Blu-ray Review Tom & Jerry The Golden Collection Volume 1 Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Martinez]

I can't believe that there's an animation release that makes the fans complain. That never happens.

I can't believe TravisR has come into a thread which he has NOTHING to contribute to to complain about other people's complaining. That never happens.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Kevin Martinez /t/315732/tom-jerry-the-golden-collection-volume-1-blu-ray-review#post_3864271
There you go. You heard it from the horse's mouth.

We heard it from somebody's mouth. I don't know this person nor his qualifications or expertise with these film elements.







Crawdaddy

 

[TravisR]

There are many where there's been no complaints of any sort. Most of the Disney Treasures and Looney Tunes Golden Collections are perfect. Tom & Jerry will be screwed for as long as time goes on, however.

Yes, there are the rare times when fans don't complain. However, it happens so much that I and probably many others can't take the complaints seriously any more. Unfortunately, that means that actual problems will be ignored because of the times that things have blown out of proportion or the times that fans have cried wolf.
When the Looney Tunes sets Blu-ray, I'll be surprised if there isn't some 'horrible' defect discovered and ranted about.
EDIT: Just to clarify, you may be 100% right and I'll gladly take you at your word that you know what you're talking about but like I said, it's hard to take complaints about an animated release seriously any more.

 

[Kevin Martinez]

We heard it from somebody's mouth.  I don't know this person nor his qualifications or expertise with these film elements.
Crawdaddy

He's the one who compared his own IB Tech 16mm print with the copy on the new Blu-Ray to show you how bad the quality of the latter is. Doesn't that speak to his expertise a little?

 

[ThadK]

So don't believe me. Live in a mousehole blind and watch pristine copies intermixed with 60s Eastman remasters without knowing the difference. Bye.

 

[Kevin Martinez]

Yes, there is the rare time when fans don't complain. However, it happens so much that I and probably many others can't take the complaints seriously any more. Unfortunately, that means that actual problems will be ignored because of the times that things have blown out of proportion or the times that fans have cried wolf.
When the Looney Tunes sets Blu-ray, I'll be surprised if there isn't some 'horrible' defect discovered and ranted about.

Case in point. Hallmark of a guy with nothing to contribute.

 

[TravisR]

Case in point. Hallmark of a guy with nothing to contribute.

While this thread would be just fine without my input, I think I make a point. You want people to know about a problem (and, I assume, hope that Warners will respond to the problems with a corrected disc) and I'm trying to tell you why it may be tougher than usual to get anyone to realize there is a problem.

 

[Mark Anthony]

the best of what exists.

That's obviously not true. The elements used to create the current Cartoon Network prints (and thus the copy on the Spotlight Collection I showcased above) for those ten cartoons are in much better shape, and those were also secondary elements.
Look at the guy's comparisons for Mouse Trouble (from an IB tech print). Look at all the disastrous changes in color.

Why does the newer super-duper 1080p HD Blu-Ray use elements that are patently inferior to what was used for the previous unrestored DVD made with 10-year-old TV copies.

The second set of screen caps show that the blu-ray is better - same as the first!
Tom is supposed to be grey/black - not blue - equally the paper in the book he's reading is white on the blu-ray edition and a shade of light blue on the dvd! It's also sharper and more film-like on the blu.
As for Thad's credibility, or not, all his site says is he's a freelance animation writer, who once worked on titles for a label that lost its disney franchise a few years ago - gemstone - it gives no real indication of his skills or knowledge, so I stand by my original comment.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

What I really notice and I think others do also for animated films, shorts and the like is when we see the HD version when done correctly (Not saying these are or arent) but the main thing people notice is color saturation. We always recall watching cartoons as a kid etc and the colors were always turned up so much, when we see them (this is true with films also) the palette can look more restrained.

I recall a friend at work being dissapointed with Thief of Bagdad from Criterion against his old MGM DVD, and like I mentioned the transfer on the older release had the color much more saturated.

I hope I explained this decently.

 

[Ruz-El]

Add me to the group that thinks the bluray pics look better. They look more "right" as far as colour and detail. I'm surprised the DVD shots look as faded as they do, I remember being impressed with them when they cam out.

