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

[Joe Karlosi]

Thanks for the link, but I still can't find where on the site the cover is displayed.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Its on the left hand side of the page, really hard to miss.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Now , if only we could get a shot of the backcover, to see if volume 1 has extras !

 

[Jack Cleveland]

It is? I've looked at it 4 times and I am scrolling SLOWLY and Ionly see a picture of Shemp! Pray tell, what am I doing wrong? Neat site btw...

 

[Matthew H]

The very reliable "stooges and confoosed" from the ThreeStooges.net got us a high-res shot...

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/7/74/htf_imgcache_12134.jpeg] [/url]

Now, my problem is that the picture Columbia is using is from the former public domain title SWING PARADE OF 1946.. now it seems that Warner owns it when Turner acquired it back in the late 90s.. so seems kind of foolish to first use a photo that doesn't belong to any of the shorts your company put out and second not even from a year the set is from! Also, if you look closely on the side, a shot from "A Bird In the Head" is in there and as all Stoogephiles know that was a much later short after Curly's health deteriorated. It really looks like Sony threw it together in 5 minutes after they've spent YEARS restoring the prints! I really hope they change it.. it looks like some cheap-ass Goodtimes title.

 

[PaulP]

That looks horribly Photoshopped.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

It's not that it's unappealing to me, just that it's a later photo. It really makes me feel that, once again, whoever is in charge doesn't know his Stooges. Also - not that it's that big a deal, but it doesn't say "Volume 1" either. For those not in the know, it might be helpful for them to realize this is not just another "fly by night" or "public domain" offshoot -- that it's Sony now actively putting the whole series out "definitively". If I wasn't aware I myself might at a glance think this was just another run of the mill collection.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

That CAN'T be the final artwork.

Even Sony wouldn't release that thing to shelves. Not if they expect to make money from it.

It is completely indistinguishable and hardly stands out. Worse, it looks like a budget label public domain box. Not exactly screaming for positive marketing sales with this one...

I'm certain that cannot be final, because really, who in their right mind would give the pass to that thing?

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Even though I dont like the cover art,ill still buy this.For the cover art I cant resist ,ill quote shemp,"what a hideous monstrous face, oh !!!!!!!!!!

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Obviously I'll still buy this as well... I'm just saying that this does not look like a professional product and I expect that unless a strong marketing campaign is set to promote this release (which judging by the proximity of the release date and what we've seen so far, doesn't appear to be the case) I expect that it will affect sales.

When a Warner Bros. box set is seen on shelf for instance, there is no mistaking the product or passing it by. This is not even "bold" in the usual gawdy photoshop way. It's just plain and indiscreet and cheap looking, which is a poor reflection (I hope!) of the product within.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Can I say something without repercussions? I hope so.

I'm somewhat saddened reading these complaints about the cover (which seems perfectly fine to me.)

I mean, we've bawled Sony out for years for releasing those over-priced, unrestored sets with five or six shorts on them (sometimes repeating ones that were already released) -- and then releasing colorized sets, of all the silly things -- and begged them to release all the shorts, restored, in chronological order --

And they finally start doing it --

And now we're going to complain about the cover, of all things? Which as I said, and I'll say it again, seems perfectly fine to me, anyway.

To quote the great Curly, "It's ingratitude, that's what it is!"

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Guys,

Not being familiar with the Stooges shorts, do these years
represent the best stuff they have done?

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

I never "complained" per say -- I just think the design looks very 'public domain' and uderstated to say the least. I want sales for this release to be as high as possible.

Despite Sony's hesitance over the years to do the Stooges right, I was never once doubtful of such a set's potential. The demand is huge and extends well beyond the internet and these forums. Everyone instantly recognizes these guys.

All I was saying is that from a purely promotional and marketing point, the design of this set is horrible. It looks like something that a budget company might've put out five or six years ago that got buried on retail shelves and now moved to the front sales rack. That's just my observation.

Do I care one way or the other?

No, not really.

However if you look at even Fox's third-rate Laurel & Hardy films, they are packaged in a way that's not only more appealing, but more distinguishable as to the product as well. I'm not even a fan of those later films, but I picked up both sets and will admit that seeing the box on shelf in the new release section was partly responsible for pulling me in.

Now if you look at this design, you could hardly say that will have the same affect on most people... am I wrong?

It's not about complaining because as I said earlier, I'm rather impartial one way or another. I just want sales to be as strong as possible and I think something more distinguishing could've been in order.

Anyways, enough about the packaging -- let's talk about the films!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Joe, I think the question is more fittingly "can't we complain about the cover without repercussions?".

I can't tell you how thrilled I am to be geting these shorts done the right way... I just never understand why people are not allowed to also voice their displeasure (aesthetically speaking) with the cover or packaging of a DVD release. It's not like we fans are NOT going to buy the product. But I think we should be able to voice our opinions of both the pros as well as the cons.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

As a big fan, these personally are my least favorites because they're kind of played out to me. But yes, these are definitely considered the "cream of the crop" to most people, and most feel you can't go wrong with the Curly shorts (especially the 30s ones). Me? I would be happy to zoom ahead to Shemp and Joe and get the Curlys later!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

This is me correcting myself... on the small cover photo listed in post #25, it does not say "Volume One" -- but on the same cover as linked by Laurence Garvey, is IS listed. That's odd.

 

[jhro]

I actually like that cover-art, i hope the final product says Volume 1 instead of the picture where its missing. Besides for a retail price of $24.96 ($17.50 from Amazon.com) what could they have done differently?

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Different Stoogeophiles have different opinions.

Since I'm a Curly fan, these years are not my favorites, because Curly hasn't fully become Curly yet. I think Curly hit his peak years in the early 40s.

Now, other Stooge fans don't like the years I like because they think those films focus on Curly too much and give Moe and Larry too little to do.

The first years had somewhat bigger budgets and somewhat more elaborate story lines, such as they are.

But your hardcore Stooge fans might prefer one of the cheaper shorts done during the Shemp years which have little story and just show the Stooges doing Stoogey things.

Ironically, I don't like violent movies, but I must say there's something surrealistic, bizarre and fascinating in some of the later shorts when, just to fill up two minutes of film in the cheapest way possible, we see Moe hit Larry on the head with a shovel from the fireplace about 20 times, until Larry finally passes out. For scenes like that, some people can't wait until the 1951-52 volume comes along.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Well, I'll tell ya: If we were sitting around over a few beers discussing these things, yes, absolutely. But right out here in the open for everyone, including Sony, to see?

I wouldn't blame them if they said, "You just can't please those guys," and they'd avoid ever asking the hardcore fans for their opinion on anything.

Complaining about the cover reminds me of that public service spot that ran years ago where a little girl tells her mother she did the dishes, and all the mother can say is, "Did you clean out the sink?" Even you must agree with me that there's just too much nit-picking and negativity on the Internet. (On another message board you didn't take too kindly to my nit-picking, you might recall.)

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Depends on the circumstances and the release in question (Sony has a track record of royally screwing up their Stooges DVDs). You're not referring to the fact that you had a lot of problems with you nitpicking on the "plot" and "realism" of the movie THE BLACK CAT (1934), are you? If so, that's completely different from discussing what features of a DVD release we give pluses and minuses to; discussing an actual film is something else.