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

[disneyfella]

Well, why the heck would they have reissued some of these films to theatres in the 90's in 1.33:1 if at least someone in the Mouse House didn't consider that the correct THEATRICAL "framing intent" ?

As I stated, this isn't based on one person's allegedly "flawed" memory. I've read other posts where people have stated that Dalmatians was re-released in the 90's with the full Academy print preserved by surrounding the open-matte version within the frame by windowboxing the sides and letterboxing the top. And I've also read posts by people who remember seeing open-matte presentations of some of these films on their initial theatrical release!

Also, I don't think it's very polite to refer to the work of people who study film and are obviously published, intelligent reviewers "amateur"

In the mid 1980s there was a huge backlash when a theatrical release of Snow White was matted and Siskel and Ebert (as well as many film critics) publicly lamented the decision (as well they should have)..lol.... In response, though, Disney decided to reissue all of its animated films with "more open" frames. In 1992, when Sleeping Beauty was reissued it was shown in a 1.85:1 ratio....does that mean that that was the intended ratio? Or should we go with the initial theatrical presentation in 1959 Scope ratio as the theatrical ratio? Granted, 1.85:1 would imply horizontal matting...but you get the idea. The ratio changed for its reissue.....

And my comment about amateur opinion wasn't meant to have a negative connotation. I simply meant that most internet reviewers (myself included) haven't had extensive film training outside of school or hobby (I myself have a minor in film, have worked on the back lot of the Studios, visited several television sets, interviewed a handful of "celebrities" (not that famous, though...lol), and have made some student/amateur films......and I would NEVER call myself anything more than an amateur). Just because someone posts there opinion on the internet, though, doesn't mean it's should be viewed as anything more than that....an opinion. And often an amateur one at that.

Oh, and I've been published too (in a not-online source) Still amateur (IMHO)

We know that they were matted in some theatres on initial release, but not all.

But this still doesn't completely proove theatrical "intent" to me.

You know why? Because if I made a movie in Academy ratio in the 70's and stated 4:3 as my intended ratio, most theatres would have matted the ****ing thing anyway!

So knowing that going into the filming, wouldn't you frame the film for matting? A theatre had the capability to show the full aperture frame if it was needed or wanted (like reissues of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind), but they still matted these DACs. Why?

...I will go to my grave feeling that matted widescreen SUCKS, especially for animation, and requesting that open-matte tranfers be made available on DVD for films protected for it.

Even if that open matte wasn't the intended ratio (i.e. the filmmaker used Super Techniscope, etc.)?

[drfsupercenter]

Thus, I stand by my statement that if widescreen tvs didn't exist (and this is making me wish that they didn't !), and if they weren't becoming more mainstream, Disney would have NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER even CONSIDERED releasing Jungle Book, Aristocats, and Robin Hood bloody HACKED and vertically HATCHETED on DVD!

This is where I totally agree. Widescreen was a common format on laserdisc for years despite VHS being pan-and-scan, and surely if The Jungle Book, etc. were intended for widescreen they would be on laserdisc. I realize the 80s laserdiscs were only pan-and-scan but all the new ones are OAR. Yet the Masterpiece Collection releases of these films were still fullscreen.

And then you get movies like Aladdin 3. It was released on DVD in Europe and Asia in its original 4:3 aspect ratio, and later re-released as a "special edition" everywhere, cropped to anamorphic widescreen. Finding a genuine fullscreen version is almost impossible to do nowadays due to Vaulting and the re-release. And for that matter, the DVD box even says it's "4:3 (Fullscreen)" but it's obviously not.

That just supports that it was only changed (and most likely at the last minute) because of the increasing popularity of widescreen TVs. Surely films that were done DIRECT TO VIDEO back in the 90s were not intended to be seen in widescreen... but look at almost all the new re-releases of the DTV sequels (The Lion King 2, etc)... and they're "Family Friendly Widescreen" or something like that.

[Mollyzkoubou]

Ugh. Tilt and scan is as evil as pan and scan.

[David S.]

Thus, I stand by my statement that if widescreen tvs didn't exist (and this is making me wish that they didn't !), and if they weren't becoming more mainstream, Disney would have NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER even CONSIDERED releasing Jungle Book, Aristocats, and Robin Hood bloody HACKED and vertically HATCHETED on DVD!

This is where I totally agree. Widescreen was a common format on laserdisc for years despite VHS being pan-and-scan, and surely if The Jungle Book, etc. were intended for widescreen they would be on laserdisc. I realize the 80s laserdiscs were only pan-and-scan but all the new ones are OAR. Yet the Masterpiece Collection releases of these films were still fullscreen.

EXCELLENT point about the laserdiscs! Thank you for mentioning that. It seems that if the laserdiscs of that period were being faithful to OAR and coming out in widescreen for other films, than Jungle Book, Robin Hood, Aristocats, Sword, etc would have ALSO been in widescreen if Disney considered that the intended OAR. Again, excellent point!

You're right on the money about the DTVs as well. Matting things that are undisputably not widescreen is JUST AS BAD AS PAN AND SCAN!!!

In the mid 1980s there was a huge backlash when a theatrical release of Snow White was matted and Siskel and Ebert (as well as many film critics) publicly lamented the decision (as well they should have)..lol.... In response, though, Disney decided to reissue all of its animated films with "more open" frames. In 1992, when Sleeping Beauty was reissued it was shown in a 1.85:1 ratio....does that mean that that was the intended ratio? Or should we go with the initial theatrical presentation in 1959 Scope ratio as the theatrical ratio? Granted, 1.85:1 would imply horizontal matting...but you get the idea. The ratio changed for its reissue.....

No, I would never consider any cropping to be "intended". That is a different case than Sword, JB, etc. where the open-matte shows the entire frame of animation, and preserves everything that was intended to be seen in the matted version, and then further enhances the films by enveloping the audience even deeper into the world of the films by including the ENTIRE frame that the animators took their time to draw (and some would have us believe that they did all this work for no reason!)

And my comment about amateur opinion wasn't meant to have a negative connotation. I simply meant that most internet reviewers (myself included) haven't had extensive film training outside of school or hobby (I myself have a minor in film, have worked on the back lot of the Studios, visited several television sets, interviewed a handful of "celebrities" (not that famous, though...lol), and have made some student/amateur films......and I would NEVER call myself anything more than an amateur). Just because someone posts there opinion on the internet, though, doesn't mean it's should be viewed as anything more than that....an opinion. And often an amateur one at that.

