Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Laurel & Hardy: Year Two -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

I know we can't be in the minority for not liking this destructive process. Though I must confess I didn't catch the watermarking in the content beyond the credits (or, I was distracted otherwise when those happened?). But yep, there it is!

View attachment 242268
Ridiculous!

Still a big no-no for me and, as such, I just can't support these releases anymore as watermarking is, to me, just as destructive as the blurring and noise-reducing of the talkies a couple years ago. Even worse, as it is visually damaging the "restored" image for vanity purposes. It is similar to those who grace us with their own wonderful copies of vintage and rare footage, but slap fake time codes on them to mar the picture to render it unusable and, largely, unviewable due to the distraction.

Worse still, might be the antics of Andreas Baum and Michael Ehret who, in their latest picture book titled "Laurel and Hardy: A True Love Story, Volume 1" have obviously employed AI with dubious quality results to absolutely destroy images rather than actually try to restore or just present them as cleanly as possible, even if that means a few scratches. Not to mention the fact that every book they hawk is teased with juuuuust a lil' more "rare" footage that is totally unrestored, only doled out in small quantities for very large support funds, edited AND egregiously watermarked from start to finish despite having new copyright claims at the head and tail. Take a look at this mostly computer enhanced pic from the book-- like, really zoom in, eh?:
View attachment 242261
Who's a good computer cartoon, then?

And this one from the dvd that came with the book, edited and watermarked like every other video/audio presentation they've ever produced (The authors posted all the video files on Vimeo with a widely shared password. No big secret).

View attachment 242260

Disgraceful. This is like going back to 1999 DigiView public domain dvd releases with all the cheesy superimposed graphics and titles all the way through. Look at all that screen clutter! They might as well have slapped a SabuCat-style, fake, chunky timecode right in the middle with NOT FOR BROADCAST thrown in over the faces, too! What are they protecting here? Blurry, generational dubs of no financial use to anyone.

I have decided to not support this type of destructive "restoration" again in any form. If you feel that strong of a need as the content producer that your work is so valuable that you have to add destructive elements to prove it, maybe you shouldn't even share it with the public? Just keep it to yourselves.

I've foolishly and blindly supported these releases thinking we would get the best quality versions available and that they would be truly restored films. They are, but they are also altered. They are versions. Versions I do not need.

Those of you who love them? Treasure them.

These releases are where we part ways until someone does it right.

Maybe it's because Turner Classic Movies was a big part of my early appreciation of the classics, but the watermarks are simply not a big deal to me. Still less obtrusive than TV. I think it's a fair compromise given the extraordinary amount of effort and money put into these public domain properties. It wouldn't surprise me if part of what enables Lobster/Blackhawk to obtain funds to do these restorations is a stipulation that there's some sort of protection.

Ideally, if I were a producer, I'd put the watermark in such a way that it was motion tracked and made to look like part of the film in such a subtle way sort of like how Melies would hide the Star Films logo and copyright. Though, would that be worse to some?

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Maybe it's because Turner Classic Movies was a big part of my early appreciation of the classics, but the watermarks are simply not a big deal to me. Still less obtrusive than TV. I think it's a fair compromise given the extraordinary amount of effort and money put into these public domain properties. It wouldn't surprise me if part of what enables Lobster/Blackhawk to obtain funds to do these restorations is a stipulation that there's some sort of protection.

Ideally, if I were a producer, I'd put the watermark in such a way that it was motion tracked and made to look like part of the film in such a subtle way sort of like how Melies would hide the Star Films logo and copyright. Though, would that be worse to some?

Bob Furmanek restored Abbott & Costello features plus the television series and, as far as I can tell, never plastered his name or initials in the content.

I'm all for credit where it is due, but not in the main feature.

 

[Rob W]

Talk to Bob Furmanek about how the vultures copied his Abbott & Costello features and re-sold them for lower prices and no credit whatsoever.

I don't believe the tv series is public domain; otherwise the kickstarter restoration project would not have excluded Canadians like me from participating. I had to buy the sets as imports.

You may be better served by investing in a projector and buying individual prints of the shorts (if you can find them).

These restorations are not asset protections from a major studio - they are basically orphan films that nobody else would go to the effort that these people have gone to for what I'm sure is minimal return. I'm perfectly happy letting them watermark their material if they can provide me with a disc of this quality for $50.

You aren't going to find better qualified people to do them justice than the ones who have done them now.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Talk to Bob Furmanek about how the vultures copied his Abbott & Costello features and re-sold them for lower prices and no credit whatsoever.

Fair enough. But he still hasn't plastered his name on any of the prints since (that I know of!). Only pre or post-film sequences with full honors and, where applicable, lists of donors who helped fund the restorations.

To that end, Sony/Columbia Pictures have remastered their 4 Three Stooges public domain shorts (with all the others) with no intrusive markings whatsoever. There was even discussion before the individual dvd sets came out about whether or not they would bother with those public domain pictures since they had been "Good-Timed" to death over the years. Those 4 particular films have been sold and re-sold countless times and can still be, albeit with better picture quality now!

 

[Patrick McCart]

Lobster/Blackhawk doesn't have major studio money. I would prefer watermarks and the like to be omitted, but I'm sympathetic to why they're there. It's unlikely these are going to get any sort of quality release by anyone else. Given how long it took to get these films on disc again, I'll take the slight alterations over never seeing a quality L&H silent again.

 

[Tony Bensley]

Lobster/Blackhawk doesn't have major studio money. I would prefer watermarks and the like to be omitted, but I'm sympathetic to why they're there. It's unlikely these are going to get any sort of quality release by anyone else. Given how long it took to get these films on disc again, I'll take the slight alterations over never seeing a quality L&H silent again.

I'm of the same mindset, Patrick. As a now 60 plus being, I'm happy to see the Laurel & Hardy silents finally getting quality releases. Having now viewed all of the main 1928 silents on this set, I can say firsthand that watermark placement within the body of the films is very limited, and I also suspect the ONE very brief placement within the film image near the very end of EARLY TO BED may have been an unfortunate and uncharacteristic goof.

I also really appreciate the inclusion of vintage/original soundtracks with the last three 1928 shorts on this set! HABEAS CORPUS definitely plays differently with its original spooky Vitaphone soundtrack! Even now being slightly hearing impaired, its crisp clarity isn't lost on me, by any stretch! It also looks fantastic!!

CHEERS!