Recent Posts

1

Stooges DVD/VHS/Home Video / Re: Are the 190 Stooges shorts coming to Blu-Ray anytime soon?

« Last post by QuinceHead on Today at 12:16:55 PM »

Well, it only took eight years to get an answer to my question! 

2

Stooges DVD/VHS/Home Video / Re: Three Stooges shorts coming to Blu-ray this summer

« Last post by QuinceHead on Today at 12:15:00 PM »

If they are indeed releasing only 100 of the 190 shorts — which sounds like a bone-headed maneuver to me — I’m gonna guess that the missing 90 shorts are going to consist of most of Joe Besser’s, the four Fake Shemp ones, and a lot of the Shemp remakes.  I highly doubt they’d omit any Curly shorts, but if they do, I’ll bet they’re from his post-stroke period.

For duty and humanity,
JohnH aka QuinceHead

3

Stooges DVD/VHS/Home Video / Three Stooges shorts coming to Blu-ray this summer

« Last post by falsealarms on Today at 08:43:18 AM »

At long last, Sony is releasing the Three Stooges shorts on Blu-ray: https://www.amazon.com/The-Three-Stooges-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B0D49XFZ4V

There's some pretty serious questions about this, though. The product description only says 100 shorts, and of course the Stooges made 190 at Columbia. If that's an error or actually how it is remains to be seen.

If it is not an error, which 100 shorts and how were they chosen?

The solo shorts and DeRita-era films are included, including Three Stooges Scrapbook.

And the price tag is a hefty $230 but this could drop during the pre-order process.

It's a "limited edition" set, meaning probably a scalpers delight before too long after it's released.

Release date is July 23.

4

The Three Stooges - Curly Years / Re: 3 Dumb Clucks (1937)

« Last post by Samurai on May 16, 2024, 01:03:15 PM »

This is another short that (seemingly) popped up very rarely in my younger years. For that reason, I'm always happy when it pops up now.

No, it cannot be considered a classic, but it's definitely quality entertainment. I enjoyed the completely different scenarios...except for the overly rushed ending.

My favorite scene came in the middle. Starting with Larry mixing the drink as Moe's head mixes in unison, followed by the inevitable explosion into Moe's kissah. For me, the best moment came down to hearing one word. One I've never heard before or since...

...MUGLETS!!

5

General Discussion / ??? ??????? ????? ???? ? threestooges.net ??

« Last post by Evabic on May 16, 2024, 11:50:30 AM »

 ?? ?? 
 ?? ? ? . 
 ? .

6

The Three Stooges - Curly Years / Re: Uncivil Warriors (1935)

« Last post by Freddie Sanborn on May 15, 2024, 06:51:30 PM »

I was 5 too, but remember it vividly.

7

The Three Stooges - Curly Years / Re: Uncivil Warriors (1935)

« Last post by Big Chief Apumtagribonitz on May 14, 2024, 04:46:12 PM »

Noah Young, you claim not to be an authority, but your posts have an authoritative ring to them, for sure.  I myself would grant authoritative status to many of us on this site, maybe not for formal academic study ( which as far as Stoogeology is concerned, I'm not sure exists ) but certainly for massive exposure and lifelong viewing dedication.  I am also guessing that you and I might be the oldest BSs ( Bachelors of Stoogeorhythms ) on this site, with JazzBill coming in third.  I think Dr Hugo writes wiser than his years, though I may be wrong, he might also be an old crank. I'm not one to bandy ages around, but I'll come out and blatantly admit I was five during the Stooge TV Renaissance of 1958.   I hope I'm not being too arcane.  Would you care to step up?

8

The Three Stooges - Curly Years / Re: Uncivil Warriors (1935)

« Last post by NoahYoung on May 12, 2024, 08:42:52 PM »

I’m overdue to rewatch FEET FIRST, but Felix Adler is credited in some type of writing capacity in both films.

Go for it!

