Nightmare Before Christmas coming next year!

[NoThru22]

Originally Posted by kenliles

also, check the 3-D version out in some digital theaters now...

ken

It gave me a headache and kept me out of the theater for Beowulf 3D.

[JBlacklow]

Originally Posted by Rakesh.S

i wish they would quit announcing stuff 2 years away

Who's announcing stuff 2 years away?

Originally Posted by dvdmonster

Great movie, but announcing movies 1½ year before release is crazy. Maybe HDDVD has won the formatwar by then

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

[Dave Mack]

this fall is 1 and a 1/2 years away...????

[Rakesh.S]

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

this fall is 1 and a 1/2 years away...????

no, but "in the middle to fall of next year. " is

[Bob Black]

NOW I'm getting excited!

Starship Troopers, Dark City, Men In Black, Nightmare Before Christmas...keep 'em coming!

I'd love to see FOX get serious and announce heavy hitters like True Lies, The Abyss, Alien & Aliens...all of which would absolutely ROCK!

[bassmonkeee]

Originally Posted by Rakesh.S

no, but "in the middle to fall of next year. " is

Since when is 14 months, at most, a year a half?

It was originally posted on October 31st of 2007. The first day of Winter of 2008 is December 21st.

So, it's nowhere near close to two years, and even 4 months shy of a year and a half.

Hyperbole for the win!

[phisch]

My wife and I watched this just the other day. I'ts one of her favorites. There is too much singing in it for me. If not for one song after another I would sit still and watch it. That's another reason that I'm a big Pixar fan. You don't get all that singing.

Generally I would agree with you - I not a big fan of musicals either. But, the Danny Elfman songs and soundtrack in this movie is pretty incredible. I'm looking foward to this one.

[Dave Mack]

Originally Posted by Rakesh.S

no, but "in the middle to fall of next year. " is

that first post was from 07

so it's now 5 months away.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by grommet

The movie was shot in 1.66:1, which is less wide than 16:9. If it was anamorphic, the resolution gain would be less than usual and it would need to be pillar-boxed or they'd need to crop the top and bottom. I think non-anamorphic was the right call, personally.

I have the UK DVD version which is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and has been slightly cropped to achieve this. It looks superb but some scenes look slightly cramped at the top and bottom of the screen and it's better than Corpse Bride but i really like both.

I hope they release with the original aspect ratio of 1.66:1.

I have noted that some Disney releases are being released with 1.78:1 aspect ratio's on DVD and something is wrong....The Jungle Book and The Aristocats being just two examples which just don't look quite right on the recent DVD releases.

I am not a fan of cropping to achieve a ratio when a film was never intended to be shown that way.....The Evil Dead for example was cropped in later releases to 1.78:1 and i think the director Sam Raimi was involved in this but still it misses information which should be there and i don't like it.

No one would want the classics from the thirties and forties cropped and neither should releases like this be cropped.

Great movie and i hope they do a superb Blu Ray release.

[desmond212]

Sony just released "A Passage to India" in 1.66:1 so there is a hope for this.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by desmond212

Sony just released "A Passage to India" in 1.66:1 so there is a hope for this.

Wasn't that a 1.85:1 aspect at the cinema ( Surprising too given Lean's fantastic Cinemascope films of the fifties, sixties and seventies )

Maybe it was shot flat using Super 35 and had multiple aspects though.....I'm sure someone here knows and can tell us all.

[desmond212]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Wasn't that a 1.85:1 aspect at the cinema ( Surprising too given Lean's fantastic Cinemascope films of the fifties, sixties and seventies )

Maybe it was shot flat using Super 35 and had multiple aspects though.....I'm sure someone here knows and can tell us all.

shot in 1.66. hbo co-produced it and it had to be close to 4:3.

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by grommet

The movie was shot in 1.66:1, which is less wide than 16:9. If it was anamorphic, the resolution gain would be less than usual and it would need to be pillar-boxed or they'd need to crop the top and bottom. I think non-anamorphic was the right call, personally.

I realize I'm replying to a six-month old post here, but...

Anamorphic pillarboxed 1.66:1 on DVD has about 322,080 total pixels, whereas non-anamorphic letterboxed 1.66:1 has only 277,200. That's a gain of 16% more resolution with anamorphic 1.66:1.

