TIMELESS SOUND-ERA FILMS FROM THE LEGENDARY HAL ROACH LIBRARY DEBUT IN ONE EXTRAORDINARY DVD SET
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE U.S.
LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION
Digitally Remastered And Digitally Restored, Loaded With Over Two Hours Of Special Features, The Spectacular 10-Disc Set Arrives October 25 From RHI Entertainment And Vivendi Entertainment
UNIVERSAL CITY, CA – Celebrating the genius of the most beloved comedy team of all time, LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION debuts in a stunning 10-disc set on October 25, 2011 from RHI Entertainment and Vivendi Entertainment. With a comedic style that defined an era and created a legacy that is still celebrated today, 58 of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy’s talking shorts and feature films, produced under legendary movie mogul Hal Roach from 1929 through 1940, are now available for the first time in the U.S. all together in one magnificent collection.
Transferred in high definition for the first time and digitally enhanced for home viewing in the finest quality available to date, the set contains favorites that have been enjoyed for generations including Helpmates, Hog Wild, Another Fine Mess, Sons of the Desert, Way Out West, and the Academy Award® winning* film The Music Box.
LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION comes housed in collectible, book-style packaging with an extensive, detailed film guide. The set also boasts over two hours of special features including exclusive, never-before-seen interviews with comedy legends Dick Van Dyke, Jerry Lewis, Tim Conway and more, who discuss the enduring impact and influence of Laurel and Hardy.
Additional features include commentaries by Laurel and Hardy aficionados, along with a virtual location map that allows viewers to take an interactive tour of the iconic places in and around Los Angeles where Laurel and Hardy filmed. Available for the suggested retail price of $99.98, LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION showcases some of the most cherished and hilarious films in cinema history and is a must-have for comedy fans and collectors everywhere.
BASICS
Price: $99.98
Street Date: October 25, 2011
Order Date: September 20, 2011
Catalog Number: RH3021
Language: English
Running time: 1941 minutes
Rating: NR
The main reason price is such an issue for me is because this is blind buy for me. With the exception of "Sons of the Desert" (which was a great film, BTW), I have not seen any of these films. So, I'm forking over $100 for something that I may either like or possibly hate.
Try THE MUSIC BOX on for size, just about universally seen as one of their best. One of the few films of there's you can find online.
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v19938981hEDH2GPG
The main reason price is such an issue for me is because this is blind buy for me. With the exception of "Sons of the Desert" (which was a great film, BTW), I have not seen any of these films. So, I'm forking over $100 for something that I may either like or possibly hate.
LAUREL & HARDY VIVENDI PRESS RELEASE ADDENDA
Having been besieged with inquiries, e-mails, and phone calls yesterday and today, there is only time for a fast summary response in hopes of clarifying some few details beyond what was conveyed in the much more official Vivendi press release.
First, no colorization. Second, no silents. Third, we do have all the sound shorts and features still part of the HRS library, including all extant foreign versions, except for the Spanish PARDON US.
Fourth, or number four, or quatro, as the case may be, if you are serious about understanding what's happening here, please read the four part essay on film preservation at http://www.laurel-and-hardy.com.
Once you comprehend everything there, I can add (or repeat) that we spent millions of dollars (bought with Euros) painstakingly restoring and preserving the Hal Roach library between 1985 and 2002. The work was done for the copyright proprietor in the Eastern Hemisphere, CCA, which licensed the Universal boxed set in England. We did this work in Los Angeles at Film Tech, relying primarily on the nitrate that came out of the HRS Culver City vaults and its labs and its storage depots on the East Coast in the 1960s that were subsequently housed for years at the LOC before we pulled everything out of there and brought it all back to Los Angeles to do this project, before I finally steered these same elements to UCLA where they reside today. And as Hal Roach would ask if he were explaining this, "Is that clear?"
As we labored long at Film Tech, we sent both a 35mm fine grain and 35mm dupe neg overseas to Munich, and offered a twin of the fine grain to RHI in Los Angeles, at cost. They elected to take fine grains on all the sound Our Gangs and Laurel & Hardys, which were supposed to last from here to eternity (1953). Almost immediately, however, RHI (including when it was controlled by Hallmark, now happily out of the picture) proceeded to misplace or lose a bunch of them. Hence the several unpleasant circumstances surrounding the Our Gang DVD release by the ironically named Genius Products, LLC. Leonard Maltin and I tried to tell them… they wouldn't listen. So now they're out of business.
RHI's new licensee, however, is Vivendi. We made sure that this time RHI physically turned over to Vivendi's standards conversion house the 35mm fine grains I gave them originally, and for the ones they lost or misplaced we got access to the corresponding duplicate 35mm film elements in Munich.
That leads to the answer many want to get at: yes, these are newly performed conversions of 35mm fine grains. We did not rework old tape masters. We went back to Kodak Fine Grain Film. F-I-L-M. So we did not start with video; we started with film, the kind with sprockets. Plus, the new masters derived therefrom have indeed been digitally enhanced, so that these subjects can be presented in superb Hi-Def for the first time anywhere by anyone.
Are they perfect? No. Are you perfect? Probably not. Joe E. Brown said it for everyone, "Nobody's perfect." Is any little frame missing? Is anything missing? What are you missing? Do you look as good as you did 80 years ago? Do you notice any new lines and abrasions? Are you as sharp as you were 40 years ago? How about 10 years ago? How much is a digital enhancement going to improve any of us?
So, again, brand new film transfers in High Definition using the same 35mm fine grains we created between 1985 and 2002 from the best surviving nitrate preprint material we could locate anywhere in the world. Plus digital cleanup, digitally enhanced. In addition, we have also just restored – again, for the first time ever, anywhere – all of the original, authentic distributor opening title card sequences with their unique and imaginative design, so coveted by fans for so long. Including by me, as my old boss Kent D. Eastin of Blackhawk Films could testify if he were still here.
The Vivendi DVDs are not connected to the new, long term project now just beginning at UCLA, which will first have to raise the money for this task, then do the work. WAY OUT WEST and HELPMATES were done within the last few years, and I believe SCRAM! is next in line. So the worthwhile but lengthy and arduous UCLA effort is only beginning. In any case, remember the copyright rests with CCA and RHI in their respective halves of the world, not with UCLA.
I hope all that will answer some of the key concerns.
Finally, some comments on UCLA’s project, and the essay they asked me to write, the full version of which, as mentioned, appears on our website in Munich.
All of us want to believe we are doing something useful with our lives, something that matters, something that leaves lasting marks. Something that speaks to future generations, to show we were here, and made a difference. Time travel is an important component of my attraction to classic films. Did all that talent in these great Hal Roach comedies realize they were communicating with millions of people not yet born at that time? Those of us who receive that communication today and in the future... how can we respond? What should we do?
We want to let these artists and technicians know they didn't do all that work for nothing. That we enjoy and honor the entertainment value offered, and that we treasure the living history they have unwittingly given us. And one meaningful thing we can do and one way we can respond is to support film preservation efforts. It is important to do so. Yes my essay will make some fans cringe. The story is painful; in fact it is worse than you know. I softened and concealed some of the worst incidents. And yes it is easy for us to look back and criticize the careless custodians of these treasures. The studios, the distributors, the exhibitors, and all those people weren't perfect. We are not perfect, either. In fact we have some responsibility here too, because we have an opportunity now to be part of the film preservation effort at UCLA. To make another run at saving these films, from a different point of view. The more preservation the better. Corporate preservation in Munich. Institutional preservation in Los Angeles. This second opportunity is something all of us can get involved in, at any level of participation.
