DVDizzy Forum

I have a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time regarding my inability to see widescreen menus on discs like The Little Mermaid, Lady and the Tramp, and Peter Pan (to name a few) in letterboxed widescreen on my fullscreen tv.

Has anyone else watching on standard TVs had similar problems?

Just so no one thinks I am viewing in the wrong "mode", my Sony DVD player has three TV monitor options:

a) 16:9, which I don't use, since it distorts the image thinking I am watching on a widescreen TV. (This mode is only helpful to let me know if something I am not seeing in wide is suposed to be wide, because I can see the extra (distorted, stretched) info on the sides)

b) 4:3 Pan and Scan - I alse NEVER use this, because it is supposed to crop the sides of everything wider than 4:3 down to 4:3, rather than using letterbox when appropriate

b) 4:3 Letterbox - THIS is the mode I keep my player set on. It leaves things that are supposed to be displayed fullscreen alone, but displays wide films with the appropriate black bars allowing me to see the entire width of the film.

Yet, it has come to my attention from the various UD reviews and screencaps that my player, even when in the correct 4:3 Letterbox mode, is cropping off the sides of the widescreen menus, and even presenting some bonus features like the Little Mermaid dark ride "ride through" in cropped fullscreen (the screencap on the review looks widescreen)

I should state strongly here that my player is, in all cases, displaying the feature film itself CORRECTLY, with the appropriate black bars - just not the widescreen menus and apparently some bonus features.

I am trying to figure out if the problem is with my DVD player itself, or if the discs are simply encoded/authored to present the menus and certain wide features in fullscreen on fullscreen displays, rather than telling the player to generate the black bars needed to show the entire width when in 4:3 letterbox mode (even though the same discs, like Little Mermaid, are authored to tell the player to present the bars for the wider than 4:3 feature film itself and some widescreen bonus features)

My player DOES show the widescreen menus of my Walt Disney World souvenir DVDs in the correct ratio with black bars, which makes me wonder if the problem getting the BVHE Animated Classic widescreen menus (when applicable) displayed in widescreen with the bars is most likely a result of how the disc are authored to handle display on a player set on "4:3 Letterbox" mode.

Further complicating/clouding the question is that the Animated Classic widescreen menus WERE displayed properly - in widescreen with black bars - on a test I did at a relative's house who has a computer "multimedia" type DVD player that you can click on and use while on the computer. This makes me wonder if there IS something wrong with my DVD player for cropping the menus.

Thanks in advance for any feedback. I am very curious to hear how these menus are displayed on other 4:3 TV monitors when played on other consumer DVD players designed for use with televisions.

PS. I DID use the search feature to see if this came up before, but couldn't find anything. I couldn't figure out how to search for "widescreen menu" as a phrase; it returned all results where both words appeared ANYWHERE in the post or topic title, generating a TON of results which had nothing to do with widescreen menus or my specific question! So if it came up before, I apologize, but if so I could not find the needle in the haystack!

David, I can't really answer your question, but your post is certainly interesting. The truth is it that happens to me too! Strangely, every DVD player I've used crops widescreen menus. The Ultravox (a rather unknown German electronics manufacturer) DVD player I had about four years ago did it. The Philips DVD player too. My brother's Thomson DVD player does it aswell, as does my current DVD player, manufactured by Graetz (another German brand).

The menus are only displayed in widescreen on my computer.

So yes ... I know what you're talking about.

Thanks for the feedback, Julian!

Actually, you did help answer my question, and were very helpful, since I was curious if anyone else had problems with their player cropping widescreen menus.

Since every commercial player you've had does this, like mine, it really seems to me like the discs themselves are not encoded to present their menus letterboxed on a fullscreen TV. It doesn't seem likely that all of those players would be flawed.

Of course, if anyone has had different results, I'd love to hear about that as well.

