Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Three Stooges shorts coming to Blu-ray this summer

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark The Shark

Why did Dizzy Detectives get omitted? What is offensive/racist? Something offensive about cops?

I don't think every missing short was excluded for stereotype reasons. But here's what I think likely happened:

This probably started out as a complete set, the Ultimate Collection contents plus the feature films.  But then some other department got involved and said "you can't release that," and they were told they had to drop certain films.

Figuring there would be an outcry, Sony decided (again, I'm speculating here) to tie it in with an anniversary and cut it down to 100 shorts to call attention away from the censorship. So dropping the stock footage remakes makes more sense in the context of a "best of" release.

Given that all the solo shorts are included (while Joe Besser is only in two Three Stooges shorts in the set) that strongly suggests it was originally intended to be a complete set. Dropping the cartoon "Merry Mutineers" (which has a blackface gag)  would seem to support this. I think in the current political climate, Sony is probably scared to death of releasing some of these shorts. A sad state of affairs.

If (and again, I have no proof) this set was compromised for censorship reasons, that is extremely offensive to me, especially given that the complete set is on DVD (released at a time when the world wasn't half as insane with hypersensitivity as it is now). I'd like to see this thing bomb, to send the message that fans won't settle for a compromised release like this.


Offline Larrys#1

I don't think every missing short was excluded for stereotype reasons. But here's what I think likely happened:

This probably started out as a complete set, the Ultimate Collection contents plus the feature films.  But then some other department got involved and said "you can't release that," and they were told they had to drop certain films.

Figuring there would be an outcry, Sony decided (again, I'm speculating here) to tie it in with an anniversary and cut it down to 100 shorts to call attention away from the censorship. So dropping the stock footage remakes makes more sense in the context of a "best of" release.

Given that all the solo shorts are included (while Joe Besser is only in two Three Stooges shorts in the set) that strongly suggests it was originally intended to be a complete set. Dropping the cartoon "Merry Mutineers" (which has a blackface gag)  would seem to support this. I think in the current political climate, Sony is probably scared to death of releasing some of these shorts. A sad state of affairs.

If (and again, I have no proof) this set was compromised for censorship reasons, that is extremely offensive to me, especially given that the complete set is on DVD (released at a time when the world wasn't half as insane with hypersensitivity as it is now). I'd like to see this thing bomb, to send the message that fans won't settle for a compromised release like this.

Ah, that’s it. Forgot about the stock footage from “Pardon My Scotch.” That’s probably why “Dizzy Detectives” was ousted!

Yeah, seems like they’re omitting shorts either for censorship reason or because of stock footage.


Offline metaldams

I think the majority of us here are old enough to remember the Sony VHS days.  All the Curly shorts weee available and all but a few Shemp originals shorts minus the stock footage jobs.  BUBBLE TROUBLE being the one exception.  No Besser shorts.

So Mark the Shark is probably right.  This appears to be the woke version of the VHS format.  Do I know for sure?  No.  But the gut instinct is strong.  The fact Sony is a major corporation makes it more likely.  Of course, it’s not official unless they say so.  [pie]
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Larrys#1

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I’d rather have a set of all 190 shorts sans the movies and solo shorts. Not ideal, but much better than this half assed set we’re getting now.


Offline metaldams

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I’d rather have a set of all 190 shorts sans the movies and solo shorts. Not ideal, but much better than this half assed set we’re getting now.

If you’re in the minority, then I’m a part of it. 
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Larrys#1

If you’re in the minority, then I’m a part of it.

I know some people have a big desire to own the DeRita movies and the solo shorts. For me, they are bonus content that's "nice to have" but not necessary, especially since I already own four of the DeRita movies on Blu-ray from the Mill Creek release, and also own them all on DVD. So I'm content with that. For me, the priority is the 190 shorts.  :)


Offline Tony Bensley

Just for fun, last night I started viewing Three Stooges shorts that are not included in the upcoming Blu-ray set.

So far, I've watched UNCIVIL WARRIORS (1935) and WHOOPS, I'M AN INDIAN (1936). I will say the second short does look slightly dupey to me. In addition, I watched the animated short MERRY MUTINEERS (1936), which is the lone title from THE THREE STOOGES: THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION's included 3 DVD set RARE TREASURES FROM THE COLUMBIA PICTURES VAULT not included in the upcoming Blu-ray set.

