DVDizzy.com

For those of you who don't own The Sword In the Stone, I'd advise you to get the Gold Classics Collection release while it's still for sale... the new one is widescreen and thus vertically cropped from its original form (The Jungle Book, anyone?)

I'm just surprised you can still buy the GCC release (at least on Amazon and Buy.com), with movies like Robin Hood, Disney yanked the old version in advance so you could ONLY buy the stupid cropped version.

Shiny cover maybe, but I don't think it's any different quality-wise. I haven't seen the new one but the old one was pretty good quality for a GCC.

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

Erm ... isn't the new release supposed to be open-matte? It says so on the website.

That depends, really. If you don't own it yet and want the animated ratio, get the old version. If you don't own it yet and want the theatrical ratio, get the new version.

Albert

_________________
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?

That's a tough one - the animation student in me wants the animated ratio, but the guy who owns a widescreen tv in me (that sounds wrong) wants the theatrical ratio...Would it be really bad to double-dip at the exact same time? I don't imagine anyone's ever done that before...

Not Disney, but I bought Oliver Stone's Alexander and Alexander: Director's Cut at the same time. And now Alexander: the Final Cut on Blu-ray. Now I'm just waiting for Alexander: "We've 'Jimmied' about with the editing a bit more and done the best we can, but it's still a flawed but facinating film" Cut.

_________________
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database

Where'd you get it for $11? Was it used or something?



Well here's my theory when it comes to aspect ratios. It's fairly easy to recreate a cropped version. Most DVD players have a "zoom" function which can make a 4:3 version of just about anything widescreen (but don't do it with SITS or you're making it worse!!)
Alternatively, most widescreen TVs have a "zoom" option, that will cut the top and bottom off so that a 4:3 video will fill the entire screen, and you lose a bit vertically. If yours is like that, it would look pretty much the same as buying the new one... only you'd only need one DVD. (Now, that would make it 1.77:1 and not 1.66:1, but who's counting? )

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

I have a few questions for brownpuppy or anyone else with an advance copy:

1) What exactly is the aspect ratio? The press release lists 1.66:1; however the official DVD website and Amazon list 1.33:1

2) Was the "All About Magic" episode of the anthology series carried over to the new edition? What other features, if any, are included in the infamous "and more" catagory?

Thanks for any info!

Link to press release which says 1.66:1 - http://www.ultimatedisney.com/swordinth ... -0617.html

Link to official SitS DVD website which says 1.33:1 - (see under "bonus features") http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/anima ... l?mchoice=

Link to amazon page which lists it as "widescreen" but then gives the Aspect Ratio of 1.33:1! - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... eimprovemz

EDIT!!!! (approx 5 AM ET)

I just found menu info for the new edition at All Movie Guide which list 1.33:1 as the aspect ratio and "All About Magic" appears to have been carried over! (it says "excerpt" but since the UD review list 36 minutes as the runtime on the GC release, that would be an excerpt since anthology eps were longer than this... or, it is also possible that this could be a shorter exerpt than what was on the Gold Collection...)

Can anyone with a physical copy confirm any of this info? (aspect ratio, length of All About Magic episode on the new edition)

Here is the link!

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=av ... :190660~T2

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney

Amazon, and EVEN THE DVD BOX lists Aladdin 3 as 1.33:1 but it's widescreen. This should teach people not to believe what they read

Though I don't know, I have no intention of getting this set because DVD menu games are stupid.

I say get the Gold Classics Collection version unless you absolutely love widescreen... it's cheaper and as far as I can tell, not any "worse" than this new set.

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

Sorry you got burned with that one. On the other hand, it seems the early materials for this particular Sword release were saying 1.66:1; recent reports are saying 1.33:1 - including All Movie Guide - which may indicate it was originally going to be 1.66:1, and changed.

I'm as skeptical as you are about the acuaracy of ANY of these reports due to their conflicting nature, which is why I'm asking for anyone who actually has a copy of the DVD to confirm the ratio. Until then I have no reason to believe one ratio or the other is more likely to be used for this release.



In my case, I do not prefer widescreen OR fullscreen just for the sake of being widescreen or fullscreen. I prefer whichever shows more picture. I "love widescreen" when the wide picture is achieved without matting and shows more picture on the sides while losing nothing on the top; and "love fullscreen" when something is filmed in fullscreen and loses nothing on the sides when viewed that way.

What I dislike is "pan and scan" fullscreen or "matted" widescreen. However, if an open matte transfer reveals technical equipment, puppeteers hands, or anything clearly not intended to be seen that shatters the illusion of the world the film is creating, then I welcome the matting. Otherwise, I say "open up the mattes"!

Since Sword clearly was protected for "open matte" viewing, and open matte fullscreen is the original animated ratio, than in this case I agree with you 100% that this is how I want to see it.

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney

I couldn't agree more.

That's typically what's called "original aspect ratio"
Since everything with less picture is cropped from that.

