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 NoahYoung

It's so crazy Sony would even go through all this trouble to release this set, but not rollout enough copies. This whole thing is just messed up!

It's worse than a half-assed release -- more like quarter-assed! Although it may actually be valid to call it a 100/190-assed release!
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

Looks like Amazon has more in stock, so I'm going to place another order and try again. Hopefully I'll get it by end of week and have it just in time for the Labor Day weekend. But for us now, everyday is Labor Day! So lets labor! :D


Offline NoahYoung

This Labor Day weekend, I will be dreaming of what it is like to own a blu-ray player as I sip Margaritas on the beach...
 [dance]
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

Amazon shipped my set last night and it arrived this morning, a day earlier than Amazon's delivery estimate. I watched the first disc and scanned through some of the other shorts on the other discs. And from what I've seen so far, the only complaint I have is the missing 90 shorts. Other than that, this is a magnificent set! I bought this set because of my FOMO syndrome, and I can certainly see what I've been missing. First thing is the grain... this is not for the fainthearted. These are grainy looking... and I say that in a good way. Which means, nothing is filtered out and this is how classic films are meant to be seen. On top of the nice film grain is a much sharper picture, to the point where you see strings where you've never seen them before, all the strands of hair on Moe's head and all the wrinkles on people's faces. The first thing that popped out is in "Horses Collars" where Moe and Larry are hanging from the ceiling. You see a bunch of strings holding them up... something I didn't notice on the DVDs.

These look like the same scans as the DVDs, but these are much clearer and sharper. Even way better than Tubi as well. Tubi looks blurry and heavily compressed compared to these.

I can't say whether it's worth the upgrade on a small (i.e. under 40") TV, but for a TV bigger than 50", this is well worth the upgrade. These shorts look pretty amazing on my 55" TV. If you think changing your socks is quite the experience, wait until you watch these shorts in HD! It's like watching them all over again!

It's too bad Sony made the crazy decision to omit 90 shorts; otherwise, I'd easily call this a perfect set!


Offline GreenCanaries

  • President of the Johnny Kascier Fan Club
  • Birdbrain
  • ****
For all of our irritation and head-scratching about this set, and how much better it really could've been, I am glad you're truly enjoying it, L#1.
"With oranges, it's much harder..."


Offline Larrys#1

I guess we can look on the bright side here.... missing 90 shorts means your DVDs will still be put to good use whether you buy this set or not.  ;D


Offline NoahYoung

First thing is the grain... this is not for the fainthearted. These are grainy looking... and I say that in a good way. Which means, nothing is filtered out and this is how classic films are meant to be seen. On top of the nice film grain is a much sharper picture, to the point where you see strings where you've never seen them before, all the strands of hair on Moe's head and all the wrinkles on people's faces. The first thing that popped out is in "Horses Collars" where Moe and Larry are hanging from the ceiling. You see a bunch of strings holding them up... something I didn't notice on the DVDs.

As I've mentioned before, when these were released to the theaters, people saw a 4th generation print. I'm sure they didn't scan release prints for these, and Sony probably has all the original camera negatives. So you are seeing things you aren't supposed to see. The filmmakers knew back then that you wouldn't see the wires/strings and people's wrinkles because 4th generations prints wouldn't have the clarity of the camera neg, and those details would have been compenstaed for. Now, the same can be said for the DVDs, in terms of what was scanned, but the lower resolution compensated for it.

That being said, I'm not arguing against the extra clarity -- I'm sure these shorts are wonderful to see in HD.

Another point worth mentioning -- not specific to this set -- a lot of "restorations" involve scanning earlier generation film elements. Not to over-simplify -- but once you have the best film elements, the hardest part of the "restoration" is done. No digital trickery can make a scan of a dupe look like an original camera neg.

