# Stuporbabies: Pitting the baby "geniuses" at Sony (warning: long) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 4, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078 "2005-01-04T19:46:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/21 "2005-01-05T13:31:26Z")
this is, whithout doubt, one of the best threads ever. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Pepinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/90db22/32.png) [@Pepinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pepinator)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/22 "2005-01-05T16:11:57Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I used to keep a little picture comparison I clipped out of an industry mag taped to the front counter. It showed DaVinci’s “The Last Supper” as Widescreen and Pan and Scan (the old name for “Fullscreen”). With Pan and Scan, you lose 2 1/2 disciples. Not to hijack, but you wouldn’t happen to have a copy of that image or know where I could find one, would you? ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/23 "2005-01-05T17:04:44Z")
> [@MidnightRadio](#): > > I searched Amazon, but couldn’t get any info there, either. So, I have nothing useful to contribute to this thread, except the Amazon description of the movie (bolding mine): > > In this high-adventure sequel to the **smash-hit** “Baby Geniuses”… Hey, that reminds me of something else I was going to comment on. I was going to comment on the fact that the box of the _Superbabies_ DVD featured the tagline “America’s favorite talking babies are back!” but I realized that’s just puffery. (I’d figure it was the Rugrats.) As for calling _Baby Geniuses_ a smash-hit…well, since they made a _sequel_ to it, I’m guessing yes, sort of. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/24 "2005-01-05T17:22:17Z")
> [@mobo85](#): > > As for calling _Baby Geniuses_ a smash-hit…well, since they made a _sequel_ to it, I’m guessing yes, sort of. I wonder how many people need to buy tickets to a movie in order for it to be a “smash-hit”. My guess is it takes no more than 10. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/25 "2005-01-05T17:29:02Z")
> [@Pepinator](#): > > Not to hijack, but you wouldn’t happen to have a copy of that image or know where I could find one, would you? I’m sorry, I don’t. It was in Video Store Magazine about 7 or 8 years ago. But you can make your own. According to [this site](http://www.dvdreview.com/html/lingo.shtml) , “While TVs usually have an aspect ratio of 4:3 (4 units wide, 3 units high), movies vary from 1.78:1 to 2.35:1 and almost anything in between” While I can’t find the original dimesions of “The Last Supper,” the most complete images of it on the web agree that it has roughly a 2:1 aspect ratio, making it a rather wide widescreen. On [Snopes’ image of the Last Supper](http://www.snopes.com/glurge/lastsupp.htm), for example, it shows up on my flatscreen monitor as 13.2cm wide and 6.5cm tall To bring this to a Pan and Scan ratio of 4:3, we can, for the ease of my math skills, diminish the height to 6cm and the width to 8 cm. We then lose…uh…more than I said before. Sorry, it’s been a while. We actually lose 4 and 2 halfs disciples, assuming we’re keeping the image centered over the Big Dude in the Center. We lose the two disciples off each end, and half of the green-cloaked guy with a beard on the viewer’s left, and half of the wildly gesticulating man in blue to the right. In fact, we have a disembodied arm waving dramatically at Godknowswhat, which emphasizes how artistic merit and mise en scene is lost to Pan and Scan. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/26 "2005-01-05T17:34:27Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I wonder how many people need to buy tickets to a movie in order for it to be a “smash-hit”. My guess is it takes no more than 10. It’s like this: _Baby Geniuses_ wasn’t just a bomb, it was a _huge_ bomb. A “blockbuster” is a huge bomb. Ergo, _Baby Geniuses_ was a blockbuster, and “blockbuster” is synonymous with “smash hit.” _Baby Geniuses_ was a smash hit. ---
**Author:** ![DeadlyAccurate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@DeadlyAccurate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadlyAccurate)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/27 "2005-01-05T17:36:43Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I wonder how many people need to buy tickets to a movie in order for it to be a “smash-hit”. My guess is it takes no more than 10. I don’t know, but I do know that the original played at the local 3rd run theater near my old apartment for _months_. Seriously, it became a running joke between me and my husband, because that movie never seemed to leave the theater. I’ve never seen any movie stay at a 3rd run that long. ---
**Author:** ![MidnightRadio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@MidnightRadio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MidnightRadio)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/28 "2005-01-06T06:43:23Z")
> [@DeadlyAccurate](#): > > I don’t know, but I do know that the original played at the local 3rd run theater near my old apartment for _months_. Seriously, it became a running joke between me and my husband, because that movie never seemed to leave the theater. I’ve never seen any movie stay at a 3rd run that long. I’ve heard of first run and second run (the dollar movies, right?), but not third run. That must be a really crappy theatre. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/29 "2005-01-06T09:52:34Z")
