THE BOWERY BOYS on DVD: continuing discussion of Warner's eventual release plans (NEW UPDATE 10/2 Po (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Joe,
Not a problem. I understand there have been bootlegs out there
and most certainly representative of the demand for an official release.
I also agree that we were essentially promised these titles two years
ago after a demand already existed. Now to wait another 2 years?!
I think Warner has already made a fair proposal about releasing
these titles immediately at a budget price that represents the overall
presentation quality of these titles. Most of you that have seen the
TV airings feel that the prints look darn good. If Warner is so concerned
about putting out something that they feel is substandard then I would
propose a comment be placed on the packaging or content itself prior to
the film regarding the fact that the transfer represents the best elements
currently available to the studio.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Joe,
Not a problem. I understand there have been bootlegs out there
and most certainly representative of the demand for an official release.
I also agree that we were essentially promised these titles two years
ago after a demand already existed. Now to wait another 2 years?!
I think Warner has already made a fair proposal about releasing
these titles immediately at a budget price that represents the overall
presentation quality of these titles. Most of you that have seen the
TV airings feel that the prints look darn good. If Warner is so concerned
about putting out something that they feel is substandard then I would
propose a comment be placed on the packaging or content itself prior to
the film regarding the fact that the transfer represents the best elements
currently available to the studio.

I voted Chronological because I believe this is one series that needs to be released that way to see the change in supporting characters and the change in tone of the series. Also I would be afraid of a Best of stopping at one volume and everyone has a different opinion on what the best films are.
At the same time if Mr. Hex is the only title holding up the release then I vote release them now in chronological order and skip Mr. Hex.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Also I would be afraid of a Best of stopping at one volume and everyone has a different opinion on what the best films are.

Y'see, Randy, I would agree with you but I wonder if this is literally what Warner is proposing when they say "Best Of" sets? I am hoping they don't literally mean issuing one 'highlights' set with what they may consider to be "best" films, and then saying a long goodnight to the series.... but I'm thinking that, by "Best Of", this merely means presenting multiple sets of an assortment of films in random orders, with many more to come as the series progresses (volumes 1,2,3,4,5, etc...).

 

[Randy Korstick]

Y'see, Randy, I would agree with you but I wonder if this is literally what Warner is proposing when they say "Best Of" sets? I am hoping they don't literally mean issuing one 'highlights' set with what they may consider to be "best" films, and then saying a long goodnight to the series.... but I'm thinking that, by "Best Of", this merely means presenting multiple sets of an assortment of films in random orders, with many more to come as the series progresses (volumes 1,2,3,4,5, etc...).

But they wanted to do chronological sets from the begining and Mr. Hex is apparently the hold up so why not just release them chronological and skip Mr. Hex instead of doing them all mixed up just because of one film. That doesn't make much sense and still makes me think it will be a one set and then wait for better masters for the "real sets" deal.
Also as someone else pointed out I think a bigger problem with mixed sets would be seeing a young slip and sach playing a ganster film, then seeing a much older slip and sach acting goofy and like little kids and then seeing a film and Slip is suddenly gone and replaced by Stanley Clemens and then going back to a young slip and sach in a ganster film. Thats a bit jarring and bound to happen in more than one set if they did them all in a best of release. This series really needs a chronological release for many reasons.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Don't you think the majority of the people buying these are going to know that the 'boys' age will be different from the early to late films? It's not like this is going to be a mainstream release that people aren't going to understand.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Quote:

I think chronological is the most "ideal" choice, but I still have no problem watching a 1954 "comedy" like BOWERY BOYS MEET THE MONSTERS and then settling in to a more dramatically-toned flick from 1949, like FIGHTING FOOLS. I also think we've all gotten spoiled with so many boxed sets that we tend to always "need" to watch every film series in chronological order. But while it's always the best choice, I still don't feel it's necessary with The Bowery Boys.
And come to think of it -- watching this series even chronologically, the Bowery Boys films still tend to go from comedy to drama and back to comedy again! You go from a comedy like SPOOK BUSTERS (1946) to something more dramatic like ANGELS IN DISGUISE (1949)! So I guess there is variety even in strict order of release. Either way, when catching these on TV growing up, it never mattered. You can always still choose to watch all of them on DVD how you like.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Don't you think the majority of the people buying these are going to know that the 'boys' age will be different from the early to late films? It's not like this is going to be a mainstream release that people aren't going to understand.

And actually, it's not that extreme a difference between 1946 and 1956.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'm curious about something:

Would you want the post 8/53 titles in their original theatrical widescreen ratio of 1.85, or would you prefer to see them full frame just as you've seen them on television for all these years?