It's kind of funny how you can pick up on these re-use of gags in today's world as opposed to in year's past -- with access to so many films everywhere today. How many people 40 years ago, for example, would have viewed UNCIVIL WARRIORS and FEET FIRST, either many times, or within a short time-frame, to catch that both used that "Charley who walks like this" gag?

And how many Stooges fans were also Harold Lloyd fans? Not many today, either, probably!

9

Laurel and Hardy / Re: Busy Bodies (1933) - Laurel and Hardy

« Last post by NoahYoung on May 12, 2024, 08:32:59 PM »

Keaton was probably viewed as too big a star to make shorts at Roach when talkies came in, but artistically, it might have been a good fit.

Actually, I never considered Keaton going over to Roach. What I meant was not trying to change his style so much in the talkies. But we all know that that wasn't Keaton's decision -- it was the brainstorm of the geniuses at M-G-M.

As mentioned above, Keaton wasn't too big for Educational -- in 1934, however. It was not just a step, but whole floor below Roach, but this was after Keaton's career went south because of M-G-M. Keaton probably drank before the talkies, but he didn't become an out-and-out alcoholic until the talkies rolled-in, and only because of the disastrous pictures and loss of control at M-G-M. (As I write this, no less than 5 of Keaton's M-G-M talkies on VHS sit on my shelf beside me, which I haven't viewed in over 30 years since they were first released. To be honest, not all of them were THAT bad, and most had at least a few good moments, if I recall.)

From what I've read, Keaton was kind of hoodwinked and sorta/kinda betrayed by Nicholas Schenck, but as Michael Corleone would say, it wasn't personal -- it was strictly business.

I'm not sure the average movie-goer in 1929/1930 woud have know that anything had changed regarding Keaton's studio, since some of his prior pre-United Artists pictures opened with Leo the Lion. Had he gone to Roach in 1929, Leo would have also introduced his pictures.

I"m not sure that Keaton was too big for Roach in 1929 actually -- L&H were already huge when the talkies rolled in, and they stuck with Roach until 1940, with only one non-Roach picture (THE FLYING DEUCES) made during that time -- and not until 1939.

Had he gone to Roach in 1929, or 1934, he would have presumably been given the artistic freedom alloted to Laurel and Hardy. The caveat here is that I doubt Roach was ready to start producing features regularly in 1929 -- L&H started making just one a year starting in 1930 (though PARDON US wasn't released until 1931), and it wasn't until late 1935 that L&H abandoned the shorts to concentrate exclusively on features.

It is fairly well documented that Keaton was not a businessman, nor was good with money. Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin were; hence they financed their own pictures and didn't have to cow-tow to the studio heads. Despite this, Lloyd didn't fair too well in the talkies, but Chaplin had the cogliones to release CITY LIGHTS in 1931 as a silent picture.

So with Keaton at Roach, on Roach's dime, and with budgeted artistic freedom, Keaton certainly would have turned out better pictures in the early 30s, albeit shorts. He certainly couldn't have done any worse.

Most Keaton's Education shorts were pretty good (comparatively), and these seem to be closer to what he might have churned out had he gone to Roach, as opposed to what he did churn out at M-G-M. The films are betrayed by a low budget, and pedestrian camerwork and sound recording, magnified today by video transfers from what I presume to be the best survivng film elelements, which I can tell you ain't from the camera negatives!


"For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'."

John Greenleaf Whittier

10

Laurel and Hardy / Re: Busy Bodies (1933) - Laurel and Hardy

« Last post by Samurai on May 12, 2024, 02:50:24 PM »

Keaton was probably viewed as too big a star to make shorts at Roach when talkies came in, but artistically, it might have been a good fit.

Well, about 40 years after 'Busy Bodies', Keaton finally did play a foil to Laurel & Hardy. Oddly, Buster looked surprisingly young...and slightly feminine. 

(you can see it for yourselves on utube...photo has info/time)