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

[ChrisBungoStudios]

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.

Yes, the UCLA and Egyptian Theater shows were the 35mm restorations.  I just happened to be out there when they were showing it, so it was dumb luck that I got to see them.

There's a new L&H Blu-ray out (about a year now) with all the 1927 L&H films on it and, to me, the restoration looks great. Coming up in a few months is the 1928 L&H Blu-ray.

I remember L&H being shown on TV in NYC very rarely, but when we got cable, they offered channel 29 from Philadelphia and THEY showed L&H films every Saturday morning. Then, back in the mid/late 80s, Rob Word put out "The Laurel & Hardy Show" into syndication and I remember channel 9 in NYC carried those.  Since then, though, unfortunately no L&H on broadcast TV anymore - unless they're on one of those MeTV type of stations.

[NoahYoung]

Yes, the UCLA and Egyptian Theater shows were the 35mm restorations.  I just happened to be out there when they were showing it, so it was dumb luck that I got to see them.

There's a new L&H Blu-ray out (about a year now) with all the 1927 L&H films on it and, to me, the restoration looks great. Coming up in a few months is the 1928 L&H Blu-ray.

I remember L&H being shown on TV in NYC very rarely, but when we got cable, they offered channel 29 from Philadelphia and THEY showed L&H films every Saturday morning. Then, back in the mid/late 80s, Rob Word put out "The Laurel & Hardy Show" into syndication and I remember channel 9 in NYC carried those.  Since then, though, unfortunately no L&H on broadcast TV anymore - unless they're on one of those MeTV type of stations.

Oh, I'm from NYC too. Around 1975 or so, Channel 5 showed them on Saturday morning from 8:30 to 9:30, followed by a Blondie movie. (No, not Deborah Harry!) They did that for about a year. When they showed a feature, it was heavily edited. They showed a lot of those Regal and Governor cut-downs as well, so I didn't get to see many of the shorts.

Channel 11 started showing the Janus package late 70s, early 80s. For a short while they showed the shorts every weekday afternoon, but since I was in high school I didn't get to see too many. Then after about a year or less they stopped the shorts, but occassionally showed a feature on weekends, but for some reason never PARDON US.

Also in mid-70s, Channel 9 for one week showed a feature every day, between Christmas and New Year.

Then late 70s LAUGHTOONS on Channel 5.

L&H Show as you said on Channel 9 started around 1986. Of course we got lousy reception on that channel, but I still taped them all. I could tell they were restored despite the bad reception. ME-TV now shows these every Saturday morning, followed by a Blondie movie, amazingly. Ridiculous since most of the shorts and features are edited. And I was never a fan of the added background music which attempted to orchestrate the LeRoy Shield music, but often at the wrong tempo. They can't hold a candle to the Beau Hunk's versions.

As I've said, I have little interest in the Year One L&H blu-ray, or any subsequent ones, since I have most on Super 8, 16mm, and Standard 8mm. I have seen clips of the new restoration of DUCK SOUP which blows away my "Lost Films" VHS. I'm sure it will turn up for free before you know it online. I've decided to upgrade many of the silents now to 16mm, whereas for the last 25 years I concentrated on upgrading the talkies from Super 8.

If I drop a disc on  the floor, it can get scratched enough to be unusable. If I drop a film on the floor, maybe the reel will crack, unless it's a metal reel, which most in 16mm are. It may get dirty and scratched after many projections, but I can still clean the film. The film may break in the projector, but then I can repair it with a splice. A scratched blu-ray disc becomes an expensive coaster! (And believe me I've tried all those toothpaste tricks, etc. They sometimes work for CDs, but rarely on DVDs.)

[NoahYoung]

I've forgotten if anyone has ever posted this:

That UCLA channel has a few more videos on L&H:
https://www.youtube.com/@UCLAFTVArchive

I've been trying for awhile to figure out what the best surviving elements are for every L&H film. There are bits and pieces of info on some of the films, like in those videos, and on the L&H site where Bann wrote that long article on preservation. He also indicates for some entries on the films what exactly survives.

http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com/films/nav-films.html

[ChrisBungoStudios]

Oh, I'm from NYC too. Around 1975 or so, Channel 5 showed them on Saturday morning from 8:30 to 9:30, followed by a Blondie movie. (No, not Deborah Harry!) They did that for about a year. When they showed a feature, it was heavily edited. They showed a lot of those Regal and Governor cut-downs as well, so I didn't get to see many of the shorts.

