Cartoons in Cinemascope

[Thad Komorowski]

Here's what aired today at Jerry Beck's Cartoons in Cinemascope screening today:

TOOT WHISTLE PLUNK AND BOOM (Disney)
GRAND CANYONSCOPE (Disney, Donald Duck)
GERALD McBOING BOING ON THE PLANET MOO (UPA, Gerald McBoing Boing)
MAGOO GOES WEST (UPA, Mr. Magoo)
BLUE CAT BLUES (MGM, Tom & Jerry)
SCAT CATS (MGM, Spike & Tyke)
LUCKY DOG (Terrytoons)
TOPSY TV (Terrytoons)
FOOFLE'S TRAIN RIDE (Terrytoons)
FLEBUS (Terrytoons)
THE JUGGLER OF OUR LADY (Terrytoons)

No, I didn't go to it (though I wish I did).

While were on the topic, how come LT&MM or Lantz didn't use Cinemascope? There's some cartoons of theirs that would look great in this format. "What's Opera, Doc?" comes to mind. Guess WB and Universal were cheap. Both sudios WERE released through two of the biggest names in film.......

-Thad:D

[Jack]

I think Brian once mentioned at the old board that the cartoons could be matted to look like widescreen if the theater wanted to. That's why the "That's All Folks!" card at the end of "Rocket By Baby" looks widescreen. This sort of explains why the tighter rings and such came about in 1953 or so. I think "What's Opera Doc?" would look competely different if it were made in Cinemascope, though.

Maybe we should be thankfull, just imagine how bad the cartoons would look formatted for TV on Cartoon Network:p (bleck)



Jack:D

[Matt Yorston]

It stated in Of Mice and Magic that Lantz' decision not to make CinemaScope cartoons was because he felt the process was "just a fad and not really worthwhile doing". Actually, that's what he said about the 3-D process, not the CinemaScope process, but it continues to say that "for similar reasons, he declined to make any cartoons in CinemaScope". And, yes, there WAS a 3-D Lantz cartoon ("Hypnotic Hick" directed by Don Patterson and starring Woody Woodpecker) but there was no encore for that reason.

I'm guessing the same reason goes for WB's not making CinemaScope cartoons. Remember the ruckus the sole 3-D WB cartoon, "Lumber Jack-Rabbit", caused (Chuck Jones has said that it was the main reason the studio was temporarily shut down in the 1950's, with Jack Warner thinking that babies would eventually be born with "one green and one red retina")?

[Patrick McCart]

ALL post-1954 theatrical cartoons were composed to look great in 1.33:1 (academy ratio) and 1.85:1 (flat ratio).

Notice that information on title cards were made to be smaller and centered in the middle of the frame so that the copyright line couldn't be cropped off.

10 years from now, CN will probably become High-def and they'll show those cartoons matted.

[Jack]

I've often wondered about the pre 1954 cartoons that were reissued. They weren't composed with matting in mind, so they must have looked very strange in theaters that matted them.


Jack:confused:

[J Lee]

Warner's may have adjusted for the wide ratio a little before 1954 -- "Dog Pounded," the first release of that year, was also the first cartoon released with the smaller, centered title cards and tigher concentric circles, but when "Star Wars" debuted in 1977, George Lucas got WB to send up a 35 mm copy of 1953's "Duck Dodgers" for the San Francisco preimere. So that cartoon and others in 1953 may have been adjusted to fit the wider screens before they realized the title graphics were being clipped off, and then adjusted those in 1954.

[Sveven Dvorking]

Originally posted by Patrick McCart
CN will probably become High-def

I would hate CN then. I do not like widescreen TV, plus they would show remastered versions of the post-48 WB cartoons.

[Crazy Tom]

Originally posted by Jack
I've often wondered about the pre 1954 cartoons that were reissued.

Let me help add a question to this: what about the Cinemascope cartoons from MGM and Tom and Jerry that were supposedly going to be re-released in letterbox format? It would be nice, because it gets a bit tiring when you see Tom half-cut off in a scene.

[sun]

Warners were not cheap....It is clearly noted in Lenord Maltons classic book on toons, that Warners paid its animators twice what Disney paid theirs. Warners was union, benefits,etc. Disney was not. They spent more on cartoons, their talent on minute shorts was less than inspired, as Warners talent improved and became great. The format in my opnion doesn't make as much an impact, as the content. Just compare "Dinosaurs" made by Disney last year, with Land Before Time, directed by Don Bluth and Universal (?not sure) produced by Spellberg. You will see quite a difference.. Hope all is well with all...oldtoonguy, Stuart