Also worth noting is the next missing Three Stooges short I'll be viewing, BACK IN THE WOODS (1937), is actually the very first Three Stooges short to include recycled material, which is oddly enough from the also not included WHOOPS, I'M AN INDIAN (1936), the title of which is a play on the then popular Fanny Brice sung "Hoo Hoo, I'm An Indian!"

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline Mark The Shark

Just for fun, last night I started viewing Three Stooges shorts that are not included in the upcoming Blu-ray set.

So far, I've watched UNCIVIL WARRIORS (1935)

This right here -- how can you have a Three Stooges collection without "Uncivil Warriors?" Absolutely essential. Actually, it's subjective with 190 to choose from, and many of the missing shorts are among my favorites, and everyone has their own.

But "Uncivil Warriors" -- that kills it right there. Yes, I can guess why, but  right off the bat, start by leaving off an absolute classic.

They can take their box and shove it. Not interested.


Offline Dr. Mabuse

Just for fun, last night I started viewing Three Stooges shorts that are not included in the upcoming Blu-ray set.

So far, I've watched UNCIVIL WARRIORS (1935) and WHOOPS, I'M AN INDIAN (1936). I will say the second short does look slightly dupey to me.

In terms of print quality, "Whoops, I’m an Indian!" lacks the sharpness of the other Columbia two-reelers due to a lost or decomposed negative. There’s always hope that a pristine 35mm print will turn up.


Offline Tony Bensley

In terms of print quality, "Whoops, I’m an Indian!" lacks the sharpness of the other Columbia two-reelers due to a lost or decomposed negative. There’s always hope that a pristine 35mm print will turn up.
Over the past decade or more, I've seen or heard numerous accounts about the negatives for The Three Stooges Columbia shorts being pristine, but this is obviously a rare instance of that not being the case. Are there any other Columbia Stooge shorts for which the original negatives became decomposed before they were scanned at 1080p around the mid '00s?

I did also notice the reused canoe footage from WHOOPS, I'M AN INDIAN (1936) that's in BACK IN THE WOODS (1937) has that same dupey look, although the rest of that short doesn't have that appearance.

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline Larrys#1

In terms of print quality, "Whoops, I’m an Indian!" lacks the sharpness of the other Columbia two-reelers due to a lost or decomposed negative. There’s always hope that a pristine 35mm print will turn up.

The copy on the old "Healthy, Wealthy and Dumb" DVD looked good to me, much better than the one that's on the chronological set.


Offline Tony Bensley

The copy on the old "Healthy, Wealthy and Dumb" DVD looked good to me, much better than the one that's on the chronological set.
Interesting! Wonder if that version of WHOOPS, I'M AN INDIAN was derived from an HD transfer?

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline NoahYoung

I joked on another message board I’d maybe spend $230 if Christine McIntyre came out of the screen and had dinner with me. 

I'd want more than dinner!
 :o
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

Call me crazy. but I felt Monkey Business, Horse Feathers and Duck Soup all looked rather soft on Blu-ray. Ironically, The Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers look the best of the bunch since they both looked like real 4K scans. The last three movies, on the other hand, don't have that nice fine look. I do feel it was limited to the source and not due to the way it was transferred. I know there was a recently found unedited print of Animal Crackers, which is why this one looked the best. Albeit some bad footages, The Cocoanuts did have the same nice fine look and the scenes that were badly beaten up have undergone an incredible restoration job. Though I don't know why the last three movies don't have the same fine look as the first two. Maybe they couldn't get better sources?

I just discovered that the Paramount Marx films are on Amazon Prime -- no additional cost with a Prime subscription.  I watched almost half of ANIMAL CRACKERS last night. The contrast was way off at first, then seemed to get a bit better -- but jut a bit.  I assume this was HD -- it kinda looked it, but as I said in another thread DVDs still look great to me.

During "Hooray for Capt. Spaulding", the "I think I'll try and make her" line was still cut out. Weird because when they found the uncensored print you could see that whole scene uncensored on youtube!

