Was Snow White ever shown in widescreen format... (1 Viewer)

[JJR512]

I remember seeing some show on TV a long time ago, or maybe it was on an older Snow White VHS tape, something about the movie and its restoration (at the time) to improve how it looked. I remember there being something about how it was shot in the ratio of a TV screen, which of course I know now was not perfectly accurate, because it was really the Academy Ratio of 1.67:1 (right?). But they were saying that the upper and lower bits of the images were chopped off or blocked, which I now know is called matting, so that it could be shown in the more popular theater widescreen format. And the whole point of it was that they were showing how in this particular restoration process, they were removing the matting, so you could see the whole image from the film. I specifically remember seeing a side-by-side comparison where in the widescreen frame, you could see Snow White outside singing, but in the original full screen frame, you could see not only that, but some squirrels at the bottom of the image watching her sing.
Does anybody else remember seeing this, or am I just imagining all this? Was it something on TV, or was it on the video, or what?
------------------
-Justin "JJR512" Rebbert

Join the JJR512.com Genome@home Team and help cure what ails you. (Click here for more info.)
Contact me: [email protected] | ICQ: 52675695 | Private Message

 

[alan halvorson]

The Academy ratio at the time Snow White was created was 1.37 - full screen. There might have been a time in the early fifties where it was chopped to make it a "widescreen" film - they did that in those days sometimes - but other than that, it's always been shown full screen. No matting to remove.
------------------
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!
They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa To the funny farm. Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!!!!
- Napoleon XIV

 

[Mick Wright]

Snow White was matted during it's 80's re-release. This did not go over well with critics, particularly Roger Ebert.

 

[Mark-W]

The Wizard of Oz is another
"Academy Ratio" film original shot and INTENDED
to be seen 1.37:1 which was presented
in a butchered "widescreen" version
at different points in its life.
-Mark

 

[Keith Paynter]

Gone With The Wind was once theatrically re-released in Cinemascope! How's that for cropping?
------------------

 

[GerardoHP]

In the early 50's, when widescreen hit big, it was customary to re-release 30's and 40's films cropped for widescreen. Some notorious examples where the studios actually advertised this fact to attract audiences ("In New Widescreen Splendor!") were GONE WITH THE WIND, NIGHT AND DAY, PORTRAIT OF JENNIE, SHANE and DUEL IN THE SUN. I'm sure there were many more. Honestly, I don't remember seeing a single reissue of a 30's or 40's movie in my childhood (in the 60's) where the films were not cropped for widescreen.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (which was shot in VistaVision) was re-released in the 70's and again in the 80's in a 2.20:1 70mm version and a 2.35 scope version as well. The results were disastrous as the blow-up enlarged the grain and the chintzy special effects, and cropped the top and bottom of the frame ruining many of the compositions.
In the early 70's, this was also done to GONE WITH THE WIND, THE GREAT CARUSO and Joe Mankiewicz's JULIUS CAESAR. With GWTW, they went as far as to scan certain frames from top to bottom to show action that would have been missed in widescreen (sort of like a top-to-bottom pan and scan).
------------------
Gerardo

 

[Richard Kim]

Anyone else afraid that the same type of hackjob will be done to these classic films once 16:9 HDTVs hit the mainstream?

 

[Chad R]

I do remember reading about the first VHS release of Pinocchio. It was transferred from one of the cropped for widescreen prints, then panned & scanned from that, so what we got was just the center of the image cropped on all foour sides. When it was re-released in the 90's this was corrected thankfully.

 

[Chad Parks]

You guys are giving me flashbacks to my FANTASTIC screening of Citizen Kane in a local theater, in 1.85:1. I only lasted about 20 minutes before I left.
[Edited last by Chad Parks on October 31, 2001 at 12:38 PM]

 

[Derek Miner]

Anyone else afraid that the same type of hackjob will be done to these classic films once 16:9 HDTVs hit the mainstream?

