THE BOWERY BOYS on DVD: continuing discussion of Warner's eventual release plans (NEW UPDATE 10/2 Po (2 Viewers)

[Tony Bensley]

Hi Bob!

I could be mistaken, but I believe in previous discussion within this thread regarding PRIVATE EYES, it had already been in production at the time Allied Artists shifted to Filming with Widescreen in mind. If this is correct, as I suspect it is, then there might be a problem in cropping scenes from PRIVATE EYES that were filmed before the changeover took place! Therefore, in my opinion, PRIVATE EYES ought to be issued at 1.37:1 Academy Ratio, rather than 1.66:1.

CHEERS!

Tony

Hi Bob!

It seems that deductive reasoning has somewhat eluded both of us, as PRIVATE EYES is already available on THE BOWERY BOYS, VOLUME 2 Set (Font Selection is definitely NOT one of this Collection's strong suits!)! Upon checking PRIVATE EYES on my Laptop, I've found that for better or worse, it is indeed, the 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio that the Warner Archive went with!

CHEERS!

Tony

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Hi Bob!

I could be mistaken, but I believe in previous discussion within this thread regarding PRIVATE EYES, it had already been in production at the time Allied Artists shifted to Filming with Widescreen in mind. If this is correct, as I suspect it is, then there might be a problem in cropping scenes from PRIVATE EYES that were filmed before the changeover took place! Therefore, in my opinion, PRIVATE EYES ought to be issued at 1.37:1 Academy Ratio, rather than 1.66:1.

CHEERS!

Tony

That was a theory presented by George Feltenstein on a podcast but it's not true. The film was fully widescreen from day one and was announced as such even before the start of principal photography. WB mistakenly tried to crop it too wide at 1.85:1 and that's why some scenes looked tight. The correct aspect ratio is 1.66:1.

Sadly, the transfer on volume 2 is full-frame.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

As was the standard practice, it was composed for widescreen (1.66:1) and protected for standard (1.37:1.)

 

[Tony Bensley]

For what it's worth, here is my take regarding the Full Frame PRIVATE EYES print transfer:

First of all, my apologies to Bob Furmanek! I did indeed, somehow manage to misinterpret PRIVATE EYES' Aspect Ratio, and I do concur that the version on Volume 2 is indeed, Full Frame!

With that said however, as I've previously stated, I'm on the fence when it comes to this aspect of Full Vs. Widescreen. As has been documented on this thread, even the later Widescreen Bowery Boys Features were Filmed in a 1.37:1 Matte, of which prints could either be cropped for Theatrical Widescreen issue (Though some Theaters still showed Films at Academy Ratio!), or be kept uncropped for subsequent Television Broadcasts. Thus, I am not especially bothered by this, though I respect that others will be.

Regarding any possible reissue of a Widescreen Version of PRIVATE EYES for THE BOWERY BOYS, VOLUME 4, it is my opinion that this might unfortunately open up a huge can of worms in that there will be those who will disagree with that tact, and complain that all of the other Widescreen entries should have been issued at Academy Ratio to begin with! Failing that, this would at the very least, cause the Warner Archive to have to add a 5th DVD to the last Volume and would completely "Upset the Apple-cart," so to speak! I think that they already have enough on their plate insofar as restoration of the more problematic Bowery Boys Titles (Especially MR. HEX!) to do any back pedaling in regards to already issued Films!

Anyway, that is my opinion on the subject.

CHEERS!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes but once theaters converted to widescreen in 1953/54, they did not continue to present films in the standard ratio.

 

[Tony Bensley]

Yes but once theaters converted to widescreen in 1953/54, they did not continue to present films in the standard ratio.

See my above post. The Widescreen conversion was not immediately universal, strictly speaking. This was especially true outside of Metropolitan areas. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that PRIVATE EYES was shown in Academy Ratio at many Cinemas during its original Theatrical run.

CHEERS!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The documentation on the universal transition to widescreen can be found in our two articles:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

I've gone through literally thousands of studio documents and industry trade journals from the first five years of widescreen presentation (1953-1958) and have never seen that mentioned.

If you have documentation from primary source materials which states that films composed for widescreen were still shown in the standard ratio after the transition in 1953/54, I would LOVE to see it!

