The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (1 Viewer)

[Jay E]

Wow, is that a bad cover! It looks so much like a cheap public domain multi-film pack...if I saw this in a store I would have just passed it by.

Judging by the presentation and their marketing strategy, I guess Universal really doesn't give a crap about these films. For some reason I feel they are just releasing just so they don't have to hear people complain about them not being on DVD.

All I can hope for is that these sell out fast and Universal will decide to release more sci-fi films from the 50's.

 

[pitchman]

Personally, I can live with the cover. We are talking 50s sci-fi after all, and it does hearken back to those cheesy matinee lobby posters. Universal did such a fine job with their old laserdisc series, GOLDEN AGE OF UNIVERSAL SCIENCE FICTION THRILLERS, I guess I was hoping for something along the same lines here. At this point, I am simply happy to FINALLY have this material on DVD.

 

[Randy Korstick]

There could definately be a 2nd volume coming that could include:
1.) The Land Unknown
2.) The Deadly Mantis
3.) Leech Woman
4.) Cult of the Cobra
5.) It Came from Outer Space

These titles are based on what Universal has released under the Sci-Fi label on VHS/Laserdisc in the past.

 

[Peter M Fitzgerald]

Sorry to be pedantic here, but I'm sure you meant to type--

"4.) CULT OF THE COBRA" (the 1955 chiller with Faith Domergue)

--rather than the 1940s Maria Montez/Jon Hall/Sabu flick, THE COBRA WOMAN.

 

[GlennWD]

There is already a great DVD of this movie out, with a making of documentary, and a great commentary by Tom Weaver. But I would bet that Universal will still put it in the next set without any extras, as they continue with their company policy of making me angry.

 

[WadeM]

Per DVDReview.com all of the films will be presented in their original aspect ratio, which, according to them (& Universal) means that Incredible Shrinking Man is 1.78:1 & the others in full-frame: quote: "Some of the films in the set were re-released after their theatrical runs in matted widescreen versions at one point or another but they were never really meant to be seen that way." and quote: "As a result Universal decided not to release these matted versions because they feel that the fans of these classic films will want to see them in their original form"

That's all I need to know.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Then somebody at Universal is misinformed. Universal went all widescreen by mid-1953, per voluminous studio documentation as well as trade reviews of the time. If it wasn't in CinemaScope, it was 1.85 or 2.00 (This Island Earth, specifically).

They didn't release This Island Earth correctly (no widescreen, no Perspecta-stereo track), so this sounds like more spin from them to excuse full frame transfers. They didn't release the last two Abbott & Costello films correctly, either (Keystone Kops and Meet the Mummy), those should also be 1.85.

But don't let the facts stop anyone else from enjoying these.

 

[Richard_Gregory]

And they've gone and made the set Best Buy only, who don't ship to the UK, meaning I can't buy it.

Gosh darnit with big shiny brass knobs on.

Can only hope they do a general release later on...probably stuffed onto a DVD-18 though.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Thanks for catching that Peter. Old age is starting to creep up.

And yes I know It came from Outer Space has been previously released but many movies previously released have later been repackaged as part of a set and at a lower price.

 

[derek]

BTW for reference here's the laserdisc collection(s) cover art...

 

[Dick]

I don't know how to chime in on this OAR discussion except by recalling that Universal has several times botched the release of excellent sci-fi films in this respect, namely COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT and ICEMAN. I would have no trouble whatever believing they did the same with THIS ISLAND EARTH.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

At least these aren't going to be cropped. I can live with unmatted; I find it very hard to survive with cropped 'scope.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Here is the rest of the information concerning Aspect ratios on these titles that was part of the Cold Coffee area of the DVD Review website:
Eric

 

[WadeM]

DVD Review added some words to their article when they archived it, probably due to the comments that were left on their website. Anyway, here's another viewpoint from DVD Savant http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2097this.html:


It's interesting that This Island Earth looks "rather tight at its official AR of 2-1", and since I haven't seen any of these movies in 20-25 years I can't really give an opinion. I just assumed that Universal would know better than anyone (even if these are late dates to be producing 1:37 AR). Universal's press release just doesn't make sense given the dates, and it would be nice if some documentation specifically relating to what the directors of photography intended popped up, as opposed to just publicity announcements. (Maybe it's out there, I just haven't seen it). Because of the dates involved, I'm leaning toward what DVD Savant says, but it would be nice if Universal would explain their reasoning, especially given that TISM is in widescreen.

With all the apparent controversy over this, I guess I'll just be happy to get the movies in this particular case.

Also, I'm thinking that given the titles involved, they will be available through other outlets besides Best Buy, but it's just a question of when, and I, of course, would rather have mine sooner rather than later.

And finally, now that I've seen the artwork for the laserdiscs, I have to say that I actually prefer the new artwork. It may look a bit cheap/public domainish & something I might just pass by if I saw it in the store, but the laserdisc was just plain ugly!

 

[pitchman]

Personally, as I mentioned previously in this thread, I do not have a problem with the new DVD cover art. By the same token, I am a big fan of the artwork for the first volume of the laserdisc box set. The thumbnail does not do it justice. In reality, it is an elegant design and the full-size package is classy looking. As always, YMMV.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

This quote and the person at Universal who wrote it are woefully misinformed about the original theatrical presentations (initial release) of these films - they should look at the actual studio paperwork of the time and ignore the 2006 accountants dictating these transfers. They are simply wrong: they did a full-frame transfer on these to save money (one new transfer instead of two), and, as a forum supporting OAR, we should not be supporting these releases.

Simply stated (again): Universal began shooting all non-'scope films for 1.85 widescreen (or 2.0 in a couple of cases) aspect ratio by mid-1953. That is the Original Aspect Ratio as intended and is the correct one for these films.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I will fully support this release, and any other which Universal may grant us in the future where these '50s sci-fi films are concerned. I am a big supporter of proper OAR and do not condone pan and scan, but the truth is, I'm not going as nuts over these particular films as I would a Cinemascope prodcution or something. I've seen these films in my childhood and on VHS in the full frame mode, and the differences are just not that drastic, IMO.

 

[Stephen PI]

The information below was reported in the May, 1953 issue of American Cinematographer magazine:
Universal-International
"Early last month this studio unveiled it's method of wide-screen projection for both 2-D and 3-D films, complete with stereophonic sound. Studio engineers have established an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 as the standard for U-I Pictures.
All U-I pictures, it was reported, henceforth will be photographed with a view to wide-screen presentation. Thus, directors of photography at this studio will compose all scenes with consideration for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio in both regular and three -dimension photography".

The above was an extract of a survey by Arthur Gavin.
Nothing wider than 1.85 was considered.

 

[Radioman970]

Absolutely awesome. Last year we got a box and Hammers, now this. I've wanted Monster on the Campus for years. That's the one with the axe in the head, right? I remember that playing in the 80s, me and my buds talked about how cool that was. I'd be happy with a full frame if that's all there is.

Worth it for Shrinking Man alone. I'm soooooooooooo adding this near the top of my list.

 

[Doug Otte]

I share Peter's concerns about the OAR on these films, but I'm taking your position, Joe, and buying them nonetheless. I'd rather have them in some form on DVD than not at all.

Doug