I need to view my DVD of that film, but from memory I don't remember the contrast being as bad as what they have on Prime.

Regarding COCOANUTS, I'll have to check the Prime version vs. my DVD. The beat up parts on the old DVD were taken from a beat up 16mm dupe. If they restored these scenes, all they did was find better film elements -- no digital trickery can make a dupe look like an original.

My Marx Holy Grail is an uncensored HORSEFEATHERS and A NIGHT AT THE OPERA.

Regarding The Three Stooges or anything else in HD, blu-ray,1080, 4k, 8k, etc, I think it really depends upon the size of your HD TV screen. Mine is only 1080, and offhand I don't know its size. To me, unless you have one of those giant 10 foot wide screens, or an HD projector to blow it up to that size, I still feel the upgrade from a DVD is a placebo, particularly for B&W films.

For streaming, I'm still not sure that 1080 is equivalent to a blu-ray -- is the bit rate the same? I've seen calcs where you can compress the bit rate and supposedly not see much of a difference. I've read that about 1.5 to 3 gig is enough per for HD. But the size on blu-rays is much more. Again, perhaps the size of your TV matters?

The caveat to all my comments is that I've never seen a blu-ray -- but have seen many films and TV shows in 1080 via cable and streaming -- so it could be apples vs oranges.






Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

Yep, that was disappointing. The same distortion crops up again in at least one other section later in the film.
Bothers me enough that I go to my old dvd copy when I want to see Duck Soup.

Makes you wonder if anyone at Universal actually watched the final product before declaring it ready for prime time!
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

What Sony will probably eventually do is, rather than issuing a second set that contains what was missing from the first set, they will release a set that contains all 190, so you have to double dip!

Universal did that with Abbott and Costello, but in that case you had to by the complete set to get just one feature, IT AIN'T HAY, that wasn't included in the old set.

To be clear, the old set was actually 4 "Best of" sets. It made me laugh that Universal considered "Best of" to be only those produced at Universal (which I would agree with), and of those, all but one were "The Best."
:D


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

In terms of print quality, "Whoops, I’m an Indian!" lacks the sharpness of the other Columbia two-reelers due to a lost or decomposed negative. There’s always hope that a pristine 35mm print will turn up.

I'll let them borrow my 16mm print, which is as sharp as a tack!
 :P
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

What Sony will probably eventually do is, rather than issuing a second set that contains what was missing from the first set, they will release a set that contains all 190, so you have to double dip!

Universal did that with Abbott and Costello, but in that case you had to by the complete set to get just one feature, IT AIN'T HAY, that wasn't included in the old set.

To be clear, the old set was actually 4 "Best of" sets. It made me laugh that Universal considered "Best of" to be only those produced at Universal (which I would agree with), and of those, all but one were "The Best."
:D
That's what I see Sony doing down the road with the Three Stooges shorts! "Whoops, I'm An Indian (1936)" (And strangely, its recycled scene that ends "Back To The Woods (1937)"!) aside, most of the 190 shorts on their Ultimate Collection DVD set look just fine, as I recall! I've actually started viewing the shorts that aren't included in the upcoming Blu-ray set release.

To be fair regarding the "Best Of" Abbott & Costello DVD sets, Universal at the time supposedly had little choice as rights with the Damon Runyan Family Estate hadn't been cleared. I actually had all 4 "Best Of" A&C Volumes, which I ended up replacing in December 2014 with the revised A&C Complete 28 Universal Picture Collection DVD set, when it went on sale at Amazon Canada for around $52. I justified my purchase knowing that the prints for "Buck Privates (1941)" and "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)" were better on the complete Universal set, plus several features had added commentary, though for me, the latter was more of a bonus. I eventually sold each of those 4 A&C Volumes for around $2 each to a pawn shop near Father's Day in 2017, I believe it was.

In regards to DVD vs. Blu-ray quality, I definitely notice a difference, even on my 720p 32 inch Toshiba LCD Display. That said, well produced DVD releases still look good. As funds are limited in our household, I tend towards Blu-ray (Upgrade to 4K UHD very likely just isn't in the cards, in my case!) releases in which actual restoration work was done to substantially improve the visual viewing experience for titles I already have.

