Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Tom and Jerry: Spotlight Collection, Vol. 3; September 11, 2007


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
15 replies to this topic

#1 of 16 OFFLINE   dana martin

dana martin

    Screenwriter



  • 1,984 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted July 12 2007 - 02:19 AM

Before someone starts complaining that this needs to be in the TV section, it doesn’t. I was on a different forum, where they were discussing the upcoming T&J spotlight collection Vol 3, and found the trailer. Here is the problem. I love what WB is doing for classic animation. The LTGC collections are great, the work that was done on the Fleischer Superman’s on the UE was superior to anything before. The Popeye Collection Volume 1, wonderful job.
Here is the problem, the online trailer says 35 cartoons, that number is wrong is they are finishing the HB ones. Problem #2 this set is taken care of by the TV division, not the theatrical division and I think it is being seriously overlooked, I just wish that WB would be willing to put the same effort in to the animated gems that they have from MGM that they are willing to do to their other sets. Is it asking to much for us animated fans, I know that they did the replacement program, because I have my replacement disk. And I thank them for the Droopy set. What is disheartening is that, the MGM cartoons are still somewhat left to their own devices. If this next Vol. does not sale well, then we possibly won’t get to see the remaining T&J theatricals. Along with that we possibly will never get to see Barney Bear or Screwy Squirrel, and that is a shame, I truly hope these set sales well so that they are more willing to dip in to the MGM toons. Hopefully others feel the same as me. and want more MGM toons treated with the same care as the other toons the WB is releasing.
Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision

#2 of 16 OFFLINE   ChrisPearson

ChrisPearson

    Second Unit



  • 287 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 19 2004

Posted July 12 2007 - 02:52 AM

Although I'm a classic cartoons fan, I shan't be buying this set. WB's TV division have proved again and again that they are incapable of doing a good job with theatrical cartoons. Even the much-praised Droopy set was blighted by unrestored cartoons and DVNR.

It doesn't make sense that George Feltentein's division should handle all Warner's theatrical cartoons *except* the MGMs. Warner should scrap these benighted spotlight collections, hand the films over to George Feltenstein's team and issue three new sets: one of the complete Tom and Jerry, one of the complete MGM Tex Avery, and one of the remaining shorts (including the Happy Harmonies and Barney Bears).

Alternatively, they could take a leaf out of Universal's book (never thought I'd say that) and issue, along with a complete MGM Tex Avery, a series of "Tom and Jerry and Friends" discs, comprising, say, two discs of T&J and two discs of one-shots, eventually releasing everything. All the cartoons should be restored to the same standard as the Popeye and Looney Tunes sets.

There's surely no reason why this shouldn't happen. If the Popeye and LTGCs can justify the lavish treatment, the MGM cartoons can too.

#3 of 16 OFFLINE   dana martin

dana martin

    Screenwriter



  • 1,984 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted July 12 2007 - 03:04 AM

Chris
I whole heartedly agree, actually I have stated this in different threads but I honestly whish that they had done something more along the lines of the GC on the MGM toons, restored to the best possibly that they could. And I agree that it’s funny that we are praising Universal, but at least they are (from appearances) trying.
Let’s not even get in the fact that other studios are not doing a thing with the classic animation they have.
Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision

#4 of 16 OFFLINE   Mark Zimmer

Mark Zimmer

    Producer



  • 4,269 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted July 12 2007 - 09:27 AM

Yeah, the people handling the cartoons need to be given a stern talking to about DVNR and censorship and why no one buying these DVDs wants either of those afflicting their discs.

Or just fire them all outright.

