Cutting off the top and bottom of the image and NOT offering both formatted framing ratios?
NOT GREAT!
The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 10009
- Joined: September 1st, 2006
Why, oh why? I knew it was to good to be true. 
After being so dissapointed by Pan, I really did have high hopes for Jungle. But now, not really.
Sigh. Thanks for at least setting me straight about the widescreen issue. Because, over at UD some said it was good, while others did not. And coming from a board that has some members praising the Platinum Pan, I took everything with a grain of salt.
But like you said, the bonus features do indeed sound good, but that's it!
Bummer.
After being so dissapointed by Pan, I really did have high hopes for Jungle. But now, not really.
Sigh. Thanks for at least setting me straight about the widescreen issue. Because, over at UD some said it was good, while others did not. And coming from a board that has some members praising the Platinum Pan, I took everything with a grain of salt.
But like you said, the bonus features do indeed sound good, but that's it!
Bummer.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 10009
- Joined: September 1st, 2006
Here's the new cover art. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex ... tartpage=4
At least its better than before!
At least its better than before!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 823
- Joined: February 22nd, 2007
- Location: Belgium
It looks better,
but they are still using those same weird off-model drawings, Shere-Khan looks afwul on that cover
Glad they decided to put Bagheera on the cover though
Really great find Daniel!!
but they are still using those same weird off-model drawings, Shere-Khan looks afwul on that cover
Glad they decided to put Bagheera on the cover though
Really great find Daniel!!
Last edited by Jeroen on April 18th, 2007, 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25324
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Most covers are made up of elements, so whatever placings they have, the models will still be off as that's what all the elements have been made to look like.
I don't like the new configuration. Mowgli should be up there with Baloo, not dancing with King Louis. The whole left side of the cover looks wrong...Shere Kahn and Kaa are almost pushed off and in a haze that disguises them, and poor Bagheera is lost in the shadows, which doesn't help the color balance of the overall art. Feels like a black hole in the top left in regards to the full color in the whole of the right hand side.
Another reason not to like the Platinums is their generic photochopped covers.
I don't like the new configuration. Mowgli should be up there with Baloo, not dancing with King Louis. The whole left side of the cover looks wrong...Shere Kahn and Kaa are almost pushed off and in a haze that disguises them, and poor Bagheera is lost in the shadows, which doesn't help the color balance of the overall art. Feels like a black hole in the top left in regards to the full color in the whole of the right hand side.
Another reason not to like the Platinums is their generic photochopped covers.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8206
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
Disney cropping to widescreen
Just wanted to comment on Ben's recent Tooning In column
http://animated-views.com/2007/peter-pa ... -features/
I am NOT a fan of cropping widescreen movies to fit 4:3 TVs or cropping standard movies to fit widescreen TVs. That said, what I want is the theatrical version of movies. If they concurrently made a version that fits 4:3 TVs that is very nice. But I don't want it! I can appreciate that that version needs to be preserved and that it is very interesting from an historic or educational aspect to see what they put in that extra space. But that version is not the theatrical film. If there was anything important to the movie in that extra top or bottom section it would be in the widescreen area! I don't want the filler, I want was considered when the film was made to be the meat - what they put up on the theatre screen.
So what's the compromise? Both versions on one disc? If the movie is already filling the available space you'd have to downgrade the quality to get both. Two versions? Not that again! I don't know. I'm just glad that this time my preference (theatrical version) appears to be the default!
http://animated-views.com/2007/peter-pa ... -features/
There needs to be a better compromise here. Blowing up the 4:3 image is NOT an option. If you've got an HD set up with a BD player the last thing you want is to not get the full 1080p resolution by blowing up!As noted here before, now that Disney’s gone Blu-Ray for high-definition, they want to release everything that they feasibly can with a 1.78:1 ratio. While some folks are getting excited about seeing The Jungle Book in widescreen for the first time this Fall, all I can say is “hey, blow it up to fit your widescreen TVs as it is right now and you’ll get the same image” as that is all Disney is doing.
