Jump to content

Talk:Plan 9 from Outer Space/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Unsorted comments

Under "goofs and mistakes", I removed: 

A door that presumably leads to the outside of the flying saucer opens in the opposite direction to the outer door
of the saucer.

It can be infered from the movie that the spaceship has both an inner and an outer door, with some sort of room between them (the aliens mention this and there are 2 knobs which control the doors). Therefore, I feel that there is no evidence to credit it as a goof.

Some employee of Legend Films (I'm guessing) added a whole slew of advertising into the article. I just made a quick cut, leaving in the stuff that was still relevant. Apparently that IP has been making all sorts of self-promoting edits in articles relating to film colorization. --Kerohazel 13:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have confirmation on the Baptism story? Sounds implausible enough to be true for such a horrible movie... CharonX 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tor Johnson

I deleted the phrase about Johnson being "billed as The Super Swedish Angel" because it makes it seem as if this film credits him by this nickname rather than his real name. (Ibaranoff24 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Welcome POV

I glad to see that POV is allowed somewhere on the Wikipedia! N0va1is.

Welcome to being a dick.

Public domain or copyright?

I was wondering if this movie along with Ed Wood's Glen or Glenda are consider public domain. I came across this from an old Slashdot discussion, the popular nerd discussion website, saying it was in "public domain." [1] However, when I click on Archive.org's link to view it. I came across this message: "The item is not available due to issues with the item's content." Does anyone have any references that say the last copyright holder of those two Ed Wood movies released those them to public domain, besides Archive.org use to put them on their website? It has to be reputable sources, besides just an amauter webisites listing it as public domain. Here is a recent discussion about some users of Archive.org are questioning why that movie was taken away: [2]. I know there was a DVD release of the movie, but that's about it. --4.253.34.184 00:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Glen or Glenda?, Jail Bait, and Plan 9 from Outer Space are in the public domain because their copyrights were not renewed. (Ibaranoff24 02:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
    • There is a reason why Archive.org got rid of the movies. Their copyrights were renewed in 1986.Slashdot poster Rotten Tomatoes "Released as part of the Wade Williams Collection (copyright renewed 1986). Filmed in Hollywood, California." --4.253.39.214 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems the copyright holders of those Ed Wood films will not be in public domain until 2053, according to this Slashdot poster that got his/her reference from the United States Government office. The United States Copyright Search Engine "are unavailable 5:00 p.m. Saturday to 12:00 noon Sunday (U.S. eastern time)." [3] I will confirm the Slashdot poster. Again, you didn't provide references. That's how urban legends and misinformation are spread throughout the internet. You just can't assume people say its "public domain." --4.253.39.214 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I also want to mention that Rotten Tomatoes mentioning of "Wade Williams" is slowly making sense. The copyright holder, which in this case Wade Williams, probably did renewed in 1986 without even needing to wait tomorrow for the U.S. Copyright search engines to be reopened. He was even mentioned in one of Wikipedia's Ed Wood-related articles as the last known copyright holder of Plan 9 from Outer Space. Williams was also mention on this website for a review of a 2000 DVD release of Ed Wood films as the copyright holder of four Ed Wood films. [4] The final nail in the coffin will be the U.S. Copyright search engines. --4.253.39.214 04:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • These films have been released by several distributors (my DVD copy of Jail Bait/Glen or Glenda is a double feature from Catcom Entertainment, a publisher dealing exclusively in public domain films), and Plan 9, for instance, was released independently in a colorized version by Legend Films, who specialize in the release of restored versions of public domain films (about 75% of Legend's output includes films that are currently in the public domain). These films are public domain. (Ibaranoff24 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
    • Okay, we need more input from several people. I'm still sticking with my thinking that it is still copyrighted. I searched the U.S. Copyright database. Yes, a claimant called: "Wade H. Williams III (PWH)"' renewed a title called: " Plan nine from outer space a/k/a Grave robbers from outer space. By aReynolds Pictures, Inc." on "6Jan86."
      • 1. Registration Number: RE-278-774
Title: Plan nine from outer space. By aReynolds Pictures, Inc.
Claimant: Wade H. Williams III (PWH)
Effective Registration Date: 6Jan86
Original Registration Date: 3Apr58;
Original Registration Number: PA 112-906.
Original Class: L
      • 2. Registration Number: RE-279-707
Title: Plan nine from outer space. By aReynolds Pictures, Inc.
Additional Title: Grave robbers from outer space.
Claimant: Wade H. Williams III (PWH)
Effective Registration Date: 6Jan86
Original Registration Date: 1May58;
Original Registration Number: PA 102-338.
Original Class: L
This contradicts your statement: "public domain because their copyrights were not renewed." It was renewed on January 6, 1986. The U.S. Copyright Office website doesn't use static URL addresses for searches. To prove my point, just copy/paste the Registration Number on the search field and select "Registration Number" option. [5] In addition, you said Legend Films' includes "about 75% of Legend's output includes films that are currently in the public domain." Wouldn't this title (along with Ed Wood's titles) consider part of the minority? Again, I'm not an expert on Ed Wood just find this kind of suspicious and odd that there is absoutely no reliable source saying it is public domain and Archive.org quietly removed the title from public access. --4.253.33.127 21:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to your question: NO. Plan 9 is public domain. The few copyrighted titles that Legend Films has colorized are the Shirley Temple titles, and some films that Ray Harryhausen worked on. All of the films in their cult film series (which Plan 9 is a part of) are films that are in the public domain, including Reefer Madness, Night of the Living Dead, and The Little Shop of Horrors. (Ibaranoff24 07:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