If these films mean something to you, please do get involved. Or, as recruiting Sergeant Tom Kennedy said so eloquently in PACK UP YOUR TROUBLES, "How about it?"
Meanwhile, if laughter is what you are after, sit back; relax in depth, anticipating that very soon you will be able to enjoy the best of all shows – the immortal Hal Roach comedies of Laurel & Hardy. This cherished collection brings them all back, into exceedingly sharp focus. They look better than ever.
-- Richard W. Bann
What Laurel and Hardy feature films will be on this set?
All of their Roach features, except for "The Devils Brother", "Babes in Toyland", and "Bonnie Scotland", as they are no longer part of the Hal Roach library (I think Warner Brothers owns all three of those). None of the Fox or MGM films will be included, and neither will "The Flying Decues" and "Atoll K". And I'm pretty sure all of the talkie shorts will be included.
All of their Roach features, except for "The Devils Brother", "Babes in Toyland", and "Bonnie Scotland", as they are no longer part of the Hal Roach library (I think Warner Brothers owns all three of those).
I need to buy a good copy of BABES IN TOYLAND, as I only own a color version.
MGM/UA's release of MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS (http://www.amazon.com/March-Wooden-Soldiers-Stan-Laurel/dp/B001D8W7FE/) is your best bet. A remastered version, transferred from a 35mm fine grain print in MGM's archives. It's packaged as the retitled MARCH for legal reasons, but presents the film with the original Hal Roach BABES IN TOYLAND opening titles. It's also available in a box set called "MGM Holiday Classics Collection."
I understand two additional films in which the team appears -- MGM's oddball all-star revue "Hollywood Party'' and the Roach-produced Patsy Kelly vehicle "Pick a Star'' -- may be available from WAC by the end of the year as well.
Oy vey, it's coming out tomorrow. How I wish I was 23 again and could spend my money as I please.
As much as it pains me to say it, this'll have to wait and will be the only thing I ask for for my birthday, which is almost interchangeable with Christmas. You guys that get it earlier, let me know how it is, please.
I hear ya. Lots of things pulling at my wallet strings as well, but part of me can see waiting to get this and end up paying more. As it is, it's 35% off to pre-order. I gotta make up my mind soon.
If anyone has gotten this, feel free to post impressions, pics, etc ... very curious.
Bad reviews on the idiotic packaging are starting to appear:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RC9KN9I5RFQS/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B005BYBZKY&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=
Against better judgement, I bought this set. Here's my thoughts, and keep in mind, I typically have zero complaints about the packaging of DVDs/Blu Ray's I buy.
I can only think of two things bought in 10 years (a few hundred discs) packaged as shitty as this. And this might take the cake.
It's important to remember that we're reviewing the product here -- not just the films contained within it. These films are undoubtedly classics and some of the best comedy ever produced. We all know that by now. But the product itself falls woefully short all due to careless "sleeve" packaging. Whoever was behind this packaging should find a different line of work. They clearly don't know what they're doing and clearly don't understand that DVDs are fragile and putting them in cardboard sleeves is an invitation for scratches and scuffs. Now before anyone says "buy your own cases," listen - we're already spending upwards of $70 for this, likely a good chunk of change for most people buying this. We shouldn't need to buy accessories. And besides, there's no guarantee your discs won't be ruined upon arrival - before you even touch them, thanks to the way they are housed. As is, half the discs on my set were compromised in one way or another and it remains to be seen if they play correctly. It's like I bought a bunch of used DVDs the way some of them look. The only people to blame are RHI/Vivendi.
This book style packaging is a complete nightmare (even worse than I feared). The discs are in there so tight that you can't get them out without touching the delicate playing surface, which is the last thing you should have to do. The best solution? Rip this useless, ill-conceived "book" apart, throw what remains of it in the trash where it belongs, and grab the discs out by the sides and hope they are in decent shape before putting them in plastic cases... where they should have been stored to begin with.
Sending a defective set back isn't much of an answer -- odds are the next one you get will be scratched or scuffed on different discs than the first. The same packaging will produce the same results in different spots. Some have even reported remnants of GLUE on their discs -- are you kidding me? A few will get lucky and receive pristine sets, but they will be the exception. Don't count on being one.
I regret buying this set (and I'm a big L&H fan). I certainly won't buy anything else with RHI or Vivendi attached to it. You shouldn't either. With packaging like this, they don't give a damn about their products, so why should we? Hope was expressed earlier in this thread that this set would be "done right."
It wasn't. The "book" packaging is already in the trash. The discs probably will soon follow.
The way I look at the L&H situation is this: You are getting a great deal of content for your money, perhaps they decided "we have to cheap out on the packaging to keep the price down. Glue on this discs is a big no-no, however. That's just inexcusable bullshit no matter how little or much you pay.
The discs slide in an out easily in my package, not a speck of glue and not a scratch at all. I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO problem with the packaging, the discs, or the content of this set. It's exactly what L&H fans stateside have been begging for for years. If you don't like the packaging, buy a binder. But don't let the packaging sway you from getting this set.
I don't blame anyone for getting upset about the packaging. To pay $65+ for a DVD set and to get crappy packaging that damages the discs is absolutely ridiculous. Couldn't they package this like the Honeymooners set and put them in a plastic book at least? It's not the best packaging, but at least the discs are protected.
As far as LH, $65 is actually the current sale price at Amazon, BN.com, and maybe a couple others - list price is 99.99. Some online retailers, like Best Buy and DVD Empire, are asking in the $80's for it.
Best Buy (and BB only) has had a "digibook" edition of Kane for 34.99 - the Blu of the movie and the documentary. No swag and I don't think the TV movie from the UCE is in there.
I think a good analogy is this. It's like complaining you're having sex with Cindy Crawford (or whatever your fantasy of choice may be) because she stormed into your bedroom wearing sweatpants and a sweatshirt instead of something skimpier, and forgetting the fact that - well, she's Cindy Crawford, and you're about to have sex with her, and all it cost you was a reasonably priced dinner.
But at least you got to have sex, right. ;)
If a cheap set is packaged poorly and I can still watch it, then it's all good. I have no right to complain. But like what others have said, some of the discs are unwatchable because the discs are either damaged/scratched or have glue on them.
I'm all for cheap packaging if it saves me money just as long as the content doesn't get damaged. I stated in another thread that I bought the Sanford and Son series for only $24 and ended up with a cheaply packaged set. I didn't complain because my discs were not damaged. So, I was cool with it. But this L&H set, it looks like most people are ending up with damaged discs. And I think that is what most people are upset about.
Well, if discs are damaged, that's an issue. Are "most people" ending up with damaged discs, or is this a few in the vocal minority?
Of course, there should be zero damaged discs, the same way Cindy Crawford should always have all four limbs intact.
Cindy Crawford could have all limbs amputated, I'd still fuck her.
Having taped the Hal Roach Specials last year on TCM, I was very disappointed with this set. What is being advertised as restored seems to be nothing more than remastered. The picture on most of the shorts still shakes and moves. Editing marks, splices, edits, dirt, etc are still there. Actually, the prints from TCM are in better shape than this. I love the films, but this collection will not replace what I taped off of TCM. The same is true for the Little Rascals shorts. If you want to see restored and not just remastered, compare these shorts and films to what SONY did with the Stooges shorts. I was expecting Laurel and Hardy to come close to that restoration. Very disappointed...Very!!!