Thanks again for your help, Julian

David S. wrote:I am trying to figure out if the problem is with my DVD player itself, or if the discs are simply encoded/authored to present the menus and certain wide features in fullscreen on fullscreen displays, rather than telling the player to generate the black bars needed to show the entire width when in 4:3 letterbox mode (even though the same discs, like Little Mermaid, are authored to tell the player to present the bars for the wider than 4:3 feature film itself and some widescreen bonus features)

It's not your player, it's the way the DVD is authored, and different studios have different methods, though there generally are three types of menus:

4:3 Menus - that are 4:3 no matter what you do to it, and on a widescreen TV it'll either be pillarboxed or stretched

16:9 Menus, Version 1 - that are 16:9 on widescreen TVs, but cropped to fullscreen on 4:3 TVs. (It's rather interesting and ironic to note that there are some Disney titles that are on DVD (in R1) in Pan&Scan only, yet their menus are 16:9...)

16:9 Menus, Version 2 - that are 16:9 on widescreen TVs, but letterbox widescreen on 4:3 TVs

For example, every Star Trek movie has 16:9 V2 menus, and no matter what DVD player you play it in, and no matter what "format" (4:3 P&S, 4:3 LB, or 16:9 WS) you calibrate it, they will always appear widescreen. On 4:3 TVs, they'll always be letterbox with blackbars, and on 16:9, they're always anamorphic widescreen.

Likewise, every classic Doctor Who DVD has 4:3 menus (heck, everything is 4:3 except for newly-shot documentaries...and those flipflop between being either 16:9 or 4:3).

In the last few years, Disney almost always uses the 16:9 V1 menus (at least from what I've seen in playing my various Disney DVDs on players at home, as well as at cousins' and friends' homes). Most of their early titles were 4:3 menus (and static ones at that...) and I don't think it was until 2002 or so that they began doing 16:9 menus (IIRC, 2001's PE of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has 4:3 menus!)

Of course, all of it depends on the way the player is set (4:3 P&S, 4:3 LB, or 16:9 WS), and most players (in my experience) are already set at 4:3 LB, regardless if you plug it into a 4:3 or 16:9 television. If you had your DVD player set at 16:9 and plugged it into a 4:3 TV, it'd stretch the picture upwards and downwards (making circles into ovals, etc.). Conversely, if you had your DVD player set at 4:3 (P&S or LB) and plugged it into a 16:9 TV, it'd be pillarboxed.

David S. wrote:PS. I DID use the search feature to see if this came up before, but couldn't find anything. I couldn't figure out how to search for "widescreen menu" as a phrase; it returned all results where both words appeared ANYWHERE in the post or topic title, generating a TON of results which had nothing to do with widescreen menus or my specific question! So if it came up before, I apologize, but if so I could not find the needle in the haystack!

The fact that you did a search speaks volumes...



I did a few quick searchers, and while there's plenty of "Widescreen vs. Fullscreen" discussions, as well as a couple "Look at the menus for (Insert DVD)", there's nothing devoted to "Are menus in widescreen/fullscreen on certain players?" so you're safe!

Albert

Wow, thanks for the thorough and detailed answer, Escapay!

It's a relief to know nothing is wrong with my player!

But, being a stickler for seeing "the entire frame" of whatever I am watching (and that ALWAYS takes precedence over "filling the screen" and avoiding black bars), it is kind of disapointing that there is apparently no way to see the entire frame of some widescreen menus and other features on my TV.

Particularly with that Little Mermaid ride-through on the Platinum Disc 2 -when watching on the computer player which displayed it properly in 16:9, there was a much greater sense of being "immersed" into the ride due to the wider peripheral view.

It's interesting that the computer media players are apparently able to playback everything in it's proper ratio, and a pity that consumer DVD players compatible with TVs can't offer this option to "outsmart" the authoring and playback the entire frame of whatever you're watching like the 4:3 computer media players can somehow do.

Thank's again for your insight and help! At least I know I won't have to replace my player!

That ride-through thing is a menu VOB, that's why. As far as I know, you can't fast forward or rewind, since your DVD player considers it a giant menu.

But honestly I don't even like the Platinum Edition of The Little Mermaid... especially since I'm like you and I want to see the whole picture. That issue is both edited (they painted over the infamous "kneecap" scene) and cropped on the top and bottom to make it anamorphic widescreen. Aladdin, on the other hand, had small black bars on the sides so it could stay 1.66:1 (the original WS aspect ratio of all Disney movies except the 2.35 ones), but due to overscan of DVD players (you'll always lose a few pixels on all sides, so many studios put black pixels to avoid losing much of the picture) you can't tell that there are pillarboxes in the first place.

However, Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were just cropped to 1.78:1, so you lose a few MORE pixels that you can't get back by playing it in a computer. I honestly don't know why they cropped it, it came after Aladdin which was perfectly authored, so it doesn't make sense. (And then come films like The Jungle Book which crop off 30% of the picture, since it's supposed to be fullscreen! And Aladdin 3 which was animated in fullscreen and somehow only released widescreen except in Europe and Asia...)

Because of the cropping issue, I prefer the Limited Issue release of The Little Mermaid. True, it's not anamorphic. But like you, I have a 4:3 TV and therefore don't even care... the bars are smaller since nothing is cropped on the top and bottom, and nothing is edited. The only drawback is there are absolutely no special features (that's why I copied disc 2 of the Platinum Edition) and it's a tad bit grainy compared to the PE. But only slightly.

David S. wrote:Wow, thanks for the thorough and detailed answer, Escapay!

No problem!

David S. wrote:But, being a stickler for seeing "the entire frame" of whatever I am watching (and that ALWAYS takes precedence over "filling the screen" and avoiding black bars), it is kind of disapointing that there is apparently no way to see the entire frame of some widescreen menus and other features on my TV.

If you're wiling to have things vertically stretched a bit on a 4:3 television, set your DVD player to 16:9 mode, and it'll anamorphic-ize the picture (though as I said earlier in my post, it will appear vertically stretched since you're trying to fit a rectangular image in a square box without having to cut something off)

David S. wrote:At least I know I won't have to replace my player!

Well, you probably will eventually when the thing dies or explodes on you.

drfsupercenter wrote:1.66:1 (the original WS aspect ratio of all Disney movies except the 2.35 ones)

1.66:1 is an often-used ratio, but is nowhere near the "original" WS ratio for ALL Disney movies. A fair amount of live-action films are generally in the 1.85:1 ratio (and for a good deal of the 1960s/1970s films, 1.75:1), and the animated films use a variety of aspect ratios, from 1.37:1 to 2.55:1 (for animation, projection, framing...).

Regarding the Animated Classics, most are presented in their animated ratio on VHS/Laserdisc/DVD, though there are exceptions as Disney is finally appealing to the other side of the stupid "to matte or not to matte" wars and presenting the original theatrical ratios for some titles.

Films Animated & Projected at 1.37:1
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Fantasia
Dumbo
Bambi
Saludos, Amigos
The Three Caballeros
Make Mine Music
Fun & Fancy Free
Melody Time
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Cinderella
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp (Academy Version)

Film Animated & Projected at 2.55:1
Lady and the Tramp (CinemaScope Version)

Film Animated & Projected at 2.35:1
Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Films Animated & Projected at 2.20:1
Sleeping Beauty (70mm version)
The Black Cauldron (70mm version)

Films Projected at 2.35:1
Sleeping Beauty (35mm Version)
The Black Cauldron (35mm Version)

Films Animated at 1.37:1, But Projected & Intentionally Framed for 1.75:1
101 Dalmatians
The Sword in the Stone
The Jungle Book
The Aristocats
Robin Hood
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
The Fox and the Hound

Films Animated at 1.66:1, But Projected & Intentionally Framed for 1.75:1
The Rescuers
The Great Mouse Detective

Films Animated at 1.66:1, But Projected & Intentionally Framed for 1.85:1
Oliver & Company
The Little Mermaid
The Rescuers Down Under
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan
Fantasia 2000
The Emperor's New Groove
Lilo & Stitch
Treasure Planet
Home on the Range

Film Animated & Presented in Multiple Ratios:
Fantasia 2000 - majority of film is shot/animated in 1.66:1 and presented in 1.85:1, 1940's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" is animated and presented in 1.37:1
Brother Bear - first twenty minutes are animated and presented in 1.85:1, rest of film is animated and presented in 2.35:1

Films Animated in 1.78:1, But Projected & Intentionally Framed for 1.85:1
Chicken Little
Meet the Robinsons

Albert

Number one, "1.78:1" and "1.85:1" are pretty much the same thing.
Those people who say 16x9 widescreen would get a calculated ratio of 1.78:1 while those who have older plasma TVs would have 1.85:1. As far as DVDs go, both are just called "widescreen".

