The Warner Brothers chat ANIMATION question you have been waiting to be answered..... (2 Viewers)

[Eddie Estes]

Look Disney made a mistake on Fantasia but look at the wartime cartoons Golden Collection and tell me you can see WHV doing anything that brave.

The only shorts on the T&J set that were remastered were I think the Widescreen shorts.

What was said about remastering might be true but we know how this term is packaged and sold. It doesn't usually mean old dirty transfers.

 

[Eddie Estes]

So, does WB's have 'un-edited' versions of ALL of these titles
They were uncut or less cut on the Art of Tom and Jerry laserdisc set.

 

[Patrick McCart]

A huge amount of films are remastered from elements other than original negatives. Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Singin' in the Rain (except for 2 reels), Easter Parade (except for one reel), Dr. Strangelove (40th anniversary edition), etc. were all remastered from either fine-grain positive elements (most) or duplicate negatives (probably CK).

Heck, nearly all of Fox's pre-1951 films have no existing original negatives, yet they remaster from fine-grains or duplicate negatives.

And most video transfers are made from either interpositives/fine-grain positives or duplicate negatives, anyways. If original negatives was availible for the pre-1952 Tom & Jerry cartoons, they'd still use re-combined interpositives made from those negatives.

In fact, a lot of remasters end up using the exact same transfer sometimes. For example, the Limited, single-disc, and Superbit editions of Lawrence of Arabia all used the same HD transfer. The difference was the NTSC downconversion used for the three editions. The first two were from one NTSC downconversion while the Superbit was from one without extra meddling applied to the image.

 

[Eddie Estes]

I would be willing to bet that they used tranfers from the Art of Tom and Jerry laserdiscs.
If that is the case and I think it is what is there to remaster?

 

[DaveK]

Son of a b-b-b-b
Son of a gun

 

[Kevin Parrott]

I posted this over at The Animation Show forums back on March 29th:



To add to this, I'll also be politely spreading the word whenever I see someone at Best Buy (or wherever) picking up the Tom and Jerry set, and informing whoever I see that they're about to purchase a censored set. I'm not going to blow this off and make excuses like "We should be happy they even issued the DVDs at all," or "It's still a great set," not when I've been so blatantly lied to. That's exactly the kind of attitude which keeps censors in business.

I haven't purchased a WB animation set since this debacle without carefully reading the reviews and message boards, nor do I intend to. Who's to say what other "uninentional edits" you're going to try and slip past us next?

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

You'd be wrong. If they were, the cartoons would have been uncut, or at least less cut, correct?

 

[Christian Preischl]

From the statement:

Actually, it states "...40 restored and remastered shorts". Wonder what restored means.

Chris

 

[ChrisPearson]

Why does Warner get it so right when it comes to classic live action films and so wrong when it comes to classic animated films? There should really be no difference between their treatment of Errol Flynn, Doris Day, James Cagney et al and their treatment of Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry. Yet we get sensitive material repressed, DVNR, non-progressive interlacing, edited prints, little or no remastering, short *films* described as "episodes", ugly menus that look like a child drew them...

As I've said before, I have ill forebodings regarding the Tex Avery set...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Is this it or can anybody else state exactly what's wrong with the cartoons that's been released? I hear talk about censorship, what has exactly been censored out? Are we talking about 2-3 cartoons or is there a larger problem with all of their animation releases?

Whatever, problems that exist, we need to reduce the emotional level out of our responses to Warner's statement without them classifying your concerns as small potatoes from a few animation buffs. Usually, companies don't respond well to emotional outbursts.






Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Thank you Warner Brothers for successfully backpeddling and weasling your out of the initial promise you made to all of us animation fans who have been supporting your prospects for the past few years. I had thought you recognized your audience.

You just saved me $40 - After countless months of this release sitting on my shelf, unopened and collecting dust, it can now finally be returned to the retailer I purchased it from.

I'll also NOT be purchasing any forthcoming Spotlight Collections on my wishlist, which I've been so anticipating the release of, until it's been confirmed that they've been presented as originally produced and I'll put my money towards importing Tom & Jerry discs instead.

I guess not much has changed in this department; it's obvious that your views and perceptions towards general animation and it's fan base hasn't shifted much.

Since you seem to want to direct these releases to an audience of children (they're the ones who watch cartoons, right?) I'll let them spend thousands of dollars a year on your releases from now on.

Thank you.

 

[Marc Fedderman]

I have been watching his topic from the sidelines, but in the hopes that someone of influence at Warner might read this, I'll post now.

I purchased the Tom and Jerry set when it was first released and would have been unaware of the edited episodes had it not been for the diligence and passion of those who post on this forum. I thank them. I am by no means an animation buff in the sense that Robert Crawford means, yet I do love these classic short films and would like to see them in their original, un-cut state. It's about preserving artistic integrity to me. I won't complain if the situation is not rectified in some way, but I also won't purchase future animation releases sight unseen from Warner (my favorite classic DVD producer by leaps and bounds) anymore.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Such an emotional and insulting remark is exactly what I'm talking about! I understand the frustration, but calling somebody a weasle is not going to help your cause nor achieve a positive resolution.





Crawdaddy

 

[Mark Anthony]

Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth...by accusing WB of "weasling" out of the situation I believe Marco is not insulting them, but implying that they knew this would be an issue from day one, hence why there was no animation rep at the chat, then hoping we'd all forget about it and then come back 6 weeks later - 6 months after the issue was first raised when the set was released to say that nothing is going to happen.

They also ignored the Tex Avery question and ignored why the picture quality on the set is poor in terms of lack of clean-up, when compared to their other products.

The issue is if they are prepared to have edited cartoon's with minimal to no apparant picture clean-up (despite being labelled as restored and remastered) on a set which collector's, animation fan's and many other's have been dying to purchase for year's then how can anyone trust them to release un-edited toon's in the future, tom and jerry or otherwise, it's not as if the material that was edited out doesn't exist.

M

 

[Robert Crawford]

Have it your own way, but using such a word to me, wouldn't get a positive reaction from me.





Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Thank you Mark, the adjective seems quite fitting as I see it and emotions are not at all involved Robert. I've offered the studio just as much praise on the opposite end when they've got it right, but it's been too many times now that WB has snubbed their supporters in this department. This is the studio that owns the most highly regarded and prestigious classic cartoon library in the entire world, the ched d'ouevre of animation. Yet they continue to treat these properties, and those who hold them in high regards as the cinema classics that they are, as inferior and second-class. Let's be honest here... It basically took WB 6 months to tell us all to go f--- ourselves. We can easily dig up quotes from last year's chat to display the hypocrisy.

 

[Eddie Estes]

Well if it you act a certain way chances are you are going to be classified that way.
In a chat announcing this set it was stated in no uncertain terms that this set would be chronological and uncut.
They lied!!! They left Jerry Beck hung out to dry as well as all the customers that purchased the set.

WEASEL SEEMS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION OF THIS BEHAVIOR!!!

 

[Tom Brennan]

Which cartoons in the Tom and Jerry set are effected by the censoring?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes, which ones and what are the other issues?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Based on this statement, Warner Home Video's Animation group clearly no longer wants to provide classic animation fans with uncut shorts as they have previously stated. I guess we should expect more censorship, more misuse/perversion of the word "restored", and less sales to collectors in the future.

Message received loud and clear.

Regards,