The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (1 Viewer)

[Jack Theakston]

Certainly glad to hear you and your friend were busy enjoying the movie, Joe!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, we still watched and enjoyed it! Took us all of a few seconds now and then to make those comments during a 70-something-minute feature!
Added to the experience too -- you know those cheesy ol' fifites flicks!

Yep, we certainly enjoyed it as opposed to not seeing it. Did you run your 35mm print last night...?

 

[Richard_Gregory]

Much as I hate to resurrect an old argument, and in the wrong thread as well, but this reasoning is demonstrably faulty, because owners have been able to exchange discs that won't play properly for ones that will - on exactly the same equipment.

Similarly, some people have exchanged sets with a problem disc, and the new set has a disc that screws up - that did not in their first set.

This lead me to conclude, some time ago, that the problem does not lie in the authoring, in in players, but in the manufacture of the discs. Although this is complicated by the fact that some players do indeed cope better with the fault-laden discs than others - hence thoughts that the problem is located in players.

This is supported by evidence that the few DVD-18's utilised by other studios are very often manufactured in Taiwan, not the Mexico Deluxe factory, and that the Taiwanese ones have far, far lower incidences of problems.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I'm not saying the New York Times was necessarily RIGHT. I'm just saying what their critic said. I usually disagree 100% with that newspaper. You should read their silly review of the Inner Sanctum set this week.

However, the review of "This Island Earth" did make a good case that it was composed for a 1.33:1 ratio. The New York Times isn't ALWAYS wrong -- just most of the time.

 

[Michael Warner]

I watched "The Mole People" last night using the same zoom function I used earlier in the day with "Tarantula." Whereas "Tarantula" looked perfectly framed for widescreen, "The Mole People" did not. Many shots featured cut off heads, archaeological items appeared below the screen, etc. I had to switch back to 1.33:1 viewing as I was missing too much visual information in widescreen mode. To my eyes this transfer certainly appears to be more than just open matte as a strict matting to 1.85:1 or even 1.66:1 would have left out too much of the image. I can't imagine a director framing a shot in such a way that an item being discussed is completely out of the picture.

So in my continuing less than scientific study of this set so far I'm at:

"Tarantula" -- Open matte and most certainly shot to accomodate widescreen showings.

"The Mole People" -- Not open matte and this transfer does not support widescreen viewing. Whether that means it was shot for 1.33:1 viewing or this transfer features a zoomed in image I can't say. Sean's earlier screen images show that many of the effects shots appear to be designed with widescreen in mind but the bulk of the rest of the film just doesn't look right in that mode.

 

[James@R]

I watched Tarantula with a friend, and simply asked him to restrict his field of vision. By only viewing the area which was meant to be seen at any given time, this resulted in a much better experience for us both.

Everyone remembers in OAR anyway, right? I think I read that once.

 

[pitchman]

Here is DVD Savant's take on this set...

 

[Jim_K]

Well I finished off the last of the set yesterday and I'm satisfied.

Not going to delve into the OAR debate as both sides have good points.

I will say this:

Had these been Pan and Scan transfers of scope films I would have passed.

I can justify supporting OAR with the inclusion of The Incredible Shrinking Man which is great to finally own.

Of the 4 open matte films, the two I care the most about (Tarantula and Monolith Monsters) looked fine framing wise to me.

In many instances the proper OAR on many films is not laid out in clear black and white and there are many compromises I've made over the years (over-matting on Horror of Dracula, 2 cropped releases of Apocalypse Now, the open matte Kubrick titles , etc, etc, etc, so this wouldn't be the first.

Each of those examples are more severe compromises than this Sci-Fi set IMO.

For those passing on this set for the open matte issue, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise or even state that you're wrong for doing so. To each their own.

 

[TonyD]

tarantula and monolith monsters looks passable on my small 30in philips, flat, as savant refers to it.

the philips also has a 16x9 zoom mode that.

using this, both tarantula and monolith, framing wise looked "right"

the credits fit perfectly in the frame and everything else during the movie
seemed like it "felt" better while watching this way.

 

[Stephen PI]

I watched "Monster on the Campus" this morning and it framed perfectly in 16x9.

 

[Stephen PI]

Also can you remember where you read this?

 

[Jeffrey:K]

Has anyone noticed that there are no chapter menus for any of the films in this set? Is this a common practice with Universal classic sets, or is it just this one?

 

[TonyD]

that doesnt happen much anymore.
the chapters are there just not on the menu

 

[John Morgan]

I just received this set and they look fine to me, although I have a question or two.

First off, at the point (near the end) of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN where the spider is punctured by the needle and the goo or blood starts to slowly descend, there seems to be a kind of freeze frame that is accompanied by a hiccup in the music. I don’t have the laser edition anymore, but I don’t remember this being the case in that edition. It seems that scene is a few frames short. I don’t think there was ever a censor cut there, but something seems amiss.

Also, MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS plays fine on my more expensive SONY, but my cheaper Panasonic player won’t read the disc. It tries to load, but a message comes up “This type disc can not be played. Insert another disc” I cleaned the disc and turned off the player and reinserted the disc, but it just won’t play on this machine. DVDrs and all my other discs seem to play fine. Could there be some “trigger” thingy that is missing? I am not up on technology.

Thanks...

 

[Richard_Gregory]

Plays fine on my Panasonic and Pioneer players.

It's a DVD-5 disc, which are usually the most reliable of them all, being the least complex in construction.

Sounds like you have a bad disc.

 

[MichaelEl]

I still wish someone would explain why Universal would choose *not* to matte these films. Masking off the tops and bottoms of a digital image just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. It's possible I suppose they thought open matte looked better in some way, but the framing clearly indicates a widescreen format.

 

[Danilo S.]

MichaelEl,

I'm almost sure they make the DVDs in this way simply beccause they saw the full frames on this films. I have worked here in Italy with same guys of the home video companies: they don't know almost nothing about movies history, they are more marketing people (and not the best ones). :frowning:

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Just watched THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN. And correct OAR or not, the picture quality left much to be desired on that one.

 

[TonyD]

censor isnt the right word for what that appears to be.
i doubt anything was intentionally removed do to content.

looks like a slight jump cut, missing frame.

i never saw the laser so i cant compare.

 

[Stephen PI]

So far I have watched all the films except for "The Mole People" of which I have just seen the opening and I think Universal need some credit for the great sound on these discs. Except for some distortion in high passages, there is no wow or flutter and no indication of high frequency roll off. The fantastic scores of these films and the great sound of the Universal scoring stage is well preserved.