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm not sure if you're talking to me Bob but I want them in widescreen.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm curious about something:
Would you want the post 8/53 titles in their original theatrical widescreen ratio of 1.85, or would you prefer to see them full frame just as you've seen them on television for all these years?

I don't know if you're talking to me either (I suspect you are; your post came right after mine). In a perfect world, sure - put the ones from 1953 onward in 1.85 if they were shot with that ratio in mind. I think that from a few past discussions we've had, Bob, you're under the impression that I'm against it -- but I'm only against fake matting just for the sake of 16x9 TV owners. I am a supporter of "proper OAR", and definitely when it comes to Cinemascope or other 2.35:1 processes.
Now, having said all of this, I must admit that if Warner decided to release the later Bowery Boys movies in 1.33 for whatever their reasons, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it in this case, no.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My question was not directed at any one in particular. I was curious how other members of the board felt about it. I would most certainly want them in all their widescreen glory!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Don't you think the majority of the people buying these are going to know that the 'boys' age will be different from the early to late films? It's not like this is going to be a mainstream release that people aren't going to understand.

They will know the difference which is why it's a problem for me. I am not a big fan of The Bowery Boys films starring Stanley Clements. I prefer the earlier ones and if I can buy them without buying the later ones that would be my preference.

 

[Robert Crawford]

My question was not directed at any one in particular. I was curious how other members of the board felt about it. I would most certainly want them in all their widescreen glory!

This is a pro-OAR site and we try to discourage those that think otherwise.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I agree Robert, but I can recall when some would dismiss these films as "un-important" and not deserving of OAR treatment.

I remember one discussion when I pointed out that ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE KEYSTONE KOPS should be 1.85, and how the full-frame version showed things which were not meant to be seen - such as a trampoline during a gag in a cattle car. (Somebody listed that as a "blooper" in the film!)

My pro-OAR argument was dismissed on the basis of the film not being important enough for the aspect ratio to matter.

I'm just hoping the Bowery Boys widescreen titles don't get the same dismissive treatment.

 

[Michael Elliott]

They will know the difference which is why it's a problem for me. I am not a big fan of The Bowery Boys films starring Stanley Clements. I prefer the earlier ones and if I can buy them without buying the later ones that would be my preference.

I see what you're saying. I would guess Warner would release those "late" films for the last set if they are going to release "Best Of" sets. I can't imagine anyone wanting Clements over the real boys.

 

[Randy Korstick]

boys.

I don't think so. The history of Best Of's has always been to include what people want the most and throw in a few that they don't in order to be able sell what won't sell as well on its own. I can't imagine a Best of Set with only Clemens films.
Joe
I also wonder if Mr. Hex is the only problem film. From viewing them on TV I would think it would be somewhere between 6- 8 unless they have located better prints for some of them recently. But I would vote chronological and skip as many as they need to and then go back and release the better prints later.

 

[Michael Elliott]

It depends on what Warner has planned and none of us really know. Fox didn't release the Chan's in order but at the same time they didn't throw in the Toler films just because they wouldn't sell as well as the Oland.

If Warner released a box set of ten films, two on each disc, then one or two of the Clemens titles wouldn't hurt the fact that we are getting eight others. Again, I doubt Warner would do a 50/50 on the two sides as they know what would sell.

If they released them in order then who's to say they wouldn't stop when Clemens entered since they might think they won't sell? It might be best that they release them out of order with one or two of the lesser titles thrown in with the more requested ones.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't think so. The history of Best Of's has always been to include what people want the most and throw in a few that they don't in order to be able sell what won't sell as well on its own. I can't imagine a Best of Set with only Clemens films.
Joe
I also wonder if Mr. Hex is the only problem film. From viewing them on TV I would think it would be somewhere between 6- 8 unless they have located better prints for some of them recently. But I would vote chronological and skip as many as they need to and then go back and release the better prints later.

Which is why I don't want "Best of" releases. I want the titles released in chronological order. Off the top of my head, I think there were 48 "Bowery Boys" films made. You can start with Volume One with "In Fast Company" or "Live Wires", whichever of those two titles is the first "Bowery Boys" film along with the next 5-11 films made in order. Each volume will contain 6-12 films until you exhaust all 48 films in chronological order.
If I had my way, I would start with the "Dead End Kids" then the "East Side Kids" followed by the "Bowery Boys" which of course, would be a lot more than 48 "Bowery Boys" films, but that's my perfect world for those films. It probably won't happen due to circumstances, but you get my drift.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I just noticed that on the 24th TCM is showing two "Dead End Kids" films as part of their day of Ronald Reagan films.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Quote:

I get your drift, but those often-PD-dupey-Eastside Kids films are even harder to locate in pristine elements than when they officially became "The Bowery Boys" in 1946!