CHEERS!  [3stooges]



Offline NoahYoung

That whole IT AIN'T HAY rights things always puzzled me since I had seen it so many times on broadcast TV throughout the 70s. Given the rights issue, which I guess meant only to release it on home video (not sure how that was anticipated in 1943!), it still would have been nice to issue it on DVD separately when the rights issue was resolved.

My biggest beef with the "Best of" sets was that some of them would freeze-up on certain DVD players, even when brand new. I think we talked about that before.

Wasn't A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN on the later DVD set from a Realart-reissue, which eliminated the first on-screen card? At least that's what I heard. BUCK PRIVATES was from a Realart re-issue too on one of the sets -- don't remember if it was the "Best of" or not.

I'm still holding onto my VHS releases of A&C -- though I never got even close to buying all of them. They were about $15 a pop unless you got them on sale.

It's all rather here nor there now since it is pretty easy to see all the A&C films in great quality online.

Regarding the Stooges, I save my money to buy them on 16mm now, but only when the price is right and it's one of the really good ones that I like.

I measured my TV -- it's 3.5 feet wide. So for a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, that's about 3 feet. Not huge, but good enough for me.

So I popped in my DVD of ANIMAL CRACKERS last night, from the 2004 DVD set of their Paramounts (The Silver Screen Collection), and it looked so much better than the version that is streaming on Prime right now. The contrast and density was spot-on, unilke on Prime. I found it to be very sharp -- no noticeable difference from the streaming version. The black and white balance was perfect -- it looked like a projected film. It had the same edits as in the Prime version. Strange, because in the booklet they reproduce the poster from the 1974 theatrical re-issue, where it proudly announced that it was uncensored! (Yet it still shows that it was rate G.) That lack of attention to detail bothers me.

I still question whether or not the 1974 re-issue had the cuts or not. Some people swear the 1979 CBS telecast was uncensored. For the latter, I don't recall. My guess is that both were censored, else subsequent video editions wouldn't have been censored either. But they were until they found an uncut print several years ago for blu-ray release.




Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

What Sony will probably eventually do is, rather than issuing a second set that contains what was missing from the first set, they will release a set that contains all 190, so you have to double dip!

Universal did that with Abbott and Costello, but in that case you had to by the complete set to get just one feature, IT AIN'T HAY, that wasn't included in the old set.

To be clear, the old set was actually 4 "Best of" sets. It made me laugh that Universal considered "Best of" to be only those produced at Universal (which I would agree with), and of those, all but one were "The Best."
:D

Of course. That's what I did with the DVDs. Bought all of those individual releases in the beginning and then later on, double dipped and bought the 8 volume set. Now, we have to do that all over again on Blu-ray.


Offline Tony Bensley

That whole IT AIN'T HAY rights things always puzzled me since I had seen it so many times on broadcast TV throughout the 70s. Given the rights issue, which I guess meant only to release it on home video (not sure how that was anticipated in 1943!), it still would have been nice to issue it on DVD separately when the rights issue was resolved.

My biggest beef with the "Best of" sets was that some of them would freeze-up on certain DVD players, even when brand new. I think we talked about that before.

Wasn't A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN on the later DVD set from a Realart-reissue, which eliminated the first on-screen card? At least that's what I heard. BUCK PRIVATES was from a Realart re-issue too on one of the sets -- don't remember if it was the "Best of" or not.

I'm still holding onto my VHS releases of A&C -- though I never got even close to buying all of them. They were about $15 a pop unless you got them on sale.

It's all rather here nor there now since it is pretty easy to see all the A&C films in great quality online.

Regarding the Stooges, I save my money to buy them on 16mm now, but only when the price is right and it's one of the really good ones that I like.

I measured my TV -- it's 3.5 feet wide. So for a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, that's about 3 feet. Not huge, but good enough for me.

So I popped in my DVD of ANIMAL CRACKERS last night, from the 2004 DVD set of their Paramounts (The Silver Screen Collection), and it looked so much better than the version that is streaming on Prime right now. The contrast and density was spot-on, unilke on Prime. I found it to be very sharp -- no noticeable difference from the streaming version. The black and white balance was perfect -- it looked like a projected film. It had the same edits as in the Prime version. Strange, because in the booklet they reproduce the poster from the 1974 theatrical re-issue, where it proudly announced that it was uncensored! (Yet it still shows that it was rate G.) That lack of attention to detail bothers me.

