The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (1 Viewer)

[JayHM]

Whether picture information is being cut off is irrelevant. What matters is which aspect ratio the movie was composed for by its director and cinematographer. Many movies that are shot 1.85 are shot open-matte, but that doesn't mean the filmmakers intended for you to see that extra information at the top and bottom. And in many cases, you really don't want to (boom mics, etc.)...

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Oh, I know this and agree, Jay. I've said the very same words to others so many times that I've lost count - that in the end, it's up to the vision of what the director wants. But do we know what the filmmaker wanted in these cases? Sometimes I think we get more particular than even the directors themselves were!

 

[Ric Easton]

Picked this up yesterday (didn't hear about the hub-bub) along with Battlestar Galactica 2.5. Sadly, I didn't get the BG bonus disc with either set!

 

[Jack Theakston]

Jay said it quite clearly. The director doesn't intend for you, the audience, to see those portions of the pictures. It holds true even today.


Touché. Flip the table and the ball is in my court, huh? I would go so far as to say I actually AM an expert on such topics, because such knowledge is used in my day to day work. I've also got proof, but of course there will always be those nihilists out there that it will never satisfy.

In the Universal films' cases, whether you read the leaders at the heads of the film, studio documents or just apply common logic, it's all the same: the director intended widescreen presentations for these films. When presenting them, all of the films rest quite comfortably within a 1.85 (and sometimes 2:1) frame. There's no excessive head room, nor are heads and important things being chopped off. All of the titles are "blocked" for widescreen. Press ads, reviews, studio documents, etc. all say "widescreen" or "run at 1.85".

It seems to me this is proof enough to at least raise a few eyebrows. What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Kevin M]

If I recall my film history correctly, back when cinemascope hit & hit big quite a few films that were composed for 1:33 were projected at 1:85 to latch onto the widescreen craze that was making $ for the other studios (as has already been mentioned in the thread), is there a site where this info is chronicled?

Now I don't know for a fact that any of these films fall into that category but it is a consideration.....then again I'm no "expert". (kidding.....just kidding.)

 

[Bill Burns]

Jack,

This is a problem that may deserve its own thread (perhaps it has one -- I haven't been around in quite a while): many films from this period have been released on DVD with neither matting nor the 16x9 formatting matting would permit them (by which I mean "anamorphic" mastering). Off the top of my head, per release dates, I believe MGM's Dance With Me, Henry should have been matted, as too their earlier releases of It: The Terror from Beyond Space and The Monster That Challenged the World, Paramount's The Country Girl and Red Garters (I love that picture), Universal's release of Abbott & Costello Meet the Mummy and possibly one other title in their fourth The Best of Abbott & Costello set (Abbott & Costello Meet The Keystone Kops?), that studio's recent This Island Earth, and even Warner Bros. isn't exempt from attention, as I believe their release of The Black Scorpion (1957), a picture very much in genre sympathy with this new Universal set, is, judging solely by its year of release (I haven't seen the WB disc to judge headroom, etc.; of the above, I've only seen Paramount's Red Garters, Universal's A&C Meet the Mummy on its earlier stand-alone DVD release, and the two MGM scifi/horror pictures), most likely open matte. Many studios are judging some of these mid-to-late 50s spherical genre pictures (comedy, western-comedy, scifi, horror) to be best at Academy ratio (even the occasional A-list drama, like The Country Girl). I don't understand it.

