3 Stooges Collection 1934

locoboymakesgood · **Reply #25 on:** August 24, 2007, 04:44:45 PM

That cover art blows... I really hope they change it and make it look like the masterpiece that it will be. It looks like that was thrown together in 5 minutes. Seems kind of pointless considering they've spent a few years restoring these shorts.

busybuddy · **Reply #26 on:** August 24, 2007, 04:54:48 PM

The thing to remember is its the shorts that matter. They could sell this collection in a brown paper bag and I wouldn't care a bit. (and I'm a graphic artist!)

xraffle · **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2007, 05:13:40 PM

Not a bad cover art. Thanks a million S&C for posting it. Apparently it's called 1934-1936 and not Years 1-3. However, BeAStooge may be right. The cover can change. It has happened before to other TV shows that was released on DVD.

And it says Digitally Remastered, which means, as I point out before, that we are getting brand new transfers for this release. We're not going to get the same bad prints that were released earlier on DVD.

stooged and confused · **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2007, 05:23:29 PM

Right on all accounts. I was holding back judgement at this point and just wanted to get the info out as promised. I do agree that it looks hastily assembled and that the main photo isn't even from the right time frame, let alone from a Columbia short. And the main photo has been used for the public domain releases in the past. I feel that many of the people working on this set are quite unfamiliar with the product. That is certainly NOT the first time that has happened. I wish you or I (or some other informed fan) could be hired as a consultant. I was hoping they would have used a mock one sheet style graphic or the opening credits logo or the second opening logo that had the "mockingbird" music accompanying it.

I am hoping that the artwork will change between now and the assembling of the set. I am very concerned about the language on the box that states digitally remastered. So far, between the press release, the goofs on Sony's site describing the set and the cover art, there are several errors and inconsistencies.

Pat The Stooge · **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2007, 05:57:22 PM

Oh. I see.

locoboymakesgood · **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2007, 06:25:14 PM

Quote from: stooged and confused on August 24, 2007, 05:23:29 PM

Right on all accounts. I was holding back judgement at this point and just wanted to get the info out as promised. I do agree that it looks hastily assembled and that the main photo isn't even from the right time frame, let alone from a Columbia short. And the main photo has been used for the public domain releases in the past. I feel that many of the people working on this set are quite unfamiliar with the product. That is certainly NOT the first time that has happened. I wish you or I (or some other informed fan) could be hired as a consultant. I was hoping they would have used a mock one sheet style graphic or the opening credits logo or the second opening logo that had the "mockingbird" music accompanying it.

I am hoping that the artwork will change between now and the assembling of the set. I am very concerned about the language on the box that states digitally remastered. So far, between the press release, the goofs on Sony's site describing the set and the cover art, there are several errors and inconsistencies.

Well, if you have any "pull", this is the time to use it. I'm not an advocate for cover art either but I feel since I (and most of the community) has been personally SHAFTED by Columbia since DVDs inception for the lack of Stooge DVDs.. that they can take an extra 10 minutes and put together a nice cover. I guarantee you in the time they put that together I or any other PhotoShop wiz could put something 100 times better out. Please, please convince them that cover art will not help them sell! They can do so much better.

I mean, they OWN the original one-sheets.. why not use some of them or an incarnation of one? Make it look flashy.. you can't judge a DVD set by its cover but trust me people do take that into consideration!

stooged and confused · **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2007, 06:42:32 PM

Hi Loco Boy:

I have been in touch with my Sony contact since I posted their artwork and saw the "feedback" regarding it. While the two people I communicate with at Sony do not work in the art department, I expressed the cover concerns and she said she'd "pass it along." I want this to succeed more than you know. I wish I could grab the reins on this project and make sure it's done right. We'll just have to hope it all works out. I am relieved that they will be giving us great looking transfers, which is far more important than a cover. But, I agree that first impressions DO count.

I sent the concerns to them and what they choose to do with it is up to them.

xraffle · **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2007, 07:01:21 PM

Quote from: stooged and confused on August 24, 2007, 06:42:32 PM

Hi Loco Boy:

I have been in touch with my Sony contact since I posted their artwork and saw the "feedback" regarding it. While the two people I communicate with at Sony do not work in the art department, I expressed the cover concerns and she said she'd "pass it along." I want this to succeed more than you know. I wish I could grab the reins on this project and make sure it's done right. We'll just have to hope it all works out. I am relieved that they will be giving us great looking transfers, which is far more important than a cover. But, I agree that first impressions DO count.

