The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection (1 Viewer)

[Joe Lugoff]

As one of the older guys who actually saw these movies in theaters when they were new, I'd like to say this:

If you think that when you went to a theater in the 1950's, you always saw a movie in the correct aspect ratio -- well, you're wrong. If you went back in a time machine and went to see these movies, you'd be shocked.

Possibly, in the biggest cities, in the biggest "downtown" theaters, movies were shown correctly (maybe!), but after that (and in those days, after first-run, movies played in "neighborhood" theaters and drive-ins) it's EXTREMELY unlikely that movies were shown correctly. (I've even heard that some CinemaScope movies were shown in a 1.33:1 ratio! And not "panned and scanned" -- just shown with the sides cut off!)

I agree with Joe Karlosi -- does anyone really know what the director and cinematographer had in mind? And Universal probably didn't even care how these monster movies were projected in the theaters. Most of them played one week in a big first-run theater (in most cities), and then maybe another week in neighborhoods and drive-ins. After that, they'd show up occasionally at Saturday matinees. And, let's face it, they were aimed at kids, weren't they? I doubt that any 10-year-old kid cried out when he saw "The Mole People", "Hey, that's the wrong aspect ratio!"

Personally, I do demand that 2.35 (or 2.55) to 1 movies be letterboxed. The 1.85:1 movies are another story. If they were matted in the camera, then yes -- but with open matte, it's not the end of the world if they're full screen. That might very well have been the way you would have seen it when it was shown in theaters, and back then, you might not have realized it wasn't "correct."

 

[JeffMc]

I think you'll be waiting for quite a while, probably forever, before these films show up in new matted HD transfers. If you never want to watch the films again, that's your choice and your loss. $20 for five films that look good. It's a bargain. Except for SHRINKING MAN, none of these films even had a VHS release until 11 or 12 years ago and all those VHS releases went OOP immediately and were hard to find for over a decade. One of those old VHS tapes with only one movie on it would sell for over $20, sometimes a lot more, to collectors before this DVD set came out. So now you can get all 5 movies for only $20 in a nice package with trailers for all 5 films as well. Maybe these are just 'glorified VHS', but I'll take glorified VHS and, really, these DVD's look just fine. I'm an OAR advocate as well, but I agree with Joe that we need to keep this in perspective. The films are open-matte. If you want to matte 'em, zoom in.

 

[Randy Korstick]

1st off zooming them makes them look grainier than they already are.
I owned these films on VHS except for shrinking man so thats how I now they are the same masters with the same defects. As far as waiting forever it took 9 years for DVD is that what you call forever? It will probably be less for HD with the creature films recently showing up on "Monsters HD" in proper their proper ratio. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these showing up soon as well which would mean the HD Master is ready to go. I'll settle for any TV version right now instead of giving Universal money for the garbage they released here.
Concerning how do we know what the Directors and Cinemaphotographers had in mind..I think many missed the points from a few pages back that have been repeated. In 1953 Universal switched to 1.81.1 or 2.0 period. The directors and Cinemaphotographers knew this before they began filming and they knew that the films would be presented that way so why on earth would they film for 1.37? Only if they were mad at Universal for making them make a monster movie or if they never wanted to work for Universal again. There are many cases where this was true and the films were matted for Widescreen to cash in on the craze but this was not the case with Universal they were 1.85:1 films from the beginning. Watching all the extra space on the top and bottom is no different from Pan and Scan. Your either seeing something you were not suppossed to see or missing something either way its not the original intent and often times removes the viewer from the film. Pan and Scan - Open Matte in this case its all the same.

 

[dpippel]

I question whether or not some of these movies were filmed to be matted at 1.85:1. The reason I question it is that of the three I've watched so far (Tarantula, The Monolith Monsters, and The Mole People) I've noticed very little if ANY headroom/legroom for 16:9 framing. Take Tarantula as an example. Throughout the film the 1.37:1 frame is consistently used as a basis for the composition of the shot. It's very apparent. Same goes for The Monolith Monsters. I'd be more inclined to think that the director and DP of these films were composing for Academy ratio and didn't care what the studio wanted them to do and/or what the studio did with the presentation after the film hit the theater. What the filmmakers did/wanted and how the films were projected in the theater aren't necessarily one and the same thing. Just some random thoughts.

I'd also like to say that even if they're taken from old VHS masters, I think these films look pretty darned good, particularly Tarantula. Ironically, The Incredible Shrinking Man is in the worst shape of the five and it's the only one presented in anamorphic widescreen.

 

[Stephen PI]

Randy, I have reproduced the extract of that article here:

Re: The Classic Sci-FI Ultimate Collection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

The reason "Incredible Shrinking Man" is anamorphic widescreen is because the printing materials are not 'open matte'.

