Yet more pan and scan from good ol' DISNEY... (1 Viewer)

[Aaron_Brez]

Yes, I got the same thing after my Noises Off! inquiry.

I find it dubious to claim that no information is known at this time-- Noises Off! is less than two months from release, and no one knows which aspect ratio it is being encoded in? I have to be skeptical of such claims.

Especially since they said the same thing about Midnight Madness until the week before its release.

 

[Dustin James]

.

 

[CraigF]

Agree with Dustin. Yesterday I spent some time trying to trace info about some recently released discs (last 2 weeks), from two large distributors, and unfortunately getting larger after gobbling up other "studios", both IMO of poor repute for DVD. These discs are not even listed on their sites, even though they have even more recent releases listed. And maybe I know why: these WS OAR 2003 films were released to disc in P&S, and I unknowingly bought them -> my very first anal probes

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

Disney sucks. plains and simple. I am so fed up with that companey. Even their a-list releases are screwed up by forced trailers, and in Canada, a stupid ugly "french" cirlce on the box, that coule easilly be a removable sticker, but isnt.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Other companies use forced trailers. In disney's defense, all you have to do to bypass Disney trailers is hit the "menu" button or the chapter skip button. That elevates Disney over, say, Universal, which doesn't even give you those options. For some titles, you have no choice but to sit there and endure their promotions. Disney has included a "menu-skip" option for their trailers since mid-2000.

And last time I checked, some people liked trailers on their dvds, just so long as they were able to skip them. I must have watched the trailer for Dinosaur 20 times on the old Tarzan: CE DVD...too bad the trailer was better than the movie.

By the way, just going to use this for another excuse to recommend the bare-bones DVD for Those Calloways -- it is a wonderful mid-60's studio film, and something Frank Capra would have been proud to make. I just showed it to my niece only yesterday, and she was enthralled from start to finish. She loved it. I love it. Disney buffs will love it. Go get it.

 

[Dick]

I will! THOSE CALLOWAYS is a lovely film and is given 1.66:1 treatment on DVD. Too bad D isney doesn't do isolated scores - this beaut is the sole Max Steiner score for a Disney film, and has never been available commercially.

GNOME MOBILE, on the other hand, is pan and scan.

 

[Ernest Rister]

The score for Those Calloways is marvelous, pure "lietmotif" the whole way through. Too bad this was Steiner's only score for a Disney film. His score was an asset to the film, and a true beauty (heard on the DVD in 5.1, no less).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ernest,

going to pick up the Calloways given your great recommendation. Sadly...I never received a screener copy :frowning: so I'll actually have to (gasp!) *buy* a Disney DVD!

 

[Brian McHale]

I don't suppose anyone out there knows the OAR for Miracle of the White Stallions (1963)? This just got released as 1.33:1, but I have no idea if this is pan 'n' scan or one of those TV friendly Disney live action films that were shot to be shown at any ratio from 1.33:1 to 1.85:1.

My wife is into horses, so we have to own just about every horse movie out there. Movies like this are never going to be big sellers and will probably never be revisited. If it was open matte, I could simply treat it like a non-anamorphic widescreen release and zoom in on it to get something close to OAR. If it's pan 'n' scan (like Return to Snowy River), I just can't bring myself to consider buying it.

IMDb lists the following technical specs, but I'm not smart enough to know what this might tell me with regards to OAR:

Laboratory: Technicolor
Film negative format (mm/video inches): 35 mm
Printed film format: 35 mm

Anyone?

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

QUOTE]And last time I checked, some people liked trailers on their dvds, just so long as they were able to skip them. I must have watched the trailer for Dinosaur 20 times on the old Tarzan: CE DVD...too bad the trailer was better than the movie.[/quote]

I Like trailers on my DVDs, so long as they are accssed from a menu, and aren't stuck on the begining of the DVD reminding me of the dark days of VHS. It cheapens the product. Much the same way having ads in movie theaters cheapens the product. I know it seems silly, but I really miss having the lights dim and the curtains part just as the movie starts. That's doesn't happen anymore.

I know Universal is worse, but that doesn't excuse Disney.

 

[BryanV]

I sent in a feedback form to Disney on there w/s telling them how I was waiting sooo long for Follow Me Boys and that they lost a customer on there out of focus non oar trash that they released.

 

[Jeffrey_K]

Darby O'Gill!! Hooray, Hooray!

