The definitive word on Walt Disney Classics aspect ratios? (1 Viewer)

[Eugene Esterly]

The IMDB page at http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0054594 says that the OAR for The Absent-Minded Professor is 1.75:1 which means that the current DVD is Pan & Scanned.

 

[LukeB]

The IMDB page at http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0054594 says that the OAR for The Absent-Minded Professor is 1.75:1 which means that the current DVD is Pan & Scanned.

Well that doesn't necessarily mean the DVD is Pan & Scanned, but I have heard it *is* cropped. IMDb isn't very reliable for aspect ratios on older films, though.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I suggest emailing Leonard Maltin at [email protected] . The man literally wrote the book on Disney films. He'd be able to tell you, I'm sure.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The full frame Kubrick films are presented that way because Kubrick preferred them that way. He would prefer that they be presented that way theatrically as well. I can live with that. The story behind the production of the matte-free Dr. Strangelove and the direct involvement of Leon Vitali makes me confident of that (although I disagree with the decision to make the 1.66:1 stuff unenhanced for 16:9 on DVD). That is definitely an exception to the rule.

I have my doubts about the Disney theatrical films being 4:3. For a long time I used to read all these comments from people on internet forums about how Coppola had produced the first two Godfather films for 4:3 -- then the widescreen laserdiscs came out and we learned that they were hard matted around 1.66:1 and intended for projection at 1.85:1. Same basic idea with Young Frankenstein. All of these posts that Mel Brooks shot for 4:3 to preserve the look of those classic Universal monsters films -- until the widescreen laserdisc came out.

When I hear a technical film person who is familiar with the production weigh in on the appropriate aspect ratio, I will believe it. In the mean time, it is hard to believe that a theatrical feature produced by a major studio in the 60s or later would not be intended for 1.66:1 or wider.

Regards,

 

[Randy Korstick]

I agree Ken because I also don't think any major studio would release all their movies in 1.33:1 in the 1960's either. We still have many of their animated films that are pan and scan only too. I still have not bought "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" because it is Pan and Scan. There was a misconception in this forum that this film was a collection of Wonderful World of Disney shorts because they were later released to TV on this show but this is a collection of 3 shorts released as a feature in 1977. The shorts were previously made and released for theaters as backups for theatrical movie releases. I know this because I saw "Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too" when it was originally released to theaters in 1974 with "Island at the Top of the World". Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day won the academy award for Best Animated Short in 1968 and I know that the Academy does not give awards for programs made for TV it was a Theatrical release also. I wish Disney would release their catolog stuff correctly and I don't think we should let them off the hook so easily here even if this may be the only release on some of these titles.

 

[LukeB]

I agree Ken because I also don't think any major studio would release all their movies in 1.33:1 in the 1960's either. We still have many of their animated films that are pan and scan only too. I still have not bought "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" because it is Pan and Scan. There was a misconception in this forum that this film was a collection of Wonderful World of Disney shorts because they were later released to TV on this show but this is a collection of 3 shorts released as a feature in 1977. The shorts were previously made and released for theaters as backups for theatrical movie releases. I know this because I saw "Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too" when it was originally released to theaters in 1974 with "Island at the Top of the World". Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day won the academy award for Best Animated Short in 1968 and I know that the Academy does not give awards for programs made for TV it was a Theatrical release also. I wish Disney would release their catolog stuff correctly and I don't think we should let them off the hook so easily here even if this may be the only release on some of these titles.

And how do you think those Pooh theatrical shorts were shown in the 60s? In Widescreen despite the fact that all three of Disney's theatrical animated films of the 60s were animated for the Academy Ratio?!

Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is NOT pan and scan.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Now I'm confused.

I asked on another thread about ROBIN HOOD and FOX AND THE HOUND. I was assured by members of this forum that the 1.33:1 aspect ration was CORRECT on these films despite the fact that they were released theatrically at something like 1.66 or 1.75. I was told that all Disney animated features up to and including FOX (except the scope and 70mm films of course) were animated at 1.33 (for matting at varios ratios) and that these DVDs should not be considered pan & scan.

 

[Brian McHale]

Does anyone know about The Horse in the Gray Flannel Suit? My wife is into horses, so I have made an effort to get my hands on most horse movies. If this is really designed for TV and the theater interchangeably, I may go ahead and get it. (After all, what are the chances of an OAR version of this being released any time soon?)