Yes, it's not as much as the 33% gained from anamorphic 1.78:1 or wider, but it's enough for me to conclude that non-anamorphic was definitely not the right call for Nightmare Before Christmas, or any other 1.66:1 movie.

Then there's the issue of how there's almost no satisfactory way to view non-anamorphic 1.66:1 on a widescreen display.

Originally Posted by grommet

My gut feeling is they'll be cropping it for BD; we shall see.

Disney has released a few DVDs with anamorphic pillarboxed 1.66:1 (Aladdin, The Lion King, Tarzan), so maybe there's some hope that the Nightmare Before Christmas BD will also have pillarboxed 1.66:1.

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

I have the UK DVD version which is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and has been slightly cropped to achieve this. It looks superb but some scenes look slightly cramped at the top and bottom of the screen and it's better than Corpse Bride but i really like both.

I hope they release with the original aspect ratio of 1.66:1.

Just because something was shot @ 1.66:1 doesn't mean it was intended to be seen that way. That fact of the matter is that it was never distributed theatrically in America at anything other than the approximate 1.85:1 ratio. I know that the past two years that I have seen it projected at the El Capitan in Hollywood, it has been at that 1.85:1 ratio and that's what I want. I don't want to see what was shot, I want to see what was shown. Or should people hope for a 1.37:1 Back to the Future Blu-ray just because it was primarily shot at that ratio? Unless it was shot AND shown at 1.66:1, that's a useless ratio and seemed more to represent a studio's ambivalence towards going full ratio widescreen or pan and scan (sort of like cropping 2.35 to 1.78- which serves no one).

[nyg]

I too am curious if this movie will be presented in its original 1.66:1 aspect ratio or if it'll be altered to 1.78:1 or God forbid, 1.33:1.

[wyliec2]

Originally Posted by Jason One

Then there's the issue of how there's almost no satisfactory way to view non-anamorphic 1.66:1 on a widescreen display.

Amen to that!!

I'll be first in line to purchase a correctly done, pillarboxed version of Nightmare Before Christmas!!!

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

Just because something was shot @ 1.66:1 doesn't mean it was intended to be seen that way. That fact of the matter is that it was never distributed theatrically in America at anything other than the approximate 1.85:1 ratio. I know that the past two years that I have seen it projected at the El Capitan in Hollywood, it has been at that 1.85:1 ratio and that's what I want. I don't want to see what was shot, I want to see what was shown. Or should people hope for a 1.37:1 Back to the Future Blu-ray just because it was primarily shot at that ratio? Unless it was shot AND shown at 1.66:1, that's a useless ratio and seemed more to represent a studio's ambivalence towards going full ratio widescreen or pan and scan (sort of like cropping 2.35 to 1.78- which serves no one).

This film should always be seen 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

IMDB.com states the original aspect ratio as 1.66:1

This site shows some pics and the overcropping.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...eforexmas3.htm

Read the comments section as the DVD box cases wrongly state 1.66:1 for all versions when only the danish version shows the correct aspect ratio.

From the comments section;
This Danish release benefits greatly from anamorphic enhancement when compared to the R1, and also unlike the UK and Australian release is in its correct aspect ratio (they are both overmatted to 1.85:1). Improved definition is immediately noticeable, although I am a little cautious as to the accuracy of the colors, which seem oversaturated in comparison with the US and UK discs. These look similar to those on the Belgian disc, suggesting the same original source.
One trouble with the R1 - a slightly cropped picture on both sides.

Another source - DVD Times.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=6167

Taken from their article;

The major selling point of this release, in my view, is the fact that for the first time the film is presented anamorphically in its correct aspect ratio of 1.66:1. Previously, all releases were either in the correct ratio but non-anamorphic (see the American releases), or anamorphic but matted to 1.85:1 (all PAL releases). After previously having only seen the film matted, it is a real pleasure to finally watch it in its correct ratio. Almost immediately the improvements to the framing are obvious, with the film looking much better composed and less cramped vertically.

Incidentally, viewers who have previously owned the US release will be pleased to know that the line by the Mayor that was missing from that version ("Hold it, we haven't given out the prizes yet!") is indeed included here.

