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

[BeAStooge]

GOOF ON THE ROOF (1953), the first wide-screen Stooges comedy produced (but the 3rd one released), played in theatres as you see it on the DVD. Framing problems aside, the DVD presentation is historically correct.

A statement that Bob Furmanek, an expert/authority on the history theatrical widescreen, later corrected...

Columbia, as a matter of studio policy, switched to widescreen cinematography at the end of April, 1953. Their specified aspect ratio was 1.85. From that point forward, all newly photographed material for the Stooge shorts was composed for that ratio.

I've run an original 35mm print of GOOF ON THE ROOF in 1.85 and it looks fine. The compositions are correct and do not suffer from the improper framing on this new transfer. Unfortunately, this is a case of the telecine operator doing a bad job during the transfer. If he had centered the titles and paid attention to the headroom, this wouldn't have happened.

[xraffle]

I stand corrected. I was unaware of who Bob Furmanek was.

Guys, if you need me to join the club and write to Sony, I will. Just tell me what you guys plan to do. Personally, it's not that big a deal to me, but I understand how much it means to all of you. So, I'll be glad to help out.

[moglia]

I stand corrected. I was unaware of who Bob Furmanek was.

Guys, if you need me to join the club and write to Sony, I will. Just tell me what you guys plan to do. Personally, it's not that big a deal to me, but I understand how much it means to all of you. So, I'll be glad to help out.

Thanks for admitting your mistake. I will take that as an apology of sorts? Was it one?

I don't understand why some were so willing to give Sony benefit of a doubt, they have have a long history of avoiding statements of truth, this case was no different.

Yes, let get some plans together to write Sony the more who do the stronger the case. Let's not let fear rule us.

[xraffle]

To be honest, if it were really up to me, I would have Sony recall pretty much every Volume, except Volume 3, because there is some screw up on each of them. Here they are:

Volume 1
Horses' Collars- Larry's line gets cut when he says "give us three glasses" to the bartender. That line is fully intact on my VHS copy.

Volume 2
Yes, We Have No Bonanza- The audio in the second half of the short is bad. Again, my VHS copy has perfect audio.

Volume 4
Idiots Deluxe- Looks like Sony completely forgot to restore this one. The entire short is full of dirt and scratches.

Volume 5
The Hot Scots- Audio pitch was tampered with

Volume 6
Dunked In The Deep- When Bortch is eating Salami, he says "I don't have enough" and then bangs on the table. Watch closely. The video slightly skips.

Volume 7
The infamous Goof On The Roof problem.

Each problem is equally as bad, in my book. Why it took 7 Volumes for fans to finally speak up is beyond me! I'm at the point right now where I just don't care and just want all 190 shorts unedited in decent quality.

[Bob Furmanek]

I've edited this post to remove inaccurate info on the production of GOOF ON THE ROOF. I've just learned that it was filmed in November 1952, nearly 5 months before Columbia switched to widescreen cinematography. Therefore, it was most certainly composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio. It had the misfortune to sit in the can for over a year and when it was finally released to theaters in late 1953, it was shown 1.85. You'll note the blocking on the titles accommodates the widescreen ratio, but this also explains why certain shots are missing information at the top of the image. There were quite a few features that met this same fate during that transitional period, such as WAR OF THE WORLDS, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, SHANE and many others.

When mastering a film for widescreen transfer, it's most important to research when the film was produced as opposed to the date of release.

I should also point out that both 3-D shorts were exceptionally well photographed and when seen in their original dual-strip Polaroid versions, the quality is excellent. (We ran them at the 2003 and 2006 3-D Expo's in Hollywood.) There are no instances of "ghosting" or double-images in that format. Unfortunately, the only way that can work on DVD is in the field sequential format.

[xraffle]

It's times like these when I'm happy I have the bootleg set. The guy who sold these sets transferred "Goof on the Roof" directly from the Columbia VHS and it looks great.

After watching both versions, I have to say that this particular short looks best in full screen. While it was intended to be shown in widescreen, it seems like the cameramen didn't do a very good job in making sure everything is centered so it looks good when cropped. The best thing for Sony to do it is to include the full screen version as a special feature on the next volume.

[Bob Furmanek]

I've edited this post to remove inaccurate info on the production of GOOF ON THE ROOF.

[moglia]

Regarding the framing issues on GOOF, any competent projectionist would have adjusted the framing if he saw heads being cropped in a 1.85 presentation. I feel they should have done the same during the transfer. After all, the 3-D shorts on this DVD are not "historically accurate" as to how the shorts looked theatrically in 1953. They were shown with clear Polaroid 3-D glasses, not magenta/green anaglyph.