The thing about those reviews though, such the ones at UD, is that IMO the author never comes across as being biased or "subjectively", explicitly in favor of one ratio or the other. He looks at it objectively with an open mind and a trained eye, and doesn't just use the example "television broadcast" that other people keep harping on. Rather, examples of the cramped matted framing or vertical panning are used to speak for themselves to suggest that it is at least plausible that the films were possibly framed primarily with open-matte in mind. Those reviews also acknowledge that it is a very complex issue where both ratios should be available as there are valid reasons for wanting both. What they DON'T do is pretend to have all the answers and make a black and white statement that "only the matted versions are intended", which in my eyes is a waaay more "subjective" statement than anything in those reviews!

We know that they were matted in some theatres on initial release, but not all.

But this still doesn't completely proove theatrical "intent" to me.

You know why? Because if I made a movie in Academy ratio in the 70's and stated 4:3 as my intended ratio, most theatres would have matted the ****ing thing anyway!

So knowing that going into the filming, wouldn't you frame the film for matting?

If my original artistic vision was for 4:3, I might consciously or subconsciously PROTECT the film for matting, but still make it clear that I considered the 4:3 the correct version.

A theatre had the capability to show the full aperture frame if it was needed or wanted (like reissues of Casablanca or Gone with the Wind), but they still matted these DACs. Why?

I don't know. Perhaps the same reason they matted Snow White, in the aforementioned Snow White reissue example, even though there should never have been any doubt at all about it's correct ratio!

...I will go to my grave feeling that matted widescreen SUCKS, especially for animation, and requesting that open-matte tranfers be made available on DVD for films protected for it.

Even if that open matte wasn't the intended ratio (i.e. the filmmaker used Super Techniscope, etc.)?

I'm not an expert on Super Techniscope. In any case, my rule of thumb is if the extra vertical info has mikes, equipment, puppeteers hands, unfinished artwork, continuity errors, etc., I don't want it.

If, however, there is even the slightest bit of extra information that further takes me "into the world of the film" included, that's the version I want, provided the above flaws are not present.

If someone who knew enough about film to spot the aformentioned examples of films not being "protected" didn't see any, and if the open-matte looked more pleasing to my eye than the matted (which for my taste always would - I PREFER spacious framing rather than cramped, prefer seeing more sky, feeling more immeresed into the world of a film, etc, ESPECIALLY in animation), I would want the open-matte, regardless of "intent".

This is more the case for animation than live action. If given a choice, I generally would want open-matte for live action only if it's protected and I'd gain significantly more on the top than I'd lose on the sides. Having said that, I don't feel quite as *livid* when valid open-matte transfers are not made available for live action films that were ORIGINALLY theatrically matted, as when they are not available for animation. (Matting things like IMAX films or Wizard Of Oz is a different story, though. That would tick me off big time!)

But it is very imporant for me to see EVERYTHING the animators illustrated that made it into the film print.

If it's on the film print and "protected", IMO it's FAIR GAME to be considered officially part of the film. It's part of the historical REALITY of what is on the actual film negative. It's never been in my nature to crop or alter images in their original form. Period.

If someone found the print in a closet somewhere and didn't know anything about matting or when the film came out, and could screen it without those errors mentioned above (ie, it's a protected open-matte transfer) it's really hard for me to believe that that is not a valid way to watch the film, regardless of how cinemas may have screened it!

I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

This isn't "personal", by the way. I've always liked your Herbie avatar. My favorite part of Lights, Motors, Action at WDW has always been when Herbie comes out and then has to split

PS. Another example is 16:9 DVD menus. In my opinion, 16:9 is the CORRECT Ratio for these menus because they show more image, and IMO are created primarily with that intended ratio in mind, but protected for the 1.33:1 center of the frame because unfortunately most players don't display all of these menus in letterbox on 4:3 TVs. Just because the wider drawings that get hacked on my screen are considered not as "relevant" as the center part, it still ticks me off that I can't see the ENTIRE artwork that was used for the menu, and I feel less enveloped into the world of the menu than I would if they were authored to letterbox and show the ENTIRE frame on a 4:3 TV. Even if someone from Disney publically stated the only the 1.33:1 center part of the menu was "intended", and the horizontally expanded 16:9 versions were merely extended for the 16:9 frame the way some feel is the case for Sword, JB, etc, vertically, I would STILL feel the 16:9 menus are the correct and superior versions, and the ones I would choose, if given a choice!

[disneyfella]

Oh I don't think this a personal issue (and I certainly hope I'm not coming across that way). On the contrary, I enjoy coming back to the forum to read what you have to say.

I find your view/opinion interesting, but don't quite agree with it. I suppose this is the whole "agree to disagree" addage that has been used so often. I honestly haven't met anyone before who wanted "more picture" for the sake of having more picture. Before it's always been to see what the director framed for you to see.

No one is trying to say that your opinion is wrong, or that an open matte print is not a way to view the film. I think the feeling I tend to have, though, is that the film is framed to be matted. Somtimes matted to a 2.35:1 ratio! If that were shown open matte there is a TON of room outside the principle images. Even changing the ratio, though, to a mere 1.85:1 instead of scope to get just a little bit more image I feel disregards the director/cinematographer's work to tell a story the way they want it to be told. If the director wanted to "draw you into the world" by using a 1.33:1 image, he/she would have done so instead of framing it for 2.35:1 (or any other ratio for that matter) and asking it to be matted as such in theatres. The autonomy of artistry is taken and given to the consumer. That's not art....

All effort should be made to maintain artistic integrity and show the film the way the director(s) intended the film to be shown...regardless of what is available. Now, making these extras available as supplements would be a more proper place for them in my mind, but the original theatrical presentation should be its DVD presentation if that's how it was intended to be seen.

I dunno, I just can't understand why anyone would tamper with an aspect ratio after the fact simply because they (not the artist) think it might be better. That's like taking an Ansel Adams photograph negative and opening up the frame to the full image (rather than what the photographer printed and wanted you to see). I just don't understand it...I don't think it is lack of respect for the artist, but maybe simply neglect? I dunno.

[David S.]

Oh I don't think this a personal issue (and I certainly hope I'm not coming across that way). On the contrary, I enjoy coming back to the forum to read what you have to say.

Thanks. No, you were't coming across as personal. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't coming across that way either (not only to you but the others who have a different opinion than mine)

Good points in your post. Remember though, I said I wasn't an expert on Super Techniscope and was just stating my instictive rule of thumb is to favor the version with more image.

