Me too. Surely it wouldn't kill Warner to include these? It's common knowledge that most commentaries are done by the commentators for free, and the music and effects tracks for most of the post-48 shorts are readily available. Another example of Warner treating DVD as a shiny round video...
I'd like to add my interest to these. If Sony needs a marketing angle, perhaps they could be bundled together a la Universal's Woody Woodpecker and Friends sets as Mr Magoo and Friends (10 Magoos per disc, plus 15 or so others).
At the beginning of the year, Warner said its non-Archive release programme would be "full-steam ahead" and it wasn't. Now George Feltenstein promises a "very robust schedule" for regular DVD even though it's now November and nothing has been announced. I may be "myopic" (literally, as it...
My comment was not about the economics behind Warner's pricing decision but the inability of some posters here to understand that some of us might be discouraged by it.
I'm finding the reaction of some to the suggestion that these discs might be overpriced rather hard to understand.
We have grown used to Warner releasing boxed sets of classics at SRPs working out as $10 per disc (such as the past two Gangsters collections, which had SRPs of $60 and contained...
Thanks! Details here: Tom and Jerry DVD news: Announcement for Tom and Jerry - The Chuck Jones Collection | TVShowsOnDVD.com This has the potential to be a T&J set Warner will do right for a change. I don't *think* there is any contentious material to suffer at the hands of the censor's...
My wish is that Universal will revisit all of its classic horrors and issue them in one big boxed set, a la the recent Abbott and Costello set. The fact that the company revisited A&C after issuing the films on DVD in substandard form gives me some hope that this could happen.
I hope the bonus cartoons are restored too, but the fact that four of them have music-only tracks is a good sign that they will be -- I can't see Warner going to the bother of adding such tracks to unrestored shorts. The MGM shorts may not be restored, however. Either way, this will be a...
Strange that there are no bonus materials listed here. Even if the majority of Xmas-themed archive stuff was used in Volume One, it would still be nice to have a few shorts added, even if they are only ones with a wintry rather than an Xmas theme. Can't complain about the box's price, though!
True, although I always sensed that the people behind the T&J sets were trying to tread a tightrope between pleasing the collectors *and* appealing to parents buying for their kids, hence the cartoons *included* were uncut (or that was the intention), but any cartoons that might have caused...
Ken, I bow to your superior knowledge here, but this is the first time I've read anything other than that Feltenstein's people handle the LT and Popeyes and something called "the family division" handles the rest. Thanks for the clarification :) I agree that the 'scope cartoons look great...
Dana, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Droopy set. Most of the shorts were unrestored, extras were wanting and DVNR ruined the artwork on some of the shorts. I agree that the Family Division has put out some good sets of TV animation (and some very bad ones, too), but it was the...
Hi Eric. The Popeye cartoons are not loaned to WB. WB owns them, but King Features owns the characters, which was why the DVD releases were held up for such a long time: a legal agreement had to be reached between the two companies. The reason there is such a discrepancy in quality between...
Looks like a great set -- lots of cult favourites, a whole disc of wartime cartoons and a whole disc of early Thirties shorts -- plus Bosko on the cover :) My guess is that Warner is dropping the "Golden Collection" brand to accommodate the fact that less archive material remains to use as...
Original poster art does look awesome, indeed. Unfortunately Warner isn't using it any more. Check the recent Sinatra releases for an example of the cheapjack covers they are putting out these days.
Fox and Criterion are both excellent in terms of cover design. Universal is so-so, although some of their recent packages are pretty nice. Other studios don't release much product that I'm interested in. Only current Warners really sucks. Anyway, poorly packaged or not, I think there will be...
The movie matters more to me too, but I would end up looking at the packaging for longer: the movie I would spend 90 minutes or whatever watching, whereas the package would be continually visible on my bookshelf. I'll buy a movie I like no matter how it's packaged (the covers of last year's...
Surely if Warner is ruining the packaging of the first four volumes, it's to tie in with an unpleasantly packaged fifth volume, a la the Gangsters, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford sets?
Hi Mark. I see where you are coming from here, but let me explain: the YouTube video I'm speaking of is the Chugga montage (. Watching it you can see the print quality vary from clip to clip, from pale and washed-out to oversaturated and back again, sometimes sharp, sometimes soft; not what we...