The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (1 Viewer)

[JeffMc]

In all due respect to both sides (and I do apologize to Jack if I did come off as rude - sorry!), I think we all have to remember that these studios are a business and, unfortunately, not primarily a film preservation society. I've worked for video labels in the past and know how budgets can be severely cut for certain titles, how hard it is to get some films released at all, etc. It's all based on projection of potential sales for each title. Sometimes major titles eat up the budgets of smaller ones. It's very likely Universal was testing the water with this release. Maybe they have received numerous requests for titles of this nature to be released on DVD, but based on their past VHS and laserdisc sales, none of these titles did well at all. Those employees at Universal who fought to get this set out there by any means possible (very low budget allotment, etc.) realized they could only do so much to deliver a set at a sell-through price that could be tested for an exclusive period at Best Buy only. You never know how much battling and adjustments of budgets and green-lights and cancellations go on behind-the-scenes. In a way, we should be thankful that any of these titles are seeing the light of day at all. I do believe there are still people at Universal and the other studios that love these older genre films and push to get them released with full bells-and-whistles, but they are up against a bureaucracy of number-pinchers and 20-year-old financial-advisor business-suits. It really is amazing that they are putting INNER SANCTUM, Boris Karloff, and 50's sci-fi out at all, and all at once! Maybe things are turning around...

Although I believe, as I hope others do, that this SCI-FI set is a more than 'adequate' release and reason to rejoice overall, I do understand others not being happy that it may not be definitive and that the films do deserve better treatment overall. Believe me, if a HD set of matted widescreen transfers of these films shows up next month, I'll snatch it up immediately and be thrilled. But for the time being, at least I have the films in very presentable (yes, four of them maybe 'wrong' open-matte versions) - at only $4 a piece. Sometimes life makes you compromise a little.

 

[Steve Christou]

Here's some shots from The Incredible Shrinking Man -

 

[Jack Theakston]

Thanks for the screen shots, Steve. It's nice to see that Universal transferred these films genuinely open matte.

Jeff, no offense taken. Sometimes you have to be frank to get your point across (it is, admittedly, a very confusing topic). Perhaps I was too frank. I think you also may be right that Universal might be testing the waters through Best Buy with this release. Generally I don't complain about this sort of thing-- the DVD industry is hurting pretty bad right now, and there are some companies that will be blowing out back inventory at low prices in the next few months because of this.

Let me clarify that I can't fault Universal for putting out a budget release. It just is what it is. But what irked me was when they put out the press release this month that the transfers that they've done were open matte because that's the actual way they're supposed to be seen. Sure, they're the studio, but most of the people running the place weren't even born yet when these movies were released, so like us, how are they to say? It doesn't seem like they did research on the topic enough.

One final note-- after thinking about how expensive my previous thought of putting two editions on one disc was, it occurred to me that there was another solution to this situation, at least for SD viewers. An option that is often overlooked on DVDs are subtitles. While they can generate text, it would also be possible to generate bars on the top and bottom of the screen to simulate letterboxing. Maybe such an option could be used for those with SD sets sometime in the future.

 

[Jack Theakston]

My point of view:





For me as a critic, the compositions of the shots are just as important as what is going on in the film.

EDIT: I'll also add that the UK television master for TARANTULA is 16x9.

 

[Steve Christou]

But why release Shrinking Man in widescreen and not the others? What is this pic n mix? Unless there are no widescreen prints of Tarantula in existence? I'm just glad I'm not like you Jack never ever buying some of your favorite films because they keep getting released unmatted? Not a chance. Reminds me of the stance some Star Wars fans are taking with the non-anamorphic originals, waiting indefinitely for a better release which may never come. I guess I have a completely different attitude to a lot of people here, and I'm a lot happier because of it.

 

[Jack Theakston]

SHRINKING MAN got a widescreen treatment because of the reasons I previously mentioned. The department sees that shots throughout the film are hard matted, so there's no real solution but to do a widescreen transfer. If they did a full frame transfer and zoomed in on those sections, they'd increase some pretty nasty grain built into it.