 

[Tony Bensley]

The documentation on the universal transition to widescreen can be found in our two articles:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

I've gone through literally thousands of studio documents and industry trade journals from the first five years of widescreen presentation (1953-1958) and have never seen that mentioned.

If you have documentation from primary source materials which states that films composed for widescreen were still shown in the standard ratio after the transition in 1953/54, I would LOVE to see it!

Hi Bob!

I'm not denying that Films were being universally made with Widescreen in mind after 1954. Nor do I have primary source material documentation immediately at my disposal that you speak of. How I've surmised that this transition was at least not entirely universal is from such sources as Amazon Reviews for the recent Criterion Edition of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, where at least one reviewer insists that this played Full Screen at his local Theater during its original release run. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the sort of information that by its very nature, was necessarily documented as such, since by the mid 1960's, Academy Ratio was most likely limited to less urban areas. I do recall reading elsewhere that while the Academy to Widescreen transition was quite swift in the larger Metropolitan Centers, it was much longer taking hold in less urban areas.

If/when I do find anything to support (Or refute!) the above, I'll be happy to share this with you!

CHEERS!

Tony

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Our research has shown that by 1955/56, 1.37:1 was a dead format in theaters, both in large and small theaters.

I wouldn't place much stock in someone's personal memory in a Yahoo review. I believe in trusting documented, primary source materials.

 

[Tony Bensley]

Hi Bob!

The one thing that I've learned in regards to the subject of Aspect Ratios is that this is very much a "Clear as mud" issue! I'm not an expert on the subject, nor do I pretend to be. I have read a fair amount of documentation that both supports and refutes your take on this, and my aim is to take a fair, balanced view from all sides.

My own biggest question has to do with your research indicating that 1.37:1 being a dead format in Theaters by 1955/56: Did this research also take into account the less urban/rural Cinema Circuit, or only the larger cities? I just get the feeling that there is more to this subject than meets the eye, so to speak!

To think this whole debate was sparked by a single Bowery Boys Feature!

CHEERS!

Tony

P.S. I for one, welcome any additional viewpoints from other HTF Members regarding the "Great Academy To Widescreen Transition" debate!

 

[Steve...O]

I remember seeing a number of "The Little Tough Guys" and "The East Side Kids" titles on TCM a number of years back, which I actually recorded. While at least some of these were preceded by a preservation logo, I don't recall these being in especially good shape.

"Existing Films" may well be the key phrase for the East Side Kids Series Films, not only in regards to their condition, but perhaps in some cases, to their very existence! I do recall reading somewhere in this Thread awhile back someone stating that only about 10 or 12 of the East Side Kids Features are available on video in ANY form! As I recall, a subsequent check that I made on Amazon unfortunately supported that!

CHEERS!

Hi Tony,

I may be off base on this, but my understanding is that the ESK movies that were released by Alpha, etc. were all the ones in the public domain. Some of the ESK features retain their copyright and those are the ones that haven't been released.

Whether or not WHV has access to good prints of those or not I do not know. My first exposure to Leo/Huntz was from these ESK films that used to run on TV over and over. I actually prefer these to the BB films (which are also great).

Regarding Mr. Hex, somewhere in the bowels of this thread I swear I read where WHV had found the original negative to this. We will find out eventually what shape it was in.

It won't happen but wouldn't it be great if after V4 came out, Warner released a special "complete" set with the films in order and with English subtitles?

Regarding the aspect ratio questions, Mr. Furmanek is the recognized industry expert on this and I generally defer to his knowledge on this. I agree with him that primary sources are best and he clearly has done his research on this.

Isn't it amazing that we will soon have the (mostly) complete works of the BB, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and the 3 Stooges of DVD for our viewing pleasure?
Cheers to you as well!

 

[Tony Bensley]

Hi Tony,

I may be off base on this, but my understanding is that the ESK movies that were released by Alpha, etc. were all the ones in the public domain. Some of the ESK features retain their copyright and those are the ones that haven't been released.

Whether or not WHV has access to good prints of those or not I do not know. My first exposure to Leo/Huntz was from these ESK films that used to run on TV over and over. I actually prefer these to the BB films (which are also great).

Regarding Mr. Hex, somewhere in the bowels of this thread I swear I read where WHV had found the original negative to this. We will find out eventually what shape it was in.

It won't happen but wouldn't it be great if after V4 came out, Warner released a special "complete" set with the films in order and with English subtitles?