From Phil Hall at filmtreat.com: "The rights to “Plan 9 From Outer Space” have been in dispute for some time. A man named Wade Williams claims to be the copyright owner, having renewed the rights in 1986 (he put the film in theatrical re-release in 1982). However, there has been question regarding whether Williams is actually the rights owner, as the film had already been in the public domain before he was involved with it (unless I am mistaken, I believe he has the copyright for the screenplay, not the film itself). Although Williams offers the best quality prints of this title (through Image Entertainment), bootleg dupes are still easy to locate – and you can even see the entire film online at Google Video." Cuvtixo 20:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone registers to renew a copyright, does not actually mean there is actually an legitimate copyright. (although it sounds awfully official!) The US Copyright Office is a woefully inadequate for really tracking the legal status of such things. Basically, claims can be made to the courts, and this favors wealthy corporations that can spend money on the most ridiculous claims (ahem, SCO Group) conversely, no US Office or Agency is in charge of supporting Public Domain claims. Nearly anyone with a vague claim on copyright can threaten to sue archive.org, and archive.org would need to put up money for legal defense. Although the true legal status of the film would be decided in court, the necessary costs to put up a defense often discourage this. Cuvtixo 20:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in Mistake

After watching the opening sequence, it is clear that Criswell says 'and what happens on that fateful day,' not 'and what happened on that fateful day.' This shows that he is implying it has yet to happen, rather then some sort of goof.

  • Wrong. I just checked my copy of the film, and the audio and closed captions make it extremely clear that he says 'what happened on that fateful day,' not 'what happens.' I'm reinstating the info. (Ibaranoff24 12:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction. He says "future events such as these," but he never actually says that the movie depicts an actual future event, just that there will be events in the future like it. CrossEyed7 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

More Mistakes

  • It may be worth adding the following mistakes: In the scene where the blinding light knocks everyone over in the graveyard, the two guys carrying the stretcher are clearly seen to stop and heave the body off the stretcher before falling to the ground. This obviously wasn't intended to be caught on camera. Also, in one scene where the Lugosi fill-in is walking in the graveyard, his shadow is clearly seen on the studio wall. Fleagle11 15:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from adding more content to these sections. It's all original research (no one has yet cited anything) and cruft. The article is LONG. ALTON .ıl 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Baptism

My wifes Grandfather was an executive producer of this movie. His name "Hugh L. Thomas Jr." is credited in the beginning of the movie. He was also one of the grave diggers in the opening scene. He has passed away, his wife (Sarah Thomas) is still alive however and has knowledge of this movie as does her son Larry Thomas (my father in law), who also worked as a grunt for Ed Wood while making the movie. According to thier recollection Ed Wood was himself a member and a Deacon at the "First Baptist Church". Both recall the baptisms as Ed Woods idea. Hugh Thomas was also a church member and did receive financial gain from the release of this movie. It seems to me the question as to the church not being credited for financial reasons is factually wrong. The Church was credited as a group as Hugh Thomas (who contributed the most, and received the most). I believe the section should be rewritten to remove what amounts to speculation without basis. Sbmore 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Clip' versus 'Magazine'

Hi All. In the 'Goofs' Section, the following goof is mentioned:

In one scene, the cop is using a revolver and clearly states he wasted a whole clip earlier. Revolvers do not use clips.