So i count that as three different independent high quality sources which state 1.66:1 as the theatrical aspect ratio and if your cinema showed it at 1.85:1 then they made a mistake and you were missing details and watching a cropped version.

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

This film should always be seen 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

IMDB.com states the original aspect ratio as 1.66:1

This site shows some pics and the overcropping.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...eforexmas3.htm

Read the comments section as the DVD box cases wrongly state 1.66:1 for all versions when only the danish version shows the correct aspect ratio.

From the comments section;
This Danish release benefits greatly from anamorphic enhancement when compared to the R1, and also unlike the UK and Australian release is in its correct aspect ratio (they are both overmatted to 1.85:1). Improved definition is immediately noticeable, although I am a little cautious as to the accuracy of the colors, which seem oversaturated in comparison with the US and UK discs. These look similar to those on the Belgian disc, suggesting the same original source.
One trouble with the R1 - a slightly cropped picture on both sides.

Another source - DVD Times.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=6167

Taken from their article;

The major selling point of this release, in my view, is the fact that for the first time the film is presented anamorphically in its correct aspect ratio of 1.66:1. Previously, all releases were either in the correct ratio but non-anamorphic (see the American releases), or anamorphic but matted to 1.85:1 (all PAL releases). After previously having only seen the film matted, it is a real pleasure to finally watch it in its correct ratio. Almost immediately the improvements to the framing are obvious, with the film looking much better composed and less cramped vertically.

Incidentally, viewers who have previously owned the US release will be pleased to know that the line by the Mayor that was missing from that version ("Hold it, we haven't given out the prizes yet!") is indeed included here.

So i count that as three different independent high quality sources which state 1.66:1 as the theatrical aspect ratio and if your cinema showed it at 1.85:1 then they made a mistake and you were missing details and watching a cropped version.

Guess what... They're all wrong. Sorry, the correct theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1. Most theaters in America aren't even equipped to show films in a 1.66:1 ratio unless that ratio is printed within the 1.85 frame with black added to the sides (as it would appear on a widescreen TV). Do you know who creates the info that appears on IMDB? Anyone, that's who. Try talking to people who know a bit about film exhibition and technology instead of anyone that can read the back of DVD cover. It's funny that you say the El Capitan showing it at 1.85 was wrong. Do you know what the El Capitan theater is? It just happens to be a theater run by Disney and one of the most well run, technically superior, and respected theaters in the country. In fact, the night I saw it there in 2006, it was preceded by a Q&A with the filmmakers, so I'm quite sure they would have noticed if it was being exhibited in the wrong ratio and that "mistake" wouldn't have been carried over in 2007.

There's no way I'll probably ever be able to convince you since you seem to have made up your mind based on what you've read on the internet elsewhere, but no... the film SHOULD NOT be seen in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. It was designed to be shown at approximately 1.85:1 but was protected at 1.66:1 both for theatrical framing variances and home video. The truth is that most films are shot with additional picture information that is matted out theatrically and, if done correctly, at home as well. Just last night I went to a screening of Back to the Future and the DP Dean Cundy was there for Q&A. When the film began it was misframed and for the first minute or so, there was more picture visible on the top of the screen than is seen in the widescreen DVD. That doesn't mean that the Blu-ray should open up the mattes to reveal that picture just because some believe it's vital information that is missing. It was captured on film but it was not intended to be seen under ideal and CORRECT viewings of the film.

[paku]

Guess what... America isn't the whole World. If I'm not entirely mistaken this would have been shown in 1.66:1 in many European theatres.

A lot (if not most) of the Disney movies of that era were done at 1.66:1 (for example the CAPS animated titles) which would at least to me suggest that the American theatrical exhibition format was not considered the be-all end-all deciding factor of what a movie, as you yourself said, was "intended" to look like. And if the 1.85:1 was the intended ratio for theatres, then 1.66:1 must have been the intended ratio for home video formats (or European theatres), so here's another one: guess what Blu-ray is. I'll give you a hint: it's not a theatrical format.

Anyway, all this bickering is just incredibly silly. The fact that it was shown in 1.85:1 in American theatres and likely 1.66:1 in European ones means both are completely viable ways of watching the film. And the difference is not that huge, certainly not big enough to be crucial to the film in any way. 1.85:1, 1.66:1 or even 1.78:1, it doesn't matter, it's going to be great anyway.

