What's new

Rankin/Bass The Daydreamer coming to blu ray (1 Viewer)

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Various review sites have stated that the original aspect ratio was 1.85.1 which they credited IMDB as their source of the information, they then went back and corrected it to 1.33.1/1.37.1.

Happy now
I'm always happy. But I didn't reference the imdb or other sites - my knowledge doesn't come from the imdb. Read Randy's posts. He understands this. The original theatrical aspect ratio in which The Daydreamer was shown was 1.85. As most 1.85 productions go, the 1.85 frame lines are in the camera viewfinder and that is how the film is composed because that is how the film will be shown in theaters. Yes, they shot if full aperture and for TV showings back then that's what they used but it was NEVER EVER projected that way. That is my one and only point and it is not arguable.

Before the advent of widescreen TVs, Mr. Stanley Kubrick, who I'm sure you've heard of, preferred his widescreen (non-scope) films to be shown open matte for 4x3 televisions. He didn't live to the widescreen TV era, but for all years of home video beyond his death, people would argue and argue that he filmed them for exhibition in Academy ratio. They would not hear otherwise, rather like yourself. Until the Kubrick Archives book came out and showed conclusively that he absolutely knew what ratio his films would be exhibited in. The Shining was always the poster child for people saying open matte was correct - until they saw the storyboards where Mr. Kubrick said frame precisely for 1.85 but protect the full frame - complete with the 1.85 guidelines. And in The Shining documentary his daughter made, they show the video assist monitor on the set clearly having the 1.85 guide.

We keep saying the same thing to you and you keep on keeping on, even though you yourself said early in this thread you were pretty sure The Daydreamer was filmed widescreen. It was filmed for 1.85 projection and that is the ratio it should be released in for home video. As Randy has pointed out, every screen shot used in this thread is NOT ACCURATE - they're zoomed in and cannot be properly framed at 1.85. Do you know what zoomed in means? It means you're losing the sides and top and bottom of the full aperture image, hence you cannot zoom to 1.85 and get a proper image. This is aspect ratio 101. Happy now?
 

Rob W

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
964
Real Name
Robert
Your post made me laugh out loud Bruce, as this thread made me recall another thread in which I explained exactly the same issues you refer to with a member who could not be convinced that The Shining at 1:85 was the way Kubrick composed it to be seen, despite the storyboards ! I finally just walked away, as all we can do is share our knowledge, respond to respectful questions and hope that others do not go down the rabbit hole of misinformation. Admittedly, it can be confusing to those with no industry experience, and the home video labels themselves have muddied the waters over the years with incorrect or misleading information.
 
Last edited:

titch

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
1,114
Real Name
Kevin Oppegaard
I'm always happy. But I didn't reference the imdb or other sites - my knowledge doesn't come from the imdb. Read Randy's posts. He understands this. The original theatrical aspect ratio in which The Daydreamer was shown was 1.85. As most 1.85 productions go, the 1.85 frame lines are in the camera viewfinder and that is how the film is composed because that is how the film will be shown in theaters. Yes, they shot if full aperture and for TV showings back then that's what they used but it was NEVER EVER projected that way. That is my one and only point and it is not arguable.

Before the advent of widescreen TVs, Mr. Stanley Kubrick, who I'm sure you've heard of, preferred his widescreen (non-scope) films to be shown open matte for 4x3 televisions. He didn't live to the widescreen TV era, but for all years of home video beyond his death, people would argue and argue that he filmed them for exhibition in Academy ratio. They would not hear otherwise, rather like yourself. Until the Kubrick Archives book came out and showed conclusively that he absolutely knew what ratio his films would be exhibited in. The Shining was always the poster child for people saying open matte was correct - until they saw the storyboards where Mr. Kubrick said frame precisely for 1.85 but protect the full frame - complete with the 1.85 guidelines. And in The Shining documentary his daughter made, they show the video assist monitor on the set clearly having the 1.85 guide.

We keep saying the same thing to you and you keep on keeping on, even though you yourself said early in this thread you were pretty sure The Daydreamer was filmed widescreen. It was filmed for 1.85 projection and that is the ratio it should be released in for home video. As Randy has pointed out, every screen shot used in this thread is NOT ACCURATE - they're zoomed in and cannot be properly framed at 1.85. Do you know what zoomed in means? It means you're losing the sides and top and bottom of the full aperture image, hence you cannot zoom to 1.85 and get a proper image. This is aspect ratio 101. Happy now?
Always relish the input from insiders on this forum. I've certainly learned a lot during the years. Aspect ratios aside (if you purchase the StudioCanal The LadyKillers 4K UHD, you get the choice of two aspect ratios to choose from), all these newly mastered and "restored" 4K UHD titles are uncharted territory. Suddenly colours and film grain are different from what I've been seeing since laserdisc days. Is that because of the wider colour gamut? The increased resolution? the slathering of HDR and Dolby Vision all over the picture? The different expertise of the people twiddling the knobs in the mastering console? Difficult for someone, such as myself, who wasn't around for first-run Technicolor prints, to know. And why do some US and European titles, supposedly made from the same scan or restoration, look different when published by different companies?

