criterionforum.org

Ghouls is pretty weak vs the feel of the other films, but I wouldnt part with it for the world. And the floating trumpet, eyeballs, sashaying ghosts, and inexplicable word chewing, murmbling black dude during the seance (not to mention the line delivery of Eddies chiropractor as the dead hubby in the coffin) is pretty priceless.. along w the takes of the widow sitting there in her furs.

The incredible thing about the best of Woods pics is they never are not fresh no matter how many times you watch.

Somewhere in the afterlife, the triumvirate of Ed Wood, Dwain Esper, and J J Parker are sitting aroundhi-fiving after pranking b p Schulberg & Thahlberg with chunks of peanut butter in their laundered underwear.

Plan 9 was shot for widescreen, as were all Wood's 50s films after Glen or Glenda. It was standard for many films, including many low budget ones. Thompson was a professional, even if Wood was loony. And if nothing else, look at the constand dead space at the top and bottom of the frame on the DVD. Just because the film is cheap and rushed, doesn't mean it didn't ahere to basic technical requirements for cinema exhibition

Since we're talking aspect ratio is this set acceptable?

I can't believe I care.

Orlac wrote:Plan 9 was shot for widescreen, as were all Wood's 50s films after Glen or Glenda. It was standard for many films, including many low budget ones. Thompson was a professional, even if Wood was loony. And if nothing else, look at the constand dead space at the top and bottom of the frame on the DVD. Just because the film is cheap and rushed, doesn't mean it didn't ahere to basic technical requirements for cinema exhibition

You just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

Go ahead, find me all of Thompson's wide work. And since when did making an academy film in the 50's mean a filmmaker wasn't "professional", or didn't "adhere to basic technical requirements for cinema exposition"?

Knives, the box is pure gold, grab it while you can... it's all exactly as it was when exhibited. When it was exhibited, which was like an eyeblink per film in the toilet theaters in a few towns.

Orlac wrote:And if nothing else, look at the constand dead space at the top and bottom of the frame on the DVD.

Who should we blame for the dead space in the middle of the frame?

HerrSchreck wrote: Knives, the box is pure gold, grab it while you can... it's all exactly as it was when exhibited. When it was exhibited, which was like an eyeblink per film in the toilet theaters in a few towns.

Got it on order. I'm almost embarrassed to say this, but I actually like Glen or Glenda without the least bit of irony. Unlike Plan 9 I'd say there isn't any real camp outside of the performances in it. Even that I try to excuse with a rather terrible Jack Kerouac comparison.

knives wrote:Since we're talking aspect ratio is this set acceptable?

I'd say it'd do ok. Just matte it with your TV's zoom

HerrSchreck wrote:

Orlac wrote:Plan 9 was shot for widescreen, as were all Wood's 50s films after Glen or Glenda. It was standard for many films, including many low budget ones. Thompson was a professional, even if Wood was loony. And if nothing else, look at the constand dead space at the top and bottom of the frame on the DVD. Just because the film is cheap and rushed, doesn't mean it didn't ahere to basic technical requirements for cinema exhibition

You just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

Go ahead, find me all of Thompson's wide work. And since when did making an academy film in the 50's mean a filmmaker wasn't "professional", or didn't "adhere to basic technical requirements for cinema exposition"?

Knives, the box is pure gold, grab it while you can... it's all exactly as it was when exhibited. When it was exhibited, which was like an eyeblink per film in the toilet theaters in a few towns.

No, I'm speaking from the fact it was common by then to shoot for 1.85:1, and what it looks like on the DVD - open matte, for matteing in cinemas. Too often these films are left stuck in full frame because the DVD publishers think they are supposed to be academy - Criterion is guilty of this with the Monsters And Madmen set. Now in the case of Plan 9, this isn't too much of a problem because it is more or less a genuine open matte transfer, so you matte it with your TV zooms. But sometimes, the DVD transfers are extremely zoomed in, usually because they are old masters, and the cinematography is ruined - see Universal's DVD of Deadly Mantis, or Lionsgate's War of the Colossal Beast

And how do I know this? Because I have compared caps from the DVDs with frames taken from actual collector's owned prints. If you also read industry paperwork, you'll see many of these "low budget" films were actually released in widescreen. Because that became standard very nearly overnight. By 1955, no major US studio was shooting academy features, and many smaller studios - Republic, AIP etc - had gone the same way, as well as in the UK

I can understand if the DVD distributor is unsure about what ratio a film is supposed to be , or for that matter which one the fanbase wants. They should at least ensure they are getting a genuine open matte transfer, then people who prefer the option of seeing the film wide can matte it on their DVD. It is unfortunate films are not being transferred in their ideal ratio because of the mistaken belief 50s US films were still shot exclusively for Academy, they were usually not

knives wrote:I'm almost embarrassed to say this, but I actually like Glen or Glenda without the least bit of irony.