My participation in this thread is primarily to defend the open matte versions of Jungle Book, Sword, etc., which have historically been presented on home video open-matte- even laserdisc and early DVDs. Disney has themselves made those films available for more than one generation of fans that way, so if anyone was not respecting the artists visions (assuming the artists did not consider the open-matte valid), it's certainly not the consumers who want the versions they know and love, and certainly seem correct because they show more. You can't blame the fans for crying foul when 25% of the movie they love is suddenly taken away after being there for years. These movies take on a life of their own on home video and it's how most people know them. Telling someone you're going to take a quarter of their movie away just because of how some theatres screened them years ago is not going to go down well, especially when the issue of "intended" ratio isn't even cut and dry or black and white for these films, but very murky...

I'm all for artist rights. If a matted live action title explicitly stated on the case "This film has been presented matted because the director explicitly requested/intended it", I would at least alternate screening that version with the open-matte (if it also had an open-matte transfer) so I could be faithful to both the artists vision and the original negative ratio.

But regarding the DACs in question...

What this keeps coming back to is that we just don't know which one was the "intended" ratio, and IMO evidence seems to suggest that the artists themselves who worked on the films were working with both in mind.

Somehow I can't picture Walt, Woolie, Frank, and Ollie, etc, if they were still with us, saying "the open matte version of Jungle Book is crap and a complete betrayal of our artistic vision!". Yes, I know it's conjecture, but I truly believe they were animating with both ratios in mind, and that both are valid...

Also, I feel that my wanting to see the entire frame DOES show respect for the artists, because I want to see the version that shows MORE of their beautiful artwork, and the little details in the matted area they took their time and effort and creativity and talent to illustrate, that would not be in the matted frame otherwise.

Lastly, if a filmaker felt THAT strongly that possible open-matte screenings or potential commercially available open-matte versions on home video were disrespectful to their work, why not just film hard-matted to their intended ratio, which would immediately send any and all debates about the intended ratio of a film to a screeching halt?

[disneyfella]

You don't film in hard matte, you print in hard matte. The only reason that you have a full frame to begin with is that the film stock and camera used to shoot the Academy ratio were SSSSssssooooooo much cheaper than a Cinemascope camera or Technirama camera, etc. whose actual film frame is wide.

When the camera negative is used to make a print of the film, they can matte the image as it is being transferred from the camera negative to the theatrical print of the film. This would be considered a "hard matte" because the print now has a matted image that cannot be altered (obviously altering aspect ratios isn't only a recent issue...lol).

The problem with hard matting and the reason it wasn't that common is that it is expensive and often the hard matte was done without supervision of the film-makers.




Also, I kind of go back to my earlier point. If the film-maker really wanted you to see the rest of the frame......they would have. If they could've afforded a more expensive camera to cut off the rest of the image....they definitely would have. As it were they made do with what they could and now it is biting them in the rear.



And not to disillusion you on widescreen DVDs, but almost EVERY single Waner Brothers DVD that is in widescreen is a matted widescreen print (from the 60s on). I sincerely hope you don't throw out all of your DVDs simply because now you know they're matted. Honestly, I'm sure even Warner Brothers doesn't know if any frames have a microphone or gaffer in the matted image, because these films were never intended to be seen in fullscreen. In fact, while Disney was notorious for using open matte transfers for their VHS and television presentations Warner Brothers used to release P&S images from the zoomed in matted image!Matting a film for widescreen is actually quite common (read EXTREMELY common) and not something that Disney would have only done to the DACs from the 60s/70s. You'd be suprised how many of your beloved widescreen films are actually matted and you just never knew it.




Here's a question I'm interested to get your point of view on. Let's say that a filmmaker obviously never intended the matted image to be filmed, but had to because the camera was cheaper (which was almost always the case). Looking at an open matte print you see boom mikes, and all kinds of stuff. And let's also say that there are special effects sequences that were done on a hard matted print. In this day and age, computers can do wonders.

Would you prefer the original framed film as it was intended to be seen? Or would you rather the open matte print with computer digital enhancements that erased or made "disappear" any boom mic or sign of unprotection, and the special effects sequence was zoomed in to P&S only for the effects shot. Are you just looking for more image?

How can you honestly say that you are preserving the artists intent by saying that if he intended it NOT to be in fullscreen he wouldn't have shot it on Academy aperture film? What if he couldn't afford anything else?! That was where the idea for matting came from to begin with, to create the illusion of widescreen but maintain a depth of focus for the camera operator in a very cheap way.

Opening up a matted image (from the way the filmmaker intended it to be seen) does not show respect for the filmmaker.

[David S.]

Well, as far as my opinion on live action DVDs, this is all hypothetical and somewhat moot as far as most of my DVDs (so far) are Disney animation and animation by other studios and most of those are either 1.33:1 or undisputably widescreen. (CAPS, Lady, Sleeping Beauty, etc) I don't have a lot of live action (yet) on DVD, other than Disney, which as you say were often released open-matte.

I was just saying it's not disrespectful IMO to want to see the entire frame of animation drawn by the animators. I think wanting to see everything they drew shows respect for their work.

Regarding your question regarding live action, I already stated I don't want to see boom mics, etc. If a PURE open-matte version without those things was available I would watch it, and if a matted version was included I would view that as well from time to time, to respect the artists in case that is what was intended.

One thing I can say is any version with pan and scan effects shots would be out of the question. I'd ALWAYS pick the matted to avoid that.

Also, regarding the Warners titles you mentioned, if it was a choice between the matted widescreen and a pan and scan created from the matted widescreen - OF COURSE I'd want the matted widescreen. That's a no brainer as you'd be preserving the entire width at least, whereas the pan and scan would NOT be and still not giving you the missing height.

Really we are at the mercy of what the studios release, anyway. If they release an "unintended" open-matte live action print and I view it, it is not me who is "disrespecting" the filmakers original intent, but the studio for releasing the film in a compromised fashion.

As for "hard matting" I honestly didn't know that was a cost issue. I thought things were filmed open-matte primarily to protect for home video. If that statement offended you since you have more technical knowledge than me, I apologize.

Remember, my post regarding matting are primarily refering to animation - specifically the DACs in question which are less cut and dry regarding the intended ratio than the live action scenarios you mentioned. And I feel that animation in general is a somewhat unique case because you don't just start filming - EVERYTHING is pre-planned and drawn for a reason. And I maintain they wouldn't draw and then film things that were not intended to be seen.

[disneyfella]

But regarding the DACs in question...

What this keeps coming back to is that we just don't know which one was the "intended" ratio, and IMO evidence seems to suggest that the artists themselves who worked on the films were working with both in mind.

I'm all with you there. We honestly just don't know which ratio was intended. But I'm more inclined to think that a film which was made in the 60s and 70s was made for a widescreen release, but only shot on full frame film.

