MovieChat Forums > The Black Stallion (1979) Discussion > Black Stallion Widescreen ?

Black Stallion Widescreen ?

posted 20 years ago by film_phreak
21 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone know if there is a true widescreen version of this great film available on DVD? Also does anyone know the aspect ratio this was filmed in?
I think this is one of the greatest films of all time.When people talk about what film is better than another they often refer to different things. One person might be referring to the story line, while another person is into the performance of the actors or the costumes, realism, style...etc. I love FILM.I personally am mostly influenced by the camera motion,angles and shot duration.Also the "texture" of the picture itself.I even find myself attracted to movies that are well shot but that I hate the story line. A perfect example of this is "The Shining" which has some of the best camera motion ever.
GETTING TO THE POINT: The current MGM release of this DVD has both standard and widescreen version on the same disc.However a side-by-side comparison of the movie shows it to ba a WIDESCREEN FAKE ! ! ! They took the standard version of the movie and actually added black bars which makes the movie smaller and totally ruins it. I am surprised Coppola allowed this.
I also am planning to go to film school and saw this in the theatre when I was 10 yrs old.As someone who is very into film and loves this movie I really would like to see the whole picture framed as Coppola intended.

[–] mgr1900 20 years ago

HOLY SMOKES! It is a fake widscreen. I never would have caught that. You don't see any additional image on the sides of the supposed widescreen version when you compare it to the full screen version. That's not cool. If you think about it, I don't know of any dvd that can hold two 2 hour movies on the same side of the dvd. The supposed widescreen version is simply the full screen version cropped. The box refers to it as "the widescreen version." There is no wide screen version. The box says "Widescreen Version: Presented in a matted format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exibition." If you read that like a lawyer, it IS presented in the original aspect ratio but it doesn't say they cropped the tops and the bottom off to make it happen. That's not fair. What's the point of preserving the aspect ratio if you are going to cut away image in the process?

Also, what's up with the theatrical trailer? It's really weak. They could have at least included the widescreen version.

Anyway, if you look at the technical specs, it says that the movie was shot 1.85:1.

I really think this movie, despite great reviews, is truly one of the most underated films of all time.

OK, MGM Boneheads! If any of you are reading, this, this movie needs to be put on DVD in a true widescreen format.

[–] haruuj 20 years ago

Too true. When I bought the DVD Black Stallion a few years ago, I noticed that the 'widescreen' was a FAKE. I did a comparison of both versions on the disk, and you are right, it is just the fullscreen with the top and bottom cut off. What a rip-off!

The film print itself is scratched and dirty.

MGM made ZERO EFFORT for this DVD, plus, they have deceived buyers by calling this a WIDESCREEN, which it is not.

Awful good cereal flakes Mrs. McDonough!

[–] beatthe9ers 20 years ago

For good or ill I have emailed Roger Ebert aka The Answer Man and asked him to get to the bottom of this. While I doubt this fits into his parameters of only answering questions of 'interest to the general public' I also know that he is a big fan of the film, so maybe he'll take an interest.

Anyone know how to contact MGM directly. If what you say is true it is shameful, this is one of the most beautiful pieces of film I have ever seen.

I have not rented the film on DVD, so I hope you guys are right.

[–] rjbell4 20 years ago

sigh... no, in all likelyhood, the widescreen version is not "fake". If anything, the full screen version is "fake". I believe that this film was shot on 4:3 film, with the intent of been shown in 16:9/1.85. This is a common practice. In esssence, the black bars are intended by the director. However, when converting to full screen, the studio takes the easy way out. Rather than taking the time to perform a "proper" pan & scan, they simply drop the black bars. This can result in the addition of visual information that the director never wanted you to see. For instance, in the movie "A Fish Called Wanda", there is a scene where John Cleese's character is supposed to be naked. However, in the full screen version, with the black bars dropped, you can clearly see that John Cleese was actually wearing pants. It completely ruins the seen and the director's intent.

[–] beatthe9ers 20 years ago

Hmmm...that seems weird. I rented it this weekend, so all I can go with is what I saw myself. What the dierectors intention was, or how it was originally filmed or viewed I don't really know.

