How's the LD version of this? I'm really not a fan of DVD's, but Disney hasn't seen fit to release it on Blu-ray. I've seen it's allegedly only sort-of P&S?

Its really pan and scan.
If you love the film then get the DVD you won't be sorry.

I remember there was an issue with the first DVD issue????? don't know what it was or if it was even a real issue.

It's not. It's actually a flat transfer from an anamorphic print which is why everything looks horizontally compressed.

It needs a 2:1 stretch to look correct, but it will actually show more information in the frame than a properly matted release.

It looks decent with the 1.33:1 stretch all 16:9 displays make available.

Yes but too bad the film is actually 2.35, so even while it's partially squeezed you are still missing image on the sides.

In this case you're not. Most 2.35:1 film is shot on 4:3 film stock.

They use an anamorphic lens to do a 1:2 horizontal compression and they use its inverse lens (with some matting since 2*4/3=~2.67) during projection.

An example from Star Wars (a 2.35:1 film shot with an anamorphic lens): http://thumbs3.picclick.com/d/l400/pict ... -Cells.jpg

4:3 film. See how the image is all squished?

I understand and know what squeezed is even shot on 4.3 etc. I'm not one of the newbies that watches films on my TV with
super large black bars on the top and bottom making a 2.3 film look like 3.1 and not knowing what an aspect ratio is.

I owned the LD and also the DVD when i had a flat screen set to give the full image, i still lost on the sides.
There are some films that have a sort of squeezed image on LD but unfortunately they are still not a squeezed film.

If you want to prove me wrong then you will have to post pictures unsqueezed, i no longer own the LD as it was still missing on the sides.
Thanks,