SPHE Press Release: The Three Stooges Collection, Volume One: Years 1-2 (1 Viewer)

[Matthew H]

I just feel that after all this time, and the work THEY put into restoring these shorts - that they would have enough common sense to put out artwork that will appeal to the non-fans and hardcore enthusiasts alike. It seems kind of sad considering the restoration that went into these only to have them sit on the shelf because it looks like some crappy public domain movie.. I think it would to the studio and the release itself much better justice to atleast make it look a little more professional..

As for the shorts in general, these are considered some of their best work - me personally, I'm a Shemp and Joe fan.. something about those "everyday life" shorts in the later years that always have stood out to me (or maybe it's the fact that the network I used to watch them on in the 80s primarily ran Shemp and Joe shorts), although "Punch Drunks" is my favorite short.. which seems odd, I know. Ah, well. This release can't come soon enough!

I wonder how far apart the releases will come for these?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'm excited about this release, but Sony needs to create a better cover so it's not confused with the terrible public domain releases.

Besides that, the few remasters from the ChromaChoice discs look and sound fantastic. I'm a fan of both Curly and Shemp, so I'm pick up all the sets. Although, I haven't seen any of the post-Shemp stuff (even the features).

By the way, Fox's DVD for Soup to Nuts, the first-ever film appearance of the Stooges, is excellent. The image quality is great, proper 1.20:1 AR, and both original mono and a noise reduced mono track.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Absolutely. I think the cover looks fine. However, I think it really needs to feature the Columbia logo PROMINENTLY. The average person looking through the video shelves at Walmart isn't going to think too hard about why he should pay $24 for this set instead of $5 for a PD set -- he probably won't even realize that most of those PD sets contain the same 4 shorts.

They should really focus on differentiating it more. Even just slap on a sticker with something like "These films are NOT AVAILABLE on public domain discs!"

 

[Eric Peterson]

I'm generally not on board for artwork bashing, but this is definitely an exception. That artwork makes this look like a $2 cheapie set that you would find at Dollar General.

This release needs to look prominent and important (Because it is!). If the average Joe consumer doesn't see that this is different from the plethora of cheapo discs out there, they won't give it the time of day. If these don't sell the requisite number of copies, then we won't see further collections. In the end, my reasons for being an art snob have little to do with the art itself, but in trying to make sure that we continue to get quality releases until all of the Stooge shorts are released.

I am also curious as to the timing between sets. Hopefully, these sets will be at least twice a year if not more often than that. Even with sets of 3 years increments issued twice per year, it will still take 3-4 years to release all of them.

 

[Fred333]

Looking forward to the release of the collection. Big fan of the Three Stooges

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

The artwork looks fine to me. It's better than the individual shorts collections. And I'm assuming -- and praying -- that the menus are better too! I am glad I never have to see the horrible "Pinball" or "Slot Machine" menus ever again.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yeah, but the average person also doesn't know what "public domain" means!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Good point, and I agree. I've always preferred the shorts where the Stooges were just "regular guys" at home instead of cowboys, knights, or what have you. GOOF ON THE ROOF is one of my favorites -- just Moe, Larry and Shemp in the house trying to install a TV antenna!

 

[Shane Dodson]

Ron...

I'm of the opinion that just about everything with Curly right up to the point at which Curly's health took a rapid decline (circa 1944-46) is quality stuff. Granted, some of the storylines were a little too elaborate to sustain the gags...but the irreverence was high, the boys were able and (seemingly) willing to do the physical stuff (except for the dangerous stunts). They perfected their craft on vaudeville to the point that when their "short subject" career began at Columbia, they had these routines down to an art.

I would just start collecting as soon as "Volume One" is released...and keep collecting right up until the latter days of Curly's tenure. At that point, it became painfully obvious that Curly was in bad health (he looked bad and his physical comedy had slowed down considerably), and the quality of the shorts suffered as a result.

Of course, I still have a soft spot in my heart for Shemp (even though some of them were lame remakes of better Curly shorts)...and I am a completist, so I'll probably have ALL of these releases on my shelf.