As for the others, I think it's a case of ignorance. Either they know and don't care, or they simply don't know.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I watched The Incredible Shrinking Man last night. Great sci-fi classic, especially since it deals with such an absurd concept with complete seriousness. The feeling of isolation is scarier than that cat or the spider. The transfer was really nice... it looked a little dupey (since it has a heavy amount of effect shots), but film-like. The effects aren't perfect, but they're very convincing otherwise. I'm guessing a lot of forced perspective was used along with travelling matte?

 

[Richard_Gregory]

I think you need to remember that these films, and many others like them, are only seeing a DVD release because of the massive DVD user base. Much as people like us love them, they are never going to be big sellers (compared with something like Star Trek or Spiderman-2 anyway). These are (in many people's minds) hokey old black-and-white monster movies, and they are not in the same league as say Frankenstein.

But the sheer size of the DVD market still means it's worth it for a studio to release them - they are still profitable.

This means that to get an HD release, the HD user base will need to be at least as large as the current DVD one, and it will need to have been that way for a decent period of time.

And, by that time, there's no real reason to assume that Universal would do any better job of a hypothetical HD release, anyway. And more than they felt the need to do anything over the VHS release now.

So I think you're at least in for a long wait, and possibly, you'll get nothing at the end of it.

 

[WadeM]

If I would be getting this set for something other than TISM then I would return it (if it ever comes in the mail!). But since TISM is the main movie I want, I'm keeping it. Open matte is not acceptable, it's just better than P&S--meaning it's much more watchable than P&S, but Universal really screwed up here, and I wouldn't be happy if I were buying this for something like Tarantula. Unlike some other people, I've always thoroughly enjoyed Universal's sets (partially because I never had a problem with the double-sided discs) and thought they've generally done a good job. According to other DVD news sites, Universal also stated that these are brand-new transfers. If a studio is going to do a new brand new transfer (and tell people that), then there's just no excuse to not make sure they're done right.

 

[dpippel]

I'm sure we would, but your stance here has been based on your assertion that 1.85:1 is CORRECT, not merely adequate. Those of us who don't find open matte to be a huge issue on these titles are the ones who have been saying that the open matte presentation is adequate and you've been adamantly arguing against that.

At any rate, I'm not saying that I think you're wrong about the framing. If these films were indeed projected in the theater at 1.85:1 then that's how I'd prefer to experience them in my HT. What I have a problem with is someone inferring that they know what the director and/or DP were thinking during the filming process when they obviously cannot. My opinion is that since the composition of these films look great in the 1.37:1 frame, they were filmed with BOTH aspect ratios in mind. Those are my final thoughts on the matter.

 

[RickER]

I watched the first 3 movies so far. I love them. Thanks Universal for putting this stuff out. I hope to see more.

 

[Stephen PI]

Jack, thanks for clarifying this information which I briefly mentioned in message #165 and then retracted in #167!

 

[Todd Mattraw]

The key phrase in the above quote is "consideration for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio" --- doesn't that mean that the films were composed with both aspect ratios in mind? And that therefore, though the one ratio (1.85:1) may be more correct, may have been the ideal, the other ratio (1.37:1) isn't incorrect, that it was understood that at some point, in some places, this open matte projection would be used? And that what Universal clearly should have done is supply us with both versions on one disc? Double sided DVD-18's (just kidding on that).

I bought this Tuesday, have enjoyed 3 of the 5 films, and I do feel that "Tarantula" especially has too much headroom, while "The Monolith Monsters" would have seemed kind of tight at 1.85:1 and so looked "right" to me open matte.

I went ahead and got this despite what I have read here over the last few weeks, as regards aspect ratio, even though I had considered myself to be a stickler in that regard. I made a decision to buy anyway --- I neither feel guilty about that nor do I feel the need to tell anyone else that they too should compromise their principles. It seems to me that one can buy this set, knowing the ratios may be incorrect, and simply admit that one is compromising; I give all due respect to those that refuse to buy it for that very reason --- those hardliners have helped us all over the years, and I think we all share the same goal: the best and most faithful presentation possible.

