-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
Blu-ray Reviews

Plan 9 From Outer Space Blu-Ray review



This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
69 replies to this topic

#21 of 70 MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer

  • 6,120 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted March 19 2012 - 05:51 AM



Originally Posted by eric scott richard 

Also, a reviewer on Amazon says the picture quality of this release is not good...that there are two horizontal lines on each side of the screen, and noticeable when images "pass through" them. Did you notice this when reviewing the title?


I didn't notice those lines. Were they like the solid scratch that plagued the last reel of It's a Wonderful Life? There were a few scratches, but not a persistent one like this. Did the reviewer mention which scenes are afflicted by them?


Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I will not support anything your company produces until then.


#22 of 70 bigshot

bigshot

    Screenwriter

  • 1,031 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2008

Posted March 19 2012 - 07:05 AM

I watched this on my 120 inch projection system the other night, and it looked quite good. It's certainly as good as this film will ever look. Night of the Ghouls has the potential to look even better since it was never released from the lab, but I doubt that will ever hit bluray anytime soon. The aspect ratio wasn't a problem for me. This is the format that I have always seen the movie in, and I would be disappointed if I didn't get a peek at the boom mike here and there.

#23 of 70 rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 786 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted March 19 2012 - 07:41 AM

The films of Ed Wood are, in a certain sense, under-rated. Mr. Wood had a sense of exuberance and suspension of belief about his work. Despite all of the notable problems, his love of the medium does come through. You see that he loved what he was doing. A lot of very competent and slick movies do not betray any love at all. I last saw this film at the Castro Theatre in SFO with my son, who was in film school at the time. The audience joined right in, and we enjoyed it as well. It is no wonder that this film continues to play in 35mm and, now, is available in Blu-ray.

#24 of 70 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,635 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 19 2012 - 08:20 AM

The films of Ed Wood are, in a certain sense, under-rated.

Yeah, his being recognized as the worst director isn't accurate but at the same time, it's a big reason why he and his work are still remembered today so it's a double edged sword. If someone wants to see a terrible director who made terrible movies, watch the work of Coleman Francis. That guy makes Ed Wood look like a genius.

#25 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,326 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 19 2012 - 10:17 AM

The aspect ratio wasn't a problem for me. This is the format that I have always seen the movie in, and I would be disappointed if I didn't get a peek at the boom mike here and there.

Should all open matte films be presented that way to look for microphones, tops of sets and stage lights? Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#26 of 70 Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter

  • 2,029 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted March 19 2012 - 11:36 AM

Well I found this interesting...


http://www.railoftom...-whats-out.html


On one hand, proper matting does fix some of the more obvious flaws (such as the famous cardboard steering wheels in the cockpit scene). On the other hand, this film basically didn't have a real theatrical run and most have seen it only on tv where all these errors were made even more obvious. That's why a semi-prestigious outfit like Image didn't try matting it in 1999, it spoils the experience. No Plan 9 fan would ever go for some sort of "apologist's version" that basically says "well you're wrong and Ed Wood was a better filmmaker because the edge of the black curtain in the graveyard would have never been seen theatrically!". They want it warts and all, because that's the fun of it.


On the other other hand... the film still looks badly framed EVEN IN WIDESCREEN!



#27 of 70 rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 786 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted March 19 2012 - 11:52 AM

Should all open matte films be presented that way to look for microphones, tops of sets and stage lights? Bob

I have an LD of Hitchcock's North by Northwest that has the vertical view opened up below what would have normally been printed. You can see a microphone in the scene at the phone booths in Chicago.

#28 of 70 Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Producer

  • 4,110 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted March 19 2012 - 12:06 PM

I have the Criterion LD of De Palma's Carrie that opens up to even more exotic delights.



#29 of 70 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted March 19 2012 - 12:17 PM

Don't get me started on Carrie...the blu-ray has WAY over blown contrast. The prom scene looks so fake now....the fire is almost white and you can tell it is animated.



