability to matte, were animated with that in mind. But they were intentionally framed for wide-screen, all of the action taking place in the framed area.
That is one way of looking at it, which could very well be true. It is also possible though, they they were filmed with Academy in mind but "safeguarded" for theatrical matting, which would ALSO explain why much of the action stays in the center. And if they were animating with BOTH ratios in mind, the action would still predominantly be in the center, again to "safeguard" or "protect" for the theatrical matting.
AlwaysOAR wrote:
This is why I believe that the matted versions are the intended theatrical versions. Like I stated before, I have no problem either in having the animated ratio along with the theatrical ratio on DVD releases, just not at the expense of not having the matted version. As far as whether or not there is more than one intended version for the films of this era, it's one of those things where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Nice paragraph. Thank you for saying you "believe" that the matted versions are the intended ratios instead of stating as fact that they are the only valid intended ratios. I appreciate that
I agree, they need to put both versions out, and let us agree to disagree regarding whether or not there is more than one "intended" ratio.
I'm really wasn't trying to be contrary, or defending open-matte just because I have a 4:3 TV. Even on a widescreen, I'd want the protected open-matte versions.
After my last post I re-read a lot of the UD reviews for the films in question, and found them very interesting and relevant to the discussion at hand. Here are some quotes, with bold areas highlighted by me and not the initial review:
UD 101 Dalmatians Platinum review wrote:
In contrast to the widescreen treatment given fellow '60s Disney cartoon The Jungle Book on its Platinum Edition DVD just five months ago, 101 Dalmatians is presented exclusively in the 1.33:1 "full screen" aspect ratio. The film's Limited Issue DVD claim (that 1.33:1 is "the original theatrical aspect ratio") is not reiterated anywhere on the Platinum DVD's case. No doubt that will lead some (especially those who blindly subscribe to the "wider is better" belief) to think that the ball has been dropped here.
It's not easy to confirm or deny that, because Dalmatians was born out of that twenty-year period where Disney animated features seem to be viably watched in either matted 1.75:1 widescreen or unmatted 1.33:1 fullscreen. Indeed, since the framing doesn't seem cramped (as it was vertically on Jungle Book) or padded, one can assume that the makers of Dalmatians intended for the film to be seen in this way, at least on television if not also in theatrical exhibition.
full review:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/101dalmat ... ition.html
UD Sword In The Stone Gold Collection review wrote:
Some issue was made regarding the aspect ratio for The Sword in the Stone. This DVD is presented in 1.33:1 Fullscreen and the packaging contains the standard "This film has been modified to fit your screen" warning that is put on Pan & Scan DVDs. Well, fortunately, this is not a Pan & Scan transfer. The 1.33:1 frame presented is the full frame of cell animation. Some theaters likely matted this film to a ratio of 1.75:1 or so, but like The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, the DVD provides the entire cell animation which just happens to be in Academy Ratio. While some may still cry foul at this, I believe this DVD presentation is fine, as 1.33:1 is the ratio in which the film was created in and intended to be seen.
full review:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/sword.html
UD Jungle Book Platinum Review wrote:
The Jungle Book is part of the class of animated films released by Disney from 1961 to 1981 whose "original aspect ratio" comes into question. Animated in the Academy Ratio with television broadcasts in mind, but matted widescreen for theatrical exhibitions, the movie seems to have two intended ratios, each with its own merits. The film's 1999 Limited Issue disc presented it in 1.33:1 fullscreen and the studio handled DVDs of other films from this period (like 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, and The Aristocats) similarly.
Recently, though, Buena Vista Home Entertainment seems to have undergone a change of heart; last fall's "Most Wanted Edition" DVD of 1973's Robin Hood presented it exclusively in 1.75:1 widescreen. That's also the route that has been taken for this 16x9-enhanced Jungle Book Platinum Edition.
There is no question that putting Jungle Book in widescreen introduces some compromise to the film's compositions. Quite often, elements flirt dangerously close to the top or bottom edge of the 1.75:1 frame. On occasion, they do indeed get chopped off in part. Were Disney animators actively directing for both aspect ratios and not merely safe-guarding for theatrical matting, I don't think this would be occurring. Alas, there's very little argument for the DVD not including both the featured widescreen presentation and the open-matte 1.33:1 presentation, either on the same disc or on separate ones accompanied by an even half of bonuses. More than ever before, studios cater to viewers' preferences today with the release of multiple screen formats. On a film like Jungle Book, the issue is more complicated than disliking black or gray bars. Wishing to see the fullscreen version -- not merely because it shows more but because it was consciously designed for it -- is a valid desire and the set should definitely have included both formats. While many of those with televisions in the increasingly common 16x9 dimensions will appreciate the decision that was made, it sets a poor precedent for others in this group. We won't have to wait long to see if others will have 30% of their imagery altogether dropped; Dalmatians and Aristocats are due to be rereleased next spring.
full review:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/jungleboo ... ition.html
UD Aristocats Special Edition review wrote:
The Aristocats joins its immediate predecessor (The Jungle Book) and successor (Robin Hood) by having its second DVD release treat it to a matted 16x9-enhanced widescreen transfer that purportedly upholds a 1.75:1 theatrical aspect ratio. Though we've been trained to think "widescreen good, fullscreen bad" on any movie from the late-1950s on, Disney animated features present less of an open-shut case.
As on Jungle and Robin, comparing the framing reveals that it's the earlier fullscreen presentation, not this subsequent widescreen one which displays more of the movie's visuals. Of course, "more" isn't always better, but it's harder to dismiss when it's referring to an additional 25% of classic Disney animation intended to be seen in TV broadcasts and not some boom-mic-intruding empty space on an open matte Steve Guttenberg comedy.
This phenomenon is clearly becoming more common, much to the delight of 16x9 television owners who would otherwise choose to distort or zoom to fill their widescreen displays. Personally, I cringe a little every time part of a character disappears at the now-tightened top or bottom of the frame. Disney isn't even being consistent with their decisions; of the seven animated films for which this is clearly an issue, 3 have been reissued in widescreen, 3 remained in 1.33:1 fullscreen on their second DVD (including the imminently-resurfacing 101 Dalmatians), and it's anybody's guess what will happen to the 7th (Sword in the Stone) when its number is inevitably called for a new release.
full review:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/aristocat ... ition.html
UD Robin Hood Most Wanted Edition review wrote:
The most noticeable difference between the two releases is the aspect ratio. The Gold Collection DVD presented Robin Hood in 1.33:1 fullscreen, as has been the case for the DVDs of most animated Disney films post-Sleeping Beauty (one of the studio's two CinemaScope feature-length cartoons released in the 1950s) and pre-The Black Cauldron (which in 1985 rang in an era when all animated Disney films began clearly being composed for widescreen, though some minor ratio discrepancies still exist). Here, the film is presented in 1.75:1 anamorphic widescreen. To achieve this, 25% of the picture seen in the vertical direction has been lost from the Gold Collection transfer while the movie retains the same width. In other words, the Most Wanted Edition offers a matted widescreen presentation of Robin Hood, which is what at least some (and maybe most) theaters would have done in 1973 and 1982 (the movie's re-release) to screen the film.
Matting occurs on a majority of live action films today, which are often shot "flat" (filling an approximately 4x3 frame) but framed for widescreen (approximately 16x9) so that the excess space at the top and bottom of the filmed frame are never intended to be seen. Animation is a different story, and for Disney's features (and some shorts) from 1960 through 1984, this issue has been the source of questions with no easy, definitive answers emerging. Just a few weeks ago, 1981's The Fox and the Hound was re-released and treated to the same 1.33:1 standard TV screen-filling dimensions it previously had, even though the majority of films made then were framed for and exhibited in one of two widescreen aspect ratios.
Clearly, Disney animators took the time to animate Robin Hood for the full 1.33ish:1 frame; whether they did this to achieve the ratio of most of the studio's past cartoon features or to ensure that television broadcasts would not require cropping is unclear. But matting the film does result in a loss of about 25% of artwork, which is no unsubstantial amount. We cry foul when movies are cropped to fill the standard television dimensions; now that 16x9 televisions are becoming more common, is matting a film like Robin Hood tantamount to the dreaded pan-and-scan procedure? It's tough to say and the DVD is little help; the issue is not addressed anymore than it was for Fox and the Hound's recent still-fullscreen reissue. The package doesn't even define 1.75:1 as the movie's original, intended, or theatrical aspect ratio. IMDb claims that Robin Hood's intended ratio is 1.75:1, but you or I could submit a change just for kicks and giggles. The one person who could probably put an end to speculation -- director Wolfgang Reitherman -- has been dead for over twenty years, so I know he didn't tell IMDb the intended ratio.
Of course, looking at the two DVD presentations and comparing the framing does shed a fair amount of light on the subject. In the fullscreen Gold Collection version, the action often stays vertically in the center of the screen, which might suggest that the top and bottom of the frame were considered disposable. But, this is not always the case, as some elements do feel slightly cramped in the vertical direction, and also it's just natural to keep focal action in the middle of the screen, look at Walt's early films (which were obviously intended for the one and only Academy Ratio) and you'll notice the same thing. For the most part, the matted framing looks okay, but not enough to convince me it is the only correct ratio. Naturally, the best solution would have been to include both open matte and widescreen versions in the set to let people decide; there's nearly enough room for both on the disc with compression the way it is.
full review:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/robinhood-mostwanted.html
Yes, you actually acknowledged that 1.85:1 is different from 1.77:1!
Haha, but it's pretty clear. I think though just the fact that they DID matte it proves that was an intended (along with the open matte version) ratio since, they've been doing it the same way for decades and for them to suddenly matte it, they had to have intended it.
