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 to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote 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



  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 of 70 GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor

  • 951 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted March 20 2012 - 08:48 AM

Poor Ed Wood. His movies are bad enough without the added mistakes of open matte to deal with.

LOL. That is the best line of the day so far. ..And pretty much sums it up.

#42 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 20 2012 - 09:27 AM

Thanks Greg, awfully quiet in here lately. I hope the facts didn't burst too many bubbles! Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#43 of 70 Richard Gallagher

Richard Gallagher

    Screenwriter

  • 2,967 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 2001
  • Real Name:Rich Gallagher
  • LocationFishkill, NY

Posted March 21 2012 - 09:32 AM



Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H 

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



I don't have a screen capture of it, but a boom mike is clearly visible in the opening of Lyle Talbot's scene when Tom Keene enters the office.


Rich Gallagher

#44 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 21 2012 - 10:34 AM

I don't have a screen capture of it, but a boom mike is clearly visible in the opening of Lyle Talbot's scene when Tom Keene enters the office.

In an open matte transfer or the intended widescreen version? Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#45 of 70 Todd J Moore

Todd J Moore

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2005
  • Real Name:Todd Moore
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted March 21 2012 - 12:51 PM

Ed Wood and his movies provide an interesting problem. As a writer, Eddie certainly had some decent enough ideas. Look at JAIL BAIT. The actual plot of that movie is decent, and it's twist is fairly clever. The dialogue is horrible and so is the acting, however. The plot of PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE isn't bad, either. What hurt these movies is the acting by and large. There seemed to be two types of actors in Wood's movies: those who could act and didn't really bother trying and those who couldn't act their way out of a wet and torn paper bag. The second group seemed to comprise of most of his friends like Dolores Fuller and Conrad Brooks. I saw both of them in a vampire movie shot in the mid-90s in NJ (THE IRONBOUND VAMPIRE) and yes, they were as lousy there as they were in Wood's movies. The first group, though, was guys like Lyle Talbot and Kenne Duncan--guys who demonstrably could give decent performances when they wanted to. Serials may not be on the same level of filmmaking as A Pictures, but Talbot and Duncan were usually pretty solid in their roles in them. Talbot was a fantastic Lex Luthor in ATOM MAN VS. SUPERMAN--maybe not Gene Hackman or Kevin Spacey, but a lot of fun all the same. And Duncan was good in almost any Republic serial you can find him in. But look at Duncan in THE SINISTER URGE. Not only does he not try, he clearly shows that he has no desire to even be in the movie. As for Talbot, he only ever puts forward a half-hearted effort in Wood's films. In fact, the only guy Wood ever got who really gave it his all was Bela Lugosi, which is why the Lugosi trio is so well-liked by fans of this sort of movie. Kinda like ROBOT MONSTER. Yes, there's incompetency left and right in that film, but the actors in it at least TRY, which is key to the fun of the movie. What does all this rambling have to do with this discussion of aspect ratios? Well, I'll tell ya. It seems to me that since the dialogue and the delivery of said dialogue, along with the awful special effects--poor Eddie just didn't have the budget even if he did have the imagination--were so bad that it seems quite natural that we'd see absurdities like boom mics and carboard steering wheels. Were the movies composed for 1:85? By 1959, I would certainly hope so. Should they be viewed that way? Probably, but then they might not seem as much fun. The argument about Hitchcock and boom mics seems valid, but here's the thing: we know Hitch was a good director. We've been told for over 30 years that Wood was the worst director of all time and the things I listed above have all contributed to that. Frankly, he wasn't. At the very least his movies--or at least those with Bela--are entertaining and he knew how to do something that is lost on other directors: when to end a scene. Perhaps the solution would be a widescreen/full frame version of his movies. Though yes, I wonder if putting the TV on wide or zoom would do the trick, too.

Viewing a 3D movie in 2D is kinda like viewing a Scope movie in Pan and Scan.


#46 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 21 2012 - 02:10 PM

Those are very good points, Todd. I find it interesting that some will proclaim Wood the Worst Director and they're citing open matte flaws which were never meant to be seen... Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#47 of 70 Richard Gallagher

Richard Gallagher

    Screenwriter

  • 2,967 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 2001
  • Real Name:Rich Gallagher
  • LocationFishkill, NY

Posted March 21 2012 - 04:51 PM



Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek 


In an open matte transfer or the intended widescreen version?
Bob


In the Blu-ray transfer. I've never seen it in widescreen. Clearly, the mike would not be visible in widescreen.



Rich Gallagher

#48 of 70 MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer

  • 5,977 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted March 22 2012 - 05:52 AM



Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek 

Those are very good points, Todd.
I find it interesting that some will proclaim Wood the Worst Director and they're citing open matte flaws which were never meant to be seen...
Bob


I've seen TV shows and movies that were much better than this that had more egregious examples of boom mics and things like that.


Enough is enough, Disney. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray.

