Topic: Dizzy Detectives (1943)

[metaldams]

In re: The legitimately asked question Are there any other "odd" noises in any other classic comedies:

    Go to the L & H section of this site, to Perfect Day.  In the early going, while they're re-packing the sandwiches, Stan slides down against the wall and lets out a blast that dwarfs Curly's in Dizzy Detectives.  I repeat, I am not particularly a fan of fart humor, but damn, this is a big'un.  Sorry, I'll show myself out.

That was Stan’s way of ringing in the sound era.

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

That one's undeniable.

[Paul Pain]

In re: The legitimately asked question Are there any other "odd" noises in any other classic comedies:

    Go to the L & H section of this site, to Perfect Day.  In the early going, while they're re-packing the sandwiches, Stan slides down against the wall and lets out a blast that dwarfs Curly's in Dizzy Detectives.  I repeat, I am not particularly a fan of fart humor, but damn, this is a big'un.  Sorry, I'll show myself out.

I have never heard of someone letting a fart out as a result of such things 

[Big Chief Apumtagribonitz]

Any kind of quick, violent activity can have that result.  Ask any gymnast.  I will never bring this up again, I promise.

[Shemp_Diesel]

I know sometimes I can laugh so hard that I may actually puke, but farts are rare. Over and out...   

[Tony Bensley]

For the last few days as a fun exercise, I've been viewing the Stooges shorts not included in the upcoming Blu-ray set. Unlike all of the ones that precede DIZZY DETECTIVES (1943), I'm loathe to see any content that would prompt Sony to omit this particular short from the new set, other than maybe the use of the PARDON MY SCOTCH (1935) stock footage?

I did also notice when Curly sits in the Rocking Chair at about the 8 minute mark, he seems to briefly talk in a more normal lower pitched voice. It's just an observation, and he certainly doesn't appear remotely ill in this short.

Also regarding a previous comment about the stock footage perhaps being used to lengthen the film to over 18 minutes (18:40 including the 3 1/2 minute stock footage), the previous short THEY STOOGE TO CONGA (1943) wasn't much over 15 minutes (15:41, to be precise) either, so I'm not sure that was the reason behind the stock footage insertion.

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

I think it took cullions for them to use stock footage of the boys 8 years younger! But I have to admit, when I first saw this short years ago as a kid, I hadn't seen PARDON MY SCOTCH yet, so I didn't notice. What I did notice was that these beginning scenes were funnier than the rest of the short!

[Larrys#1]

The same can be said about "Dizzy Pilots". Stock footage flopped at the end of the short to lengthen it, I suppose?

That said, I really love both "Dizzy Detective" and "Dizzy Pilots." Both could've done without the stock footage, but I didn't find them as excessive as the Shemp shorts.

[Tony Bensley]

The same can be said about "Dizzy Pilots". Stock footage flopped at the end of the short to lengthen it, I suppose?

That said, I really love both "Dizzy Detective" and "Dizzy Pilots." Both could've done without the stock footage, but I didn't find them as excessive as the Shemp shorts.

Most of the post 1953 Shemps (With the notable exceptions INCOME TAX SAPPY and BLUNDER BOYS) are so excessive with stock footage, they could hardly be called "new" shorts, with often over half their running times consisting of recycled footage! 

Insofar as "Dizzy Pilots" the running time without the stock footage would run a bit shy of 14 minutes, so it definitely needed a bit of extra time. At least the recycled army themed footage can be somewhat justified with the premise the Stooges would be drafted if their invention failed.

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

Before the TV Screen Gems deal in the late 50s, were any shorts re-releasedin theatres?

If not, in 1943 I doubt anyone noticed re-used footage from a short that they might have seen once 8 years earlier.
That being said, I'm not so sure how successful they were pulling the wool over the eyes of viewers in the 50s with re-used Shemp footage.

[Tony Bensley]

Before the TV Screen Gems deal in the late 50s, were any shorts re-releasedin theatres?

If not, in 1943 I doubt anyone noticed re-used footage from a short that they might have seen once 8 years earlier.
That being said, I'm not so sure how successful they were pulling the wool over the eyes of viewers in the 50s with re-used Shemp footage.

It is one thing to average one or two reused 3 minute scenes every few years, but quite another to reuse one or more scenes in virtually every "new" short, as was the case in 3 Stooges shorts released after 1953. Moreover, I think there were instances in which the reused scene had been originally shot not many years earlier, making it somewhat more likely for them to be remembered by Theater audiences.

CHEERS! 

[NoahYoung]

It is one thing to average one or two reused 3 minute scenes every few years, but quite another to reuse one or more scenes in virtually every "new" short, as was the case in 3 Stooges shorts released after 1953. Moreover, I think there were instances in which the reused scene had been originally shot not many years earlier, making it somewhat more likely for them to be remembered by Theater audiences.

CHEERS! 

Not having lived back then, I'm not sure how one would go about making sure you catch every new Stooges short at the theaters, given that you had to buy a ticket to see an "A" feature, a "B" feature, and at least one short. Did one of the features need to be produced by Columbia in order to see a Stooges short?  I have no idea how it worked.

I'm still trying to figure out why Columbia released HOT STUFF and CREEPS on Super 8 sound back in the 70s rather than releasing the originals!

Anyway, Columbia was cheap back then. I've read that they constantly tried to pull the wool over Moe's eyes at every contract renewal, telling him shorts were on the way out. I'm guessing it was hard for even someone like Moe to find out just how much the Stooges shorts were making at the box office, but I've heard that "B" pictures and shorts were usually rented to theaters at fixed rates, so whether one person saw it or a million didn't matter at the end of the day.

So if Columbia could save a few dimes and nickels by re-using old footage, they did. More money in Harry Cohn's pocket.

[Freddie Sanborn]

In an interview with David N. Bruskin in Behind the Three Stooges, Jules White said that exhibitors routinely mixed and matched shorts, newsreels and cartoons from other studios. By the 1950’s, Columbia was renting shorts for a relative pittance, so no one was getting rich off them.
 

[NoahYoung]

In an interview with David N. Bruskin in Behind the Three Stooges, Jules White said that exhibitors routinely mixed and matched shorts, newsreels and cartoons from other studios. By the 1950’s, Columbia was renting shorts for a relative pittance, so no one was getting rich off them.

And neither the Stooges nor their heirs got/get a dime from the profits of the shorts after their contract with Columbia ended, right? I know they get something when their likeness is used for something new, though.

I'm sure Sony is getting rich off them now -- what an investment that started in the 30s turned out to be for those 190 shorts!