Depending upon your age, the prints we saw of these Stooges shorts might not always have been the best 16mm had to offer. I'm talking the 70s in my case. Due to their popularity, many TV stations might have been showing 16mm dupes. Same as for other classic movies. Now we see scans or telecines (the VHS tapes) of better film elements, and we say "wow, great restoration!" A lot of classics got the reputation of looking so old because of the 5th and 6th gen prints TV stations aired. And then we would see THE WIZARD OF OZ on NBC or CBS and say "wow, that doesn't look like it's from 1939." The difference -- they weren't showing bad dupes of THE WIZARD OF OZ on the major networks, but the local stations were showing bad dupes of the Stooge and Laurel and Hardy.

These look like the same scans as the DVDs, but these are much clearer and sharper. Even way better than Tubi as well. Tubi looks blurry and heavily compressed compared to these.

Which leads to the question: can you really still call it HD if it is compressed? My limited understanding is that compression just decides not to update each and every pixel for every frame shown. If it's blurry, I would doubt that it is really HD. Usually with compression, if you get really close to the TV screen, you can usually see that the background looks like a freeze frame while the actors are moving around in the foreground. That's the look I don't like at all. And I really don't like when the title and credit cards are intentionally freeze frames.

It's too bad Sony made the crazy decision to omit 90 shorts; otherwise, I'd easily call this a perfect set!

There's only one way to "right" this egregious error, and that is to release volume II with the 90 remaining shorts. That's a no-brainer -- and since no one at Sony seems to have a brain, it actually can be done!
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

I’m not too optimistic about Sony releasing the remaining 90 shorts, especially when most of them consist of 14 Besser shorts and a boat load of remake/reused footage shorts. But hey, maybe they might surprise us!


Offline Tony Bensley

I’m not too optimistic about Sony releasing the remaining 90 shorts, especially when most of them consist of 14 Besser shorts and a boat load of remake/reused footage shorts. But hey, maybe they might surprise us!
I could actually see Sony releasing all 190 Three Stooges Columbia shorts in a single Blu-ray set down the road.  [pie]


Offline NoahYoung

I could actually see Sony releasing all 190 Three Stooges Columbia shorts in a single Blu-ray set down the road.  [pie]

And piss off the people who bought this set, since they would be double-dipping on 100 shorts. The people who don't buy this are pissed that it wasn't complete. So they will wind up swapping the pissed-off groups! Release just a set of 90 and no one will be pissed off!
 [cool]
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Dr. Mabuse

I could actually see Sony releasing all 190 Three Stooges Columbia shorts in a single Blu-ray set down the road.  [pie]

It's inevitable. Sony knows there's more gold in their Stooge library.


Offline Larrys#1

I could actually see Sony releasing all 190 Three Stooges Columbia shorts in a single Blu-ray set down the road.  [pie]

I wouldn't be surprised, to be honest. But I took the risk because I can't wait any longer. It's crazy that we waited this long for ANY Blu-ray release of the stooges shorts, right when Blu-ray is past its prime.


Offline Mark The Shark

I’m not too optimistic about Sony releasing the remaining 90 shorts, especially when most of them consist of 14 Besser shorts and a boat load of remake/reused footage shorts. But hey, maybe they might surprise us!

I think if they had any intention of releasing the rest of the shorts, they wouldn't have "blown" all the extras on this set.


Offline Larrys#1

I think if they had any intention of releasing the rest of the shorts, they wouldn't have "blown" all the extras on this set.

Part of me doesn’t understand why they included the solo shorts and not the remaining 90 shorts. This is a “three stooges” set. Thus, the “three stooges” shorts should be the priority. The solo shorts can be a separate release for the die hearted fans.


Offline Larrys#1

Been watching this set like crazy over the Labor Day weekend, and wanted note a few interesting things…

-“Yes, We Have No Bonanza” has its audio track fixed compared to the distorted version on the DVD, so that’s good news.

