DVDizzy Forum

so i was kind of dissapointed to see that the platinum edition of the jungle book is only vilable in 16x9. this is one of my fav disney movies, is it really that bad?

i saw a screencap of the scene where mowgli was talking to the vultures stacked on each other and the head of the top vulture was cut off due to the ratio.... bummer!

I haven't seen it yet, so I couldn't really know. But it'd surprise me if the 16:9 ratio were "bad", since that's more or less how it was originally shown in theaters.

It was odd when I first viewed it, but its not bad. Watching the movie I didn't notice as much "missing" as I did when looking at the screen shots.

I watched Jungle Book with two other people who didn't notice anything wrong with it. So its not that bad in my opinion.

I agree with DP- I didn't notice anything wrong when I watched it- I didn't even notice the vulture's head-cut-off problem. It looked great!

Compared to some of the other Platinum editions, I think that "Jungle Book" is far superior in its presentation. I have watched it probably more than a dozen times since I bought it, and I haven't noticed anything that would be called a distraction. This is the way it was shown in the theaters, so I am glad to see it this way.

but for future releases, like 101 dalmations, should we start petitioning disney for both ratios? beauty and the beast platinum had 3 different versions and lots of features, so it can be done.

maybe they should start making platinum editions on 3 discs so we can have both ratios (when applicable) and tons of features.

p.s. i know that the edge enhancements on beauty were horrible, which is why i will buy it when they re-release it. but it's nice to know that they can cram multiple formats when they have the prints.

Really... no, it's not all that bad. I certainly don't feel the need to track down a copy of the limited edition version to fulfil my needs. I think overall "The Jungle Book" had a really good presentation. Much better than, say, "Cinderella" or "Peter Pan".

WOULD it be nice to have both formats? I guess so. "Lady and the Tramp" did it, which I felt was a waste of space, but I guess since its so wide some people like to have it. I call those people "silly people".

Also, "Beauty and the Beast" suffers from three versions (or two and half, whatever). The colors and imaging aren't as sharp as I feel they could be.

SpringHeelJack wrote:"Lady and the Tramp" did it, which I felt was a waste of space, but I guess since its so wide some people like to have it. I call those people "silly people".

Well Lady and the Tramp is a completely different kettle of fish because it was actually filmed twice once in widescreen and once in fullscreen because not enough theatres could handle widescreen at the time.

It actually had the frames modified ( a bit like what pixar do to modify to full screen).

See this image I swiped from mvealf


The top image is the widescreen, the middle is the more recent pan and scan done to fit the film into 4:3 (which unfortunately was the one put on the DVD, which was silly because there is no need to pan and scan the widescreen image, because in 1955 they also produced a re formatted full frame academy print (the bottom image).

Now this bottom image s not just pan and scan, like I say they actually filmed the movie twice and moved characters etc to fit into the full frame image.

Now of course the question is, why didn't they include this original ratio version on the DVD?

The answer, that they would have had to restore the film twice. Once for the widescreen a second for the full frame.

So yes putting the pan and scan version on the LatT DVD was silly, but giving us the original academy ratio version wouldn't have been.

I was thinking that The Jungle Book was originally in widescreen and matted/cropped for a wider theatrical release, was I wrong?

yamiiguy wrote:I was thinking that The Jungle Book was originally in widescreen and matted/cropped for a wider theatrical release, was I wrong?

AFAIK, it was animated and shot in the academy "fullscreen" ratio and cropped to widescreen in some theaters.

yamiiguy wrote:I was thinking that The Jungle Book was originally in widescreen and matted/cropped for a wider theatrical release, was I wrong?

You're right. It was matted into widescreen, but the widescreen image is still the original aspect ratio. It was intended to look like this.

KubrickFan wrote:You're right. It was matted into widescreen, but the widescreen image is still the original aspect ratio. It was intended to look like this.

Although I tend to think that some of Disney's animated titles from that era have two different "legitimate" aspect ratios (P&S certainly not included), I could say you're right here. But the "fullscreen" image shows "more" - which may not be better than OAR, but definitely better than "less" (as would be the case with P&S).

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:Although I tend to think that some of Disney's animated titles from that era have two different "legitimate" aspect ratios (P&S certainly not included), I could say you're right here. But the "fullscreen" image shows "more" - which may not be better than OAR, but definitely better than "less" (as would be the case with P&S).

Well it will always be a debate, since the director is long gone. But in the case of Jungle Book, there is also some added picture in the widescreen version. So it couldn't be called true matted widescreen. So with Jungle Book I definetaly think the 16:9 picture is the true aspect ratio.

KubrickFan wrote:But in the case of Jungle Book, there is also some added picture in the widescreen version. So it couldn't be called true matted widescreen.

I still think the previous release(s) had the image slightly cropped on each side, which would explain why the Platinum DVD shows more picture horizontally.

I've seen The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians and Aristocats shown at a movie theater in the Academy ratio, so it wasn't made just for TV.

I was not at all bothered by the aspect ratio of the Jungle Book. the picture really looked great.

I think it looks fine. Some of the screen-captures you may see like the ones on amazon.com are a bit misleading. One shows Mowgli's entire head cut off during "Trust In Me" making it seem that they just cropped his head off and didn't notice, which isn't true. We see all of Mowgli and then the camera moves down towards Kaa.
The only time the cropping was noticeable to me was during one shot of Baloo in his monkey costume. But as Rocky Balboa said, "It don't bother me none."

I feel they should have both versions. me personally i liked the fullscreen better cause it showed me on the top and bottom.

I refuse to buy it, as it is not the correct aspect ratio - - neither the way it was shot (full aperture) nor the way it was originally projected (likely 1:66 -- but definitely not 1:85).

1:85 requires vertical pan and scan for this title - - and just such a negative was prepared for it's most recent theatrical reissue (early 90's) so it could be better projected at most theatres without losing character/story info on the top and bottom. There is more picture information to be seen - - that's a fact.

But vertical pan and scan is no more artistically valid than horizontal pan and scan was.

Get it right, fellas, or put two versions on the disk.

So I'll have to find a used copy from the old DVD release instead.

^I don't know. I think I prefer quality image.

I thought the recent Platinum Edition was 1.77:1.

IMDB lists it as 1.37 : 1 (negative ratio), 1.75 : 1 (intended ratio). So you actually see a little more on the DVD than the intended ratio.

While I can see where some people would prefer the full screen version I'm glad the recent release was widescreen. As far as putting multiple aspect ratios on one DVD, I'll have to say no. It cuts down on space that could be used for one good transfer. If they must include both I would prefer that they stick the full screen version on a separate disc, or even *shudder* do those "flipper" discs.