Were the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies originally shown in widescreen.

[ALK]

They were shown in movie theaters. Or were they shown as they are shown today. I thnk I heard that the MGM cartoons were shown in wide format. I could be wrong.

[Sogturtle]

They were shown in movie theaters. Or were they shown as they are shown today. I thnk I heard that the MGM cartoons were shown in wide format. I could be wrong.

ALK~

ALL the Warners cartoons were made and released in classic 'golden rectangle" (1 to 1:33) format. The MGM cartoons except for the comparatively small group of mid-'50's Cinemascope toons, were also all made in the classic format.

[cbrubaker]

Just so were clear, the only widescreen animated shorts were late 1950s Disney, Terrytoons, and MGM.

Walter Lantz refused to make his film widescreen after his lone 3D cartoon.

[Jack]

Just so were clear, the only widescreen animated shorts were late 1950s Disney, Terrytoons, and MGM.
Don't forget UPA, which made a number of CinemaScope cartoons.

Also, even when made in fullscreen, most theatrical cartoons from the mid 50's onward were composed so that they could be shown in widescreen by masking off the top and bottom of the frame. That's why the LT/MM concentric circles got "tighter" in the mid 50's.

[Studio Toledo]

Don't forget UPA, which made a number of CinemaScope cartoons.

Also, even when made in fullscreen, most theatrical cartoons from the mid 50's onward were composed so that they could be shown in widescreen by masking off the top and bottom of the frame. That's why the LT/MM concentric circles got "tighter" in the mid 50's.

I always have some thought that those shorts could be HD-compliant since you could cut off those parts of the screen and it might not hinder enjoymnet of watching them at home.

[cbrubaker]

I wish HD ratio is similar to the regular TV, so you won't lost parts.

Or just air those shorts done full screen inside a square. It'll look small, but better than nothing.

[Patrick McCart]

I haven't seen a WB cartoon that would look right matted to a widescreen ratio.

Besides the CinemaScope cartoons from MGM, Disney, and Terrytoons, no one seemed to be very interested.

Cartoons look great in windowboxed form on 16x9 monitors, anyways:

[Daffysleftfoot]

I think I heard that the MGM cartoons were shown in wide format.

The widescreen format was invented in 1955 or somewhere around there. Only a few MGM toons around that time used that format.

Y'see, movie screen had always had the 1 to 1:33 ratio. However, when television was introduced to the masses in the late 40's and became a phenomenon in the early 50's, the theatres suddenly had this stiff competition to contend with. So, the widescreen format was invented. From that point on, if people wanted to see a movie in all it's glory they HAD to go to the theatre. It would lose something if just seen on TV during the late late show or whenever. I guess MGM and some other studios felt the need to adapt to widescreen in order to stay in business. For some reason, the people at Warner Bros. didn't feel this way. (Perhaps they thought it was too expensive. Or maybe they over-estimated the appeal of 3D movies and were leary about jumping on another bandwagon.)

[cbrubaker]

(Perhaps they thought it was too expensive. Or maybe they over-estimated the appeal of 3D movies and were leary about jumping on another bandwagon.)
More likely. The WB animation department was briefly shut down and they layed off their staff, due to the failure of "Lumber Jack Bunny". It was reopened 6 months later and most of the staff returned (one of those who didn't return was Eddie Selzer, who was replaced by a cameraman John Burton)

[ALK]

Did Burton leave after that? I'm think that he only produced two shorts. That would be Knighty Knight Bugs and Mexicali Schmoes which were both Oscar nominated.

[J Lee]

Twentieth Century Fox held the original license for CinemaScope, which is what the other studios had to license in order to produce films -- cartoon or otherwise -- in that widescreen format. Warners opted never to get that license, but to merely resize their regular cartoons for the option of appearing in a wider sceen format than the 1 1:33 ration.

What's strange is Paramount Pictures opted not to license CinemaScope, but instead to create their own widescreen process, VistaVision (which actually fits the new HDTV screen ratios better than CinemaScope) and made a bunch of movies with it in the 50s and early 60s, but never had their animation studio do the same. Paramount simply did the same thing as Warners did and tightened up the titles and credits in 1954 so that the top and bottom of the cartoons could be cropped out for wider screen projection.

