The Incredible Shrinking Man & This Island Earth DVDS/OAR? (1 Viewer)

[Dave Scarpa]

I think we'll get it on a DVD 18 release along with Tarantula and Monolith Monsters. unfortuantely Shrinking man will be the side that does'nt work.

 

[Mark_TS]

MONOLITH MONSTERS!

 

[FrancisP]

TCM will be running this movie in the next few months. I plan to tape this and hopefully tide me over until Universal gets its collective act together and releases it.

 

[Niels Hansen]

What is the correct aspect ratio of The Incredible Shrinking Man? The British DVD release of The Incredible Shrinking Man is 1.78:1 - is that the correct aspect ratio or has it been formatted from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1 to accommodate widescreen televisions?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It should be 1.85, that's how the leaders were marked on the 35mm print that I ran last year.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Not to confuse what Pete said, because INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN is clearly 1.85, but Universal's suggested ARs and what the film is much more clearly intended to be are two different things.

THIS ISLAND EARTH (1955) is listed in their projection books as 2:1, as is TAZA, SON OF COCHISE. Just flipping through my collection of Box Office magazines from 1954, here are other listed 2:1 U-I titles:
DRUMS ACROSS THE RIVER
MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION
BLACK HORSE CANYON
JOHNNY DARK
TANGANYIKA
DAWN AT SOCORRO
DESTRY

At the same time, they suggested 1.85 for THUNDER BAY (1953), a film that was clearly shot 1.37 (even the titles), but pushed to be run 1.85 for the up and coming widescreen boom (Universal's first film with mag sound, too!) Same problem with IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, but this is --perhaps unintentionally-- corrected on the DVD.

Unfortunately, Universal doesn't seem to pay attention to such minor details as aspect ratios-- look at the full-frame transfers of Abbott and Costello Vol. 4 set with MEET THE MUMMY and MEET THE KEYSTONE KOPS, which should be 1.85 (and really benefit from being seen widescreen). It particularly hurts MEET THE MUMMY, where matting the film hid the strings holding up the snakes in the snake-charming gag. They still didn't help "Klaris's" zipper!

 

[walter o]

my OOP DVD of THIS ISLAND EARTH is full frame, and at 1:85, I think it might be too tight. Was 1:78 a format used in those days?

 

[Jack Theakston]

All the video editions of TIE are 1.37... U-I's policy seems to have been strictly 1.85 and 2:1 for their flat, so I would tend to think that this one was 2:1. I will post some pictures of the film run 1.85 and 2:1 later.

 

[Jack Theakston]

For starters, please exuse the poor quality of these scans... they do NOT reflect what the actual film looks like (which is downright stunning). See what you think...

Opening titles (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Establishing shot (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Jeff Morrow as Exeter (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Exeter
1.85
2:1

Spaceship (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Metaluna's destruction (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Metaluna Mutant (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Cargo hold (1.37)
1.85
2:1

New Sun (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Returning to Earth (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Flaming spaceship (1.37)
1.85
2:1

End Titles (1.37)
1.85
2:1

Also, THIS ISLAND EARTH has by far one of the best Perspecta tracks Universal ever mixed. Even if they decide to do this one full frame again, it would be a real pity if they didn't reinsert the stereo track to it (and REAL Perspecta, not any of this Chase crap that Criterion has been marketing as Perspecta!)

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I saw incredible shrinking Man at 1.85:1 at the sci-fi movie festival at the Laffayette theater in NY and it looked appropriate.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Mr. Theakston; thank you very much for the interesting and very informative information regarding THIS ISLAND EARTH and the theatrical aspect ratio.

I'm a little surprised that nobody else has acknowledged your valuable post. After all, it's not often that HTF members get concrete documentation directly from an original 35mm release print!

I, for one, appreciate the time and effort that it must have taken you to gather that information.

Bob Furmanek

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Bob, you are so right.

Jack, allow me to second those remarks. Contributions like yours are exactly the kind of stuff that make HTF such a thrilling place to be entertained *and* educated by our fellow film enthusiasts!

p.s. that film happens to be one of my and my dad's personal favorites. We enjoyed the DVD presentation on my projector the other week when he came over for our own personal sci-fi festival. The DVD (1.33:1) was surprisingly film-like in presentation in terms of image-naturalness and detail. I was amazed. I'd love to see this projected via 35MM or in 1080P HD properly restored!!!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Jack -

Nice job with the scans - glad you made the effort to educate the HTF membership.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It's funny, but if RAH had posted that information with the frame grabs, there would have been more posts thanking him for his input than there would have been about the aspect ratio in question!

HTF members are mighty selective about whose contributions they acknowledge...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Perhaps, it has more to do with the film itself than who contributed the knowledge? It's not a well-known film outside of Sci-fi film buffs.






Crawdaddy

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I guess you're right Robert. These Universal films from the mid-fifties have been seen for so long in full-frame transfers, that's how most people prefer to watch them - even though they were photographed for theatrical widescreen presentation.

Should only "A" pictures be released on DVD in their widescreen aspect ratio?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Case in point, "The Incredible Shrinking Man" is being shown on Turner Classic Movies channel which most of the time does great work, but they're showing it full-frame. Also, it doesn't stop there with Univeral titles, what is the aspect ratio of "Them"? If you go by how TCM or even how the dvd displays it, you would think it's full-frame.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If I remember correctly from my research through the trades in that period, WB was recommending THEM for 1.75 presentation.

 

[GregK]

..A latecomer to this excellent thread. Great pics Jack!!

I'm curious- Does the perspecta version use directional dialog? I'd love to know how many titles were encoded using this process.

 

[TedD]

I'd love to know how many titles were encoded using this process.

Just about every VistaVision film. MGM also used PerspectaSound for most of their CinemaScope film optical tracks from the mid 1950's or so up through at least the mid 1960's.

I have 3 or 4 prints with Perspecta and a couple of 20 minute reels of Perspecta previews. (I also have a PerspectSound decoder).

Ted