Out of the Blue vs I Know What I Saw

I re-watched Out of the Blue last night and then directly followed it up with my first viewing of I Know What I Saw.

For those who are unfamiliar with either film, Out of the Blue is a UFO documentary by director James Fox (called the best UFO documentary ever by some) and I Know What I Saw is its sequel. (The I Know What I Saw trailer can be viewed at the official website: iknowwhatisawthemovie.com...)

First off, I have to admit that I was a little disappointed with I Know What I Saw. It was several years in the making and just did not quite live up to my expectations. This is not to say that it's not good. It's still very good. Just not as great as the hype that lead up to it.

A few thoughts. . .

Out of the Blue was packed full of some very good information and also wisely stayed away from some of the more controversial elements of UFOlogy, such as the Roswell crash. Fox wanted to only present the most convincing and indisputable data, and he did so, complete with tons of info taken from government documents that I had not yet been exposed to. However, the film suffered from being just a notch below theatrical quality as the production values were mildly lacking, though this is a minor concern. Overall, a great film and wonderful documentary on the UFO phenomena.

I Know What I Saw was being touted as everything Out of the Blue was + more. In fact, while a very good film that gave us lots of good information, it just felt a little more fluffy. It was not as hard hitting. And yes, the excerpts from the National Press Club conference were fascinating, but still something was lacking.

Also, I Know What I Saw was released by the History Channel. And I do love the History Channel. But the style of this second film was SO different from the first and it's obvious that the History Channel had way too much control. While the evidence is very solid, the style leads one to feel as if they're watching an extended episode of UFO Hunters. And while I actually liked UFO Hunters--I really did--I was hoping for more from a documentary that Fox once said was potentially going to theaters.

To conclude, both films are great and are highly recommended. But I Know What I Saw was mildly disapponting after several years of waiting.

Anyone else's thoughts on either film?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by shadow_priest_x]

I think both films were great because this information need to get into the masses and James Fox is doing a great service, could they be better? sure.

I like Sereda's "From Here to Andromeda" better than both of those movies though.

Originally posted by MrUnkown
I think both films were great because this information need to get into the masses and James Fox is doing a great service, could they be better? sure.

Don't get me wrong. I think they were both great. I actually went back and watched them both again the next day, and it's they work very well together. Between the two, there's so much information. But I just expected/was hoping for a little more from I Know What I Saw after the build up.

I like Sereda's "From Here to Andromeda" better than both of those movies though.

I haven't heard of that one. I'll have to check it out.

No other thoughts on either of these films?

I did a search but didn't find a whole lot about I Know What I Saw. Seems to me the comparison of the two would be worth a discussion.

I thought I Know What I saw was well edited lol

Apart from the great footage inside the Press Club conference... it didn't really add anything NEW to the discussion... I was actually very bored by it and if I remember correctly I fell asleep in it.

Though they are good little films to get the masses in on it.

Anybody seek out anyone else's assessment of the stories, besides Fox's? Or is the going-in assumption that everything he tells you is automatically reliably true? Has anybody ever noticed any mistake or misrepresentation he's ever made, or is the assumption there are none?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Anybody seek out anyone else's assessment of the stories, besides Fox's? Or is the going-in assumption that everything he tells you is automatically reliably true? Has anybody ever noticed any mistake or misrepresentation he's ever made, or is the assumption there are none?

The Gordon Cooper story plays a fairly big role and, from what I have heard (though I haven't done the research), there has been a shadow of doubt cast upon his reliability. Something about him being pissed off at NASA and the film that was supposedly shot that day has been revealed and there's no UFO. But someone else here would have to tell us more about that. . .

With that said, I think Fox does a pretty good job of letting the witnesses tell their own story, but of course you never know what's being left out.