OAR of Sword in the Stone (1 Viewer)

[Robb Hudspeth]

I'm a little confused about the OAR of Sword in the Stone. The DVD is listed as 1.33 fullscreen while IMDb lists it at 1.75. Disney has been very good at releasing their animated in product in OAR and the IMDb isn't always accurate. Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

[David Lambert]

I have SitS marked as a non-OAR release. I researched at the time I decided to buy it, and decided to get it anyway, but flag it for an upgrade when OAR is available (note that I bought it used for about $12-ish, or it would have been a NO OAR = NO SALE situation).
In addition to the IMDB data, I did an HTF search and verified it's non-OARness (or its MARness if you'ld rather) from previous postings. Here's a quote from a more recent thread that states this again:

then there are 4 titles that I believed are not released in OAR and are either unmatted or pan-n-scanned on DVD: The Sword in the Stone, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, and The Fox and the Hound

Also, it made the OAR Watchdog list at the new Widescreen Advocate site, although truth be told there are a few questionable items on that list...but the site is brand-spankin' new and they're looking into it (the site producers are HTF members...hiya, Joshua! ).
I'm convinced it's a MARred item, though.

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

All of those are unmatted. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Chad Gregory]

I'm convinced it's a MARred item, though.

David,

Why are you convinced though?

I still don't see any information that would lead me to believe that it 100% is MAR, just speculation.

I guess that puts me into the not convinced crowd.

-Chad

 

[David Lambert]

It wasn't just that thread, it was other threads back from a long while ago. I included that quote/thread as just an example of where this came up again. The new one words it less definitively, but I was obviously convinced last year when I went looking for these. I've had a short night's sleep and I worked this morning, now I'm babysitting my 4 year old. I honestly don't feel like searching for something may or may not still be there. I was definatively convinced at the time, let's just say...and I've learned not to second-guess that after months have passed (I usually do the same or more work and arrive at the same place I did before).
If y'all want to research it, be my guest. If you find out something different, let me know so I can change my marking.
I neglected in the previous to post that the time SitS was released was before Disney got to be more reliable about having good releases. MAR items and non-anamorphic OAR items weren't any more of a surprise to us than, say, editing out the scenes of Goofy smoking a cig'.

 

[Kyle McKnight]

What do you mean "nothing to worry about"? Even people with 4:3 TV's should be able to see it in OAR without putting custom made mattes on their TV. Plus, us people with WS TV sets benefit from an anamorphic trailer (assuming they would make the OAR anamorphic).

 

[David Lambert]

Wow, I missed that post.
Open Matte is still MAR!

 

[Patrick McCart]

The Sword in the Stone is presented on DVD without matting.

In fact, I watched this film with mattes on top of the image to simulate a 1.75:1 image and it looked correct.

Matting is modifying the image, too, but it's not usually for bad. Open matte animation usually can be seen at 1.33:1 to 1.85:1 without messing up the compositions...

 

[David Lambert]

The Sword in the Stone is presented on DVD without matting.

This is not OAR.

 

[Patrick McCart]

This is not OAR.

I didn't say it was. I'm just explaining that it lacks the correct 1.66:1-1.85:1 matting and as a result, exposes 100% of the frame incorrectly.

 

[Chad Gregory]

David,

I would assume that I have seen all of the comments as well. I guess that I was attempting to say that I'm not convinced yet, but I'm open for change.

Watch out for the Open Matte Crusader, he's on a rampage...

-Chad

 

[Malcolm R]

I just looked at this in BB. It states on the back that it "has been modified to fit your TV."

 

[Chad Gregory]

Malcolm,

I did check my cover before posting, but...

The problem is that almost all of the Disney covers say that. Including The Black Cauldron, which is in 2.35 non-anamorphic widescreen. It is not necessarily a reliable source.

-Chad

 

[Malcolm R]

The problem is that almost all of the Disney covers say that. Including The Black Cauldron, which is in 2.35 non-anamorphic widescreen. It is not necessarily a reliable source.

Funny you mention "The Black Cauldron" as that's the Disney title I did buy tonight. Must be they fixed the cover 'cuz mine says "'The Black Cauldron' is presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio, approximately 2.35:1." No mention of any modifications.
I was reading some Disney reviews at DVDFile. Their reviewer states that 1.33:1 is the correct OAR for "The Sword in the Stone" and the modified disclaimer is inaccurate.

 

[Chad Gregory]

It is funny, because the other three movies talked about earlier, Aristocats, The Fox and the Hound, and Robin Hood, all say that they are presented in their original aspect ratio, approx 1.33

Frustrating...

 

[Robb Hudspeth]

Okay, here's what I don't understand about "matting" TSitS. This film was made in 1963, long before home video was even considered. Why would the animators take the time and effort to prepare backgrounds etc... that the audience would never see? It's possible that they wanted a Wide Screen ("matted") version for theaters so equipped, while retaining the "Academy Ratio" for all other theaters. Of course, this would give the film a dual OAR. Of course, this is all speculation. Of course, I'm still confused.

 

[TedD]

Joel,

In 1963, all commercial theaters in the US had been converted from 1.33 for at least 8 years. I suppose it was possible that Disney was thinking 1.33 for 16mm or for commercial television, or maybe it was just a holdover from using the existing cell stands and cameras.

Ted

 

[Robb Hudspeth]

or maybe it was just a holdover from using the existing cell stands and cameras.

So where does Lady and the Tramp fit into this equation?
Not trying to nitpick, I just don't understand the fanaticism over widescreen animation when it wasn't "drawn" that way. If I was an animator who spent thousands of hours on these films, I'd get pretty hacked to see some of my work covered by those black bars.

 

[Chad Gregory]

Not trying to nitpick, I just don't understand the fanaticism over widescreen animation when it wasn't "drawn" that way. If I was an animator who spent thousands of hours on these films, I'd get pretty hacked to see some of my work covered by those black bars.

I think that it can be summed up in two words, "anamorphic enhancement". If it was meant to be shown in theaters in widescreen, it should be on disc that way. At least that is how I feel.

-Chad

 

[Robb Hudspeth]

I think that it can be summed up in two words, "anamorphic enhancement". If it was meant to be shown in theaters in widescreen, it should be on disc that way. At least that is how I feel.

That's cool. I'm just partial to the artistic vision of the animators, as opposed to studio execs and theater owners who felt there could be more profit in hacking up the original so it would fill up the sides of that expensive new screen. The irony is this is a kids movie, and they wouldn't notice the difference anyway. Oh things never change.