Topic: Putting Pants on Philip (1927) - Laurel and Hardy

[metaldams]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018294/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
http://www.lordheath.com/index.php?p=1_155_Putting-Pants-On-Philip
http://www.laurelandhardycentral.com/putpants.html


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN4Tm5fvu4

Watch PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP in the link above




      Another one to throw into the ring as the "first" Laurel and Hardy film, at least according to Stan Laurel.  I say it's DUCK SOUP whether they meant it or not, but whatever you want to call it, just make sure  you call it a product of original thought, because I can't think of another film like this.  In order to enjoy PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP, you have to divorce yourself from reality and accept the world being shown to you, but if you're able to do so, the awards are great.

      We're still early, so this is a rare film where Stan and Ollie don't know each other in the beginning.  Ollie is portrayed as a distinguished citizen the entire town knows, and he has a letter from his sister that states he is going to meet his nephew from Scotland getting off a boat who has a tendency to chase women.  Of course the nephew turns out to be Stan wearing a kilt.  As Stan gets off the boat, a doctor from the ship does a medical examination where he asks Stan to open his mouth, have his pulse taken, and has his hat taken off for a lice check.  Stan throws a hissy fit, makes his classic cry baby face, and the entire town is watching and laughing at the guy during this examination, Ollie amongst them.  Ollie talks about how he feels sorry for the guy who has to meet this kilt wearing guy, but Stan then takes out a picture of Ollie, looks at Ollie with this smiling look of recognition that made me laugh hysterically, and an embarrassed Ollie realizes his nephew is the man causing a scene.

      The part where I say you have to divorce yourself from reality is the reaction of the town people.  They follow a kilt wearing, women chasing Stan everywhere he goes in a mob size that rivals Beatlemania.  They simply laugh at the guy, much to chagrin of the distinguished Oliver Hardy.  I can't picture real life people acting like this, but I can let it go because it makes for a funny plot and gives us an excuse to see the streets of Hollywood in the late 20's.  It's funny, The Three Stooges usually embarrass other characters in high society situations, but in this one rare film, Stan Laurel is the patsy for his supposedly high society comic partner!  An interesting twist.

      Highlights of this short, besides the constant mob scenes, is Stan Laurel's reaction anytime he sees a woman.  He does this high kick jump which I've seen him do in some of his earlier solo work.  He pretty much abandons this jump after this film, but it works to hysterical effect here, especially with the kilt on.  Oh, and you guys think LOVE HAPPY co-star Marilyn Monroe invented the whole skirt getting blown in the air while standing above a ventilator?  Bah!  Stan Laurel did it first.  Look, Marilyn had nicer legs than Stan, but Stan is funnier and even more risqué here.  How so?  Well, Stan sneezes, causing his boxers to come down.  He stands above the ventilator again, the kilt blows up.  The camera fortunately does not show us what this mob of town's people see, but instead shows us the reaction of these people, which includes some fainting women.  Yes folks, off camera, Stan Laurel exposes his junk.

      The ending of this short has a great mud pit ending for Oliver Hardy, not the last time we'll see this in a Roach film, and not the first either.  Hal Roach had the best mud puddles in all of slapstick comedy, my favorite being in the 1924 Charley Chase one-reeler, ALL WET.  A funny end to a very funny film.  Watch the YouTube link above, it's worth it.

10/10

[Shemp_is_Awesome78]

 Since this didn't get any replies, I'll watch the movie in probably like a few days so that I can go review it. Also, I'm seriously getting pumped to watch one of my favorite L&H silent, The Battle of the Century today! ( Isn't that the one youre going to be reviewing today, Metal?)

[metaldams]

Since this didn't get any replies, I'll watch the movie in probably like a few days so that I can go review it. Also, I'm seriously getting pumped to watch one of my favorite L&H silent, The Battle of the Century today! ( Isn't that the one youre going to be reviewing today, Metal?)

Absolutely it will be BATTLE OF THE CENTURY...what's left of it.  Looking forward to your PPOP review too.