I'm still on the hunt for a presskit (a cheap one mind you) for Jungle Book or SitS ORIGINAL theatrical release (not a reissue release) just to see if they mention anything about matting, etc. Though I'm not sure that would be the end all for the discussion. For even if it was intended to be matted, it seems that you would still want the full frame format....so does it really matter what was intended? For me it does. If there is explicit directions that the film should be shown in Academy ratio, then that is how I will demand it to be presented....but I get the feeling that even if it was intended to be matted you would still want the fullscreen version instead of the intended version.

[disneyfella]

Regarding live action, I already stated I don't want to see boom mics, etc. If an unmatted version without those things was available I would watch it, and if a matted version was included I would view that as well from time to time, to respect the artists in case that is what was intended. Really we are at the mercy of what the studios release, anyway. If they release an "unintended" open-matte live action print and I view it, it is not me who is "disrespecting" the filmakers original intent, but the studio for releasing the film in a compromised fashion.

Well, yeah. But if you demand it from the studio a certain way (as you obviously have), then that is the way they will give it to you. The studio is just going to give the consumer what they want. That's what I meant by the consumer interfering with artistic integrity. You're right, it's totally the studios doing it, but they only do it because that's what the consumer wants (i.e. they want the open matte print rather than an intended matted print).




EDIT: I just read your signature, and I really liked it. "OAR-original ANIMATION ratio". I definitely think there is a difference between original animation ratio and original theatrical aspect ratio. I'd caution, though, that when throwing around the acronym OAR it is sort of established you are referring to original theatrical aspect ratio (which was established during the movement for widescreen in the early 1990s....the beginnings of the internet).

[David S.]

I'm still on the hunt for a presskit (a cheap one mind you) for Jungle Book or SitS ORIGINAL theatrical release (not a reissue release) just to see if they mention anything about matting, etc. Though I'm not sure that would be the end all for the discussion. For even if it was intended to be matted, it seems that you would still want the full frame format....so does it really matter what was intended? For me it does. If there is explicit directions that the film should be shown in Academy ratio, then that is how I will demand it to be presented....but I get the feeling that even if it was intended to be matted you would still want the fullscreen version instead of the intended version.

True .

But it would at least give the matted version more credibility in my eyes and I'd view them from time to time to see the "intended framing", assuming they were on the same disc as the open matte

For the record, the ONLY time I have complained to a studio regarding lack of an open-matte transfer was Jungle Book, Aristocats, and Robin Hood.

Thanks for the compliment about my signiture I know "Original Animation Ratio" its different than what people mean by "OAR". I wasn't trying to say they were the same - that was kind of a tongue and cheek way of saying I consider wanting the original animation ratio to be as valid a desire as wanting the theatrical or "intended" ratio, and it seemed pertinent to the discussion at hand...

[DarthPrime]

I have no clue what the intended ratio is supposed to be for these films. It seems like if they were originally shown in a widescreen theater then that should be the intended ratio. Even if you loose picture on the top and bottom compared to the widescreen version. A lot of times there is information in this area that is never meant to be seen. It doesn't happen in animation (that I know of), but on other movies mics, people's hands, etc... will show up in this area sometimes.

As far as the DVD are there any good deals for the new release? It seems like its $19.99 everywhere.

[2099net]

First of all, without quoting the post in question, I will say that Ben over at Animated News is actually involved in the production of modern animation (I'm not sure in what capacity, but he is an "insider") so I respect his views about The Jungle Book.

Especially if its true some scenes are tilt and scanned. That of course, should not have happened. But even if this is true, it doesn't mean 1.75: 1 (or thereabouts) is not the intended theatrical ratio. Back to the Future was matted incorrectly on its initial DVD release, but it didn't mean 1.85: 1 wasn't its intended ratio. Of course, tilt and scanning is much worse than incorrect matting, because it indicates the transfer was actually manually adjusted when being made.

I suspect it could be because the widescreen transfer was taken from an initially incorrect matting assumption (as has been pointed out, not all films are designed to be simply centre matted).

Let's try an experiment, check out Peter Pan screenshots on the UD review, see how the examples on the page all have information filling the frame as this was a film made without matting in mind:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/m-p/pp8.jpg
Here the mermaid's tail reaches right down to the bottom of the frame. If it was [centre] matted, the middle mermaid would all but be removed.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/m-p/pp4.jpg
Hook's hook is right down the bottom, and his fist right up near the top of the frame.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/m-p/pp3.jpg
Pan and Wendy fill the full exposed frame.

Here's the review page so you can see the shots in context
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/peterpan.html

Doing the same for The Jungle Book

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/tjb2.jpg
Huge "empty" space at the top and bottom of this frame

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/tjb1.jpg
Same here, lots of head and foot room to the image.

Review again for context:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/junglebook.html

There's no doubt it my mind that The Jungle Book was designed for matting. There's a clear difference in how the shots are composed between the two films. If Disney applied the correct matting for their recent Platinum edition is another question (but it should be noted, way before the Platinum DVD was released the not-always-correct IMDB listed The Jungle Book as 1.75: 1)
Review for context
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/robinhood.html

Well, why the heck would they have reissued some of these films to theatres in the 90's in 1.33:1 if at least someone in the Mouse House didn't consider that the correct THEATRICAL "framing intent" ?

Perhaps becuase like is apparently happening now, they feared people used to the open matte presentation would complain if shown something different at the cinema?

What we have here is, to a certain extent, the same syndrome as the Venus de Milo statue - people are so used to seeing it without her full arms, they assume this is how it always looked, but originally it had comple and proper arms. If they saw it with arms, they would say it looked "wrong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo

As I stated, this isn't based on one person's allegedly "flawed" memory. I've read other posts where people have stated that Dalmatians was re-released in the 90's with the full Academy print preserved by surrounding the open-matte version within the frame by windowboxing the sides and letterboxing the top. And I've also read posts by people who remember seeing open-matte presentations of some of these films on their initial theatrical release!

I've no doubt Dalmatians was re-released open-matte. In fact, I do have some [tiny] doubt if it wasn't shown theatrically open-matte. Again, the not-always-correct IMDB lists it as 1.37: 1. The only Disney film from around that era which is, incidently as far as I can see. However, just by simply looking at the frames, you can tell they don't have the same composition as the Jungle Book ones above. They do appear "tighter".

If anything, they seem to display more headroom than footroom. Does that mean maybe off-centre matting was desired? or a more lax 1.66: 1 ratio rather than the seemingly traditional 1.75: 1? Remember 1.66: 1 was still a lot more common than 1.37: 1 at that time period.

But if you look at this screenshot here (from the second page of the UD review)
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/l-o/101d-13.jpg
It's clear pre-production work did favour the widescreen format.