#5 of 16 OFFLINE   dana martin

dana martin

    Screenwriter



  • 1,984 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted July 13 2007 - 12:19 AM

You know after reading this, I started thinking; there is other MGM short subjects that WB owns that we haven’t had a peep out of. I know that sometime the Bowery Boys big assed box set is coming, great for the Allied Artist pictures. But doesn’t Turner/WB own the rights to the MGM Our Gang / Little Rascals? Why has there never been an official studio release of these yet? Let me guess, it won’t sale, or it is now handled by the TV division. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the TV division mind you. I love what they do as well. But as so many of us know these are films, even though TV is where most of us know these from. And I know I might be a little too hopeful but when Sony, is planning on actually doing the Stooges right. I think these kids need to be seen in a better light as well.
Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision

#6 of 16 OFFLINE   Corey3rd

Corey3rd

    Screenwriter



  • 1,721 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2007

Posted July 13 2007 - 02:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dana martin
You know after reading this, I started thinking; there is other MGM short subjects that WB owns that we haven’t had a peep out of. I know that sometime the Bowery Boys big assed box set is coming, great for the Allied Artist pictures. But doesn’t Turner/WB own the rights to the MGM Our Gang / Little Rascals? Why has there never been an official studio release of these yet? Let me guess, it won’t sale, or it is now handled by the TV division. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the TV division mind you. I love what they do as well. But as so many of us know these are films, even though TV is where most of us know these from. And I know I might be a little too hopeful but when Sony, is planning on actually doing the Stooges right. I think these kids need to be seen in a better light as well.

Warners does not own Our Gang/Little Rascals although they've been included a few titles as bonus features. they are controlled by Lionsgate. There are three DVDs out that are official. Hopefully they put out the remaining 50 or so titles.
come see the reviews at
http://thedvdlounge.com/

and the Seinfeld Tour Bus

#7 of 16 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter



  • 2,054 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted July 13 2007 - 03:35 AM

Hal Roach sold "Our Gang" to MGM, in 1938 I believe, and MGM started making their own episodes. So the later ones are still owned by MGM. Unfortunately, those are the ones few people want to see -- the ones with Froggy Posted Image, Mickey Posted ImagePosted Image and Janet Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image.

#8 of 16 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,480 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted July 13 2007 - 04:03 AM

They really should just start off 4-disc sets for the MGM cartoons, styled after the LT:GC sets. The cartoons would fit neatly onto six chronological 4-disc sets (from what I can find, there's 362 in all).

#9 of 16 OFFLINE   dana martin

dana martin

    Screenwriter



  • 1,984 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted July 13 2007 - 05:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
They really should just start off 4-disc sets for the MGM cartoons, styled after the LT:GC sets. The cartoons would fit neatly onto six chronological 4-disc sets (from what I can find, there's 362 in all).

I agree !!!!!!!


Now on to the Rascals, Loinsgate isn’t the only one, Turner owns the MGM ones, after Roach sold the rights to MGM, including the feature Film General Spanky, if half of what is on WIKIPEDA is right. One of the problems that I see with this release is the same thing that haunts so many other releases from that era, in other words racial stereotyping. If this was ever done with the original titles, and all of the edited content returned it would have to be geared to the adult collector. They are a product of there time much like SOTS is but it should still be presented the correct way.
Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision

#10 of 16 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter



  • 2,054 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted July 13 2007 - 11:18 AM

The Roach "Our Gang" shorts are not just racist ... they're incredibly racist. Roach was also a major anti-Semite. (He actually met with Hitler prior to World War II, or so they say.)

That's why he didn't get an honorary Oscar until he was 100 ... and that's why, when he made his acceptance speech (from the audience) the sound "accidentally on purpose" got cut off.

Even so, they're a part of film history, and all the Roach "Our Gangs" should be released on DVDs in their entirety.

#11 of 16 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,480 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted July 13 2007 - 01:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
The Roach "Our Gang" shorts are not just racist ... they're incredibly racist. Roach was also a major anti-Semite. (He actually met with Hitler prior to World War II, or so they say.)

That's why he didn't get an honorary Oscar until he was 100 ... and that's why, when he made his acceptance speech (from the audience) the sound "accidentally on purpose" got cut off.

Even so, they're a part of film history, and all the Roach "Our Gangs" should be released on DVDs in their entirety.

Proof? Wikipedia doesn't have anything on this, but the IMDB says he attempted a film partnership with Mussolini and Cinecitta in the 1930s. It's sort of funny that he kept an autographed portrait of Il Duce in his home, though. If I recall, Lex Luthor has a portrait of Mussolini on his piano in the '78 Superman. Posted Image

I think these shorts have racially insensitive material, but not racist material. From what I've seen, while it's not entirely politically correct (nor is anything not reflecting the last 5 years of social attitudes), it's not like it's stuff from The Birth of a Nation. There's a Bugs Bunny cartoon that makes fun of Scots, but it's just silly stereotyping - not racist.

