The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (1 Viewer)

[WadeM]

If people don't complain, then you'll always be stuck with what you've always had. If it weren't for people complaining about the things they care about, then we'd still be stuck with P&S, or chopped movies, and some movies that have already been released open matte wouldn't have been revisited by the studios and released matted. , and these movies would have been released on double sided DVDs. It took complaints from consumers to get movies released properly and we're better off for it. When you have a low standard, you get a low quality product.

As far as who's correct about these aspect ratios, until I see evidence to the contrary, the evidence points to intended widescreen and if people don't complain, they'll NEVER be released widescreen. If the evidence one day turns out to be wrong, then fine, but someone should produce that evidence.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Eric
Again Why is it so hard to follow everything in this thread that has been repeated so that we don't have to keep repeating it. Yes there were studios that filmed in 1.37 and then matted to widescreen but as already shown with articles previously in this thread Universal did not do this after 1953. They filmed in 1.85 so Universal was not one of these studios. Your information is coming from a Universal Rep who most likely fits your description of a 20 year old without all the facts or knowledge of these films they just wanted to sell a DVD without the expense of new masters so they could do it cheaply.
If we are talking Zoomed in Open Matte which it appears this is then you do loose some of the picture as well as introduce unecessary grain.

For the record I stopped buying VHS a few years after I bought my 1st Laserdisc player in 1986 when I knew VHS was worthless. So all the issue like restored, widescreen, etc. were a big deal since around 1990 and discussions and feedback to studios back then helped pave the way for what we have on DVD.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I still don't find VHS always and totally "worthless", in the sense that I still have THE DEADLY MANTIS here on tape until it gets released to DVD. But fortunately, I am now able to unload my MONOLITH MONSTERS, TARANTULA, MOLE PEOPLE and MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS videocassettes!

 

[Jack Theakston]

My "opinion" is based on fact: if it looks like it, smells like it, tastes like it, it is. Ok, I wasn't there, I don't know what the DP or director wanted, but does Universal? The only key to our past is through documentation and review, and apparently no one has done that.

PS. I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!

Just kidding.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Thats True Joe. For many years I kept my VHS for old movies, Sci-fi, monsters, Abbott and Costello, etc. that weren't on Laserdisc but I have not had a VCR in my house for 5 years now and have been getting rid of my VHS little by little since then. Maybe I should have said "highly inferior to" instead of "worthless"

 

[Randy Korstick]

Hey one positive about all this bickering is that a thread about old sci-fi monster movies is nearly 8 pages long now

 

[Steve Christou]

DVDWatcher? The DVDWatcher? I'm impressed. I'm so happy the forum changed it's policy on using real names. So, do I refer to you as Mr.DVDWatcher or... can I just call you Watcher? What's all this about lowering standards? If it's a film I really really want and it may only be available unmatted on dvd, should I ignore it and wait and wait and wait, hoping it'll be eventually released with the top and bottom chopped off to give it that widescreen effect or risk lowering my standard and upsetting people like you by buying it now? I saw Tarantula, zillions of times, in this ratio, it doesn't look weird or odd or strange, it will probably look weird or odd or strange if it was released in some pseudo-wide ratio.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Steve, you might have missed it, but his real name (Wade) is listed below his handle.

 

[Douglas R]

I don't know if this helps but many years ago the National Film Theatre in London held a 50s sci-fi season and I went along to see, amongst others, The Monolith Monsters and Tarantula. These were 35mm prints and I distinctly remember noticing what, for me, was the unusual 1.33:1 projection ratio. Clearly the NFT considered that to be the correct ratio.

 

[WadeM]

That's Mr. DVDWatcher to you!