Disney's The Sword in the Stone was released in 1963 (ten years after the introduction of CinemaScope): it must be intended for theatrical matting, and should thus be matted on home video, but both its CAV laserdisc and current DVD releases are unmatted. One poster at Amazon seems to think Disney's new DVD of the animated Robin Hood (called The Most Wanted Edition) may finally present that movie matted. I hope he's right! (Update: as of the date of this edit, Amazon is listing this title as "fullscreen," so I must remain cautious in my hopes ... time will tell). Some animation enthusiasts want to see it all, intended or otherwise, top to bottom and left to right, right to the frame line and sproket hole, perhaps assuming that it wouldn't be there if it wasn't meant to be seen, a dubious standard to which one might first ask why the print aperture is smaller than the negative aperture if this is the case, and further then argue that all soft matted films should be opened, because if they didn't want it seen, they'd hard matte, but ... come on, isn't a home theatre meant to reflect a film theatre, and if so, shouldn't transfers for home theatres be in the projected frame intended for theatres? The usual argument is that theatrical projection wasn't standardized, some matted, some didn't, those who matted did so to different ratios ... but this is like the silent film argument about proper speed: if a movie is incorrectly presented in theatres, or presented in a variety of ways, that's not an excuse to do whatever's most inclusive, or most simple, in presenting it on video -- the criteria should be premiere engagements, I think: when the studio premiered the movie, perhaps in its own theatres, back in the days when studios owned theatre chains, and a record persists of just how the movie was projected, that should be the standard: how was a Hollywood picture shown in L.A. and N.Y. in its first run? With silent pictures, what were the instructions for presentation? What might be a reasonable cranking speed for projectionists? If a film has scenes of drama or tender emotion, and scenes of comedy or chase were clearly undercranked, doesn't it look pretty swell when you present it with those tender scenes as the key, making them look their most natural? If not, so be it, but at least check it to that standard before making a cart blanche decision about all like movies from the era. I must be out of the loop (a loop that's eluded me for years), because the amount of diasgreement on these matters really puzzles me.

Forgive me for a digression. But just as with speed, matting should be a simple matter: how was the picture shown when it premiered? If those records are lost to time, and there's nothing, as you mentioned earlier, Jack, on the leader, or for that matter scrawled in frame margins or written on the cans or any other resource to settle the matter, just look at it (not a previous Academy Ratio master on VHS or laser, but at a release print): if you have the headroom in most of your medium shots, if you see a lot of leg and this isn't a dancing movie, and if it was released after theatres, historically, began matting to compete with CinemaScope (a better historian than I may know of others reasons why this was done), perhaps late '53 and certainly into '54 (The Crawling Eye is my reference for late '53, as that picture is matted on DVD by Image -- update: Joe in a post below corrects me: this is a '58 picture, not a '53 ... my bad, as the hipsters say), then matting seems the necessary route for theatrical authenticity in the home.

I'm torn, of two minds, conflicted, all the usual words one uses to indicate that they're about to undermine themselves: some of the pictures I've named above I really do love (such as the A&Cs and Red Garters), and I'm a fan of Universal's horror output from this period as well. I've purchased their new set just today (I broke it down this way to justify it, not unlike Michael Warner's comments earlier: I'd most happily pay $10 for The Incredible Shrinking Man on its own DVD, and that means I've paid, after tax, less than $3 for each of the other movies, all reportedly remastered, which would be in keeping with Universal's standards on these compilation releases, most of which look superb: that's incredibly generous pricing, it's a strong reason why I admire Universal Home Video and hold great enthusiasm for their releases, and if these new masters are HD, which Universal doesn't seem to advertise, but which I'd certainly expect, I don't think we'll see them any differently on an HD format in the near future), and so I'm happy to buy them in gorgeous new transfers from excellent masters. And yet I wish they were OAR. I've held off on the fourth A&C set, but if I find it on sale somewhere for around $10, I'll buy it, just for the one movie that's correct at Academy (I think it's just one) and lovely new masters on the two that aren't. And so I can give my stand-alone DVD of ... Meet the Mummy to a relative.

It was asked, earlier, why it matters that the presentation be matted if an open matte presentation doesn't eliminate any picture information. It's my experience that it often does, as they sometimes can't open the mattes entirely without exposing frame lines, flares at cuts, and production equipment, but on those discs where there is truly no loss of picture, there is still loss of intended visual design: mattes focus the eye. The portion of the image that is "composed" for viewing is intended to convey certain information, to create an experience in theatres that is very specific. I won't argue that every film is carefully made, as that would be foolish, there are plenty of movies that are dashed off quickly on tight schedules just to entertain, with no artistic ambition behind them. But I think it's only fair and right to respect filmmakers enough that we assume they intend their films to be seen as they've composed them, and would care if they were not -- would care enough, at any rate, to prefer their theatrical framing to framing arbitrarily compatible with old television broadcasts and early VHS, with the 4x3 shape of early television sets.