First of all, in looking for reviews of the DVD (to try to get some info on this charge) I found what appears to be two different releases, though perhaps I am wrong. One DVD looks to have been released in 1997 and contains a widescreen version and one labeled 'standard'. The other looks like it was released in 2002 and only contains a widescreen version.

The copy I rented from blockbuster is dated, on the DVD itself, 1997. Both 'versions' are on the same side of the DVD.

I went to the set-up menu and choose 'standard' to see what I got. I have a Samsung DLP TV in 16:9 ratio. The standard format filled the entire screen, no empty space on either the top or sides. Everything looks proportinal.

I went back and chose widescreen. Bars on top and bottom (obviously). In viewing it that way, everything looked a little stretched. Faces appeared wider than they should be. I asked my wife to look at it without telling her what I was doing and her first comment was, "Is it supposed to look like that?"

So, back to standard, fast forward to 6:06 into the movie. The shot is of Alec, on the boat, climbing up on a railing. Pausing it you can get a good sense, from the vertical posts of the railing, of how much is included int he shot in terms of width. You can also, in the standard format, clearly see the bottom of his feet and the rail that he is standing on.

Switch to widescreen. 6:06. There is Alec, in terms of width, there is no additional material in the shot, which is odd. Additionally, you can no longer see the bottom of Alecs feet of the rail he is standing on, they are now cut off, just a little. Plus there is the added feature of young Alec looking a bit wider than normal.

My conclusion is this: Somehow, for some reason, the widescreen version both cuts down on the amount of viewable picture AND stretches the remaining picture to fit the widescreen ratios. I do not think that the above assertion is disputable in any way, though I encourage you to look for yourself. This is the 1997 version.

I can not totally confirm that there is a seconf version from 2002, but I am going to try to find it.

I will, of course, report back.

Oh, a brief FYI. I watched the film in the 'standard' set up. It was, just as I remembered it, terrific.

Okay, updating this. It now looks like the 2002 version I was looking at is simply yhte year that they released the two-pack if Black Stallion and Black Stallion Returns. Too bad.

I have sent a note to MGM through their website asking for information, but I am not hopeful.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beatthe9ers 20 years ago

No response from Ebert or MGM. This may have to go into the Cold Case file. Disappointing to hear that a more recent version still contains the same problem.

Damn you, MGM!!

[–] ImTylerDurden 16 years ago

Technically the R1 release Widescreen side of the disk is a matted non anamorphic format. The Full screen side is unmatted. As far as the issue goes with getting this re released with better picture quality; They certainly could restore a print but viewing in widescreen will show up more of the grain than full screen since your picture will be zoomed in. Making it anamorphic will improve the quality slightly but on old standard 35mm prints this could always be a problem. Super-35 got round this by being a much better quality 3:4 stock than can be matted and blown up to 2.35:1 with no loss of quality. This was championed by James Cameron who was shocked at the pan and scan botches made on the video releases of his movies. He shot his later movies in 3:4 with a 2.35:1 layover on the monitor, in that way the fullscreen version was set in stone and the 2.35:1 version was simply created by matting the top and bottom. To me the R2 release seems to have better picture quality (Pal is higher resolution than NTSC) and they've done a 5.1 conversion on it but they botched it with distortion during the race which is unforgivable since they sound was a major major part of that sequence.

[–] downtoterra 20 years ago

Just saw it in widescreen on HDNet from D*. I was 8 yrs old when I saw it and actually enjoyed it more than when I was a kid. High defintion was nice too.

[–] malbox4me-imdb 20 years ago

I recently ran a 35mm print of THE BLACK STALLION at screening where its director, Caroll Ballard was present. There's a very simple explanation for all this aspect ratio confusion. The film was shot full frame 35mm or to put it another way--in a 3x4 (TV) aspect ratio. BUT- the shots were composed in the camera using 1:85 guidelines superimposed over the image in the viewfinder. This gives both a standard (TV) and 1:85 capibility from the same film. The 35mm print has a full size image on it- - but was intended to be shown in theatres with a 1:85 lenses & aperture plates. On TV it was just shown using the full frame image. SO adding a black bar to the top & bottom of the picture for the widescreen video gives exactly the image the director intended. There was nothing to "pan&scan". I could have shown this movie in either 1:33 or 1:85, but after checking with the director he said it was really intended to be shown in the 1:85 aspect. The only difference between the two versions is that you're going to see more sky and more foreground in the 1:33 version. Adding the "black bar" to the top & bottom of the video version was not some cheap shortcut- - it was what the director & cinematographer intended.