Channel 11 started showing the Janus package late 70s, early 80s. For a short while they showed the shorts every weekday afternoon, but since I was in high school I didn't get to see too many. Then after about a year or less they stopped the shorts, but occassionally showed a feature on weekends, but for some reason never PARDON US.

Also in mid-70s, Channel 9 for one week showed a feature every day, between Christmas and New Year.

Then late 70s LAUGHTOONS on Channel 5.

L&H Show as you said on Channel 9 started around 1986. Of course we got lousy reception on that channel, but I still taped them all. I could tell they were restored despite the bad reception. ME-TV now shows these every Saturday morning, followed by a Blondie movie, amazingly. Ridiculous since most of the shorts and features are edited. And I was never a fan of the added background music which attempted to orchestrate the LeRoy Shield music, but often at the wrong tempo. They can't hold a candle to the Beau Hunk's versions.

As I've said, I have little interest in the Year One L&H blu-ray, or any subsequent ones, since I have most on Super 8, 16mm, and Standard 8mm. I have seen clips of the new restoration of DUCK SOUP which blows away my "Lost Films" VHS. I'm sure it will turn up for free before you know it online. I've decided to upgrade many of the silents now to 16mm, whereas for the last 25 years I concentrated on upgrading the talkies from Super 8.

If I drop a disc on  the floor, it can get scratched enough to be unusable. If I drop a film on the floor, maybe the reel will crack, unless it's a metal reel, which most in 16mm are. It may get dirty and scratched after many projections, but I can still clean the film. The film may break in the projector, but then I can repair it with a splice. A scratched blu-ray disc becomes an expensive coaster! (And believe me I've tried all those toothpaste tricks, etc. They sometimes work for CDs, but rarely on DVDs.)

While film is still the superior preservation format, I know a few people who have extensive 16mm film collections and they have mentioned "vinegar syndrome." And yes, DVDs are subject to physical damage so... I feed them all into my computer at 1920x1280 HD and save them that way, with a backup to one of those cloud service backup outfits.

And yes, channel 9 always seemed to have very bad reception for some reason!

[NoahYoung]

While film is still the superior preservation format, I know a few people who have extensive 16mm film collections and they have mentioned "vinegar syndrome." And yes, DVDs are subject to physical damage so... I feed them all into my computer at 1920x1280 HD and save them that way, with a backup to one of those cloud service backup outfits.

And yes, channel 9 always seemed to have very bad reception for some reason!

So u too regarding Channel 9? When I visited my uncle in Westchester in the 70s, Channel 9 came in crystal clear, as did all the other channels. I was in Brooklyn, and the bridges and big buildings blocked reception from The Empire State Building (I think). When they all moved to The World Trade Center, I think that's when reception got better.

Yes, film collecting isn't for everyone. I have films I bought new 50 years ago that are still fine with no Vinegar Smell. I have films that are older, printed in the 40s, and they're fine, too. I've never done anything special in terms of storage.  Vinegar Syndrome is a thing, but not a reason to not collect film. But that's just me.

Some collectors will only buy films printed on polyester, which will never get VS.

[ChrisBungoStudios]

So u too regarding Channel 9? When I visited my uncle in Westchester in the 70s, Channel 9 came in crystal clear, as did all the other channels. I was in Brooklyn, and the bridges and big buildings blocked reception from The Empire State Building (I think). When they all moved to The World Trade Center, I think that's when reception got better.

Yes, film collecting isn't for everyone. I have films I bought new 50 years ago that are still fine with no Vinegar Smell. I have films that are older, printed in the 40s, and they're fine, too. I've never done anything special in terms of storage.  Vinegar Syndrome is a thing, but not a reason to not collect film. But that's just me.

Some collectors will only buy films printed on polyester, which will never get VS.

I'm wondering how my old Blackhawk films from the 70s are doing re: VS. I think I'll dig them out this weekend to see!

[NoahYoung]

I'm wondering how my old Blackhawk films from the 70s are doing re: VS. I think I'll dig them out this weekend to see!

U still have them? Cool! Do you still have a working projector?

