Disney Releases THE MOON SPINNERS in 1.33:1 (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

Really scary now. When they can release what was a pretty major Hayley Mills title in pan and scan (as well as ABSENT-MINDED PROFESSOR), not much is sacred. That slew of Touchstone/Hollywood movies announced for this year (including THE DOCTOR and a few other really good ones)...guess we can't be too hopeful that we'll be getting OAR. I'm so-o-o-o glad Disney has already released a good percentage of their best titles in letterbox. In order to avoid a flipper disc, so that J6P can have his precious label art, Disney refuses to put OAR on one side and 1.33:1 on the other of these bare-bones releases. I find new reasons to daily praise Wal-Mart and Blockbuster and all supermarket chains which sell p&s DVD's. As has been mentioned by many, Disney has the deepest dichotomy of any studio when it comes to releasing superlative vs. worthless product. Guess we should be grateful the superlatives are still being squeezed out... but for how long?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Why can't Disney take pointers from MGM, Warner, and Fox?

MGM puts both versions on a DVD-9 or DVD-10 for easy access to the version of your choice. Warner does dual-sided discs or dual releases. Fox has occasionally done dual releases with a few dual-sided discs.

Disney could have easily made this disc a DVD-9 release with both versions. They decided to concentrate on a small amount of people who want the DVD instead of the majority.

If it wasn't for the Disney Treasures and A Hard Day's Night: SE in 2002, my Disney collection wouldn't have advanced since 2001.

 

[Kelly V]

Huzah to Disney!
You've done it again guys - I will warn every customer from here on out to check the specifications on the backs of Disney products. Colorized, indeed!
Stop trying to anticipate what you think the public wants. You are catering to creatins. Release your films on OAR and put the crayons down!
Disney is a media superpower - use that power for good. You can dictate your own product. There is no reason not to give us dual sided DVDs. I tell you, customers complain all the time, "why can't they just include both versions?"
We are all very frustrated! Arrrgh!
PS Don't forget the power of word of mouth. For every colorized/Pan&scan release, I will be in my video department educating consumers about why they don't want these discs.

 

[Richard Waller]

Disney DVD: striving to be the worst studio of 2003.

 

[LukeB]

Well you can't really label Disney the best or worst studio overall, since they have extremely good and extremely bad releases.

One thing is for certain...they are THE worst studio at putting out standard catalogue DVDs. The only catalogue titles they always do right are those they see fit to release as Collector's Editions or Vault Disney. With the great majority, it's a crapshoot. Emphasis on crap.

 

[SpenceJT]

Um wasn't "The Moon Spinners" broadcast as a television serial, or filmed in "Academy Standard" aspect ratio?

Would this would explain 1.33:1?

 

[GerardoHP]

No.

 

[m.cellophane]

According to Leonard Maltin's "The Disney Films", "The Moon Spinners" was released 7/2/1964 in theaters and it played over 3 episodes of "Disney's Wonderful World of Color" in late 1966.

IMDb lists the laserdisc as having 1:33 to 1 Pan and Scan.

 

[SpenceJT]

I think I've confused it with "Spin & Marty", a serial that aired on the old Mouseketeer show of the 50's & 60's.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Odds are that this is NOT a P&S transfer. We bandy about that term too loosely around here. I tend to believe that it's an open matte transfer. While this is not the preferred method of seeing the film, I can guaran-frickin-tee you that this is the only release of THE MOON SPINNERS you're going to see for the forseeable future. It's just not that popular a film. If it bothers you that much, you can always black out the top and bottom of your screen. Most Disney theatrical films from that era were shown at 1.78:1 or even 1.66:1, so you're honestly not talking about a very wide picture anyway. I'm as pro-OAR as anyone, but things being the way they are, sometimes we just have to bite the bullet if we really want to see a film. Disney doesn't have the money to spend on lavish transfers of catalog films. They're hemmhoraging money.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

A whole lot of movies back in the "old days" were shot in the Academy aspect ratio of 1.33:1, or something very close to it.

There's no evidence that THE MOON SPINNERS was shot in a true anamorphic widescreen process, and there never even was a widescreen laserdisc, so why do you assume the 1.33 ratio ISN'T its OAR?

Not to defend Disney or anything, but still...a lot of Disney flicks were shot "flat" in the Academy ratio and aren't going to be harmed by being shown in 1.33. Maybe that will annoy some 16:9 TV owners, but it's a fact in terms of a heck of a lot of older films.

I also agree with the above post about how loosely the term "P&S" is being bandied about here. If there's a SLIVER of "open matte" information being added at the top and bottom to a transfer (like 1.66 being opened to 1.33), that's NOT "P&S," it's "Full-Frame," and while it's not 100% ideal, I can certainly live with that.

I CAN'T live with a 2.35 film being cropped to 1.33 -- that, to me, is what "Pan and Scan" means.

 

[Damin J Toell]

a lot of Disney flicks were shot "flat" in the Academy ratio and aren't going to be harmed by being shown in 1.33.

Unless, of course, you consider showing a film in a way other than it was originally shown theatrically without some indiciation of such a desire by the filmmakers to be a harm. I do. Unmatting a film isn't harmless by a longshot.