Regarding the aspect ratio questions, Mr. Furmanek is the recognized industry expert on this and I generally defer to his knowledge on this. I agree with him that primary sources are best and he clearly has done his research on this.

Isn't it amazing that we will soon have the (mostly) complete works of the BB, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and the 3 Stooges of DVD for our viewing pleasure?
Cheers to you as well!

Hi Steve!

Regarding the East Side Kids, I think you might be on to something as to why only certain titles are available on home video, and unlike the Dead End Kids, and now 3/4 of the Bowery Boys oeuvre, NONE of the ESK Films have ever been issued by a high end company! The East Side Kids Features that I have seen, I've found most enjoyable, my favorite being KID DYNAMITE, which I first saw over 30 years ago on PBS's MATINEE AT THE BIJOU. I currently have this title, plus SPOOKS RUN WILD and GHOSTS ON THE LOOSE on Public Domain DVDs, along with several that I recorded off of TCM several years back. We can only hope that these all might someday be properly restored and issued!

Regarding MR. HEX, I do recall reading that it was the discovery of missing Film elements from this title that prompted the Warner Archive to finally begin issuing the Bowery Boys Volumes, the impending release of which for various reasons, had previously been put on hold. This is one BB title that I await with great anticipation! By the way, its Stanley Clements led remake, HOLD THAT HYPNOTIST, will also be on the Volume 4 Set!

I don't suspect that the Warner Archive will reissue the Bowery Boys Volumes as a complete, chronological set, either. While I do agree that this would be a great thing aesthetically speaking, to be honest, I would probably be a bit irked as I've shelled out between $52-$55 for each of these Volumes (And also ordered these in a timely fashion in order to get pressed discs, which a complete set would likely also have!), due to the logistics of living outside the U.S. and having to pay extra $$ for the Shipping/Import fees for each, whereas a complete set would at least hopefully go for considerably less than $200 even for we Canucks!

Regarding the thorny subject of Aspect Ratios, I do respectfully acknowledge Bob Furmanek's vast knowledge associated with this subject. Bob will probably forget more about this than I or almost anyone else will ever even know! I also readily acknowledge that going by primary source information is the responsible road to take. With that said, I'm just not entirely convinced that the Academy to Widescreen transition was equally as swift in some of the less urban areas of the U.S and Canada, and maybe even less so in overseas English speaking countries. The way I see it, there's always something more to learn about any one subject. I will close this topic for now by stating that my experience has been that the more I've learned about the subject of Aspect Ratios, the less I realize that I truly know!

To answer your last question, "Isn't it amazing that we will soon have the (mostly) complete works of the Bowery Boys, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and the 3 Stooges on DVD for our viewing pleasure?"

To paraphrase a Stan Laurel line, "It most certainly is!"

Who would have thought that in the summer of 2014, more than a century after the first Oliver Hardy and Charlie Chaplin Films were first viewed in theaters, we would have the ability to enjoy these marvelous collections in the comfort of our own homes at a time of our own choosing?

When it comes down to it, this is really what it's all about!

CHEERS!

Tony

 

[LouA]

I recall reading that the UCLA Film Library holds good quality prints of most of the ESK films , but wants a lot of money to license them out for Home Video. I think I read that at Leo Gorcey Jr.'s old website about 10 years ago.

 

[Tony Bensley]

I recall reading that the UCLA Film Library holds good quality prints of most of the ESK films , but wants a lot of money to license them out for Home Video. I think I read that at Leo Gorcey Jr.'s old website about 10 years ago.

Hi Lou!

I'm not sure that that's correct regarding the licensing. As an example, from what I've read regarding UCLA's Laurel & Hardy Hal Roach Sound Film Restoration project, they have nothing to do with the licensing or issuing of their restorations to Home Video (That is up to the rights holder, which in the case of the Hal Roach Sound Film Library, is for within North America, currently Sonar Entertainment.), and that they rely on donations in order to help defray the restoration costs.

Perhaps there could be a different arrangement with the East Side Kids titles? That, I cannot answer!

CHEERS!

Tony

 

[ahollis]

Yes but once theaters converted to widescreen in 1953/54, they did not continue to present films in the standard ratio.

And the conversion was quick. They wanted the widescreen aspect to compete with television. The quicker the better.