Good to know I'm not the only one. The more I was shocked when I read that the Image DVD is censored. (Sorry, it's German, I hope a translation will be provided soon. The main gist is that the word sex was cut out.)

Orlac wrote: Too often these films are left stuck in full frame because the DVD publishers think they are supposed to be academy

Unless the filmmakers are Welles or Sirk, of course....

Tommaso wrote:

Orlac wrote: Too often these films are left stuck in full frame because the DVD publishers think they are supposed to be academy

Unless the filmmakers are Welles or Sirk, of course....

Well, if we're talking about Touch of Evil and Magnificent Obbsession, both films are supposed to be widescreen. They can be watched in academy, being shot open rather than hard matte, but why are people assuming the academy is valid and not the widescreen?

Orlac wrote:Well, if we're talking about Touch of Evil and Magnificent Obbsession, both films are supposed to be widescreen. They can be watched in academy, being shot open rather than hard matte, but why are people assuming the academy is valid and not the widescreen?

Oh no. We're not having all this again, are we?

tojoed wrote:

Orlac wrote:Well, if we're talking about Touch of Evil and Magnificent Obbsession, both films are supposed to be widescreen. They can be watched in academy, being shot open rather than hard matte, but why are people assuming the academy is valid and not the widescreen?

Oh no. We're not having all this again, are we?

I hope not, I just wanted to make the facts clear on Plan 9, because assumptions and generalisations are getting in the way

Orlac wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:

Orlac wrote:Plan 9 was shot for widescreen, as were all Wood's 50s films after Glen or Glenda. It was standard for many films, including many low budget ones. Thompson was a professional, even if Wood was loony. And if nothing else, look at the constand dead space at the top and bottom of the frame on the DVD. Just because the film is cheap and rushed, doesn't mean it didn't ahere to basic technical requirements for cinema exhibition

You just making this stuff up off the top of your head?

No, I'm speaking from the fact it was common by then to shoot for 1.85:1, and what it looks like on the DVD - open matte, for matteing in cinemas. Too often these films are left stuck in full frame because the DVD publishers think they are supposed to be academy - Criterion is guilty of this with the Monsters And Madmen set. Now in the case of Plan 9, this isn't too much of a problem because it is more or less a genuine open matte transfer, so you matte it with your TV zooms. But sometimes, the DVD transfers are extremely zoomed in, usually because they are old masters, and the cinematography is ruined - see Universal's DVD of Deadly Mantis, or Lionsgate's War of the Colossal Beast

And how do I know this? Because I have compared caps from the DVDs with frames taken from actual collector's owned prints. If you also read industry paperwork, you'll see many of these "low budget" films were actually released in widescreen. Because that became standard very nearly overnight. By 1955, no major US studio was shooting academy features, and many smaller studios - Republic, AIP etc - had gone the same way, as well as in the UK

I can understand if the DVD distributor is unsure about what ratio a film is supposed to be , or for that matter which one the fanbase wants. They should at least ensure they are getting a genuine open matte transfer, then people who prefer the option of seeing the film wide can matte it on their DVD. It is unfortunate films are not being transferred in their ideal ratio because of the mistaken belief 50s US films were still shot exclusively for Academy, they were usually not

Those references to being in the room with reels and "industry paperwork" smells an awful lot like Furmanek, but I'd doubt even HE would get this loony and irresponsible.

Comparing what, for example, a major studio like Universal (who released The Deadly Mantis, many atomic age sci-horror flicks with problemmatic ratios like The Incredible Shrinking Man or This Island Earth, plus the Sirks and Touch of Evil) was doing to what Ed Wood was doing does little for your contention (which you're asserting because, what, you saw a projected print of the film?). Films from the 50's during the AR changeover must be takn on a case by case basis... oftentimes the director's wishes clashed with the distribution needs of the studios. And the reason the confusion persists on many of the Uni titles is because the films were exhibited in both ratios, because there was nothing resembling uniformity in exhibition yet, not by a longshot.

But associating this need to streamline the output of a massive studio for distribution with Wood is outrageous. PLan 9 had no real distribution-- Producer Ed Reynolds, who got stuck with the end results of Wood's efforts, and now needed to make the money he'd invested in the film back, took the reels and flew to NYC and screened it for all the major distributors. Nobody bit. He tried and tried and tried for weeks to get somebody to pick up the exhibition to no avail. His money ran completely out and his posessions/room were locked down and held by the hotel he was staying in until he paid his bill. He was literally stranded in NYC, penniless. His wife had to wire some money to him so he could come home.

Months later back in LA he finally got a tiny z-grade distributor to pick up the film for no liability on their end-- Reynolds had to create the one-sheets, complete advertising materials, and had to fund the laboratory prints of the film. This from a man who was already almost broke. The lab produced approx 10 prints of the film for a few country drive-in's and smelly old cinemas, where the film went on to make no money, and was quickly pulled out of circulation. It was only later on into the 60's when TV came around that the film somehow wound up in a pile that went into rotation for the "late movie".. and students and hipsters started picking up on the uniqueness of it-- and it began, slowly but ever so surely, to be sought out and gain word-of-mouth and the eventual reputation.

Thompson & Wood did not shoot this (or any film) widescreen-- those (like the principal actors and makeup artist) who were part of this and other Wood films were part of their exhibitions at Wood appreciations/retro's, where they of course were exhibited in academy.

These were guys who were mimicking/tributing the Universal horror classics from the 30's anyway, films shot in 1.33.

There's not a shred of specific evidence (or a voice from the original production who protested the exhibition) about this film being exhibited in widescreen. Every couple of years someone pops in from the weeds asserting this film was shot in widescreen; it's truy one of the looniest assertions I've ever heard (along with the one that Thompson worked regularly in widescreen).

Shreck, what you don't understand is that it was an industry standard to exhbit and shoot for in widescreen by 1959. I'm basing the facts on having seen a print of Plan 9, and whats more, seeing it matted to 1,85:1, which improves the composition and removes some of the goofs. As I've said, the academey open matte can be an option. I'm not saying you can ONLY show it in widescreen, I'm saying the film was shot to allow for wide exhibition, as is evidenced by the photography, the placing of the credits and the standards of the time.

And being a tribute to an old film doesn't mean you go against industry standards. Is Young Frankenstein in academy? No, it was not a phyisical possibility in many commerical standards by that time, which is why Disney and MGM cropped Pinnochio and Gone With the Wind for re-release. Note there I say cropped, not matted.

Did people protest the academy screenings of Plan 9? No, but would they have complained had it been in widescreen? I'm not trying to dismiss the academy ratio, just explain that low budget and haphazard filming does not mean a film was shot like a home movie.

As for Mr. Furmeank, he's a man I have a great deal of respect for, both for his courtesy and for his vast research, which I'll wager few here have taken the trouble to credit, because they are looking at films from a textual perspective, not a production perspective, which is fair enough but again should not invallidate the other.

I don't wish to repeat this argument again, as it happens too often on forums, and ends in deadlock because neither one side can convince the other, so I'll let that be my last word on the subject, and leave it up to individual's disgressions. Was Plan 9 shot for wide or academy? As Shakespeare would say "As you will"

Orlac wrote:As Shakespeare would say "As you will"

Do you mean "As you like it" (as in the play, "As You Like It"), or "What you will" (as in the play "Twelfth Night, or What You Will")?

Good to see this discussion return to the forum, I was on the verge of forgetting all about it.

By the way, does anyone else think the score for Plan 9 is actually quite good? I find myself humming it sometimes.

Orlac wrote:Shreck, what you don't understand is that it was an industry standard to exhbit and shoot for in widescreen by 1959.

A tiny but not insignificant quibble under these particular circumstances - Plan 9 was shot in 1956.

Let's even grant him the year of 1959, so we can use this opportunity to get him to, within his own territory, grasp something about film fully and completely:

Orlac wrote:Shreck, what you don't understand is that it was an industry standard to exhbit and shoot for in widescreen by 1959.

What apparently you don't understand that-- as a stressed above-- tying what the big studios were doing to what Ed Wood was doing, in an attempt to apprehend the technical aspects of his production, is hugely problemmatic. This is because 1959, like the rest of the post 1954 50's, was a mish mash of AR's-- and outside of the major's the academy ratio was still in use. Claiming "industry standard" as your means of historical deduction in this case is practically like saying, that, since beehives were popular in female hairdo's around this time, your aunt Bee must have wore one on New Yrs Eve in '59.

