Topic: 3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10

[Larry Larry]

I just hope they don't release a box set with all the volumes plus a bonus DVD with solo shorts exclusive to the box set.  That would piss me off to no end.

Then again, they may release the Derita features with solo shorts as a bonus.  There are several different routes they can go.

That's a very good idea.

I really hope they continue the series with the DeRita features.  There is no reason not to continue it.  I mean, they already released them once, and with all Stooge fans being completists, we'll buy again especially if they add the solos films as a bonus.  Good suggestion.

[moglia]

I also hope that we get a volume with the Columbia shorts starring Shemp Howard, Joe Besser and Joe DeRita.  That will be a real treat. 

I think those would be well suited for a Warner Archives type deal does Sony have anything similar?

[archiezappa]

I think those would be well suited for a Warner Archives type deal does Sony have anything similar?

No!  I would not want these to be like those archives.  There's no reason for that.  The feature films should be restored/remastered the same way as the rest of the Stooges films.  And they should be released accordingly.  With something this popular, the archives are not the way to go.

[BeAStooge]

if the recycled parts of the shorts that are inserted into the new shorts are cropped then we will loose part of the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beginning with GOOF ON THE ROOF (1953), filmed Nov. 1952, all the Stooges' films were shot for 1.85 widescreen. They were filmed open-matte (Academy 1.37), but visuals were composed and produced for 1.85, and released to theatres, intended for 1.85 matte projection.

The 9 shorts referenced in the DVD press release are 1953's GOOF ON THE ROOF, SPOOKS!, PARDON MY BACKFIRE, and the six 1954 releases. SPOOKS! and PARDON MY BACKFIRE were produced after GOOF, rushed into release to capitalize on the mid-1953 3D craze.

Columbia went to 1.85 format in April 1953... features, shorts and animation. 1.85 matte, the method adopted by Columbia and Universal, was in theatres by mid 1953. All the studios were making widescreen conversion plans long before 1953. While Fox's THE ROBE, in late 1953, is often called the first Widescreen film, that is misleading… actually, it was the first release that used widescreen technology, i.e., CinemaScope (2.55) lenses, CinemaScope 35mm film stock, and 35mm CinemaScope projection.

We have been watching the post-1952 Stooge shorts on TV for five decades in the open-matte format. Volume 7 will present nine as Columbia (and Jules White) originally intended them to be screened… in 1.85 matte.

Bob Furmanek, a film historian, author, collector and preservationist is an expert on the subject of widescreen. At HomeTheaterForum.com over the past few years, he has made numerous, informative posts on the history of widescreen (along with the knowledgeable Jack Theakston), including Columbia's April 11, 1953 press release that proclaimed itself as a "1.85" studio.

Mr. Furmanek has been involved in booking film programs at some of the most prestigious theatres, e.g., the Jersey City Loews, and the Egyptian in Hollywood. He has seen and/or screened all of the Stooges' post-1952 Columbia films in 1.85, and says that originals like GOOF ON THE ROOF, INCOME TAX SAPPY, SHOT IN THE FRONTIER, BLUNDER BOYS, GYPPED IN THE PENTHOUSE, etc., look great in 1.85. The aspect ratio eliminates the "excess" top & bottom space, that was never actually intended to be screened… over 50 years, we've become so accustomed to the open-matte visual, that we've not noticed that the pictures are not framed well.

What about the stock footage remakes?!  Furmanek noted that the stock footage can look a little tightly framed at times, but overall, it translates fine.

Jules White was certainly aware of the difference between 1.37 and 1.85… and he produced the remake shorts with that in mind.  He was responsible for delivering a quality product to Columbia standards, and he had an Assistant Director and Film Editor whose responsibilities included making sure that happened. Stock shots were carefully insured for reasonable framing in the new aspect ratio.

Keep this in mind, we're looking at an aspect ratio of 1.85...  not 2.55 CinemaScope, or 3.85 Cinerama, or VistaVision, or Panavision, or any of the other extreme scopes and visions in-between.