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by paku

Guess what... America isn't the whole World. If I'm not entirely mistaken this would have been shown in 1.66:1 in many European theatres.

A lot (if not most) of the Disney movies of that era were done at 1.66:1 (for example the CAPS animated titles) which would at least to me suggest that the American theatrical exhibition format was not considered the be-all end-all deciding factor of what a movie, as you yourself said, was "intended" to look like. And if the 1.85:1 was the intended ratio for theatres, then 1.66:1 must have been the intended ratio for home video formats (or European theatres), so here's another one: guess what Blu-ray is. I'll give you a hint: it's not a theatrical format.

Anyway, all this bickering is just incredibly silly. The fact that it was shown in 1.85:1 in American theatres and likely 1.66:1 in European ones means both are completely viable ways of watching the film. And the difference is not that huge, certainly not big enough to be crucial to the film in any way. 1.85:1, 1.66:1 or even 1.78:1, it doesn't matter, it's going to be great anyway.

I agree and if you notice I was very deliberate to always discuss it's American theatrical ratio in my discussion. While it is certainly possible that the film has been shown in a ratio taller than 1.85 outside of America, that doesn't make A Nightmare Before Christmas (an American film made by American filmmakers for an American studio) shown at 1.85:1 incorrect. What I'm trying to head off is comments like:

so maybe there's some hope that the Nightmare Before Christmas BD will also have pillarboxed 1.66:1.

I too am curious if this movie will be presented in its original 1.66:1 aspect ratio or if it'll be altered to 1.78:1 or God forbid, 1.33:1.

Implying that anything other than 1.66 is a botch job. NYG is even somewhat equating the 1.78 ratio with a 4:3 crop presentation! Again, he said "Altered."

And I also agree that the bickering is silly, but it's really gets to me when people are adamant about clouding facts with internet folklore when they're not qualified to discuss such. I mean, really, do you agree with Foxy's assertion that when I saw Nightmare Before Christmas in Disney's premiere theater that it was shown incorrectly in front of it's filmmakers? Let me remind you:

if your cinema showed it at 1.85:1 then they made a mistake and you were missing details and watching a cropped version.

I just think Foxy and some others need to learn a bit about soft matting and hard matting and that sometimes matting out picture information is not wrong.

And by the way, I've seen the HD version of the film on Starz recently, and it wasn't 1.66...

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

I just think Foxy and some others need to learn a bit about soft matting and hard matting and that sometimes matting out picture information is not wrong.

And by the way, I've seen the HD version of the film on Starz recently, and it wasn't 1.66...

Even if your theater showed it 1.85:1 it doesn't explain why many reviewers have pointed out the cramped look to the image....That theater probably showed The Jungle Book and The Aristocats in 1.85:1 and Disney released them on DVD at 1.78:1 but that doesn't explain why they look wrong like the picture has been overmatted top and bottom of the frame and chances are they are both 1.66:1 aspect ratio giving the year both were made....Disney have a habit of doing this with some of their animated titles.....You yourself said that American Cinemas cannot show 1.66:1 so don't you think that perhaps a compromise print was struck especially for American Cinema audiences and that what you are seeing is perhaps this compromise whenever you visit the cinema ?

I'm well aware of what hard matting and soft matting is.

Take Body Heat as an example...In it's original matted 1.85:1 version Kathleen Turner appears to be holding something on William Hurts body but we can't see what and we just use our imagination....In the 1.33:1 presentation we find out its all pretty limp and thus the illusion of Body Heat is shattered.....I know about matting but the reviews show comparisons between the 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 versions of Nightmare Before Christmas.....Surely if you check the images you can see this ?

Just check the image comparison pictures...

Here's another site regarding The Aristocats and it's image ratio for DVD.....http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/ - Taken from that site...Anyone can take one look at the image above and instantly tell that something is not right about the framing. It was nice to see this trend reversed for 101 Dalmatians, but that doesn't change the issue of several other titles having been bungled and continuing to be bungled.

Now ok perhaps some sites don't always list the correct information but tell me this....why re-release The Nightmare Before Christmas in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio in the UK if it wasn't the CORRECT aspect for the film....Now bear in mind the first release which i own was 1.78:1 and many considered it the wrong aspect and many considered it cramped and overmatted....