Just saw this at J&R for a sale price of $75. Looks like Amazon has the best deal on this.
I would also HIGHLY recommend Randy Skretvedt's LAUREL & HARDY: THE MAGIC BEHIND THE MOVIES. Used copies are pretty cheap and that book is the perfect companion to the box set. Very detailed info on all the L&H films, silents through ATOLL K.
http://www.amazon.com/Laurel-Hardy-Magic-Behind-Movies/dp/094041029X
This is practically a cold purchase for me, but I'm confident enough that I'll love the hell out of these shorts that I pulled the Amazon trigger on this set today. I ordered a copy of Simon Louvish's L&H biography while I was at it, so looking forward to a Laurel and Hardy crash course over the next few months (much like I did with the W.C. Fields sets last year).
(I really need parental controls on my Amazon account. I've spent enough money there the past month to bail out Wall Street).
This is practically a cold purchase for me, but I'm confident enough that I'll love the hell out of these shorts ...
That's how I feel too. I keep saying to myself, I like the stooges, Abbott & Costello and the Marx Bros, so why wouldn't I like L&H?? I definitely need to just go for it and buy this set. $65 is big plunge for me to take, but I'm sure it will be worth it.
What I'll probably do is see if I can find some shorts or films of L&H online that I can watch for free. I'll watch a handful and if I like them, I'm definitely buying this set.
My (and my wife's) commitment to remaining childless is the main reason I can afford to collect the filmed works of old vaudevillians. It also keeps me in photography gear.
Filmed works of old vaudevillians - now that's a method of birth control they never taught me in sex ed.
Here's a free resource that's invaluable as well -
http://laurelandhardycentral.com/
Click on sound shorts and feature films. Great pages on all of them.
That's because "The Laurel and Hardy Incentive" method has been found to be the second least effective (I'm a rare exception). Only the "Texas-style Abstinence Only" method is less successful at preventing child birth.
I was able to watch a couple of shorts online today. The two I just watched were "Towed in a Hole" and "The Music Box."
They were ok, but in my opinion, I don't think they're as good as the Stooges, The Marx Bros, and Abbott and Costello. When watching, "Towed In a Hole," I was expecting it to be an enjoyable short since the stooges remade this one. But unfortunately I don't think it's nearly as good as "Booby Dupes." There were some funny bits, I'll admit, but overall, I didn't really care for the short.
"The Music Box," on the other hand, was a much better short but unfortunately I still didn't care for it that much either. My main gripe with L&H is that their comedy doesn't seem to be as energetic as the Stooges, The Marx Bros, and Abbott and Costello. Their style is more mellow and therefore, it doesn't seem to suit my taste. So, with that said, I will have to pass on this set. This is rather disappointing to say as I really wanted to become an L&H fan and buy this magnificent set.
I hope I didn't offend any L&H fans out there. It is just my opinion. I will not say they suck because they don't. I will just say that they have a unique style of comedy that I don't particularly care for.
I was able to watch a couple of shorts online today. The two I just watched were "Towed in a Hole" and "The Music Box."
They were ok, but in my opinion, I don't think they're as good as the Stooges, The Marx Bros, and Abbott and Costello. When watching, "Towed In a Hole," I was expecting it to be an enjoyable short since the stooges remade this one. But unfortunately I don't think it's nearly as good as "Booby Dupes." There were some funny bits, I'll admit, but overall, I didn't really care for the short.
"The Music Box," on the other hand, was a much better short but unfortunately I still didn't care for it that much either. My main gripe with L&H is that their comedy doesn't seem to be as energetic as the Stooges, The Marx Bros, and Abbott and Costello. Their style is more mellow and therefore, it doesn't seem to suit my taste. So, with that said, I will have to pass on this set. This is rather disappointing to say as I really wanted to become an L&H fan and buy this magnificent set.
I hope I didn't offend any L&H fans out there. It is just my opinion. I will not say they suck because they don't. I will just say that they have a unique style of comedy that I don't particularly care for.
This is practically a cold purchase for me, but I'm confident enough that I'll love the hell out of these shorts that I pulled the Amazon trigger on this set today. I ordered a copy of Simon Louvish's L&H biography while I was at it, so looking forward to a Laurel and Hardy crash course over the next few months (much like I did with the W.C. Fields sets last year).
Great recommendation, thanks! Just added that one to the cart. (I really need parental controls on my Amazon account. I've spent enough money there the past month to bail out Wall Street).
Filmed works of old vaudevillians - now that's a method of birth control they never taught me in sex ed.
Yeah, falsealarms hit the nail on the head. That is what my main gripe is with L&H. The pacing is too slow. “Booby Dupes” is 3 minutes shorter than “Towed In A Hole,” yet the stooges were able to perform a lot more gags in that shorter period of time. That’s why I always like the stooges. They never let a second go to waste.
Maybe if I give it more time, I can become an L&H fan. I’m sure they’re the kind of comedy team that will grow on you as you keep watching their films. But when I watched my first film of the stooges, The Marx Bros, and Abbott & Costello, I was immediately hooked and became an instant fan. I guess I expected L&H to have the same effect. I’m willing to give L&H a chance. I’ll continue watching more L&H films online during my spare time and hopefully one day, I’ll become a big fan.
The whole point of Laurel and Hardy is not how many gags one can cram into a film, it is about milking a single gag for a while and their character reactions. I think even Moe Howard admitted in an interview later in life the main difference between The Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy is the rhythm, The Stooges are obviously much quicker paced.
To me, "Towed In a Hole" is one of the great Laurel and Hardy films while "Booby Dupes" is a very average Three Stooges short, there's almost no comparison. But if you're going to appreciate Laurel and Hardy, you definitely have to go in with a different mind set than The Three Stooges. It's not about gags per minute.
As someone who likes L&H, my only real gripe with them is that (at times) they can be TOO slow for me. L&H sometimes waste too much time mugging for the camera and what not - maybe that was done for audience reaction back in the day, but it just isn't effective for people today. The Stooges shorts are paced much more modernly than many of the L&H shorts and that's one reason why the Stooges have had a more enduring legacy. I think it'd be a lot easier to sell a kid today on the Stooges than Laurel and Hardy. The language in some of the L&Hs also has a more dated tone to it.
The whole point of Laurel and Hardy is not how many gags one can cram into a film, it is about milking a single gag for a while and their character reactions. I think even Moe Howard admitted in an interview later in life the main difference between The Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy is the rhythm, The Stooges are obviously much quicker paced.
To me, "Towed In a Hole" is one of the great Laurel and Hardy films while "Booby Dupes" is a very average Three Stooges short, there's almost no comparison. But if you're going to appreciate Laurel and Hardy, you definitely have to go in with a different mind set than The Three Stooges. It's not about gags per minute.
The first L&H book I bought was the Louvish book, and I don't really like it that much.
I promise, I'll give them a chance. Overall, they're very funny. It was mainly the slow pacing that disappointed me.
Any chance of a Metaldams L&H talkie shorts tournament?