9 of the films on Volume 7 will look different from what we're accustomed. Historically, since that is what Columbia intended back in 1953 and 1954, I look forward to it. I don't have a problem with the stock footage variance issue that concerns many; with one exception (BUBBLE TROUBLE), I consider the stock footage remakes inferior to the original… if I want to watch THE HOT SCOTS, I'll watch THE HOT SCOTS, not SCOTCHED IN SCOTLAND. All the stock footage is still available in 1.37… on the original version.

Volume 7 will not be the first time Stooge stock footage has been released on DVD in 1.85 format. STOP! LOOK! AND LAUGH! is in its theatrical 1.85 widescreen… the classic 1930s and 1940s footage of Moe, Larry and Curly translated fine from 1.37, to 1.85… yes, a little tight at times, but no gags were lost. And I suspect that until now, many of you did not consider this... and many never even noticed.

[FineBari3]

Thanks, Brent for that fantastic lesson on the history of widescreen!

I really did not know about that before, and these shorts will be interesting to watch because of the widescreen.

[tvradio]

Beginning with GOOF ON THE ROOF (1953), filmed Nov. 1952, all the Stooges' films were shot for 1.85 widescreen. They were filmed open-matte (Academy 1.37), but visuals were composed and produced for 1.85, and released to theatres, intended for 1.85 matte projection.

The 9 shorts referenced in the DVD press release are 1953's GOOF ON THE ROOF, SPOOKS!, PARDON MY BACKFIRE, and the six 1954 releases. SPOOKS! and PARDON MY BACKFIRE were produced after GOOF, rushed into release to capitalize on the mid-1953 3D craze.

Columbia went to 1.85 format in April 1953... features, shorts and animation. 1.85 matte, the method adopted by Columbia and Universal, was in theatres by mid 1953. All the studios were making widescreen conversion plans long before 1953. While Fox's THE ROBE, in late 1953, is often called the first Widescreen film, that is misleading… actually, it was the first release that used widescreen technology, i.e., CinemaScope (2.55) lenses, CinemaScope 35mm film stock, and 35mm CinemaScope projection.

We have been watching the post-1952 Stooge shorts on TV for five decades in the open-matte format. Volume 7 will present nine as Columbia (and Jules White) originally intended them to be screened… in 1.85 matte.

Bob Furmanek, a film historian, author, collector and preservationist is an expert on the subject of widescreen. At HomeTheaterForum.com over the past few years, he has made numerous, informative posts on the history of widescreen (along with the knowledgeable Jack Theakston), including Columbia's April 11, 1953 press release that proclaimed itself as a "1.85" studio.

Mr. Furmanek has been involved in booking film programs at some of the most prestigious theatres, e.g., the Jersey City Loews, and the Egyptian in Hollywood. He has seen and/or screened all of the Stooges' post-1952 Columbia films in 1.85, and says that originals like GOOF ON THE ROOF, INCOME TAX SAPPY, SHOT IN THE FRONTIER, BLUNDER BOYS, GYPPED IN THE PENTHOUSE, etc., look great in 1.85. The aspect ratio eliminates the "excess" top & bottom space, that was never actually intended to be screened… over 50 years, we've become so accustomed to the open-matte visual, that we've not noticed that the pictures are not framed well.

What about the stock footage remakes?!  Furmanek noted that the stock footage can look a little tightly framed at times, but overall, it translates fine.

Jules White was certainly aware of the difference between 1.37 and 1.85… and he produced the remake shorts with that in mind.  He was responsible for delivering a quality product to Columbia standards, and he had an Assistant Director and Film Editor whose responsibilities included making sure that happened. Stock shots were carefully insured for reasonable framing in the new aspect ratio.

Keep this in mind, we're looking at an aspect ratio of 1.85...  not 2.55 CinemaScope, or 3.85 Cinerama, or VistaVision, or Panavision, or any of the other extreme scopes and visions in-between.

9 of the films on Volume 7 will look different from what we're accustomed. Historically, since that is what Columbia intended back in 1953 and 1954, I look forward to it. I don't have a problem with the stock footage variance issue that concerns many; with one exception (BUBBLE TROUBLE), I consider the stock footage remakes inferior to the original… if I want to watch THE HOT SCOTS, I'll watch THE HOT SCOTS, not SCOTCHED IN SCOTLAND. All the stock footage is still available in 1.37… on the original version.

