WHV Announcement: Looney Tunes Super Stars (1 Viewer)

[DoctorHver]

Originally Posted by JoHud

A little weird since this was never done to any of the cartoons in the Golden Collections from this period. Not sure why WB felt they had to do this now. At least they're doing it to the ones that were made with widescreen matting in mind.

I personally think this move is not realy wise on WB is part as it is argued what aspect ratio presentation is correct the academy one or the widescreen one. I would say that the best thing warner could have done is to present both ratios as that might have caused less controversy than only include widescreen ratio and then it would have also made more sense to have no bonus content, it is not like there were no space on the DVD to put both ratios on those DVDs . But I bet there will be lots of calls from pepole on Stu Show expressing there displeasure with this move. What Warner is indeed telling us now ether they are giving "us wrong/correct ratio" on those Super Stars or the Golden Collection were in "wrong/correct ratio" and that situation is unbearable

 

[mdnitoil]

Somehow I suspect Warner will tell us that widescreen is OAR and you can just zoom your Gold Collections. Personally, I don't find it particularly unbearable as long as there is a rational argument for the aspect ratio chosen. The fact that the pre '53s are being presented fullframe is good enough for me. Regardless of the answer, no way in hell does Warner go back and "fix" anything so it really doesn't matter.

 

[Paul Penna]

A year ago, Jack Theakston addressed the Warner cartoon aspect ratio situation here on the HTF thusly:


http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/289620/tom-and-jerry-chuck-jones-aspect-ratio#post_3600487

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The framing definitely looks cramped on the earlier widescreen shorts. Not so much as you get into the late 50s and 60s. "Lumber Jack-Rabbit", the earliest short presented in widescreen on the Bugs set, has credits windowboxed to 4:3 before switching to a very cramped looking widescreen. That one may be one of those "Shane" situations where just because it was presented in matted widescreen in some theaters does not mean that it was a good idea.


Regards,

 

[mdnitoil]

Ugh, Jerry Beck on Stu's show just said the future of Looney Tunes is the Archives. I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

 

[JoHud]

Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden

The framing definitely looks cramped on the earlier widescreen shorts. Not so much as you get into the late 50s and 60s. "Lumber Jack-Rabbit", the earliest short presented in widescreen on the Bugs set, has credits windowboxed to 4:3 before switching to a very cramped looking widescreen. That one may be one of those "Shane" situations where just because it was presented in matted widescreen in some theaters does not mean that it was a good idea.


Regards,

Reminds me of the first widescreened Three Stooges short put in widescreen on the recent box set that looked very cropped in spots (I think it was "Goofs on the Roof")

 

[Steve...O]

Originally Posted by mdnitoil

Ugh, Jerry Beck on Stu's show just said the future of Looney Tunes is the Archives. I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

If that's truly the way they are going to go, that's a lost customer for them.

Very, very disappointing if true.

Does WHV even need a classic catalog division anymore? They've got some of the best and brightest working for them but their talents are being wasted. I can't imagine that WHV classic catalog employees are any happier about this than their consumers are.

 

[ChuckWL]

Originally Posted by Steve...O





If that's truly the way they are going to go, that's a lost customer for them.

Very, very disappointing if true.

Does WHV even need a classic catalog division anymore? They've got some of the best and brightest working for them but their talents are being wasted. I can't imagine that WHV classic catalog employees are any happier about this than their consumers are.

I also believe Jerry said in last nights show that they would be released on the Warner Archives but that they would also be restored before released.

 

[Steve...O]

A DVD-R is still a DVD-R. Sales via Archive can not approach what a retail release would be so I doubt the level of restoration would be anywhere near what we're used to (at least for titles not yet restored).


Also, Archives have no English subtitles, no bonus features, and an insanely high price for what you get.


I really hope Jerry was misinformed as this is a major disappointment.

 

[ChuckWL]

Yes prices do need to come down that's for sure.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

So you are saying that if they released the "Censored 11" as a Warner Archive release, you would not purchase it for $20?

Originally Posted by Steve...O





If that's truly the way they are going to go, that's a lost customer for them.

Very, very disappointing if true.

Does WHV even need a classic catalog division anymore? They've got some of the best and brightest working for them but their talents are being wasted. I can't imagine that WHV classic catalog employees are any happier about this than their consumers are.

 

[Traveling Matt]

Originally Posted by Steve...O

Sales via Archive can not approach what a retail release would be so I doubt the level of restoration would be anywhere near what we're used to (at least for titles not yet restored).

