A Few Words About A few words about...™ Laurel & Hardy: The Definitive Restorations - in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Mine's "on the way" but, as of today, has been 7 days since it apparently left the USPS regional facility in a city ~50 miles from my house. That one is the last stop before being sent to the local PO. Its current status is: "Your package will arrive later than expected, but is still on its way. It is currently in transit to the next facility." It was shipped on the 15th - a full 2 weeks ago - from Louisville, KY (a 6 hour drive from my house). From there, it went to Pittsburgh (why? That's the wrong way), then to Memphis, and then, supposedly, to me. That's normally a 3-5 day delivery. It was last "seen" in Memphis on the 23rd (when it got the above status). I'm beginning to think it's lost.

Man, I had my Imprint Blu-ray of "The War of the Worlds" sit in Detroit's USPS regional facility from June 6th to June 25th, before I received it. Detroit is only 75 miles away from my city.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I also just had an item arrive 2 weeks after shipment with Priority Mail. I thought it was lost since it was last scanned on the 17. Then it showed up in LA on the 26 and was delivered on the 27.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I also just had an item arrive 2 weeks after shipment. I thought it was lost since it was last scanned on the 17. Then it showed up in LA on the 26 and was delivered on the 27.

I'm getting more than a few items like that especially if they're flowing through the USPS system.

 

[TravisR]

Why Your USPS Packages Are Delayed

It’s not so much what the current Postmaster General is doing as much as what the federal government has not done.

www.vice.com

Yeah, it's not coincidence and it's not really hard to connect the dots as to why it's happening.

 

[Tony Bensley]

I might be in for a big disappointment. I just got my set yesterday and I have only watched Hog Wild and was disappointed with the soft picture. I thought it barely looked better than the DVD. If that's one of the better looking prints in the set then yikes!!

I'm actually quite shocked at your finding "Hog Wild (1930)" disappointingly soft Randy, as the video on that title looks absolutely fantastic to my eyes, and to just about everyone else who's viewed it on the new Blu-ray, including those who otherwise find the PQ on the new set disappointing!

For the record, the new print for "Hog Wild' was sourced from a silent print that had the full 1:33.1 aperture. Previous releases were sourced from prints with the part of the left side missing, due to having been duped from prints with the soundtrack covering that part of the image.

CHEERS!

 

[Randy Korstick]

I'm actually quite shocked at your finding "Hog Wild (1930)" disappointingly soft Randy, as the video on that title looks absolutely fantastic to my eyes, and to just about everyone else who's viewed it on the new Blu-ray, including those who otherwise find the PQ on the new set disappointing!

For the record, the new print for "Hog Wild' was sourced from a silent print that had the full 1:33.1 aperture. Previous releases were sourced from prints with the part of the left side missing, due to having been duped from prints with the soundtrack covering that part of the image.

CHEERS!

Based on the marketing I was expecting something great. Its not bad by any means but just very average for Blu Ray and not a big upgrade like I was expecting. It looks like some type of artificial filtering or heavy DNR was applied. The Africa Screams restoration doesn't look like this and looks much better.

 

[Tino]

Sorry. Let me try a more basic question.

What was specifically done to Hog after UCLA completed their work?

Yeah. I would like this question answered too @ThadK

 

[MarkantonyII]

Silence speaks volumes...

M

 

[Tino]

Silence speaks volumes...

M

I was going to say the exact thing. Not surprising considering the hostile reactions to anything said negative about this set.

 

[BobO'Link]

Mine *finally* arrived yesterday! At this point it'll be a few days before I'm able to concentrate on it as my 3 youngest grandkids (4, 6, 9) are at my house visiting for a few days - and their 10yo cousin (my daughter's youngest) is staying too (she lives across the street from us) because she's not about to miss a change to play with them.