[Shemp_is_Awesome78]

Absolutely it will be BATTLE OF THE CENTURY...what's left of it.  Looking forward to your PPOP review too.

Thank you! And, it's a good thing that we have about 10 minutes of BOTC remaining, so that it won't be like reviewing Hats Off, where it's completely lost, and there was only stills.

[Shemp_is_Awesome78]

 Well, that was a bit of a strange picture. You can hint some chemistry between Stan and Ollie, except I'm seriously just not feeling their possibilities of being a comedic team, yet. Next film will help straighten things up, and shows them definitely being a team. The way I see this is just Oliver Hardy is in a movie and Laurel is being a comic. Now, from the YouTube video I saw things were a bit hazy, so here is the description from what I saw:
 Hardy needs to pick up his nephew Phillip. Phillip ( Laurel) turns out to be a Scottish fellow with a habit for women. Phillip serves as an embarrassment to Hardy, who has built a reputation around the street. Laurel's behind is revealed, and Hardy immediately gets him sized for pants. Only, Phillip will not budge. At all. So, they just give Phillip pants to put on. Next, when Phillip and Ollie go on a double-decker bus, Phillip spots some women to go change. Hardy realizes how much Phillip wants to get the girl, so tries to get her with horrid results. Then, Philip tries to get her, by putting a bit of his clothes to save her from going in a mud puddle. When Hardy goes to retrieve the clothing, Hardy falls in the mud puddle.
 Wow! That was a hard description to write! However, there is a couple of things that don't really work in this movie. Shall I go through them? Yes, I shall.
 As I said before, Stan and Ollie don't feel like a team, just yet. That's why I have mixed feelings about this film. I would immediately like a LAUREL AND HARDY film, but this feels like a vehicle for Ollie, with Stan as comedic relief. However, I feel like this is just a opinion. Now, I'll proceed with the review and not pay any attention to this.
 2nd, I don't like the idea of Ollie having everybody laugh at him about Phillip. It's a bit frustrating for this to happen to such an innocent character like Ollie. However, that is the genesis of most L&H movies, so it doesn't really matter. That idea could've been done much better rather than having the whole entire neighborhood laugh at Ollie instead of laughing at Phillip, whom they should be laughing at.
 So, I think those are the only things that I dislike about this movie. Now, what do I like about this movie?
 The end where Ollie somehow falls into the mud puddle. Man, Ollie fell into so many mud puddles throughout his career, you could probably make a compilation film called " The Many Mud Puddles in Which Hardy Falls Into". Which I'm surprised Robert Youngson didn't make.. Whatever. It's just a funny idea of having both Stan and the lady survive the mud puddle, while Ollie happens to fall in.
 Also, I like the part where they ride the double-decker bus, because I have never experienced a bus quite like that and it's an exciting view for someone who has never experienced one ( unless you count in a Our Gang movie I watched where they ALMOST got to ride a double-decker bus, but they kept disrupting the bus).
 The whole idea of when Hardy wants to size Laurel for pants is a genius, and hands-down the best moment of this movie. Laurel's expressions while he will not get the pants on are hilarious, and so are Hardy's reactions. In fact, everybody's reactions in this scene are hilarious and memorable!
 I usually do not complain about title cards, except there's a tad too much in the beginning of the movie. I understand it's to better understand the movie ( especially dialogue), but there's a bit much on the title cards. What would I rate this?

 9/10

[Paul Pain]

I watched this and cannot say much about.  I agree with most everything metaldams says except that after a while, the mob chasing Stan got old, which is why this gets...

9/10

But you cannot deny the humor in Stan's embarrassing only for Ollie to come save him.  Everyone laughs at Stan, but then they just say "Hi Ollie" like nothing unusual's happening.