Disney pictures have some controversy as some were animated in 4:3 and shown widescreen in theaters, but by means of cropping the top and bottom. In that case it's called "the original animated aspect ratio" instead of the "original theatrical aspect ratio".

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

"Original" aspect radio is not as important as "intended" aspect ratio. And alas, it seems we'll never 100% know what the "intended" aspect ratio is.

However, I will say that the matting of Robin Hood (and perhaps to a lesser extent The Jungle Book) has shown is that there is a lot of headroom and footroom on the 4:3 compositions. Why would that be done?

At the very least, it would be a compromise on the framing. And compromises don't always equel "intended" (or desired).

_________________
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database

I never said anything about intended ratios. The older films were made in 4:3 whether they were intended for that or not... and I'd rather have the version showing the most picture, unless the original negative ratio has animation problems. (Mollyzkobou could explain this; the Sailor Moon movies were animated in 4:3 but shown in theaters in widescreen, and apparently the fullscreen USA video releases have animation problems where the black bars should be)

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

VirtualDub + Crop filter = whatever aspect ratio you want

Now, I have to prod someone with the DVD to tell me what the total VOB size is of the movie... if it's anything like Robin Hood it'll actually be less and somewhat worse quality (or exactly the same in Robin Hood's case)

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

I used to think that way about the animated classics, but if I demand the intended ratio of live-action movies, then I must do the same for the animated ones. With the DAC of that era, they were shown in theatres in both ratios, those capable of matting would and those that couldn't would show the unintended open matte.
My question is with the 1.75.1 ratio that some say is the intended ratio for this era. It's not a common ratio as it was an early 35mm widescreen ratio, used mostly by MGM, and since abandoned. It seems more likely that it was probably 1.66.1, especially giving the issues with the JB release.

Yes!

If you look at the screencap Brownpuppy posted on the last page, the top of Merlin's hat and the bottom of Wart's broom would be missing if they would have put the film in widescreen - with no additional picture on the sides.

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney

1.78:1 and 1.66:1 are essentially both anamorphic widescreen. Disney thinks consumers are stupid, and therefore they figured we wouldn't be able to tell on releases like The Jungle Book (nice try though, I saw through it the whole time!)
It was initially said that SitS would be 1.66:1 so you're probably correct about the intended aspect ratios.

But why is everyone so disappointed that it's in the original negative ratio? Why would you want one showing LESS of the picture than a different release? If anything, you can crop it yourself using your DVD player's settings... I used to do this all the time since my sisters would only watch a movie if it was fullscreen and I bought widescreen everything (talking live-action movies that are actually shot in widescreen)

_________________


Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!

The above screencap, but (partially) matted to show how much information would have been lost.

I think the composition looks much nicer in 1.33:1. I'm glad it hasn't been matted.

I dunno....I think I prefer the intended theatrical aspect ratio. I mean, who am I to say "Oh, this is the REAL version" when I know good and well what the artist was intending.

Framing is just as important to a filmmaker as it is to a photographer. Things like mood and visual drama can be enhanced when framed properly. A feeling of distance between characters, or claustrophobia in a space.....it's all enhanced by the framing. Just because a film stock is cheaper in Academy Ratio, doesn't mean that the artist wanted us to see it that way. It was common practice to frame a film in widescreen and shoot it in 1.33:1, the theatre woud have instructions on how to matte the film. Sometimes the matting in the theatres wouldn't work properly, or they simply wouldn't matte it at all (because that took time). DVD, however, gives the filmmakers a chance to share their original intended vision of the film for everyone to share...just how they wanted it to be seen.

Unfortunately, a lot of consumers would rather enjoy a ratio of their own choosing regardless of the artists intention...simply because they think it is better.

I'm not saying that the artists intended ratio is the only aspect ratio out there (goodness knows that we've been getting open matte fullscreen transfers for years). I'm just saying that when someone speaks of OAR, they are referring to original theatrical aspect ratio (live action or animated films), not originally shot aspect ratio.

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for my opinion on this.....::shudder back in preparation:: ......but I am a true beleiver in the artists vision of the film and the original theatrical aspect ratio. Perhaps Disney can appease both crowds by offering their film in both the OAR and the open matte fullscreen transfers (the way they were later shown on television).





EDIT: I found this site off a link from here at ultimatedisney, that might be able to explain better my feelings on wanting the matted films (a process called soft matting):

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml

Keep in mind that the examples given on this site also have open matte fullscreen transfers available out there...and some people are calling them OAR.

_________________
"It's Kind Of Fun To Do The Impossible"
- Walt Disney

Oh, in a perfect world I would prefer that, but given Disney's habit of providing only one or the other, I'd rather have the aspect that shows the most artwork and animation, be it 1.33:1 fullscreen, or 2.35:1 widescreen. It would be nice to also have the indended ratio, which is probably more cinematic, but I'm happy enough with the fullscreen.