Is there any doubt? History shows that it will happen.
= Derek =

 

[Thomas T]

From Pauline Kael's "5001 Nights At The Movies" regarding Shane (1953):
"The cinematography by Loyal Griggs won the Academy Award; this must have struck him as a black joke, because Paramount, in order to take advantage of the new fashion for the wide screen, had mutilated the compositions by cutting off the top and bottom."

 

[Rain]

quote: "The cinematography by Loyal Griggs won the Academy Award; this must have struck him as a black joke, because Paramount, in order to take advantage of the new fashion for the wide screen, had mutilated the compositions by cutting off the top and bottom."[/quote]
Well, this would seem to answer the oft-asked question of what the OAR of Shane is. I was not sure myself, but from what I'm reading here, it would appear to have been intended for 1.37:1, which makes the DVD correct in terms of the intent, but different from the actual theatrical exhibitions. This I can live with.

Anyone else afraid that the same type of hackjob will be done to these classic films once 16:9 HDTVs hit the mainstream?

I would think that would only apply to TV broadcasts of the films in question. If that is the case, do we really care that much? I'm assuming that most of us don't really watch movies from TV broadcast anyway...Of course, I could be wrong. (And, yes, in principle, I do care.)
------------------

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon
Anyone in the Vancouver Canada area interested in a meet? Click here
[Edited last by Rain on October 31, 2001 at 01:13 PM]

 

[Stephen_Coghill]

So Citizen Cane was filmed in the full screen format? I noticed that the DVD that was just released is not widescreen. This is the way it is supposed to look? It's hard to imagine...
------------------
Stephen C. Coghill
www.mp3.com/VIRTUALOGIC
www.mp3.com/DIGITALDOMAINmusic

 

[Randy_M]

Widescreen was nearly unknown when Kane was produced...you think it looks bad in its OAR??
Cheers

 

[Stephen_Coghill]

Frankly, I have only ever seen the movie on TV, so I don't know that much about it. Thanks for the quick responce though...
------------------
Stephen C. Coghill
www.mp3.com/VIRTUALOGIC
www.mp3.com/DIGITALDOMAINmusic

 

[Nigel McN]

I sat through a 'widescreen' showing of Citizen Kane this year, I didn't leave though,...

 

[frank manrique]

A few short years ago both The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind where "restored" and shown in theaters in their original Academy aspect ratio (1:37:1)...even though no "modern" multiplex cinemas are capable of projecting it.
So how was it done? Simply by placing the Academy AR image in the center of the 35mm anomorphic scope frame so that upon projection black bars can be seen to the right and left of it yet the image remains visibly intact and in its correct, OAR.
I saw no cropping taking place in them images whatsoever. Nifty!
-THTS

 

[Mark-W]

Another DVD that presents the "modified to fit your television" message INCORRECTLY is Hithcock's
Strangers on the Train.
It was shot Academy Ratio (1.37:1).
As for Citizen Kane I cannot
imagine anyone wanting the film on DVD presented
in anything other than its OAR:
The people who still admire Citizen Kane,
highly regard and understand the art of cinematography.
It is not a "Joe Six Pack" film.

Mark

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Anyone else afraid that the same type of hackjob will be done to these classic films once 16:9 HDTVs hit the mainstream?

There's already a 16x9 up-and-down pan&scan DVD of Super Speedway (an IMAX film, and IMAX's OAR is close to 1:33), which people on this forum seem most enthusiastic about. Mindboggling, if you ask me. Where are the people declaring that they'll never buy it because it isn't OAR?

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

There's already a 16x9 up-and-down pan&scan DVD of Super Speedway (an IMAX film, and IMAX's OAR is close to 1:33)

Actually, you're wrong.
The Super Speedway DVD:
- Widescreen Version (1.78:1): You'll lose picture on the top and bottom of your screen (due to matting), BUT you'll gain image on the sides of your screen.
- Full Frame Version (1.33:1): You'll gain picture on the top and bottom of your screen, BUT you won't be seeing the additional image on the sides of your screen as seen in the widescreen version.
Some shots look better in widescreen, some shots look better in full frame. It depends on what your preference is.
------------------

Link Removed / AIM: MrMatthew / ICQ: 96444542
"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."