What's new

It Came from Outer Space Review (1 Viewer)

GregK

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 22, 2000
Messages
1,055
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...uterspace.html
While I'm still very disappointed the original 3-D version
wasn't included (an out an out waste of the DVD format by
not including both versions on this disc) it is nice to see
the original PR was in error and the original 3-channel
audio mix has been included. I was also happy to see that
the film was presented in 1.33:1, as a pre-release picture
of the cover (page 7 in the June issue of Sound & Vision)
showed a "widescreen" banner across the top of the case.
It doesn't sound like the disc is the total wash-out that
it could have been, which is good. ..But with it being in
modified 2-D, remember you are missing half of the picture.
..The right side in this case. ;)
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Well, the 3D version wasn't essential for me--though I did see that version at a revival house back in the early '80s. It was fun.

I'm a customer no matter what. We need more of these '50s classics on DVD. I'm happy.
 

Keith Helms

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 14, 2000
Messages
55
I was just looking at the cover scan over the the digital bits. There ought to be a rule that the artist has to actually WATCH the film before producing the cover art. The alien on the cover doesn't look anything like the ones in the movie - 2 green glowing eyes instead of 1 big eye in the center of the upper torso.
 

Steve Phillips

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
1,521
I agree with Greg, the disc is lacking without a 3-D version. Watching a 3-D film flat is just as bad as watching pan and scan: you are not seeing the film the way it was intended to be seen. And let's not forget, most revivals of this film recently have been in the poor, downcoverted red/blue format, not the dual projector polarized glasses system it was intended to be shown in.

Does anyone know if Universal currently has 35mm dual projector prints available for booking? I saw a few of these in the past few years In revival houses in NYC and the effect was astounding! I'd love to see ICFOS in the O3D (original 3-D) as the red/blue version, even in 35mm, isn't so good.

Universal could have put a good 3-D version on the disc using field sequential technology like the IMAX discs. Too bad they blew it again. When they get around to a DVD of JAWS 3-D, why bother without 3-D? That's all the film has to offer, really.
 

John Sparks

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Messages
3,584
Location
Menifee, CA
Real Name
John Sparks
Wouldn't it be great if Universal, or all the studios for that matter, had available the same box and glasses you get with the IMAX 3-D set.
Then all the studios could re-release their 3-Ders and we would get the best of both worlds!
...ahhh, another petition in the making! :D
 

Dick

Premium
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
8,959
Real Name
Rick
By using the dark/light lense (as opposed to red/green or red/blue) cardboard glasses included with the phony 3-D rollercoaster videos, you can actually get a simulated 3-D effect with any film that has a fair amount of movement between foreground and background. I am not sure how it works, but like all "3-D," it tricks the brain. Set your t.v. contrast very high (the glasses will smooth out the added video noise), and look at the opening title sequence of CLIFFHANGER - it looks like geuine 3-D. Portions of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON work quite well, particularly shots of actors on the boat passing by the jungle background, and some of the underwater material. These glasses can be ordered from the Rollercoaster Video people. But beware - the Rollercoaster vids are also NOT genuine 3-D... the effect is completely nullified when there is no foreground vs. background movement. It's a fraud. But those glasses are pretty neat for some movies you already own. Might also work with parts of IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE.
 

bob kaplan

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 5, 1999
Messages
746
Real Name
bob kaplan
i too would have liked to see the 3-D version... but at the same time am greatful for the release of these oldies...;) :frowning:
 

Jeff_HR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2001
Messages
3,593
I too Mr Kaplan love these old 1950's Sci-Fi flicks & I'm always buying them as they become available. Do you haer that studios! I BUY older films!:b
 

John Koehler

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 7, 1999
Messages
73
When I saw this excellent 50s classic in a revival theater, it was matted at 1.85:1. The pressbook I have has ad mattes advertising 3D, Stereophonic Sound, WideScreen. The VHS tape version has edge detail cut off more than the usual overscan for Academy 1.37 aspect ratio. I believe this picture was filmed hard matte, and should be at 1.85.
 

Steve Phillips

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
1,521
Everything I've ever read indicated the film was shot in standard academy ratio (1:37 to 1) but often matted to 1:85 to 1 in theatres, even in 1953. In 35mm showings I've seen (sadly in lame downconverted red/blue anaglyph) the prints were 1:37 to 1. While the film certainly was shown in widescreen in some theatres, I think I prefer the academy ratio as photographed on this one, and the same goes for both CREATURE films.
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,387
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
Here's the reply I got when I asked my friend Bob Furmanek (the head of 3D Archives and one of the most knowledgeable about the format around):

The film was shown widescreen 1.85, but that was a decision made after shooting. It's composed for 1.37 and loses too much when shown widescreen.
His information would have come right from the vaults of Universal when he was researching the available 3D elements on the title. So it looks like this release is correct.
 

Roderick Gauci

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 3, 2002
Messages
165
I have very fond memories of watching IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE (1953) one Saturday night on Italian TV; I guess it has been some ten years or more, now.