[Umbrella Sam]

The way the townspeople act bothers me in this short. It's not so much a matter of fact that it is unrealistic but that their behavior feels just a bit too cruel to me, to the point that Ollie begs a police officer to make them stop and the officer just joins in on the laughter! I do think that embarrassment can be funny, but I feel they take it too far here, making the townspeople incredibly unlikeable and it's hard for me to laugh at Ollie's embarrassment as a result. Unfortunately, this does take up a lot of the short, so it is a major problem to me.

It is a shame because there are a lot of great moments in this short not involving the townspeople. I do think Stan is very funny during his examination and I like when he holds Ollie's arm in a childlike way. The part where they actually try to put pants on him is good as well and that high kick jump running gag is great. The ending with the mud pit, though, is probably my favorite part of the short. Seeing Ollie fall into the mud pit after making such a smug expression is really funny to me.

It's far from a bad short, but that one element does really bother me. I'm usually willing to divorce myself from reality for the sake of humor, but this world is just too mean for my liking. I can see other people liking it for Ollie's expressions and I do like it to an extent, but that one element keeps me from enjoying this a lot.

7 out of 10

[Paul Pain]

The way the townspeople act bothers me in this short. It's not so much a matter of fact that it is unrealistic but that their behavior feels just a bit too cruel to me, to the point that Ollie begs a police officer to make them stop and the officer just joins in on the laughter! I do think that embarrassment can be funny, but I feel they take it too far here, making the townspeople incredibly unlikeable and it's hard for me to laugh at Ollie's embarrassment as a result. Unfortunately, this does take up a lot of the short, so it is a major problem to me.

It is a shame because there are a lot of great moments in this short not involving the townspeople. I do think Stan is very funny during his examination and I like when he holds Ollie's arm in a childlike way. The part where they actually try to put pants on him is good as well and that high kick jump running gag is great. The ending with the mud pit, though, is probably my favorite part of the short. Seeing Ollie fall into the mud pit after making such a smug expression is really funny to me.

It's far from a bad short, but that one element does really bother me. I'm usually willing to divorce myself from reality for the sake of humor, but this world is just too mean for my liking. I can see other people liking it for Ollie's expressions and I do like it to an extent, but that one element keeps me from enjoying this a lot.

7 out of 10

I am glad someone agrees in this sense.  So many of these L&H shorts involve Ollie getting some unfair treatment where, in the real non-L&H world, Stan would be the one receiving the abuse.

[metaldams]

Here's some comedy.  As of me typing this, Stan's legs have 585 views, Marilyn only 264.  I would've thought Marilyn had Stan beat in that department - still do. 

[HomokHarcos]

This was the film Stan often considered the first "true" Laurel and Hardy. Oddly, in this movie he plays a different character, Philip. Being from Scotland (Stan actually did live there for a few years) he of course is wearing a kilt. Ollie is so embarrassed that he tries to force him to put on pears of pants, while the whole audience watching find a man wearing a kilt hilarious. My favorite parts were when Stan would jump in the hair chasing after women! He doesn't do that in any of the other Laurel and Hardy films.

I don't like this as much as their other silent movies, but it is still enjoyable. Unlike most movies where they are friends and are seemingly around the same age, Ollie is supposed to be a generation older than Stan here. At first I thought Ollie poked Stan in the eye like Moe usually does, but when I watched it back that wasn't the case.

[metaldams]

This was the film Stan often considered the first "true" Laurel and Hardy. Oddly, in this movie he plays a different character, Philip. Being from Scotland (Stan actually did live there for a few years) he of course is wearing a kilt. Ollie is so embarrassed that he tries to force him to put on pears of pants, while the whole audience watching find a man wearing a kilt hilarious. My favorite parts were when Stan would jump in the hair chasing after women! He doesn't do that in any of the other Laurel and Hardy films.

I don't like this as much as their other silent movies, but it is still enjoyable. Unlike most movies where they are friends and are seemingly around the same age, Ollie is supposed to be a generation older than Stan here. At first I thought Ollie poked Stan in the eye like Moe usually does, but when I watched it back that wasn't the case.

