OAR on Beauty and the Beast? (1 Viewer)

[Tom Koegel]

Well, the Atlantis disc has the trailer plus a printed announcement of the Disney Beauty and the Beast DVD as "coming soon to DVD". This ought to open the floor for a very interesting aspect ratio discussion. This film was originally, according to IMDB, 1.75:1. The current theatrical release, in a very impressive IMAX edition, is something like 1.4:1. IMAX is not, at least where I've seen it, widescreen. I very much enjoyed the IMAX presentation, although being a film geek I found myself "looking" for awkward cuts on the sides of the scenes. Can't say that I noticed any, but the IMAX screen is so darn large it would be hard to notice unless you were sitting at the far left or right.
Any guesses as to the aspect ratio of the DVD? And if the newly renovated version, with new scenes not in the first, was composed for 1.4:1, does that mean that a true OAR aficionado is going to demand that aspect ratio?
I'm not stirring up trouble, just looking for help on the application of the ol' OAR philosophy.
Tom

 

[Iain Lambert]

Hopefully, Fantasia 2000 will act as a guide here. Cropped to 1.4 or so for IMAX, the DVD is in the 'correct' 1.75 ratio that later 'normal' theatrical showings were in.

 

[Jason Whyte]

The theatrical aspect ratio for "Beauty and the Beast" is 1.85:1, both in its 35mm run and on the IMAX prints (the image was letterboxed on the top and the bottom to the correct dimensions).
Not sure about the DVD's aspect ratio, however, I'm guessing a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.
Jason

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Tom,

It's interesting that you should refer to the IMAX presentation of Beauty and the Beast as "impressive" but later in the same paragraph say that it's "creen is so darn large it would be hard to notice" the aspect ratio. Don't you see an inherent conflict here? Is it impressive or confusing?

I am really finding it hard to swallow that I am the only HTF member who thinks that the IMAX presentation of Beauty and the Beast was every bit as much of a bastardization as pan & scan. I guess the HTF credo of "more or bigger = better" continues to hold true.

 

[David Lambert]

I had zero concerns about this issue once I read in this thread that the new Platinum Edition DVD will hold the original WS version, the new IMAX Special Edition version, AND the Work-In-Print version made popular on the laserdisc release, which I've never seen.
I'm confident that we'll get another great Platinum Edition from Disney on this one.

 

[LukeB]

I had assumed that it was in the 1.66:1 ratio of most Disney cel-animated films, but IMAX ratio aside, the DVD will most likely be either 1.77:1 or 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen. If this was a Warner title, we'd have to worry about getting widescreen at all.
to Disney, for all the complaints they get, they put out one darn good product!

 

[Dick]

The laser disc release was at the "original aspect ratio" of 1.66:1.

 

[Paul Richardson]

The theatrical aspect ratio for "Beauty and the Beast" is 1.85:1, both in its 35mm run and on the IMAX prints (the image was letterboxed on the top and the bottom to the correct dimensions).

This is incorrect. I saw the film in IMAX and there was no letterboxing. It filled the IMAX screen (approximately 1.4:1). I didn't notice any panning and scanning.

It's quite possible that when they remastered the film, they could have used a few tricks to move characters around in the frame. On the other hand, panning and scanning 1.66:1 down to 1.4:1 is not very noticeable...especially when the film was designed knowing full well that it would be going to video.

 

[Tom Koegel]

Ange,
I was sitting about 1/3 of the way up the steeply inclined IMAX theater here at San Francisco's Metreon. IMAX's presentation is an attempt to envelop you with sound and image. The bottom line is that, from that distance, you aren't going to have the entire screen in the center of your field of view. I don't know the correct terminology from visual science, but the sides of the screen left and right are going to be within your field of vision but nowhere near your center of vision. It's a completely different movie experience than seeing, say, an 1.85:1 widescreen movie sitting about 2/3 of the way back. In a modern multiplex with small screens, the whole screen is in your center of vision. IMAX is aiming for something different. It's different, but I found the presentation impressive nonetheless. Among other things, I was impressed that the detail of the film--and of the animation--held up on such a huge screen.
As to panning and scanning, moving a film from 1.85:1 or 1.75:1 or 1.66:1 or whatever the original aspect ratio was to 1.4:1 is not that substantial a trim. (The version I saw was most definitely NOT letterboxed to 1.85:1.) I'm not saying that P&S is a good thing, don't get me wrong. But when you are sitting smack dab in front of such a huge screen, though, the visual clues that you would use to notice P&S are tougher to pick up. If I had been forced by the crowd--I saw this on the first show on the first day of release, January 1, and the theater was jammed--to the side of the theater, where the edge of the screen was closer to the center of my vision, I might've been better able to notice trimming.
One puzzling note: in trying to figure out what the aspect ratio was for the original 1991 film (1.85:1 or 1.75:1 or 1.66:1), I ran across this link, written when the film was in production:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm/magazi...max/beauty.htm
The link says that the IMAX film is to be 1.66:1 This is interesting because I am fairly certain that what I saw was not presented at 1.66:1 either. It may be that the Metreon was blocking off the sides of the print to fill the full height of their screen. I didn't bring a really big measuring tape or anything, but I remember doing an eyeball approximation and I have to believe this was the usual IMAX 1.4:1.
Isn't it possible that there is a more innocuous explanation for the AR? Given that Disney would've expected that any of their films is destined for the afterlife of home video, maybe the film was animated for 1.33:1, shown in 1.85:1 in its original release, and the opened back up to 1.33:1 for the home video release. If there is a 1.33:1 master, then it would've been easy to animate the new sequences at that aspect ratio for display at IMAX.
I took a peak at the prior thread. I think the interesting thing about the new DVD will be whether the new sequences will be included in the widescreen version. It sounds like the WS will be the 1991 release, and then we'll get the IMAX release at full frame.
Tom

