Blu-ray Review Lady and the Tramp: Diamond Edition Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Color me skeptical.

Me too but in my case, it's a moot point because I'll never use the digital copy so anything extra that's on there is basically meaningless to me.

 

They are on the digital copies and are itunes extras. The scenes are titled "Baby Arrives" and "Lady's Sweater."

 

[Mark-P]

I am so pissed with DMC. I pre-odered LATT months ago and still haven't received my copy!

 

[Ethan Riley]

Okay, one more time. Is the choral section of "Belle Notte" supposed to be acapella or not? It's acapella in the English version, and adds orchestrations on the foreign language tracks. I could swear my 1980s LATT English soundtrack vhs had the orchestrations, and they suddenly disappeared when the film moved to dvd. Those orchestrations are still gone on the blu-ray, unless I simply am not hearing them! You can hear 'em loud and clear on the French and Spanish soundtracks. Anybody?

 

I thought it was supposed to be accompanied by music.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Lady & the Tramp isn't 16:9, so modern viewers will have to view it with bars regardless of which version they're watching.

Yes, but look at how many years it took for people to accept bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Now they have a nice big widescreen tv, and here is a movie with bars on the sides when they have another option? That makes no sense, bud. And then they'll stretch it across the screen and distort it, like I often see 4:3 material displayed in stores. It just appears in the comparisons I've done that the top and bottom of the screen is opened up in the 4:3 version- there is no additional or different animation. It isn't like OKLAHOMA, BRIGADOON or SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS in which completely different takes were used.

 

[Rob_Ray]

I have the laserdisc version. Although the animation per se probably isn't different, the placement of the cels in front of the background animation is often different. It is indeed a different movie from an animation perspective and fans of such would be very interested in comparing the two.

 

[Brian W.]

I have the laserdisc version. Although the animation per se probably isn't different, the placement of the cels in front of the background animation is often different. It is indeed a different movie from an animation perspective and fans of such would be very interested in comparing the two.

I agree. Just for posterity, I would like to have seen the Academy Ratio version included.

 

[cafink]

Yes, but look at how many years it took for people to accept bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Now they have a nice big widescreen tv, and here is a movie with bars on the sides when they have another option? That makes no sense, bud.

I would hope that anyone who's come to "accept" the bars on the top and bottom of the screen have done so because they've learned that different movies have different aspect ratios that cannot all by accommodated by a single physical display, and not merely because they've gotten used to it. In which case it shouldn't matter whether the bars are on the top & bottom or on the sides. Having black bars on the sides of the screen for a 4:3 movie makes perfect sense for anyone who understands aspect ratios. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand them, but I think that's a poor rationale for determining the aspect ratio of a Blu-ray or DVD release, a position I would not expect to be controversial here on the HTF.

 

Yeah, if that were the case then I guess we wouldn't be watching any movies made before 1953! The flat version is part of the film's history, and Disney should have included it. I am not trying to come across as angry, because this release is wonderful! It's just that it will be years before it is released again, and the alternate version is a piece of Disney just as any other film is.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

1998 Laserdisc of Flat Version 2012 Blu-ray of Widescreen Version Yes, you're right, the 1.33:1 version is superior. I have been comparing the two, and I got the frames as close as I could to compare. The flat version was very carefully composed, as can be seen above.

 

[Techman707]

It isn't like OKLAHOMA, BRIGADOON or SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS in which completely different takes were used.

While they filmed two versions of Oklahoma, one 70mm Todd/AO and one 35mm Cinemascope, Brigadoon and Seven Brides For Seven Brothers was only filmed in 35mm scope. Any flat prints (or DVDs) would be made from the scope version. Sometime in the early 80's, they made some scanned flat 35mm theatrical prints of Seven Brides for a Samual Goldwyn series (that were horrible), but that's it. Edit: A friend of mine just told me that the flat version I saw in the 80;s was filmed as a second version on Seven Brides....however, he said Brigadoon wasn't filmed both ways. Does anyone have info on that? That flat version of Seven Brides was STILL awful.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I have the laserdisc version. Although the animation per se probably isn't different, the placement of the cels in front of the background animation is often different.