Watched the first three shorts last night, and I can tell it's gonna be fun ride. Based on its reputation, I was prepared to enjoy Unaccustomed As We Are as more of a historical curio than for its qualities as a comedy short, but I enjoyed the boys' performances so much that I didn't mind the technical limitations and rigid staging. It was fun seeing Thelma Todd and Edgar Kennedy in something other than a Marx Brother's movie. And I have to admit the scene where Kennedy is calling Stan out to the hall to receive his ass-whipping evoked long-forgotten terrors involving me, my brothers, our Dad, and a paddle.
The titular berth scene in Berth Marks pretty much stopped that short dead, but the final scene when they realize they left their instrument on the train was a delight.
Men 'o War was easily the best of the three. The climactic boat scene threatened to be this short's "berth" scene, but everything up to that point was fantastic - the boys' coy flirtations, the undies-gloves confusion, the soda shop scene. What really makes these shorts isn't so much the gags (some of which have been done to death since, so they've lost some impact), but the beautiful performances, especially by Hardy. I can see Laurel's simpering starting to wear on me at some point, but Ollie is so much fun to watch.
You're going to be seeing a lot more Edgar Kennedy and Thelma Todd, I assure you. Like The Three Stooges and Columbia, Laurel and Hardy and Hal Roach have their regulars as well, and Thelma Todd and Edgar Kennedy are amongst them. One of the other regular supporting players, James Finlayson, actually was the inspiration to Homer Simpson's, "Doh!" The creators of The Simpsons admitted as much.
If you liked those three shorts, the series gets even better.
For me the first two talkies ended on comedy high notes that surpassed the rest of the respective shorts. Stan giving Ollie the impression that he clobbered Eddie Kennedy, then swaggering his way to a prat-fall down the stairs in Unaccustomed was a great climax. Berth Marks didn't really have much going for it except the ending. Loved the range of emotions that pass over Stan's face after Ollie asks sarcastically where their missing fiddle got to. Processing...processing...confusion...dim recollection...then bursts into a smile when he finally gets the answer that it's still on the departing train...which promptly turns to a look of fear as Ollie starts rolling up his sleeves.
But I'm a sucker for classic comedies set on trains.
The reactions are a huge part of the charm.
HOG WILD vs GOOF ON A ROOF is very tough. One of my favorite L&Hs vs one of my favorite Stooge shorts - but I'd lean ever so slightly towards HOG WILD. I love those exterior shots.
"You tell her! Hahaha!"
"Hahaha! No, YOU tell her! Hahahaha!!!!!"
"Hahahaha!!!! Show her the bottle! HAHAHAHA!!!"
"HAHAHAHAHA!!!!"
.
.
.
.
.
.
"WE DRANK YOUR LIQUOR!!!!!"
:D
It's been awhile, but I wanna say BLOTTO? I remember that being a great short, Anita Garvin was awesome in it in addition to the boys. She gives Thelma Todd and Christine McIntyre a run for their money in the "hot and funny" female department.
JR.com has this for 35.99 - limit 2 per customer. No idea how long this lasts, but I wouldn't wait. I can't believe it got this low this fast.
http://www.jr.com/product/movie/pv/_1254731V/
Something fishy is going on with this set. A post at HTF says Amazon is supposed to have it back in stock in the near future, but nothing yet, and no mention of other retailers that no longer list it (WalMart, JR for two).
Later at HTF, there was a quote from Paul Mular via L&H author Scott McGillivray that says: "Shortly after its release Amazon withdrew the Laurel & Hardy DVDs from their listing and posted an "Item Under Review" notice. This means that they have received an excessive amount of returns due to scratched & damaged discs, so they decided to cut their losses & stop selling it themselves."
It seems increasingly likely that this is a packaging issue. If that's the case, we can't be surprised. That design never should have been used.
8 copies are on Amazon via 3rd parties - the current lowest is $188.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/313141/vivendi-and-rhi-press-release-laurel-hardy-the-essential-collection/270
Well whatever's going on, a little birdie told me my copy is waiting in a few weeks, so hopefully it plays alright.
Anybody have any of the silent shorts? Years ago, I bought all 10 volumes of DVD's, so I have 'em all. Some of the silent films are quite funny, and I'll post more about them when I have more time, just wondering if there are any other fans of the silent shorts?
I have the image dvd's as well as the Michael Agee 12-disc-set-that-almost-never-was, and technically, still isn't. I always enjoyed watching those silents while having a few drinks on the weekends. Many of the silent pictures provide just as many laugh out loud moments for me as do the talkies.
The 12 disc set, I assume you mean this?Wow, Agee finally put this set out? I had no idea. This thing had been in development for eons. I may have to pick it up if its the best quality of the silents.
http://www.elevenmemories.com/
Wow, Agee finally put this set out? I had no idea. This thing had been in development for eons. I may have to pick it up if its the best quality of the silents.
Saturday can't get here soon enough.
I think I'll watch another one right now. How 'bout that, Secret Santa?
What did you think of COME CLEAN and ANY OLD PORT?
I used a gift card I got to get The Little Rascals box that came out a few years back. I'm gonna go through four discs of that one before going back to disc 7 of the L&H box, so needless to say, I'm watching a lot of Hal Roach stuff.
Our Gang related, so this may interest you...
AntennaTV runs THE JACK BENNY PROGRAM early weekday mornings. Jan 24 3:30AM they're repeating "The Story of My Gang" (10/62) with guest Darla Hood. Jack's cast and Darla do a spoof of the Our Gang comedies, with Darla as 'herself,' Jack as Alfalfa, Don Wilson as Spanky and Eddie "Rochester" Anderson as Buckwheat.
Thanks for the heads-up, Brent!
Another bump up at this very late date.
For those within U.S. territories, there is the option of purchasing HD downloads of any or all of The Essential Collection titles, which were originally mastered at 1080p, or 2k.
While the 10 disc DVD collection remains a great option for viewing the bulk of Laurel and Hardy's Hal Roach sound era Film Library, there are a few anomalies of note:
SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) -
Simply put, the unacceptably muddy contrast issues severely mars the viewing of this all time iconic L&H classic feature. It deserved far better, and ironically did get that in the previous Region 2 UK Universal DVD releases. By far, The Essential Collection's biggest disappointment, especially in terms of what should have been well within the capabilities given the state of the existing print, which was meticulously repaired and restored!
THE HOOSE-GOW (1929) and HOG WILD (1930) -
The transfers of these two L&H shorts from the 1929-30 cinematic season are definitely somewhat stretched in this set. Early in the sound era, the image was often projected at less than the 1.37:1 Academy Ratio standard in order to accommodate the then new sound on film technology. I've been told the latter short was originally screened at 1.19:1. Setting the vlc player on my PC Laptop to 5:4 (Or 1.20:1) gets it pretty close to correct to my eyes.
ME AND MY PAL (1933) -
It's clear by the positioning of the opening titles that the image framing for this short is off center. The UK Universal set gets it right.
CHEERS! [pie]
Thanks for the info. I go crazy enough just reviewing the these things and would be in the nut house if I worried about tech info with my personality - I'm not a tech guy at all. That said, I know a lot of people appreciate this kind of stuff.The early sound on film (late 1920s to about 1931) vs sound on records technology really makes for image ratio headaches, what with some prints deriving from untouched 1.37:1 soundless film (with the audio added, obviously!), and others from film with imaging that was still partially covered with the sound strip. I believe that the HOG WILD (1930) transfer on the UK Universal DVD release might be an example of the former, as I recall it had more imaging than on The Essential Collection version, but I'm not 100% certain of that.
