3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10 (1 Viewer)

[Corey3rd]

if they put the remaining 32 shorts on Vol. 8, then Sony needs to just redo these shorts and toss them in as bonus features on a third disc

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I just received word from a Stooge expert that GOOF ON THE ROOF was filmed in November of 1952, and sat in the can for over a year before its release in December 1953. If that's the case, then this short would have been composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio.

 

I wish they could redo Ants in the Pantry somehow so that they don't have to clip a line of dialogue. It is very minor, but it would have been nice if they wouldn't have had to do it.

 

[Mark Y]

Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek

I just received word from a Stooge expert that GOOF ON THE ROOF was filmed in November of 1952, and sat in the can for over a year before its release in December 1953. If that's the case, then this short would have been composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio.

Sounds like a valid argument for just LEAVING THE THINGS ALONE.

I am still glad to have the Stooge shorts as part of this series. Overall, they've done a stellar job.

 

[WadeM]

Well, 7 volumes and an obviously innocent mistake was made on the 152nd short, with a fantastic job done on the prior 151 shorts.... and they give us the option of 3D while they're at it!! -- I'm not going to knock Sony too bad.
Would I like it corrected? Sure.

Since the next volume will have a lot of stock footage, we'll see stuff like that more often and it will be correct.

I'm not seeing the problem with the above Spooks screen shot.

Waiting for my copy to arrive and looking forward to picking up the next volume.

 

[moglia]

I don't think Sony will fix anything. After all why should they when 90% of people are overjoyed that Sony takes there money in the first place. I've never understood this mentality. As for me it's my money, you mess up, well then man-up, and try to make up for it.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

GOOF ON THE ROOF is one of my favorites, too.

Now that we know it's a SHANE situation -- composed for standard ratio, and then "sliced" for widescreen showing -- having it at 1.85:1 on the DVD is just plain wrong.

It might be true that GOOF, like SHANE, was originally shown at 1.85:1, but all that means is that they were originally shown wrong.

In order to uphold the incredibly high standards of these Stooges sets, Sony needs to redo this one short, at least.

Rather than having everyone send in for replacement discs, I like the idea of having the correct GOOF ON THE ROOF be an extra on the next set.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Whatever happens, I just hope Sony doesn't get annoyed and decides not to complete this series. Hopefully the last volume is already pretty much complete and ready to go.

I've become spoiled by these shorts being in chronological order, so I really would prefer that Sony CORRECTED (yes.. CORRECTED) their blunder with GOOF ON THE ROOF and re-did the Volume 7 disc, with an opportunity for fans to send in for a replacement. This particular short needs to be seen in 1.37.

 

[Jerryfox]

Really good movie I must say very funny movie.





www.flashpapers.com

 

[Corey3rd]

who amongst us that grabbed Vol 7 won't be nabbing Vol 8 (especially if it has the final 32)? Sony just needs to make it a bonus feature and we'll all be happy.

 

[rdf8585]

No, SONY needs need to release the final 32 along with HAVE ROCKET, WILL TRAVEL. Then we'll be happy. Forget bonus features.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

There were comments made by those "in the know" that strongly indicated that Sony's plans included some of the Shemp and Besser solo shorts. I thought maybe there would be two more volumes, Vol. 8 being the remaining Shemps with Shemp solo shorts, and Vol. 9 being the Besser stuff, maybe with something really rare and exciting to give extra incentive to the anti-Besser faction.

If that's correct, the final Shemp volume should have room for the corrected GOOF ON THE ROOF.

It's true that will break up the purely chronological system.

Well, I'll put my obsessive-compulsive neuroticism next to anyone's, and expect to come out on top, but I can't stand sending for replacement discs! There's too much tension involved in wondering: Did they get my bad disc? When will they mail the replacement? Will it get lost in the mail? The whole thing usually takes weeks!

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff

Well, I'll put my obsessive-compulsive neuroticism next to anyone's, and expect to come out on top, but I can't stand sending for replacement discs! There's too much tension involved in wondering: Did they get my bad disc? When will they mail the replacement? Will it get lost in the mail? The whole thing usually takes weeks!

It wouldn't keep me up at night but those reasons are why I'd rather have them put the corrected version on the last set (rather than having a replacement program).

 

[Joe Karlosi]

You guys make a lot of sense. Yes, I'd certainly be content if Sony just put the "corrected" GOOF ON THE ROOF on the last volume!

 

[moglia]

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi /forum/thread/291784/3-stooges-collection-vol-7-1952-1954-november-10/90#post_3628954

That's all I ask as well. It one of the best Shemp shorts and it sucks that it's been shafted by a crappy telecine to DVD transfer effort.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, when I say "corrected", I'm saying that it should be issued at 1.37, not 1.85. From what we've now learned, I'm convinced that it it was not actually made with 1.85 screens in mind.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It was not photographed for widescreen. See post #74 for an explanation.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

After finally watching this set, I'm sorry to say the 3-D conversions are terrible. I'm quite familiar with how good they CAN look - both in their original dual-strip Polaroid and the red/blue anaglyph conversions created in the late 60's - and these new cyan/magenta transfers are horrible. Not only is there severe ghosting (double-image) on the magenta eye, but the amount of "noise" is ridiculous. I don't know if it's some form of pixelization or digital artifacting, but it shouldn't be there.

Both shorts were extremely well photographed by Lester H. White and Henry Feulich and this is a far cry from how good these can look in 3-D

 

[Rob W]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Bob. I received my set yesterday and immediately went to the 3D shorts to see how they looked. They are virtually unwatchable. Even the 8mm editions that Columbia released in the old home movie days were better than these. Thank God the flat versions are included as well.

I also have to chime in on the 'Goof On The Roof' controversy. I expected far, far worse based on the comments I have been reading here. Yes, the compositions are tight in several instances but the short is far from ruined in the 1:85 presentation on this disc. I'm much more surprised that Sony Home Video went the extra mile to transfer them in their theatrical aspect ratio than angry that someone did not know the production history of this particular short. I wish Warner Brothers would give the same treatment to their 1:85 animated shorts. Heck, we can't even get this kind of treatment on Abbott & Costello's 1:85 features!

One last comment - am I the only one who finds it really strange ( in a good way, mind you ) to finally see a Stooges short in 1:85 ?

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I'm so darn old, I actually remember seeing the Stooges in theaters (the very last ones, with Joe Besser). And of course they were 1.85:1 -- but being 8 or 9 years old, I didn't know anything about aspect ratios. I thought that's how movies always looked.

As for GOOF ON THE ROOF -- the guys at Sony thought, "Oh, released in Dec. of '53 ... widescreen." But they should have checked when it was filmed, not released. After all, even GONE WITH THE WIND was shown in a blown-up, 70mm version in 1967, but that didn't make it right, and no one in their right mind would want it released that way on DVD.