It is very common to confuse 'magazines' with 'clips', but technically, Revolvers don't use Magazines. Although it isn't common, some revolvers can actually use a Clip to aid in loading/unloading of ammunition. I'm gonna remove this goof unless anyone takes issue with this. Jodamn 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

I cleaned up the page a bit, put in some more references, and pulled out the misconceptions section as it contradicted other sources online, and other parts of this article which are documented. I removed the quality notice as I think this is in better shape. Please put it back if you don't agree. 70.187.173.149 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Current article status

I've worked on the article a bit, but it could use some further improvements. Here are some suggestions:

  1. Expand the material on the film's history and production. Add a reception section and talk about whatever reviews the film got when it first came out as well as detailing its later status as a cult film touted as being the worst movie ever made.
  2. Clean-up the "references in popular culture section," so it doesn't appear like a trivia section/list. Remove unsourced info from this and other sections, and try to rework it from a list into a section detailing all notable spoofs of and references to the film.
  3. Try to use non-web sources as references and use citations for each piece of specific info in order identify where the info is from.

With a bit of work, this article could eventually get up to GA and later FA status. (Ibaranoff24 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

  • I also think it would be good to note instances whenever a financially unsuccessful/critically derided film is compared to Plan 9 - for example, one review of Battlefield Earth referred to it as being Plan 9 for a new generation. These examples would illustrate how the film has entered the American lexicon as a famous example of a terrible movie, and not just being some '50s sci-fi movie that sucks. (Ibaranoff24 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Adam & the Ants

Does anybody think that the early Adam & The Ants song "Nine Plan Failed" is a reference to this movie?

Bela Lugosi

"Shortly before Bela Lugosi's death, the actor had been working with filmmaker Edward D. Wood, Jr. on a horror film titled Tomb of the Vampire. When Lugosi died, he had only completed a few minutes of footage, and Wood shelved the project." This is contrasted by the "Flying Saucers Over Hollywood: The Plan 9 Companion" documentary, which claims that Wood shot Lugosi's scenes without any plot in mind, much less one of a specific movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.219.77 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Solarbonite

Does anyone know if this article uses the proper spelling of the "sunlight bomb" mentioned in the movie? I found a transcript of the movie's dialogue at http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/criswell.txt that spells it "solarotine," as well as about seven different spellings that yeild applicable results on Google. If someone knows for sure, or has the means to look into it, I'd appreciate the effort. CDrecche (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

production, release dates

The WP article on Edward D. Wood, Jr. states: The film was shot over a five day period in November of 1956 on a budget of around $20,000. ... Although completed in 1956, the film was not released until 1959, due to the inability of the producer to secure distribution.

This Jan 2009 WP article on Plan 9 from Outer Space gives the production date as 1958. Can anyone clarify? Naaman Brown (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Boom Mic and aspect ratio

(restoring section obviously deleted by mistake) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noted that for a while, people have been commenting on one major "mistake" in the film that really isn't and that I motion should be removed or at least put into a category of its own (ie. "Incorrectly regarded as mistakes"). This is, of course, the famous "boom mic and cardboard steering wheels" in the cockpit scene.

For those who are unaware, Plan 9 From Outer Space has an intended widescreen aspect ratio of 1.85:1, although the camera aperture is open at 1.37:1 (a common practice at the time). After 1953, both major studios and independent film makers who shot in 35mm used cameras that had guidelines for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio scribed into the oculars and finders unless otherwise specified. The amount of "dead room" above most of the medium shots is a dead give-away for one.

