Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY... - Page 2

I sent in a feedback form to Disney on there w/s telling them how I was waiting sooo long for Follow Me Boys and that they lost a customer on there out of focus non oar trash that they released.

Darby O'Gill!! Hooray, Hooray!

The press release that just came from Disney states that The Shaggy Dog will be fullscreen and that The Shaggy D.A. will be widescreen. Why isn't Disney consistent with these releases? They even go so far as to give us the sequel in widescreen but not the original. It makes no sense not to do both in widescreen. Then again, they are probably just trying to save money by using old prints. Some say that some of these films were framed for both TV and theaters, so either aspect ratio is correct. While that may be true, Widescreen Advocate always prefers the theatrical aspect ratio, except in the case of films animated at 1.33:1.

I'm staying away from both of these films because of this.

.

I'm pretty sure that The Shaggy Dog was originally intended to air on TV, so it was shot 1.33:1. There's no reason to think that Disney would screw up the aspect ratio on a title like this where they're putting effort into release, regardless of what IMDb says about aspect ratio.

According to numerous sources since it was in production in 1958, The Shaggy Dog was intended as a theatrical release. Among the reasons this would be the case is that top-billed Fred MacMurray was still starring in films -- this was before "My Three Sons" started its TV run; it's unlikely he would have guest-starred on Disney's TV anthology. All of MacMurray's Disney films were produced for theatrical release.

It's very disappointing that it will be full-frame -- unless Disney is good enough to explain -- on this release and all others like it -- that it's full frame because it was filmed (and preferentially framed) at 1.33:1 and cropped only for theaters. I've refrained from buying many full-frame Disney DVDs, and I hate to do it with this one.

The Misadventures of Merlin Jones, however, was filmed for TV, but Disney decided after production to release it theatrically. The full-frame, though rather poor, DVD presentation (the prints on The Disney Channel were much better than the one used for the DVD!!!), might, therefore, be "correct." But don't count on it.

In addition to "filmed-for-theaters" and "filmed-for-TV," there is a third category of Disney films: those filmed for TV broadcast in the US and Canada and theatrical release elsewhere (including, most likely, "Merlin"). Virtually all two- and three-part presentations on the Disney anthology TV series in the 50s and 60s belong to this category. It appears that these were filmed at the 1.66:1 ratio for European presentation: on TV ever since they've first appeared, major characters often are half cut off the screen or, in static group scenes, missing even when they speak.

So, even if Disney shot something for TV, I don't believe it can be assumed that it was shot at 1.33:1. More likely, it was 1.66:1 or wider.

IMHO, it's inexcusable that no one in charge today at that studio, which was once known for being the best in quality control (in initial production and in the utmost care in keeping its negatives and prints pristine), cares about the history and accuracy of presentation. But what else could we expect from a studio that allegedly fired the person responsible for the excellent-but-cancelled "Vault Disney" line.

videouniverse.com now lists "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" and "Third Man on the Mountain" as "Full Frame - 1.33." It gives no aspect ratio as yet for "The Three Lives of Thomasina." ultimatedisney.com has no AR details on any of these films.

These are among the very best -- perhaps the best -- of the Disney classics: truly magical, unforgettable, experiences for kids who saw them in theaters. Again, today's Disney has disappointed immensely. Unless definitive word comes out that these were filmed at 1.33 -- and we're getting the original negative -- I won't buy the DVDs I'd been waiting for for years.

However, don't expect any pan and scan from good ol' Disney. They haven't bothered to do so in the past, have they? What you'll likely get is a centered shot at all times -- unless they squeeze the image as they did on "Son of Flubber" to get the credits on the screen, per the ultimatedisney.com review. (Something they didn't do on "Babes in Toyland," where the credits clearly show that a good part of the image is missing, showing that "Babes" was not meant for 1.33, contrary to what has been stated here before.)

Interesting language in Video Universe ad for both "Darby" and "Thomasina": "Original language - Gaelic." Informative blurb about "Thomasina" in included on the Web page.

The last place I would trust for this kind of info is video universe. I have never liked that site. The test is to wait for it to appear on Disney's Video Finder, and then check the aspect ratio. That site is usually, but not always accurate.

Will The Happiest Millionaire be in 5.1?

I'm told that Millionaire will be 5.1. How, I don't know. The film was three channels behind the screen with no surrounds.
No specs so far for Family band, except it has one of those new, ugly, disney covers. So far, no word of any extras on either of these titles.
For Hayley Mills fans, Where is Summer Magic and In Search of the Castaways?

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

Do Disney have any plans to upgrade the pan & scan versions of some their older movies? I would love to see an upgraded release of Blackbeard's Ghost. The movie was given very poor treatment. Hank Jones who made a number of films for Disney has said that it was the favourite movie he made for Disney.