I would also prefer the rest of the titles to be anamorphic, but because of the fact that these are open matte there is always an issue matting them for widescreen. It is not a simple matter of matting them equally top and bottom. (The head title credits cannot always be used as a reference as they do not always match the camera operator's framing). Some only require the top to be matted and some others a combination of both. This is why it is important to have a person with an eye for vertical composition to be present during the telecine transfer to help oversee that aspect of the session.

The recent controversy of the matting of the two Universal Hammer titles in 2:1 last year bothered me initially but as it turned out they did not affect the results as dramatically as Warner's transfers of "Curse of Frankenstein" and "Horror of Dracula" which many complained about.

I heard recently that the 2:1 ratio was reported in 'Daily Variety' in the early to mid 50's. I do not generally hold their technical information in such high regard as 'American Cinematographer' magazine.

Is it not possible that the round figure of 2:1 was offered to the reporters of Variety to simplify things for the readers. After years of shooting and projecting in 1.33, it must have been quite an adjustment in 1953 for many technical and public members viewing 1:85 which is approximately half the frames' area. Did Universal see this figure and take it literally or is there accurate documentation instructing these films to be presented this way?
Also why two British titles as late as 1962 which were composed for 1.66 or1.75. Yet "Brides of Dracula" made two years earlier in 1960 Universal matted for the dvd at 1.66, supposedly the correct OAR to them, when US theaters supposedly by this time were standardised at 1.85.

 

[Jack Theakston]

But often open-matte films are zoomed in on to cover up the abundance of headroom, cutting off side information as well. THIS bothers me more than anything. If these were true open matte releases, it wouldn't bother me as much.

But Joe, HD is just around the corner. With these films mattable to 16x9, wouldn't it make sense to make new masters in their correct aspect ratio, as well as making the full use of the resolution available? I certainly don't want to have to "zoom in" and end up losing quality.

Stephen, that article says it all, however, the 2:1 aspect ratio was announced a few months later (I have no idea with what film). Some reputable trade magazines such as BoxOffice covered it quite well. It was a real AR, however short lived.

 

[Stephen PI]

Based on information I just received, I maybe wrong about this so I retract this statement.

 

[William Miller]

I watched Monster on the Campus zoomed and unzoomed and it looks much better at 1.33.

I think that maybe Universal has actually released these 5 movies in the exact ratio that the cinematographers composed them for.

I know it's a shocking thought that there possibly could be movies photographed after 1953 that were not composed for 1.85 viewing but the evidence is very clear that occasionally this was the case. Warner knew what they were doing with The Bad Seed DVD. I don't care what Universal instructions were to theaters in the 1950's. And the fact that they said you could exhibit them at 1.66 or 1.78 or 1.85 or 2.00 only proves the point that they really didn't care one way or the other and didn't care if they were composed for matted showings or not. I have a hunch that they had higher hopes for The Incredible Shrinking Man and insisted on a 1.78 planned projection.

 

[Stephen PI]

Thanks Jack, I will re-examine the American Cinematographer issues around that period.

I am still mystified why they should target two 1962 British titles to be displayed in 2:1.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I don't think Variety rounded anything up. They reported what they were given. In the same page that lists THIS ISLAND EARTH as 2:1, several other productions are listed as 1.85.

Why Universal stuck with it has always puzzled me. Initially, I think the thought was to have a format that was closer to scope ratio without pushing the boundries of loss of light and film grain. The two Hammer films were shot that way, but I'm sure there were more. It phased out pretty quickly.

I'm surprised with all of these buys that no one has taken me to my challenge. Simply post some shots from the DVD of TARANTULA that you think absolutely proove that it's a 1.37 (not 1.33) lensing. No one who thinks otherwise has given me anything but a bunch of nihilistic "maybes" without any reason for them in the first place. Apparently, you can't prove to someone something they don't want to know.

 

[dpippel]

With this kind of confrontational attitude I'm not surprised no one has taken you up on it. Try not to take things so personally.

As for the screenshots, how exactly are they going to "absolutely proove" that the DP was shooting for 1.37:1? Unless someone can consistently point out boom mics or other intrusions that were clearly meant to be out of frame, their interpretation is subjective. Only concrete information from the DP or director, one way or the other, can answer the question with any absolution. The fact that the studio handed down an edict for 1.85:1 framing certainly carries a lot of weight, but so does the fact that (as an example) Tarantula looks perfectly fine when framed open-matte at 1.37:1. I'd be willing to bet that the real truth lies somewhere in between. It's entirely possible that the DP was composing shots in the entire 1.37 space because he was used to working in that ratio.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, I'm one of those consumers who's still waiting to see how the format wars end, but I feel at 44 I'm getting older and want to spend more time enjoying what I already own instead of quibbling and spending more time studying quality and an extra quarter inch here or there. And besides, after HD-DVD there'll be SUPER-DUPER-DVD, and after BluRay there'll likely be PinkWithBlackPolkaDotRay.