[Barb Herholzer]

Twentieth Century Fox held the original license for CinemaScope, which is what the other studios had to license in order to produce films -- cartoon or otherwise -- in that widescreen format. Warners opted never to get that license, but to merely resize their regular cartoons for the option of appearing in a wider sceen format than the 1 1:33 ration.

What's strange is Paramount Pictures opted not to license CinemaScope, but instead to create their own widescreen process, VistaVision (which actually fits the new HDTV screen ratios better than CinemaScope) and made a bunch of movies with it in the 50s and early 60s, but never had their animation studio do the same. Paramount simply did the same thing as Warners did and tightened up the titles and credits in 1954 so that the top and bottom of the cartoons could be cropped out for wider screen projection.
Didn't VistaVision run horizontally through the projector, instead of vertically like standard formats?

And I wouldn't say that the WB cartoon studio shut down due to "the failure of LUMBER JACK RABBIT," but because of the overall shifting away from the 3-D format in general by all of the major studios.

[J Lee]

Didn't VistaVision run horizontally through the projector, instead of vertically like standard formats?

And I wouldn't say that the WB cartoon studio shut down due to "the failure of LUMBER JACK RABBIT," but because of the overall shifting away from the 3-D format in general by all of the major studios.

The projection was different with VistaVisio (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm)n, (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm) going sideways through the projector. But the ratio of what was seen on screen was more in line with today's standard Panavision films and with the HDTV format than CinemaScope, which is still too wide to show on a widescreen TV without some minute letterboxing at the top and bottom of the screen.

Part of the reason Warners shut down was due to the cartoon backlog -- they could (and did) keep the releases going for two years after the shutdown. The studio reopened when it was decided people didn't want to wear those annoying red and blue cardboard glasses while they were in the theater, but it took 16 months from the time the reopening occurred to the time the first new cartoons ("Sahara Hare" and "Tweety's Circus" from Friz's unit) made it into theaters.

[Daffysleftfoot]

It was reopened 6 months later and most of the staff returned (one of those who didn't return was Eddie Selzer, who was replaced by a cameraman John Burton)

Actually, Eddie was back after the shutdown was over. In fact, it was Eddie himself who blocked What's Opera, Doc? from the Acadamy during Oscar consideration time.

[Chooch]

The projection was different with VistaVisio (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm)n, (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavision.htm) going sideways through the projector.

Take another look at your link. The camera negative was shot horizontally, but the print was projected in the conventional vertical orientation.

[Patrick McCart]

For the first few years of VistaVision, prints were indeed shown at theaters in the special 8 perf horizontal 35mm format. However, the studios more or less switched to using dye-transfer Technicolor reductions on normal 35mm. Since VistaVision already had 2x as much picture information, the resulting 35mm Tech prints were beautiful.

Sadly, a lot of the VV films that did have 8 perf prints shown in theaters were badly worn from the overprinting. In the 1950's, a lot of Eastmancolor films were printed directly from the camera negative. As a result, many VistaVision films are available on video from lousy prints. For example, The Court Jester is from B&W normal 35mm separations. You're talking about the resulting print being five generations away from the negative. Now, if you want to get a look at what VistaVision originally looked like, see the restored versions of Vertigo, The Gunfight at the O.K. Corrall, and High Society on DVD.

It's kind of a pity that VistaVision wasn't adopted for animation, though. CinemaScope really depends on extremely good compositions (the best examples I've seen are The Thief and the Cobbler and The Iron Giant).

[cbrubaker]

I think "The Iron Giant" and "Thief and the Cobbler" was done in Panavision, not Cinemascope. In fact, they stopped using Cinemascope in 1967.

[Patrick McCart]

I think "The Iron Giant" and "Thief and the Cobbler" was done in Panavision, not Cinemascope.

Well, I mean the 'scope ratio. Formalities aside, there's not a huge amount of difference other than the optics and the exhibition prints. I don't want to explode anyone's head with the full information on the million different aspects to widescreen processes. :befuddled

Speaking of Thief... I'd kill for a DVD of Richard Williams' Raggedy Ann & Andy film in the original 2.35:1 Panavision format. It's not often that a children's matinee is shot that way!