DVD Review HTF Review: The Marx Brothers - Silver Screen Collection (1 Viewer)

[John Hodson]

There are two significant paragraphs in that review, and I quote: "If you have the original Image releases of these films, you might be thinking of upgrading them with this set. I wouldn’t. The image quality is only marginally better than the Image discs, and the sound is about the same. The extras are very skimpy, and I don’t think they’d be worth the money an upgrade would entail. I’ve often upgraded for better sound or image quality, but I don’t think there is much of an improvement here."

and...

"Unfortunately these film are not restored. These early Marx Brothers films deserve to be preserved, and it is a shame that Universal, who released this set, didn’t take the opportunity to do so."

The former begs a question which only owners of the Image discs can decide, but I don't think there's anyone (Universal excepted) who can put a substantive argument against the latter?

 

[Peter Svensson]

It looks like the new edition is as bad as the R2 edition. I´ll be buying that one then, cause it´s much cheaper.

 

[John Hodson]

You might be interested to know Peter, that the BBFC has just cleared for R2 UK the extras from the sixth disc of the new R1 release. Either this heralds a re-release of the set (unlikely) or it could signal a stand alone release of The Cocoanuts with those extras?

BTW, dvdbeaver has indicated that the NTSC to PAL conversion of the R2 transfers for at least a couple of those movies has lead to some ghosting; how significant this is, I couldn't really comment.

 

[Peter Svensson]

I only want Duck Soup and the R2 Universal is better than the Image release, and probably about the same as the new R1 release. I never care about extras, but thanks anyway.

 

[Tommy G]

Jason, thanks so much for the review. This is very long awaited. I will be watching these with my kids and have to recouperate from the pain I'll have in my side from laughing so hard. Great review!

 

[ArthurMy]

The argument would be if they don't have the materials to do a proper restoration - that's been said over and over again in this thread, but nobody cares. Apparently they did on Duck Soup and they did it. Why would they only do that film and not the others if they could? I don't have the answer, of course, I'm just asking the question. That reviewer does say several times that the transfers look better than the Image discs ("marginally") - better is better. You can't expect the sound to be better if the original sound recording wasn't good to begin with. I've seen these films in many revival houses from the late fifties on, and they've always sounded less than stellar. But certain folks seem bent on not upgrading or buying the set, and that's fine. But to keep stating that they're not going to buy the set seems peculiar to me, but that's just me probably.

 

[Patrick McCart]

While only Duck Soup was mentioned as a restored version in some article, it's possible Universal did the same for the other 4 films. However, restoration can only do so much if a movie has poor surviving material...

For example, the restored version of Sunrise still has lots of print damage... only because the best elements had it all printed in. Does it mean it was a bad remaster or restoration?

 

[ArthurMy]

Patrick: Exactly. They can only do what they can do and people simply either don't realize this or don't want to. Again, we don't know the story on the elements in question, but it's clear they were able to do something with Duck Soup, and I just see no reason they wouldn't have done the others at the same time if they'd been able to. And, as you say, they, in fact, may have. As I've stated before, I do remember when they finally rereleased The Coconuts to the revival houses, there was quite a bit of talk about how the negative was either lost or damged beyond repair and how they'd created a new negative using the best prints and footage they could find.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I received the boxset today, so this weekend I'll be comparing the dvd presentations to their Image counterparts.




Crawdaddy

 

[John Hodson]

All this is conjecture; neither of us - none of us - actually know whether Universal did the very best that is achieveable with the materials they hold and the current technology available to them. What is obvious is that people here have different definitions of what is acceptable and what is not; I have no problems at all with with.

However, my hackles rise when I'm told that, simply because our opinions differ, I must be either ignorant or stubborn...

 

[Robert Crawford]

To be honest, I think all of us have varying degrees of both, when it comes to actual knowledge about most of these films and their elements.







Crawdaddy

 

[John Hodson]

Exactly my point.

 

[ArthurMy]

"However, my hackles rise when I'm told that, simply because our opinions differ, I must be either ignorant or stubborn..."

I don't think anyone here has said anyone is "ignorant". We're all just stating our opinions, which is all we can do. The bottom line? Buy it or not. Some people will be thrilled with it, some won't. Some won't see the need to upgrade, some will. And the world goes round.

Robert, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts come Monday.

 

[John Hodson]

I suggest you return to what you said in your previous post & then look up the word 'ignorant' in your Websters Arthur; however, I'm done with this now - I'm afraid we appear to be going around in ever decreasing and unprofitable circles.

 

[ArthurMy]

I know the meaning of the word "ignorant", John, and I reread my post, which was not directed at you personally, and there wasn't anything in it to find offensive unless someone was intent on finding something offensive. I went out of my way (and have continually gone out of my way in this thread) to make certain I have posted nothing that could be deemed offensive in any way, shape, or form.

I, too, am through, I've made my points, as have others, and I look forward to hearing more thoughts and impressions on these DVDs.

 

[Randy A Salas]

What's funny (odd, strange, sad?) is the people who have never seen the new set and yet have made up their minds about its audio and video quality. If this thread follows the usual cycle of others like it (and I'm lumping in the other Marx Brothers thread that began so indignantly about rumored edits on the new discs that never existed), there will be a round of postings starting over the weekend and into next week--as people start to get their hands on the set--saying that, "Hey, its quality isn't that bad after all," and maybe even, "It's better than I expected." Then the cycle will be repeated in another thread about another anticipated release.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Randy makes a valid point.

Why don't all of you wait till you have the set
in your hands before you throw out these insulting
remarks.

...speaking of which, I am asking that you guys be
polite to each other.

 

[Terry H]

I give thanks for an honest review and keep my money in my pocket.
If the reviews had said "it is a restoration on par with the likes of Citizen Kane and The Adventures of Robin Hood I would have happily purchased it, sight unseen I might add, and you would not have found that "funny (odd, strange, sad?)". Now would you?

 

[Robert Crawford]

You disagree, but you still haven't even seen the new set.

 

[Terry H]

That is really all I need to know. I'm familiar with the Image discs and a marginal improvement isn't nearly good enough to sell me. I was hoping for much better and I won't settle. If that means I'll never own these films, so be it.