OAR of Sword in the Stone

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Robb Hudspeth, Mar 9, 2002.

  1. Robb Hudspeth

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm a little confused about the OAR of Sword in the Stone. The DVD is listed as 1.33 fullscreen while IMDb lists it at 1.75. Disney has been very good at releasing their animated in product in OAR and the IMDb isn't always accurate. Any clarification would be appreciated.
     
  2. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    I have SitS marked as a non-OAR release. I researched at the time I decided to buy it, and decided to get it anyway, but flag it for an upgrade when OAR is available (note that I bought it used for about $12-ish, or it would have been a NO OAR = NO SALE situation).
    In addition to the IMDB data, I did an HTF search and verified it's non-OARness (or its MARness if you'ld rather) from previous postings. Here's a quote from a more recent thread that states this again:
     
  3. Jeffrey Gray

    Jeffrey Gray Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of those are unmatted. Nothing to worry about.
     
  4. Chad Gregory

    Chad Gregory Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  5. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    It wasn't just that thread, it was other threads back from a long while ago. I included that quote/thread as just an example of where this came up again. The new one words it less definitively, but I was obviously convinced last year when I went looking for these. I've had a short night's sleep and I worked this morning, now I'm babysitting my 4 year old. I honestly don't feel like searching for something may or may not still be there. I was definatively convinced at the time, let's just say...and I've learned not to second-guess that after months have passed (I usually do the same or more work and arrive at the same place I did before).
    If y'all want to research it, be my guest. [​IMG] If you find out something different, let me know so I can change my marking.
    I neglected in the previous to post that the time SitS was released was before Disney got to be more reliable about having good releases. MAR items and non-anamorphic OAR items weren't any more of a surprise to us than, say, editing out the scenes of Goofy smoking a cig'. [​IMG]
     
  6. Kyle McKnight

    Kyle McKnight Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    Wow, I missed that post. [​IMG]
    Open Matte is still MAR!
     
  8. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    The Sword in the Stone is presented on DVD without matting.

    In fact, I watched this film with mattes on top of the image to simulate a 1.75:1 image and it looked correct.

    Matting is modifying the image, too, but it's not usually for bad. Open matte animation usually can be seen at 1.33:1 to 1.85:1 without messing up the compositions...
     
  9. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
     
  10. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
     
  11. Chad Gregory

    Chad Gregory Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    David,

    I would assume that I have seen all of the comments as well. I guess that I was attempting to say that I'm not convinced yet, but I'm open for change.

    Watch out for the Open Matte Crusader, he's on a rampage...

    -Chad
     
  12. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    13,073
    Likes Received:
    762
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I just looked at this in BB. It states on the back that it "has been modified to fit your TV."
     
  13. Chad Gregory

    Chad Gregory Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Malcolm,

    I did check my cover before posting, but...

    The problem is that almost all of the Disney covers say that. Including The Black Cauldron, which is in 2.35 non-anamorphic widescreen. It is not necessarily a reliable source.

    -Chad
     
  14. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    13,073
    Likes Received:
    762
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
     
  15. Chad Gregory

    Chad Gregory Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is funny, because the other three movies talked about earlier, Aristocats, The Fox and the Hound, and Robin Hood, all say that they are presented in their original aspect ratio, approx 1.33

    Frustrating...
     
  16. Robb Hudspeth

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, here's what I don't understand about "matting" TSitS. This film was made in 1963, long before home video was even considered. Why would the animators take the time and effort to prepare backgrounds etc... that the audience would never see? It's possible that they wanted a Wide Screen ("matted") version for theaters so equipped, while retaining the "Academy Ratio" for all other theaters. Of course, this would give the film a dual OAR. Of course, this is all speculation. Of course, I'm still confused.[​IMG]
     
  17. TedD

    TedD Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joel,

    In 1963, all commercial theaters in the US had been converted from 1.33 for at least 8 years. I suppose it was possible that Disney was thinking 1.33 for 16mm or for commercial television, or maybe it was just a holdover from using the existing cell stands and cameras.

    Ted
     
  18. Robb Hudspeth

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Chad Gregory

    Chad Gregory Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  20. Robb Hudspeth

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page