I should also point out that both 3-D shorts were exceptionally well photographed and when seen in their original dual-strip Polaroid versions, the quality is excellent. (We ran them at the 2003 and 2006 3-D Expo's in Hollywood.) There are no instances of "ghosting" or double-images in that format. Unfortunately, the only way that can work on DVD is in the field sequential format.

Bob, Glad to have you here! Thanks for the accurate information!

[falsealarms]

This seems to be getting a little out of hand, no? I usually have a great eye for detail, but even I never noticed those minor problems on previous volumes. And I've seen those shorts more times than I can count. The GOOF error is the only one that could be called egregious.

[hiramhorwitz]

To be honest, if it were really up to me, I would have Sony recall pretty much every Volume, except Volume 3, because there is some screw up on each of them. Here they are:

Volume 1
Horses' Collars- Larry's line gets cut when he says "give us three glasses" to the bartender. That line is fully intact on my VHS copy.

Volume 2
Yes, We Have No Bonanza- The audio in the second half of the short is bad. Again, my VHS copy has perfect audio.

Volume 4
Idiots Deluxe- Looks like Sony completely forgot to restore this one. The entire short is full of dirt and scratches.

Volume 5
The Hot Scots- Audio pitch was tampered with

Volume 6
Dunked In The Deep- When Bortch is eating Salami, he says "I don't have enough" and then bangs on the table. Watch closely. The video slightly skips.

Volume 7
The infamous Goof On The Roof problem.

Each problem is equally as bad, in my book. Why it took 7 Volumes for fans to finally speak up is beyond me! I'm at the point right now where I just don't care and just want all 190 shorts unedited in decent quality.

In my opinion, the biggest omission is the missing dog scene in Cookoo Cavaliers (where Curly rubs off the dog's fur).  I remember seeing that scene televised intact through the early 1970s -- then it mysteriously disappeared!  Not that I'm complaining about the overall quality of Sony's final product -- I'm really very happy with the results -- but if I had to pick one nit, loss of that scene is the one I'd choose.

[moglia]

Each problem is equally as bad, in my book. Why it took 7 Volumes for fans to finally speak up is beyond me! I'm at the point right now where I just don't care and just want all 190 shorts unedited in decent quality.

That's all I ever wanted. Really! If they came out like the Warner Archive's* Our Gang did I'd be jumping for joy. 


*=a bit of restoration, minimal or no digital processing during mastering and of course unedited. Would have saved Sony a bundle and complaints would have be minimal or none just like with the Warner Archives Our Gang, sales probably would not have been affected as well.

[BeAStooge]

By the time this short went before the cameras in November 1953

GOOF ON THE ROOF filmed November 17 - 20, 1952; the final continuity script is dated November 3, 1952.

[xraffle]

This seems to be getting a little out of hand, no? I usually have a great eye for detail, but even I never noticed those minor problems on previous volumes. And I've seen those shorts more times than I can count. The GOOF error is the only one that could be called egregious.

It is, which is why I didn't make a big thing about it and demand Sony to fix said issues on the previous sets. I let it go. I also consider the "Goof on the Roof" error to be pretty minor as well and I personally think it should be let go. But like I said, if most of you want a fix for this, I'll be willing to chip in and help.

[Bob Furmanek]

Are you sure that's not a typo? I find it hard to believe this short sat in the can for more than a year.

[locoboymakesgood]

Anyone that's hoping for a resolution to the GOOF misframe is going to be waiting awhile. Sony already spoke on the subject and in their eyes (albeit incorrect), the transfer is fine. This is after fan outcry.

Petition, write, do whatever you want. If nothing is said by Sony this week then that will be that.

[BeAStooge]

Are you sure that's not a typo? I find it hard to believe this short sat in the can for more than a year.

By '52 - '53, most of the shorts had lag times of at least 6 months between filming and release dates. Once the stock footage remakes became common, the gap had widened to a standard 1 year or more by 1956.

Exceptions include the two 3-D shorts which were rushed into 1953 production and release to capitalize on the 3-D fad. And THREE DARK HORSES (filmed Aug. 52; released Oct. 52) and INCOME TAX SAPPY (filmed Nov. 53; released Feb. 54), whose release dates were selected for the timely subject matter.

This is a guess, but I think that pushing SPOOKS and BACKFIRE into the Spring and Summer 1953 schedules had a lot to do with the amount of elapsed time before GOOF ON THE ROOF hit theatres in December 1953.

[Bob Furmanek]

If that's the case and this short was indeed filmed in November 1952, then it would have been composed for the standard Academy 1.37 ratio.

[dimelives]

It was, just not projected on a wide screen... Do I have that correct? And if the projectionist simply adjusted the picture down to preserve Moe's head in the one scene, who knows what else would have been cut off in following scenes?...