I am NOT a fan of cropping widescreen movies to fit 4:3 TVs or cropping standard movies to fit widescreen TVs. That said, what I want is the theatrical version of movies. If they concurrently made a version that fits 4:3 TVs that is very nice. But I don't want it! I can appreciate that that version needs to be preserved and that it is very interesting from an historic or educational aspect to see what they put in that extra space. But that version is not the theatrical film. If there was anything important to the movie in that extra top or bottom section it would be in the widescreen area! I don't want the filler, I want was considered when the film was made to be the meat - what they put up on the theatre screen.
So what's the compromise? Both versions on one disc? If the movie is already filling the available space you'd have to downgrade the quality to get both. Two versions? Not that again! I don't know. I'm just glad that this time my preference (theatrical version) appears to be the default!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 248
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Theatrical sounds like the most sensible idea really. I put up with watching and buying movies in the widscreen/letterbox format on my TV just for the plain reason that I know one day that I will have a widescreen tv and want to be able to enjoy the film in its semi-full glory.
I fully agree with you James. It surely can't be that hard to put the original theatrical version on DVD.
I fully agree with you James. It surely can't be that hard to put the original theatrical version on DVD.
"But I'm your No. 1 Fan!"
- Buddy a.k.a Syndrome
- Buddy a.k.a Syndrome
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25324
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Two versions!
Essentially, when these films were made, Walt didn't know that we'd have home video...digital TV...widescreen sets, etc.
He made the film to play ONCE in the theater and forever more on home video. The full animated frame was intended to be seen in that version.
My point is that, for years, Disney has exhibited these films "in their original theatrical aspect ratios" of 1.33:1 (close enough) but now that it suits them to say "the original theatrical aspect ratios of 1.75:1" we're all supposed to forget that the top and bottom of the frame was <I>intended to be seen</I>.
My "blowing up" the image was suggested just to explain would would be seen on a widescreen set when Disney starts issuing these titles, starting with Jungle Book, not the best way to gain quality.
After years of putting up with two versions of a film - usually a totally redundant cropped version - I don't see why we <I>shouldn't</I> get two, <I>very valid</I> versions instead - the theatrical and the intended negative frame.
That way, if I'm in my home theater I can watch the theatrical framing on my projector, and if I'm up in the bedroom (where I just have a 4:3 set) I can watch the full image.
Unlike a pan-and-scan chop job, both versions of matted and unmatted frames are unique to themselves. It's just a shame Disney doesn't feel the need to preserve them any more after years of being overly "family friendly".
Essentially, when these films were made, Walt didn't know that we'd have home video...digital TV...widescreen sets, etc.
He made the film to play ONCE in the theater and forever more on home video. The full animated frame was intended to be seen in that version.
My point is that, for years, Disney has exhibited these films "in their original theatrical aspect ratios" of 1.33:1 (close enough) but now that it suits them to say "the original theatrical aspect ratios of 1.75:1" we're all supposed to forget that the top and bottom of the frame was <I>intended to be seen</I>.
My "blowing up" the image was suggested just to explain would would be seen on a widescreen set when Disney starts issuing these titles, starting with Jungle Book, not the best way to gain quality.
After years of putting up with two versions of a film - usually a totally redundant cropped version - I don't see why we <I>shouldn't</I> get two, <I>very valid</I> versions instead - the theatrical and the intended negative frame.
That way, if I'm in my home theater I can watch the theatrical framing on my projector, and if I'm up in the bedroom (where I just have a 4:3 set) I can watch the full image.
Unlike a pan-and-scan chop job, both versions of matted and unmatted frames are unique to themselves. It's just a shame Disney doesn't feel the need to preserve them any more after years of being overly "family friendly".
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25324
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I noted that as well, but overall the balance was more correct.
I'd have perhaps seen Mowgli moved a little further down and more space given to Bagheera.
Funny how in 40 years of posters for The Jungle Book that all other montages have still been better than this one.
And everyone - King Louie especially - looks so very off model.
I'd have perhaps seen Mowgli moved a little further down and more space given to Bagheera.
Funny how in 40 years of posters for The Jungle Book that all other montages have still been better than this one.
And everyone - King Louie especially - looks so very off model.