Another bump up at this very late date.Posted below are some of the "Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Collection" DVD titles that now appear on the new "Laurel & Hardy: The Definitive Restorations" Blu-ray and DVD sets, along with their listed known previous issues that are known, or thought to have been rectified by the UCLA restoration project:
For those within U.S. territories, there is the option of purchasing HD downloads of any or all of The Essential Collection titles, which were originally mastered at 1080p, or 2k.
While the 10 disc DVD collection remains a great option for viewing the bulk of Laurel and Hardy's Hal Roach sound era Film Library, there are a few anomalies of note:
SONS OF THE DESERT (1933) -
Simply put, the unacceptably muddy contrast issues severely mars the viewing of this all time iconic L&H classic feature. It deserved far better, and ironically did get that in the previous Region 2 UK Universal DVD releases. By far, The Essential Collection's biggest disappointment, especially in terms of what should have been well within the capabilities given the state of the existing print, which was meticulously repaired and restored!
THE HOOSE-GOW (1929) and HOG WILD (1930) -
The transfers of these two L&H shorts from the 1929-30 cinematic season are definitely somewhat stretched in this set. Early in the sound era, the image was often projected at less than the 1.37:1 Academy Ratio standard in order to accommodate the then new sound on film technology. I've been told the latter short was originally screened at 1.19:1. Setting the vlc player on my PC Laptop to 5:4 (Or 1.20:1) gets it pretty close to correct to my eyes.
ME AND MY PAL (1933) -
It's clear by the positioning of the opening titles that the image framing for this short is off center. The UK Universal set gets it right.
CHEERS! [pie]
THE CHIMP (1932) – While the restoration of the 16mm print of the original opening titles on the “Essential Collection” was a revelation back in 2011, the recent restoration of a superior 35mm print should be positively eye popping!
Kit Parker confirms this release has been delayed to June 30. He says "replication was delayed due to coronavirus at the factory and Amazon’s 100+ fulfillment centers."As far as what I've seen in the vendors listing, so far it's only the Blu-ray Edition that is affected by the delay, as Amazon and WOWHD still list June 16 as the release date for the DVD Edition.
At least we still have The Camerman from Criterion next week!True. Unfortunately, funds are really tight in our household, and the Laurel & Hardy Blu-ray set was meant to be my first new home video set in quite some time, and now everything seems to be so up in the air with it because COVID, UGH! :-[
The Chimp (along with Berth Marks, Brats, and Hog Wild) was one of the restored L&H prints that screened at Film Forum in NYC a couple of years ago. The Chimp looked extra sharp. Looking forward to this blu-ray release.Do you recall whether the opening titles for "Berth Marks (1929)" and "Brats (1930)" had the original opening titles, or were they of the two derby hats hanging 1936-37 MGM reissues?
Do you recall whether the opening titles for "Berth Marks (1929)" and "Brats (1930)" had the original opening titles, or were they of the two derby hats hanging 1936-37 MGM reissues?
Hi Tony — Film Forum screened the recent UCLA restorations. While I don't personally recall the opening visuals, Berth Marks and Brats both used the original Vitaphone discs. I checked the sources used for the Brats restoration, and it seems that UCLA used a 1935 nitrate print, a 1935 nitrate fine grain master, and an acetate dupe negative (year not stated). Reportedly, Brats does not survive in its original full aperture format. I hope to be able to check the BluRay discs in the coming weeks.So, possibly unless they're on the acetate dupe negative from an unknown year, the opening and closing titles for "Brats (1930)" should be from the original 1930 release, as the MGM reissue title cards weren't prepared until at least sometime in 1936 for the 1936-37 Theatrical season.
I received the "Laurel & Hardy: The Definitive Restorations" DVD set last week and it's a genuine treasure. However, I still noticed some contrast issues on "Sons of the Desert." I still prefer the Region 2 DVD from Universal. Otherwise, no complaints.I plan to do a screenshot comparison between the Blu-ray edition when I eventually get it, along with my Universal Region 2 DVD, Essential Collection (Too dark) and Hallmark (Where do I even begin?) discs. There was one posted screenshot of SOTD posted on HTF that I thought looked better than the Region 2 disc, although the latter still rated a fairly close second to my eyes.
Sorry for the repeat post. I didn't see this topic until now. The other day my review/web article of the L & H: The Essential Restorations Blu-ray set was published online. I'm impressed by the set, and hopefully The Stooges will get a similar release in the near future. I had never seen The Battle of the Century before, and the pie fight scene is really something, even after viewing the Stooges pie fights in films. I'm not a technical expert on video regarding digital scrubbing, black levels, etc. But to me, the films look the best out of the L & H sets I own.
My review of Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Restorations is below.
Marshall
https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Laurel-Hardy-The-Definite-Restorations-Blu-ray-Review
Sorry for the repeat post. I didn't see this topic until now. The other day my review/web article of the L & H: The Essential Restorations Blu-ray set was published online. I'm impressed by the set, and hopefully The Stooges will get a similar release in the near future. I had never seen The Battle of the Century before, and the pie fight scene is really something, even after viewing the Stooges pie fights in films. I'm not a technical expert on video regarding digital scrubbing, black levels, etc. But to me, the films look the best out of the L & H sets I own.
My review of Laurel & Hardy: The Essential Restorations is below.
Marshall
https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Laurel-Hardy-The-Definite-Restorations-Blu-ray-Review
I’ve been holding off on this due to spending my money on other releases (cancelled my initial order because so many other things were coming out), but just ordered a copy. I was going to do it eventually, but you convinced me to do it now. Really nice review and I truly hope the other films, especially the silents, get similar treatment.For me, the set is worth it for the two features and the near complete version of THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY (1927) alone, though of course, there is so much more!
I borrowed THE DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS DVD set from the library a couple of years ago. I just borrowed it again, along with THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION. I'm going to do some spot comparisons, and try to watch a bunch of complete shorts and/or features. I've already watched SONS OF THE DESERT on DEFINITIVE and thought it looked pretty good. (BTW, a lot of these versions had already appeared on TCM before the DVD release -- TCM had those restoration credits.)My Definitive Restorations set is Blu-ray format. For my comparisons between that set and the Essential Collection titles, I upscaled the latter to 1080p so that they matched up size wise.
I saw your comparisons, Tony, on Facebook, and I believe you chose DEFINITIVE over ESSENTIAL for every film on DEFINITIVE.
I don't recall if you had the Blu-ray or DVD of DEFINITIVE.
A couple of years ago, I thought that DEFINITIVE was a fine representation on DVD, but I felt that the ones I had in 16mm were better.
Not a knock on the DEFINITIVE set, though -- to me, the magic of an original or better 16mm print wins all the time. (By better I mean a print-down -- made directly from a 35mm negative -- the same number of generations from the original camera negative (OCN) as a 35mm release print made during the films' initial release.)
On DEFINITIVE, I remember SCRAM lacking that unmistakable theatrical density that had shown through even on those old Nostalgia Merchant VHS tapes from the 80s. I thought COME CLEAN had some out-of-focus scenes, though it was a scanned OCN. My 16mm original print with Film Classics titles looked better.