Sometimes I feel like I know what a film print looked like theatrically - The Fellowship Of The Ring, being an example, and I know that what I'm seeing projected from the newly remastered 4K disc, supervised by the director, is not what I saw theatrically. I'm quite certain that the Fellowship Of The Ring was not degrained to the extent it is now on the new 4K disc. But you'll hear lots of people saying that is how it's always looked. And I'm quite sure that the 4K UHD of Akira is a faithful reproduction of how it looked theatrically. Despite some people saying "because it doesn't have loads of HDR applied, it doesn't look good".
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Well, the old Beaver has reviewed this and it's in Academy. Shame on Kino. Every one of his caps would frame perfectly at 1.85. I don't think the image was zoomed in from what I'm seeing, either. Anyone who thinks all that headroom in the live action shots is accurate knows nothing of film and aspect ratios of that era. It also looks like it's from a source that's faded slightly, but that's another story.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,105
Beav is saying "original" 1.37:1 and yes I believe the thing would have screened with matting back in its day. Never saw it in the theater, and I don't think I've met a single human being who did either. This movie sure was a staple of children's television back in my day. Yes, it does like a faded, kinda tired print in those screencaps. I doubt anybody'd pay for an extensive restoration for this (admitted) turkey. I like it, but man is it depressing. Has the single saddest song in the history of children's films (Wishes and Teardrops). I remember seeing this with kids when we were like six and that whole Anderson-accurate mermaid sequence bummed the crap out of everybody lol at least they didn't use the Little Match girl story while they were at it. Us 60s tots would have died of despair.
 

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
Beav is saying "original" 1.37:1 and yes I believe the thing would have screened with matting back in its day. Never saw it in the theater, and I don't think I've met a single human being who did either. This movie sure was a staple of children's television back in my day. Yes, it does like a faded, kinda tired print in those screencaps. I doubt anybody'd pay for an extensive restoration for this (admitted) turkey. I like it, but man is it depressing. Has the single saddest song in the history of children's films (Wishes and Teardrops). I remember seeing this with kids when we were like six and that whole Anderson-accurate mermaid sequence bummed the crap out of everybody lol at least they didn't use the Little Match girl story while they were at it. Us 60s tots would have died of despair.

All three R/B movies from Avco Embassy Pictures were all in 1.37.1, they may of been shown in widescreen; but weren't filmed that way.

I saw this film along with Mad Monster Party and The Wacky World Of Mother Goose when TCM did a night of Rankin/Bass films last May. I'm already a fan of Mad Monster Party so that always fun to watch again and again. However the other two films this one and Mother Goose were boring. The stop motion Animagic from this film was nice, but it looked a bit crude; it reminded me of R/B's first Animagic project they did, TV series The New Adventures Of Pinocchio and not the iconic Rudolph.
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
All three R/B movies from Avco Embassy Pictures were all in 1.37.1, they may of been shown in widescreen; but weren't filmed that way.

I saw this film along with Mad Monster Party and The Wacky World Of Mother Goose when TCM did a night of Rankin/Bass films last May. I'm already a fan of Mad Monster Party so that always fun to watch again and again. However the other two films this one and Mother Goose were boring. The stop motion Animagic from this film was nice, but it looked a bit crude; it reminded me of R/B's first Animagic project they did, TV series The New Adventures Of Pinocchio and not the iconic Rudolph.
Again you confuse the issues. It was filmed full aperture but FRAMED for 1.85 projection. Why is this hard for you to understand? Many of us have explained it to you ad nauseam. They weren't just "shown" in 1.85 that's the ratio the the images were framed for. Again, there is no discussion to be had because that is a FACT. If you think a professional cinematographer would frame a live action shot with that much headroom, then it is clear you simply don't know about film aspect ratios and cinematography.
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Beav is saying "original" 1.37:1 and yes I believe the thing would have screened with matting back in its day. Never saw it in the theater, and I don't think I've met a single human being who did either. This movie sure was a staple of children's television back in my day. Yes, it does like a faded, kinda tired print in those screencaps. I doubt anybody'd pay for an extensive restoration for this (admitted) turkey. I like it, but man is it depressing. Has the single saddest song in the history of children's films (Wishes and Teardrops). I remember seeing this with kids when we were like six and that whole Anderson-accurate mermaid sequence bummed the crap out of everybody lol at least they didn't use the Little Match girl story while they were at it. Us 60s tots would have died of despair.
I've said repeatedly that I saw it in the theater on its opening day, at the Pacific's (the old Warner Cinerama on Hollywood Boulevard) - 1.85.
 