Why would Disney originally release it 1.78:1 and then a few years ago re-release it in the UK at 1.66:1 if it wasn't right...thats all i want to know and perhaps you can answer this for me and who knows you might even acknowledge i am right on this one.

In fact Disney's own site says 1.66:1 so how do you know for sure that what you saw at the cinema was a screen showing a 1.85:1 presentation and not a 1.66:1 presentation....I don't mean to question you on this but it's not like the curtain moves back and they announce the aspect ratio or do they ?

Taken from the Disney site.....http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/mo...s/2010203.html

Technical Specifications:
Not All Technical Specifications Apply To All Elements

• Color
• 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio
• Region 1
• English (Dolby 5.1 Digital), French
• Spanish Subtitles

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

Try talking to people who know a bit about film exhibition and technology instead of anyone that can read the back of DVD cover.

There's no way I'll probably ever be able to convince you since you seem to have made up your mind based on what you've read on the internet elsewhere, but no... the film SHOULD NOT be seen in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. It was designed to be shown at approximately 1.85:1 but was protected at 1.66:1 both for theatrical framing variances and home video.

You see i have trouble with this explanation.

If it was designed to be shown at 1.85:1 then why oh why does it look so much better when shown at 1.66:1 and why oh why would Disney UK who i assume are intelligent and knowledgable and possibly in contact with the director or someone who worked on the film re-release it at 1.66:1. ( when originally they released it at 1.78:1 - Usually film companies only re-release at a different aspect when they got it wrong first time around )

I never take the word of a single person or what i read on the back of a DVD cover as gospel which is what you are suggesting....I do use my eyes though and i do listen and if you have evidence and i mean real evidence to suggest this film should be shown 1.85:1 then i'd love to see it and i will readily acknowledge you are right but to me all the evidence points to this being 1.66:1.....The framing is better and it just works better at 1.66:1

All things being equal too many people think this film should be shown at 1.66:1 for them to be wrong. So yes i think it's possible you saw it 1.85:1 but that doesn't always make it right....

Maybe Tim Burton and Henry Selick browse these forums and could pipe in and tell us for sure.

[Dave Mack]

somehwhere in some interview it's gotta be mentioned...

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Even if your theater showed it 1.85:1 it doesn't explain why many reviewers have pointed out the cramped look to the image....

This is AV SCIENCE, not AV Opinion. Someone random commenting that something looks crampped to them doesn't translate to it being incorrectly presented. I've seen the film shown at 1.85 probably a dozen or so times and I've never had a problem with the framing. Nor should I because the filmmakers would have seen that same framing when the film was shot.

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

That theater probably showed The Jungle Book and The Aristocats in 1.85:1 and Disney released them on DVD at 1.78:1 but that doesn't explain why they look wrong like the picture has been overmatted top and bottom of the frame and chances are they are both 1.66:1 aspect ratio giving the year both were made....Disney have a habit of doing this with some of their animated titles.....You yourself said that American Cinemas cannot show 1.66:1 so don't you think that perhaps a compromise print was struck especially for American Cinema audiences and that what you are seeing is perhaps this compromise whenever you visit the cinema ?

Yes, for the market that represents half of their business (especially in 1993) I'm sure they'll make special prints to accommodate a European ratio. I can't speak to how the El Capitan presented Aristocats or Jungle Book recently because I didn't attend either of those.

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

I'm well aware of what hard matting and soft matting is.

Take Body Heat as an example...In it's original matted 1.85:1 version Kathleen Turner appears to be holding something on William Hurts body but we can't see what and we just use our imagination....In the 1.33:1 presentation we find out its all pretty limp and thus the illusion of Body Heat is shattered.....

That's a different type of "soft matting."

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

I know about matting but the reviews show comparisons between the 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 versions of Nightmare Before Christmas.....Surely if you check the images you can see this ?

Just check the image comparison pictures...

Here's another site regarding The Aristocats and it's image ratio for DVD.....http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/ - Taken from that site...Anyone can take one look at the image above and instantly tell that something is not right about the framing. It was nice to see this trend reversed for 101 Dalmatians, but that doesn't change the issue of several other titles having been bungled and continuing to be bungled.

