Search results for query: *

I thought maybe Roland flipped the numbers and it was post 148. But that post didn’t look like it. Maybe 138?

I think you guys are right. It was definitely a more dramatic and terrifying sequence when you first see Becky’s emotionless eyes and then Miles’ shock and fear. That was very effective. I haven‘t listened to the Joe Dante moderated audio commentary with Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter in a...

Thanks JoshZ. Yes, I’d agree it seems like the writers never fully resolved how the pod people replaced the humans. I think they weren’t sure how to do it, or they left it vague.

Years and years ago, on Saturday night, one of the local stations did a show called Creature Features at 11:30pm. The host introduced the films, had info about it and even had guests on. It was well done, the host was Bob Wilkins. One night he showed Invasion of the Body Snatchers without the...

I see both films are different interpretations of the source material. But I agree, the original is great and it can be seen as allegory made at a time of fears being felt in the nation. Also after repeated viewings, I interpreted the transformation from human to pod people is very differently...

Thanks!

Josh, I found the post you refer to above, thanks for the tip. As you related, the best available film was already matted 1.85:1. Interesting, I don’t think I’ll ever fully understand what that fine grain film is, a negative of a dupe that Paramount or another entity had scanned and processed...

Thank you for the explanation, Josh. So there is in existence a copy of the film that is hard matted to 1.85. Perhaps I can track down that Kino Insider post. Robert, it reads like you’re explaining was what was originally done in 1956. But this was not the process used to make the elements for...

What I’m very curious about, more so then if the 4K version has merit, is I’m not clear if it’s been explained how Kino was able to do the 1.85 version? I thought the elements do not exist to do a true 1.85 framing? Is the image on the elements still un-mated? It sounds like the film elements...

Last night I tried to spend a little time to compare Invasion of the Body Snatchers on the 4K 2.0:1 disc to the Olive Signature blu ray. It was hard to do a proper A-B comparison with one player set-up. I had already ripped the Olive Signature disc as an MKV file, so it’s a perfect copy for...

Wow, that’s cool to see that first edition.

Thank you Roland, I’ll be checking that out!

Thanks for that Robert!

I have the Olive Signature disc.

I’m not saying it looked awful. I do want to compare to the Olive blu ray. There are shots I recall seeing when Miles and Becky and Jack and Teddy are talking, the image wasn’t super sharp. It met my expectations. I’m watching on my 83” OLED from 9’ 9” away.

Thanks Robert, I’m still trying to understand what happened to Body Snatchers as I thought it wasn’t possible anymore to create the two different ratios from the existing film elements. After all these years in this hobby of movie collecting, I still never fully understood the open matte term...

I watched the 4K blu ray last night. I watched the feature in the 2.0:1 aspect as that’s how I’ve always watched it. I also watched a bit in the 1.85:1 ratio. I compared the part when Dr. Bennell‘s nurse picks him up at the train station and there is the shot of him driving and her on the left...

Thanks Robert. I understand. I thought the negative that existed in 1956 and even today has that aspect ratio of whatever it is already part of the exposed image.

Thanks Josh for the info!

Forgive me Robert, while I’ve seen this film many times over the years, I’m only learning now about the history from what I’m reading. I read that the film was originally filmed at 1.85:1 and then was converted to SuperScope. Then over time, I gather the original 1.85 film elements were lost?

I just found this article about SuperScope. I only read the last paragraphs that described the process of taking the original 1.85 element and optically making a 2.1 version of Body Snatchers. I wasn’t fully aware of this process. And it’s been noted that the 1.85 elements no longer exists...

Thank you Josh! And Nick, that gif is exactly what happened to me! I spent part of the morning researching Henry and didn’t find anyone in the production of the film with that name, or at Allied Pictures. But I did search Laurence Olivier. There was no connection I could find there. So this is...

I don’t see Sir Laurence in the film’s credits? I must be missing the humor.

OK, thanks. I was not aware 1.85 was the original intention. Nice to have both options on this disc.

About the 1.85 ratio, what is the significance of having this option? I’ve always watched this film in the 2:1 ratio. I believe all the way back to the Criterion laser disc, I watched it in the 2:1 ratio.

My copy arrived today. :)

Thanks!

Fine Grain Master?

As a fan of this film, and even though I have multiple copies in various formats, I’ll add this to my collection. I’m curious to see it. My impression is the fantastic work done by Universal on the classic monsters Frankenstein looks great on blu ray, but on 4K, I thought it was iffy. I’m not...