[Baby Geniuses](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/BABYG.html) Released in US - March 12, 1999 Total US Gross - $27,151,490 Production Budget - $13,000,000 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/30 "2005-01-06T15:13:41Z")
So they made $14 million. That’s a “smash hit”? Isn’t that like saying a movie opening on January 3rd is “the funniest comedy of the year”? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/31 "2005-01-06T16:45:12Z")
By coincidence, I was reading the reviews of this movie last night because I wasn’t clear that the commercial I saw was for the DVD release and not the cinematic release. Otherwise, I was going to propose a new front-runner for the “worst movie of 2005” race. The reviews are just \* brutal \*. The critics actively and unanimously loathed this movie. To the point where the only editing that would make sense would be to remove everything but the previews of coming attractions from the DVD release. I’m guessing that reading the reviews would be vastly more entertaining than watching the movie. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/32 "2005-01-06T17:21:05Z")
> [@](#): > > So they made $14 million. That’s a “smash hit”? Well, they did double their money for it. I suppose that it was sort of a smash hit dollar for dollar. Mostly, of course, it was because there were 27 million $ worth of people who simply hadn’t heard anything about it and felt like watching a random movie. > [@](#): > > They recalled The Black Cauldron with no reason given whatsoever, and even purged it from their movie listings for over 15 years before finally re-releasing it not long ago. It was a very, very strange denial of a movie. Did anyone ever find out why? It wasn’t as popular as the big classics, but it wasn’t really a bad movie, either. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/33 "2005-01-06T18:01:14Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Did anyone ever find out why? It wasn’t as popular as the big classics, but it wasn’t really a bad movie, either. I never did. They’re denying the denial now. But it wasn’t listed in that big huge book o’ movies we got bi-annual updates of at Blockbuster. Not by writer, director, actors, nothing. IMDB simply says " Suspended from video release for years due to its dark content." But what I’m saying is that even official listings of movies MADE by Disney didn’t have it listed until recently. I believe it was the first one Roy Disney (as one of the writers) had his hands into after Walt’s death. I do know that it was the first ever Disney animated theatrical release to receive a PG rating. This made a foray into surreal land when Disney announced they were expecting _Hunchback of Notre Dame_ to become “the first ever Disney animated theatrical release to receive a PG rating” (it wasn’t PG in the end, it was G. It should have been PG, IMHO.) Color me very 😕 . I clearly remembered _The Black Cauldron_ as having been PG (as it was), because it meant my mom wouldn’t take me to see it, and I had to trick my dad into taking me. Got into a lot of trouble for that one, lemmetellya. All in all, a strange Disney Mystery. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/34 "2005-01-06T20:19:11Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > [Baby Geniuses](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1999/BABYG.html) > > Released in US - March 12, 1999 > Total US Gross - $27,151,490 > Production Budget - $13,000,000 For the sake of comparison: [Baby Geniuses 2: Super Babies](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/BABY2.php) Released in US - August 27, 2004 Total US Gross - $9,109,322 Production Budget - $20,000,000 Whith any luck, this will convince the suits at Sony that a Baby Geniuses 3 is quite unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![Phelan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Phelan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phelan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078/35 "2005-01-06T20:52:56Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Hmmm… the Sony website is fairly cryptic, saying only that the film “…has been slightly edited for content from its original theatrical release. These changes occur in menu chapters 21 and 22.” > > Remarkably, no amount of Google or GooJa searches turn up _any_ commentary on what the actual changes are. We may have actually discovered a unique specimen – a movie so utterly without merit that not even a single internet critic gives a damn about the minutiae concerning changes to the DVD release, even when the distributors did their best to call attention to it. > > Shocking. > > Chapter 21 and 22 would probably be pretty late in the film. It’s just possible that the theatrical release contained a double-penetration scene and a lengthy mopping up of santorum which escaped the notice of the handful of people who stuck it out that long. They edited it so the baby fired second. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stuporbabies-pitting-the-baby-geniuses-at-sony-warning-long/283078.md?page=1)