It’s in the realm of possibility an uncle can be close to his nephew in age.  My grandmother was two years older than her niece and they were raised like sisters.  That’s how I view Stan and Ollie here, it’s the only way that makes sense to me,

[GreenCanaries]

It’s in the realm of possibility an uncle can be close to his nephew in age.  My grandmother was two years older than her niece and they were raised like sisters.  That’s how I view Stan and Ollie here, it’s the only way that makes sense to me,

Another, silent comedy-relevant example: Roscoe Arbuckle was only a little over five years older than his nephew, Al St. John.

[Dunrobin]

It’s in the realm of possibility an uncle can be close to his nephew in age.  My grandmother was two years older than her niece and they were raised like sisters.  That’s how I view Stan and Ollie here, it’s the only way that makes sense to me,

When I was six or seven, the kid who lived downstairs from us was the same age as his uncle; they were born just a couple of months apart (they were a couple of years younger than me.)  I remember being very confused at first on how that was possible.   

[metaldams]

Nephews and uncles being close in age was probably more common in the early part of the century.  Three of my four grandparents were the youngest of several children and my great grandparents in all those cases were either closer to or well into their forties when my grandparents were born.  That is the exact situation that breeds nephews and uncles being close in age.  There were simply more births and less birth control back then, for various reasons.

A celebrity example from the sixties and my heavy metal interest.  Drummer Charlie Benante of Anthrax, born 1962, is the uncle of bassist Frank Bello, born 1965.

[Dr. Mabuse]

A classic short and one of the few atypical L&H comedies, which proved that Stan and Ollie could make a great film without playing their traditional characters.

In his 1967 book The Films of Laurel and Hardy, cinema historian William K. Everson singled out "Putting Pants on Philip" for being "flawlessly edited. The cuts all come at such 'right' moments that editorially it almost has the rhythm and precision of an Eisenstein or Griffith work.  And just how much Laurel & Hardy benefited from careful and creative editing can be gauged by even a casual look at their early talkies — in which the editing as such is almost nonexistent."

My introduction to "Putting Pants on Philip" was a three-minute excerpt in the 1970 Robert Youngson compilation "4 Clowns." I never saw the complete short until the late 2000s, when it was featured in Universal's "Pack Up Your Troubles" Region 2 DVD. Criminally neglected as a whole, Laurel and Hardy's silent two-reelers deserve a long-overdue restoration for video release.

10/10

[metaldams]

Criminally neglected as a whole, Laurel and Hardy's silent two-reelers deserve a long-overdue restoration for video release.

Amen.  I own the complete Lost Films of Laurel and Hardy set of DVD’s released in the late nineties.  The picture quality is passable but compared to what we got with BATTLE OF THE CENTURY on blu ray, improvements can be made.  Worst of all, though, is the music.  It’s the same scratchy Roach Music soundtrack for every single film, no variation.  When I watch these films in bulk, the music soundtrack really wears on me after a while as a result.

So yes, while I appreciate the restoration jobs on the talkies so far, more silents with new soundtracks, please.

[HomokHarcos]

Amen.  I own the complete Lost Films of Laurel and Hardy set of DVD’s released in the late nineties.  The picture quality is passable but compared to what we got with BATTLE OF THE CENTURY on blu ray, improvements can be made.  Worst of all, though, is the music.  It’s the same scratchy Roach Music soundtrack for every single film, no variation.  When I watch these films in bulk, the music soundtrack really wears on me after a while as a result.

So yes, while I appreciate the restoration jobs on the talkies so far, more silents with new soundtracks, please.

Laurel and Hardy's silent work is very good, some of the best comedy shorts of all time. I agree about the Roach music. I'm watching the Our Gang silents, and they had the Leroy Shield soundtracks edited in. I now just watch them on mute.

[ChrisBungoStudios]

This may have been the first Laurel & Hardy film I saw. It was back in those days when my uncle - an avid fan of comedy films from "the golden age" - had an 8mm film projector and would show silent films to us kids at family gatherings. I have vivid memories of this film.

