Best of Route 66 - Page 8

Bob Hug · 11-02-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Dearborn

But really it's such a great series that other than the cut episode, I'm not that annoyed. Yeah, maybe it could have looked better but after 40 plus years of watching 16mm prints on television and in my collection, I really wasn't bothered to be honest. Not every show is going to look like the Paramount releases and I'm okay with that.

Hank, you took the words right out of my mouth regarding this release . . . . yeah, maybe it could have been better but, truthfully, it doesn't look all that bad for the most part. And I absolutely have to agree with you about the Paramount reference. We've become so spoiled by their incredibly clean and crisp looking releases ("The Untouchables," "The Fugitive," and others), that anything that doesn't measure up to their standard is going to suffer by comparison; admittedly, Paramount has set the bar pretty high.

michael_ks · 11-02-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

We've become so spoiled by their incredibly clean and crisp looking releases ("The Untouchables," "The Fugitive," and others), that anything that doesn't measure up to their standard is going to suffer by comparison; admittedly, Paramount has set the bar pretty high.

It's funny in that after watching shows like "Naked City", VTTBOTS S1, "Wild Wild West" S1 and so on that I'll go back to "The Rifleman" and the hour shows for "Danger Man" and the first thing that enters my mind is how soft and blemished the image appears to be. And yet when I was just starting the hobby of collecting old shows on DVD I'd think "Wow, do these shows ever look nice".

Still, it's a bit odd that Roxbury talks up the "restoration work" that went into "Route 66" and Image Entertainment, to my knowledge never stated ANYTHING on their releases for "Naked City" about the prints--and yet the 60 episodes released all rate a 10 in my book for transfer quality.

Bob Hug · 11-02-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_ks

Still, it's a bit odd that Roxbury talks up the "restoration work" that went into "Route 66" and Image Entertainment, to my knowledge never stated ANYTHING on their releases for "Naked City" about the prints--and yet the 60 episodes released all rate a 10 in my book for transfer quality.

Michael, there's no question that I would have preferred to see Image handle "Route 66." It would have been a natural series for them to do coming on the heels of "Naked City," and I do believe that they would have handled the audio/visuals a bit better than Roxbury/Infinity has. And watching and evaluating it is very definitely relative to the other shows that you have in your DVD collection. Compared to the shows that you mentioned in your post, no question . . . "Route 66" suffers by comparison. But I have many 1950s public domain television episodes in my collection and the worst looking episodes on "Route 66" are miles better than things like "Mr. & Mrs. North," "Ramar of the Jungle," "The Adventures of Sir Lancelot," and others. As the old saying goes . . . . "It's all relative."

jdee28 · 11-03-2007, 01:41 PM

The picture quality has impacted my enjoyment of the series. I have never seen these episodes before and was ready to devour it. I stopped about 15 minutes into episode 2, tired of trying to make out the poor audio, with the poor visuals compacting my frustration. It really damped my enthusiasm for watching; I'll get through the set, someday.

Doug^Ch · 11-05-2007, 06:24 AM

I have to say, as much as I don't want to, and I'm far from a videophile, that the video quality of this set is just awful. So Jdee28 I have to really agree with you on your statement that the picture quality of the set is really impacting your enjoyment of the set. It is criminal that Roxbury put this little effort into what should have been one of the best releases of the year. I just finished watching the first 30 episodes of Suspense a show that is almost 60 years old and saved on Kinescope, and I think the VQ was better on that set than on Route 66. I just finished the 11th episode of 66, and what should have been a very enjoyable experience is a struggle for me as well. We can only hope that possibly the sets will improve with future releases. It's just a shame!

Hollywoodaholic · 11-09-2007, 10:44 AM

I've been following this thread off and on for the past few months in anticipation of the release of this series and the quality of the presentation. Now it's here and, well ...

Bummer.

It's my understanding the show was originally shot in 16mm, so how much could we have expected for great picture quality? (from these posts, a lot, it seems). But at least we have great Stirling Silliphant scripts, and a terrific glimpse into the landscape and culture of America, circa 1960-64.

And wait until you get to the Julie Newmar episodes; the premise alone was worth another series: Rich girl travels around America on her motor scooter stirring up trouble while a sad sack private detective hired by her family follows behind her secretly pining for her and cleaning those messes up.

So hurry up, clean up some messes of your own, Roxbury (remaster!), and keep these volumes coming because the writer's strike is on and there won't be anything worth watching on regular broadcast television for a long stretch of road.

michael_ks · 11-09-2007, 11:10 AM

Welcome to the forum, Wayne. I gather by your post here and on the "Man From U.N.C.L.E. thread that you are an afficianado of vintage television, which is great as we can always use another member in the "club". The guys that post here on threads like "Route 66", "Rawhide" and "The Fugitive" are great and I've not only learned alot about shows from them but they've also considerably aided my purchasing decisions over the past two years.

I share your disappointment with "Route 66"--I was the one to break the news on this thread. Next to "The Fugitive" this was my most anticipated release of the year and I was always hyping this show up to my wife in the weeks leading up to the release. When she saw how "ruddy" most of the episodes looked coupled with substandard audio, she decided to pass on viewing it with me big time. That having been said, the series itself is exceptional in its dramatic writing, mainly due to (as you stated) the wonderful talents of Stirling Silliphant, a writer who didn't receive his just due as he was somewhat overshadowed by Rod Serling, who peaked in the same period.

By the way, in checking IMDB.com, my impression is that the series was indeed shot on 35mm originally.

Hollywoodaholic · 11-09-2007, 01:08 PM

Thanks, Michael.

I'm not a technical type - I have relied on the other experts in this forum for those evaluations and information, and I just learned the hard way (a disappeared post) that you don't mention unmentionable versions of releases. But I have a passion for the shows I grew up on that featured great writing (Rod Serling inspired my career choice), many of which are on your list and others, and it is very cool to see these shows revived in both product and discussion.

And I ran into George Maharis at a restaurant in Santa Monica one night while the show was re-running on Nick at Nite and I was totally getting into it again. What a great opportunity. We talked about all the great character actresses featured on the show, those great boozy broads. And I told him "you must have been on top of the world traveling around the country making that show." He was pretty vain and very proud of how he had help up at 59 at the time (around 1985). I asked him how old he was when he did the show and he said, "25." But of course the math didn't add up. That must have been the studio line at the time, "you're 25." He had to be 35, which makes sense because everyone in Hollywood always plays 10 years younger. Standard procedure. I just thought it was a funny twist for a Hollywood actor to tell the truth about their current age, but rely on the studio bio to remember their former one. (And, particularly when it comes to actor ages, don't always believe the IMDB info.)

Gary OS · 11-09-2007, 03:44 PM

Welcome to the boards, Wayne. Us vintage tv lovers are few and far between, but there's a great group that frequents this site. Very knowledgeable and friendly bunch of guys.

Gary "still bummed about the quality, but there's just no way to pass on this series" O.

Hollywoodaholic · 11-10-2007, 12:23 PM

Thanks, Gary, it's nice to see an actually friendly forum of posts. I'm quite shocked (particularly on news or political posts) how viscious, mean-spi