I don't think that all the movies animated in Academy were intended for widescreen at all. Take a look at The Jungle Book. Its god-awful Platinum Edition release has parts of people's bodies clearly being cut off... I think it was intended for Academy but was shown masked in some theaters due to limited projection technology.

While some of them may have indeed been show 1.78/85:1, that's strictly the theater and not at all "intended".
Take a look at this shot from Beauty and the Beast (OAR 1.66:1):

http://usotsuki.info/batbld1.jpg <-- that's the 1.66:1 laserdisc
http://usotsuki.info/batbdvd1.jpg <-- that's the cropped DVD.

Surely you can't be saying that Disney wanted those dishes cut off? That just happened when it got cropped for DVD (and possibly theater) release. (usotsuki told me his laserdisc says "original negative ratio" is 1.66:1, acknowledging that it was different in theaters, but making it clear that it was original drawn in 1.66:1)

When I said that 1.66:1 was what all their films used, I meant all their WIDESCREEN ones. I realize that the early ones were Academy, and for that matter, most of the ones on your list of widescreen were animated as such too (Aristocats, Robin Hood, etc.)

With the exception of The Black Cauldron, Sleeping Beauty, and Lady and the Tramp, all the rest of the Disney Classics (that means everything up to The Lion King, though probably many after) were animated in 1.66:1 if they were shown widescreen.

As far as live-action films go, I'm not really talking about those as many were various aspect ratios. (Though I know Mary Poppins was 1.66:1 and according to someone on UD's review page, has never been released to home video without being cropped in one or two directions, with the exception being a laserdisc version. Although, compared to both the 4:1 and the 1.85:1 early-cropped DVD, the 2-disc collector's set DVD and collector's VHS seem fine to me...)

drfsupercenter wrote:While some of them may have indeed been show 1.78/85:1, that's strictly the theater and not at all "intended".

The problem with your argument is you're basing it off of what you think "looks" better/correct, and not on what the filmmakers intended. Why do you think Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are on 1.85:1 in DVD, while the rest of the 90s animated films are not? Because Hahn/Trousdale/Wise pushed and made sure that the theatrical ratio is what's being presented, as that's what they wanted the audience to see in theatres, and what they want them to see in DVD. 1.85:1 is the INTENDED ratio, as chosen by the filmmakers. Just because it's not the animated ratio doesn't mean it's the wrong one.

Albert

drfsupercenter wrote:
I don't think that all the movies animated in Academy were intended for widescreen at all. Take a look at The Jungle Book. Its god-awful Platinum Edition release has parts of people's bodies clearly being cut off... I think it was intended for Academy but was shown masked in some theaters due to limited projection technology.

While some of them may have indeed been show 1.78/85:1, that's strictly the theater and not at all "intended".

From what I understand, the movies from that era were animated with the intention that those theaters capable of matting could matte, and those that couldn't would show the entire animated frame. As all of the action in these movies occurs in the middle of the picture, were the animators animating for both?

I promise I didn't start this thread to complain about matted widescreen again (in fact, it was just the opposite, I didn't like the idea of menus authored to be cropped on the sides or having to artificially stretch them on a 4:3 TV to see everything)

But since it's come up...

I think Escapay makes a good point about what the directors of B&B and Hunchback intended, as they are still alive and were apparently involved in overseeing the DVD releases.

However, with films from the Jungle Book era that were filmed/drawn open matte in Accademy ratio, but matted in SOME theatres, I agree with Always OAR and drfsupercenter that the open matte was ALSO intended to be seen. Such as in theatres that opted to exhibit open matte, as well as television.

I was looking at some shots recently from the opening sequence of Jungle Book on my open matte limited edition bare bones DVD.

When the book opens there are chapter titles lower on the screen and the opening lines of text on the next page, and these details sure do look like they would not be visible matted.

(I don't have the matted platinum version yet to compare - I'm resigned to getting a copy because I don't want to deny myself bonus features for this title, but I'm waiting to get it used so as not to give BVHE the official sales credit for matting the film )

But anyway, it's just hard to understand WHY the animators would go through all the trouble putting in those type of details and authenticity to the book if they were NEVER intended to be seen by ANYONE. They are part of the atmosphere and detail of the film; part of the world we as viewers get immersed in while viewing the film. They aren't there for nothing; the animators HAD to have known SOME viewers would be able to see the whole frame.