Little did I know that 50+ years later, I would be visiting those exact spots in Culver City where this film was made AND that I would have made a documentary video about the filming locations! Here's a quick preview of my filming locations documentary for PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP:

[NoahYoung]

This may have been the first Laurel & Hardy film I saw. It was back in those days when my uncle - an avid fan of comedy films from "the golden age" - had an 8mm film projector and would show silent films to us kids at family gatherings. I have vivid memories of this film.

I would love to remember which was the first L&H film I ever saw. I don't remember a time when I hadn't yet seen L&H.

PHILIP is one of their best silents, although they don't play what was to become their usual characters. Like many of their silents, my first viewings of this short were from clips from the Youngson films, and then in L&H LAUGHTOONS.

I did have a couple of their silents in 8mm from Blackhawk films, bought in the early 70s. I had a decent size collection of the talkies back then (and still have it, only much bigger) in Super 8 sound -- once we bought a sound projector we didn't want to waste any more money on silent films. 

When I got back into the film collection hobby in the 90s, PHILIP was one of the first prints I bought, since I wanted to see the whole short.

I've only been to LA once, over 30 years ago for work (training course), and I had with me the address of THE MUSIC BOX steps, but I never had a chance to go see them, since I was only there for a week.

[ChrisBungoStudios]

I would love to remember which was the first L&H film I ever saw. I don't remember a time when I hadn't yet seen L&H.

PHILIP is one of their best silents, although they don't play what was to become their usual characters. Like many of their silents, my first viewings of this short were from clips from the Youngson films, and then in L&H LAUGHTOONS.

I did have a couple of their silents in 8mm from Blackhawk films, bought in the early 70s. I had a decent size collection of the talkies back then (and still have it, only much bigger) in Super 8 sound -- once we bought a sound projector we didn't want to waste any more money on silent films. 

When I got back into the film collection hobby in the 90s, PHILIP was one of the first prints I bought, since I wanted to see the whole short.

I've only been to LA once, over 30 years ago for work (training course), and I had with me the address of THE MUSIC BOX steps, but I never had a chance to go see them, since I was only there for a week.

In the 80s, I saved up enough money to buy a Super 8 sound projector and remember ordering a few Little Rascals and Laurel & Hardy shorts from Blackhawk films. For some reason, none of The Three Stooges shorts were available for home use at that time, until VHS took hold.

[NoahYoung]

In the 80s, I saved up enough money to buy a Super 8 sound projector and remember ordering a few Little Rascals and Laurel & Hardy shorts from Blackhawk films. For some reason, none of The Three Stooges shorts were available for home use at that time, until VHS took hold.

My Super 8 sound projector and films in the 70s were birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, etc. from parents and other relatives, since I was in grammar school. The last films we bought were in 1980. Last from Blackhawk was 1979. Prices skyrocketed in the early 80s, plus we got a VCR. Blackhawk sold all the Stooges shorts from Columbia Home movies, but I'd have to check the catalog site to see when they stopped.

https://hmharchive.com/blackhawk-films-catalogs/

As a collector, I see (and have bought) films I never knew were released on Super 8. Turns out they were released after I stopped collecting by companies like Red Fox in the U.S. and Derann in the U.K.

Beta and VHS got a bit lucky because the price of silver went sky-high at that time. If you look at Blackhawk catalogs for Beta and VHS, the prices were those were pretty high, too, but less than film. Even higher than what you pay for a DVD or Blu-ray today. I used VHS to record off TV and rent from the video store, just like everyone else. People who hadn't previously collected films now had VCRs. So I think the real death knell for Super 8 was the price of silver and not the availability of VCRs. Had the prices not increased, I think most film collectors would have continued to buy film, but probably alongside VHS and Beta.

The things is, I'm down to my last working VCR, and haven't used it in a couple of years. When they break, they're toast and pretty much unrepairable, at least by someone like me. That being said, I have numerous projectors that I've bought used, and I'm actually able to repair them. They work like a charm, and I still buy films to watch. The films still look as good as they did in the 70s -- something that can't be said for old VHS tapes, especially those recorded in EP mode off broadcast TV.

