Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment will release more than 30 catalog titles on Blu-ray Disc in 2 (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

Amazon's got the cover art up for "Babes in Toyland."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be the very first "Walt-era" live-action movie to make it to Blu-ray?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Mark-P /t/319317/walt-disney-studios-home-entertainment-will-release-more-than-30-catalog-titles-on-blu-ray-disc-in-2012/90#post_3983194
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be the very first "Walt-era" live-action movie to make it to Blu-ray?

Pretty sure you are right about that.

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /t/319317/walt-disney-studios-home-entertainment-will-release-more-than-30-catalog-titles-on-blu-ray-disc-in-2012/90#post_3983205

Pretty sure you are right about that.

I certainlty can't think of another off the top of my head.

 

[John Skoda]

Has anyone seen confirmation that this release of BABES IN TOYLAND will finally be in the proper widescreen ratio?

 

[Matt Hough]

Has anyone seen confirmation that this release of BABES IN TOYLAND will finally be in the proper widescreen ratio?

I haven't seen anything about it, but I will be sorely disappointed if it is not correct.

 

[NY2LA]

Has anyone seen confirmation that this release of BABES IN TOYLAND will finally be in the proper widescreen ratio?

According to the press release it's 1.33. Let the boycott and angry calls/emails to Disney begin!

 

[Brandon Conway]

Hopefully that's a mistake in the press release. It's definitely a widescreen film.

 

[NY2LA]

Hopefully that's a mistake in the press release. It's definitely a widescreen film.

how wide?
i wouldn't bet on it. based on disney's track record, i'd bet on whatever result would piss off the most people.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Should be 1.78:1 I believe (1.75:1 theatrically).

 

[Escapay]

Too bad they still don't bother to include the "Backstage Party" tie-in episode from "Wonderful World of Color."
I'm hoping the 1.33:1 nonsense is just an error on Disney's part, but I sorely doubt it, given their penchant for releasing many-a-live-action catalogue title in modified aspect ratios with little-to-no extras. Hopefully if we get 1.33:1, that it's just open-matte, as opposed to the DVD, which was a Pan & Scan of the matted 1.75:1 ratio (according to screen comparisons here and here).

 

[Brandon Conway]

It wouldn't shock me if the press release incorrectly ported over the DVD aspect ratio spec by mistake. I don't think any Disney catalog release has been MAR on Blu-ray yet, but this is the first one from the 50s/60s to get released, and as we've seen the confusion over that era's AR presentations is vast.

 

[TravisR]

I think it's just an error in the press release. Since full frame for HDTVs and Blu-ray is 1.78, it seems pretty unthinkable that they'd release a movie in 1.33 at all (unless it was something pre-1953 where that was the intended AR). Maybe it's happened but I can't think of any MAR release where they used a 1.33 transfer when it was supposed to be 1.78 or 2.35.

 

[MatthewA]

Has Babes in Toyland aired on any of the HD movie networks that have been showing Disney films lately? In the past couple years, I've seen listings for Happiest Millionaire, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Muppet Christmas Carol (short versions in all cases), Pete's Dragon (the HDNet Movies master is probably the same one that's on the new BD), Swiss Family Robinson, and several films I never thought Disney would run through a telecine again, including Ride A Wild Pony (the few minutes I saw looked great; it should, as Jack Cardiff was the DP). I never saw a listing for this, but all the ones I saw clips of were 16x9.

 

[NY2LA]

Anyone else here at least beginning to question the logic, communication, competency and ethos of WDHV yet?

 

[John Skoda]

Should be 1.78:1 I believe (1.75:1 theatrically).

Yes, that's right. I've got an original pressbook for this, and it even says something like "Projectionist--please project this at 1.75:1.' I can post the graphic after I get home.

 

[Escapay]

Has Babes in Toyland aired on any of the HD movie networks that have been showing Disney films lately? In the past couple years, I've seen listings for Happiest Millionaire, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Muppet Christmas Carol (short versions in all cases), Pete's Dragon (the HDNet Movies master is probably the same one that's on the new BD), Swiss Family Robinson, and several films I never thought Disney would run through a telecine again, including Ride A Wild Pony (the few minutes I saw looked great; it should, as Jack Cardiff was the DP). I never saw a listing for this, but all the ones I saw clips of were 16x9.

A friend of mine mentioned he was watching Toby Tyler (1960) in HD some weeks ago. I made sure to ask if it was matted 1.78:1 or pillarboxed 1.33:1, and he said it was definitely matted.

Anyone else here at least beginning to question the logic, communication, competency and ethos of WDHV yet?