As Mark mentioned, the white on the book looks white instead of bluey pink, that should be a pretty good indication that the colour is correct. Jerry is a proper brown and not orangy too.

Look forward to the set.

 

[ThadK]

I know I called it quits, but maybe I'm finally getting what you're saying. You're overwhelmed with the clarity and sharpness that you think that's the truly better picture quality. Fair enough. The new transfers have a mark in their favor overall, as T&J have never had cleaner transfers. But let me ask you, why do you say the new pictures are 'accurate'? Are you sincerely saying they should look that dark and muddy? That's closer to the original picture? Really? So why are there cartoons from the same year that look absolutely fantastic, with popping colors, transfers I have gladly conceded are as perfect as we'll ever get?
The bottom line is, there _are_ better CRI elements than some of the ones used on this set. This _is_ a fact whether or not you want to believe it. (It's okay, whole cultures are based on that ideology.) WHV just dropped the ball on about 1/4 of the cartoons. The rest _are_ fantastic, perfect, and nobody should feel ripped off buying this regardless of the flaws given its ridiculously low price.
I know I'm wasting my time in general discussing this, but what galls me are the attacks, especially the armchair expert who stands by saying I have no credibility on this issue. I'm sure you, my friend, have handled and viewed various elements, including nitrate year-of-release positive prints, consulted with old pros who were in the MGM Labs for years, and asked to help with these releases (including the second volume of this very series!). Sometimes expertise isn't synonymous with income. Maybe I should update my profile page.

 

[Mike Frezon]

/t/315732/tom-jerry-the-golden-collection-volume-1-blu-ray-review#post_3864469
I know I'm wasting my time in general discussing this, but what galls me are the attacks, especially the armchair expert who stands by saying I have no credibility on this issue. I'm sure you, my friend, have handled and viewed various elements, including nitrate year-of-release positive prints, consulted with old pros who were in the MGM Labs for years, and asked to help with these releases (including the second volume of this very series!). Sometimes expertise isn't synonymous with income. Maybe I should update my profile page.

Thad:

I realize you've been a member here since '03...but with only a handful of posts to your credit I'm not sure how you expect members of this forum to have any understanding about the breadth of your expertise in WB animation. I would hope that you wouldn't take comments so personally. And I'm less than sure where you are reading comments that are either mocking or attacking.

We appreciate your participation here and always enjoy a lively debate on the quality of a release. But you need to keep in mind that people are not always going to agree with your opinion as they might have different criteria for what passes as acceptable. We're seeing such debates right now in active threads on the new releases of West Side Story.

And whether or not other members here have "handled and viewed various elements" doesn't really speak to their ability or inability to comment intelligently on the releases.

Thanks for your insights, though, and I hope you continue to add your voice in the discussion.

 

[bigshot]

Tom Cat's gray varied from cartoon to cartoon by time period. I've restored a lot of T&J cels, and I've never seen any as blue as the images presented here from IB Tech prints, but I don't doubt that they did a bit of adjustment to bring some of the color out of the cool gray at the lab. That looks correct, if a bit oversaturated.
However, I've never seen any Tom Cat cel as dark and pure gray as the bluray capture. That looks totally wrong to me- severe contrast boosting and desaturation. In general, a good way to tell if colors have been noodled is to look at two similar colors like the body color and the belly color. The studios would almost always vary hue between similar grays. In this case, the body would be cooler and the belly would be warmer.
Warner has always had problems with pulling together the best elements all at the same time. Invariably, some cartoons are better on one release and some better on others. I'll have my copy of the bluray in a few days. I'm interested to see how it looks, but I'm not expecting perfection.

 

[ThadK]

I didn't present it as an IB Tech print grab. It's a later LPP print from 1983, as I wrote, taken from a far superior CRI neg to what was used on the newest release. Somehow it got misinterpreted as IB Tech by readers. I've never owned an IB Tech of a T&J earlier than "Mouse Cleaning" (which I still have).
I don't doubt the lab guys were oversaturating those LPPs a bit to make them look better when used for broadcast (remember, telecine in 1983 was not the same as it is today), but it's hard to imagine how anyone can think the darker, murkier picture is how it's 'supposed to look'.

 

[Kevin Martinez]

That was my bad. Sorry. I just mistook Thad's 16mm as an IB tech, since I didn't see LPP referred to anywhere in the review.