Did you actually read what is written under that image:

I don't care that this was how they would have been projected theatrically (the chances of finding a cinema equipped to display 1.33:1 material in 1970, when this film was released, would be small in the extreme)

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Now ok perhaps some sites don't always list the correct information but tell me this....why re-release The Nightmare Before Christmas in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio in the UK if it wasn't the CORRECT aspect for the film....Now bear in mind the first release which i own was 1.78:1 and many considered it the wrong aspect and many considered it cramped and overmatted....

Why would Disney originally release it 1.78:1 and then a few years ago re-release it in the UK at 1.66:1 if it wasn't right...thats all i want to know and perhaps you can answer this for me and who knows you might even acknowledge i am right on this one.

Again, I'm not saying that 1.66 is wrong for the European market (which you are clearly a part of). If it was projected slightly opened to 1.66 over there that's fine. As I said earlier, it was protected to 1.66 with the filmmakers knowing that the information might be seen, either in an international screening or the eventual home video release. But I can tell you that they knew with 100% certainty that the film would be projected on film in 1993 American cinemas at an approximate 1.85:1 ratio and would have composed for that. What I have taken to task is the notion that anything other than 1.66 is "altered" or "a mistake." Again, if Disney themselves project the film at 1.85:1, you might want to acknowledge that I am right on this one. Good lord, I used to have a 1.90:1 laserdisc of The Abyss that contained more picture information than the theatrical release... doesn't make it the correct ratio.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

Again, if Disney themselves project the film at 1.85:1, you might want to acknowledge that I am right on this one. Good lord, I used to have a 1.90:1 laserdisc of The Abyss that contained more picture information than the theatrical release... doesn't make it the correct ratio.

Maybe you are right...who knows... maybe i am....I'm just wondering why Disney would release 1.78:1 over here ( I own that one ) and then re-release at 1.66:1 over here...It just seems inconsistent.

No disagreement from me on anything here even if it seems i am disagreeing ( just healthy debate ) i'm just wondering whether 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 should be used and who knows maybe as you say both can be used.

[Goatse]

Is this movie shot with SLR like Corpse bride?

[Dave Mack]

No, I believe it was a 35mm movie camera, exposed one frame at a time.

[wyliec2]

After having watched this movie many times seeing the entire 1:66 image, I don't see how ANYONE could conclude that this movie was intended to be seen other than at 1:66.......so what if it was shown or distributed at other ARs out of ignorance or convenience.......IMHO this is supposed to be 1:66 period.

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by wyliec2

IMHO this is supposed to be 1:66 period.

And the key in that sentence is "IMHO"
Just because you're fond of your opinion doesn't make it fact for the rest of the world.

[wyliec2]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

This is AV SCIENCE, not AV Opinion.

But I can tell you that they knew with 100% certainty that the film would be projected on film in 1993 American cinemas at an approximate 1.85:1 ratio and would have composed for that. What I have taken to task is the notion that anything other than 1.66 is "altered" or "a mistake." Again, if Disney themselves project the film at 1.85:1, you might want to acknowledge that I am right on this one.

Guess it's debatable (and no I won't debate - see wrestling with pigs analogy) whether the movie was designed for 1.66 with framing so as it wouldn't be totally destroyed when cut to 1.78 or 1.85.

Similarly a movie may be shot knowing that some parts will be censored in certain areas - that doesn't alter the fact of what really constitutes the 'ENTIRE' movie.

I clearly labelled my feeling as opinion because I'm not sure how anyone can establish it as fact by themselves - and considering you reject the FACT that IMDB, Amazon and the vast majority of references list the movie as 1.66 aspect ratio. The two US release versions I have had were both 1.66 - maybe they were mistakes.

http://www.dvdreview.com/html/the_ni...christmas.html
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...echristmas.htm
http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=74...reviews&CID=18

Finally, as regards the Disney reference, please contact them ASAP to correct their Nightmare Before Christmas website which lists the movie as 1.66 aspect ratio (NOTE: this is a FACT).

http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/mo...s/2010203.html

[William]

Originally Posted by Goatse

Is this movie shot with SLR like Corpse bride?

Corpse Bride was shot using a digital SLR and not a 35mm SLR. Nightmare Before Christmas was made before this was technically possible.