Volume 7 will not be the first time Stooge stock footage has been released on DVD in 1.85 format. STOP! LOOK! AND LAUGH! is in its theatrical 1.85 widescreen… the classic 1930s and 1940s footage of Moe, Larry and Curly translated fine from 1.37, to 1.85… yes, a little tight at times, but no gags were lost. And I suspect that until now, many of you did not consider this... and many never even noticed.

Then we are indeed loosing part of the picture on the recycled footage    sad

Way article makes it sound, Stooges may have some 1.85 curly material (with no top and bottom picture loss and more on the screen sides (true?)

[xraffle]

Then we are indeed loosing part of the picture on the recycled footage    sad

Way article makes it sound, Stooges may have some 1.85 curly material (with no top and bottom picture loss and more on the screen sides (true?)

Putting the stooges aside, most widescreen movies today are cropped. Just because a film is released in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratios does not mean it was filmed that way. Most of the time, a movie is filmed in a different aspect ratio. Then later on, the movie gets cropped to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. However, it's cropped in the way the director intends the picture to be seen. So, the main reason why widescreen is so popular today is because we get to see the movie in the way the director wants us to see it.

However, most widescreen TV shows today like CSI and 24 are filmed in exactly 1.78:1, so there isn't any cropping there. It's mostly done on movies.

[Smaug]

To state the obvious (to some) Widescreen TV=16x9= 1.77 (ok 1.78) aspect ratio. As was just mentioned, even 1.85 is cropped to fit your Widescreen TV. Just a little bit, not like "How The West Was Won" on a 4x3 TV in Pan & Scan (waste of time, that....).

[locoboymakesgood]

Putting the stooges aside, most widescreen movies today are cropped. Just because a film is released in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratios does not mean it was filmed that way. Most of the time, a movie is filmed in a different aspect ratio. Then later on, the movie gets cropped to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. However, it's cropped in the way the director intends the picture to be seen. So, the main reason why widescreen is so popular today is because we get to see the movie in the way the director wants us to see it.

That's not correct.

The only cropping that's done is if a director films something open matte - which means yeah, it's shot 1.33:1, but it's SUPPOSED to have the top and bottom cut out during it's theatrical exhibition. Back to the Future suffered from this when it hit DVD since Robert Zemeckis shot all 3 films in open matte, but when Universal put together the DVD they didn't properly crop it so too much information was missing from picture.

You can't crop a film to 2.35:1. The lens is too wide. Directors shoot films in 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 for a wider lens. They don't just decide to cut off most of the picture.

Open matte is essentially full screen.. so if a director shoots that way it will get cropped to 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 since the director filmed unimportant information that's supposed to be cut off. The wide lens will always be the way it was shot. There's no cropping.

Then we are indeed loosing part of the picture on the recycled footage   Angry sad

Way article makes it sound, Stooges may have some 1.85 curly material (with no top and bottom picture loss and more on the screen sides (true?)

From what I'm gathering, since the shorts were shot open matte, we may get transitional shots that will be the new aspect ratio then the stock footage in 1.33:1. Sort of how the Dark Knight Blu-ray was with its transitioning from standard 2.35:1 to IMAX footage.

To state the obvious (to some) Widescreen TV=16x9= 1.77 (ok 1.78) aspect ratio. As was just mentioned, even 1.85 is cropped to fit your Widescreen TV. Just a little bit, not like "How The West Was Won" on a 4x3 TV in Pan & Scan (waste of time, that....).

Again, not true. The reason there's still black bars in 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 films on your HDTV set is because there's not enough picture. The black bars aren't there to just hide info - they're there because there's no picture for the disc to fill.

How the West Was Won (which I know nothing about), but if it's 4x3 which is standard full screen, then the sides will be black to give you the whole image in the center of the TV. Or you can stretch it out.

I think most of you believe black bars are there to hide the picture and unless it was shot open matte, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Here's an example from Ghostbusters. The top shot is 2.35:1 - the way it was originally shot. The bottom shot is your standard Pan & Scan VHS release.



