The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (2 Viewers)

[Joe Karlosi]

Waiting for the release where they're all anamorphic widescreen? Not going to happen.

 

[JPCinema]

They look openmatte to me. There seems to be nothing missing from the image...except the anamorphic "Shrinking Man".

They look open matte to me. There seems to be nothing missing from the image...except the anamorphic "Shrinking Man".

 

[pitchman]

According to IMDB, the correct filmed aspect ratio for The Incredible Shrinking Man is 1.78:1.

Yes, there is grain in the transfer but when you take into consideration all of the compositing required for special effects and the age of the film, I don't think it is excessive. This is easily the best presentation of The Incrdible Shrinking Man I have ever seen on video. As always, YMMV.

Overall, I think this set is an incredible value and Universal did a MUCH better job with the transfers than they did with This Island Earth.

 

[Randy Korstick]

All 5 films should have been 1:78.1. None of these films were composed for academy ratio. The only film being presented correctly is Incredible Shrinking Man. The other films are not being presented in OAR and its too bad that this forum used to be pro-OAR but times have changed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This forum is still pro-OAR which is why I'm not buying this release!




Crawdaddy

 

[Michael Warner]

Well as much as I would like to have all of the films in their correct OAR I would gladly pay $20 for "The Incredible Shrinking Man" alone so buying this set was a no-brainer for me. I've had a TCM airing of that movie clogging up my Tivo for about four years now.

 

[James@R]

I'd just rather share these film with others now, instead of waiting years for an aspect ratio only I will realize is the original one.

I can't see calling someone in 2011 and saying, "Remember, years ago, you wanted to watch that film but I wouldn't let you? Well, guess what?! We can finally watch it in its original aspect ratio!!! Hello? Hello?"

 

[Bradley-E]

I only know these films FULL FRAME because of Television plus I owned the Laserdisc collections, so this is really no big deal to me. They are all open matte anyway. The only Scope one I know of is The Land Unknown which Universal had OAR in the Laserdisc box set.

 

[Patrick McCart]

They're truly open matte, so I don't think it's the same as P&S. It's unfortunate they're not framed at 16x9 (lots of headroom).

I picked it up at Best Buy yesterday and it looks pretty good. I can pick some up and mail them if one cannot get to a Best Buy.

 

[bob kaplan]

Movies such as these were the reason i got into home video in 1980 with the first DiscoVision discs of DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF....,and THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (i still have these too...why i don't know!!!). i grew up watching these on t.v. and have always found them great fun (even in the 3 x 4 presentation that t.v. used way back then).

i still enjoy them today even in the open matt (perhaps because i wasn't educated to the proper things in life), and i confess, they do "seem" a bit better "composed" watched zoomed in (except for SHRINKING MAN of course).

If they were pan and scanned, i know matters would be different and i would avoid them. But the whole image is there. i imagine when the USA is nearly 100% 16 x 9, and it is profitable to do so, they maybe released in OAR...but by then....i won't be watching anything 'cept a big pile of earth above me.

i appreciate the fortitude of those that are willing to forsake such releases as these and demand proper releases, since it is those people that have caused studios to dig back and find the best prints, correct OAR, and sound elements. But it IS people such as i, that encourage to release titles such as these in the first place. It may be a bit too simplistic, but if they did not sell,....not matter what the reasoning, they would not be released... Tis probably a bit of a vicious circle.

Please keep up your demands. Maybe the next releases (i am hoping for things like....THE LEACH WOMAN, THE DEADLY MANTIS, MAGNETIC MONSTER, etc) will be OAR and i won't have to zoom-in.

 

[scarabus]

I'm not that familiar with the aspect ratio of each of these films, but, isn't it possible that, though the studio officially started shooting all films widescreen in 1953, some filmmakers composed the shots to utilize the full 35mm frame, maybe leaving room for matting in theaters? I know some filmmakers did not like the advent of widescreen, as it complicated composing shots, and many felt it 'gimicky'.

Harryhausen, for example, prefered the full 35mm frame, knowing his films would be shown on TV for future generations to be exposed...perhaps the thinking was the same amongst other directors? Just a thought...it seems this idea hadn't been discussed.

I'm 100% OAR, but we should remember, this was a transition period in cinema, much like the introduction of sound to film, or color, where many creative people opposed the switch.

Later

 

[Craig Beam]

I too am a zealous OAR advocate, but open matte is NOT pan & scan. I bought the set, and in no way do I feel that my principles have been compromised. It's a great set at a great price.

 

[Johnny Angell]

While I'm thrilled to have these movies (especially Tarantula) on DVD and believe the set is a good value, I have ambivalent feelings about it.

One one hand, I'm sad to see some favorite movies valued so lowly. I would also have dearly loved to have had a commentary on Tarantula and the ISM. A documentary on a par with The Creature from the Black Lagoon would have been welcome. I would have piad $50 for this set with such features.

Wasn't Tarantula a very successful movie when released to Theaters? Are these movies perceived to have such little value?

A sidenote on BB's shipping using USPS. There's a sticker on my padded envelope that it came in (today, Wed) saying "Please Deliver on Tue or Wed". Fat chance of it being delivered before than, considering when it was shipped.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I forgot to mention that the exterior cover art looks much better than I expected it to. I think it does capture the ambience of these movies.

I find it odd that what may be the least of the movies, is the one that has a disc all to itself, Monster on Campus.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Exactly.

I'm curious to know (from those who are adamant about resisting owning these releases) to what degree do you demand the original theatrical presentations to be idential at home? --- Specifically, suppose these films were shot in open matte using the full 35mm image -- and then, when they were shown in theaters of the day, they were actually "compromised" on theater screens, to show in the movie houses on wider screens ---- is this really the "true" way they were meant to be seen? If we're talking scope films which were specifically shot in widescreen, like 2.35:1, okay ---- but these?

Say something like MARTIN, shot in 16mm. It's probably better off at "full screen," but if it was temporarily matted to accomodate some theatrical screens for a brief run for a few weeks 30 years ago, why would that be the way you would insist on seeing it? It probably wasn't projected at its ideal AR.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Looks like I am not alone in my belief that Open Matte is fine as opposed to P&S. It may not be what was shown in theaters to "fit a screen" but you don't loose anything in the picture with open so don't know what's all the hubbub...bub?

 

[Jack Theakston]

Yeah, I guess we should just forget about everyone with 16x9 displays. Oh yeah, we can use a zoom feature on our sets. That'll look great.

Everyone's an "expert" it seems.

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

Golly, does anybody know of any really, really groovy classic-movie websites that are actually givin' away a copy of this thing for nothin'? You know, websites with really sexy, intelligent, charming and good-looking webmasters? A website, like, oh, I dunno...

www.inthebalcony.com

 

[Jack Theakston]

What does that have to do with anything? Were any of the U-I scifi films of the '50s shot in 16mm? Did I miss something here?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

You're the only one acting like the "expert", Jack ("projectionist" and so on). I certainly don't mean to act like I think I'm one, if I've given that impression.