Widescreen War Won! (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

", I've read, though I think he was complaining about fitting 7 characters into a small 4:3 frame and wished he could've done it in 1.85:1. I doubt Wallace was delusional enough to ask a 1990 American network to broadcast a show in 2:35:1."

So, I guess the question is, even though he may have shot in 4:3, did he actually shoot with 1.85:1 framing in mind.

I wouldn't have thought that He would ask the studio to broadcast in 2.35:1, but he may have wanted to film that way. TV would pan and scan but 2.35:1 could have been used for foreign theatrical presentations and possibly video/laserdisc. Considering that Tommy Lee Wallace was part of the Carpenter camp at one time, that theory doesn't seem too outlandish to me.

 

[Darko]

I agree, heck I used to watch WS tapes on a 20" TV and I never noticed the black bars. I guess I must be odd, I concentrated on the movie

 

[John Berggren]

I'm guessing the "artists" and "product" post is a joke. I'm hoping the "artists" and "product" post is a joke.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Well, I wasn't really joking. I don't necessarily think an outcome such as I described will come about but it's an extrapolation of the way things seem to evolve in our "consumer" society. I quite seriously believe that the people who own media companies would no doubt love to cut the "artists" out of the loop and be able to streamline movies and TV they way they can breakfast cereal or pop music.

 

[Matt Rexer]

WillG:

Be a Widescreen Advocate

Hmm... I'd rather not. I'd gladly be an OAR Advocate, however.

 

[John Berggren]

Widescreen Advocate is a website. You might check it out. It favors OAR. However, OARAdvocate.com isn't quite as appealing or easy to advertise to non-OAR advocates.

 

[Sean Campbell]

The widescreen war has already been won in Europe... at least three years ago The only major DVD released in both widescreen and 4:3 was Harry Potter, and even my 12 year old brother wanted the widescreen version

And when I was a teenager I watched and enjoyed widescreen versions of the Star Wars trilogy on a 14" set...

 

[James Reader]

The widescreen war has already been won in Europe... at least three years ago The only major DVD released in both widescreen and 4:3 was Harry Potter, and even my 12 year old brother wanted the widescreen version

That's not quite true - all of Disney's 'scope titles have been released P&S (and Monsters, Inc. in Full Frame) although the modern films (Atlantis, Monsters, Inc) had 2 disc 'Collectors Editions' with the film's in OAR.

What is worrying is Disney UK promotes the single disc MAR releases, and does next to nothing to promote the 2 disc releases. And of course,"Joe" and "Jane Public" buy the single disc release off the shelves becuase they don't know about the "Collectors Editions" or if they do see the two side by side the single disc edition is cheaper.

It's also disturbing that the UK had to wait 10 months for their 2 disc Sleeping Beauty Deluxe Edition, and when it did arrive Disney UK didn't even issue a press release, let alone advertise it, resulting in a full 10 months of nothing more than speculation about a UK widescreen release.

Disney is clearly not commited to widescreen in the UK.

Lady and the Tramp (now one of Disney's Platinum collection titles) has never been released in the UK in widescreen.

Edit: Sorry forgot "The Black Cauldron" (who doesn't ) which was released in widescreen on a single disc in the UK.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I'm an advocate of widescreen but until there aren't any TV's in the world smaller than say, 32 inches

I agree Gary.
I find it truly to be a waste of time & money, that the FCC forces manufacture do do any HD 'stuff' to under 36" screens.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I don't think I'd declare it won just yet.

Well, it's NOT lost!
It wasn't that long ago that B&B's and 'other's' lay with the enemy (P&S).
I feel every good now about the future.
Come on, when even commercials 'see' the value of presentation from widescreen!
As opposed to J6P, you'd think if they are paying for the (typical) full screen size, they'd use it!
J6P would.

Oh yeah, forgot music video's as well in letterbox & widescreen. Too cool!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Disney is so schizophrenic when it comes to DVD release aspect ratios. Either the head of BVHV has multiple personality disorder, or there are multiple "little chiefs" making decisions on various titles.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I disagree, completely. If a WS VHS tape was available, I bought it and watched it on my 27" TV years before DVD.

Your a very special HT fanatic.
Everyone sould 'see' The Driftwood Theater!
Wasn't once called "The Green Room"?

 

[Ed St. Clair]

It's true, "The OAR War" continues!

 

[David Von Pein]

It won't be over until the fat lady sings, and the TV manufacturers have duct-taped her month closed.

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

 

[Sean Campbell]

That's not quite true - all of Disney's 'scope titles have been released P&S (and Monsters, Inc. in Full Frame) although the modern films (Atlantis, Monsters, Inc) had 2 disc 'Collectors Editions' with the film's in OAR.

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?

 

[WillG]

"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?

 

[James Reader]

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.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.

 

[RobD]

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??

 

[Rick Deschaine]

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