-“Idiots Deluxe” is properly restored compared to the DVD, where it appeared very dirty. However, “I’ll Never Heil Again” is now dirtier than the DVD. Even has the reel change marking at the end, which makes me suspect that this one slipped through the cracks. Not sure why Sony seems to make silly mistakes like this. But fortunately, this short isn’t an inherently dirty one (like “Idiots Deluxe” was), so it’s something that isn’t as big of a deal as I’m making it out to be. Some of the Curly Joe movies have this same issue (“In Orbit” is one example), but I couldn’t care less about them and I’m sure neither does Sony, so I can see why those weren’t properly restored. But yeah, speaking of “In Orbit”, you are getting an identical copy to what you see available for streaming. If you’re expecting a more pristine, beautifully restored version, then you will be disappointed.

-“Goof On The Roof” appears to be reframed and is a little better than what’s on the DVD. But unfortunately, there’s only so much Sony can do as this short was evidently not intended to be shown in widescreen when this was filmed. For example, the part where Moe eats his cheese sandwich. It’s near impossible to fit this shot in widescreen as you need to capture the sandwich on the table on the bottom of the screen and then capture Moe’s face on the top of the screen when he bites into the sandwich. Sony did the best they could with this, but you still ended up with a portion of Moe’s face snipped off for a short second. I know people prefer releasing films in their aspect ratio that was used in the theaters, but I really think an exception needs to be made on this short. It just looks awful in widescreen, in my opinion.



Offline NoahYoung

I wouldn't be surprised, to be honest. But I took the risk because I can't wait any longer. It's crazy that we waited this long for ANY Blu-ray release of the stooges shorts, right when Blu-ray is past its prime.
Yes, I thought buying stuff on discs was a thing of the past, let alone issuing a box set.

My beef with discs since the arrival of the DVD was that they scratch easily. Then you have a coaster. Would it have taken a genius to figure out the disc should be encased in a cartridge so it wouldn't scratch? All you would need is a slit in the plastic for the laser to read across the disc.

In the year 2024, why don't they make players that take simple thumb drives (maybe they do.) Then sell movies on thumb drives. Or just pay for a download you keep forever.

I've hooked up my laptop to my TV and used VLC to play HD. As we know, the internet archive has tons of HD movies.

When you "buy" a movie on a streaming service you can watch it a million times -- until it is no longer offered on that service. It's like buying an unlimited pass to see a movie at a theater -- but then the theater stops showing that movie!

I went to an all-you-can-eat buffet once. At one point they wouldn't let me get any more food. I said, "I thought it was all-you-can-eat?" He said, "Well, that's all you can eat!"
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

Yes, I thought buying stuff on discs was a thing of the past, let alone issuing a box set.

My beef with discs since the arrival of the DVD was that they scratch easily. Then you have a coaster. Would it have taken a genius to figure out the disc should be encased in a cartridge so it wouldn't scratch? All you would need is a slit in the plastic for the laser to read across the disc.

In the year 2024, why don't they make players that take simple thumb drives (maybe they do.) Then sell movies on thumb drives. Or just pay for a download you keep forever.

I've hooked up my laptop to my TV and used VLC to play HD. As we know, the internet archive has tons of HD movies.

When you "buy" a movie on a streaming service you can watch it a million times -- until it is no longer offered on that service. It's like buying an unlimited pass to see a movie at a theater -- but then the theater stops showing that movie!

I went to an all-you-can-eat buffet once. At one point they wouldn't let me get any more food. I said, "I thought it was all-you-can-eat?" He said, "Well, that's all you can eat!"

I'm not sure how durable thumb drives are. I've had a couple of those bad boys just go bad on me and my files were lost.

Blu-ray Discs are pretty durable as they have a scratch protective coating. But oddly enough, quality control on physical media just sucks now and I've had quite a number of "new" discs come scratched straight from the factory. Don't ask me how this is happening, but it is what it is.

Having said that, I do think Blu-ray discs are the most durable physical media format to date. DVDs are ok, but I've had A LOT of them go bad... one of which was the Meet The Baron/Gold Raiders DVD. The darn disc just doesn't play anymore, so I had to chuck it. Now, I no longer own those two movies. I've also had quite a number of FOX TV show DVDs go bad on me as well. But never have I owned a Blu-ray disc that has gone bad.


Offline NoahYoung

I'm not sure how durable thumb drives are. I've had a couple of those bad boys just go bad on me and my files were lost.