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
I've said repeatedly that I saw it in the theater on its opening day, at the Pacific's (the old Warner Cinerama on Hollywood Boulevard) - 1.85.

You must be the only person who ever saw this film in widescreen, as I've already told you before that all three Rankin/Bass films from the 1960's were in full screen, not widescreen. If you want to disagree with the source that knows all this, Rick Goldschmit then that's all on you, but again he would know more than you would, as I doubt you've meet or talked to either Arthur Rankin Jr. or Jules Bass like he has.
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
You must be the only person who ever saw this film in widescreen, as I've already told you before that all three Rankin/Bass films from the 1960's were in full screen, not widescreen. If you want to disagree with the source that knows all this, Rick Goldschmit then that's all on you, but again he would know more than you would, as I doubt you've meet or talked to either Arthur Rankin Jr. or Jules Bass like he has.
I am hardly the only one who saw it in 1.85 because that's the ONLY way it was projected everywhere it played. No major theater chain in the United States could have run it in Academy ratio, it's that simple. Those are FACTS. You want to have this Rick fellow contact me I'm happy to hear from his lips that he thinks this was PROJECTED in anything but 1.85. Do it. Let's get this straightened out for you once and for all. Ask Bob Furmanek here - he'll tell you reality. Anyone who saw this in a theater when it came out, which, by the way, doesn't include you, saw it in 1.85. Once again for the cheap seats, this film, like all non-scope films of the era, was shot full aperture and then matted to 1.85 for projection, which is what the film was framed for. The end of this non-discussion, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Having a lovely back-and-forth with Rick Goldschmidt, a very nice fellow. Rankin Bass expert though he may be, he does not know aspect ratios at all and is therefore a little confusing when he answers questions. His opening line to me was, "No, I have no idea on the ratio it was filmed in, but I know it wasn't wide-screen." He has no idea on the ratio but "knows" it wasn't widescreen. I'm thinking he's conflating "widescreen" with scope, a sometimes common mistake. He may also be confused as to what shooting with the entire negative exposed but framing for 1.85 and then matting the prints to that ratio in the theaters. I happily laid all this out for him and I hope it's helpful.

UPDATE: He just thanked me for all the information I gave him - he didn't realize any of the stuff and will, in fact, bring it up to Kino when they do the next Rankin/Bass titles. He's really a nice chap and has no pretenses about being an expert in terms of film. We have many friends in common.
 
Last edited:

JamesSmith

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
2,065
Having a lovely back-and-forth with Rick Goldschmidt, a very nice fellow. Rankin Bass expert though he may be, he does not know aspect ratios at all and is therefore a little confusing when he answers questions. His opening line to me was, "No, I have no idea on the ratio it was filmed in, but I know it wasn't wide-screen." He has no idea on the ratio but "knows" it wasn't widescreen. I'm thinking he's conflating "widescreen" with scope, a sometimes common mistake. He may also be confused as to what shooting with the entire negative exposed but framing for 1.85 and then matting the prints to that ratio in the theaters. I happily laid all this out for him and I hope it's helpful.

UPDATE: He just thanked me for all the information I gave him - he didn't realize any of the stuff and will, in fact, bring it up to Kino when they do the next Rankin/Bass titles. He's really a nice chap and has no pretenses about being an expert in terms of film. We have many friends in common.
God Bless You Haineshisway. I've always wanted to meet Rick. Twenty one years ago, I had some correspondence with him and he was always a gentleman. Hope more unreleased RB product comes out, such as their sixties tv shows and Smokey the Bear, which may be a flawed film from what I've heard.
--jthree
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,039
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
God Bless You Haineshisway. I've always to meet Rick. Twenty one years ago, I had some correspondence with him and he was always a gentleman. Hope more unreleased RB product comes out, such as their sixties tv shows and Smokey the Bear, which may be a flawed film from what I've heard.
--jthree
Turns out he's a fan of mine from my acting days, so that was fun. He's terrific and he again thanked me for the information I gave him. And I sincerely hope this will get through to darkrock, who I'm also sure is a very nice fellow.
 

JamesSmith

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
2,065
I doubt anybody'd pay for an extensive restoration for this (admitted) turkey. I like it, but man is it depressing. Has the single saddest song in the history of children's films (Wishes and Teardrops). I remember seeing this with kids when we were like six and that whole Anderson-accurate mermaid sequence bummed the crap out of everybody lol at least they didn't use the Little Match girl story while they were at it. Us 60s tots would have died of despair.

The song is so beautiful and is so evocative. Haven't seen the film from start to finish, but I couldn't believe how nonchalant the young boy was when he left the young mermaid. Talk about cold. It seemed the young hero wasn't so heroic through much of the film. Wish they could have resolved the mermaid storyline a bit better. Since that seemed to be the main fairy tale. But maybe I"m wrong.

--jthree
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
347,489
Messages
4,816,270
Members
142,111
Latest member
moviefan88
Top