Thus, I stand by my statement that if widescreen tvs didn't exist (and this is making me wish that they didn't !), and if they weren't becoming more mainstream, Disney would have NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER even CONSIDERED releasing Jungle Book, Aristocats, and Robin Hood bloody HACKED and vertically HATCHETED on DVD!

Hacked and Hatcheted are strong words, when even those who prefer the full frame presentation admit little of interest is missing.

And also this charge about widescreen TVs is somewhat perplexing. Unless I'm mistaken the majority of TVs are still in the 4:3 format at this time, so why would Disney risk the wrath of non-widescreen owners? After all, its those customers who disney has catered for in the past, either by only offering full frame DVDs or a choice of widescreen or full frame.

As Disneyfella says, I've not experienced any rabid widescreen owners demanding that there screens are filled. Are the same widescreen TV owners writting letters to the TV networks demanding only widescreen presentations?

If anything widescreen owners have more choice than 4:3 owners, because their TV's come with multiple display modes (typically 4:3 tvs have none, and you have to rely on your DVD player having a "zoom" mode, which not all do). So widescreen owners can alter any display to their viewing preference if required.

Like I acknowledged, I understand that the people in this thread who want to matte these films have pure reasons based on their opinion of the correct ratio.

As far as the "widescreen community", I was referring to things like this: I have read more than one review of IMAX films that were vertically cropped from their negative, theatrical, and intended ratio in order to conform to the 16:9 sets and get "animorphic enhancement". Yet, many reviews don't make an issue out of this, others don't aknowledge it, and I remember one that praised this decision!

Now, as I said I've seen the IMAX ratio listed as 1.33:1 in some places and 1.44:1 in others.

If 1.44:1 is correct, than Academy ratio is not the answer either for these DVDs (although it is at least closer than 1.66:1 or 16:9!) and they should be presented on home video in 1.44:1. But unfortunately 16:9 versions of these films are becoming more and more common as blue ray and wide tvs are becoming more mainstream

Well IMAX is another issue, to some extent. I've little or no interest in IMAX as such, as you cannot reproduce the impact on any home system. With IMAX, is the ratio the main artistic import, or the effect of seeing it projected so hugle the main artistic import?

We know that they were matted in some theatres on initial release, but not all.

But this still doesn't completely proove theatrical "intent" to me.

You know why? Because if I made a movie in Academy ratio in the 70's and stated 4:3 as my intended ratio, most theatres would have matted the ****ing thing anyway!

The idea that EVERYTHING created at that time can be assumed to be designed for a certain dimension just because that's what the majority were doing (and would have been done to the films in many theatres anyway REGARDLESS of intent) is what I disagree with.

Let's say I would have made a movie in the 70's and INTENDED it to be 4:3. Some theatres who could honor that would have, but most probably would not have, either to conform to the "wider is better" fad or because they were simply not equiped to honor my intended ratio.

Now, when it is time for my movie to come out on DVD, "theatrical ratio purists" will insist that only the matted ratio is correct even though it ISN'T. And anyone who tries to even suggest that the 4:3 framing WAS intended will be told that this isn't true because by then everything else was in widescreen.

But generally they were made with head and footroom, which to me mean means "intent" to be matted. If you're making a picture matting safe, you're not making a picture open-matte only. Like I say, the Jungle Book screen shots have totally different composition rules to those of Peter Pan. How can you do both at the same time - its either designed for safe-matting or its designed to be seen open matte only. To me, all of the later films err on the side of matting more than open matte.

In the case of the DACs in question, there is not enough concrete evidence to prove open-matte is the SOLE intended ratio, but there is also not enough concrete evidence to prove that it isn't! And it is clear to me that is is valid as AN intended ratio, and NOT just for television. There is enough evidence that BOTH ratios are valid for different reasons, depending on one's point of view of the correct way of defining "intent" or "aspect ratio".

But how can you have TWO intended ratios? How? Its just impossible. One or both will be compromised. (as indeed the open matte presentations appear to be in the case of the DACs with excessive head and footroom). The Peter Pan shots show if open-matte was the only option, the frames would be composed totally differently.

I'll never subscribe to the "two intended ratios" theory.

Therefore, anyone who wishes to deny themselves the entire animated frame and watch cropped versions, that is their business and right, as it is mine to support open matte. I will go to my grave feeling that matted widescreen SUCKS, especially for animation, and requesting that open-matte tranfers be made available on DVD for films protected for it.

I agree. Unlike some here, I actually do think the Blu-rays will have both aspect ratios on. How long is a typical Disney animated film? 75mins? There's more than enough room for both presentations, over an hour and a half of HD extras, and other interactive gubbins. That certainly allows Disney's Blu-rays to have more content than their current DVD releases. Plus, should they want to do a "super-release" having both aspect ratios on the disc, makes it easier for Disney to jusify a second disc of extras (which is seen as added value by purchases).

Perhaps my letters and phone calls to Disney expressing disapointment about the matted Robin Hood, Jungle Book, and Aristocats may have helped do some good after all - in that Sword and Dalmatians were thankfully NOT hacked and butchered on their subsequent re-releases

I agree that both versions should be made available, but since Disney just seems to want to put out one version these days, I am very happy and thankful that they at least got 101 Dalmatians, Sword In the Stone, and Many Adventures Of Winnie the Pooh CORRECT and UNBUTCHERED on all of their DVD releases!

Thanks, Disney!

Again, I think the word unbutchered is a little over the top!

[AlwaysOAR]

Looking at those reviews, and they are subjective, all but one suggest also that they were most likely animated with an eye towards television broadcasts, IMO undercutting your argument that the open-matte is a co-intended theatrical ratio. More likely, the 1.33:1 ratio was intended for those television broadcasts, and the matted ratio the intended theatrical version. However, again, we can agree to disagree.

They were also animating open-matte for theatres that couldn't or chose not to matte. IMO undercutting your argument that the 1.33:1 was only "intended" for television broadcast and not also those theatres . But at least you acknowledge they were "intended" for something, and it logically follows that watching the open matte is therefore a valid way of watching these films!

But of couse the biggest thing that undercuts your argument is that some of these films in question were released ***THEATRICALLY*** open-matted on some 90's reissues.

I was only suggesting this as a possibility IF they had an eye towards TV broadcasts, keeping in mind these films were made, and framed for matting, roughly a decade after the switch to widescreen in theatres, and having seen the pan and scan versions of movies on television, they didn't want that done to the movies they were working on.

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.