[–] beatthe9ers 20 years ago

I'm going to have to disagree. Not with what you say about how the film was shot or how it was intended to be viewed, but with the idea that your explanation (and it's a good one) solves the issue that I am seeing.

If the film was intended to be seen in 1.85 (9:16) then why why does the 'widescreen' version have black bars on my 9:16 television? It effectively is showing me a 2.25 aspect ratio. If it was not filmed that way, how are they getting it that wide? My own lying eyes tell me that the advertised 'widescreen' version is just stretched out.

I am pleased to hear that the original version is 1.85. This means that the 'standard' view available on the disk I rented was providing me with the full film. It does not, however, excuse MGM for stretching the film to try to make appear to be wider than it is.

[–] JSMalahy 19 years ago

I decided to try your little picture test from a couple of months ago (pausing at the 6:06 mark in both formats).

Let me say first that I also have a widescreen TV, a 16:9 Panasonic. Your descriptions of the frame contents are correct - the 1.33:1 version simply removes the excised space at the top and bottoms of the screen, revealing - in this particular shot - more gray sky above and his feet/bottom railing below.

The problem is, the 1997 disc (which is the release we both watched) DOES stretch out the picture in BOTH the standard and widescreen formats, and the obvious explanation for this is... da da da dum... the disc was made in 1997, before the rise of widescreen televisions and DVDs that are "enhanced for widescreen TVs." This particular disc was not created that way, and assumes that the TV we're watching it on is in the 3:4 aspect ratio, so it fills up the screen in the "standard" format and adds black bars in the widescreen format, all the while stretching the picture horizontally to account for the extra space.

(You said the standard format wasn't stretching the picture? I honestly don't see how that is possible. (?) Check it again, perhaps?)

An easy way to solve this issue is switch the television's aspect ratio (which I can do on my TV remote with a touch of a button) to 4:3, which pushes the image back down to a "normal" size, in both widescreen and standard versions of the film. The widescreen version will now have bars on all 4 sides, the standard only on left and right.

(After I've done this, I can also "zoom" in, filling in the left and right sides of the screen and losing the excised space on the top and bottom of the 1.33:1 frame, and making the picture an unstretched 16:9. Unfortunately, the picture quality dramatically decreases when I do this, so I usually will watch discs like this [including all films originally shot in 1.33:1 - everything made before 1953 and some shortly thereafter] in the 4:3 format by manually switching it on my TV, giving me bars on the left and right and un-stretching the picture.)

The solution to this problem is for MGM to release an edition that IS formatted for widescreen TVs, which the 2002 version may be. Anyone know?

[–] Ed-117 19 years ago

>The solution to this problem is for MGM to release an edition that IS formatted
>for widescreen TVs, which the 2002 version may be. Anyone know?

My R2 DVD is that way. It's from 2004 and the picture looks perfectly okay. Trailer is still non-anamorphotic though.

[–] TVFreak1010 17 years ago

You're 100% correct.

The film production used what is known as a "Soft Matte". What that means is the film is shot on standard 4:3 film stock (actually 1.37:1, so slightly wider than 1.33:1, which is 4:3). During shooting, the director of photography uses guides to ensure the action stays in the 1.85:1 frame. The film is then masked for the theatrical showing.

For the home video market, those masks are removed for the 4:3 version so that nothing is lost, but extra unnecessary elements appear on screen.

Now, in regards to the DVD, the widescreen version is a true representation of how it looked in the theater, but it was mastered before anamorphic discs were common. As a result, it's simply letterboxed 4:3 video, rather than anamorphic widescreen.

You have to set your TV to 4:3 mode in order to view it properly. Unlike an anamorphic DVD, which is squashed horizontally using non-square pixels, this widescreen version uses square pixels and is simply letterboxed in the 4:3 frame. A true anamorphic frame using non-square pixels would expand horizontally to nearly fill a 16:9 TV frame, or be squashed vertically to letterbox on a 4:3 TV. Both methods produce a proper image without distortion. Instead, on a widescreen TV, the image actually displays with black bars on all four sides in order to display without distortion.