I still question whether or not the 1974 re-issue had the cuts or not. Some people swear the 1979 CBS telecast was uncensored. For the latter, I don't recall. My guess is that both were censored, else subsequent video editions wouldn't have been censored either. But they were until they found an uncut print several years ago for blu-ray release.
Regarding the later DVD release of ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948), it's a Yes & No regarding whether or not it was problematic. While I don't recall reading anything regarding the first on screen card being missing, I do recall reading the end gag was ruined on the version that appears on the 2008 A&C Trunk DVD release. My 2014 A&C Trunk DVD reissue version is fine regarding this, plus the ending is full screen, instead of window boxed. Of course, I also have 3 Blu-ray versions of this film via the Universal Monster Blu-ray sets that were released towards the late 2010s! Of course, the window boxing at the opening titles remains on ALL home video versions of A&C Meet Frankenstein!

Yes, the Realart reissue card at the end of BUCK PRIVATES (1941) was on the "Best Of" Volume 1 DVD set. I can attest that it is not present on the 2014 Trunk Reissue DVD set, and probably not the 2008 Trunk DVD release either, as I distinctly recall the DVD Files for "A&C Meet Frankenstein" as the only ones that bore a 2014 creation date, with all others dated 2008.

Regarding the flipper disc freeze ups on the "Best Of A&C" DVD sets, I remember having to do two exchanges at our local Wal-Mart in North Bay for Volumes 1 and 3. That WAS super annoying!

Regarding IT AIN'T HAY (1943), I do distinctly remember it being made available on DVD-R as a Universal Archive disc around 2011. For whatever reason, I never could get a decent enough price point for it on Amazon Canada. As fate would have it, I think about the week after I finally got the Reissued Trunk DVD set for around $52, Amazon Canada had that Universal Archive DVD-R listed for around $13 CDN. No worries, as I was never fond of those horrid Universal DVD Flippers!

As for The Three Stooges Short Subjects, anything short of a complete Blu-ray set release of those, the Sony DVD Volumes will pretty much suffice for me! For others, your mileage may vary.

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline NoahYoung

Regarding the flipper disc freeze ups on the "Best Of A&C" DVD sets, I remember having to do two exchanges at our local Wal-Mart in North Bay for Volumes 1 and 3. That WAS super annoying!

Regarding IT AIN'T HAY (1943), I do distinctly remember it being made available on DVD-R as a Universal Archive disc around 2011. For whatever reason, I never could get a decent enough price point for it on Amazon Canada. As fate would have it, I think about the week after I finally got the Reissued Trunk DVD set for around $52, Amazon Canada had that Universal Archive DVD-R listed for around $13 CDN. No worries, as I was never fond of those horrid Universal DVD Flippers!


I knew about the freeze-up problems before I bought them, and for one volume, I got thru 7 movies fine -- then the 8th one froze up with about 2 minutes to go! I exchanged it at the store, and had to rewatch every film again to make sure they were ok, which they were. It takes the fun out of buying box sets since you need to watch them pretty quickly to stay within the return window of stores.

Years later, I was watching one film and it froze up near the end - then I put it in another player -- the one I had originally used to view them, and it was fine. I think the issue occurs near the end of the second film on a side of the disc. I've since ripped them all to my hard drive so as not to have issues going forward.

I found IT AIN'T HAY, ahem, online a few years ago so I never bought the individual disc. I still haven't watched it!
 :P
I did see it a millions times when I was a kid, though.



Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz



Offline Tony Bensley

Date has changed on Amazon to August 13th and the artwork for the discs have also changed.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=22229127&postcount=399
The plot thickens, and hopefully so does the number of included Three Stooges Shorts!!!  We'll have to wait and see whether Sony provides an updated/revised listing of what's included!

CHEERS! [3stooges]


Offline Larrys#1

Dizzy Detectives is pictured on the second cover art. And looks like they moved the Curly Joe movies over to the last cover art now. Are they including the missing 90 shorts now?