However, I am a bit bugged by this release. Universal had originally planned to release ICFOS in Widescreen format. It seems that the film was something of an experimental project for the studio, considering that it was simultaneously shot “flat”, in Widescreen and 3-D! Apart from this, it was also “the first to utilize the western desert locations” (according to Halliwell’s Film Guide), and thus paved the way for THEM! (1954), Jack Arnold’s and Universal’s own TARANTULA (1955), and countless other horror/sci-fi films of the 50s.

But all we get on the DVD is the “flat” (i.e. full-frame) version! Why is this? Does anybody know? I remember reading that many were disappointed as well when Arnold’s CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954) was also released sans the famous 3-D version! It may be that these “alternate” versions would not have worked just as well on a normal TV screen (as some have claimed), but it would have been great had they been added for curiosity value, especially for persons like myself who never experienced them that way in the first place.

Universal saw fit to release DRACULA (1931) in both its original form (i.e. without a music score) and another version accompanied by Philip Glass’ recently recorded soundtrack, not to mention the entire Spanish version of the film directed by George Melford! DRACULA, then, was a superb disc, apart from the fact that the print utilized was not in great shape, as well as being the regular release version (i.e. 75 mins. rather than the complete 84-min. original, with the famous ending involving Edward Van Sloan!). And that’s not counting the loss of the Silent version of the film, prepared because many theaters at the time were still not equipped with sound facilities! We do get glimpses of the Silent print and the Talkie’s ending, so why not the whole thing? And, now that I’m on the subject, WHERE are the “full-length” prints of THE MUMMY (1932), BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) and THE WOLF MAN (1941): on the DVDs we are told that these films were originally longer, but all we get are just a few stills of the missing footage!

Universal has taken a rather high-handed attitude of late, what with both “Classic Monsters” collections going OOP, indefinitely it seems, and the all-too recent E.T. – THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL (1982) “scam” (although this is still not clear enough, judging by the many conflicting reports making the rounds on the Internet!).
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861
WHERE are the “full-length” prints of THE MUMMY (1932), BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) and THE WOLF MAN (1941): on the DVDs we are told that these films were originally longer, but all we get are just a few stills of the missing footage!
Roderick,

I know people who make their living working for Universal, and they have done extensive research of the records at the studio. For all intents and purposes, the lost footage from these films is still lost, not extant in Universal's vaults, or anywhere else. I would absolutely love to see the original cut of BRIDE, which was over 90 minutes(the official version is 75 minutes). It was announced years ago that a complete print resurfaced, but when the print was screened it was the same 75 minute version that has been in circulation since 1935.

According to film historian Bill Warren, a person he knows has gotten ahold of every print of BRIDE imaginable, in 35mm and 16mm. The only shot he found that is not in the official version is one of the Monster looking at the village from a distance right before he meets the blind hermit. I would love to see even this lost snippet, but it's doubtful that we'll ever see anything other than the regular version.

Of related interest: someone found a slightly longer version of SON OF FRANKENSTEIN in Canada that has extra footage of the Monster and Ygor creeping through the catacombs of Castle Frankenstein. The print is in terrible shape, but it would have been nice to see those extra little bits(amounting to about 2 minutes) on the DVD, even as an extra feature. A videotape of this print can be found at certain dealer tables at horror conventions like Monster Bash and Chiller Theater.

Whew! Sorry for rambling.
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,320
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou
I saw 'It' on a double bill with 'War of the Worlds' (1953) in the late 70's at a creepy old cinema in London's West End, I remember the 3D effect was giving me one hell of a headache, watched half the film without the glasses, too bad.
Seeing 'War of the Worlds' on the big screen more than made up for it though, a great, great SF classic.:emoji_thumbsup:
 

Steve Phillips

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
1,521
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE was not shot both in 3-D and flat widescreen! It was shot using a dual 3-D camera rig of Universal's design, and it photographed an academy image ratio of 1:37 to 1.

It is true that Universal prepared press materials promoting widescreen and that many theatres ran it cropped to a wider ratio, but from many accounts both the composition and the 3-D gimmicks suffered as a result.

Despite what Tom Weaver mentions in his audio commentary (which he read word for word out of a book on Jack Arnold) the film was shot in academy ratio and the DVD presents the image as shot (except of course flat).

All of the 3-D films of the fifties were shot square; but many were shown cropped to widescreen in some theatres.

When a 3-D film was shown flat, they simply made up only one print instead both a left or right eye version,

they didn't shoot the film a second time.
 

Dick

Premium
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
8,959
Real Name
Rick
Well, true, the film's original stereophonic sound is intact and I suppose we ought to be grateful for that. And discontent has been plastered all over the place about its not being released in 3-D, so I won't repeat that here (I am not yet convinced a decent 3-D video image could be achieved by a film such as this). I do take exception to the aspect ratio...looks like another example of a studio's willingness to go pan and scan only, even for a special edition. This film was composed for 1.85:1, as is mentioned in the thoroughly-researched commentary track by Tom Weaver. Printed sources have stated this was a widescreen production in spite of its 1953 release. And many shots depicting several persons in the frame are quite obviously cropped in the DVD. So, Universal, why did you go to the trouble of giving us this movie in a bells and whistles edition if only to leave the whistles out?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
348,462
Messages
4,846,460
Members
142,322
Latest member
DK Baker
Recent bookmarks
0
Top