I sent the concerns to them and what they choose to do with it is up to them.

I agree. As long as the transfers are good and all shorts are unedited, then I could care less what the cover art looks like. But having a nice cover would encourage more sales, so improving it is not such a bad idea.

busybuddy · **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2007, 07:04:31 PM

Tell them to send all of the design information our way and I'll re-design it based on the fans' ideas absolutely free.(hey, a fella can dream can't he?)

Dunrobin · **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2007, 11:26:31 PM

Why don't you go ahead, busybuddy, and post it here? Then S&C can pass it along, and maybe they'll get the hint.

stooged and confused · **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2007, 12:02:11 AM

I'd be happy to!!

Jimmie Adams · **Reply #36 on:** August 26, 2007, 11:27:06 AM

I forgot about HIGHER THAN A KITE. On the VHS release they used what looked like a 16mm dupe (a friend of mine has this on 16mm Kodak stock and it looks beautiful, much better than the VHS). On the broadcast master used for the Family Channel and the TBS showings, HTAK source came from a beautiful 35mm. Whahoppen?

My first Columbia Stooge DVD had A PLUMBING WE WILL GO on it and I just couldn't believe they would use such a lousy print.

busybuddy · **Reply #37 on:** August 27, 2007, 11:42:57 AM

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t301/troxelandwait/stoogedvd.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket">[/url]

busybuddy · **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2007, 11:47:24 AM

This is my version of the DVD cover.

Dunrobin · **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2007, 12:06:41 PM

Can you upload a bigger copy of it than that one, bb? That was kind of small for my weak old eyes, when it comes to looking at the details. From what I can see, though, it looks pretty good. I definitely like the overall look of it a lot more than the one that Sony slapped together.

busybuddy · **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2007, 12:21:31 PM

I couldn't get it any bigger but you can go to my myspace page at myspace.com/troxelandwait and view my pics page because it's on there bigger. You can't miss it.

Dunrobin · **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2007, 12:30:10 PM

Okay - thanks! I'll take a look at it this evening. (Myspace.com is verboten here at work, so I'm not going to take a peek right now, lest I bring the wrath of the I.S. gods down on my head.)

3Stooges · **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2007, 01:41:03 PM

busybuddy,

Yours is definitely better than Sonys!

busybuddy · **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2007, 04:32:31 PM

Thanks!!!

It looks a lot bigger than the Sony one, but the front is exactly the same size. The side just got stretched when I put it into persepective, but it's the right size by itself.

xraffle · **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2007, 05:46:38 PM

Nice cover art busybuddy!! You get a karma for that! I really hope S&C can pass that along. That is, by far, A LOT better than Sony's.

jrvass · **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2007, 06:25:11 PM

Where? I can't find shit on that page due to my color-blindness. Someone, anyone, give me a link.

That is a fricking eye-test that I fail miserably. I'm to the point in my life where if a magazine uses goofy background colors, I just skip the article.

Lord knows I want to bitch-slap the women that I work with that set their colors to be dark blue on black, or lime-green on pukey Pepto-Bismol pink!!! I refuse to look at their screens and tell them they have to read it to me. Gives me a fucking headache!

Rant-rave-rant...

Busybuddy, I'll give you a karma based on the high praise given by my pals. I'm sure you'll post the direct link for your colorblind friends!

I think I even had an "LSD flashback"!

Hold on tight,
Don't let go!
Don't say "damn!"
Say "Triple-Whammy Whoa!"

The Electrifying MOJO, Because nobody "bad" like you!

James

busybuddy · **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2007, 06:30:01 PM

I tried making a direct link, it didn't work, so I guess you'll just have to b@#$%-slap me. If you look under the picture at the top, it says View:Pics/Videos. It's written in black so you're probably not just color-blind, you're blind completely. There's also an imageshack version earlier in this forum but it's not as big as the one on my myspace. So I guess you're just out of luck. Enjoy the Sony version.

xraffle · **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2007, 07:04:06 PM

Try this:

busybuddy · **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2007, 07:06:02 PM

THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH!

busybuddy · **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2007, 07:07:42 PM

I just realized i put "realeased" instead of released. It's okay, it can be fixed very easily.

3 Stooges Collection 1934 - 1936, October 30

Linked Events

xraffle

stooged and confused

stooged and confused

xraffle

stooged and confused

Jimmie Adams

xraffle

xraffle