The only cropping is on the 1.33:1 Pan & Scan to get all the important information to fill your old tube sets. Obviously, there's no cropping done in 2.35:1. Look at the wider wealth of information on screen.

[xraffle]

That's not correct.

The only cropping that's done is if a director films something open matte - which means yeah, it's shot 1.33:1, but it's SUPPOSED to have the top and bottom cut out during it's theatrical exhibition. Back to the Future suffered from this when it hit DVD since Robert Zemeckis shot all 3 films in open matte, but when Universal put together the DVD they didn't properly crop it so too much information was missing from picture.

You can't crop a film to 2.35:1. The lens is too wide. Directors shoot films in 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 for a wider lens. They don't just decide to cut off most of the picture.

Actually yeah, you may have something there. But some movies are indeed filmed 1.33:1 and then cropped to 2.35:1 later on. One film that comes to mind is the second Austin Powers movie. If you watch both full screen and widescreen (2.35:1) versions, you'll see that the widescreen version is severely cropped but you can tell that they just removed a lot of unwanted parts of the picture.

But there are a lot of 1.85:1 movies that I've encountered where the picture is cropped to widescreen. They weren't necessarily shot as 1.33:1. Some are filmed 1.66:1 and then cropped to make it 1.85:1.

However, one movie I know for sure that was filmed in exactly 2.35:1 is "Mrs. Doubtfire." The full screen of that film is horrendous. Widescreen is the only way to go when watching that film.

Since widescreen TVs are the new standard, maybe all or most movies today are filmed widescreen now and shown that way without any cropping whatsoever. That, I don't know. I only did side by side comparisons with the FS/WS versions with older movies.

I would post some screenshots, but I don't think I have two versions of the same movie on hand at the moment.

[Smaug]

But there are a lot of 1.85:1 movies that I've encountered where the picture is cropped to widescreen. They weren't necessarily shot as 1.33:1. Some are filmed 1.66:1 and then cropped to make it 1.85:1.

Yea that's what I meant, there were no "bars" watching a 1.85:1 movie. Filled in the whole screen, like it was slightly zoomed.

"How the West Was Won" was in a three panel widescreen, something like 2.89:1. Trying to watch it on an old 4x3 TV when they p&s is a joke.

[xraffle]

Yea that's what I meant, there were no "bars" watching a 1.85:1 movie. Filled in the whole screen, like it was slightly zoomed.

That was due to the overscan on your TV. I purposely do that on my widescreen TV because I want a 1.85:1 film to fill the entire screen and some HD channels have some noise on the very top or bottom of the picture. If you want the bars, then see if there's a setting on your TV to turn off overscan.

[Smaug]

If you want the bars, then see if there's a setting on your TV to turn off overscan.

Don't have the setting, slightly older WS TV, with prog.scan DVD. I forgot, I do get the bars on HDTV, just not on the 1.85:1 DVDs.

[dimelives]

However, one movie I know for sure that was filmed in exactly 2.35:1 is "Mrs. Doubtfire." The full screen of that film is horrendous. Widescreen is the only way to go when watching that film.

Another one like that that comes to mind is "Last Action Hero". The P&S in that movie is AWFUL, at times cutting out anything of relevence! And yet, the full screen version seems the only one available on DVD... (if anyone could ever find me a region 1 widescreen version of that movie, I'd be forever indebted!!!)

[ProfessorStooge]

I have an opinion question: What would be the most logical way of packaging the final 32 shorts for DVD release? One volume containing shorts from 1955-1956 and the other volume containing the 1957-1959 shorts? Or all 32 shorts in a single volume?

I know that 4 of the Curly-Joe features have been released on DVD (the ones released by Columbia, that is). Since these chronological sets are so popular, does anyone believe Sony should reissue all the Curly-Joe films (except Snow White and the Three Stooges, which wasn't a Columbia film)?

[dimelives]

One volume containing shorts from 1955-1956 and the other volume containing the 1957-1959 shorts?

I prefer that way, I think. Dunno if I'd want it all crammed together. But hasn't it been said that they're wrapping it up with just one more volume?...