Blu-ray Discs are pretty durable as they have a scratch protective coating. But oddly enough, quality control on physical media just sucks now and I've had quite a number of "new" discs come scratched straight from the factory. Don't ask me how this is happening, but it is what it is.

Having said that, I do think Blu-ray discs are the most durable physical media format to date. DVDs are ok, but I've had A LOT of them go bad... one of which was the Meet The Baron/Gold Raiders DVD. The darn disc just doesn't play anymore, so I had to chuck it. Now, I no longer own those two movies. I've also had quite a number of FOX TV show DVDs go bad on me as well. But never have I owned a Blu-ray disc that has gone bad.

Well, the thumb drives would just be the delivery method -- it would be up to the buyer to back up the data. I know people have some sort of special equipment to rip blu-rays -- so to be safe if you collect them then you should rip them and back them up. Not sure if they sell blu-ray burners, but at least you can watch them from a laptop and VLC is you lose the discs or they get damaged.

The issue with digital anything is that often it just takes a byte or 2 to be corrupted and the file/disc becomes unplayable. Stuff like that never happened with tape or film.

And btw, you could still have the same quality with digital tape. The tape disc is just the media. Of course, it would take a lot of tape to store an HD movie, and you would have to download all the files from tape first before watching it. That's assuming that they were stored just as "files." If they were indeed "files", a byte or 2 could get corrupted on the tape, too. I've seen may people over the years ask why these darn DVDs and even CDs just don't skip over a bad section of the disc and why do they just get stuck??? It's quite annoying. If you can't read something due to a scratch, just move past it, for crying out loud! Who designed these things???

The way I would design a digital HD tape player is that the tape would just store the data for each successive frame linearly throughout the length of the tape. If a section of tape has corrupt data, you would just see a quick glitch on the screen until it moves on to the next frame's data. I've read that the directory structure of DCP used in theaters is that the data for each frame is stored in a separate directory. So that would be 30 directories (or folders, if you will) per second for a 30fps movie. I've looked at the directory structure of DVDs and they don't work like that. I've seen the files from a blu-ray rip, and like DVDs most of the movie winds up in a just a few files, but in the case of blu-rays that could be just a result of the ripping software -- I'm not sure.

Having never owned a blu-ray disc, I can't vouch for how reliable they are. Apparently they improved upon the DVD disc in terms of protecting the data from being currupted.

As the years progress, data storage is becoming less and less expensive. Just store movie files to the cloud and be done with it. They will be backed up automatically by the cloud provider.

This is all probably becoming a moot point since the kids today just wanna watch the latest and greatest now and don't care how they will watch it again in another year or 2, if ever. And most things made in the last 30 years IMO aren't worth watching even once!
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

The issue is, letting people backup their own data of movies on a drive or cloud will cause copyright infringement to spiral out of control. That's the whole reason why they are pushing streaming. Buying movies on iTunes or Fandango allows you to watch movies anytime by accessing it on THEIR "cloud" but at the same time, restricts you from taking the data and letting you do anything you want with it.



Offline NoahYoung

They can't prevent you from backing up your data -- it is happening now. Once you have the data on your hard drive there is no way to prevent backups. Copyright issues happen if you give the files to someone else or try to sell it. HD downloads of music have been available for purchase for years.

In the 70s, their was a big "to-do" about copyright infringement of using a VCR to tape things off TV. I guess they came to the conclusion that it was not a violation. Now 45+ years later people are stirring up the pot about backing up movie/music data?

In the 70s and earlier, there were "underground" companies making prints of films in 16mm and Super 8 that they did not have the rights to. These prints still float around on eBay. Most of the 16mm films you see were made for TV use and rentals -- I doubt they are supposed to be floated around eBay today either.

Streaming is fine -- just don't lie to people and say they can "buy" it. Perhaps "lease" is a better word, and they need to be clear when the lease expires -- so they can't remove it from their service on a whim and tell you "tough luck, Charlie!"

