The definitive word on Walt Disney Classics aspect ratios?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jeff Ulmer, Jan 23, 2003.

  1. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From looking through the cover art at DVDEmpire, which has the back covers posted, it seems the only title that indicates it has been modified is The Absent Minded Professor, which is also colorized.

    The rest are all full screen, but there is no disclaimer about the aspect ratio being changed. Has anyone heard definitively that these aren't correct at 1.33:1?

    Also, if anyone has bought these already, any comments on the quality of the transfers?
     
  2. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Gus" has an OAR of 2.35:1, so it's definitely not in its right ratio. The others are probably either open-matte or cropped from 1.75:1.

    I can't comment on the quality, as I don't buy the Foolscreen crap Disney puts out, but I've heard bad things about Absent-Minded Professor and The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes.

    Hopefully, someone else can enlighten you more. [​IMG]
     
  3. Kyle McKnight

    Kyle McKnight Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is such a shame. There really are some discs I would like to pick up...but I will stick to the HTF motto...
     
  4. Jesse Skeen

    Jesse Skeen Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Gus was 2.35?? How'd they get away with not labeling that? I watched it on CED a while ago and it didn't look like it was badly cropped, but I'll have to check it again (I can usually spot pan and scan a mile away!)
     
  5. Rob Gardiner

    Rob Gardiner Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Doesn't this seem like a DOUBLE STANDARD?

    We on the HFT will happily accept an open matte release of a Stanley Kubrick masterpiece or a Walt Disney animated feature, yet we complain that the artistic integrity of THE COMPUTER WORE TENNIS SHOES is ruined by the same process? [​IMG]
     
  6. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. Charlie Essmeier

    Charlie Essmeier Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 1999
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a wonder anyone here can sleep, knowing that they don't have a properly framed and restored version of "Gus SE" on their shelves.

    We could certainly glean some keen insights into the art of filmmaking if we only had a commentary track from director Vincent McEveety.

    It's a shame Johnny Unitas has passed on, as he undoubtedly considered his appearance in this film to be the high point of his career. The SE won't be the same without his thoughts.

    How we suffer so because of Disney's shortsightedness!

    [​IMG]

    Charlie



    [​IMG]
     
  8. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    EVERY title deserves to be released in it's proper aspect ratio. You obviously think that with Gus, it doesn't matter. But who gets to decide what titles 'deserve' it and which don't. I'm sure you have titles you love that you think are great art that others think are crap and so why not release those p&s? It's not that Gus is necessarily a great film, it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing.
     
  9. Randy Korstick

    Randy Korstick Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2000
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Well said George.
    Some here seem to think we should let Disney be sloppy and inconsistant on some of their releases simply because it is not a high profile film. All releases should at least be OAR. Films like these don't have to be special editions but at least a good transer and OAR that is what we are asking for and the point of this thread not lets bash the film if we think its not important and let Disney off the hook for poor releases.
     
  10. Rob Gardiner

    Rob Gardiner Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not suggesting that these are lesser films and that AOR doesn't matter. I have plenty of "crappy" films in my collection that I just love. [​IMG] I thougt it had been established in the Moon Spinners thread that these Disney live action productions from the 60s and 70s were filmed for tv and the theater interchangeably. Which is why they are presented open matte.

    I don't see why there are complaints about obviously made for tv productions presented in full frame, when in another thread I was told to go ahead and buy Robin Hood and Fox & the Hound (and other Disney animated features from the 50s-80s) in 1.33! The Kubrick Box is on the top 100 dvd list and most of the films in there are not in their original theatrical aspect ratio. Why is a HIGHER standard applied to THE COMPUTER WORE TENNIS SHOES than to beloved classics JUNGLE BOOK or THE SHINING? I would argue that a full frame TENNIS SHOES is more legit than THE SHINING.

    I'm not bashing any of these films. In fact I proudly have THE CAT FROM OUTER SPACE on my shelf at home. [​IMG] I'm not suggesting "lesser" films are not worthy of OAR. I am suggesting we should consider each disc on a case-by-case basis. Any scope film presented in 1.33 on video is unacceptable. But these Disney movies from this era were filmed for THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY tv program. Some got a theatrical release after their TV showing. Some got a theatrical release first. I don't think it's fair to call any of these films MAR.

    Maybe we need a new designation, AAR meaning Alternative Aspect Ratio or Acceptable Aspect Ratio. Some movies were simply filmed for MORE THAN ONE ASPECT RATIO and there is no "definitive" ratio. Perhaps they should have done flippers on these titles to satisfy everybody.
     
  11. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm just curious why Absent Minded Professor got a MAR warning when the rest didn't. If 1.33:1 is correct for some of these, then that is fine, but I'd like to know which ones are obviously wrong, and not by relying on the IMDB which is often wrong.
     
  12. Rob Gardiner

    Rob Gardiner Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jeff,

    You're absolutely right, IMDB can be unreliable in these cases. For example GUS, they mention the aspect ratio of "2.35" yet for format they list "35mm" and not "Panavision" or "anamorphic" like they usually do. I would be very surprised if this was actually filmed in scope.

    Re: Absent Minded Professor: I'm not sure! Isn't there something like this on the Kubrick box? One movie (FMJ?)says that it is "modified" when all the others say "unmatted".
     
  13. Randy Korstick

    Randy Korstick Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2000
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Rob
    While these movies were quickly sent to "The Wonderful World of Disney" after their theatrical release they were not made for TV movies. They were made for the theater which still leaves the appropriate OAR up in the air on many of these films but as pointed out in another thread just about all movies of this type in the 60's were presented somewhere between 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. So the 1.33:1 ratio on these releases is highly suspect.
     
  14. Rob Gardiner

    Rob Gardiner Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is an excerpt from a post in another thread by HTF member Rob Ray (emphasis mine):

     
  15. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  16. MarkA

    MarkA Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 1999
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    110
    "Moon-Spinners" was a theatrical release (and meant to be) as were all the Hayley Mills titles. She was Disney's top draw and was treated that way.
    "The Moon-Spinners" DVD is not in proper aspect ratio as the title credits are missing parts of names on each side of the screen.
     
  17. Travis_W

    Travis_W Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2000
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Disney seems to think that families will rush to the stores to pick up Absent Minded Professor when it's the hardcore fans who started this format that will even know it's out and get it. It boggles my mind when Disny releases seperate widescreen and full frame versions of movies like Tuck Everlasting and The Rookie but not their true classics...wait strike that there should only be a widescreen release to begin with.
     
  18. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  19. TedD

    TedD Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Theatrical prints of "Gus" were hard matted at 1.75:1.

    Ted
     
  20. Rob Gardiner

    Rob Gardiner Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
     

Share This Page