Talk:Touché, Pussy Cat!

Pan and scan

When Touché, Pussy Cat! was relesed in 1954, both Academy format version and CinemaScope version were relesed, but the REAL original film is Academy format version , NOT CinemaScope version. The CinemaScope version is made from Academy format version(by Pan-and-scannig in vertical direction). When Touché, Pussy Cat! was broadcasted on tv, they Pan-and-scanned CinemaScope version(in horizontal direction) instead of using the original Academy format version film. Touché, Pussy Cat! was Pan-and-scanned TWICE. In the Tom and Jerry Spotlight Collection is the first-time-Pan-and-scanned film, while in the dvd released in Japan is the second-time-Pan-and-scanned film.

Images in this article are changed, because new ones are original and more detailed, while old ones are darker.Myoet 12:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you make excellent points, but the pictures you posted are blurrier and less clear than the ones that were already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinP1983 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you prove that the cartoon was released in the Academy format initially? By all accounts it was initially released in the CinemaScope format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinP1983 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think all these pictures can explain this. I post these pictures in three parts, my question is: "How to explain the existence of the pictures in the first(left) part?" If the cartoon had been released in the CinemaScope format initially, there only should be pictures in two(middle and right) parts. Why the middle part shows the CinemaScope format was made from the left part by Pan-and-scanning?
  • Maybe I can't prove this, but pictures in the left part demolishes the claim that the cartoon was released in the CinemaScope format initially.Myoet 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• It would make sense that they shot the cartoons in both Academy and CinemaScope versions but released the CinemaScope version theatrically - it was after all, a pioneering widescreen technique, designed to draw audience back to cinemas, which were rapidly losing revenue due to the increasing popularity of TV - they would almost certainly have released it in CinemaScope initially to take advantage of the format.MartinP1983 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems that, first, they produced the Academy version in the first step, then, they Pan-and-scanned the Academy version into the CinemaScope version in the second step, and then, they only released the CinemaScope version theatrically(or initially released it theatrically before releasing the Academy version) in the third step. Anyway, no matter which version was released only(or initially) , they Pan-and-scanned the Academy version into the CinemaScope version instead of Pan-and-scanning the CinemaScope version into the Academy version as usual. THE ACADEMY VERSION IS THE REAL ORIGINAL.Myoet 14:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The film -and many other early CinemaScope animated films - was photographed initially in both formats - Academy and CinemaScope, at more or less the same time. Southbound Duckling was shot in both formats as well, as was Disney's Lady and the Tramp. Both versions were apparently made available, the CinemaScope version for CinemaScope equipped theaters, and the Academy version for theaters not yet equipped for CinemaScope. This was not achieved by doing a "pan and scan" - a technique not yet invented in 1953/1954, but by framing and rephotographing the cels and backgrounds.

Please, when editing, remember that this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and language like "so called widescreen" is non-encyclopedic. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but non-free images may not be in talk pages. TobytheTramEngine 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Touchepussycat3.jpg

Image:Touchepussycat3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom's death

split in two by an ax? typical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.19.150 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This has to be renamed mouse musketeer

Disney owns the rights to mouseketeer, so they can't use this.