 

My DVD/BD List at DVD Aficionado


#49 of 70 Bryan^H

Bryan^H

    Screenwriter

  • 2,564 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 2005

Posted March 22 2012 - 05:55 AM

I plan on buying this soon. I really hope 'Bride Of The Monster' is released. It may be bad, but I think it is fantastic.

housekeeping 2.jpg

"She always does that, she just wanders away"

 

 

 


#50 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 22 2012 - 06:20 AM

Don't hold your breath. PLAN NINE was released to BR because of it's public domain status. BRIDE is fully owned by Wade Williams and he has zero interest in remastering any of his titles. For the record, BRIDE is composed for 1.85 as well. Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#51 of 70 KMR

KMR

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 125 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2009

Posted March 22 2012 - 11:50 AM

It was very interesting to hear about the intended aspect ratio for Plan 9. So I popped in my Image DVD and hit the zoom button on my remote. Amazing! I skipped through several parts of the movie, and the framing always looked very appropriate. But to me it still doesn't detract from the sublime awfulness of the movie. The only thing missing now is the really surreal effect that the cockpit scene has in open matte. Thinking about the cockpit scene (and what we thought were bizarre props but are now understood to be something intended only to assist the actors and not show up on film) got me thinking about the film After Last Season by someone named Mark Region. It's almost like the open matte cockpit scene in Plan 9 could have been an inspiration not only for the production design of Region's film, but a study in the use of sets and props in film, and how they can affect the story and the audience's involvement in a film. Could be an interesting research project for somebody.

#52 of 70 WinstonCely

WinstonCely

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 237 posts
  • Join Date: May 17 2010

Posted March 22 2012 - 12:10 PM

Kevin, I think that's just made me want to buy this release. I'll just watch it zoomed in... LOL!

#53 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 22 2012 - 12:44 PM

It was very interesting to hear about the intended aspect ratio for Plan 9. So I popped in my Image DVD and hit the zoom button on my remote. Amazing! I skipped through several parts of the movie, and the framing always looked very appropriate.

Well, there you go. I guess Ed Wood wasn't as incompetent as people thought! Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#54 of 70 David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member

  • 1,402 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted March 23 2012 - 05:33 AM

I tried to watch this one about twenty years ago. I wanted it to be so bad it was good. Or at least so bad it was camp. Instead it was just bad. And slow. And not funny--at least to me. I'd rate it 1 out of 5. Just a warning to those who might be lured in by the almost Galaxy Quest-ish cover. I recommend that big budget comedy classic over this one. Just my 2 cents. I know this has a big following--but newbies should keep their expectations quite low.

My thoughts exactly. So bad it was....boring. It's the kind of movie that seems hilarious when you watch it as a college student while smoking pot when you giggle at everything. In more sober times, not so much.

#55 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 23 2012 - 06:43 AM

If I'm in the mood for Ed Wood, BRIDE OF THE MONSTER is my favorite. Bela and Tor are just wonderful in that one. I used to have a 35mm print and it looked great in widescreen! Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#56 of 70 bgart13

bgart13

    Supporting Actor

  • 819 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 2008

Posted March 23 2012 - 08:19 AM

Ed Wood could be a very good filmmaker -- technically, not necessarily, but he knew how to entertain! Some of his movies are boring, but others are tremendously engaging and entertaining. Btw, Chicago PBS is to blame for me seeing my first Wood movie late one night years back, GLEN OR GLENDA. PBS really is so subversive, heh heh...

#57 of 70 MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer

  • 5,977 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted March 23 2012 - 12:42 PM



Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek 

If I'm in the mood for Ed Wood, BRIDE OF THE MONSTER is my favorite. Bela and Tor are just wonderful in that one.
I used to have a 35mm print and it looked great in widescreen!
Bob


I take it he's the one who has the earliest film elements on Wood's films, or am I wrong?


What is known to exist on his features in terms of pre-print elements? I remember that of the Image DVDs, Glen or Glenda looked worse than the rest.


Enough is enough, Disney. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray.

 

My DVD/BD List at DVD Aficionado


#58 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 23 2012 - 12:58 PM

Wade Williams has some early elements but he does not like to spend money. He's perfectly content recycling 20+ year old transfers! Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#59 of 70 John Weller

John Weller

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 175 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 2012

Posted May 27 2012 - 01:53 AM

It's rather ironic that none of Wood's main films have got decent dvds. Glen Or Glenda cut, Jail Bait and Bride Of The Monster cropped, Plan 9 and Night Of The Ghouls open matte... Mind you, isn't Wade Williams reputed to be a pain regarding restoration. There's some awful splices in his Detour that obliterate the dialogue! And of course, don't get me started on Rocketship X-M...

#60 of 70 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,091 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted May 27 2012 - 05:55 AM

I offered to fund full restorations of his 3-D titles (Robot Monster, Cat Women of the Moon, Hannah Lee) and he rejected our offer. He's had 35mm elements on these 3-D films for nearly 30 years and has never even bothered to inspect him. What does that tell you about his interest in preservation?

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Blu-ray Reviews

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users