Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:20 pm
Let us all pray. *bows head*
Disney, DVD, and Beyond Forums
https://dvdizzy.com/forum/
Here ya go:BK wrote:Hi, would you mind updating/posting the list of special features that were available in the Platinum edition in the format you use in your quick DVD guide.
Thanks
Now why can't they just release BatB in 1.66:1, like they did with Aladdin, Lion King or any other animated classics?Gabrielkat wrote: The original theatrical aspect ratio for Beauty and the Beast is 1.85:1, but the full negative aspect ratio is 1.66:1, like all the other Disney films that were made with CAPS (The Rescuers Down Under, Aladdin, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc.).
They did, on LaserdiscDisneyJedi wrote:Now why can't they just release BatB in 1.66:1, like they did with Aladdin, Lion King or any other animated classics?
They went with 1.78:1 because it's the perfect compromise. It doesn't add pillarboxing the directors don't want, and it fills the screens completely (that apparently every consumer wants). You can already prepare for the other CAPS movies to be in 1.78:1 too, because I'm sure that's going to happen.jpanimation wrote:They did, on LaserdiscDisneyJedi wrote:Now why can't they just release BatB in 1.66:1, like they did with Aladdin, Lion King or any other animated classics?![]()
The reason for BatB and Hunchback being presented in 1:85:1, instead of the 1:66:1 that they were animated in, is it being the preferred framing of the directors. Thats how they had them framed in theaters and thats how they want them presented here. What really gets me is the press release for the Diamond Edition stating the aspect ratio as being 1:78:1. Now thats neither the full 1:66:1 framing of the negative or the directors' preferred 1:85:1 framing. Did they compromise like on The Little Mermaid or is this an error? We'll see.
I personally don't like matting in animation, as you can always add bars over the animation if you want the OAR, but you can't get the animation back if they don't provide it in the first place.
What does that mean? What is a "full negative aspect ratio" and why does it differ from the original theatrical aspect ratio?Gabrielkat wrote:The original theatrical aspect ratio for Beauty and the Beast is 1.85:1, but the full negative aspect ratio is 1.66:1, like all the other Disney films that were made with CAPS (The Rescuers Down Under, Aladdin, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc.).
Yeah, if the press release is accurate, it's going to be like the Little Mermaid, Toy Story 1 & 2, Finding Nemo, etc. I don't look at it as a compromise though. The theatrical ratio(s) should be presented first and foremost on any release, with the animated ratio along with it. This false ratio Disney keeps trying to push I don't agree with in the least. It's basically them wanting to fill the 16:9 TV screen, regardless of the original theatrical ratio.jpanimation wrote:They did, on LaserdiscDisneyJedi wrote:Now why can't they just release BatB in 1.66:1, like they did with Aladdin, Lion King or any other animated classics?![]()
The reason for BatB and Hunchback being presented in 1:85:1, instead of the 1:66:1 that they were animated in, is it being the preferred framing of the directors. Thats how they had them framed in theaters and thats how they want them presented here. What really gets me is the press release for the Diamond Edition stating the aspect ratio as being 1:78:1. Now thats neither the full 1:66:1 framing of the negative or the directors' preferred 1:85:1 framing. Did they compromise like on The Little Mermaid or is this an error? We'll see.
It's the ratio the film was animated in, with the action taking place in the framed ratio the film was projected in the theatre. Most of the animated classics from the 60's through early 80's were animated at the academy(1.33:1) ratio, but framed and projected in theatres at the 1.75:1 ratio. With the CAPS films, they were animated at 1.66:1, but framed and projected at 1.85:1. Really, both theatrical and animated ratios should be on any DVD/Blu release, as that would satisfy just about everybody on the theatrical vs. animated ratio debate.Goliath wrote:What does that mean? What is a "full negative aspect ratio" and why does it differ from the original theatrical aspect ratio?Gabrielkat wrote:The original theatrical aspect ratio for Beauty and the Beast is 1.85:1, but the full negative aspect ratio is 1.66:1, like all the other Disney films that were made with CAPS (The Rescuers Down Under, Aladdin, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc.).
Not this consumer...KubrickFan wrote: They went with 1.78:1 because it's the perfect compromise. It doesn't add pillarboxing the directors don't want, and it fills the screens completely (that apparently every consumer wants).
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Which means I won't be buying till they get it right. Just my opinion/preference.KubrickFan wrote: You can already prepare for the other CAPS movies to be in 1.78:1 too, because I'm sure that's going to happen.
Me neither. You should be given the option on DVD/Blu of the traditional theatrical ratio and the IMAX ratio, it should be an easy thing to do.ajmrowland wrote:too bad. I dont think it's really worth denying myself some of my favorite films because of a slight exaggeration.
Tell me, what do you think of the decision James Cameron made to put Avatar on blu-ray with the 1.78 ratio closer to IMAX than the theatrical ratio? I dont really like it.
Sounds okay. To be fair, I wouldn't know, because I never saw it in 2.35:1.ajmrowland wrote: Tell me, what do you think of the decision James Cameron made to put Avatar on blu-ray with the 1.78 ratio closer to IMAX than the theatrical ratio? I dont really like it.
I thought we were petty about every movie...CampbellzSoup wrote:Why are we so petty when it comes to this movie I don't undesrtand...
You're welcome!Want2beBelle wrote:thank you escapy
You read right. "Composing a Classic" is confirmed via the BBFC listing, but I heard straight from the horse's mouth (Don Hahn) that there will a new 45-minute documentary (and among the interviewees is Howard Ashman's sister) and more material from the non-musical Purdum version.toonaspie wrote:Escapay, am I right to read that they're putting TWO documentaries on this BluRay?
That's awesome!!!!
So, let me get this straight, you don't own The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King and many other titles just because they differ slightly from the theatrical aspect ratio? The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is really too small to complain about. As long as the colors look the way they do in the trailers, and we get the original cut (surely Disney wouldn't be that stupid, would they?), I'm happy.AlwaysOAR wrote:Not this consumer...KubrickFan wrote: They went with 1.78:1 because it's the perfect compromise. It doesn't add pillarboxing the directors don't want, and it fills the screens completely (that apparently every consumer wants).
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Which means I won't be buying till they get it right. Just my opinion/preference.KubrickFan wrote: You can already prepare for the other CAPS movies to be in 1.78:1 too, because I'm sure that's going to happen.
Scott