Precisely. I'd believe restoration only if I saw it or read about it in a reputable review. Still waiting for such a review of these SS discs for partly the same reason.


I'd only go for the Archives if the films were fully restored and on pressed disc. I can't believe WB hasn't made the transition away from DVD-R already, with all the continued complaints...

 

[mdnitoil]

Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden

So you are saying that if they released the "Censored 11" as a Warner Archive release, you would not purchase it for $20?

If it were confined to only the Censored 11, I'd give it some serious thought. Problem is, there's something like 500 unreleased Looney Tunes shorts still out there. 500 shorts, broken down to say 15 per disc, at 20 bucks a pop, on disposable media scares the hell out of me. For the moment, I'm ignoring the $5 restoration tax that the Archive seems to be adding to the price, but we can consider that icing on the cake.


Even with discounts, we're talking about a financial investment here and we still have to deal with the fact that nobody really knows just how long these discs will play. Given the DOA failure rate that's reported almost daily, I personally do not get a warm fuzzy about this.

 

[ChuckWL]

Originally Posted by Traveling Matt

 

Precisely. I'd believe restoration only if I saw it or read about it in a reputable review. Still waiting for such a review of these SS discs for partly the same reason.

 

I'd only go for the Archives if the films were fully restored and on pressed disc. I can't believe WB hasn't made the transition away from DVD-R already, with all the continued complaints...

<

That transition could be away from DVD completely and to digital downloads (maybe the new ultraviolet format that will go into testing later this year). I sure hope not.

 

[Ed Moroughan]

I was more concerned with this statement: [COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"The shorts haven't been restored on the level of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection selections, instead veering from great to middling over the course of the set. The earlier shorts tend to suffer from a lot of scratches and flecks, while the later entries (particularly the widescreen shorts) tend to look sharp and vibrant." [/COLOR]

 

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 0)]That makes me think that they did this like the Tom and Jerry sets (unrestored FF/restored WS) which is not a good idea in my opinion. Oh well.[/COLOR]

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by Ed Moroughan

I was more concerned with this statement: [COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"The shorts haven't been restored on the level of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection selections, instead veering from great to middling over the course of the set. The earlier shorts tend to suffer from a lot of scratches and flecks, while the later entries (particularly the widescreen shorts) tend to look sharp and vibrant." [/COLOR]

 

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 0)]That makes me think that they did this like the Tom and Jerry sets (unrestored FF/restored WS) which is not a good idea in my opinion. Oh well.[/COLOR]

Hmmm... I haven't gotten my copies yet, but I wonder if what he's referring to isn't cel dust and the scratches and abrasions on cels that are common in cartoon animation of this vintage. They specifically did not try to eliminate any of that in the Golden Collection restorations, as they were present when originally photographed. Still, the guy does indicate some familiarity with the GC sets, but on the other hand, I always take online DVD reviews with a gigantic grain of salt. Mine should be here in a day or so, and I'll see if what I see jibes.

 

[Traveling Matt]

Has anyone picked up these discs and had a chance to view them? I'm curious as to opinions since the web seems to carry little discussion for this new series...

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I have watched both all of the way through. Other than the cramped framing on the mid-50s shorts presented in 16:9 that I mentioned earlier, the only other thing I found problematic was that there seemed to be more compression artifacts than on the "Golden Collection" shorts. Some of the widescreen shorts looked like the mpeg noise was magnified compared to the 4:3 shorts. The effect is almost like watching 4:3 video manually zoomed and cropped to 16:9.

 

Regards,

 

[WadeM]

I tried one time to watch one or 2 of the later shorts from the Golden Collection cropped, and to my eyes, they didn't look right, so I figured WB was doing it right, despite the years on the cartoons, and the opening credits.

 

Now, I see these pictures that have been floating around from this new collection, and it's the same type of thing I saw in my own personal experiment. This is just too cramped. [Edit: there's conflicting reports out there about what Jerry Beck thinks of this]. Given these screenshots.... my eyes tell me something's not right. Jack's comments referenced earlier are more in line with what I see with my own eyes. hmmmmm interesting!

 

Too bad about the compression Ken mentions also.

 

 



 

 

[TravisD]

All this scares me for future releases too,...

Was watching "Hare to Heir" and when Bugs first shows up,...there

is a bad mechanical pan up the door to frame him.

 

Weird they have chosen this route....really weird.