[falsealarms]

If it's crammed together, I'd have to think it would be a 3 disc set. 32 shorts/2 discs is too much.

[locoboymakesgood]

If it's crammed together, I'd have to think it would be a 3 disc set. 32 shorts/2 discs is too much.

The compression would be horrendous. It'd have to be a 3-disc set.

[Porcupine73]

I have an opinion question: What would be the most logical way of packaging the final 32 shorts for DVD release? One volume containing shorts from 1955-1956 and the other volume containing the 1957-1959 shorts? Or all 32 shorts in a single volume?

I say all 32 in a final 3-disc Volume 8 to wrap up the series. Mike S at Sony had mentioned last year that they wanted to provide more value for the price in the final sets because of all the Shemp remakes and the unpopularity of Besser. And I'm sure they realize that non-completists (i.e. everyone but us) just aren't going to buy a volume 9 with only the Besser shorts, so Sony would be screwing themselves in terms of sales if they did it that way.

And as someone mentioned previously, using double-disc slimeline cases means that the box for Vol 8 can be the same size as the first 7 even with an extra DVD. That's important to me too. Though Sony will have to get creative with the back cover of the double case... (maybe go with a paper insert, or not print descriptions for the Besser shorts?)

I know that 4 of the Curly-Joe features have been released on DVD (the ones released by Columbia, that is). Since these chronological sets are so popular, does anyone believe Sony should reissue all the Curly-Joe films (except Snow White and the Three Stooges, which wasn't a Columbia film)?

I don't feel strongly about these films, except that I'd like to see Have Rocket Will Travel on DVD (and maybe even Blu-Ray). And even though I heard it's not a very good film, their "Rockin in the Rockies" feature should finally see a home video release too.

I just want to say how great these releases have been, in case anyone from Sony is reading. And thanks for finally giving us the 3-D versions of Spooks and Pardon my Backfire.

[dimelives]

It'll certainly be interesting to see what they come up with. Whether they spread the shorts out across a couple volumes, combine them all together into one fatter volume, or any of the other possibilities... We shall see, we shall see! (I hope!)

[archiezappa]

I just can't wait to have all of the 190 shorts!  I also still can't believe that this is really gonna happen.  However they do the final volume(s), will be fine.  They've done us right so far, so I have the uttermost confidence in them.  Thanks, again, Sony!

[xraffle]

I say all 32 in a final 3-disc Volume 8 to wrap up the series. Mike S at Sony had mentioned last year that they wanted to provide more value for the price in the final sets because of all the Shemp remakes and the unpopularity of Besser. And I'm sure they realize that non-completists (i.e. everyone but us) just aren't going to buy a volume 9 with only the Besser shorts, so Sony would be screwing themselves in terms of sales if they did it that way.

And as someone mentioned previously, using double-disc slimeline cases means that the box for Vol 8 can be the same size as the first 7 even with an extra DVD. That's important to me too. Though Sony will have to get creative with the back cover of the double case... (maybe go with a paper insert, or not print descriptions for the Besser shorts?)

Yeah, that's the best way to go. They should have the remaining 32 shorts on 3 discs. Discs 1 and 2 should be in a double slim case and disc 3 should be in a regular slim case. This will keep the packaging consistent.

[tvradio]

the way they have the discs now is too much - some volumes had 13 shorts per disc and the bit rate was a horribly low 4.0 - they should have stuck to a maximum of 8-9 per disc and each volume been 4 discs - so even in dvd the picture would been even crisper -   but perhaps they didnt because of the upcoming blu-rays

[xraffle]

the way they have the discs now is too much - some volumes had 13 shorts per disc and the bit rate was a horribly low 4.0 - they should have stuck to a maximum of 8-9 per disc and each volume been 4 discs - so even in dvd the picture would been even crisper -   but perhaps they didnt because of the upcoming blu-rays

I doubt Sony ever plans to release these shorts on Blu-ray.

[dimelives]

Yeah, that's the best way to go. They should have the remaining 32 shorts on 3 discs. Discs 1 and 2 should be in a double slim case and disc 3 should be in a regular slim case. This will keep the packaging consistent.

I like that one