Regards,

- Shane D.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

1934 is a little dodgy, with Women Haters being downright weird, but Punch Drunks and Men in Black make up for it. By 1935 they had the formula down and it's all classic stuff from there till the war at least, and arguably until Curly had his stroke.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Women haters, I believe thats the short where everyone speaks in rhyme ,throughout the entire length.In my opinion its the worst stooge short ever !Everything on this upcoming set , is great except that short.

 

[David Deeb]

Their "best" is found throughout the entire run of both the Curly AND the Shemp episodes.

However, the 19 that will be in this boxed set are among the most popular and widely recognized, but they are ALL great fun to watch. Shemp is a very funny comedian. I'll be buying all sets.

Like Joe Karlosi, I want the Shemps & the Joes. I've not seen most of those since I was a kid. While the Joes aren't on the same level, there's still plenty to enjoy. Heck, there's even some fun in the Curly Joe features, but it comes from Larry & Moe. Curly Joe had no personality. At least Joe Besser has a "character".

The packaging design is very "blah" & very dated looking. I think they will have better success at retail w/ a fresher design.

But if they release all sets, I'll be happy and not complain too much.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I have to agree the the previous... I love the Curlys as much as the next, but it's the later Shemp years/Joe Bessers that I find the funniest. The atmosphere is the same screwball world that permeated THE ABBOTT AND COSTELLO SHOW, where there's a total lack of regard for other human beings whatsoever.

Plus, as the budget got cheaper and cheaper, things just seemed to get funnier and funnier. You don't have gloss covering up the comedy.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Incidentally, Jack - recently I watched a TV copy of QUIZ WHIZZ (1958) and I was thinking of you, with regards to the "matting" issue. It just didn't seem that there was a lot of excess headroom on that short... either that, or maybe the whole thing was "zoomed in" tighter (or whatever the term is) on TV?

 

[Joe Lugoff]

You raise a good point here, which we should emphasize to people who don't know the Stooges but want to try them out.

Don't go by the first one, "Women Haters." It's totally different from any that follow.

And, in that one, and a few other early ones, they weren't really "the three stooges," using their own names, but instead play characters in something of a "story," such as it is.

Personally, I think their Oscar-nominated episode, "Men in Black," is one of the most unfunny comedy short subjects I've ever seen in my life. There are more laughs in ten seconds of "An Ache in Every Stake," for instance, than in the whole of "Men in Black."

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Oy, I can't stand watching WOMAN HATERS. And while MEN IN BLACK is highly touted, I agree with Mr. Lugoff that I don't find it very funny. Just way too wild and stagy, even for a Stooges short.

I think that even if someone is unfamiliar with The Stooges, he'll still have a great time with this first set as a whole, though. It's really the one worth gauging your opinion on. That's soitenly a no-branier (nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk).

 

[Jonathan Peterson]

Which one has Curly eating soup and a clam keeps popping up and squirting soup in his face? That one always cracked me up.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Dunno. It's been a long time since I've seen it, and I've never run a print of it, and I don't like to say "definitely yes" unless I've run a print of it. But from the ones I have run on film, everything from SPOOKS! on, all of the new footage is WS. I say "new," because there are about a dozen that are remakes and rely heavily on stock footage.

My guess is that your copy is framed up or zoomed in on. That was the case when I compared some of the prints with the television transfers.

I wonder how they'll handle SPOOKS! and PARDON MY BACKFIRE, speaking of which. Will it be in anaglyph 3-D? At the very least, if SPOOKS! is flat, they should sepia tone it, as with original release prints.

 

[Todd_W_Zimmrman]

That's DUTIFUL BUT DUMB (1941).

And while we're on the subject of the early shorts, I agree that WOMAN HATERS is not the place to start for the novice Stooge fan. I may not be in the majority here, but I think MEN IN BLACK is hilarious in a surreal, Marxist (the brothers, not Karl) sort of way.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Oh, I don't want to see SPOOKS in sepia tone. Preserving the OAR, okay - but is sepia tone really necessary in that case?