[Bob Furmanek]

No, it was shown widescreen in late 1953. You'll notice the 1.85-safe blocking on the main titles. But this is a case of a film shot before the conversion to widescreen but held in the can for too long. There were quite a number of features from that transitional period (War of the Worlds, Shane, It Came from Outer Space, etc) which suffered the same fate.

When prepping an element for widescreen transfer, it's important to note when the film was photographed as opposed to its date of release.

[dimelives]

So, when they finally showed the short in theaters, had they already matted it the way we see it on the new dvd? In that case, I can't have much beef with Sony, as it IS historically accurate (even if flawed). Or, when they showed it back in the 50s, did they just project a full frame picture on a wide screen, allowing the excess picture to just run over the edges against the theater curtains/backdrop, which wouldnt be reflected by the screen?... Understand what I'm asking?

[Bob Furmanek]

By December 1953, the majority of important theaters had adapted to widescreen. Sub-run and neighborhood houses were still running in standard Academy, which is why these shorts were protected for that ratio. The film would have been printed in 1.37 but projected with a 1.85 aperture plate in the gate. It was up to the competence of the projectionist to frame properly. In the case of GOOF ON THE ROOF, they would have framed it so the tops of heads on medium shots would be the edge of the upper screen masking.

[IFleecem]

Goof is one of my favorites and the small part of Moes head not in shot is not that very annoying to me.  We have these, look how many years It took to get them out at all. Watch, Laugh, Enjoy, Repeat As Neccessary!

Robin 

[Larry Larry]

Goof is one of my favorites and the small part of Moes head not in shot is not that very annoying to me.  We have these, look how many years It took to get them out at all. Watch, Laugh, Enjoy, Repeat As Neccessary!

Robin 

Great advice. 

The previous DVD series (those themed sets) were not very good (picture quality, lack of chronological order, random episodes, menu design, price, etc).   And compared to many other DVD series, this has been a tremendous series overall. 

I like the widescreen.

No DVD series is perfect, but if we get all the Joe shorts, this one will be pretty close.  Watch and enjoy as much as you can. 

[benjilbum]

I love the whole Collection, this one included. I can deal with not having the top of Moe's head for a few seconds. I like the widescreen and the 3-D too. I'm looking forward to the final two Volumes, even though it will be their weakest material. Just to have all 190 shorts with such quality is great in itself. The next one will still have a few great Shemp efforts. I hope they include the Shemp and Besser Columbia solo films, but that may be too much to ask for. I guess it will be completed by next summer. Hopefully anyway.

[Porcupine73]

By December 1953, the majority of important theaters had adapted to widescreen. Sub-run and neighborhood houses were still running in standard Academy, which is why these shorts were protected for that ratio. The film would have been printed in 1.37 but projected with a 1.85 aperture plate in the gate. It was up to the competence of the projectionist to frame properly. In the case of GOOF ON THE ROOF, they would have framed it so the tops of heads on medium shots would be the edge of the upper screen masking.

Bob, thanks for posting all this information. I have a few logistical questions if I may, about the placement of the 1.85 plate during the early days of widescreen, so please bear with me as I have no background in theater projection

Would a projector operator in 1953 actually take the effort to align the 1.85 plate with a character's head for a single scene? I would think this would be overkill for showing a 2-reeler during that era. Wouldn't most operators simply align the plate with the center of the 1.37 print, especially if the titles themselves were in the center? Otherwise, wouldn't they risk cutting off some of the text during the opening credits?

Unless the plate/projector were somehow movable during the presentation. But then the projectionist would have had to have logged each movement of the apeture prior to the first public screening, then used a stopwatch to determine when during the film to move the plate or projector. Either that or have an incredible memory. Was, or is, this ever done? That seems like a lot of responsibility for a movie studio to defer to individual theaters and projectionists (not all of whom would have been as knowledgeable about the craft as someone like Bob, e.g. some houses no doubt just yanked the cashier from the popcorn stand or the theater owner's nephew to do it)

As far as my thoughts on a "do-over" of Vol 7, Disc 2. I can live with "Goof on the Roof" the way it's constituted. However, the 3-D shorts look terrible to me, basically unwatchable. They are horribly pixelated and it's like watching them with my pupils dilated... serious double-vision!  I wonder if this is due to the fact that I have to wear the 3-D glasses over my real glasses... would that cause a "double-vision" effect for me?

I think if Sony does re-issue Volume 7 Disc 2 it should be via a mail-away, similar to what Warners did with the Superman DVDs and what Universal did with the Back to the Future trilogy.  I got my Superman replacement discs this way, and it was no hassle at all, and if you run into problems the studios usually provide an 800-number along with the address where you can call if you don't get your disc... so I'm not sure what the apprehension there is.  I don't believe the right move is to make a consumer buy a totally different set of DVDs to get a corrected version of a film from an earlier set. Plus, the general home video viewer will just be confused by it.