Unless they've been stored in a hot attic somewhere, I doubt they will have VS. I hear more cases of VS in 16mm vs 8mm. Odd because the only difference is the size. I think one of the theories of what makes a film susceptible to VS can be traced back to it's processing. Most 16mm prints floating around were made for TV broadcast, and since they were produced in large numbers, corners may have been cut. Blackhawk films, for example, were usually only printed when they received orders, and anyone who ordered from them will know how long it took from order to actually receiving the film in the mail! Believe it or not, I still have all my Blackhawk receipts, and it's not unusual to see a 2 month wait to receive a film.

If you have any interest at all in viewing the prints, and you don't have a working projector, I can easily recommend some that will not break the bank. Silent projectors are pretty easy to get running again unless it was a bargain-basement brand. One important guideline is to buy one that takes a bulb that's still in production. That would be a halogen one (though there are different types), and these are mostly under $10. It will almost certainly need at least one new belt, easily obtained on eBay for dozens of old brands.

[ChrisBungoStudios]

U still have them? Cool! Do you still have a working projector?

Unless they've been stored in a hot attic somewhere, I doubt they will have VS. I hear more cases of VS in 16mm vs 8mm. Odd because the only difference is the size. I think one of the theories of what makes a film susceptible to VS can be traced back to it's processing. Most 16mm prints floating around were made for TV broadcast, and since they were produced in large numbers, corners may have been cut. Blackhawk films, for example, were usually only printed when they received orders, and anyone who ordered from them will know how long it took from order to actually receiving the film in the mail! Believe it or not, I still have all my Blackhawk receipts, and it's not unusual to see a 2 month wait to receive a film.

If you have any interest at all in viewing the prints, and you don't have a working projector, I can easily recommend some that will not break the bank. Silent projectors are pretty easy to get running again unless it was a bargain-basement brand. One important guideline is to buy one that takes a bulb that's still in production. That would be a halogen one (though there are different types), and these are mostly under $10. It will almost certainly need at least one new belt, easily obtained on eBay for dozens of old brands.

Yeah, I have the films but not a projector. I think I held onto the films mainly for sentimental value. These days, I'm so busy with my new website ChrisBungoStudios.com (if you haven't been there yet, pay it a visit), that I really don't have any time to watch ANYTHING.

[NoahYoung]

Yeah, I have the films but not a projector. I think I held onto the films mainly for sentimental value. These days, I'm so busy with my new website ChrisBungoStudios.com (if you haven't been there yet, pay it a visit), that I really don't have any time to watch ANYTHING.

If I tree falls in a forest with no one there, does it still make a sound? Yes.
If a film sits in a box, without a projector to run it through, can anyone see it? No.
 

I received delivery today of a few boxes of films -- and there's no Yankee game tonight, so you know what I'll be doing...
One is a 16mm Blackhawk print of OUR GANG FOLLIES OF 1936. I have 3 copies in Super 8, too, believe it or not.
Also a Chaplin, a W.C. Fields, and a Lon Chaney. And more on the way!

[NoahYoung]

I'm wondering how my old Blackhawk films from the 70s are doing re: VS. I think I'll dig them out this weekend to see!

I can't wait to hear what you got! You may have common titles --and/or you may have some hidden gold!

[ChrisBungoStudios]

I can't wait to hear what you got! You may have common titles --and/or you may have some hidden gold!

If I can find them, I'll post a list for sure. :-)

[NoahYoung]

Here's an example of what I go through as a film collector on eBay. Yesterday, I asked a seller a question about some Super 8 Disney cartoons he was selling. I asked, "How is the color?"

He replied, "Color of what ?"

Reminded me of the Stooges: "The tools we've been using for the last 10 years!"

For those who don't collect film: most Super 8 and 16mm color films were printed on Eastman color stock, which fades quickly -- but some not as bad as others. The only color that doesn't fade is red. Sometime in the 80s, Kodak came out with SP (a little better), and then LPP (which is low-fade.) Then there's Fuji stock, which fades but not as much. Also a few others.

I have a few films on LPP stock and they look great. For some reason, especially with Disney, they used better stock for U.K. distribution. I recently picked up a Disney extract from ALICE IN WONDERLAND via eBay from a U.K. seller, and the color was near perfect -- and the print is probably close to 50 years old.