 

[Patrick McCart]

1.66:1. I have no doubt that the DVD will be nothing but the best Disney can offer.

If this was a Warner title, we'd have to worry about getting widescreen at all.

Yeah, when is WB releasing widescreen versions of Cats & Dogs and Willy Wonka? (Only a little sarcasm. I'm proud to own a hard-to-find LBX copy of Wonka: SE on DVD)

 

[AaronMK]

When I saw this in a dome theater, it did not reach the height that other IMAX films I had seen there usually reach, nor did it reach as high as Fantasia 2000 did. It did not seem to be as wide as 1.85:1 though.

If they released the letterbox laserdisc at 1.66:1, then I would take that as a fairly good indication that this is the intended AR. It would also be the same as other recent Disney DVD releases.

 

[Sean Oneil]

I can't wait for the Platinum release of this one.

 

[Crosley Carpenter]

Beauty and the Beast is 1.66 in IMAX, promise.

Although there are "black bars" top and bottom, you really don't notice them.

At the top, it is the section of the screen you normally have to move your head to see, ditto the bottom, it's really low down, generally the section where the front safety rails go across the front of the Theatre.

Can I strongly recommend you check it out for yourselves ?

As far as I can see, it is being shown in its Original Aspect Ratio, it's just bigger and better than you've seen it before. It's a great experience.

At almost every showing, when the first images appear on the screen, there is an audible gasp from the audience. When was the last time that happened to you in your local multiplex ?

 

[Tino]

Crosley is correct. According to an IMAX article at www.widescreenreview.com Beauty And The Beast IS being shown in the 1.66 aspect ratio,
letterboxed within the 1.44 IMAX frame. There is no cropping.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Yeah, when is WB releasing widescreen versions of Cats & Dogs and Willy Wonka?

They've been released, but my local Best Buy is the only place I've seen them.

 

[Tom Koegel]

OK, OK, I was looking for an excuse to go see it again anyways. I'll do it this Sunday instead of the Super Boring. And I'll bring my tape measure.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I'll reiterate. Both widescreen LDs, the WIP and the CAV movie, are 1.66:1. Disney doesn't have a history of screwing up aspect ratios on their LaserDisc product.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Do any US theatres show films at 1.66:1 aside from art-houses?

I seem to recall a discussion around the time of the release of the Toy Story laserdisc about Disney and aspect ratios...apparently, Disney had requested that Toy Story be composed for 1.85:1 for its theatrical showings but also be rendered to 1.66:1 for an easier transfer to home video. For the widescreen LD, Toy Story was transferred at 1.78:1, a happy medium between the two. Comparing it to the p&s tape, the tape had a little more info at the top and bottom, and a little less at the sides.

So, this leads me to think that Beauty and the Beast was composed for 1.85:1 but animated to 1.66:1.

I can't imagine it being composed for 1.66:1 and then being shown cropped in the vast majority of theatres showing it.

Anyhow, the DVD will likely be 1.78:1, won't it?

 

[David Williams]

I was surprised to see the IMAX SE version of the film has been edited for content just like the home video (okay, not hugely surprised). At least in the SE print that I saw, the illiteracy of Le Fou has been removed from the end of 'Gaston' as it was for the home video release. I wonder if we will truly get the original version of the movie in the Platinum release, along with the WIP and SE versions, or will they go back and edit the original as well?

With all the editing going on at the House of the Mouse in the last few years, I'm surprised that Gaston's musket was left in the film.

I'd be interested to know if the new soundtrack edits the song as well.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Beauty and the Beast was painted digitally using the CAPS system. All the non-anamorphic animated films made using this system are hard-matted to 1.66:1 in computer, and shown 1.85:1 in theaters. A few of these CAPS films are 1.66:1 on DVD probably at request of the director(s).

It doesn't look like Disney is in the pro-censorship phase anymore. Apparently, Roy E. Disney (CEO, chairman?) wanted the censored films to be shown uncensored on DVD, but the transferring department screwed up and ignored his orders.

Take a look at the Mickey and Silly Symphonies DVD's Disney has recently released...I think whoever was being a political correctness goon in the transferring ward got fired.