#30 of 70 Mark B

Mark B

    Supporting Actor

  • 724 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2003
  • Real Name:Mark
  • LocationSaranac Lake, NY

Posted March 19 2012 - 01:04 PM

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.... With all of the original documentation from the era of academy to widescreen conversion it baffles why this issue keeps coming back time and time again. Bob Furmanek has provided us with more than enough irrefutable information.

#31 of 70 Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter

  • 2,029 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted March 19 2012 - 01:18 PM



Originally Posted by Mark B 

And now back to our regularly scheduled program....
With all of the original documentation from the era of academy to widescreen conversion it baffles why this issue keeps coming back time and time again. Bob Furmanek has provided us with more than enough irrefutable information.



Its because this is that rare film where OAR IS MAR and vice versa.



#32 of 70 Mark B

Mark B

    Supporting Actor

  • 724 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2003
  • Real Name:Mark
  • LocationSaranac Lake, NY

Posted March 19 2012 - 01:20 PM

Can I see some documentation to verify that, Joel?

#33 of 70 Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter

  • 2,029 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted March 19 2012 - 01:29 PM



Originally Posted by Mark B 

Can I see some documentation to verify that, Joel?



Well the all-knowing authorities at TCM say so.



#34 of 70 Mark B

Mark B

    Supporting Actor

  • 724 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2003
  • Real Name:Mark
  • LocationSaranac Lake, NY

Posted March 19 2012 - 01:39 PM

They same the same thing about HONDO, which has been proven incorrect by studio documentation from the time of the film's production. Additionally, Jack Theakston's statement "Any of the cameras Wood rented would have assuredly had viewfinders marked for 1.85-1 and despite his artistic ineptitude, his photographer, William C. Thompson, was a member of the ASC and would have known better." holds water with me as he has always backed up his information with documented proof.

#35 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,326 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 19 2012 - 02:00 PM

As I've mentioned before, on-line sites are riddled with errors, including TCM and IMDB. My particular area of expertise are the Golden Age 3-D titles. If you go by TCM or IMDB, you would think the majority of these films were 1.37. The fact is that 31 of the 50 domestic 3-D features were photographed and composed for widescreen. I should also point out that every single theatrical revival I've attended since the late 1970's (with the exception of a few titles at Expo 2 in 2006) presented these films incorrectly in the Academy ratio. If you want to get to the truth, you go to the trades and other primary sources, including industry trade journals like Variety and American Cinematographer. The idea that open matte is fine because that's how it was shown on television is ridiculous. If that's the accepted standard for Blu-ray, then why not use a grainy, cued up 16mm print for your transfer? That way, you'll fully replicate the TV experience. If you want to laugh at the ineptitude of the production, then why not show NORTH BY NORTHWEST in open matte so you can giggle at the microphone? Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#36 of 70 Rob W

Rob W

    Second Unit

  • 457 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 1999
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationToronto

Posted March 20 2012 - 12:39 AM

The titles are also well within the 1:85-safe area - almost always strong proof of the correct ratio.

#37 of 70 Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Producer

  • 4,110 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted March 20 2012 - 01:09 AM

Has anyone tried viewing this BD utilizing their screen's "zoom" for an approximation of the correct framing?



#38 of 70 Jack Theakston

Jack Theakston

    Supporting Actor

  • 848 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2003

Posted March 20 2012 - 05:03 AM

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck... http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/
-J. Theakston

#39 of 70 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    Producer

  • 3,907 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted March 20 2012 - 05:29 AM

Jack, is it just me, or is that the shadow of a boom mike @ the top of the first capture?


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#40 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,326 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 20 2012 - 05:55 AM

Yes, it is. But as you can see, when projected in the widescreen ratio that it was composed for, the shadow is gone. There are loads of similar mistakes in open matte versions of movies intended for widescreen. As mentioned above, even directors like Hitchcock allowed mistakes to creep in because the films were composed for theaters, not television. Poor Ed Wood. His movies are bad enough without the added mistakes of open matte to deal with. Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg