Well, they finally sent me the following:
---------------------------------------------
We're sorry to report we won't be able to obtain the following item from your order:


Jack Arnold (Director), et al "This Island Earth"

Although we'd expected to be able to send this item to you, we've since found it's not available from any of our sources at this time. We realize this is disappointing news to receive, and we apologize for any inconvenience we've caused you.



We must apologize also for the length of time it's taken us to reach this conclusion. Until recently, we'd still hoped to obtain this item for you.



We've cancelled this item from your order.
----------------------------------------------
James :)

When did you initially order it?

Around June or July.

James :)

I'm glad I bought this when it was available. No, I'm not selling it.

I'm surprised that there aren't any copies of this left at major outlets. It was 6 years ago when it was released. Now I know it's a popular film around here, but I can't see it being a huge seller. You'd think it would turn up in the bargain bins. I guess not.

Compared to today very few copies were actually manufactured. When this went out of print Walmart didn't even sell dvds yet, Best Buy had a little dvd section and huge vhs section and blockbuster didn't rent dvd yet. A lot of the
OOP stuff from '97-99 is so expensive because so few were made(JOURNEY TO FAR SIDE OF THE SUN,MAN OF A THOUSAND FACES, FAREWELL MY LOVELY). Stranely KISS OF THE VAMPIRE has never gained value. Universal has withdrawn all titles they licensed to Image and Goodtimes and then issued them themselves when the license expire so THIS ISLAND EARTH will be back. I'd keep on top of the announcements and sell the old one as soon as the reissue gets annnounced. Newer stuff, even if they go out of print will never be worth much because now they pop them out like M&Ms. The cd market is the same way. Titles that were available for few years in late '80s and never since are extremely expensive.

Let's hope Universal doesn't screw us by releasing the fullscreen version like they did with Colossus: The Forbin Project. I still can't get over the fact that they released a 60's classic like that in full screen.:mad:

When TIE is eventually reissued I expect it to be part of some kind of sci-fi set much like the legacy, ma pa kettle etc. I don't hold out hope for widescreen unless it is a single disc release. They pan/scanned Revenge of Creature and Creature Walks Among Us.

They pan/scanned Revenge of Creature and Creature Walks Among Us.
My understanding is that all of the Creature films were released unmatted. No panning and scanning is needed when that is done. Whether that is good or not is debatable. Sometimes details not intended to be seen (such as a telephone pole in the Amazon) are revealed when the matte is not implemented.

:( :( :(

:( :( :(
I'm not sure what you're unhappy about, but I would have really liked it if the first two creature movies had been released in 3-D. I once saw the first movie in 3-D during a 1978 snow storm while I was in an Indiana University Briscoe dorm cafeteria room. (How they got a 3-D print with enough glasses for everyone is something I'll never know!) I was amazed at how well the effect was of the underwater air bubbles flowing towards the audience. If there can be other movies released in 3-D, why not the first two movies in this series?

I'd also like to see House of Wax and Robot Monster in 3-D. I've got Robot Monster in (according to the front of the DVD box) "Intriguing 2-D", but it's not as intriguing as you may think. The back of the box glows that it's, "In exciting 2-Dimensions. No special glassess needed!"......uh.... Yay!???

My understanding is that all of the Creature films were released unmatted. ...Whether that is good or not is debatable.

From a DVD point of view, it's bad.

I don't get terribly concerned about the composition with movies from this era. With the exception of the "scope" movies, they were usually filmed with a "safe" area in mind such that they could be shown at 1.85 or 1.37. It was a time of transition.

However, the 4x3 version is not optimum for DVD because it precludes anamorphic enhancement. An unmatted version is about 220,000 pixels and a 1.85 anamorphic version is about 350,000 pixels. So the anamorphic widescreen is always preferable WHEN APPROPROPRIATE for the movie.

REGARDING 3D. Unfortunately, this is just not proving practical yet for home video given the change in technology.

The classic 3D movies from the 50's used a polarized light system. That doesn't work in video because (short version) polarized light requires direct transmission and reflection...running it through a TV screws it. The best video systems use a field sequential arrangenemt with synchoronized LCD shutter glasses. While that has proven very good with 4x3 TV, it's falling flat on it's face with the new HDTV sets because their display technology is different. That leaves us with the familiar red/green anaglyph. Sadly, that is very hit-or-miss. I have a couple of such movies and the 3D effect is rarely noticeable and the video is poor. Warner Brothers said (in a hometheaterforum chat) their attempts at 3D caused them to get "headaches".

Well what I am sad about is that such a woderful classic such as This Island Earth is hard to find or when you do find it ,someone wants $100.00 for it . I like the old sci-fi movies! :)

Anyone else see "Creature" in 3D at Wonderfest last spring? Awesome. It was like watching a different movie.

Almost like it added a whole new dimension to it :)

I may be wrong, but I could have sworn the glasses I was given for the Creature from the Black Lagoon were the kind with 2 different colored lenses......not the polarized ones. I think I've only used the polarized type with one movie called "Comin' at Ya" and theme park shows such as Capt Eo and The Muppets 4-D.

(If I'm wrong, then I guess it's a good thing I didn't swear!")

Hmmm...I checked some 3-D site and I guess I was wrong. Alzi's kicking in!

"Hmmm...I checked some 3-D site and I guess I was wrong."


No. You were probably correct about being given glasses for anaglyph 3D.

Most 50's movies were first run with polarized 3D. But they were often reissued in anaglyph because it was a simpler (and inferior) system.

So, if you saw it in a theater in 1955, you would have seen it in polarized 3D. In 1978, you would have likely seen it in anaglyph.

If it was inferior, it wasn't by much. The 3-D effect was very good throughout the movie, with the underwater scenes making everyone feel like we were in the water with the Creature (Gill-Man)....and what's her face with the big butt.