It is ironic that it it easier and cheaper to obtain 8mm or Super 8 prints of the L&H silents than it is to buy the DVDs that have been out-of-print for 20 years. At least now they are starting to release them again, but I've been able to enjoy them on film for the past 25+ years. At least they've been available on youtube and elsewhere for free now for a long time.

[ChrisBungoStudios]

My Super 8 sound projector and films in the 70s were birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, etc. from parents and other relatives, since I was in grammar school. The last films we bought were in 1980. Last from Blackhawk was 1979. Prices skyrocketed in the early 80s, plus we got a VCR. Blackhawk sold all the Stooges shorts from Columbia Home movies, but I'd have to check the catalog site to see when they stopped.

https://hmharchive.com/blackhawk-films-catalogs/

As a collector, I see (and have bought) films I never knew were released on Super 8. Turns out they were released after I stopped collecting by companies like Red Fox in the U.S. and Derann in the U.K.

Beta and VHS got a bit lucky because the price of silver went sky-high at that time. If you look at Blackhawk catalogs for Beta and VHS, the prices were those were pretty high, too, but less than film. Even higher than what you pay for a DVD or Blu-ray today. I used VHS to record off TV and rent from the video store, just like everyone else. People who hadn't previously collected films now had VCRs. So I think the real death knell for Super 8 was the price of silver and not the availability of VCRs. Had the prices not increased, I think most film collectors would have continued to buy film, but probably alongside VHS and Beta.

The things is, I'm down to my last working VCR, and haven't used it in a couple of years. When they break, they're toast and pretty much unrepairable, at least by someone like me. That being said, I have numerous projectors that I've bought used, and I'm actually able to repair them. They work like a charm, and I still buy films to watch. The films still look as good as they did in the 70s -- something that can't be said for old VHS tapes, especially those recorded in EP mode off broadcast TV.

It is ironic that it it easier and cheaper to obtain 8mm or Super 8 prints of the L&H silents than it is to buy the DVDs that have been out-of-print for 20 years. At least now they are starting to release them again, but I've been able to enjoy them on film for the past 25+ years. At least they've been available on youtube and elsewhere for free now for a long time.

Have you seen the restored L&H films on Blu-ray? They look amazing with a level of detail we never got with Super 8. Same goes for the Our Gang Hal Roach sound films. Amazing restoration work.

[NoahYoung]

Have you seen the restored L&H films on Blu-ray? They look amazing with a level of detail we never got with Super 8. Same goes for the Our Gang Hal Roach sound films. Amazing restoration work.

Yes, I commented a lot about them in another thread a couple of years ago. Rented the DVD version of L&H from library, but have seen some of the HD versions online. I've only seen the Vivendi DVDs for Our Gang.

In short, for the L&Hs I have in 16mm, I much prefer them to "The Definitive Restorations." I project films on a screen 5 feet wide, but my HD TV is not that wide. I would probably love the restorations they did projected from 35mm film. My understanding is that they did too much DNR for the discs, although in other forums the people who worked on them vehemently denied it. They trump most of my Super 8 copies, but not 16mm.

Regarding Super 8 -- it's not the smaller gauge that can make them look less than desirable, it is a combination of the lab work and the negatives they worked from. Derann in the U.K., before they went out-of-business, produced many full-length Super 8 prints of the Disney animated classics. They still go for big bucks when someone is willing to sell their copies. I've never seen one in person, but I've heard they are fantastic. I do have several Disney shorts (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy) that Derann released, and they are pin-sharp with great color.

Regarding L&H, Blackhawk did print some that look great in Super 8 and 8mm. I have PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP in both Standard 8mm and Super 8, and the former may actually look better! You could fool someone into thinking they were 16mm. One of the keys is having a projector with a top-tier lens and a bright bulb. In general, Blackhawk releases of L&H silents are usually a step or 2 above the talkies in terms of image quality, though titles like COUNTY HOSPITAL, SCRAM, and PERFECT DAY are top-notch.

