Disney Releases THE MOON SPINNERS in 1.33:1 (1 Viewer)

[Jesse Skeen]

Does the disc say "Formatted to fit your screen"? I noticed Absent-Minded Professor does, but I checked the covers for Gus and Apple Dumpling Gang and they do not have the message.

 

[Brian Kidd]

The "Formatted to Fit Your Screen" message is not always reliable. I've seen many, many 1.33:1 films with this caveat listed erroneously. Someone can always email Leonard Maltin. I asked him a question about THE RELUCTANT DRAGON and got back a very nice email. He's an expert on the Disney films.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The recent rerelease of "Rear Window" was 1.85:1, even though it was originally released in 1.33:1 in this country, and 1.66:1 elsewhere. Frankly, theatrical exhibition aspect ratios are often rather random

It was originally released in 1.66:1, as the DVD properly exhibits.

 

[Dick]

Brian, I have been looking for a way to communicate with leonard Maltin about a number of issues. Can you provide a link? Thanks.

 

[Kevin Fox]

IMDB lists the film format as just "35mm." I believe that means it was shot 1.33:1. They mentioned no other specs like they do in other listings, so I would guess we are actually getting an OAR release.

 

[Damin J Toell]

IMDB lists the film format as just "35mm." I believe that means it was shot 1.33:1. They mentioned no other specs like they do in other listings, so I would guess we are actually getting an OAR release.

First, IMDB is far from reliable. Second, 35mm film is used for many ARs (1.33:1, 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.4:1, etc.), so IMDB listing "35mm" means nothing. Much more can be inferred from the release date of the film. By 1964, flat films were rarely projected at 1.37:1, so it would've been quite an oddity for The Moon Spinners to have been projected that way. It's almost certainly the case that it was projected somewhere between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 in American cinemas.
DJ

 

[David Von Pein]

The "Formatted to Fit Your Screen" message is not always reliable. I've seen many, many 1.33:1 films with this caveat listed erroneously.

Yes indeedy!!
Like virtually ALL of MGMs "Vintage Classics" on VHS. They're all filmed in 1.37, and the "Formatted" disclaimer is on them. (Although, technically, I suppose this IS correct. It's re-formatted 0.04 from 1.37 to 1.33.)

 

[Kevin Fox]

Damin,
If you read my post again, I just said it was shot flat. I didn't claim to know how it was projected. I agree that it was probably not shown 1.33:1, but I just wanted to note that in this case, we wouldn't be missing picture, if the news about a 1.33:1 disc is true. Much as I would like OAR, at least it won't be P&S (unless, of course, it was matted in-camera).

 

[David Von Pein]

....

 

[Damin J Toell]

Much as I would like OAR, at least it won't be P&S (unless, of course, it was matted in-camera).

First you say that we're getting an OAR release, then you lament the fact that we're not. Odd.

DJ

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Hmmm.
Take a look at director James Nielson's filmography in the early 60s. He made a string of TV movies for Disney and this theatrical release is right in the middle of them. Wasn't this shown on WWoD in 1966? Is it possible these TV movies and theatrical films are interchangeable? Didn't Davy Crockett and Dr. Syn start on TV and end up as theatrical features later? Should we consider the theatrical aspect ratio superior to the televised AR simply because it was distributed that way first? If this was presented as a Walt Disney Treasures Tin in WWoD form in 1.33 would there be any complaints? I honestly don't know.
I would love to hear what Leonard Maltin has to say on this matter.
Or Mr. Robert Harris, if you are reading this thread, I'm sure we would all appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Should we consider the theatrical aspect ratio superior to the televised AR simply because it was distributed that way first?

Of course. Lots of movies get aired at 1.33:1 on TV 2 years after their theatrical release. If the film was made as a theatrical release, the fact that it ended up on TV 2 years later should have no impact.

DJ

 

[Rob Gardiner]

What I was trying to suggest is that it may have been filmed for television but possibly a decision was made to release it to theaters first. (I'm not suggesting this applies to any movie that airs on TV!) Of course I don't know if that's what happened, I was just trying to suggest the possibility. A Disney expert like Mr. Maltin would certainly know more about it than I do.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Mr. Maltin can be reached at [email protected] . I wrote him at this address and received a very nice answer a few days later. His website, LeonardMaltin.com is great fun for film buffs.

 

[Mark Hanson]

Do agree that P&S is tossed around at almost anything that is in 1.33. It is easy to mask the flat films. The memories of the early 60s to 70s have alot of projectionists leaving the last matte up and if the picture fits that was it. On true open films it would be nice for the original reccommended setting to be stated to help set the masks I have. That prevents alot of frustration on my side about movies I like, but will not see releases in more time than I will be around. Now true P&S on widescreen 1.8X plus movies presents problems. These are usually the bigger films of the 50s - present and that is where the push needs to go to get it right or with both ascpects like many MGM productions.

 

[Rob Ray]

Rob Gardiner has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I go back as far as "The Wonderful World of Color" and was in diapers during the "Disneyland" TV show days. Let me explain something about Disney's operation: With the exception of their animated films and major events like "Mary Poppins" and "20,000 Leagues", all Disney product was essentially filmed with their long-running TV show in mind. They had a TV look to them even in theatres. A few films were even shot before a decision was made whether to release to theatres or go straight to television. And many feature-length Disney films, now forgotten, DID go straight to television, cut up into two and three parts.

Yes, they were projected at 1.85:1 at my theatre. But the pan and scan transfers of the Kurt Russell comedies and things like "The Moon Spinners" are merely an open matte replicating the way the film was shown in their sixties television run. If there's any information missing on the sides, it's more than made up by the added information on the top and bottom and none of it amounts to anything.
I guess my point is that back in the sixties, Disney wasn't so much a film studio as it was a film and TELEVISION studio. Most of its product was designed to be seen in either format with no harm done to the image. These were films made by TV directors with a TV sensibility and budget.


I'm a purist when it comes to letterboxing too, and if I had my way, everything would be shown in their "original aspect ratio." However, I'm not losing sleep over "The Moon Spinners." But I am hanging onto my black and white laserdisc of the 1.33:1 "Absent-Minded Professor." That's where I draw the line.

 

[Peter Kline]

Since Disney was heavily into TV in the 60s who is to say that the film was not shot with video it mind, even though theatres may have projected it at a 1.66:1, or 1.75: 1 ratio? Many of today's films are shown in theatres approximating 1.85:1 but are photographed with the intention of also being properly seen in a 1.33:1 ratio for full screen televisions. To wit, there may actually be two aspect ratios for a film with neither being the "correct" one. I remember seeing a documentary on a film a few years ago, and the director pointed out that he had both 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 frames in the viewfinder and he composited the picture to take both ratios into account. Like said above, the word pan and scan is not always used properly on these forums.

 

[Rodney]

I wish all the studio's would state that a film is open matte, pan & scan or OAR.

Shouldn't we as consumers have access to that information?

Of course, while I am wishing, I wish they would just release DVD's in OAR and that would be the end of it.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

We should be thankful that we do know the OAR's of the films that are coming out today.

I'm going to have to agree with this show being 1.33:1 as the original intent. Unlike the Absent Minded Professor (which states that this film has been modified to fit your screen) the back of the Moon Spinners does not. We can shout out 'lying by omission', but I think that they did this one ok.

Glenn

 

[SpenceJT]

It's bad enough that the release of Absent Minded Professor is the "COLORIZED" version.
This is very disappointing in that Disney chose not to release this classic in it's original "unadulterated" version.