I am viewing them side by side on my computer, and I see little to no evidence to support what you're saying. I'll post images when there appears to be something different. Most of it shows some more head and bottom room (though it varies greatly, with some scenes nearly matching the last pan/scan release), and many shots that are static turn into panning shots over the same artwork and placement of cels (the grown Lady running down the stairs for the first time, for example - it now appears as it did in the pan/scan version of the film). *UPDATE* I have found this shot to compare that shows the dog closer together, but quite cramped. 36 minutes in and this is the only time I have seen a noticeable difference as far as where the cels are. 1998 Laserdisc of Flat Version 2012 Blu-ray of Widescreen Version

 

[Chuck Pennington]

While they filmed two versions of Oklahoma, one 70mm Todd/AO and one 35mm Cinemascope, Brigadoon and Seven Brides For Seven Brothers was only filmed in 35mm scope. Any flat prints (or DVDs) would be made from the scope version.

These are as close as I could get them, seeing as they were different takes and such. Flat Version Scope Version Flat Version Scope Version Flat Version Scope Version

 

Obviously the flat version didn't look like that in the theater...her head is cut off. And I doubt if they did a new transfer that it would be cropped like that. Why are you so against them including it? It wouldn't hurt anything. And it was the first version completed, which is interesting.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Obviously the flat version didn't look like that in the theater...her head is cut off. And I doubt if they did a new transfer that it would be cropped like that. Why are you so against them including it? It wouldn't hurt anything.

How do you now it didn't look like that? That is how it looks on the Laserdisc, and I can't imagine the would have purposely changed that one shot to look so awful when the shots before and after it are okay. And was that version ever properly distributed at all, or was it created and vaulted in case Cinemascope failed? That's what happened to the flat versions of SEVEN BRIDES... and BRIGADOON (the flat version of the latter has yet to surface). I am against including it because it was a compromised version, and so much of it is very close to what the pan/scan version looks like. Some shots have more head and bottom room, but most still look cramped and are sometimes awkwardly framed. There is quite a bit of panning around as well, just like in the older pan/scan version. Why go to the time and expense to do the kind of work Disney does on these films twice when it isn't necessary?

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Having black bars on the sides of the screen for a 4:3 movie makes perfect sense for anyone who understands aspect ratios. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand them, but I think that's a poor rationale for determining the aspect ratio of a Blu-ray or DVD release, a position I would not expect to be controversial here on the HTF.

It was enough for Sony and many other studios to release pan/scan only versions of their films, some of which were previously available in widescreen on the format. Quite a few can still be found in Wal-Mart bins (ANNIE, ABOUT LAST NIGHT..., THE DEEP, etc.). Most people I have seen show everything stretched on their televisions, whether they were intended to be seen that way or not. My friends no longer let me fix the screen setting because then they complain. Even on the commentary for 9 TO 5, Dolly, Jane and Lily complain about how they hate the new widescreen tvs and how they make everyone look fat.

 

They did release it in theaters that weren't yet equipped for Cinemascope. They created it first...look at Robert Harris's review. It was released. And I doubt Disney would create something where heads were cut off. It was carefully composed, as all of Disney's films were. You can't go by a laserdisc transfer to tell what a film looked like.

 

[Mark-P]

There is something suspicious about that shot with Lady's head cut off, and I think it might be context. I need to see what that shot represents. Is is perhaps the shot where Lady is showing off her new collar to the Tramp? and thus the shot is of THE COLLAR and not Lady?

They did release it in theaters that weren't yet equipped for Cinemascope. They created it first...look at Robert Harris's review. It was released. And I doubt Disney would create something where heads were cut off. It was carefully composed, as all of Disney's films were. You can't go by a laserdisc transfer to tell what a film looked like.

 

[bujaki]

TCM-HD has shown a flat version of the 'Scope Rose Marie. I had to buy the WB Archive disc in order to see it in its OAR.