The thing with digital and with TV sets, is that it can look very different based on your screen settings, e.g. brightness, black levels, contrast, etc. I come from the generation where TV sets just had brightness, contrast, and color settings. Now my TV, which is about 8 years old, has about 50+ settings. And you have to configure the settings for each input -- they don't carry over. So if I watch a movie on TCM and then on DVD, it may look different unless I write down on paper all the settings and make sure they match!
In any case, since the density (which to me is a combo of brightness, contrast, black, and white levels for B&W films) looked good on most of the titles on DEFINITIVE, SCRAM stood out as being "off". Density is "spot on" for me when the film takes on an almost 3D-like quality. It really is stunning when you see it, and gives films a "shot yesterday" feel. I don't care about scratches, dirt, etc. If it can't be removed via cleaning of the actual film, then leave it alone! No digital scrubbing. I understand there was quite a debate about this on the home theater forum -- Skredtvedt vs. the public. Supposedly no digital scrubbing was done according to the former.
It will be interesting to compare, especially since it will be DVD to DVD. Again, I don't remember if Tony's comparison was with the DEFINITIVE Blu-ray.
I understand that there was also controversy on the BERTH MARKS 1936 re-issue, with the out-of-sync sound for several minutes. I had watched only the 1929 version since I had never seen it before. If I understood the heated debate, they took the lazy way out and played the 1936 track over the 1929 film. Stupid decision. ("I can't imagine anyone being that dumb...oh, yes I can!") My Blackhawk Super 8 print with the 1936 track -- with replaced Blackhawk titles, looks and sounds great. Nothing is out-of-sync, and it is one of the best looking L&H prints I have. I understand that ESSENTIAL had no such issues, but only included the 1936 re-issue. I will check it out.
Not sure why they zoomed in on the WAY OUT WEST camping scene. A little "flaring" on the side is not a good reason. My 16mm print has that flaring. I heard that there used to be a slight jump in "Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia" that has been fixed, but my 16mm Blackhawk print from the 70s does not have an issue, and was made from an original M-G-M negative. I can't imagine it looking any better than that. I recall it looking pretty good on DVD a few years ago when I first borrowed DEFINITIVE.
It is all rather interesting, though. I need to read your reviews on my laptop, since I was on my iPhone and it was hard to navigate.Going solely by memory can be a slippery slope, and I've been guilty of that at times. In my most recent viewing of HELPMATES (1932), I totally missed the briefly blurred bits, which as I recall, occurred when the boys were both in the Hardy kitchen. I believe they occurred towards the 10 minute mark, which may have prompted me to assume it could have been a reel change thing.
Reading all those Richard Harris debates with Skredtvedt on the home theater forum was difficult, too. I was never sure if I was reading the original thread or not, since he also reviewed the set and people were commenting. Then someone on another forum mentioned that a lot of the thread was deleted. Even on my laptop, the home theater forum is annoying with ads taking up too much screen real estate. At the end of the day, the pic quality of a DVD or Blu-ray is not worth fighting about.
The version of COME CLEAN I mentioned was on the DEFINITIVE set -- I haven't watched the ESSENTIAL yet. Maybe it was HELPMATES and not COME CLEAN that had out-of-focus shots. I'm going by memory from almost 2 years ago.
I never pay much attention to grain on digital movies. I watch tons of stuff on TCM and never look for it. When I screen one of my Super 8 or 16mm films (L&H as well as others), the grain does not stand out and overwhelm you. Whatever grain is there I use to get the focus right.
Regarding re-issues of BERTH MARKS and BRATS, it could be argued that these versions have no place on a set called DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS, which should be the original-released versions. But that's neither here nor there. But by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack is creating a Franken-movie. I assume they didn't lose the film elements from the 1936 version from 2011 to 2020. If it were just DVD, and wanted to take the lazy way out, I would have just included the version from ESSENTIAL. But since there was a Blu-Ray version on DEFINITIVE, upscaling from DVD would have caused an uproar as well.
On the DVD version of ESSENTIAL, did they just compress the video from the 2k and 4k scans, or did they re-scan at lower resolution? The reason I ask is that I saw a clip of the beginning of THE MUSIC BOX - the main titles -- which had a hair in the gate that does not show up on the DVD -- yet this was definitely 1080p, but not a European PAL version from Universal.
It should be noted that in scanning an OCN, a fine grain made from the OCN, or a scanned dupe neg made from the fine grain, you are actually seeing a better "print" of the movie than audiences saw in the 30s - who saw prints made from the dupe neg. This assumes of course that the scan captures all the detail and is not mucked around with via digital scrubbing.
And unless you were present at a very early screening of a new print in the 30s, there were likely scratches and splices present. I saw prints in theaters of newly released movies in this condition right up until the switch to all-digital projection less than 10 years ago!
Yes, I will be viewing both ESSENTIAL and DEFINITIVE as much as I can, renewing until I have to return them. What's great is that where I am located in New Jersey, I can order on-line from many libraries and pick up at my local library. I'll see how COME CLEAN looks on both. I always felt that this was an somewhat under-rated short going by the books I bought back in the 70s.No doubt a different "cleaner" print for COME CLEAN (1931) was used for "The Definitive Restorations" release. Compared to "The Essential Collection," the opening titles are also noticeably right of center, though not cut off, by any means. This one received some criticism for being a bit too cleaned up. I for one, disagree! I've sussed out that the sometimes odd appearance of the one door in the Hardy's apartment is due to the decorative reflective glass (I think?) panel, which changes appearance according to the lighting and camera angles.
I have seen a bunch of L&Hs listed on my Amazon fire-stick, some I can view, some I can't, depending on what services my wife and kids subscribe to. In the past I have only spot checked them for giggles. I rarely watch the boys on anything but my film prints, as I have about 85 of them, including all the starring talkies produced by Roach.
Regarding my memory, I can say 3 things:
1. It is not what it used to be.
Sorry, I can't remember the other 2 things.
[pie]
Regarding cue marks, if they are on the film element being scanned, leave them there. Don't digitally remove anything.
I'm not sure when the cues are put in -- I would guess on the dupe neg used to make release prints.
All this HD, 2k, 4k, 1080, 720, i or p, stuff confuses me. I'm a stickler for using units when a number is given, coming from an engineering college. I've looked it up many times, and 5 minutes later I forget the nuances. 1080 and 720 is either horizontal or vertical pixels, I never remember which. I think 2k and 4k is total pixels. The ESSENTIAL set says HD -- I wasn't aware that DVDs were considered HD.
One thing I know -- the total bit rate seems to matter more than anything. What good is 1080p with a low bit rate?
I still don't know or care about progressive or interlaced. Supposedly the latter is frowned upon. I know it has something to do with how each frame is displayed, or whether or not 2 frames are displayed concurrently -- or something like that. Sometimes ignorance IS bliss.
As long as it looks good. I've heard complaints that advertising the DEFINITIVE set as 4k was misleading, because even Blu-Ray is not 4k. In any case, they shouldn't have mixed and matched -- either all 2k or all 4k scans.
A few of my Blackhawk prints, like BUSY BODIES, have black frames.
I know Skredtvedt is an expert on the L&H films and the behind the scenes stuff, but I'm not sure how much he knows about handling film and doing scans. I know a bit about film elements, but there is still a lot I don't know. I know next to nothing on the intricacies of scanning a film and authoring DVDs, Blu-Rays, and other digital formats. In the past, I have simply used software to transfer videos I shot on digital tape to my PC. I also don't know what happens when I insert my key into my car to start it up. I just do it and drive. We can't be experts on everything.
