Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Merged Thread: Darby O'Gill & The Little People OAR?

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 of 61 OFFLINE   Sean Campbell

Sean Campbell

    Second Unit

  • 298 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 06 2002

Posted April 03 2004 - 04:32 AM

Darby O'Gill & The Little People has just been released in R2 - but with an aspect ratio of 1:33:1. I know this movie was made in the late 50s, so can anyone tell me if it's the correct OAR or not? I don't want to buy it if it's cropped

#2 of 61 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway


  • 7,848 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted April 03 2004 - 06:01 AM

imdb.com says it's 1.75:1

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932

#3 of 61 OFFLINE   TedD


    Supporting Actor

  • 698 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2001

Posted April 03 2004 - 10:02 AM

The prints were hard matted to 1.75:1. Ted

#4 of 61 OFFLINE   Charlie O.

Charlie O.

    Supporting Actor

  • 509 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2003

Posted April 04 2004 - 10:50 AM

So 1:33:1 is open matte then correct?

#5 of 61 OFFLINE   TedD


    Supporting Actor

  • 698 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2001

Posted April 04 2004 - 11:01 AM

Probably not. Depends on where the mattes were applied, ie, in the camera, at the interpositive, at the internegative, at the release print, etc. and what stage of the chain the telecine transfer used for the DVD originated from. Ted

#6 of 61 OFFLINE   Jeff Jacobson

Jeff Jacobson


  • 2,116 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 24 2001

Posted April 04 2004 - 06:08 PM

If the prints were hard matted to 1.75:1, that means it's not open matte, doesn't it?

#7 of 61 OFFLINE   Joshua Clinard

Joshua Clinard


  • 1,805 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2000
  • Real Name:Joshua Clinard
  • LocationAbilene, TX

Posted April 05 2004 - 03:56 AM

Yes, if the prints are hard matted, it won't be open matte. It would have to be pan & scanned.

#8 of 61 OFFLINE   Paul Linfesty

Paul Linfesty

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 216 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2001

Posted April 05 2004 - 04:43 PM

Not necessarily. If the negative is full-frame then any new prints (or internegatives and interpositives) could be struck in open-matte. If this is the case, the original hard-matted theatrical prints would be irrelevant. Unless of course they just pull out an old theatrical print to transfer.

#9 of 61 OFFLINE   Mark_Wilson



  • 1,809 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 27 2000

Posted April 06 2004 - 04:02 AM

I've got the Aussie disc and there seems to be a lot of head room.

#10 of 61 OFFLINE   John Morgan

John Morgan

    Supporting Actor

  • 719 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2001
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 06 2004 - 11:33 AM

I hope the right soundtrack is attached. I have the laser, which is the original, but I guess some voices were redubbed for a later release and this is what made it to video tape. Just having the laser, I never heard this other version.

#11 of 61 OFFLINE   Joe Caps

Joe Caps


  • 1,955 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2000

Posted April 06 2004 - 12:28 PM

The soundtrack was redubbed into easier english for americans on a reissue. Both verwsions have been used for home video. Easiest way to tell the difference - when Darby is underground in the kingdomof the little people, he is starting to play them some music. He does a countdown- 1,2,3,4, in the rudubbed version, In the original, he does the countdown in Gallic.

#12 of 61 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden



  • 6,154 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted April 07 2004 - 02:37 AM

In related Disney news, "Son of Flubber" was released 4:3 this week. Posted Image At least the packaging goes to great lengths to point out that it is in the original black and white.

Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

#13 of 61 OFFLINE   streeter



  • 1,396 posts
  • Join Date: May 24 2001

Posted June 05 2004 - 04:12 AM


It's official - Darby O'Gill is MAR. I bet they're using the same old transfer.
Nothing Lost Forever: The Films of Tom Schiller
"I'll tell you why... 'cause I'm a dancer."

home page / dvds

#14 of 61 OFFLINE   Kajs


    Second Unit

  • 450 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 22 2001

Posted June 05 2004 - 05:51 AM

As long as they include the complete “I Captured The King Of The Leprechauns” I will be happy. I figured it would be skipped because this was another cheap release.

#15 of 61 OFFLINE   Brian Kidd

Brian Kidd


  • 1,830 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2000

Posted June 05 2004 - 09:56 AM

That's a damned shame. This is one of my favorite Disney films. Sigh. 2006 is a long time to wait for Eisner to retire.
Support Film Preservation before it's too late!

#16 of 61 OFFLINE   Rodney


    Supporting Actor

  • 599 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 2001

Posted June 05 2004 - 02:05 PM

Open matte is acceptable to me, for I can create my own matte and have the proper OAR. What isn't acceptable is pan and scan, where there is no way to recreate the proper aspect ratio.

#17 of 61 OFFLINE   Brian Fineberg

Brian Fineberg

    Second Unit

  • 259 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 01 2000

Posted June 07 2004 - 10:00 AM

It is coming out on August 24th and will be presented in 1.85:1 widescreen. this was always one of my favorite movies growing up except the bansheeni sp? scared the bejesus out of me!! I am in as soon as I can!! Brian
Equipment List

"How'd you get in here?"
"The door was unlocked."
"the lock's busted""well, There you have it"-FLETCH

#18 of 61 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer

  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted June 07 2004 - 10:13 AM

Where did you hear this? So far all the reports have been that this is going to be 1.33:1 (although unclear whether or not it's pan & scan or open matte).
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...

#19 of 61 OFFLINE   Dick



  • 4,783 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted June 07 2004 - 05:47 PM

Yes, Brian, I would like to know from where you learned this. Doesn't sound right.

#20 of 61 OFFLINE   LukeB



  • 2,179 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted June 07 2004 - 11:35 PM

I would believe Disney's press release:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users