QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE

Leo Anthony Vale · June 8, 2009

I've seen this movie many times on TV since I was in high school, but only

in pan&scan versions.

It has finally come out on DVD, So now I was able to see it in CinemaScope as God had intended it to be seen.

There is a fifteen minute pre-title sequence which opens with stock shots of an Atlas and a V-2 being readied for launch and the Atlas taking off.

Of course none of these look like the rocket that crashes on Venus after the main titles. That footage is from 'World without End' and turns out that the rocket was designed by Cheseley Bonestell for a late 40s movie that was never made. The model was used in the Cinecolor film 'Flight to Mars'

I was certain that that all of the stock shots, including a matte painting of an Arabian Nights palace used for the Venereal city, were all stretched out. The use of non-squeezed footage in a scope movie helped to contribute to the over all ambiance of cheapness.

But I was shocked to see, that except for one shot of the V-2 and the palace, there was no anamorphic distortion. The stock shots had been converted to undistorted CinemaScope! Initially I began to doubt my memory. The trailer on the DVD had some of the Atlas shots in it and they were stretched out. I compared the framing between these shots and the same ones in the feature, & yes, the footage had been SuperScoped! At least they were noticably grainier than the live action.

Should this sort of tampering be allowed?

What next? Coloring B/W movies?

If this film had been declared a National Treasure this desecration would not have been allowed.

If one still has the urge to see stretched out aero-space footage, watch 'X-15', directed by Richard Donner with the Marlboro Man, Charles Bronson and Mary Tyler Moore.

Mark Bonnington · June 9, 2009

I've seen this movie many times on TV since I was in high school, but only
in pan&scan versions.

It has finally come out on DVD, So now I was able to see it in CinemaScope as God had intended it to be seen.

There is a fifteen minute pre-title sequence which opens with stock shots of an Atlas and a V-2 being readied for launch and the Atlas taking off.

Of course none of these look like the rocket that crashes on Venus after the main titles. That footage is from 'World without End' and turns out that the rocket was designed by Cheseley Bonestell for a late 40s movie that was never made. The model was used in the Cinecolor film 'Flight to Mars'

I was certain that that all of the stock shots, including a matte painting of an Arabian Nights palace used for the Venereal city, were all stretched out. The use of non-squeezed footage in a scope movie helped to contribute to the over all ambiance of cheapness.

But I was shocked to see, that except for one shot of the V-2 and the palace, there was no anamorphic distortion. The stock shots had been converted to undistorted CinemaScope! Initially I began to doubt my memory. The trailer on the DVD had some of the Atlas shots in it and they were stretched out. I compared the framing between these shots and the same ones in the feature, & yes, the footage had been SuperScoped! At least they were noticably grainier than the live action.

Should this sort of tampering be allowed?

What next? Coloring B/W movies?

If this film had been declared a National Treasure this desecration would not have been allowed.

If one still has the urge to see stretched out aero-space footage, watch 'X-15', directed by Richard Donner with the Marlboro Man, Charles Bronson and Mary Tyler Moore.

World Without End was a great movie. I hope that one comes out to DVD.

Is it possible that The Queen of Outer Space preview is not a 1:1 representative of the original movie footage? The preview might have been targeted for 4:3 televisions rather than wide theater dimensions, in which case maybe the original theater presentation used the same undistorted footage that is used in the DVD presentation. Or, it might have been an unintentional mistake in the transfer process that nobody caught, and if discovered they might have figured it wasn't significant enough to worry about. Most people watch a movie for the plot and overall content, rather than the aspect ratio of the introductory scenes, so that would be a reason to let it slide.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Mark Bonnington