A Few Words About A few words about…™ Tex Avery Screwball Classics Volume 2 – in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

If you look at his CV, you’ll see that Fred “Tex” Avery couldn’t hold down a job. He was one of the folks constantly changing employers.
Between 1930 and 1935, working for Walter Lantz, he animated, voiced and was otherwise involved in the production of what I prefer to call animated shorts. Over sixty of them.
He then moved over to Leon Schlesinger’s group, not yet officially Warner Bros. for another thirty five or thereabouts. A nice mix of early Daffy and Porky’s early works, along with many others. That was 1941.
Also in ’41, he did a bunch for Paramount (Speaking of Animals), before rejoining Schlesinger with All This and Rabbit Stew,
and then it was over to M-G-M in 1942 with Blitz Wolf. He stayed in Culver City (although he did several films again for Walter Lantz) until 1957.
All told, he made well over forty animated shorts, working his way from black & white to early Technicolor, Eastman and CinemaScope.
Warner Archive is now offering something entitled Tex Avery...

Continue reading...

 

[David Norman]

$15.97 at Bullmoose.com so your bet is safe at least for US buyers

 

[Chewbabka]

$15.97 at Bullmoose.com so your bet is safe at least for US buyers

I just added it to my list fo the next 4 for $44 sale direct from warners. Preorders weren't eligible, and I still have most of volume 1 to get through to tide me over

 

[ThadK]

Cracked open this tonight. Unfortunately, a major step down from the first volume. A few opening titles have been recreated in Photoshop (as has become the new norm at WB with the cartoons; a few are like this on the new Bugs Bunny set), while most of the cartoons have been rendered with the dreaded DNR process, in which automated dirt removal mistakes parts of the animation for dirt and erases them. Screen caps follow. It's noticeable on all of them, but only Droopy's Double Trouble is rendered unwatchable.

The general appearance is a huge downgrade from the premiere installment, where everything at least looked like they tried to make them as best as they possibly could. Only a handful, to my eye, meet the earlier standard (Magical Maestro, Doggone Tired, One Cab's Family, Dixieland Droopy, Drag-a-Long Droopy). I would not be surprised if the budget for this was slashed, hence why some of HBO Max's farmed to India versions made it here. Given the beautiful job on the Famous Popeye discs and Avery 1, I can see no other explanation for such carelessness.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Once again, disagreement is the norm here.

 

[Paul Penna]

...while most of the cartoons have been rendered with the dreaded DNR process, in which automated dirt removal mistakes parts of the animation for dirt and erases them. Screen caps follow. It's noticeable on all of them, but only Droopy's Double Trouble is rendered unwatchable.

Well that's a shock.

 

[RICK BOND]

R.H. said, They're generally wonderful. That's Good enough for me. Getting mine Thursday from Amazon. I'm sure I will be Happy with it.

 

[Chewbabka]

Not surprising a collection of decades old cartoons is of variable quality. Maybe the sources aren’t good for some, and they felt the need to do a little more cleanup. Unfortunate decision perhaps. But understandable.

 

[Paul Penna]

Well, my copy's due in today and I would have bought it anyway, but what surprises me is that use of destructive DNR crept in, since it's long been a known issue not only among animation fans but people involved in producing collector-friendly cartoon video releases. I'm glad to hear it seems to be really critical in one title.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Not exactly a deal-breaker, but worthy of consideration.

That second screenshot, though.. Sloppy.

Sorta like one of the last sets of Gunsmoke that had a scene of folks riding horses where the DNR went wild and erased the riders' heads and blended them with the trees in the background! As well as countless scenes of fast motion becoming smeared blurs of color.

Personally, I'm not sure why we have to be protected from seeing a speck or a lil' scratch or occasional blip from a film source.

Is it worth it to automate a process that can have such a destructive effect?

Must all film and videotape images be blemish-free to fool us into thinking they were taken yesterday? Is it to fool the intended adult audience? Kids that might be put off from seeing a speck of dirt?

If dust, dirt, speckles, scratches ruin the experience and distract from the presentation, doesn't smearing and broken images amount to the same?

The elements harvested couldn't be in that bad of shape, could they?

 

[Paul Penna]

The elements harvested couldn't be in that bad of shape, could they?

Well, unlike the Warner cartoons, most if not all of the original Technicolor successive-exposure negatives for MGM cartoons no longer exist, victims of the Eastman House fire, I believe. So these would probably be scans of composite negs, but don't quote me on any of this.

 

[Robert Harris]

For the record, and because I did not have the time to deal with this initially, I've confirmed that no original negatives survive.

A small number had safety SE fine grains produced in before the fire, which took the original, along with nitrate masters.

Therefore, what survives on the M-G-M titles (not to be confused with the WB productions) are all dupes or varying types, inclusive of CRIs and used prints. It is possible that some lower resolution, ie. older transfer may have come from CRIs before fade, but again, there's no additional HD or higher backup.