 

[dana martin]

sorting my way thru, perfect, not quite, better than its ever been presented oh hell yes!

 

[Mark Anthony]

I know I called it quits, but maybe I'm finally getting what you're saying. You're overwhelmed with the clarity and sharpness that you think that's the truly better picture quality. Fair enough. The new transfers have a mark in their favor overall, as T&J have never had cleaner transfers. But let me ask you, why do you say the new pictures are 'accurate'? Are you sincerely saying they should look that dark and muddy? That's closer to the original picture? Really? So why are there cartoons from the same year that look absolutely fantastic, with popping colors, transfers I have gladly conceded are as perfect as we'll ever get?
The bottom line is, there _are_ better CRI elements than some of the ones used on this set. This _is_ a fact whether or not you want to believe it. (It's okay, whole cultures are based on that ideology.) WHV just dropped the ball on about 1/4 of the cartoons. The rest _are_ fantastic, perfect, and nobody should feel ripped off buying this regardless of the flaws given its ridiculously low price.
I know I'm wasting my time in general discussing this, but what galls me are the attacks, especially the armchair expert who stands by saying I have no credibility on this issue. I'm sure you, my friend, have handled and viewed various elements, including nitrate year-of-release positive prints, consulted with old pros who were in the MGM Labs for years, and asked to help with these releases (including the second volume of this very series!). Sometimes expertise isn't synonymous with income. Maybe I should update my profile page.

With regard to your "armchair expert" / "attacks" comments, as I mentioned previously I have no idea who you are or what your expertise is or isn't - as i mentioned your site makes almost no reference to all the things that you seem to be in a huff about that I/we should apparantly know.
Delusions of grandeur springs to mind.
Secondly on this basis, of not knowing who you are, I saw no reason why your review should be any more "credible" than the HTF review or the blu-ray.com review or any other for that matter. The substance of your review in terms of the general quality of the discs largely concurs with the others.
As to being an armchair expert, if you are so sure that WB have dropped the ball on a number of the toons and better elements exist, what steps have you taken to alert them of this?
Given we are talking about 70 year old cartoons with OCN's missing, i'm sure there are alternative elements hidden in some dusty archive, but if WB don't know they exist/the records have been mislaid/lost etc then how is that their fault?
Was it the fault of Metropolis's restorer's when 10 years after the definitive "that's all folks" edition came out, another huge chunk of footage was unearthed! This happens all the time....
M

 

[bigshot]

I got my copy today and took a quick spin through the cartoons on disk 2. They all look great. Well worth the price of the set. The only problem is that Tom & Jerry cartoons don't stand up well to the chronological approach. It's hard to watch more than two or three at a time. It's great to have them organized like that for reference purposes, but it kills the entertainment value.

 

[ThadK]

As to being an armchair expert, if you are so sure that WB have dropped the ball on a number of the toons and better elements exist, what steps have you taken to alert them of this?
Given we are talking about 70 year old cartoons with OCN's missing, i'm sure there are alternative elements hidden in some dusty archive, but if WB don't know they exist/the records have been mislaid/lost etc then how is that their fault?

Read carefully. I've written that the elements in question were used as late as the mid-80s. I warned my contacts that this might happen if they weren't careful, having already seen the CRI transfers of "Mouse Trouble" and "Quiet Please!" on an earlier release years ago, but it might have fallen on deaf ears or a spam folder.

Was it the fault of Metropolis's restorer's when 10 years after the definitive "that's all folks" edition came out, another huge chunk of footage was unearthed! This happens all the time....
M

Okay, raving about a studio not having access to lost footage, titles, or even whole _films_ isn't the same as using a bum master when some more careful searching would have probably solved the problem. (Though I'll make an exception for Sony and the Columbia library...)

 

[ThadK]

I got my copy today and took a quick spin through the cartoons on disk 2. They all look great. Well worth the price of the set. The only problem is that Tom & Jerry cartoons don't stand up well to the chronological approach. It's hard to watch more than two or three at a time. It's great to have them organized like that for reference purposes, but it kills the entertainment value.

Disc 2 is almost perfect, save "Quiet Please" and "The Milky Waif". The 1944 cartoons are where all hell breaks loose.