[3stooges]
Did Skredtvedt do any of the technical stuff on the DEFINITIVE set? I don't recall seeing his name on the technical credits.
Anyway, this is my limited understanding regarding film elements:
35mm: OCN->fine grain print (aka lavender)->dupe neg->release print
In theory, the OCN needs to be preserved as the highest priority, obviously, though since they were nitrate, many don't survive. I'm surprised that ANY OCNs of L&H films still exist!
Fine grains should be used to make more than one dupe neg, but should be used as little as possible.
Each dupe neg should be used to yield many prints until the dupe neg wears out, at which time a new dupe neg should be made.
Only go back to the OCN when there are no usable fine grains available.
The above pertains to film prints only -- since as we know the earliest generation film element is usually scanned for digital release.
It is my understanding that you can scan a negative and digitally turn it into a positive. I assume that's what they did for COME CLEAN.
Yes, the Anita Garvin interview is fascinating. Randy was lucky to meet her. I've only met the "kids" from that era: Dorothy DeBorba, Tommy Bond, Jerry Tucker, Spanky McFarland, and Shirley Jean Rickert. I didn't ask them any "stupid" questions -- I even mentioned to Jerry Tucker that I don't remember many details of what happened on a particular day in say, 4th grade, so I don't expect them to remember details of an Our Gang short they made in the 1930s. I did ask them if they had any favorites. Shirley Jean said "I like all of them!", Jerry Tucker: HI' NEIGHBOR, Dorothy: PUPS IS PUPS, Butch: CAME THE BRAWN. I didn't get a chance to ask Spanky since there was a line for him to sign VHS copies issued by Republic (at a video store in Manhattan in 1989). The others I met at movie memorabilia shows in New Jersey, and Jerry Tucker at a Sons of the Desert meeting in Manhattan.How amazing that you got to meet several of the 'Our Gang' kids! Asking each of them if they had any favorite shorts was also a nice and fresh approach, and the answers themselves are revealing in their own way! George "Spanky" McFarland was in so many shorts over such a long period, that I suspect he may have been hard pressed to single out any favorites even without the lineup!
I'm looking forward to watching DEFINITIVE again, as well as ESSENTIAL for the first time -- have only spot checked a few so far. It's a lot of stuff. Plus I'll probably screen some prints as well since the last time I swear some of my film prints looked better. Maybe I'll take a crude video with my phone as I screen some of them and post it here. My copy of COME CLEAN is from the 1949 -- so the pre-print was much younger then, and the print I have is in fabulous shape.
Yes, I've seen pretty much all the available foreign language versions "way back when" they were on American Movie Classics and more recently on TCM. Watching someone eat, drink, and regurgitate is quite interesting to say the least! I like how Babe breaks character and laughs while saying "meow" in the foreign version of NIGHT OWLS.Yes, there are so few of the Rascals left, now. Even Shirley "Muggsy" Coates passed away just a little while back! Two that I can think of who are still with us is Mildred Kornman (Mary Kornman's sister!), and Sidney Kibrick, who played Butch's sidekick, "Woim." Of course, both are well into their 90s, now!
It certainly was a hoot meeting the Rascals. Spanky was the least memorable only because it was quick -- you got your tape autographed and moved on. You also got a signed photo of him, too, which he personalized. His main reason to be there was to promote the sale of the then-new releases by Republic Pictures Home Video, which had bought out Blackhawk, and the videos were from 16mm Blackhawk prints. Some were edited, however, when they decide to put two 2-reelers on a tape instead of a 1-reeler and a 2-reeler. At first, they were all in SP mode -- then later I got some that turned out to be EP mode when I played them. Same thing happened to me when I bought a sealed set of all 21 Cabin Fever tapes on eBay. I wound up selling the ones I didn't already have in SP mode.
The other Rascals I met in a more relaxed setting, and surprisingly no one was crowding around them to talk. It was a big hall, and I picked up some Super 8 film prints -- no Rascals but some L&H silents, some Stooges, and Abbott and Costello. I met Chuck McCann there, too, and he told me his favorite L&H was TIT FOR TAT. He asked me if I was a member of the Sons and when I said "no", he said "why not? That's there so we can all hold hands!" So within a year I did. Arnold Horshack (Ron Pallillo) was there too, as well as Tommy Kirk, but I didn't bother talking with them. Butch, Dorothy, and Shirley Jean were all sitting next to each other, and I got autographed photos of all of them. All I bought was Butch's book, which he signed as well. He was also selling some Cabin Fever tapes. What was most amazing is that they all schlepped to New Joisy! (I was living in Manhattan at the time and took the bus.) I didn't meet Jerry Tucker until he attended a Sons meeting, and I spoke with him at the bar over a drink. We all got a personalized signed photo of him in a scene from HI' NEIGHBOR. Sadly, none of them are still with us, but I cherish these memories from way back in the mid to late 90s. (Spanky was in 1989, however.)
By all means, hold on to your "Essential Collection" set. The same goes with The Little Rascals DVDs released by Vivendi.For The Little Rascals DVDs by Vivendi, I'd say more because the cost of collecting all of the ClassicFlix Blu-ray volumes may be a bit out of range for some, and not all 80 Hal Roach sound shorts have been released to Blu-ray yet (Though they should be before long). From what I've read, they are superior without question!
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=325673&page=18
COME CLEAN at first glance on DEFINITIVE looks great -- it should, since they scanned the original camera negative (OCN).I still say the pros regarding COME CLEAN (1931) on "The Definitive Collection" far outweigh any minuses.
My memory was correct -- things looks out of focus. That pattern on the door looks wonky (reflection or something), but I think it is magnified because of the first gen neg.
--
Tony said: "I've sussed out that the sometimes odd appearance of the one door in the Hardy's apartment is due to the decorative reflective glass (I think?) panel, which changes appearance according to the lighting and camera angles."
--
The reason I singled this one out in my mind was because it is the only film on the set from the OCN. Sources for the other films on the set are not identified on-screen. The box says original 35mm, but technically only the OCN is "original". Are the others fine grains, dupe negs, or release prints? They don't say.
I watched COME CLEAN first on ESSENTIAL, and was very satisfied with it. Then I immediately put on DEFINITIVE, and was blown away until I started to do side by side comparisons. ESSENTIAL obviously did not have the OCN. I would say release print at best, but that is pure speculation on my part. But it seems to me like ESSENTIAL has a great scan and "digital restoration" of a poorer source, and DEFINITIVE has a poor scan and "digital restoration" of the the better source (OCN), if that makes sense. Maybe the raw scan looks great, and they messed it up by scrubbing it? It says: "Digital restoration: Thad Komorowski/Cineaste. A.R.T (whatever that is) by Point360. Final Conformingf&Clean Up by The Finishing Touch." I'm not sure why Skretvedt supposedly made a fuss on other forums and insisted no digital trickery was used. "Clean Up" and "Digital Restoration", IMHO, is trickery/scrubbing.
Most of the films have similar credits. Digital trickery done twice makes me nervous. Whatever they did, the image isn't as sharp as on ESSENTIAL, even though you can see some more details on DEFINITIVE -- if that makes any sense. For example, you can clearly see the phony skyline when Mae Busch is about to jump in the river. On ESSENTIAL, it is a bit dark and looks real. I've never noticed the phony-ness before -- I need to screen my 16mm now to check.