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

You know what's interesting here (and something we discussed
many times before) is that now that consumers are buying widescreen
HD displays, the complaints they made about the black bars on the
top and bottom of their screens is now going to bite them in the ass
as they see black bars on the sides.

All those consumers for years who complained to Walmart and other
retailers and forced the hands of the studios to go Pan & Scan are now
regretting that decision. Had they bought anamorphic releases back
then, their screens would have been perfectly satisfied today.

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

Unfortunately I don't think the non-HT entusiast crowd that shops at Wal-Mart gives a damn. Why? because with their old 4X3 TVs they couldn't eliminate the black bars, but with their new 16X9 TVs they can stretch the picture to fit. Trust me, just about every non-HT acquaintance whose house I've been in have their widescreen sets set up to stretch 4X3 material and none of them even seem to notice the difference. They think their watching widescreen!

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

Maybe, they haven't been properly educated to notice the difference?




Crawdaddy

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

LMAO at "properly educated."

I've explained this over and over to some people, and they won't understand it no matter what you say.

You can talk an hour to someone about letterboxing, and they'll still say, "I'm not going to watch it with the feet cut off."

There's a great ancient expression, you know: "A word to the wise is sufficient."

I, too, have noticed that almost everyone keeps their new TVs on "Wide Zoom," and watch everything stretched out, and have no clue that it's distorted.

As for these Disney films: If they were open matte, I zoom them up to "widescreen" and put up with some loss of quality. If they weren't open matte, I'm up the creek and I'm back to cursing the fact that I live in a world where most people just don't care about things being done right -- and that's not just in the category of home video!

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

That fits my experience exactly of practically every house I visit. All most people want is to have their screen filled, even if it gives a distorted picture. Sad isn't it?

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

I switched my girlfriend's TV over from stretched 4x3 to regular aspect ratio and she's now angry that she has bars on the side of her screen. Sigh...

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

I haven't bought a DVD in a while. Is P&S still an issue? I remember when we used to sweat every announcement that didn't specify. "Is the box art up at DVD Empire yet? Is it going to be OAR?" I would hope those days are over.

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that even if these people do start buying Widescreen, 2.35:1 films are still going to be problematic for them. As well as 4:3 television shows and acedemy ratio films. But I guess modern 16:9 televisions have all sorts of zoom and stretch modes so that they can get around it. Like others have said, it's sad but true that with widescreen monitors rapidly becoming the norm, many people still don't have the slighest idea what it all means. Take some friends of mine for example. They bought a widescreen tv. Had it for months and then when I went to visit them, they had a film on and it was distorted. I had to tell them they had to change their monitor setting on their DVD player to 16:9. Most people have absolutely no idea that this setting exists on their players let alone know what it means. In fact even the labels 4:3 and 16:9 have no meaning to them.

I was with another friend of mine who had a 16:9 tv and was still had some fullscreen DVDs. I asked why they don't buy widescreen now and the response was "who the fuck cares" and was pretty much regarded as an idiot for even thinking about something so "stupid" (they also have some widescreen DVDs in the mix, so I gather they just grab the first version off the shelf they see for any given title.)

It is kind of sad that DVD and now 16:9 montiors have taken off so well, yet reletavely so few people really understand much about them at all (my father, after all the years there has been a dvd player in the house, still doesn't even realiably know how to navigate through meuns)

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

In my experience, as soon as you start saying anything involving numbers, such as 4:3 or 16:9, most peoples' eyes glaze over. I got yelled at by an old friend for even daring to start to suggest that he had his settings wrong on his DVD player. He just doesn't care, and I don't mean "in the way we care" -- he doesn't care at all!

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

Apparently he cared enough to get defensive and yell at you.

I saw a screening of "The Usual Suspects" at a theater where most of the first reel was shown with the incorrect "Flat" lens on the projector and was surprised that very few people seemed bothered by it. If you thought Benicio Del Toro looked tall and skinny in the version you saw....

Regards,

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

Well, I can top that.

And it involved the same friend who yelled at me.

So he went to the movies to see something or other, about 3 years ago.

And there's no sound.

After about ten minutes, and no one is doing anything, he goes to the lobby and asks for the manager.

The manager said, "Yeah, we know, the sound isn't working, and we're giving refunds."

So when he told me this, I said, "Well, at least you got your money back."

And he said, "No, I stayed."

Yes. He watched the whole movie with no sound.

Well, after all, that's what people did until the late 1920s, so why not?

But it taught me, once and for all, that not everyone is like us guys here, who want everything to be just so. He told me most people sat there and watched the entire movie with no sound.

Re: Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY...

I'm picturing your friend played by Chris Farley.

"Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid."

"Ha ha ha. Why do you ask?"