Based on this and many other examples of rich detail found in matted areas in these films, a compelling case could be made that the matted ratio was less the "intended artistic choice" of those 60's and 70's DAC directors and animators, and more a practical concession to the fact that many (but not all) theatrical exhibitors of the era were better equipted for matting these pictures than not. After all, Snow White and other pre-50's DACs were often matted on their reissues during this era, and we all know that's not correct from ANY point of view.

Which in my opinion makes 1.33:1 at the very least a valid "co-original theatrical ratio" and of course the one and only true "original animation ratio" for the 60's and 70's DACs in this category.

Therefore I feel unmatted versions of these films should be made available whenever the films are. I'm NOT saying matted fans and "original theatrical purists" shouldn't get there versions too, they should both be released. If they were, all of these debates would not need to keep coming up because everyone would have the version they want

It may also be that Disney was n00b in releasing DVDs and have nothing to do with original aspect ratios.

Heck, in Beauty and the Beast, Don Hahn says "We give you this work in progress version exactly as it was seen in [that film festival]"... when it's less than 50% the same! They lied to us RIGHT ON THE DISC!
And then there's some of the direct-to-video sequels, like Aladdin and the King of Thieves. We all know OAR is 4:3, it was released on a VHS and DVD in non-American countries. And then the region 1 DVD was released. Of course, it was totally cropped to widescreen. Back of the box says "Fullscreen (4:3)" but disc says otherwise. Clearly the people who author and release Disney DVDs have no idea what they're doing otherwise mistakes like that wouldn't slip out.

For that matter, I heard that Aladdin was 1.85:1 in theaters... and that was obviously 1.66:1 on DVD, so again I don't think it has anything to do with what Disney wants...

And for those of you who are insisting on OAR like I am, I have The Little Mermaid's "Limited Issue" release that was 1.66:1, a laserdisc rip of Beauty and the Beast (same), etc. PM me for info if you want a copy.

Well the point about Hunchback and Beauty and the Beast is the only 2 films to be released a 1.85:1 are also the only 2 films to be directed by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale. I'm sure it's no co-incidence.

I don't think its fair to claim Disney don't know what they are doing when releasing these films on DVD. They obviously do, and Wise and Trousdale obviously know what they wanted too. Other films had different directors, and different directors either had difference preferences, or perhaps even no preference at all.

I think that, on the whole, the matted versions, even of films from the late 60's to the late 80's are the "correct" ones. The films were made for the cinema, not home video and not for later TV showings. As such, the theatrical (or likely theatrical) ratio must have been the main concern of the creative crew.

Of course Disney could put matted and unmatted on each release. Being as most animated films are under 90 mins, they certainly have the room to do so, and it seems the obvious solution. But Disney literally couldn't care less anymore about any of their DVD releases.

Addition The Limited Edition Mulan was both ratios on one disc 1.85:1 and 1.33:1. (The obvious solution as I mentioned above). However On the 2 disc re-release this mysteriously changed to 1.66:1 only.

Netty, I too personally prefer the matted releases of the 60s/70s films, but I fear Disney will no longer release the films that way due to the internet outcry over the ones that have already been released. In the end (as I have said countless times) I am most annoyed by the inconsistency which results from this practice. It may sound silly, but knowing that after Sleeping Beauty I have two full-frame films, then three widescreen films, then another full-frame film, then another widescreen film and after that the infamous The Fox and the Hound presentation (which is probably pan and scan and not even open-matte) which gives you the illusion that you're watching the cel animation through fifty layers of filthy tranparent plastic, I get very annoyed!

Julian Carter wrote:Netty, I too personally prefer the matted releases of the 60s/70s films, but I fear Disney will no longer release the films that way due to the internet outcry over the ones that have already been released.