#12 of 16 OFFLINE   Corey3rd

Corey3rd

    Screenwriter



  • 1,721 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2007

Posted July 13 2007 - 02:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
They really should just start off 4-disc sets for the MGM cartoons, styled after the LT:GC sets. The cartoons would fit neatly onto six chronological 4-disc sets (from what I can find, there's 362 in all).

It is the Hal Roach produced titles that Lionsgate controls from a Blackhawk-Republic-Cabin Fever-Hallmark buy up trail.

There's only 220 that were made under the Our Gang title. And of that 88 are silent. I don't know too much about marketing, but offering people a boxset of silent films featuring shorts that were never syndicated to TV isn't going to go over that well. That's a one and done.

Lionsgate just needs to finish out the 80 titles. And figure out a way to promote them so people know they exist and aren't part of the PD market.
Warner Home Video needs to put together the 50 or so titles they control (which does include Spanky and Alfalfa titles).

Hal Roach got his Oscar when he was 92 in 1984. He was in the audience when he was 100. If Hal was such a major Hitler fan, why would the army put him in charge of making their instructional films?

Also Hal claimed 2 Oscars for his short films so it wasn't like he was denied the honor for all those decades.
come see the reviews at
http://thedvdlounge.com/

and the Seinfeld Tour Bus

#13 of 16 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,463 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted July 13 2007 - 03:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey3rd
If Hal was such a major Hitler fan, why would the army put him in charge of making their instructional films?
I don't want to take this discussion down a forbidden path but he may (and that is the keyword) have agreed with certain views that Hitler held before the Nazis became such an obvious threat to the world.

#14 of 16 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter



  • 2,054 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted July 13 2007 - 03:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
Proof? Wikipedia doesn't have anything on this

I'm sure you know that Wikipedia isn't the world's most reliable source. Of course, neither am I nor anyone else, but I think I read in a book on Laurel and Hardy that Roach or his rep. met with Hitler. Of course, that doesn't mean it's true, and it probably isn't.

Quote:
I think these shorts have racially insensitive material, but not racist material.

I would like to present to the court the following evidence:

Wheezer mentions Stymie, and Wheezer's father says, "You mean the little pickaninny?"

Woman to Symie: Is your father the chauffeur here?
Stymie: No, m'am, my pappy's nothin' but a crap-shootin' fool!

While baking a cake, the gang gets sweaty. The white boy wipes his forehead. Stymie wipes his forehead, and there's a shot of the wall getting splattered with black paint.

Spanky, wishing on a lamp: I wish Cotton was a monkey!
Stymie: Hey, watch what you're wishin' for! Dat's my little brother!
Spanky: Oh, all he needs is a tail!

I rest my case.

#15 of 16 OFFLINE   DaveK

DaveK

    Second Unit



  • 252 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 2004

Posted July 13 2007 - 06:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I would like to present to the court the following evidence:

Wheezer mentions Stymie, and Wheezer's father says, "You mean the little pickaninny?"

Woman to Symie: Is your father the chauffeur here?
Stymie: No, m'am, my father's nothin' but a crap-shootin' fool!

While baking a cake, the gang gets sweaty. The white boy wipes his forehead. Stymie wipes his forehead, and there's a shot of the wall getting splattered with black paint.

Spanky, wishing on a lamp: I wish Cotton was a monkey!
Stymie: Hey, watch what you're wishin' for! Dat's my little brother!
Spanky: Oh, all he needs is a tail!

I rest my case.

OMG!!!!

#16 of 16 OFFLINE   dana martin

dana martin

    Screenwriter



  • 1,984 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted July 16 2007 - 03:37 AM

For that very reason alone, I can see why it is so hard to get a full official release, of the little rascals; it could not be marketed towards children, which always seems the case, when you see the packaging. Most parents would see it as a homogenized Disneyesque type of thing.

So my question is how well does Volume 3 of Tom and Jerry have to sale to get the remaining cartoons?
Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow