1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers - Anamorphic - When? (1 Viewer)

[Carlos Garcia]

I was wondering if anyone knows whether we'll be seeing an anamorphic DVD version of the classic 1956 sci-fi thriller "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" anytime soon. Thanks.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think rather than looking forward to a 2:1 anamorphic transfer, we should try to get a proper unmatted version (1.33:1) released.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers was originally composed for 1.33:1, but was cropped to 2:1 for SuperScope upon release.

I'm hoping that the Academy Ratio version still exists... it would really be neat to see the original compositions, rather than the cropped SuperScope version.

 

[Jake Johnson]

I would enjoy seeing this on dvd. Only in the version that Siegel wanted though

 

[Robert Harris]

The original elements are 1.37 with the SuperScope derived from them. All non-theatrical (16mm) prints have been the original. The only confusion has come with the "new" flat version being derived not from itself, ie. by doing nothing, but rather, from the 2:1 version. More professionalism from the folks at Republic / Artisan.

Hopefully any new releases on ANY of the Republic product will wait until after they can be properly handled by Paramount.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

This film is always thought of and listed as a SuperScope @ 2.00:1 aspect ratio.

But that is NOT the correct ratio for the film. It was not composed for 2:1 and should never have been shown at 2:1 back in 1956. But wider ratios were the hot new thing back then and some genius had the film's 1.37:1 compositions altered to 2:1.

Any future DVD edition should at least have the original 1.37:1 version.

Paramount owns the Republic library now, don't they? I'd like to see Paramount release their edition soon. But Paramount should be made aware that the film should be transfered at 1.37:1.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Thanks for your replies. I was unaware of the film's original dimensions. I always wondered why when it was shown widescreen, you could see alot of grain in the picture. I agree, the film should be re-released in its proper 1.37:1 ratio.

 

[Nelson Au]

Interesting discussion. It spurred me to check my Criterion release LD of this film. As you know, Criterion is known for presenting films in their OAR.

I measured the vertical dimension and horizontal dimension of the film on my monitor and if I did the math right, I got 1.94, or 2:1! This is bad if this film even fooled the folks at Criterion by using the matted version. Also of interest then is how many films has this been done to. If you look at the Criterion extra with a demo of videoscope verses pan and scan, it made realize this film is a cropped or matted film that then had been cropped again for TV broadcasts and early videos!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Yes, that's right, Nelson; the film was cropped from 1.37:1 to 2.00:1 and then the TV broadcasts were made from the 2.00:1 scope prints that were then cropped again "back to" 1.33:1! Madness!

One wonders if this film has EVER been shown on TV, VHS, Laser, DVD in it's original Academy framing.

Any future transfer should start with the original negative. New interpositive, high-def transfer, digital clean-up, 1.37:1 presentation.

I look forward to seeing an announcement from Paramount regarding this important title soon.

 

[David Von Pein]

The DVD box shows a 2.35:1 AR.

But Amazon shows it to be 2.00:1. (Plus there's also a Full-Frame version on the same disc.)

 

[Robert Harris]

2.35 is correct for the anamorphic 35mm film element.

Prints were produced in standard cinemascope format, matted on the sides to 2:1 within the 2.35 frame.

RAH

 

[Douglas Bailey]

Is an OAR release of Invasion of the Body Snatchers even possible?

I was under the impression that the 1.37:1 original negative and other materials were lost, and that the matted 2.0:1 Superscope version was all that remained as a source for transferring. (If this isn't true, it's hard to understand why Criterion wouldn't have gone back to the original materials for their LD edition.)

I'd love to be wrong about this, though...

 

[Robert Harris]

The Criterion laserdisc properly transferred the film in its theatrical ratio.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

I don't know if all the info everyone here has contributed is correct or not, but here's a link to another DVD message board that seems to feel the need to ridicule some of this information:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=356692

 

[Al Stuart]

Carlos, this thread also appeared here:

http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/forums/sho...threadid=14940

And if you want to be patient, it will also show up on DVDfile under the name Drag Princess, depending on whether or not he (yes, Christina/Julie is a he) notices this first.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Does this mean the information about the original being in the 1.37:1 ratio isn't correct?

 

[Al Stuart]

No, it means that the same person is starting the same thread on many different boards at the same time.

 

[Jeff Newcomb]

RH --

Do you know if the original 1.37 elements still exist?

 

[Patrick McCart]

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscu.../invasion.html

This excellent artcle/review from American Cinematographer explains the AR change.

Also, www.widescreenmuseum.com mentions the cropping for SuperScope in that process' section in the widescreen formats wing.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The box art above states:

"Complete digitally remastered version of the black and white film from the original film negative."

So... does that mean that the 1.33:1 version of the disc contains the unmatted original framing and that Artisan matted the 'widescreen' version?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

There was a French DVD from Editions Monteparnasse which is 1.33:1: http://www.devildead.com/indexfilm.php3?FilmID=32

It seems to be OOP now, though.

Is this an unmatted transfer? Since widesreen didn't catch on in Europe until the early Sixties, unmatted prints may have been made available in France and have been properly stored all these years.

Maybe all French prints, TV broadcasts and home video version have been from the unmatted original? Wishful thinking?

This is the statement of the reviewer in regard to the transfer:

"From the point of view of the image, it should be noted that the film is not presented in its format of origin, which is a pity. One can easily note it at the time of the credits of beginning and end, where the image is not recadrée."

Does anyone know what "recadrée" means? It doesn't seem to translate at any of the translation sites I have used.

Cheers.