 

[ahollis]

Hi Lou!I'm not sure that that's correct regarding the licensing. As an example, from what I've read regarding UCLA's Laurel & Hardy Hal Roach Sound Film Restoration project, they have nothing to do with the licensing or issuing of their restorations to Home Video (That is up to the rights holder, which in the case of the Hal Roach Sound Film Library, is for within North America, currently Sonar Entertainment.), and that they rely on donations in order to help defray the restoration costs.Perhaps there could be a different arrangement with the East Side Kids titles? That, I cannot answer!CHEERS!Tony

I believe the EAST SIDE KIDS films reside with Republic. If that's true then it's up to Paramount to entice Olive to release those titles Funny that this series, under different names was released by United Artists, Warner's, Universal, Rebublic, and finally Monogram/Allied Artists.

 

[JoHud]

I believe the EAST SIDE KIDS films reside with Republic. If that's true then it's up to Paramount to entice Olive to release those titlesFunny that this series, under different names was released by United Artists, Warner's, Universal, Rebublic, and finally Monogram/Allied Artists.

You sure they didn't end up with MGM? I thought they got most of the pre-1946 Monograms (i.e The Charlie Chans). Then again, a lot of the Monogram library seems to be all over the place, so you could very well be right.

Whoever has them, I figured they don't want to bother with the bulk of their Monogram holdings because they are all supposedly PD

 

[ahollis]

You sure they didn't end up with MGM? I thought they got most of the pre-1946 Monograms (i.e The Charlie Chans). Then again, a lot of the Monogram library seems to be all over the place, so you could very well be right.Whoever has them, I figured they don't want to bother with the bulk of their Monogram holdings because they are all supposedly PD

Republic released the titles are so I have been told, Not Monogram. So they would belong to Paramount. Two different studios. It does get confusing. Most are PD so the likely hood of them coming out is sketchy. But can't wait for the final volume.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

And the conversion was quick. They wanted the widescreen aspect to compete with television. The quicker the better.

That's absolutely correct, Allen. The belief that 1.37:1 was still exhibited after theaters converted is a long-standing myth that has now been dis-proven with research and period documentation.

Anybody can make a claim in a Yahoo review but there is zero evidence to substantiate their statements.

There is no documented evidence suggesting that theaters retained the ability to run 1.37:1 after the transition to widescreen to 1953/54. They would have had to keep their old lenses and aperture plates as well as the capability to mask the image for the old ratio. That's highly unlikely as once the new screens and masking were installed, there was no intention to go back to a significantly smaller image with the standard ratio.

Some theaters retained the ability to project newsreels in the standard ratio for a few months after the transition but that changed quickly as well. By 1954, the newsreel camera viewfinders were modified to allow cameraman to compose for widescreen.

In September 1954, Merle Chamberlin (Director of Projection at MGM) stated, "All of the studios are convinced that the old 3/4 picture is gone and the wider aspect ratio is here to stay."

Robert A. Mitchell was a leading authority on all aspects of motion picture projection and technology. His monthly technical papers for International Projectionist led to the 1957 publication of “Manual of Practical Projection,” an essential book containing the very best of his extremely detailed articles.​

​

In June 1956, he stated the following: “The trend toward wider-than-normal theatre screens is now so well established that the conventional 4:3-proportioned screen has become a rarity. Only a few theatres have retained the normal screen when wide screens are used for CinemaScope projection, and almost none have changed back to the standard aspect ratio after giving non-anamorphic widescreen pictures a fair trial.”​

As a comparison, if you do research on theaters that switched to sound in 1929/30, there is no indication that any theater that wished to remain competitive went back to running silent films.

How many prime-time TV shows were broadcast in black and white after the changeover to full color on the three networks in 1966?

 

[LouA]

Hi Lou!

I'm not sure that that's correct regarding the licensing. As an example, from what I've read regarding UCLA's Laurel & Hardy Hal Roach Sound Film Restoration project, they have nothing to do with the licensing or issuing of their restorations to Home Video (That is up to the rights holder, which in the case of the Hal Roach Sound Film Library, is for within North America, currently Sonar Entertainment.), and that they rely on donations in order to help defray the restoration costs.

Perhaps there could be a different arrangement with the East Side Kids titles? That, I cannot answer!

CHEERS!

Tony

But aren't the ESK films now PD? So if someone wanted to release them in nice quality they would have to make a deal with UCLA. Am I right about that?