Every now and then a director or cinematographer says: hold on. If you're watching this at home, I want to make it something other than what it was theatrically. They do this by adding new footage and rearranging or cutting old, by remixing the sound, by reworking the color and density values in telecine, and by reformatting the image. I understand from reviews that Roger Donaldson reformatted The Recruit, with Colin Farrell, from 2.39:1 (theatrical presentation) to 1.78:1 or thereabouts on DVD (as a Super35 production, this could be done with a minimum of concern for cropping at the sides, perhaps no concern at all, I don't know). Reviews also have it that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was reformatted to 2:1 or 2.1:1 on DVD with director approval, again a Super35 production (and, if this is true, then the only Star Trek film on DVD at something other than approx. 2.39:1). Apocalypse Now and Apocalypse Now Redux are perhaps infamous examples, as they were anamorphic Panavision (rather, it was anamorphic Panavision, as it's one film re-edited), and thus reformatting them to 2.21:1 or something around that must eliminate some information at the sides. But the cinematographer, per on-line reports, approves of this, wants it this way, and thinks it's best this way.

I apologize for having to say "per reports" so often: I haven't bought any of the above discs personally (though I caught two of these movies theatrically), and so I rely on what reviewers and reporters have said about them (DVD news administrators may prefer to be thought of as reporters, I couldn't say). I also haven't read the specific justifications for the changes to Apocalypse Now, only that such justifications have been articulated. One reason I haven't read through it all is ... frustration.

Movies at home should be presented as they were under the best of circumstances on theatre screens. Maybe there's a nuance here I haven't grasped (I'm not being sarcastic: maybe there is), but that criteria seems rock solid to me. It's a given that our screens are smaller, the resolution lower (though I'm hard-pressed to find anything theatrically that looks better than HD at relative screen sizes, and DVD can best even a slightly out-of-focus theatrical projection, a problem I encounter all the time), in some cases the sound must be remixed, color reproduction may not be exactly that of film because video equipment, however robust, isn't the chemical reality of a film emulsion ... folks will continue arguing about the ways home theatres and movie theatres differ, why they differ, why one should be preferred to the other, and so forth. We'll disagree. Someone may mention (as it's been mentioned in the past) that projectionists will usually lose a touch of film to the voids beyond the theatrical screen, a bit of misty image that hits the wall or the curtains, that the projection aperture doesn't represent exactly what audiences actually see. Minutia will be examined, disagreements will persist. That seems to me a given. But once you've allowed for those differences, once you've established how a home presentation may indeed precisely mirror that of a careful theatrical presentation, it should. And one such parameter is the projected frame: at what ratio was the picture seen, and what portion of the print was contained within that frame (this is called the projection "aperture," for those reading who may not know). When a studio fires off a new HD master, it should be accomplished at that ratio, containing that frame of image. I'll say the entire frame of that aperture, allowing nothing for what may "fall" off the sides of the screen. And when records show that the film protected for a number of frames, the premiere engagements should be the criteria, the first run theatres, the movie palaces.

I'm sorry to write on and on about this: when I'm frustrated, I often ramble. Let me be very specific here: if the question should be, and is, "why need we matte if the filmmakers protected for Academy, if there's no production junk, if we can open it up without compromising the sides, and if some theatres may have shown the film that way," the answer is this: if the premiere engagements were matted, if the filmmakers voice no disapproval of that premiere engagement matting, then so too should the film forever be, if your intent is to reproduce a theatrical experience on home video. If a studio creates a 16x9 formatted master for its video edition of a film matted in theatres, it offers greater resolution to the portion of the frame seen in those premiere engagements, thus the only important portion of the original frame in exhibition terms. And greater resolution is always welcome.

What was the best theatrical experience with this movie? We should set that as the standard for DVD.

Now, all of my blather aside, when a studio offers open matte in gorgeous new, remastered transfers at this low a price, and at least one picture is presented correctly ... I buy it and I say "thank you." And so Universal gets plenty of love from my court. Constructive criticism is a part of love, though, and I think what all of we OAR sticklers are worried about is very constructive criticism.

I'll leave my first question as my last, still unanswered: why is there so much disagreement about presenting films that were matted in premiere engagements (if these were, if any of those I've cited were) so matted on video, particularly in the days of HD, when many will come to be watched on 16x9 displays, and why is there still so much disagreement that OAR, that respecting the intended focus of the eye and the intended shape of the frame, is critical?