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I asked on another thread about ROBIN HOOD and FOX AND THE HOUND. I was assured by members of this forum that the 1.33:1 aspect ration was CORRECT on these films despite the fact that they were released theatrically at something like 1.66 or 1.75. I was told that all Disney animated features up to and including FOX (except the scope and 70mm films of course) were animated at 1.33 (for matting at varios ratios) and that these DVDs should not be considered pan & scan.

I have come to learn that members of this forum (myself certainly included) are not always the most reliable source for such information. If I heard it from someone who was involved in the production or someone like Scott MacQueen who is familiar with the film elements, I would be more confident. As it is, I still have doubts, but I am not losing much sleep over them.

Regards,

 

[Paul_Scott]

has anyone simply watched any of these disc to see evidence of scanning or cropping?

 

[Dick]

I doubt Leonard Maltin is going to comment upon any questionable practices by Disney which involve cropping the frame of their DVD releases. Maltin is one of Disney's most die-hard aficionados and probably has some sort of agreement with the studio which prevents him from expressing negative views. I just don't think you'll get the straight dope on this issue from him.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I asked on another thread about ROBIN HOOD and FOX AND THE HOUND. I was assured by members of this forum that the 1.33:1 aspect ration was CORRECT on these films despite the fact that they were released theatrically at something like 1.66 or 1.75. I was told that all Disney animated features up to and including FOX (except the scope and 70mm films of course) were animated at 1.33 (for matting at varios ratios) and that these DVDs should not be considered pan & scan.

The "flat" animated films produced by Disney from 101 Dalmations to The Fox and the Hound were filmed at 1.33:1, but with the compatibility to be matted from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1.

For these films, 1.33:1 is correct for home video. They can be seen at 1.33:1, 1.66:1, and 1.85:1...however, 1.66:1 is probably the best matted ratio.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Thank you, Patrick, for confirming what I had suspected.

My question to the rest of the forum membership is this: Is it possible that this same phenomenon exists in regards to Disney's live action films of the same period?

Well, we already know the answer is "Yes". Productions such as DR. SYN and DAVY CROCKETT were filmed for TV and then edited to feature length for theatrical release. So I guess the question is:

Is this true of THE COMPUTER WORE TENNIS SHOES?

Absent any evidence that this film was hard-matted, or that the DVD is actually pan & scan, I would say YES.

 

[Rob Ray]

Disney in the sixties usually hard-matted to 1.66:1 and Hayley Mills/Kurt Russell/Fred MacMurray/Dean Jones vehicles like "The Moon Spinners," "Absent-Minded Professor," "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" and others were filmed as theatrical releases. But they were also filmed with the full knowledge that these trifles weren't evergreens and would be shipped off to "The Wonderful World of Disney" within 2-3 years. Some lesser vehicles with lesser names were filmed directly for television and a few films were moved from one release format to another during postproduction.

I really wouldn't worry too much about the matting, per se. I'd be more concerned about getting decent remasterings overall. The full-frame matting and colorization tell us that they pulled some late 1980s transfers off the shelf for these DVDs.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Maltin is one of Disney's most die-hard aficionados and probably has some sort of agreement with the studio which prevents him from expressing negative views.

He has gone on the record with his disappointment that Disney refuses to release The Song Of The South.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Trust me, Maltin isn't Disney's whipping boy. If you read his book "The Disney Films" he outright slams a good number of the films. He's one of the good ones, trust me. The man love movies with all his heart and soul and isn't above calling a spade a spade.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Disney in the sixties usually hard-matted to 1.66:1 and Hayley Mills/Kurt Russell/Fred MacMurray/Dean Jones vehicles like "The Moon Spinners," "Absent-Minded Professor," "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" and others were filmed as theatrical releases. But they were also filmed with the full knowledge that these trifles weren't evergreens and would be shipped off to "The Wonderful World of Disney" within 2-3 years. Some lesser vehicles with lesser names were filmed directly for television and a few films were moved from one release format to another during postproduction.

Thank you Rob for this info. I would be very interested to know where the "dividing line" is, i.e. material in the late 50s (Davy Crockett etc.) seemed to be shot 4:3. Is there any definitive list that details exactly which films were shot hard matted and which weren't? That, to me, would be the best indication of the film's intended ratio.