I'm no expert, but common sense, to me, says that one should use the digital medium to "restore" (for lack of a better word) for viewing by the public as follows:
- Scan the earliest generation film elements
- Use software to sew together the best elements for different scenes. etc. For example, you may have the OCN for reel 1 one of HOG WILD, but a fine grain for reel 2. Sew them together digitally, then.
- Image stabilization, particularly if the film has shrunk, or has sprocket damage.
- Adjust brightness, contrast, etc. only as it would be done if making a release print on film -- I've heard the term "timing" used to get the exposure right so things look correct.
- Do not -- I repeat -- not -- remove any dirt, scratches, cue marks, or anything else digitally.
- Crop only if boom mikes, etc, were inadvertently filmed. This happened on occasion, since the cameraman knew that it would be masked out when projected.
My comparisons were wax-apples to wax-apples. Same DVD player, same TV. Also, VLC media player on laptop. I didn't add any video effects/filters on VLC. Screenshots generated by VLC.
ESSENTIAL:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLVlFsRcehUGSq3tY1SoDYNBjMm7xBAlLzHFxF7eZ7Dzt9DrI4vvjWHpqHNkxJ9Ppu8BqeN7DasuTqAqlN6FoEbJSuTpe5RZVPKE7uGYbRnJjjnulJQTs0pU6H6EkZwch6fljkdMU7DuDpETLs3e4ZzO=w720-h540-no?authuser=0)
DEFINITIVE:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLX7Y2WYUOySw3zn9rcRJ1p5dDRr4DeToP_eoaczqRB4iErkqlE7nuq6z16Qu5YZCC1B2W8OXw0AaG_jWoVx6v2MbVrPxWsPD1gxN9aGjFLkQsBVlRCXmLqibT4KQaFMuZus8kFhOZfVn3mycPEnPw4D=w853-h480-no?authuser=0)
Faces look clearer on ESSENTIAL. On DEFINITIVE, something wonky going on with Babe's suit -- reflection on a shiny suit?
ESSENTIAL:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLXJWzQyb3YXzc-b27ZCj7gMX-gOtTvleDE8UzsVXx9BCuistHUfbpoPgYJH8jT1XzTMzjHFBfYhA83Fnt_3tDe2Glcjs3CYeo2zE0qkYykUP9qbsxzkBR_B3tSa1d_UJHJxhCz1Saxw-C_1z2oFur0_=w720-h540-no?authuser=0)
DEFINITIVE:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLXRnYOC9Ui-2vePGHkCzFlY7IeI5uY-wyvsu5XOfCmX5z4UkavywLuBEUwBe04WhhM-OW4YfgDT6tC6mjRgqYUTdetyIgk4w5my7ICOGq7ycVQWDasc4pH4JkrcS12SfnBN0KbOb_lOTcl69do2FxVH=w853-h480-no?authuser=0)
Again, faces look clearer on ESSENTIAL.
To me, DEFINITIVE looks like someone used an iPhone in 2022, but didn't focus it well enough. ESSENTIAL looks like someone used a camera in, well, 1931, and focused it well.
:D
I still say the pros regarding COME CLEAN (1931) on "The Definitive Collection" far outweigh any minuses.
"The Essential Collection" version looks a bit too dark to my eyes, while it does admittedly lean bright on "Definitive," probably owing to the lack of timing on the OCN, which I presume exists on the OCN, with or without additional digital filtering. Cue marks of course, won't be available on an OCN, either.What did they replace the cue marks with? Surrounding part of the image that was removed, I would guess.
Insofar as the other titles not derived from OCN on "The Definitive Collection," I would have preferred the cue marks had been left in, but it is something I can live without.
Regarding the shots appearing out of focus on the "Definitive" version, the differences in lighting render that debatable to my eyes. The out of focus issue I pointed out was for a few seconds during HELPMATES (1932), which I recall attributing possibly to a reel change, when brief out of focus frames sometimes occur, if that makes any sense.
The bottom line is how great that we have the luxury of choice between two Laurel & Hardy sets!
CHEERS! :)
By all means, hold on to your "Essential Collection" set. The same goes with The Little Rascals DVDs released by Vivendi.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=325673&page=18
For The Little Rascals DVDs by Vivendi, I'd say more because the cost of collecting all of the ClassicFlix Blu-ray volumes may be a bit out of range for some, and not all 80 Hal Roach sound shorts have been released to Blu-ray yet (Though they should be before long). From what I've read, they are superior without question!I've only seen youtube clips, but it doesn't seem to be leaps and bounds better than Vivendi, except for the fact that it will be Blu-Ray. I couldn't find a DVD release of it on their site.
CHEERS! :)
The Little Rascals ClassicFlix volumes are only being released in the Blu-ray format. Therefore, those without a Blu-ray player do need to hang on to the previous Vivendi and Cabin Fever DVD releases, of which I thankfully have both. It too, is my hope that the End Title replacement card issue for MAIL AND FEMALE (1937) is fixed. If so, I just may splurge for that particular volume, despite my loathing for only buying into one of several Little Rascals volumes, but sadly, our lack of disposable funds simply won't allow me to do otherwise.
That is weird about being unable to renew "The Essential Collection" DVD set, despite there being multiple copies in the Library system. Could this be some sort of glitch in the Library's online setup, perhaps?
CHEERS! :)
Regarding re-issues of BERTH MARKS and BRATS, it could be argued that these versions have no place on a set called DEFINITIVE RESTORATIONS, which should be the original-released versions. But that's neither here nor there. But by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack is creating a Franken-movie. I assume they didn't lose the film elements from the 1936 version from 2011 to 2020. If it were just DVD, and wanted to take the lazy way out, I would have just included the version from ESSENTIAL. But since there was a Blu-Ray version on DEFINITIVE, upscaling from DVD would have caused an uproar as well.IIRC, and sadly, both of my EC and DR sets are currently packed away where I can't get at them, at the moment, BERTH MARKS' openings and closings are the same on both sets, so I don't quite get your meaning regarding creating a Franken-movie by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack for the Definitive Restorations release.
IIRC, and sadly, both of my EC and DR sets are currently packed away where I can't get at them, at the moment, BERTH MARKS' openings and closings are the same on both sets, so I don't quite get your meaning regarding creating a Franken-movie by marrying the 1929 picture element with the 1936 soundtrack for the Definitive Restorations release.
CHEERS! :)
As I recall, on DEFINITIVE they used the 1929 silent verion for the picture, but used the 1936 re-issue soundtrack. I believe that's why parts are out-of-sync. In 1929, they were still releasing L&Hs with inter-titles for theaters not yet equipped for sound. I think (not positive) some scenes had a different take in the silent and talkie versions. Also, I believe (not positive) that the 1936 reissue may have had edits, making it different from the 1929 talkie version. I do know that BLOTTO, BRATS, and BEAU HUNKS were slightly edited by Roach for the late 30's reissues. BEAU HUNKS had the first song that Babe sings cut out. All 3 had their introductory titles cut out.It seems the DEFINITIVE and ESSENTIAL transfers foe BERTH MARKS would have to be played side by side in order to spot any differences!
It seems the DEFINITIVE and ESSENTIAL transfers foe BERTH MARKS would have to be played side by side in order to spot any differences!
CHEERS! [pie]