Disney's Aristocats Aspect Ratio
Philip Moss
The disc is presented full-frame on both CLV and CAV versions. There
is a message before the movie explaining that it has been reformatted
to fit the screen.
I was wondering what the original aspect ratio of Aristocats was and
why has Disney chosen not to release the disc in this ratio.
Can anyone help me out?
Philip Moss (London, England)
Kelly Bradley
>Philip Moss (London, England)
According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
originally intended for television. It may be, then, that we've gained
as much top and bottom information from the P&S (if not more) than what
more side information existed theatrically. I've never seen the film,
though, so all this is just food for thought.
Guy Badger
>
>I was wondering what the original aspect ratio of Aristocats was and
>why has Disney chosen not to release the disc in this ratio.
>
>Can anyone help me out?
>
>
>Philip Moss (London, England)
>
Most Disney productions after Sleeping Beauty were framed at 1.75:1 I
believe. So a 1.33:1 transfer isn't a severe loss but it's annoying that
it wasn't done at 1.75:1. I think they've done it on purpose to annoy
people on this newsgroup!
Guy.
DisneyPors
>The disc is presented full-frame on both CLV and CAV versions. There
>is a message before the movie explaining that it has been reformatted
>to fit the screen.
well, I was planing to get this on disc as soon as I saw it....but now I
guess I wont...why bother!!! DAMN!!! why dont they show films the proper
way, at least on laser!!!! - Doug
"This email message has been modified from it's original format, it has
been modified to fit this screen"
TEB1013
> theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
> originally intended for television. It may be, then, that we've
> gained as much top and bottom information from the P&S (if not more)
> than what more side information existed theatrically. I've never seen
> the film, though, so all this is just food for thought.
Sorry but The Aristocats was NOT originally filmed for TV, it was a
theatrical release and this is the first video release. The 1.75 AR is
generally the British matted widescreen format, between the 1.66 European
and the 1.85 US format.
Guy Badger
>
>According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
>theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
>originally intended for television.
Aristocats was a 1970 TV movie? In fact it wasn't. It was produced for
cinema presentation and most Disney productions are 1.75:1 ratio - I don't
know why though.
Guy.
Kelly Bradley
>Guy.
"The Aristocats was originally planned as a live-action two-part
"special" for TV's 'Wonderful World of Color,' and scripted as such by
Tom McGowan, Tom Rowe, and Hary Tyle."
- Encyclopedia of Walt Disney Animated Characters
I didn't say it WAS a 1970 TV movie, I said it was originally intended to be.
JSBecraft
writes:
>Sorry but The Aristocats was NOT originally filmed for TV, it was a
>theatrical release and this is the first video release. The 1.75 AR is
>generally the British matted widescreen format, between the 1.66 European
>and the 1.85 US format.
Apparently during the "Everybody Wants To Be A Cat" number, there's a
poster that says, "Rigid Tools." Disney cropped the picture to avoid
showing the poster.
This is the absolute untruth. :o)
-- Jeff Becraft
Andy Lesko
>
> I have just watched my copy of the new release of Disney's Aristocats.
> The disc is presented full-frame on both CLV and CAV versions. There
> is a message before the movie explaining that it has been reformatted
> to fit the screen.
>
> why has Disney chosen not to release the disc in this ratio.
>
> Can anyone help me out?
>
> Philip Moss (London, England)
The opening credits on the Hong Kong release of this laserdisc is
letterboxed at about 1.66:1
Paul Penna
(Kelly Bradley) wrote:
Interesting bit of historical trivia about a film which was never made,
but obviously completely irrelevant to the question of the aspect ratio of
the film which eventually >was< made.
Eric Shelden
: I have just watched my copy of the new release of Disney's Aristocats.
: The disc is presented full-frame on both CLV and CAV versions. There
: is a message before the movie explaining that it has been reformatted
: to fit the screen.
: I was wondering what the original aspect ratio of Aristocats was and
: why has Disney chosen not to release the disc in this ratio.
: Can anyone help me out?
: Philip Moss (London, England)
I notice that you posted this on Monday. I thought that TA was slated
for Wednesday which is when mine came in from Ken Cranes??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hellmutt <esheld@.cc.umr.edu>
'The important thing is not to stop questioning.'
-Albert Einstein
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Merch
> > According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
> > theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
> > originally intended for television. It may be, then, that we've
> > gained as much top and bottom information from the P&S (if not more)
> > than what more side information existed theatrically. I've never seen
> > the film, though, so all this is just food for thought.
>
> Sorry but The Aristocats was NOT originally filmed for TV, it was a
> theatrical release and this is the first video release. The 1.75 AR is
> generally the British matted widescreen format, between the 1.66 European
> and the 1.85 US format.
But isn't the LD at 1.33? Why would disney release it non-boxed???
merch
SHADOW1966
screen. But that wouldn't require a warning at the front would it?
Guy Badger
>>>
>>>According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
>>>theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
>>>originally intended for television.
>
>"special" for TV's 'Wonderful World of Color,' and scripted as such by
>Tom McGowan, Tom Rowe, and Hary Tyle."
> - Encyclopedia of Walt Disney Animated Characters
>
>I didn't say it WAS a 1970 TV movie, I said it was originally intended to be.
>
Kelly
The way you worded the original post seemed to suggest you thought that
the animated Aristocats was produced for TV. Sorry if I read it wrong.
Guy.
mbe...@velcome.iupui.edu
Kelly Bradley (kbra...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
: According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
: theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
: originally intended for television.
Say What?!? Since When? None of the 33 animated Disney films were
originally intended for television at all. Aristocats has never even
been shown on TV and is only just now being released to video. Bzzzst,
wrong answer.