Todd

 

[Randy Korstick]

-

 

[Steve Christou]

Me too. The Monolith Monsters is the only other one I want from this set, maybe it'll be released seperately on region 2 eventually? Matted or unmatted I'm buying.

The Deadly Mantis is a creature feature I'd like to see released one day. I have the MST3K edition which was hysterical but I would like to own the film on dvd without the jokes.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Formats cannot be compared equally as far as releases go. I previously had VHS and Laserdisc. Laserdisc was superior to VHS in everyway and was designed to be a replacement for it but because of poor marketing and Pioneer being the only manufacturer for far too long it remained a niche or cult item. So following your model many old and or cult films should have never come out on Laserdisc but from about 1990 on many old and cult films were released on Laserdisc that were on VHS, others were released at the same time as the VHS release and in some cases some were released on Laserdisc only including many 50's sci-fi and monster movies. So every format is different. Since many old films including those by Universal are already having HD masters made that is reason to believe these could be out alot sooner than you think. Like previously posted why are so many waiting for an anamorphic version of the original Star Wars. That is likely to be a much longer wait.
This is a budget release and some seem to be happy with Zoomed in Open Matte transfers vs. OAR just because its $20.00 and they seem to need to justify their purchase for some reason. But why would it not be acceptible for the studios to release all films non-OAR as long as they are value priced. That seems to be the message we are sending to the studios.

Jack
I believe you were right when you originally said these were zoomed in Open Mattes after watching Tarantula and Monolith last night. The screen shots above do look fine but there are some other shots were I noticed very little headroom which would also explain the grain in these films that is not on older Universal films already released such as Inner Sanctum, Karloff, Abbott and Costello. Its similar to Horror of Dracula were everyone focused on a few shots where heads were being cut off when the rest of the film looked fine. I don't get why so many complained about that but are not complaining about these equally poorly released films.

 

[Steve Christou]

Now we're into zoomed-in mattes? Because there's little headroom in a few shots? *groan* Randy you absolutely refuse to believe or even entertain the idea that Tarantula may have been filmed with both 1.33 and 1.85 (or preferably 1.66) ratios in mind and that there is no wrong ratio here. Jack must be right, don't buy this set?

 

[Randy Korstick]

We've been talking about zoomed in mattes on the past 2 pages. There is evidence supporting that these were filmed 1.85 there is no evidence only speculation that these could have been filmed with both 1.33 and 1.85 in mind. I refuse to believe in pure speculation when there is evidence otherwise and what I can see with my own eyes. Why not assume Horror of Dracula could have been filmed with 1.66, 1.77 or 1.85 in mind and the DVD is perfectly acceptable. We have the the 1.66 ratio based on studio and press info on how the Hammer films were filmed which is the same info we have on these Universal films.

 

[Bradley-E]

I watched The Monolith Monsters last night. It was actually a good movie and would be a great remake.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Randy...

I am sure there are documents out there that says 1:85, 1:66, or whatever but that may be reflecting only how it was shown in theaters rather than how it was filmed? Why is it so hard to conceive that a movie may have been filmed in 1:37 then matted for the release? I am equally sure it depends on what source you read keeping in mind that it is only as good as the person writing it. A review may have been written about a movie 50 years old by someone who is 20 years old and relied on second-hand sources with no validation. We must keep an open mind.

I still feel that Open Matte is not a bad thing since you don't loose any of the picture. Why are people so adamite about the black bars above and below that masks picture under it? I can see the problem with P&S but...???

At the same time, would we even been having these discussions in 1997 or 1998 when DVDs first came out? Compression artifacts, anamorphic widescreen, restored, etc... were not even thought about (moot points) as we were just glad to get the movie in this format with a sharper image than VHS. If we lived with things without complaining then, why should we be acting like spoiled selfish egotistical children now?

Give it a rest concerning Open Matte!

Eric