I haven't re-located that post (yet), but what follows is a quote and link to a review in which the reviewer states he saw Jungle Book in theatres in the 90's.... in open matte. Again, the bold emphasis was added by me:

Well, now…here’s where we hit a snag. From 1955 onwards, the vast majority of Hollywood movies were produced in a dual aspect ratio that allowed a standard Academy 1.37:1 image to be cropped to widescreen in the theater and shown with extra head room (and sometimes unwanted picture area at the bottom) in later TV airings. From One Hundred And One Dalmatians in 1961, Disney followed this route, formatting his films from a 1.37 negative ratio which allowed the cropping of the image top and bottom for theatrical exhibition and revealing this information for television screens. Since TV was the intended medium that would run the film forevermore after the initial cinema release – VHS being little more than a blink in JVC’s eye at the time – it could be argued that the majority of shots were created more with this eventual presentation in mind. However, with the move to widescreen sets that approximate theatrical screen dimensions, and especially the native widescreen high-definition formats, companies are now looking at how much content they can “re-purpose” to fill the newer, wider home displays.

Once again, I want the intended THEATRICAL ratios for these movies, and these films were made for the theatre, not some possible presentation later for the television ratio of that time. And again, you keep undercutting your argument that the open-matte is a co-intended theatrical ratio with every referenced review you present, as all of them constantly mention TELEVISION as a possible reason for showing the open-matte.

Already we’ve seen the 1.37:1 ratio of Robin Hood cropped to the 1.75:1 aspect ready for Disney’s eventual Blu-Ray Disc releases, and The AristoCats looks to be going the same way next spring. The Jungle Book is likewise – after years of being available on home video in nothing less than its “original theatrical ratio” of 1.37:1 – presented here in its “original theatrical ratio” of 1.75:1, actually a weird aspect that never officially existed in movie houses to begin with.

Well, that's not even true. 1.75:1 was an early 35mm widescreen process, primarily used by MGM, and hasn't been used in a number of years.

What's your take on the matting of IMAX films on DVD?

They should be shown on DVD in the ratio they were intended for in the IMAX presentation if that film was released exclusively in IMAX. If I recall, some movies were released both in a regular theatre and in IMAX at the same time, but I don't know if that resulted in two intended ratios or not, as I'm not familiar with IMAX and have never seen a film in IMAX. If it does result in two intended ratios, the same principle would apply ala LatT and SB, both of which were projected in two intended ratios. If it's a reissue of an intended matted movie from an earlier release, and made to fit an IMAX presentation, then definitely it needs to be shown in it's intended matted version.

[David S.]

And also this charge about widescreen TVs is somewhat perplexing. Unless I'm mistaken the majority of TVs are still in the 4:3 format at this time, so why would Disney risk the wrath of non-widescreen owners? After all, its those customers who disney has catered for in the past, either by only offering full frame DVDs or a choice of widescreen or full frame.

Well, it was just a theory I had and seeing it expressed by Ben over at Animated Views seemed to lend some credence to it. It does seem strange to me that now that those tvs are becoming the norm, this is when the DACs in question are becoming matted. I was in Best Buy yesterday and did not see one 4:3 tv for sale in the entire store...

If anything widescreen owners have more choice than 4:3 owners, because their TV's come with multiple display modes (typically 4:3 tvs have none, and you have to rely on your DVD player having a "zoom" mode, which not all do). So widescreen owners can alter any display to their viewing preference if required.

All the more reason open matte for the films in question should be made available. You can alter a display to crop, but not to add info not encoded on the disc

Well IMAX is another issue, to some extent. I've little or no interest in IMAX as such, as you cannot reproduce the impact on any home system. With IMAX, is the ratio the main artistic import, or the effect of seeing it projected so hugle the main artistic import?

Well, that of course is subjective and debateable. But if a film shot for display in IMAX is modified from it's negative AND theatrical AND intended ratio to conform to 16:9 tvs, that to me is still wrong, and against preserving OAR from ANY point of view - and IMO any person who says to be passionate about preserving OAR should be concerned about this.

Personally, I've seen a bunch theatrically, and while the large screen may hook people in, I eventually forget about that and lose myself in the story of whatever I'm watching, and therefore think preserving the entire image is just as important as with any other film.

Once again, I want the intended THEATRICAL ratios for these movies, and these films were made for the theatre, not some possible presentation later for the television ratio of that time. And again, you keep undercutting your argument that the open-matte is a co-intended theatrical ratio with every referenced review you present, as all of them constantly mention TELEVISION as a possible reason for showing the open-matte.

I'm not "undercutting" ANYTHING! My main point about the open matte being intended for these films is that there were reissued theatrically in the 90's open-matte, and also for their entire history of home video until recently they've been presented that way, including on mediums that were collector/cinemaphile friendly such as laserdiscs and thus would have arguably been widescreen on the LD if that was what the studio considered the dominant theatrically intended ratio for these films. Also the reviews I've quoted mention awkward and cramped framing in the matted versions.

For the 50th million time, even if they were protecting for television, they were also doing so for theatres that screened the films open-matte, just like that Academy LatT print.

And also for the 50th million time, so what if part of the reason they were filmed open-matte was to protect for television (along with those open-matte screening theatres?) The fact is this resulted in a version enhanced with additional artwork that people are used to seeing and have a valid reason to wish to continue seeing.

Why is "television" such a dirty word to you? Films live forever on television/home theatre, but only play in theatres a few weeks/months.

In fact, many director's cuts (arguably the version most "INTENDED" by the director) don't even see a theatrical release and are available only on home theatre formats for people watching on television!

And if television is part of the reason the same artists who created the DAC's in question approved and considered valid an open-matte print for use on television (and theatres showing in 4:3), so be it! To me a tv is like a personal mini theatre, that I have complete control over (ie no screaming kids kicking the back of my chair, no rude cell phone conversations, no lights turning on before the end credits are finished rolling, etc) *

When I buy the DVD, I bring it home and I watch it on my television. If you feel that the open matte was solely created for, and therefore valid for, television, on which I am watching the film and thus using the open matte version for the purpose for which it is INTENDED, than I don't see what the problem is with this. But I am really getting tired of talking about it!

Perhaps that's why my description of the matted versions of the DACs in question was admittedly a bit "over the top" on one of the earlier posts, as 2099net pointed out

* If it sounds like I don't enjoy theatrical screenings, that's not true. I see quite a few in the genres I like. But I typically go to the first matinee of the day on a weekday on the last week or two of a run. There is usually just a few other people in the theatre, and sometimes no-one!

[disneyfella]

For the 50th million time, even if they were protecting for television, they were also doing so for theatres that screened the films open-matte, just like that Academy LatT print.

And also for the 50th million time, so what if part of the reason they were filmed open-matte was to protect for television (along with those open-matte screening theatres?) The fact is this resulted in a version enhanced with additional artwork that people are used to seeing and have a valid reason to wish to continue seeing.