TEB1013
> According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
> : theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
> : originally intended for television.
>
> Say What?!? Since When? None of the 33 animated Disney films were
> originally intended for television at all. Aristocats has never even
> been shown on TV and is only just now being released to video.
> Bzzzst, wrong answer.
Not only that, but Aristocats was the last film made with input from Uncle
Walt himself, he'd approved some story boards before he died in '66, still
all of the key work was done without Walt, and the whole thing was seen as
a great achievement for the animation department. I've never heard any
suggestion that this was intended for TV.
Ned Snell
In article <4lrs1e$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, teb...@aol.com says...
Throughout Disney's history, nearly all of the "key work," was done
without Walt. His particular genius was in storytelling, and he shaped
the mythic storylines in the early features. He had very, very little to
do with any Disney animation project from 101 Dalmations onward,
preferring instead to work on DisneyWorld and other interests. Overall,
Disney himself tends to get much too much credit for the animation, and
the brilliant people he hired--and, in general, abused--get too little.
Dennis L
me...@mainelink.net (Merch) wrote:
>
>But isn't the LD at 1.33? Why would disney release it non-boxed???
>
Same reason they released Sword in the Stone improperly... To piss us
off and make us buy it again next time around.
J.C. O'Connell
teb...@aol.com (TEB1013) wrote:
>> According to the Disney Laserdisc web pages, the film was presented
>> : theatrically at 1.75:1. This seems odd to me, because the film was
>> : originally intended for television.
>>
>> Say What?!? Since When? None of the 33 animated Disney films were
>> originally intended for television at all. Aristocats has never even
>> been shown on TV and is only just now being released to video.
>> Bzzzst, wrong answer.
>Not only that, but Aristocats was the last film made with input from Uncle
>Walt himself, he'd approved some story boards before he died in '66, still
>all of the key work was done without Walt, and the whole thing was seen as
>a great achievement for the animation department. I've never heard any
>suggestion that this was intended for TV.
As I've said in other postings, "Aristocats" is a big stinker.
Animation sucks, story sucks, It's probably 1.33 on LD
because no serious fillm buff will want this flick anyway
& maybe 4 year old kids will like it better at 1.33.
If they come out with a special collectors edition on this
one, wait for the camelot cutout of it because there'll be
plenty of overstock in my opinion. Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. O'Connell
(954)-755-0396 "Accidents seldom have such system"
hifi...@gate.net
hifis...@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Shelden
J.C. O'Connell (hifi...@gate.net) wrote:
: As I've said in other postings, "Aristocats" is a big stinker.
: Animation sucks, story sucks, It's probably 1.33 on LD
: because no serious fillm buff will want this flick anyway
: & maybe 4 year old kids will like it better at 1.33.
: If they come out with a special collectors edition on this
: one, wait for the camelot cutout of it because there'll be
: plenty of overstock in my opinion. Chris
Hey bud, go fuck yourself!! I love this movie and consider myself a
'serious film buff'. If you have something to say about the quaility of
the pressing or the fact that the assholes at Disney did it full frame
fine. But if all you want to do is basically my opinion sucks go to
alt.dicks.suckit. By the way my 27 year old wife and all four of our
parents also love it. So stick that in your smipe and poke it!
Guy Badger
esh...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Eric Shelden) wrote:
>J.C. O'Connell (hifi...@gate.net) wrote:
>: As I've said in other postings, "Aristocats" is a big stinker.
>: Animation sucks, story sucks, It's probably 1.33 on LD
>: because no serious fillm buff will want this flick anyway
>: & maybe 4 year old kids will like it better at 1.33.
>
>'serious film buff'. If you have something to say about the quaility of
>the pressing or the fact that the assholes at Disney did it full frame
>fine. But if all you want to do is basically my opinion sucks go to
>alt.dicks.suckit. By the way my 27 year old wife and all four of our
>parents also love it. So stick that in your smipe and poke it!
I agree. Aristocats may not be the greatest but I think it blows away
most of the stuff but out by Spielberg, Bluth et al (That's not to say I
don't like their movies mind you).
Aristocats has some great characters, one great song (Everybody Wants To
Be A Cat) and some classy animation. I love my CAV copy, so there!
Guy.
David Uy
Merch (me...@mainelink.net) wrote:
: But isn't the LD at 1.33? Why would disney release it non-boxed???
To add possible insult to injury, I just purchased a CAV copy of the film
and found the disks were pressed by Mitsubishi, the same people who
brought you Beauty and the Beast-Work in Progress. I hope they have
improved their product since then.
--
David Uy <d...@unity.ncsu.edu> <http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/d/duy/public/>
Misc.MAYHEM
In article <4m3dcq$h...@news.gate.net>, hifi...@gate.net says...
>As I've said in other postings, "Aristocats" is a big stinker.
>Animation sucks, story sucks, It's probably 1.33 on LD
>because no serious fillm buff will want this flick anyway
>& maybe 4 year old kids will like it better at 1.33.
>snip<
They didn't make it for _you_!
sothereKEZ
--
________________________________________________
"If a light sleeper sleeps with a light on, does a hard sleeper
sleep with the window open?"
internetKEZ: k...@eden.com
worldwidewebKEZ: http:/www.eden.com/~kez/
snailmailKEZ: K. S. Wilson, Misc.MAYHEM Comics, P.O.Box 160962, Austin, TX
78716
Dennis L
d...@unity.ncsu.edu (David Uy) wrote:
>To add possible insult to injury, I just purchased a CAV copy of the film
>and found the disks were pressed by Mitsubishi, the same people who
>brought you Beauty and the Beast-Work in Progress. I hope they have
>improved their product since then.
Either that or hope Image keeps extra stock on hand in a airtight
vault.