 

[Joshua Clinard]

The press release that just came from Disney states that The Shaggy Dog will be fullscreen and that The Shaggy D.A. will be widescreen. Why isn't Disney consistent with these releases? They even go so far as to give us the sequel in widescreen but not the original. It makes no sense not to do both in widescreen. Then again, they are probably just trying to save money by using old prints. Some say that some of these films were framed for both TV and theaters, so either aspect ratio is correct. While that may be true, Widescreen Advocate always prefers the theatrical aspect ratio, except in the case of films animated at 1.33:1.

I'm staying away from both of these films because of this.

 

[soop.spoon]

.

 

[LukeB]

I'm pretty sure that The Shaggy Dog was originally intended to air on TV, so it was shot 1.33:1. There's no reason to think that Disney would screw up the aspect ratio on a title like this where they're putting effort into release, regardless of what IMDb says about aspect ratio.

 

[John W L]

According to numerous sources since it was in production in 1958, The Shaggy Dog was intended as a theatrical release. Among the reasons this would be the case is that top-billed Fred MacMurray was still starring in films -- this was before "My Three Sons" started its TV run; it's unlikely he would have guest-starred on Disney's TV anthology. All of MacMurray's Disney films were produced for theatrical release.

It's very disappointing that it will be full-frame -- unless Disney is good enough to explain -- on this release and all others like it -- that it's full frame because it was filmed (and preferentially framed) at 1.33:1 and cropped only for theaters. I've refrained from buying many full-frame Disney DVDs, and I hate to do it with this one.

The Misadventures of Merlin Jones, however, was filmed for TV, but Disney decided after production to release it theatrically. The full-frame, though rather poor, DVD presentation (the prints on The Disney Channel were much better than the one used for the DVD!!!), might, therefore, be "correct." But don't count on it.

In addition to "filmed-for-theaters" and "filmed-for-TV," there is a third category of Disney films: those filmed for TV broadcast in the US and Canada and theatrical release elsewhere (including, most likely, "Merlin"). Virtually all two- and three-part presentations on the Disney anthology TV series in the 50s and 60s belong to this category. It appears that these were filmed at the 1.66:1 ratio for European presentation: on TV ever since they've first appeared, major characters often are half cut off the screen or, in static group scenes, missing even when they speak.

So, even if Disney shot something for TV, I don't believe it can be assumed that it was shot at 1.33:1. More likely, it was 1.66:1 or wider.

IMHO, it's inexcusable that no one in charge today at that studio, which was once known for being the best in quality control (in initial production and in the utmost care in keeping its negatives and prints pristine), cares about the history and accuracy of presentation. But what else could we expect from a studio that allegedly fired the person responsible for the excellent-but-cancelled "Vault Disney" line.

 

[John W L]

videouniverse.com now lists "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" and "Third Man on the Mountain" as "Full Frame - 1.33." It gives no aspect ratio as yet for "The Three Lives of Thomasina." ultimatedisney.com has no AR details on any of these films.

These are among the very best -- perhaps the best -- of the Disney classics: truly magical, unforgettable, experiences for kids who saw them in theaters. Again, today's Disney has disappointed immensely. Unless definitive word comes out that these were filmed at 1.33 -- and we're getting the original negative -- I won't buy the DVDs I'd been waiting for for years.

However, don't expect any pan and scan from good ol' Disney. They haven't bothered to do so in the past, have they? What you'll likely get is a centered shot at all times -- unless they squeeze the image as they did on "Son of Flubber" to get the credits on the screen, per the ultimatedisney.com review. (Something they didn't do on "Babes in Toyland," where the credits clearly show that a good part of the image is missing, showing that "Babes" was not meant for 1.33, contrary to what has been stated here before.)

Interesting language in Video Universe ad for both "Darby" and "Thomasina": "Original language - Gaelic." Informative blurb about "Thomasina" in included on the Web page.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

The last place I would trust for this kind of info is video universe. I have never liked that site. The test is to wait for it to appear on Disney's Video Finder, and then check the aspect ratio. That site is usually, but not always accurate.

 

[Drew Salzan]

Will The Happiest Millionaire be in 5.1?

 

[Joe Caps]

I'm told that Millionaire will be 5.1. How, I don't know. The film was three channels behind the screen with no surrounds.
No specs so far for Family band, except it has one of those new, ugly, disney covers. So far, no word of any extras on either of these titles.
For Hayley Mills fans, Where is Summer Magic and In Search of the Castaways?