I really do love excellent quality, and I wouldn't tolerate seeing, say, 1959's BEN-HUR pan and scanned... but as I said before, I personally think many are losing sight of enjoying the film.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Indeed. Many lose sight of the actual film they're talking about, and I certainly hope I haven't (I still enjoy them a great deal). But this IS a forum for reviews of DVDs and a place to express opinions. Since one of my various professions is that of a DVD producer, it troubles me when I see a company like Universal slacking off at some of my favorite films.

The thing that's bugging me is the total disregard that the company has over its consumers. It'll go ahead and release a press release stating that widescreen is wrong for these films, despite all the facts against it, and then turn around and ZOOM IN on the picture to cover up the fact that they are clearly meant to be seen that way.

 

[Stephen PI]

Jack, I was referring to Universal not Variety.

I still believe that the two Hammer titles were intended for 1.66 or 1.75 and were presented that way in the UK. I saw these at the theatre that I worked at two years later and I think their aperture plates were cut for 1.66.

 

[dpippel]

Please do post some illustrative images, since I completely missed any mention of cropping on these transfers. I thought we were debating 1.37:1 vs. 1.85:1 composition and open matte vs. widescreen presentation here and nothing more. If these releases have been zoomed within the 4:3 frame then my previous comments obviously hold no water.

 

[Jack Theakston]

My argument is that the only justification for these releases to be 1.37 is that it "looks right" because there is no head room. I've not seen the new DVDs yet, so I can't say anything about them, but I can tell you that the earlier transfers were severely cropped. Properly transferred and masked, I think most here would find a 1.85 presentation of these films quite adequate.

At $20 the box set is a good bargain. But caveat emptor, you're not getting to see these films (with the exception of SHRINKING MAN) the way they were meant to be seen.

 

[JeffMc]

As far as TARANTULA goes, there is definitely some extra head room on the DVD - it's definitely feasible it could have been matted for 1.85:1 if they felt it was necessary to do so. It's also pretty likely that it was matted for 1.85:1 in theaters and would look perfect that way. However, the 1.37:1 also looks fine and there are NO microphones or any other production gear accidentally in the frame. It looks fine.

I'm not going to waste my time posting grabs because it won't really help this discussion - the expert on one side says a 1.37:1 composition is 100% "wrong", no if's and's or but's about it. The other side says you just never know what was in the mind of a certain director or cinematographer back then, even if 1.85.1 was the studio mandate. Since the expert here is not one of those people who actually photographed these movies, his presumption to be 100% right against any other possible concept does come off as bit rude I know most fans here are pretty well versed on aspect ratio issues and know fully well what this release is about - no offense, but we don't need a sermon about how we know nothing, and that what we are buying is "not what was meant to be seen". The movies look great in 1.37:1. Universal delivered a great-priced DVD set of 5 films which sold poorly in the past on VHS - that is not disregard for consumers in my eyes. Thank you Universal. Give us another collection soon.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Adequate or "correct"? Because it's obvious that some of us here already feel the presentations are at least "adequate"...

 

[Jack Theakston]

Jeffmc, I found your post vaguely insulting, so no comment.


Well, then maybe that's the difference (what can I say, I'm spoiled with the luck of seeing prints of these films). I would say "correct," and I think presented that way, most others would too. For those who simply say "zoom in," they don't have 16x9 displays because they'd realize how horrific films look doing that. At the very least, it was a mistake for them not to at least put both versions on one disc for us purists (although I admit this would probably increase the price and possibly degrade the quality), but perhaps we'll see widescreen versions in future HD days.

 

[Steve Christou]

I've been reading the last few pages with interest, I bought Tarantula and Incredible Shrinking Man earlier this year on region 2 dvd. Tarantula was 1.33 ratio whilst Shrinking Man was 1.78 according to the back cover. I've captured a few shots to post here. There is extra headroom in Tarantula but whether it was projected at 1.85 50 years ago I wasn't around and if Jack says it was than who am I to argue? But the bottom line is Tarantula looks perfectly acceptable at 1.33 and if people enjoy watching it at this ratio and lets face it this is what we've been doing for decades, no one has the right to shame them into not buying because it may or may not be how it should be presented. The film looks great at this ratio, so did This Island Earth, and like many have said before watching a film unmatted is not the same as watching a film in pan and scan. Not even close.









And here's Clint -