To sum up, they need to re-release this DVD for region 1 with a proper anamorphic transfer.

[–] edokter 18 years ago

Why oh why didn't they use anamorphic lenses? That way, widescreen would actually *add* to the picture. Now it's the other way around. I just can't decide which is the 'better' version... I know it was intended to be shown 1:85 'matted' (top and bottom cut off) the the full-frame version adds so much more beautiful scenery to the film.

Now, if I would see things like boom-mikes, dolly tracks or crew crawling over the ground in full-frame (like you see in many other movies shot in full-frame), I'd feel a lot better watching the matted version, but Caleb Dechanel didn't even make those mistakes!

[–] TVFreak1010 17 years ago

Few directors shoot with anamorphic lenses. It's expensive and often causes distortion with straight lines. It also limits the types of lenses you can use, since not all focal lengths are available in anamorphic formats.

Honestly, since the scenery, the race and other elements lend themselves to a wide, horizontal view, I really would have preferred if they had gone with a wider cinemascope 2.35:1 format instead of the narrower 1.85:1.

[–] dcornibe 18 years ago

First I wanted to share a short little story of how I came to see and love The Black Stallion as one of my all-time favorite movies. It really happened when, as a 10-year-old kid, like any other 10-year-old kid at the time, I ANXIOUSLY wanted to see The Empire Strikes Back. Well, all the tickets were SOLD OUT for that movie, and I was pissed. But my parents offered a substitute movie to see that day, and The Black Stallion happened to be playing that same day (it must have been held over, since the official release year for "Stallion" was 1979 and the release year for "Empire" was 1980). Anyway, I was grumbling for awhile going in, but then I ended up just loving The Black Stallion and was so glad I got to see it. Needless to say, I still got to see The Empire Strikes Back at a later date, and the rest is history...

Anyway, about the widescreen thing. Yeah, one of the greatest sources of information for me as to how movies are shot and about the exact process of widescreen filming was Widescreen Review magazine. I definitely recommend it. It is VERY extensive and thorough. At least it was several years ago; I don't know how it is today. When I opened that magazine, I noticed several pages packed full of text, with some very clear illustrations. More text of really good information than there was advertising or fluff material. They explained there are actually two widescreen formats in film currently: 1.85:1, or "Academy Flat", as they explained; and 2:35:1, the really wide widescreen, also known as "Panavision", or more generically, "anamorphic". The former method is where the cinematographer does what the previous poster said - shoots in full frame 35mm, 4:3 aspect ratio (the film people tend to refer to it as 1.33:1), like television, then crops the top and bottom to make a 1:85 frame during projection. This shooting method is often called "shoot and protect", because the director and cinematographer try to make sure that even when they shoot full frame, they protect the top and bottom from any obstructions like boom mics and so forth. Except someone made a goof when making "A Fish Called Wanda". The latter method of shooting widescreen, "Panavision" or "anamorphic", involves a special distorting lens on the camera that squeezes everything vertically onto a 4:3 frame. (You may have seen old VHS tapes where, at least for the title sequence or something, everyone looked extremely skinny, just so they could fit the widescreen titles on TV.) Then, when that vertically distorted image is run through the projector, the projector has the opposite kind of lens that stretches everything out again so it's 2:35 on the screen.

Anyway, I would recommend Widescreen Review and American Cinematographer as two of the best magazines on how movies are shot (including lighting, lenses, and formats). The latter magazine I would probably recommend more for those really interested in filmmaking.

[–] dasbismarck 19 years ago

It's not a "fake" widescreen, the film was actually filmed in fullscreen ratio and then CROPPED for theatrical release. The version on the DVD IS the version that was released in the theaters, theres no "missing" version in "true" widescreen..

This is done more often than you might think, most recent example I can think of is "The Mummy" remake in 1999. Compare that full screen version with the widescreen version and you'll notice the same thing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OmegaWolf747 17 years ago

Maybe, but it's still a poor way to do it. Widescreen should always show extra stuff on the sides that you don't get to see in 4:3.

--
"House. My room. Can't walk. My father! My medal! Father, don't!"