I would feel bad that if my complaining with other fans about matting in the past contributed to you and other fans not getting to see these films the way you want, especially since I've always said they should just release both versions. It seems like the fan community is more or less divided 50/50 on the issue though, so maybe they are just throwing darts on a dartboard like Escapay said in another thread to decide the ratio on a case by case basis

2099net wrote: Addition The Limited Edition Mulan was both ratios on one disc 1.85:1 and 1.33:1. (The obvious solution as I mentioned above). However On the 2 disc re-release this mysteriously changed to 1.66:1 only.

Well, I can't see much use in a 1.33:1 Mulan considering as a CAPS film 1.66:1 would be the original animation ratio, so I had no problem whatsoever with the 1.33:1 being dropped on the 2-disc. The 1.33:1 on that first release was no doubt there solely for the segment of the stereotypical "Joe Sixpack" and "Jane Soccermom" crowd who want to fill their screen at all cost and don't give a hang about OAR. In my world, the dimensions of televisions and "filling the screen" should NEVER be a factor in determining the aspect ratio of a DVD.

The reason we want 1.33:1 as one of the two ratios for the 60's/70's films is because that is the original animation ratio, so if they wanted to please both camps (full animation frame purists and theatrical purists) on the newer CAPS films, the way to go would be offering both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1.

I suspect the reason they went with exclusively 1.66:1 on the 2-disc Mulan is because it was probably considered "close enough" to the 1.85:1, and also conformed to all the other exclusively 1.66:1 CAPS releases, with the notable exception of course of B&tB and Hunchback, as mentioned earlier.

For my taste, I would have been disapointed if given a choice between 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 for Mulan and other CAPS films, because BOTH are missing information that can be found exclusively on the 1.66:1 !

Well, they couldn't really give the option of 1.85 and 1.66 on the same disc! That really would be seen as being a little pedantic I expect.

It does seem strange that 1.85 was offered though, because most other Limited Editions were 1.66 (if applicable) if I remember correctly? The Little Mermaid Limited Issue certainly was. So presumably the dual aspect ratio was down to some creative input. Which makes it odd the 2 Disc was switched to 1.66.

David S. wrote:I promise I didn't start this thread to complain about matted widescreen again (in fact, it was just the opposite, I didn't like the idea of menus authored to be cropped on the sides or having to artificially stretch them on a 4:3 TV to see everything)

I hope it wasn't my posts that restarted the matting wars again...

David S. wrote:Which in my opinion makes 1.33:1 at the very least a valid "co-original theatrical ratio" and of course the one and only true "original animation ratio" for the 60's and 70's DACs in this category.

Finally, a compromise. I like your suggestion/opinion of "co-original"! It provides that much-needed middle ground in the "Matted widescreen is right!" and "No way, unmatted fullframe is right!". I don't know why I never thought of it before. I've just kept it separated between "animated ratio" and "theatrical ratio", simply because that's how I've always seen it (and likely always will). I prefer the theatrical ratio, but I don't wish to have it simply to spite the unmatted ratio fans.

David S. wrote:Therefore I feel unmatted versions of these films should be made available whenever the films are. I'm NOT saying matted fans and "original theatrical purists" shouldn't get there versions too, they should both be released. If they were, all of these debates would not need to keep coming up because everyone would have the version they want

Of course, then there'd be the debates of "They didn't need to include the (insert 'open-matte' or 'matted') version on the disc, it's not necessary!"

netty wrote:I think that, on the whole, the matted versions, even of films from the late 60's to the late 80's are the "correct" ones. The films were made for the cinema, not home video and not for later TV showings. As such, the theatrical (or likely theatrical) ratio must have been the main concern of the creative crew.

Jules wrote:In the end (as I have said countless times) I am most annoyed by the inconsistency which results from this practice.

Ditto! Then again, Disney is consistently inconsistent (could that be an oxymoron?) so it doesn't surprise me...

Albert

Scaps wrote:Then again, Disney is consistently inconsistent (could that be an oxymoron?)

No it's not. In an oxymoron, two paired words must oppose each other in meaning, like a condensed paradox. For example, "This food is deliciously disgusting!" is an oxymoron, as "delicious" and "disgust" make no real sense when in marriage. Of course, "consistently" and "inconsistent" too oppose each other ... when taken out of context. In your sentence, they complement each other - and ultimately, the statement makes sense. Hence, you meant that Disney are continuously, unrelentengly, consecutively, chronologically (and any other word you can think of) inconsistent!