If you want to get a sense of what Ed Wood might have been doing (an extraneous excercise, since you are discarding all the existing support for 1.33, and prefer to start from scratch and simply generally scan the era for industrial trends instead... okay, lets do it), you look to productions of a similar pedigree and their exploitation venues... not within the big studio system and their distribution routes.

Doing this for 1959, then, you want to seek out fringe productions... productions outside of the studio system and more in the obscure lanes and alleyways of the poverty-row zone of business of that year. And in doing so, after a 15 minute check through my memory and sorting imdb's 1959 films alphabetically, it's very easy to demonstrate that 1.37 was very much in use. Between memory and imdb-- films both from 1959 and in academy:

Cassavettes' Shadows. Attack of the Giant Leeches, Attack of the Jungle Women, Attack of the Puppet People, Beat Girl, A Dog's Best Friend, Born To Be Loved, Broth of a Boy, A Lust to Kill, Breakout, City of Fear, Cover Girl Killer Cuban Rebel Girls, Curse of the Undead, Date At Midnight, Date With Death, Devils Bait, Diary of a High School Bride, Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow, A Dangerous Age. That's just using English language films, going no further than the letter "D" when using imdb as reference.

That's just a small sampling. I could increase the list tenfold with a slight margin of error when imdb is relied upon. But it's easy to move further forward and find films from a later date, of the same pedigree, in academy-- Carnival of Souls for example.

Orlac wrote: I'm basing the facts on having seen a print of Plan 9, and whats more, seeing it matted to 1,85:1, which improves the composition and removes some of the goofs.

There are no facts in your argument, really: just the blanket application of a faulty grasp of cinema history, along with The Way You'd Personally Prefer Plan Nine, onto that film's production.

For a clear visual proof of it's aspect ratio, you need look no further than it's opening shot: before Criswell appears onscreen, you see a lamp fired thru a "peacock tail" shaped cutout onto a dark wall. The light effect looks kind of like the NBC logo. It is carefully framed so that the light effect ends perfectly up at the top center of the frame. Changing the AR will completely obliterate this simple and obvious effect, one of the more arty and obviously carefully staged shots in the film. This single shot unhinges your argument completely.

EDIT: Here's the shot, for those who don't own the film.

Sloper wrote:By the way, does anyone else think the score for Plan 9 is actually quite good? I find myself humming it sometimes.

Taken from a number of very well-composed library cues & yes, a lot of it is quite good.
There was a CD of it issued about 10 years ago - no doubt OOP by now.

Ah, I thought as much. Mind you, the film has other things going for it - like those superb shots of missile launchers and jet planes...

Around 1980, the Medved brothers staged "The World's Worst Film Festival" at the Beacon theater in Manhattan. I saw PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE with a packed house there. I daresay it was the first time the great majority of us in attendance were seeing it. What a revelation. And we all had a great time. There's nothing like seeing a film like this with an appreciative audience. "Bad" films aren't supposed to be this entertaining.

I also saw GLEN OR GLENDA? there and it was introduced by screenwriter David Newman (BONNIE AND CLYDE, SUPERMAN) who had written an article for Film Comment a few years earlier about the time he discovered it playing in a Times Square theater and called his wife and another couple to come down and join him. That film proved to be a crowd favorite also.

Both of these films operate on their own Woodian wavelength, that of a true visionary--who may not have the tools or the sophistication to carry out his vision in a way that fits the critical consensus of what constitutes art at the given time, but proceeds to do it anyway. They should not be judged by the standards we use to judge comparable genre films (if there are any comparable films). BRIDE OF THE MONSTER and NIGHT OF THE GHOULS are both much more conventional genre films and are not quite as inspired. But I found them both relatively well-made for the kinds of low-budget genre films they are and moderately entertaining, certainly in comparison to other films of their type.

Well stated Vic, and I wholeheartedly agree.

For the record, both BRIDE OF THE MONSTER and PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE were photographed and intended for 1:85 presentation.

ok thankyou for giving us a definitive answer that settles it

Bob Furmanek wrote:Well stated Vic, and I wholeheartedly agree.

For the record, both BRIDE OF THE MONSTER and PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE were photographed and intended for 1:85 presentation.

The record is already well and firmly established re 1.33 for both. If you'd like to try to modify it, hold yourself to the same criteria you hold the 1.33 crowd to in the MagOb discussion: get us documents! Proof! What you "think" isn't good enough, remember?

Documentation exists.

If you doubt my word, do your own research.

Lol.

In other words "there is none." Bob F doesn't turn down opportunities to provide documentation.