I am not upset that you buy whatever you want and it's your choice whether you wait or not. I prefer to wait. It's plain and simple: if you're happy purchasing movies that are shoddily done, then that's a lower standard. Just like someone who gets into HD has a higher standard than me, because although HD looks great, my lower standard than HD is fine with SD. If you're happy with a lower standard of not having movies presented in their proper aspect ratio, then that doesn't bother me, but don't expect me to jump on your bandwagon. I am disappointed that some will go around calling someone a "spoiled child" just because they complain that something isn't done right or have a higher standard. It's all relative.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I don't consider these DVDs "shoddily done". Now, whether they're shoddy movies is another story.

 

[RickER]

Same here. It would be shoddy if all 5 were on one DVD 18.

 

[WadeM]

True..I exaggerated to make my point. Just don't call TISM shoddy, ok?

 

[Randy Korstick]

I don't consider any of Universal's DVD-18's shoddily done either but thats also all relative and another story and I wouldn't have cared if this set was DVD-18's or not as long as the transfers were done right but they weren't. Why shouldn't people complain about DVD-18's if they can't get them to work. Sounds legite to me even though I have never encountered it or personnaly known anyone who has encountered it and have my own opinions on it. Why did people complain about Horror of Dracula? How do they know what the director of photography intended. I wouldn't call those people spoiled children either. So why shouldn't people complain when Universal presents films that are not OAR based on info and press releases from the studio itself. No facts have been presented on the other side that these films were also filmed with 1.33 in mind. I grew up with them that way on TV is not a valid answer since we grew up with all widescreen movies in pan and scan also. So does this make Pan and Scan ok if we grew up with it that way? Still sounds like a double standard going on here.

It may not be shoddy but its the most dissapointing of the Universal sets I own and I own alot of them with the grainy transfers and no OAR except for TISM. Its definately a set put together fast, on a budget and with no real regard for the films.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Wade, it's kina like this for me. I have and always watched my DVDs for the past 8+ years on 20-27" tube televison sets. To me, anamorphic DTS and HD don't mean a thing to me. I am sure I am not in a minority here with the average person buying DVDs on the open market. Now years down the road when HD or Blu take hold, then I may reconsider but no way am I going to replace my $20,000 worth of DVDs just to up to HD.

On the other hand I am a child of the 50s-60s. I remember the days of only two or three television stations and some going off the air at sunset. We watched these movies on snowy ghostly round b/w screens using rabbit ears and the entertainment value was still there. Then came video tape and all various types of pre DVDs formats until our disc hit the market in 1997. It has only been 9-years since we were able to buy DVDs yet we "demand" perfection every time?

I am happy just to get scarce movies, public domain fare, along with the classics on DVD at all rather they be open matte, non anamorphic, no frills, or unrestored. It is better than none at all especially when studios are trying to give people what they want in a market that is slumping at a price point that will sell which means often sacrificing the extras. We aren't talking about Gone With The Wind, James bond, Star Wars, etc... we are talking about low budget 'B' drive-in movies here.

Eric

 

[Jack Theakston]

I think that is what it is boiling down to for some. Did you see these movies on TV for years open matte or did you see them in the theater widescreen? Obviously whatever your accustomed to is what you'll decide is right for these films.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, maybe for these movies because they're Open Matte. But I can assure you that, even though I first saw BEN HUR on television, I would not be tolerant of a full screen presentation. BIG difference.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I used to say the same until I got hit with DVD-18s that refused to work. I realize this is not the topic at hand, Randy, but why else do you think Universal abandoned them?

 

[Randy Korstick]

I honestly don't see a big difference. You are either Pro-OAR or not. These films whether Open Matte or Zoomed in Open Matte are not OAR. I guess there is an in-between stage that I wasn't aware of. That if the movie is not a big budget classic then it doesn't deserve respect and if we saw it on TV that way then its ok for the DVD to be non-OAR.

 

[Steve Christou]

1.33 eh? That is interesting, considering how fanatical the NFT are about film. Jack says he saw them projected at 1.85 back in the mid 50's (wow how old were you Jack? ) and Douglas saw them at 1.33.... hmmm I was right, there is no wrong ratio here. That's it we can all go home now...