Unfortunate, but true.

Bottom line, I'm happy to have them.

 

[dawnshadow]

The comments here are truly pathetic. The DNR is bad, and it isn't necessary, and it doesn't have anything to do with sources or the quality of them. You really think that all the shorts on Volume 1 would be flawless and then for Volume 2 all the shorts just happen to be from different varying sources that aren't as good? Same sources, way less care and effort. If you're fine with how the set looks, great. But don't feel the need to talk other people around and act like this isn't a problem or a better job couldn't have been done.

The decisions made here are not understandable. They're the wrong decisions.

 

[Robert Harris]

The comments here are truly pathetic. The DNR is bad, and it isn't necessary, and it doesn't have anything to do with sources or the quality of them. You really think that all the shorts on Volume 1 would be flawless and then for Volume 2 all the shorts just happen to be from different varying sources that aren't as good? Same sources, way less care and effort. If you're fine with how the set looks, great. But don't feel the need to talk other people around and act like this isn't a problem or a better job couldn't have been done.

The decisions made here are not understandable. They're the wrong decisions.

From what elements would you have produced these films?

 

[Ken_Martinez]

These issues have nothing to do with the film sources. They're digital restoration screwups by people who think they can put one over. And based on some of the comments, maybe they're right.

 

[MarkantonyII]

From what elements would you have produced these films?

I imagine they’re stored in that amazing vault containing London after Midnight, the Welles version of Magnificent Ambersons and the Zapruder film where Han shot first...

 

[MarkantonyII]

These issues have nothing to do with the film sources. They're digital restoration screwups by people who think they can put one over. And based on some of the comments, maybe they're right.

Warner Archive may not release titles that are always to my taste, but the one thing they always do is release every title in the best possible quality, inclusive of not releasing titles where the master isn’t good enough.
If they have issued a ‘toon with dnr, there will be a very good reason for it and it will probably represent the best master technology and funds will allow at this time.

M

 

[Patrick McCart]

The noise reduction artifacts are absolutely from the mastering or cleanup process. I don't expect those unfamiliar with the long history of noise reduction harming animation on home video to see it as clearly. My copy should be in my hands tomorrow. This sort of DVNR usually looks fine in motion, but it's really inexcusable considering the absolute lack of "digital fingerprints" on all of Warner Archive's previous animation Blu-rays. They really need to fix the masters and re-do the disc.

For what it's worth, I thought the handling of the less-than-perfect film elements on the previous volume made it almost transparent that they had to be taken from 2nd and 3rd generation elements. I hope Warner Archive sticks to their commitment to high quality and offer a replacement disc for Vol. 2 whenever they can.

 

[Paul Penna]

My reaction: I've seen a LOT worse DNR effects, here they're occasional and for the most part moderate and would rarely have caught my notice if I hadn't been looking for them specifically in animated-in-ones sections and then still-framing. The transfers themselves are beautiful, even eye-popping and for non-first-generation sources, superb. I'm viewing via projector on an 8.5-foot-wide screen, and I've been collecting cartoon on video in all formats since 1977. Do I wish the DNR wasn't used? Yes. But my glad-I-purchased satisfaction index is well into the 90s.

 

[ThadK]

The noise reduction artifacts are absolutely from the mastering or cleanup process. I don't expect those unfamiliar with the long history of noise reduction harming animation on home video to see it as clearly. My copy should be in my hands tomorrow. This sort of DVNR usually looks fine in motion, but it's really inexcusable considering the absolute lack of "digital fingerprints" on all of Warner Archive's previous animation Blu-rays. They really need to fix the masters and re-do the disc.

For what it's worth, I thought the handling of the less-than-perfect film elements on the previous volume made it almost transparent that they had to be taken from 2nd and 3rd generation elements. I hope Warner Archive sticks to their commitment to high quality and offer a replacement disc for Vol. 2 whenever they can.

I don't think a replacement is coming. The damage control reply from the producers is that because of the pandemic, the usual WAC team responsible for Avery 1 and Famous Popeye was laid off, so versions previously done by HBO Max and elsewhere (which we were told was something they wouldn't do, so that changed) that are not to their standards were used. "If" a Vol. 3 happens, they won't do go the cashgrab route again, but the damage is already done to about a quarter of the Avery filmography.

This might be worth buying at some point, because it does have some cartoons relatively unmolested and a few that are certainly to Vol. 1's standards, but not until it's eligible for a 4 for $44 deal. Which is a shame, because this selection of cartoons is far better a sampling of Avery at his best than the first volume. We're told to accept issues to get more classic cartoons just about as often as they're released. At what point are we going to abandon this mindset? While it might have sucked to have a longer dry spell between volumes, I'd have rather gotten one to Vol. 1's standards than this cash grab.