Widescreen War Won! - Page 2

Well, maybe it's that time of the month.

Well from my own collection The Rescuers, The Rescuers Down Under, Lilo & Stitch, The Emperor's New Groove & The Hunchback of Notre Dame are all presented in 16x9 widescreen. ( I only have the single disc edition of Emperor's New Groove ).
I have Robin Hood & The Fox and the Hound also, which are both presented in 4:3 ( although I've been told that these are open matte and that nothing is lost - correct me if I'm wrong )

When did Disney begin making movies in scope? Late 50s?

"In a way, I don't care if he shot the film widescreen-safe as this is a made-for-TV movie from 1990. Wallace knew that making it, and likely never suspected it would be shown in anything other than 4:3. As a 14-year-old kid, I watched this movie on TV and VHS many, many times. The 4:3 ("classic TV"?) ratio is a part of my fond memory of it. In addition, chopping the top and bottom off -- even if it's ok with the director in 2003 -- kinda strikes me as similar to the Star Wars SEs: mucking up film history. Greedo shooting first/It in 16:9... that ain't the way it happened in 1977/1990. Granted, this is very minor piece of film history... but one that's personally important to me for a variety of reasons."


I guess I understand what you are saying. The "Star Wars" Comparison puts it in perspective. Lucas' intention was the "special edition" versions, which most of us despise. But, does changing an AR according to a directors intent, compare to actually changing the story a la Lucas? If Tommy Lee Wallace had an insert in the DVD saying that the 1.85:1 Ratio is the way he intended all along, shouldn't we respect that? I hate to admit it, but the Star Wars OT suffers from the double standard of us accepting director approved changes of many films while any change to the "Star Wars" Trilogy causes us to scream Bloody Murder.

We generally accept that Stanley Kubrick requested 4:3 on video release for many of his films. So if Wallace approved 1.85:1 on "It" as his intended ratio, we have no choice to support it, or go against much of what we stand for.

Once again, which comes first? Original Aspect Ratio, or Director Intended Ratio?

Yeah Sean, Disney UK is happy to release 1.85:1 or lower aspect ratios to DVD in widescreen. It's just the 2.35:1 titles they want to crop for the "mass audience" (although as I say, they are happy to have the widescreen release on their 2 disc sets - even if they don't promote them).

Monsters, Inc seems to be the exceptions, having a full frame release on the single disc version even though the aspect ratio was 1.85:1 - I assume this was because Pixar provided them with a 4:3 reformatted version.

Only four Disney films have been shot in Cinemascope

- Lady and the Tramp was the first (although by all accounts this was actually shot twice, the second time in the more familiar 4:3 aspect ratio for the traditional 1.66:1 matting)

- Sleeping Beauty (Disney released a single disc P&S copy in the UK and refused to even answer emails or letters about a possible 2 disc collectors edition which was released in Mainland Europe. Eventually it arrived 10 months later with no publicity).

- The Black Cauldron (This is the only Disney animated 'scope title to receive a widescreen only release)

- finally Atlantis (which was P&S on the single disc and widescreen on the 2 disc set)

Again, my problems with this is Disney UK does virtually nothing to promote their 2 disc editions - even to the point of not mentioning them in their adverts for the single disc editions.

Gary,

you'll do well to remember this very simple thing...artistic intent rules, NOT the equipment it's played on.

As i've said time and time again, give me a magnifying glass and i'll watch a film in it's OAR on a screen no bigger than my watch.

I agree it's far from being "won", but we are making slow but certain progress I think.

About some of the comments about the 2 disc editions. Whilst I think Disney should release everything in OAR, I for one will not pay more than about a £1 extra for the 2 disk version of 90% of movies if the single disk version has the same first disk. Special Features only matter to me in my absolute favourite films.

Which non collectors edition have a compromised OAR??

Just wanted to add some more comments about screen size and widescreen.

I have a co-worker who hates letterboxed movies. We were talking at work one day and I was asking him if he knew that widescreen gives you the whole picture if it was shot that way. He said yes he did but that the picture was too small in this configuration on his television. I'm thinking his TV must be not that big.

So I ask him, how big is your TV?

His reply: 60" !!!!

Well as you can see the war might not be totally over when someone with that large a TV thinks a letterbox image is too small. He's obviously not indicative of everyone, but still.

Peace, Rick

In cases where there is controversy over what the correct aspect ratio is, they should include both versions.

In the UK the single disc Sleeping Beauty, Atlantis and Monsters, Inc. have MAR only transfers.

And yet another blow



I was at my Library today and saw a copy of "The Ring" to my dismay, it was Full Screen. My Library was a big supported of OAR in it's DVD catalog, I asked the librarian if they had and Widescreen, and she told me that was all they had. So now, my Blockbuster and my Library has defected. (Have to wait and see on what else comes in to the Library). I just know that people were complaining at the library about the W/S format on DVDs they were getting FOR FREE so they pandered to J6P and got "The Ring" In F/S. I really don't want to have to purchase this DVD just to see it. What I don't understand is why do places like that go with only one version and pretend the other does not exist? I really, truly hope this is a one time thing at my Library, but it almost certainly isn't.

I'm fearing that we may be losing the war.

According to my calculations, and I have looked at a LOT of stats from various sources, over a period of time, WS version outsells Fullscreen versions by about three to two, for the first two weeks. Then, after that, it jumps to about 3 to one. Then it continues to climb upwards.

By the way, for those of you that do not know, widescreenadvocate dot com has expired. The site can be reached @ widescreenadvocate.org, until the .com domain is re-activated, which will be within a weeks time.

Joshua,

Were do you get this Info, I'd like to take a look?

Of course, OAR might outsell because people like us tend to buy more than rent. If every rental was counted as a sale, I fear that P&S would win


I'm just pissed that sometimes I cannot see certain movies in OAR without having to purchase them.

I just very dismayed when I posted last. I'm still upset about seeing all F/S of "The Ring" at my Library. I really hope this was an exception as that title seems to be extrordinary popular with the mainstream (all reviews I read indicated this movie is actually pretty medicore). I really hope the studios are going to go more to DVD-14 and DVD-18 so these ridiculous dual releases and P&S only will stop. I know Widescreen still sells well enough, but it is getting very hard to find a DVD in W/S without having to buy.

For the one who claims that there is no point of making HD diplay with less than 32" size... if any manufacturer starts making 28" 16:9 TVs, I'll be first in line to buy the TVs. Three of them to be exact.

I only watch DVD; no cable, no TV. Most of my DVDs are in 16:9. My rooms, however, can't accomodate 32" HDTV (let alone larger screen). Even my cabinets can only accomodate the equivalent of 28" 16:9 TVs.

The other thing is... why can't North American sellers sell smaller 16:9 screens just like in Europe, Australia and Asia? I remembered the day I bought a 14" 16:9 Sony Trinitron and a 20" 16:9 Panasonic TV.

... end of rant.

Gee thanks. Back when I first started watching WS VHS on my 27", HT was the last thing on my mind, I just preferred seeing the entire movie.


The old theater was The Green Room.


Peace Out~

With one of my most eagerly anticipated titles, Juggernaut with Richard Harris, finally being announced for release on DVD but in fullscreen only (thanks for nothing, MGM!), I would hardly declare the war "won".

Rob