Why is "television" such a dirty word to you? Films live forever on television/home theatre, but only play in theatres a few weeks/months.

Oh I don't think anyone thinks "television" is a dirty word, or poor concept. I think the idea is, though, that these films weren't made for television but rather they were made for theatrical release. I find it hard to believe that if SitS was made for television airings that it took over 20 years.......YEARS!......before it finally made it to television...and on pay cable at that! Well after its home video release.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Academy ratio print of LatT ever actually got released. I was under the impression that it was made for distribution if Cinemascope wasn't available in theatres, but ultimately got shleved because Walt decided that the Cinemascope version was superior and only wanted the public to see the best from Disney. (I'll have to try to find my source for that, but I think I read it somewhere.....any help? I might be confusing this with Seven Brides for Seven Brothers).

Also, just my personal preference here, but I don't think that opening up a matte enhances any beautiful artwork, but more often than not loses the drama built into the framing of the principles. Which is why I stand by my thought that the intended matted ratio is superior to an open matte print. It was meant to be seen a certain way, and who am I to change that?

[AlwaysOAR]

Once again, I want the intended THEATRICAL ratios for these movies, and these films were made for the theatre, not some possible presentation later for the television ratio of that time. And again, you keep undercutting your argument that the open-matte is a co-intended theatrical ratio with every referenced review you present, as all of them constantly mention TELEVISION as a possible reason for showing the open-matte.

I'm not "undercutting" ANYTHING! My main point about the open matte being intended for these films is that there were reissued theatrically in the 90's open-matte, and also for their entire history of home video until recently they've been presented that way, including on mediums that were collector/cinemaphile friendly such as laserdiscs and thus would have arguably been widescreen on the LD if that was what the studio considered the dominant theatrically intended ratio for these films. Also the reviews I've quoted mention awkward and cramped framing in the matted versions.

For the 50th million time, even if they were protecting for television, they were also doing so for theatres that screened the films open-matte, just like that Academy LatT print.

And for the upteenth time, no need to exaggerate here, these films were framed for matting, just like all of the live-action films were from this time onward, and even protecting for those theatres not capable, which were probably far and few between, doesn't change the fact they were intended to be matted, IMO. You can want the open-matte all you want, and that's fine, but all logic and most evidence suggests the framed for matted version is the one that was intended.
You'll never convince me that the films from this time, a decade or so after the change to widescreen, was intended to be seen in academy ratio. The animators were animating for the theatre, even IF they were protecting for later television broadcasts.

And also for the 50th million time, so what if part of the reason they were filmed open-matte was to protect for television (along with those open-matte screening theatres?) The fact is this resulted in a version enhanced with additional artwork that people are used to seeing and have a valid reason to wish to continue seeing.

Why is "television" such a dirty word to you? Films live forever on television/home theatre, but only play in theatres a few weeks/months.

Television is not a dirty word for me, as I have both a 4:3 and 16:9 television, but the fact still remains these films were made for theatre, and most people I know want that experience, and I'll always make the tv I watch a movie on fit the ratio intended for theatre.

Also, and I'm assuming your logic applies to live-action films, get ready for a lot of research, as there are hundreds of live action films protected open-matte for home video by the director, so their vision of the matted ratio they want wouldn't get butchered by a pan&scan. Titles that come immediately to mind, Air Force One, Full Metal Jacket, all of the James Cameron films( Terminator 2, True Lies, etc.) and counless others.

[drfsupercenter]

No, I would never consider any cropping to be "intended". That is a different case than Sword, JB, etc. where the open-matte shows the entire frame of animation, and preserves everything that was intended to be seen in the matted version, and then further enhances the films by enveloping the audience even deeper into the world of the films by including the ENTIRE frame that the animators took their time to draw (and some would have us believe that they did all this work for no reason!)

This is why I always want the open matte version. Live action films may be SHOT in 4:3 but they are never, and I mean NEVER released that way. Some of the older/lower budget films like Back to the Future, maybe. But films like Star Wars, etc... Get a VHS and it's pan-and-scan. The studio probably doesn't even keep the open-matte version.

If Disney were to, say, pan-and-scan the widescreen "OAR" of The Jungle Book for home video releases, then I'd be inclined to say that 1.77:1 was the correct OAR. But the fact that Disney wanted to release it open matte on home video means they obviously intended for that version to be seen, unlike the live action films (or a lot of the widescreen anime).

And was I the one responsible for starting this whole debate? I was merely pointing out that the DVD (which at the time was said to be 1.66:1) was vertically cropped and now it seems like a huge argument between me/David S. and Escapay/AlwaysOAR

[David S.]

If Disney were to, say, pan-and-scan the widescreen "OAR" of The Jungle Book for home video releases, then I'd be inclined to say that 1.77:1 was the correct OAR. But the fact that Disney wanted to release it open matte on home video means they obviously intended for that version to be seen

EXACTLY my view!

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Academy ratio print of LatT ever actually got released.

I only mentioned that print because Always OAR cited that as a "co-intended" ratio of Lady And The Tramp, even though it shows far less of the original intended picture and even has characters repositioned.

Yet, a perfectly good open-matte transfer created by and approved by the animators for Sword, JB, etc, was being denied equal status as "co-intended" in his eyes even though it is IMO not a compromise at all as far as nothing is lost or repositioned, and from a certain point of view even improves upon the cropped theatrical version.

Also, just my personal preference here, but I don't think that opening up a matte enhances any beautiful artwork, but more often than not loses the drama built into the framing of the principles

We will have to agree to disagree on this, but I say animation is a special case.

Let's say the animators take the time and effort to include say, Dalmatian # 96 in a certain shot, but if the film is matted, he doesn't show up in that scene at all.

WHY is Dalmatian # 96 even IN that scene, if he wasn't intended to be seen?! Wanting the open matte reflects a desire to see all the artwork created and shot by the animators for the film. Is that so wrong or direspectful of their work?

Not to mention, I'm sure Dalmatian #96 would appreciate my desire to not rob him of his screentime!

I CARE about the little fella and want to see him on the screen, which is why he was drawn and filmed in the first place. And who could turn down a puppy?

but the fact still remains these films were made for theatre, and most people I know want that experience

I guess since it always comes back to the sticking point of how they appeared in theatres this is my cue again to say they also appeared open matted in some theatres on the initial release, and in several in the 90's re-releases.

But then you will say the open-matte (in your opinion) is still not the original theatrical intended ratio so we are really talking in circles.

But if the "original theatrical release" is so all-important to you and the only valid "intended" presentation of a film, I guess you must stay clear of the arguably superior Pocahontas 10th aniversary cut, which arguably better reflected the filmakers vision.