Regarding the digital versions, I'm not a fan of digital trickery to make the films look "better." The best thing they did with "The Defintive Restorations" was finding the best surving film elements, and when they happened to be on nitrate film stock (which any original camera negative from that era would be), they made copies onto safety film. I do endorse digital editing to stitch together scans of the best film elements together when it is not possible or practical to physically splice them together. For example, and I know this happened in the case of some of the recent Buster Keaton restorations, they might find film elements of, for example, PERFECT DAY from 2 different archives, half a world away. In that case they could scan a print from archive 1 (without transporting it to another country), and do the same with a print from archive 2, and digitally take the best image quality from each print to assemble a complete digital "print" from the 2. Not sure if that was necessary with the L&H restorations, though.

One of the things I really like about L&H in 16mm is that it is fairly easy to find very good to excellent condition prints that were printed when the negatives were younger. I have a few printed in the 1940s made directly from the original 35mm camera negatives -- which means they theoretically look better than the 4th generation prints released to theaters in the 30s, despite the smaller guage. (OCN->fine grain-->dupe neg->release print.) That's why so many of the original negs for L&H are either gone or in bad shape -- they were over-printed. Another reason why a 16mm print can look better than the blu-ray disc -- the 35mm original negative that was used to print the 16mm may no longer exist in some cases! These 16mm prints are not cheap, relatively, but the prices have come way down in the last few years. You may be surprised to hear, however, that I recently picked up a few 16mm L&H talkie shorts for around $30 each! I remember when they cost around $100, maybe 10 years ago.

It is my understanding that for the L&H restorations, a different team did the digital "stuff" after the "photo-chemical" team did their job restoring the film elements. Aside from DNR, there are also things they can do to alter brightness, contrast, and even "edge sharpening."

When the final disc is produced, it will probably look different on my TV and disc player vs. your's vs. someone else's. There are far too many virtual "knobs" on these newfangled HD TVs to change the look of the image. For film, there also are variables, such as lens, lamp, projector, screen, but the difference will not nearly be as great as with digital equipment.

Well, my "in short" became long, and I probably repeated myself from other threads, but once I get going it's hard to stop!
 

[ChrisBungoStudios]

Yes, I commented a lot about them in another thread a couple of years ago. Rented the DVD version of L&H from library, but have seen some of the HD versions online. I've only seen the Vivendi DVDs for Our Gang.

In short, for the L&Hs I have in 16mm, I much prefer them to "The Definitive Restorations." I project films on a screen 5 feet wide, but my HD TV is not that wide. I would probably love the restorations they did projected from 35mm film. My understanding is that they did too much DNR for the discs, although in other forums the people who worked on them vehemently denied it. They trump most of my Super 8 copies, but not 16mm.

Regarding Super 8 -- it's not the smaller gauge that can make them look less than desirable, it is a combination of the lab work and the negatives they worked from. Derann in the U.K., before they went out-of-business, produced many full-length Super 8 prints of the Disney animated classics. They still go for big bucks when someone is willing to sell their copies. I've never seen one in person, but I've heard they are fantastic. I do have several Disney shorts (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy) that Derann released, and they are pin-sharp with great color.

Regarding L&H, Blackhawk did print some that look great in Super 8 and 8mm. I have PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP in both Standard 8mm and Super 8, and the former may actually look better! You could fool someone into thinking they were 16mm. One of the keys is having a projector with a top-tier lens and a bright bulb. In general, Blackhawk releases of L&H silents are usually a step or 2 above the talkies in terms of image quality, though titles like COUNTY HOSPITAL, SCRAM, and PERFECT DAY are top-notch.