I've always had my qualms about their decisions. They can do right by some things, but it gets overshadowed by oh-so-many things they've done wrong. Just a small sampling of some of their DVD mis-steps concerning their live-action catalogue:

• The inane decision to release a 2.35:1 film in P&S (The Journey of Natty Gann, for example) in the US, while an international release is the OAR.
• The sudden influx of catalogue titles from 2002 to 2005, most of them barebones and MAR. Disney wanted to turn 1.33:1 presentations into a guessing game for their consumers: is this pan and scan or open-matte? At least Darby O'Gill and the Little People makes a note that the 1.33:1 aspect ratio is what the film was shot in. And the titles that were given widescreen treatment were either undermatted at 1.66:1 or overmatted to 1.85:1, when Disney's standard for mattes was usually 1.75:1.
• Releasing a colorized P&S version of The Absent-Minded Professor. Fortunately, enough fans complained and a black-and-white widescreen version was soon released. Then, when Son of Flubber hit DVD, it was 1.33:1...
• Not including any supplements on 1950's Treasure Island, Disney's first 100% live-action film, but including its theatrical trailer as an extra on 2002's Treasure Planet (released on DVD the same day as Treasure Island). In general, Disney has an aversion to including original trailers for half their titles, even though they don't mind adding 10 contemporary ones in the "Sneak Peeks" menu and disc start-up.
• Releasing excellent two-disc "Vault Disney" DVDs in 2002, losing that branding in 2003, downgrading them to single-disc sets in 2004, and dropping the line entirely soon afterwards.
• The majority of Disney Movie Club's exclusive discs being barebones and chapter-less, with transfers that are barely a step up from the laserdisc.
• Postponing the US release of So Dear to My Heart (originally due out in 2001), which would get released everywhere else around the world. Disney ultimately would dump it into Disney Movie Club, as an exclusive that dropped a 25-minute behind the scenes featurette present on international DVDs, replacing it with two (in their defense, very good) bonus cartoons.

 

[John Skoda]

Image from the 1961 BABES IN TOYLAND pressbook:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/content/type/61/id/169156/width/350/height/700

 

[NY2LA]

Image from the 1961 BABES IN TOYLAND pressbook:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/content/type/61/id/169156/width/350/height/700

Nice. It would also be cool if you posted one of the ads and one of the press articles.
I remember hearing that Disney preferred a 1.66 ratio, which I've heard was a European standard, though I think I too have pressbooks for movies that say 1.75, still, that's kinda non-standard, isn't it?
I'm sure the gentleman who does the specific thread about Aspect Ratios can give us more definitive info on that.
Speaking of which, what does MAR mean? Matted from full aperture? is there an acronym for open matte as opposed to closed matte?

 

[NY2LA]

I've always had my qualms about their decisions. They can do right by some things, but it gets overshadowed by oh-so-many things they've done wrong. Just a small sampling of some of their DVD mis-steps concerning their live-action catalogue:

• The inane decision to release a 2.35:1 film in P&S (The Journey of Natty Gann, for example) in the US, while an international release is the OAR.
• The sudden influx of catalogue titles from 2002 to 2005, most of them barebones and MAR. Disney wanted to turn 1.33:1 presentations into a guessing game for their consumers: is this pan and scan or open-matte? At least Darby O'Gill and the Little People makes a note that the 1.33:1 aspect ratio is what the film was shot in. And the titles that were given widescreen treatment were either undermatted at 1.66:1 or overmatted to 1.85:1, when Disney's standard for mattes was usually 1.75:1.
• Releasing a colorized P&S version of The Absent-Minded Professor. Fortunately, enough fans complained and a black-and-white widescreen version was soon released. Then, when Son of Flubber hit DVD, it was 1.33:1...
• Not including any supplements on 1950's Treasure Island, Disney's first 100% live-action film, but including its theatrical trailer as an extra on 2002's Treasure Planet (released on DVD the same day as Treasure Island). In general, Disney has an aversion to including original trailers for half their titles, even though they don't mind adding 10 contemporary ones in the "Sneak Peeks" menu and disc start-up.
• Releasing excellent two-disc "Vault Disney" DVDs in 2002, losing that branding in 2003, downgrading them to single-disc sets in 2004, and dropping the line entirely soon afterwards.
• The majority of Disney Movie Club's exclusive discs being barebones and chapter-less, with transfers that are barely a step up from the laserdisc.
• Postponing the US release of So Dear to My Heart (originally due out in 2001), which would get released everywhere else around the world. Disney ultimately would dump it into Disney Movie Club, as an exclusive that dropped a 25-minute behind the scenes featurette present on international DVDs, replacing it with two (in their defense, very good) bonus cartoons.

Interesting points all, some very good, some excellent!
Especially agree about Vault Disney, a brand which began as the late night equivalent to Nick at Night on Disney Channel, and should have become it's own individual channel and video line.
Sad thing about most studios is there doesn't seem to be anyone with an overall perspective nor an overall continuity of standards, nor a reliability of information, especially between the production/administration end and the consumer dept...
I would bet in the case of BIT, you could call them up and complain and they would give a blustery nonsense excuse for 1.33, which would turn out to be just that when the disc comes out in OAR. They do claim in the press release that it is a new remaster for HD, so it seems logical to fill the current shape of consumer screens with the actual shape of the film, but you never know with Disney. Is it really too much to ask for them to have their act together in that regard?

 

[Matt Hough]

Nice. It would also be cool if you posted one of the ads and one of the press articles.
I remember hearing that Disney preferred a 1.66 ratio, which I've heard was a European standard, though I think I too have pressbooks for movies that say 1.75, still, that's kinda non-standard, isn't it?
I'm sure the gentleman who does the specific thread about Aspect Ratios can give us more definitive info on that.
Speaking of which, what does MAR mean? Matted from full aperture? is there an acronym for open matte as opposed to closed matte?

Modified Aspect Ratio