Or the arguably superior extended director's cuts of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, which better reflected Peter Jackson's vision as well as the literary source material.

After all, these were not the "original theatrical" versions, and appear only on home video for display on lowly old television!

I consider theatres a valid medium for creating content, but not the only one. I can think of several instances where a film's presentation is arguably enhanced/improved on home video and saying those are not "valid" or "intended" just because they were not the "original theatrical" version is beyond me.

You have a right to want the original theatrical versions in every case, just as I have a right to want extended and/or enhanced/improved versions on home video that are also a valid, intended way of seeing the film. Which in my opinion is what the open matte versions of these DACs are.

But we are talking in circles. We can argue about which version was most intended, or if both were intended, to the end of time and no one is going to change any minds.

The fact is Disney has indirectly perpetuated the discussion/debate/"argument" by creating an "either/or" mentality instead of an "and" mentality by only releasing one version on the DVDs instead of two. And if they would simply offer both valid versions, as the reviewers I quoted have suggested, all of this would be moot, as you would have your "intended" version for all of the films in question, and I would have my "intended" versions.

[Escapay]

Live action films may be SHOT in 4:3 but they are never, and I mean NEVER released that way.

1. MGM DVDs - many of their live-action catalogue titles that release both versions (a widescreen and a fullscreen) have open-matte fullscreen if the widescreen is 1.85:1. Cases in point from my collection: The Sure Thing, The Princess Bride (old barebones DVD), and Spaceballs (old barebones dvd).

2. Warner DVDs - like MGM, if a catalogue (or even a new) title has both versions, the fullscreen is likely to be open-matte on a 1.85:1 film. Cases in point from my collection: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Splendour in the Grass, Willy Wonky and the Chocolate Factory (but it's separate releases - the widescreen release is matted, the fullscreen release is open-matte), Black Beauty, and Before Sunrise.

3. Disney DVDs - on occasion, if a title has both version on disc, the fullscreen is open-matte. Cases in point (again) from my collection: The Shaggy Dog (1957 - matted B&W widescreen, unmatted colourized fullscreen), Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Princess Diaries, and Freaky Friday (2003).

I could continue and cover other studios, but I think those three are enough (plus, those were the ones I remembered without consulting my list.)

The studio probably doesn't even keep the open-matte version.

They really should, as it's the original camera negative before it's matted for prints and hard-matted for visual/special effects.

now it seems like a huge argument between me/David S. and Escapay/AlwaysOAR

More of "disneyfella/AlwaysOAR" as I've been a bit quiet the past page or two, since they always seem to say what I want to before I get a chance to say it!

Anyway, I still stand by what I always stand: those 60s/70s babies were animated in fullscreen, but framed and projected at widescreen in theatres. Because theatres is where these films would be seen for the next 20 years. Not television, and certainly not yet VHS. Sure, they may have had some foresight and a subconsious thinking in the back of their mind that "yeah, maybe this'll be on TV in years to come", that's not what they were aiming for when they made the pictures back them. Remember, Disney would always re-release their films in theatres, and theatres is where these pictures would primarily be seen. So whether or not anyone likes it, a matted widescreen frame is just as valid as the unmatted fullscreen frame. I'm not going to throw in the words "intent" or intended" because they've been overused and sometimes misused in this discussion, but I'm just saying that there is just as much (and in my book more) validity to matted widescreen as there is to unmatted fullscreen.

Also, I honestly doubt there were still a great deal of theatres "in transition" to widescreen. By TJB's time it's been 15 years of widescreen and every big Hollywood studio - Disney included - had been doing widescreen films for years, be it Scope or matted. Yes, I believe there may have been some theatres that *still* weren't equipped for widescreen, but I don't believe they were a significantly large enough amount for Disney to decide because these theatres weren't widescreen-prepared, that they'd have "dual ratios" in mind for their 60s/70s animated features (and apparently only their animated features, everyone seems to forget the live-action arm of Disney).

It boils down simply to the matter of economics: Sleeping Beauty was nowhere as successful as Disney wanted it to be, and so rather than continue making animated features with an expensive widescreen format (be it CinemaScope or Technirama), they'd continue making them on the reliable format that they used for years: the Academy ratio. The only difference being that now the artist/animator knows that it will be matted for widescreen, so to keep all the important animation/action within that frame, while the unseen portions need to just be backgrounds or even the occasional bit of animation. And Walt was forever a visionary, and he had to foresight to realize that one day, be it one year or twenty years later, the films could possibly be seen on TV. And having a ready-made fullscreen version (the open-matte) would be a heckuva lot cheaper than pan-and-scanning. And Disney already did the same thing with their live-action features (bar the really expensive "epics" like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Swiss Family Robinson). If anything, it was the studio's way of staying consistent between their live-action and animation departments. Plus, Walt would use his TV show to promote these films, so having a fullscreen-ready version was more or less an easy perk of shooting Academy and matting for theatres.

I hope none of this makes it sound like I'm a gung-ho "widescreen all the way" groupie. I just simply prefer the theatrical presentation. And with Disney, it's often hard to acquire the theatrical presentation, since they're so annoyingly cryptic and indecisive when it comes to how they'll release a film. But still, most times I wish to have the theatrical presentation, or in some cases, a non-theatrical presentation that's s closest to the filmmakers' vision. After all, the theatrical version of Legend sucks compared to the director's cut, but that's more an argument towards movie editing than towards matting/unmatting. Though if we were to extend the discussion to the unmatted television Sir-Dub-A-Lot version of The Breakfast Club, I sometimes enjoy it more than the matted theatrical all-curses-intact version. Mainly because The Breakfast Club is one of those flexible movies that is enjoyable no matter how you watch it. (I could watch it in reverse with a Polish audio track and still love it.)

Anyway, here's a bit of a conundrum that no one's brought up yet and I'm eager to hear responses: what is everyone's take on the animated sequences in Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon? Should they all be open-matte fullscreen and not matted widescreen just because the animated sequences were done in fullscreen? After all, Scott MacQueen decided that the 1996 laserdisc for Bedknobs and Broomsticks would be released open-matte for the entire movie just to preserve the complete animated frame for the Naboombu sequences. And when the 40th Anniversary Edition of Mary Poppins came out, there were immediate comparisons of its 1.66:1 frame to the GC version (1.85:1) and the Japanese laserdisc (which I forget the frame ratio, but it still had more picture than both the US DVDs).

So...should we say that 1.33:1 the "intended" ratio for these films just because they have animated sequences done that way? IMO, it isn't, but what I want to know is everyone else's take on it.

Albert