 

[Jack Theakston]

Half true. When CinemaScope was announced in Fall of 1952 by Fox, Paramount and Universal began toying with flat widescreen. Paramount came up with 1.66:1 with SHANE and then Universal debuted 1.85:1 with THUNDER BAY. For the next couple of months (and into early 1954 with a select few films), some films that were previously not meant to be seen widescreen were released as such (such as IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE). But by the end of 1953, all of the major studios were shooting widescreen.

In Universal's case, it can safely be said that by fall of 1953, ALL of their output was widescreen. I recently attended the World 3-D Expo in Hollywood and they ran THE GLASS WEB (October 1953) widescreen and it looked quite good. Same with TAZA, SON OF COCHISE, a film released a mere few months later. By 1954, it would be ridiculous for studios to be "pushing" full frame releases into widescreen projection, wouldn't it? And three years later still making the same mistake? This may be Universal's official "reason," but clearly it's wrong. The proof is right there in the pudding, as the old proverb says.

Bill, you've hit it right on the head. I was particularly disappointed when those Abbott and Costello titles (MUMMY and KEYSTONE KOPS) were not widescreen when they should have been. I've run KOPS widescreen 1.85 and it looks perfect. In fact, full frame, you can see the trampoline that Lou's stunt double is jumping on in the cattle car scene which totally spoils the gag. Presented widescreen, it's not in the picture.

I find it humorous that one person felt that INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN was improperly presented 1.85, because they're basing their opinion on either memory or previous editions that were full frame. But I'll tell you exactly why this one film is presented widescreen and why those who disagree with it as per the previous editions are wrong: most of the shots in the film (opticals and special effects) are hard matted for 1.85 and previous editions "zoomed" in on the picture to cover this defect up! I've personally inspected and projected a 1957 release print and can confirm the 1.85 hard matted shots through out the film were always there.

I obviously haven't bought the new set, but if someone wants to post some frame grabs from TARANTULA or MONOLITH MONSTERS that would lead them to believe that the films were composed for 1.37, I'd be interested in be ever so interested.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Wow ... but I don't get why "The Crawling Eye" is your reference for 1953. That came out in 1958.

Also, from several entries above -- the next Universal set won't have "The Magnetic Monster" -- that was UA, and in a better world would have been on a Midnite Movies double-feature DVD long ago (maybe paired with "The Neanderthal Man" or "Phantom From Space.")

 

[Jack Theakston]

It's too bad, because MAGNETIC MONSTER is an excellent film, the first in the Ivan Tors' "Office of Scientific Investigation" trilogy, which included RIDERS TO THE STARS and GOG. Maybe some day we'll see these on DVD as well as Tors' excellent TV series such as SCIENCE FICTION THEATER and MEN IN SPACE.

 

[Mario Gauci]

First of all, I wish to welcome back Mr. Bill Burns after some 3 years "in the wilderness". I hope he'll continue to share his expert (and passionate) views with us in the future and that this was not just a fluke return....

Anyway, even if I'm ALL for preserving the director's original intentions frame-wise (being a budding "auteur" myself...yeah, right:frowning:!), having been raised on watching classic Hollywood and foreign movies mostly on Italian TV (i.e. not in their original language) and, I'm sure, not in their original Aspect Ratio, I have to say that I'm still glad I've watched so many of them in that way rather than not at all! As a matter of fact, a good number of them have never even been released on VHS (in my neck of the woods) let alone DVD - off the top of my head, THE LAST COMMAND (1928), MY GIRL TISA (1948), SEVEN DAYS TO NOON (1950), THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH (1959), ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS (1964), MIRAGE (1965), THE SKULL (1965), FACE TO FACE (1976), etc.

I realize that dubbing is not the issue here but, ultimately, the real issue is whether somebody like me has any other alternative to watching these vintage Sci-Fi movies. I wasn't yet born when these movies first came out, I didn't purchase a LD, I don't have TCM and, most distressingly, there's no frigging Best Buy in my country:frowning:!! It's no secret that for all my broad cinematic tastes, Sci-Fi and Horror are still my favorite genres (and have been since childhood) so being given (very relatively speaking) the opportunity to own 5 of them for a puny $20 is like manna from heaven.