DJ

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Unmatting a film isn't harmless by a longshot.

I didn't say it was perfect or ideal. However, if a movie shot in 1.66 is "un-matted" for 1.33, and it happens to be one of my favorite films of all-time, am I going to never watch it ever again in my life-time because there is a quarter-inch of opened-up space not seen in theaters? If it bothers the viewer so much they can always rig up some screening at the top of the frame to take away the miniscule amount of picture area being added.

I'm also not stating that is the case with THE MOON SPINNERS. It may well be shot in 1.33 like I said. However, if it's 1.66 being opened up to 1.33, watching it that way is far preferable to not seeing it AT ALL.

Please note I am not saying that I would tolerate a 1.85 film shot "hard matte" and then cropped to 1.33, or any loss on the sides. Just that there is a HUGE difference, IMHO, between 1.66 open matted to 1.33 and a 2.35 Cinemascope film being cropped -- indeed, one is almost an exact replica of the theatrical exhibiton while the other is FAR from it.

I'm curious that if KING KONG comes out on DVD in 1.33, will people not buy it because they think it's being cropped -- when it's not? Once upon a time, 1.33 was a STANDARD aspect ratio and for many movies made in the Golden Age, it was utilized time and time again. Hopefully THE MOON SPINNERS is one of those cases and Disney has it right.

 

[Charlie Essmeier]

Unless, of course, you consider showing a film in a way other than it was originally shown theatrically without some indiciation of such a desire by the filmmakers to be a harm. I do. Unmatting a film isn't harmless by a longshot.

How those films are shown theatrically is often decided by a $6.00 per hour projectionist, and not by the studios. I saw "Dr. Strangelove" in the theater last year. It was matted to 1.85:1. That same theater matted "Citizen Kane" to 1.85:1 a few months earlier, cropping off the heads of the entire cast. Gee, it was exhibited theatrically in 1.85:1, so I guess we should complain about the 1.33:1 DVD, right?
The recent rerelease of "Rear Window" was 1.85:1, even though it was originally released in 1.33:1 in this country, and 1.66:1 elsewhere. Frankly, theatrical exhibition aspect ratios are often rather random.

My guess is that, in 1964, "The Moon Spinners" was shown in some theaters at 1.33:1, and matted for "widescreen" in others. If it were shown today, it would probably be matted to 1.85:1 everywhere.

And it's truly a minor title, anyway. I'm surprised it's coming out on DVD at all.

This is much ado about nothing, IMO.

Charlie

 

[Damin J Toell]

Just that there is a HUGE difference, IMHO, between 1.66 open matted to 1.33 and a 2.35 Cinemascope film being cropped -- indeed, one is almost an exact replica of the theatrical exhibiton while the other is FAR from it.

They're different in some respects, but in the most important respect, they're exactly the same: they're both wrong. Neither is more or less wrong than the other; wrong is wrong.
DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

Frankly, theatrical exhibition aspect ratios are often rather random.

Just because there are sloppy projectionists in the world, it doesn't mean a film doesn't have a proper AR. The goal isn't to reproduce what some random projectionist happened to do, but to reproduce a film's proper AR, which is far from random.

DJ

 

[StevenA]

And it's truly a minor title, anyway. I'm surprised it's coming out on DVD at all. This is much ado about nothing, IMO.

Individual opinions as to whether or not this film is a major or minor title are irrelevant, IMHO. If we divide films into subjectively determined categories as to their worth, suggesting that only "important" or "major" films are deserving of correct presentation, many people's favorites are going to be presented carelessly.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Neither is more or less wrong than the other; wrong is wrong.

So you see no difference whatsoever in a 2.35 being cropped to 1.33, and a 1.66 film, likely shot in 1.33 in the first place, transferred open matted?

One loses nearly 50% of the intended picture, the other doesn't LOSE ANY, just adds a sliver at the top. And yet you feel they are both equal in their failure to reproduce the original aspect ratio? One is a complete and utter bastardization of the original aspect ratio and does not, in any way, compare to the latter scenario for me, IMHO.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

I think they both are. I'm sorry to see that the harm done to films by an open-matte transfer is considered to be acceptable by some. I find it to be a troubling position for a forum whose mission statement includes the respect of filmmakers.
DJ

 

[Paul_Scott]

Boy.
i clicked on this thread (with 17 replies no less!) hoping for a definitve answer on just what the correct aspect ratio of The Moon-Spinners was.

this was the only Di$ney title released yesterday that i was interested in, and even though i vowed not to, i picked it up anyway hoping that it was just an open matte presentation.
like one of the earlier posters, while not ideal, i have slightly more in my brain pan than your average baboon and am confident i can rig a masking system to accomplish the correct AR.

but that is only if it is indeed open matte.
i agree, i see the term pan and scan bandied around way too much, and frequently misused.

so i ask you gentlemen, just what is the OAR of this title?
its sitting on the shelf unopened until i can get a definitive answer.

oh and BTW, for anyone still using a 4:3 display, i would very much reccommend the use of mask whether a disc is already letterboxed or not.
i was greatly surprised how much this added to the experience of watching letterboxed material on my old rp, and would say its definitly a potent and inexpensive little tweek.