Lady and the Tramp OAR

Discussion in 'DVD' started by ScottR, Mar 24, 2003.

  1. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,650
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the OAR of Lady and the Tramp? Is it 2.35:1 or 2.55:1? It seems that since it was made in the early days of Cinemascope that it would be the latter.
     
  2. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's 2.35:1 OR 1.33:1

    The cels were shot twice, and in some cases different backgrounds used for each AR
     
  3. SteveP

    SteveP Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    A 1955 CinemaScope release would have been 2.55:1 on 4-channel magnetic stereo prints and 2.35:1 only on prints with optical sound only.
     
  4. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,805
    Likes Received:
    3
    Here's to hoping for a future remastered 16x9 DVD SE...*whatever* the aspect ratio happens to be (and a dual 1.33:1 release in a 2-disc set would be awesome given it's "dual nature" upon theatrical release).
     
  5. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2000
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 1.33:1 prints were seldom seen. Really, they were produced only for theaters incapable of properly showing Cinemascope. The 2.35:1 version of the film was the "preferred" aspect ratio of the animators.

    Also, it was not until the late 90's that the composed-for-1.33 version even showed up on home video. All previous video releases had been pan and scanned from 2.35:1 prints, which seems to re-enforce the notion that the 1.33:1 prints were exceptionally rare.

    Also, the 1.33:1 prints were only shown during the film's first run. They were never used for any of the multiple re-releases.

    -Lyle J.P.
     
  6. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,805
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't think that anyone would deny that the 2.35:1 composition was intended to be the "premiere" version. However, it doesn't negate the historical value of the 1.33:1 composition, nor does Disney's ineptitude in past 4x3 video incarnations (which were P/S of the WS version) somehow bear testimony to their lack of value. Disney has let many other items in their vault disappear or be destroyed (original optical sound elements for Fantasia, for example) and so the present rarity of those 1.33:1 film stocks is an effect, not a cause. Road-show cuts of films which were shown sparingly upon release (and never again during re-release or wide-spread theatrical release) get lots of respect among collectors...why shouldn't a 1.33:1 version of a film that was animated specifically for theaters not equipped for WS presentation?

    If presented on DVD in a special edition, the WS should certianly be presented first and foremost with the greatest of quality. However, it's more than a mere novelty that a 1.33:1 composition *was* created...it's an effort by the studio worth preserving on DVD and certainly one worth offering to those wishing to fill their 4x3 screen as a "native 1.33:1" choice that has undeniable historical precedence.

    As a film collector, I'd like to have the opportunity to view both versions, as I'm sure would most other film-collectors and Disney-buffs alike.
     
  7. Peter Kline

    Peter Kline Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 1.33:1 version was shown overseas when there was no Cinemascope installations. I believe all US theatrical showings were in 2.35:1 (although I could be wrong). MGM did this as well with some musicals, "Brigadoon", "Seven Brides" that I know of.
     
  8. DeeF

    DeeF Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    11
    Peter,

    The difference between LATT, and the other live-action musicals you've mentioned, is that in order to get two versions of "Brigadoon" and "Seven Brides...", they had to be filmed twice, once using 'Scope cameras, for Widescreen, and once 'flat,' for 4x3 presention.

    But Lady and the Tramp wasn't done twice, it was simply cropped for the Widescreen version.

    In many ways, I'd rather have the 4:3 version, because it is more picture.

    P.S. I could be wrong...
     
  9. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,805
    Likes Received:
    3
    Dee,

    You are wrong. [​IMG] From every source that I have read, Lady and the tramp was animated separately for a 1.33:1 version (I'm sure they used many of the same cels and animation source material to save costs...but there were indeed 2 distinct versions that were created...a 2.35 and a 1.33). It's very similar to what Pixar did with their 2 versions of A Bug's Life...where there the 4x3 version was "recomposed". The WS version wasn't "cropped" from the 4x3 but neither was the 4x3 a true P/S of the WS...they were 2 distinct versions.

    This is why making both versions available on DVD (as they were on LD) is a worth-while endeavor.
     
  10. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    DaViD is correct...it was filmed for both ratios. I've seen the 1.33:1 version and the frames are composed with skill and accuracy. I agree that putting both versions on the Platinum Edition would make sense. I think Disney will probably do that anyway, given the "unfriendly" nature of 2.35:1...[​IMG]
     
  11. Peter Kline

    Peter Kline Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that when the film first came out on VHS they simply panned and scanned it. Obviously none of the people at Disney knew of the flat version!

    P.S. I may be wrong...... (but I think you're wonderful) [​IMG]
     
  12. Dick

    Dick Producer

    Joined:
    May 22, 1999
    Messages:
    5,344
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Real Name:
    Rick
    Yes, all video incantations of L&T were pan and scan prior to the late 90's re-issue. Finally, there were separate laser disc releases (2.35 and, now somewhat rare, the re-framed 1.33 version), and the Image Entertainment laser magazine which promoted them gave the details. One of fewer than a half-dozen times to my knowledge (including BRIGADOON, etc) that a movie was filmed twice from scratch in order to accomodate theaters with 1.33:1 screens.
     
  13. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,960
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
    Yeah, to this day I don't understand why Disney made the DVD 2.35 non-anamorphic and did not also include the 1.33 version of the film.
     
  14. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    because they just rehashed their LD masters on all of them
     
  15. Brian W.

    Brian W. Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 1999
    Messages:
    1,960
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Brian
    Right, but they had a laserdisc master for the 1.33 version also, and didn't use it. It just surprises me that with their early aversion to OAR they didn't use the 1.33 master.
     
  16. Tim Glover

    Tim Glover Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1999
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    254
    Location:
    Monroe, LA
    Real Name:
    Tim Glover
    At the risk of offending someone here :b has anyone ever done a real comparison of the two versions? Which is better or which better serves the film?
     
  17. alan halvorson

    alan halvorson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 1998
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I happen to have both version on LD - if I get time (maybe this weekend), I will try to compare them
     
  18. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,805
    Likes Received:
    3
    Tim,

    Given that the studio was producing the cinemascope version as their "definitive" statement and the 1.33:1 version only as a "backup" for theaters that couldn't project the widescreen...it's fair to say that from Walt Disney's team of artists point of view that the WS version "better serves" their vision for the film. Don't get me wrong...I feel very strongly that the 1.33:1 version should get all the credit it deserves and be preserved on an SE DVD for generations to enjoy.

     
  19. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,889
    Likes Received:
    474
     
  20. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,170
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
    Brian wondered:
     

Share This Page