For the record, I have watched two of Jack Arnold's movies included in this set: TARANTULA (1955) - on Italian TV and which, incidentally, I was underwhelmed by - and THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957) - which I only got to watch fairly recently via a commercial-laden AMC screening recorded onto DVD-R! Frankly, the latter is the only one of these which could, objectively and legitimately, lay claim to being a very good film worthy of every respect, so the argument of these being "compromised" and what not may be a valid but ultimately fruitless one. I know that Bill once expressed disappointment that Kino's THE MAN WHO LAUGHS (1928) was riddled with "ghosting" - and, for all I know, he still hasn't watched it - but, if that film was as essential as it was for me (having been one of my "Holy Grails" for eons), I'd have bitten the bullet and gotten it anyway...which I did.

I'm not saying all this to slight the "experts" or the "purists" but, in the long run, even if DVD is not (unfortunately) the be-all-and-the-end-all in home video technology, I'm very doubtful that films like these will be available to purchase on the next format before the next 10 to 15 years. But, by that time, the "old-timers" would be sporting thick eye-glasses and hearing aids and they'd probably not see the trampoline in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE KEYSTONE KOPS (1954) anyway...


P.S. If somebody out there would kindly oblige me with a copy of Universal's "Sci-Fi Collection", please PM me and we'll make the necessary arrangements. Thanks in advance.

 

[Jack Theakston]

So you're saying these films aren't important enough to get a decent release?

 

[Mario Gauci]

Come on, Jack - you know as well as I do that these films are "important" only to us Sc-Fi fans and do not have the reverence accorded to such films as GONE WITH THE WIND (1939), THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939), CITIZEN KANE (1941), THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) and CASABLANCA (1942) which entails that they are meticulously restored and issued as 2, 3 and 4-Disc Special Editions. There's no use beating around the bush (and deluding ourselves) about it.

Something like DRACULA (1931), FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) are universally acknowledged as cinematic milestones which is why they've been released (and re-released) so frequently on DVD in less than a decade. People of our tastes know that SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) is practically as good and as important a movie as any of these but Universal apparently doesn't and only deemed fit (twice) to slap it onto disc with the rest of the series.

What I'm saying is that (unfortunately) it's unrealistic to expect Universal to give two hoots about giving SEs to these vintage Sci-Fi films and, frankly, I believe that only THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957) deserves one anyway. Witness the fact that despite THE BLOB (1958) and EQUINOX (1970) having been released from Criterion with all the bells and whistles, I (and, most probably, "20 million other guys", to paraphrase Lou Costello) have been dragging their feet about picking them up because they're almost $30. Here, on the other hand, we have 5 movies for $20 and, aspect ratio issues apart, they seem to look good, too. Would I have wanted IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (1953) and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954) in 3-D? Sure...but, in their present form, they're more than adequately presented - not least because of Tom Weaver's breathlessly enthusiastic commentaries.

Again, I believe that THIS ISLAND EARTH (1955) is a more important film than most of those found on the “Sci-Fi Collection” and yet Universal only elected to issue it by itself (and apparently misframed as well) rather than as part of a similar collection which would have made it, at least, more palatable. That’s why I decided against purchasing it myself, in the hope that some good-natured soul who has will upload it as a torrent in the near future…together with other similarly intriguing (and bare-bones) titles like HOUSE OF THE DAMNED (1963) and LET’S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH (1971). I may feel that marvelous films as diverse as Josef von Sternberg’s MOROCCO (1930) and THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN (1935), Edgar G. Ulmer’s THE BLACK CAT (1934), Henry Hathaway’s THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER (1935) and PETER IBBETSON (1935) and Terence Fisher’s THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960) deserve a Special Edition DVD and have therefore been short-changed by being released as part of various Universal Franchise Collections but, when all is said and done, I’d rather have them this way than as single no-frills editions or, even worse, none at all!