The cable company sent me a new box a few months ago, now with the feature "multi-room" DVR, which stores my recorded stuff on their servers. My old box stored DVR'd shows/movies on it's own hard drive. With this new DVR, the stupid movies won't play most of the time. I googled it, and for this particular cable company and box there are videos of how to "fix" it going back at least 3 years. Unplug it for 5 minutes, then plug it back in. Still doesn't work. I was able to watch a movie last week OK. Then when I tried to watch it again, since I wanted to check something at the beginning, I got an error. If I don't get an error, it starts to play but the pixels are all broken up and it's unwatchable.

I really don't feel like spending an hour on the phone trying to get tech support and then being giving stupid responses like "is it plugged in?" and then telling me to unplug it and plug it back in like that's a magic elixir.

Years ago, my late father used to like Netflix, but on a whim the darned thing would give errors. He would call them and they said "it must be your wi-fi" and he would tell them "I don't have wi-fi!". He plugged the ethernet cable directly into his TV. The solution was to log out and log back in, but there was no logout function on their stupid app! To logout you had to hit a series of up arrow, down arrow, etc in a certain order like 8 times on the remote. He could never remember that, and guess who got the "support" call -- me. I then figured out if I logged into Netflix on the web I could log him out from there and I didn't have to drive over to his house to fix it. Can you believe they built an app without a logout button???? What a bunch of garbage this new technology is.

I don't have these issues when I run a film on one of my many projectors.

I never had this issue with broadcast TV with an antenna.

I never had these problems with a VCR. Anytime I set it up to record a movie it worked. From the very first time I used it as a teenager. The only time I couldn't watch a movie I taped was if it was pre-empted or it started late because of a sporting event or something like that.

I'm all for new technology -- but it has to work! I can build a DVR that doesn't work, too!

One step forward -- two steps back!
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

I never understood why recordable DVDs never became a thing and why DVRs ended up being prevalent. Or maybe going back to your thumb drive idea, why not let people record on a USB thumb drive? DVRs don't make any sense to me. You are recording it on a rented equipment and have limited storage that you eventually have to erase! With VHS, when you recorded something on tape, you get to keep it and watch it for as long as you want.

I feel it's all about controlling and preventing people from owning things. And I think that's why they are pushing streaming. They don't want anyone having full ownership of their movies anymore and they want the power to take it away from you whenever they want.


Offline NoahYoung

I never understood why recordable DVDs never became a thing and why DVRs ended up being prevalent. Or maybe going back to your thumb drive idea, why not let people record on a USB thumb drive? DVRs don't make any sense to me. You are recording it on a rented equipment and have limited storage that you eventually have to erase! With VHS, when you recorded something on tape, you get to keep it and watch it for as long as you want.

I feel it's all about controlling and preventing people from owning things. And I think that's why they are pushing streaming. They don't want anyone having full ownership of their movies anymore and they want the power to take it away from you whenever they want.

I've been able to burn DVDs for 20 years, including on my current laptop. Good luck getting them to play without freezing up on a DVD player. When they did play the sound was out of sync. The PC I bought 20 years ago was bundled with Windows Media Center Edition, and I was able to hook my cable into it and record like a DVR. That was the main feature of Media Edition. The movies played OK on the PC but not when burned to DVD, like I just pointed out.

My father once had a DVD player that also recorded to DVDs. It worked occassionally, but was often flakey.

In the past, I was able to copy things I recorded on DVR to a VHS tape. That was a feature and the cable company included instructions on how to do it in their user manual. It also had a digital output port or something like that, so I assume you could capture a digital file, but the recording time equalled the playing time -- so you could watch as you recorded.  I recorded to MiniDV tapes with my digital camcorder hooked up to it, or to one of the ports -- I don't remember.

People are also able to capture movies via their streaming devices in HD quality and store it in an mkv, mpeg, mp4 file etc. I'm not sure what hardware/software is required.

Basically, if it can be displayed on your screen, you can capture it.

Back to the Stooges -- you can pretty much watch all 190 shorts for free on youtube -- in excellent quality!
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz