No disrespect meant to RAH, and I know he has a big reputation with this crowd, but having worked on the L&H project since October 2018 I can tell you how much sweat went into it, and having RAH dismiss it as "not looking like film" puts a burr under my saddle -- on what is he watching this? I have seen these transfers on a multitude of monitors and in every case they look like film. Clean film, great-condition film, but film. Not like some blurry, over-"improved" video.
Thank you for your kind comments. I too would have preferred having the soundtrack at a low level under my comments but was asked to do it "solo," so them's the conditions that prevail, as Mr. Durante said. I did 19 commentaries (including the bonus shorts "The Tree in a Test Tube" -- beautifully restored to original Kodachrome luster -- and "That's That" -- the one surviving source of outtakes and bloopers). You'll also see my personal snapshots of L&H co-workers with the audio interviews, so apologies for being perhaps too ubiquitous on this set.
I saw it when Jon Mirsalis first showed it in public at Mostly Lost at the LoC, I think it was in 2016. It's well worth it.
Well, I certainly look forward to the commentaries, but that way of presenting them is a big mistake in my opinion. The same technique was made with the commentaries on the Fawlty Towers set, and I found it extremely frustrating. The commentator was obviously watching and listening the program and often remarking on dialog - which you couldn't hear. Of course, at this point I don't know how that's working out with the L&H commentaries, but for me not having the program audio audible behind the commentary is rather off-putting. For me a good commentary is one in which the commenter, along with you, is engaged with the film as it plays and acts as a docent or guide to explain or answer questions about what you're experiencing. Cutting off the sound kind or ruins that. I can't understand why it's thought to be a good idea. But definitely, I can't wait for the set to get here.