 

[MichaelEl]

Ok, so why didn't Universal simply matte these films (as well as THIS ISLAND EARTH) to 1.85:1 or whatever? Once the prints were transferred into a digital format, it should've been be no problem at all to simply mask off the tops and bottoms of the image, and based on my understanding of DVD technology (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this), the anamorphic enhancement is nothing more than a flag in the encoding instructions, so no problem there. Both of these procedures would've been essentially cost-free, and as far as I can tell then, there was no economic reason for Universal not to matte these films. It follows that they must've gone with open matting simply for aesthetic reasons. While I would agree that most or all of these films were intended to be shown in a theater at wider ratios, I think it's at least possible that open matte might be the most eye-pleasing format on a standard 4:3 TV. Of course that might not be what the director would've wanted, but still it's not nearly as inappropriate as pan and scan.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

As I said in my earlier post, I'll stand corrected if you can prove otherwise, and if all the things you've mentioned are true (and I'm only going by your word), then that's that. But I'll maintain that these films do not lose any information anyway, so if they were intended to be seen at 1.85, they still don't lose anything by their open matte presentations.

But I have to ask -- who are you spiting by not buying the set? Ooooh, that'll teach Universal! It's highly improbable that these movies will EVER get released with the specifications you crave, so it's really only your loss. I still think a movie viewed without matting added to the extra space on the top or bottom of a full frame image is better than not ever seeing or owning the film at all. Again - I am a staunch advocate of PROPER OAR, but there are times where it can go a little too far.

 

[Richard_Gregory]

At $2 a movie, this is a no-brainer. You would probably wait forver for them to appear in your preferred edition.

In the meantime, I shall be enjoying them regardless.

You may wish to know that the two from the set that were released back in April here in the UK - Tarantula and Incredible Shrinking Man - sell for a RRP of around $17 ...per movie!

 

[Bill Burns]

You're much too kind, Mario. It's nice to be remembered. If folks can tolerate my verbosity, I'll pop in as time allows. Thanks so much for the welcome!

 

[Craig Beam]

Very well said, Joe. I'll add that having these films released open matte actually gives the viewer the option of viewing them full frame or 1.85:1 (zoomed)... I spot-checked all four films on my 16:9 display last night, and they all looked great in both aspect ratios.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Excellent job Joe, I completely agree. I recall back in the early days of the HTF and in other places where the debate over letterboxing had to do with 2.35 films that would be cropped for "pan and scan" 1.33. Now it's gone very much over into the other direction, and you make an excellent point. Are these people REALLY complaining over the fact that the quarter-inch of added, open-matte space is a real and major detriment to even watching the film (an argument that's laughable in comparison to, say, trying to watch JAWS in full-screen), or are they just annoyed it's not taking up every corner of their 16:9 TV frame?

I just can't imagine someone not watching a movie at all simply because it's open matte. A 2.35 film being cropped and MISSING part of its image is one thing, but this isn't comparable to me at all.

 

[SteveJKo]

Mike, that's not really fair. I can't speak for every member, but I for one own many films from the pre-widescreen era and watch them on my widescreen TV in their OAR ONLY. I would never "zoom" a 1.37:1 film just to fill my TV. The vast majority of THTF's members come here to discuss movies and home theatre issues because it's the one place of which they know that is dedicated to the home theatre experience being the best it can be, the closest possible to the original theatrical experience. To many of us, having only one film in this collection presented in it's original aspect ratio shows a very lackadaisical attitude on the part of Universal. If this was a recent open matte 1.85:1 film, I can just imagine the howling that would take place. But because these are 50 year old films that most here saw first on TV it seems to be okay that Universal didn't do their job correctly.

I hope none of you who have purchased this set take offense at what i'm saying. I certainly understand your feelings that these films will never get released again, and done so properly, so you should buy them now. And to a degree I can understand the "well at least it's not pan and scan it's just open matte" argument, even though someone earlier in this thread posted a 1953 notice from Universal saying their flat films were now being shot at 1.85:1. What I don't understand is the "well that's okay" attitude that let's Universal "get away with it". I thought DVD was supposed to be the successor to laser disc, but sometimes it seems the studios treat it like a glorified VHS tape.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Alot here are missing the point that we got a set of old VHS masters that really look it. All the films are grainy and have poor contrast at times. I'm sorry I bought my set now and will probably return it. HD is coming out now so new proper versions of these films may not be as far away as some of you think.
Universal did not want to create new masters and went the cheap way by using old VHS Masters. Too bad so many are letting them off the hook and encouraging them to release sci-fi and Monster films the cheapest way possible in the future because the fans don't seem to care.