Luckily, most home movies shot in the 50s and 60s were on Kodachrome, which doesn't fade. Not sure who at Kodak was responsible for cutting corners, but like Vinegar Syndrome, the fade wasn't discovered until years later -- but many years fewer than VS can rear its ugly head.

Anyway, the whole point is that asking a seller about the color is something that every film buyer on eBay does. That being said, I've see red prints go for big bucks for rare titles.

[NoahYoung]

If I can find them, I'll post a list for sure. :-)

I guess you never found them -- did you?
I was hoping you might have HATS OFF.
 

[ChrisBungoStudios]

I guess you never found them -- did you?
I was hoping you might have HATS OFF.
 

Yeah, no luck... yet.

[NoahYoung]

I was just thinking that later in their career, including the last couple with Roach, the boys (and their audience) would have been better served making films similar to PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP in style. In other words, not always using the traditional Stan and Ollie characters. The results couldn't have been any worse than they were, though I'm the first to admit that the Fox films are not nearly as bad as people will tell you. Or really, what the self-appointed experts in the 60s and 70s who wrote books about their films would tell you. If they had more knowledge about the films than the general public in those decades (and they probably actually did), it was only because they had easier access to view the films. Their opinions of the films are no more valid than yours or mine. Why? Because they are opinions.

Instead, L&H dragged out tired routines like an over-played vaudeville act nearing retirement, who still needed a roof over their heads and food on the table. They became victims of their own (prior) success. They were type-cast. Apparently, a war-weary public didn't care, as these post-1940 films supposedly turned a handsome profit.   

The only film that came close to a different style was JITTERBUGS, which for years was the most highly regarded of their post-1940 output.

[ChrisBungoStudios]

I was just thinking that later in their career, including the last couple with Roach, the boys (and their audience) would have been better served making films similar to PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP in style. In other words, not always using the traditional Stan and Ollie characters. The results couldn't have been any worse than they were, though I'm the first to admit that the Fox films are not nearly as bad as people will tell you. Or really, what the self-appointed experts in the 60s and 70s who wrote books about their films would tell you. If they had more knowledge about the films than the general public in those decades (and they probably actually did), it was only because they had easier access to view the films. Their opinions of the films are no more valid than yours or mine. Why? Because they are opinions.

Instead, L&H dragged out tired routines like an over-played vaudeville act nearing retirement, who still needed a roof over their heads and food on the table. They became victims of their own (prior) success. They were type-cast. Apparently, a war-weary public didn't care, as these post-1940 films supposedly turned a handsome profit.   

The only film that came close to a different style was JITTERBUGS, which for years was the most highly regarded of their post-1940 output.

Yes, adopting new (or a variation of) the characters MIGHT have worked in the 40s, but the public's taste had definitely changed by then and besides a very few (Edgar Kennedy and of course The Three Stooges),  none of the "big" movie comedy stars of the 20s/30s had success in the 40s or beyond.

I didn't know (or if I knew, I forgot) that their 1940s films turned a profit. Interesting - and nice to hear.

[NoahYoung]

Yes, adopting new (or a variation of) the characters MIGHT have worked in the 40s, but the public's taste had definitely changed by then and besides a very few (Edgar Kennedy and of course The Three Stooges),  none of the "big" movie comedy stars of the 20s/30s had success in the 40s or beyond.

I didn't know (or if I knew, I forgot) that their 1940s films turned a profit. Interesting - and nice to hear.

That's what I've read over the years -- I have the first edition of MacGillivray book, and it might be mentioned there, but the second edition is greatly expanded and the actual numbers are probably there. I do know GREAT GUNS was a one-picture deal, and the rest of the Fox films were on a long contract that expired in 1945.

The changing taste is exactly why I think they should have tried some variations.  But, by the mid to late 40s, their films were re-released by Film Classics, and I would think they were successful judging by the number of prints I still see for sale every day -- many of which I have -- albeit on 16mm.

We're looking at it in hindsight, but -- the boys made money, Fox made money, so everybody was happy financially, but Stan wasn't since his artistic aspirations were stifled after many years of being in control. Then they of course went on the U.K. tours that kept them busy until Hardy's health started to fail. We, as aficionados in the year 2024, just wish they had made a few more masterpieces.