Regarding the digital versions, I'm not a fan of digital trickery to make the films look "better." The best thing they did with "The Defintive Restorations" was finding the best surving film elements, and when they happened to be on nitrate film stock (which any original camera negative from that era would be), they made copies onto safety film. I do endorse digital editing to stitch together scans of the best film elements together when it is not possible or practical to physically splice them together. For example, and I know this happened in the case of some of the recent Buster Keaton restorations, they might find film elements of, for example, PERFECT DAY from 2 different archives, half a world away. In that case they could scan a print from archive 1 (without transporting it to another country), and do the same with a print from archive 2, and digitally take the best image quality from each print to assemble a complete digital "print" from the 2. Not sure if that was necessary with the L&H restorations, though.

One of the things I really like about L&H in 16mm is that it is fairly easy to find very good to excellent condition prints that were printed when the negatives were younger. I have a few printed in the 1940s made directly from the original 35mm camera negatives -- which means they theoretically look better than the 4th generation prints released to theaters in the 30s, despite the smaller guage. (OCN->fine grain-->dupe neg->release print.) That's why so many of the original negs for L&H are either gone or in bad shape -- they were over-printed. Another reason why a 16mm print can look better than the blu-ray disc -- the 35mm original negative that was used to print the 16mm may no longer exist in some cases! These 16mm prints are not cheap, relatively, but the prices have come way down in the last few years. You may be surprised to hear, however, that I recently picked up a few 16mm L&H talkie shorts for around $30 each! I remember when they cost around $100, maybe 10 years ago.

It is my understanding that for the L&H restorations, a different team did the digital "stuff" after the "photo-chemical" team did their job restoring the film elements. Aside from DNR, there are also things they can do to alter brightness, contrast, and even "edge sharpening."

When the final disc is produced, it will probably look different on my TV and disc player vs. your's vs. someone else's. There are far too many virtual "knobs" on these newfangled HD TVs to change the look of the image. For film, there also are variables, such as lens, lamp, projector, screen, but the difference will not nearly be as great as with digital equipment.

Well, my "in short" became long, and I probably repeated myself from other threads, but once I get going it's hard to stop!
 

Well yes, that did turn into a dissertation, but an interesting one! :-) 

I've seen a few of the restored L&H films projected on the big screen at UCLA and at an event at the Egyptian Theater as well. They do look "different" projected on the big screen vs on my 80" HighDef TV from the Blu-ray discs. But to me, they're astounding to see, especially since I grew up watching these on a murky black and white tv in the 1970s.

[NoahYoung]

I've seen a few of the restored L&H films projected on the big screen at UCLA and at an event at the Egyptian Theater as well. They do look "different" projected on the big screen vs on my 80" HighDef TV from the Blu-ray discs. But to me, they're astounding to see, especially since I grew up watching these on a murky black and white tv in the 1970s.

Yup, us guys who grew up with broadcast TV can tell the kids some stories...

Cable gave us better reception -- that's about all. Same as VHS. It wasn't until DVDs that there was a big upgrade in picture quality -- even on the same old CRT TV. (I skipped laserdisc, which was supposedly better than VHS.)

I collected mostly L&H and Our Gang from Blackhawk in the 70s. They showed the L&H shorts on TV once in a blue moon, and the first time I saw most of them was when I bought from Blackhawk. The Our Gangs were always on TV, but I still wanted to get them on film. I never bought one without Alfalfa back then, but in retrospect I should have bought the ones chopped to pieces on TV. My (or rather my parents') last Blackhawk purchase was THE KID FROM BORNEO in 1979 since it had been years since it was on TV, yet I had distant memories of seeing it.

So Super 8 was a big upgrade back then compared to watching what you could catch on TV.

Regarding the screenings at UCLA, that must have been fun. I have seen L&H with decent sized audiences in 16mm sceenings, but that was 25+ years ago. (That's what motivated me to start collecting in 16mm to supplement Super 8.) I assume UCLA showed 35mm prints.

I read somewhere of people complaining about the screenings of those restorations (not sure if it was at UCLA), and claimed the blu-ray was better. I'm assuming these were people who couldn't stand to see lines or dirt on the projected prints. I'd choose seeing those over a scubbed digital version any day.