When presented at the 1.85:1 aspect ratio (ie. cropping the top and bottom of the image with the projector's aperture plate), the boom mic's shadow as well as the plywood steering wheels magically disappear. So therefore, it is not what I would consider a legitimate mistake, since that area of the film was not meant to be seen in the first place. If we had to count boom mics in masked portions of widescreen films as gaffes, there would be a FAR longer list of goofs in films. -The Photoplayer 05:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support that the film was intended to be screened in widescreen. Additionally, widescreen theaters weren't entirely commonplace at the time of the film's release. I'd chalk the visible boom mikes to bad filmmaking rather than framing. There are several other mistakes that would be visible EVEN IF the film was intended to be shown in that aspect ratio, such as the cardboard gravestones tipping over. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
The way the shots are composed in the full frame, the blocking of the titles, and the fact that those errors are hidden PERFECTLY when matted would indeed suggest that this title was composed for 1.85:1. In fact, there is no indication that the film is NOT composed for wide-screen.
As for the number of theaters with a wide screen-- I'm afraid you're mistaken. According to BoxOffice (an industry trade magazine), by December of 1953, over 58% of theaters had either converted or planned to convert to wide-screen. By the end of that year, the number was somewhere in the 90% range. By 1959, you can bet that nearly 99% of theaters were running wide-screen.
Wood shot and completed the film 2-3 years before it was actually released. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC))
That's still three years after the majority of theaters made a transition to wide-screen and all studios/camera rentals lenses for same. -The Photoplayer 12:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending the film or its mistakes, just noting that one of these "mistakes" is in actually not a gaffe, because it wouldn't be seen if the film was presented properly (which, unfortunately, none of the DVDs of it have). -The Photoplayer 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Without citing a verifiable source, it's original research. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC))
Doesn't the film itself constitute a verifiable source? All one has to do is run a 35mm print of the film (which I have done). -The Photoplayer 12:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if the film was intended to be seen in widescreen, mistakes such as these would possibly still be visible even with matting. For example, in the film A Bucket of Blood, which is about the same aspect ratio as you claim that Plan 9 was framed for, there is a scene where the shadow of a boom mike is prominently visible, even in the widescreen version. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
Well, you can hardly say that without having seen the film presented as such-- which most people haven't since the film was first released (that is to say-- anyone who has seen it on home video). Just pulling the images that are on this site for example, I made this composite. I generally don't use video sources for this sort of discussion, because frequently they're zoomed in on or misframed, but I think this illustrates my point fairly well (and I'm willing to scan a frame off of an original 35mm print if need be). -The Photoplayer 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't really know if the film was actually composed for 1.85:1. It could have been composed for 1.66:1 or 1.78:1. In both cases, the mistake would still be visible even with the matting. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
It's not hard to figure that one out. Medium shots are (seemingly) fitting at 1.85, as are the opening titles, which are always a dead give-away for a film's aspect ratio. Besides, there's no reason why Wood would have shot in some other non-American standard ratio (1.75, I think you mean, not 1.78, which is 16x9, a format that wasn't introduced for another 40 years).
Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen the film in 35mm? In widescreen? Touched a print? -The Photoplayer 04:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make assumptions based on a smarmy "I'm better than you" attitude. I know a great deal about films and filmmaking, possibly even more than you do. If you did not treat me as if I didn't know what I was talking about, I would not have perceived your posts as inuslts. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
I'm not asking for a battle of wits here. You made a couple of mistakes and assumptions, and I corrected them, that's all. In the end, you were wrong in your point, but I'm not trying to rub it in your face. I'm just disappointed that you felt the need to remove the conversation because of it. If you want to discuss it more, feel free to post on my talk page or email me. The Photoplayer 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion, I've reinstated the point with a source. The Photoplayer 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Various sources have pointed out the visibility of boom mikes in this and other films. It's a mistake, but not a huge mistake, as it's something the nitpickers tend to specifically watch for while most of us would probably either not notice it or just assume it was part of the scenery. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But it shouldn't be there in the first place. When the film is shown wide-screen like it should be (in other words, the top and the bottom of the image is cropped in the projector to make a rectangular image), the boom mic isn't visible. Many cinematographers take this for granted, and therefore don't "protect" for the full image. This is one of those cases. The boom mic isn't meant to be seen, it's meant to have been cropped out by default. The video image you see is open matte and actually more image than was supposed to be seen. The Photoplayer 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, grammar?

To go with possibly the worst movie ever made, this Wikipedia article is possibly the worst written.--Jelsova (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plan_9_from_Outer_Space/Archive_1&oldid=1142327778"