 

[jayembee]

Mine's "on the way" but, as of today, has been 7 days since it apparently left the USPS regional facility in a city ~50 miles from my house. That one is the last stop before being sent to the local PO. Its current status is: "Your package will arrive later than expected, but is still on its way. It is currently in transit to the next facility." It was shipped on the 15th - a full 2 weeks ago - from Louisville, KY (a 6 hour drive from my house). From there, it went to Pittsburgh (why? That's the wrong way), then to Memphis, and then, supposedly, to me. That's normally a 3-5 day delivery. It was last "seen" in Memphis on the 23rd (when it got the above status). I'm beginning to think it's lost.

I live in Concord, NH. There's a Regional Distribution Center in Nashua, NH. It seems like it's where packages go to die. When a package of mine gets there, it can be as much as five days before it leaves there. I can drive to Nashua and back to Concord in a little over an hour. I did a little poking around, and found a Reddit thread where people have been complaing about the Nashua RDC for at least a couple of years. One person mentioned mailing a package from one place in Massachusetts to another. It went from the origin point to Nashua in one hour, and then took days to get from Nashua to the destination.

I've also had several packages sent the wrong way. Packages coming from the UK would hit the ISC in NY, and then get sent to South Dakota or somewhere else in the Midwest. My package from Via Vision in Australia hit the ISC in LA, who sent it to the ISC in Miami(!) who then eventually sent it northward. All in all, it took 45 days to get to me from Australia: one-third of that transit time was across the Pacific, and two-thirds was within the US.

 

[OLDTIMER]

I'm actually quite shocked at your finding "Hog Wild (1930)" disappointingly soft Randy, as the video on that title looks absolutely fantastic to my eyes, and to just about everyone else who's viewed it on the new Blu-ray, including those who otherwise find the PQ on the new set disappointing!

I believe the screen shots prove otherwise.

 

[Tino]

I believe the screen shots prove otherwise.

Screen shots prove very little as has been shown numerous times.

 

[Nick*Z]

Based on the marketing I was expecting something great. Its not bad by any means but just very average for Blu Ray and not a big upgrade like I was expecting. It looks like some type of artificial filtering or heavy DNR was applied. The Africa Screams restoration doesn't look like this and looks much better.

Agreed. This sounded like something teetering on near perfection. Lots of aliasing, some edge effects, lots of dirt and scratches, and grain that, in some examples, has been homogenized to the point of DNR, though not quite - something very odd here. Still highly watchable, but a huge let down for me in general. The shorts that looked awful on prior DVD releases still look pretty bad here - with faded contrast to boot. Not what I was expecting or, in fact, what I thought I was paying for either. Regrets.

 

[OLDTIMER]

I'm wondering why these discussions are continuing. The argument seems to have been settled on page 16 when Anthony Clarke said: "Bart T pretty well confirms everything Robert Harris said. That should suffice in this debate .. until someone finally bites the bullet and gives us the UCLA restorations as they should be seen!"

 

[Mark Y]

I don't have the set yet, I do plan to get it as there is stuff on it that's absolutely essential. But it doesn't seem to be a big priority given the issues with the transfers, or what was done to them after the fact. I'll wait until I can get a real good deal on it.

Did someone say the DVD version actually looks better (or not as bad) as the Blu-ray version (given the DVNR or whatever it is)? That might save me a few bucks if that's the case.

 

[Mark Y]

I got the set. I am happy to report that the films I've seen look and sound much better than I was expecting!

I am hopeful for more -- a few questions:

(1) I have read on one of the forums or groups I frequent (i.e. I don't remember exactly where) that "Perfect Day" is the only film whose restoration is completed so far, which wasn't included in this set. (a) Is that correct, (b) why would it have been left off, and (c) how likely are future volumes?

(2) I never saw "That's That!" until it was posted to You Tube not long ago. Again, I remember reading a comment "somewhere" (from someone who evidently saw it in the past at Sons events) that it's slightly edited. Is that true, and if it is, what's missing and why?

(3) What is the current rights situation for the silent L&H films? I am very pleased to have the "as complete as it gets" version of "The Battle Of The Century" (which looks 1000x better than any past version I've seen of the first half -- of course, for the second reel we don't have another version to compare) and I am under the impression that working out a deal to include it here was probably no cakewalk. Has the "split library" situation continued with the silents owned by one entity and the talkies by another? Is what I've read about the fate of the silent negatives true (i.e. that they essentially turned to mush in a garage)? What can be done with the silents at this point?

This is a wonderful set. I certainly hope for the rest of the Roach talkies to get a similar release somewhere down the road. In the mean time, at least there's "The Essential Collection."

Thanks to all who got this done.

 

[Jeff Heise]

At this time, Richard Feiner (or whomever is in charge there) controls the rights to almost all the Roach silents (with the exception of BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, which is owned by Lobster Films) and the early talkies to the end of '29 with the exception of BERTH MARKS. Hallmark/RHI/Paramount control the rest of the talkies except for BONNIE SCOTLAND, THE DEVIL'S BROTHER and PICK-A-STAR, which are owned by TCM, and BABES IN TOYLAND, which Legend Films owns at this time. Randy Skretvedt and Richard Bann would know more of the gruesome details of ownership.

 

[Mark Y]

At this time, Richard Feiner (or whomever is in charge there) controls the rights to almost all the Roach silents (with the exception of BATTLE OF THE CENTURY, which is owned by Lobster Films) and the early talkies to the end of '29 with the exception of BERTH MARKS. Hallmark/RHI/Paramount control the rest of the talkies except for BONNIE SCOTLAND, THE DEVIL'S BROTHER and PICK-A-STAR, which are owned by TCM, and BABES IN TOYLAND, which Legend Films owns at this time. Randy Skretvedt and Richard Bann would know more of the gruesome details of ownership.

Thanks for the info!

(Disclaimer: This post is based on my own observations, but I may be wrong!)

LEGEND FILMS owns Babes In Toyland? Oh, brother!

I thought "Babes" somehow ended up with the current incarnation of M-G-M. At least, they released the best DVD version of it by far. It would appear they had access to the best source materials.

I thought Legend put it out via some "public domain" loophole, even though only the old 1950s "March Of The Wooden Soldiers" reissue version is actually PD. "Babes" itself is still under copyright, no matter how many other companies dupe it or cobble together "new versions" from different sources.

Richard Feiner died some years ago. He managed to wrangle the U.S. rights to the L&H silents back in the 1950s in a deal which was supposed to expire after X number of years (since the films' copyrights were due to expire under then-current laws), but ended up being extended following a court case.

It would make sense for Lobster Films to own the copyright on their own restoration of the film, but the underlying rights to the film itself would still belong to whoever owns the rest of the L&H silents, no?

As for the talkies, I remember reading that the original contract with Feiner stated that he owned the U.S. rights to the "non-speaking" Laurel & Hardy films (i.e. the silents). Since this deal was made before the soundtracks of "Unaccustomed As We Are" and "They Go Boom" were recovered, those two were somehow presumed to be part of the deal. And even though this clearly is NOT how the wording of the contract was intended, Feiner's lawyers took it to also mean that granted them the rights to "On The Wrong Trek" and "Wild Poses," since L&H appear in those films but don't speak.

I don't know of Feiner claiming rights to other 1929 shorts such as "Men O' War" and "Perfect Day."

This is my understanding, anyway.

 

[Jeff Heise]

The version that Legend put out on Blu-Ray uses the title MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS but as I recall it says BABES IN TOYLAND on the main title of the print.

The Image DVDs of the silent Laurel & Hardy shorts that came out years ago have Feiner's name as the copyright holder and include the talking version of UNACCUSTOMED AS WE ARE and the dubbed version of DOUBLE WHOOPEE! I was mistaken about him also having the rights to any other talking films of theirs.

As far as Lobster is concerned, since the musical track was commissioned by them I am assuming that the version on the Blu-Ray is theirs but they also might have worked out some arrangement with the Feiner group.