WHV Announcement: Tom & Jerry Golden Collection Volume Two (Blu-ray) (DVD) (3 Viewers)

[Brandon Conway]

Jerry Beck has indicated that Warner home video wants to release it with all the shorts intact but the legal department refuses to budge on the issue. Who knows how true that is, but it would make sense.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[JoHud]

Send a message, go to the HTF awards worst studio thread & vote Warner Brothers!

This set ain't going anywhere regardless. But come on, you bumped this thread for that?

Jerry Beck has indicated that Warner home video wants to release it with all the shorts intact but the legal department refuses to budge on the issue. Who knows how true that is, but it would make sense.

Yes, there's nothing specific since people like Mr. Beck aren't at liberty to go into specifics but it certainly seems like a strange case of internal politics. Sort of a The Devils type of situation. WHV had no issue releasing those two cartoons back in the '90s but for some reason they've been arbitrarily singled in recent years and haven't been touched since. And it's still a bit of a mystery.

 

[dana martin]

Send a message, go to the HTF awards worst studio thread & vote Warner Brothers!

Jerry Beck has indicated that Warner home video wants to release it with all the shorts intact but the legal department refuses to budge on the issue. Who knows how true that is, but it would make sense.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

This set ain't going anywhere regardless. But come on, you bumped this thread for that?


Yes, there's nothing specific since people like Mr. Beck aren't at liberty to go into specifics but it certainly seems like a strange case of internal politics. Sort of a The Devils type of situation. WHV had no issue releasing those two cartoons back in the '90s but for some reason they've been arbitrarily singled in recent years and haven't been touched since. And it's still a bit of a mystery.

so would this be the first time that a title was listed as a looser, because trust me its not a winner, over a year, twelve pages of discussion, and never a firm answer back, and the odd part was that we were supposedly going to get an official response back, but it never came. think that is the one part of the Awards that I haven't used yet, so I might just go that route as well, but has a NON release ever been used that way before?

 

[Hasslein]

This set ain't going anywhere regardless. But come on, you bumped this thread for that?

There is no discussion allowed in the voting thread, so this was the only way to express one of the many reasons why I think they are the worst (along with replacing logos etc) and try to get others to not forget & vote the same way.

 

[jedi_1]

Hi everyone!

I'm a Tom and Jerry fan and i love the quality of the prints in this golden collection. Although this volume 2 was being delayed, the prints have already been remastered.

Yesterday, Super RTL released some of this prints. In the broadcast, they announced the following shorts: Mice Follies, Baby Butch, Life With Tom, Slicked-Up Pup and Nit-Witty Kitty.

The suprise was that Life With Tom, Slicked-Up Pup and Nit-Witty Kitty are remastered, but not Mice Follies and Baby Butch. This is consistent with the broadcast of Golden Collection Volume 2.

I took some screenshots of the prints released by Super RTL. At the left, you can see the Turner Print (used on Classic Collecion or Spotlight Collection). At the right, you can see the remastered print.

Why RTL has this prints and release it on TV although Golden Collection Volume 2 hasn't been released yet?

You can see Super RTL online in streaming at several webs.

Here is the broadcast of the Tom and Jerry TV package of German channels (Super RTL and Boomerang): http://www.wunschliste.de/serie/tom-und-jerry.

Greetings!

 

[Retro00064]

Interesting. If those shots on the right truly represent what we would get if the Golden Collection volume 2 ever gets released, then I can't say I'm liking everything I see. The color is certainly better balanced in the restored versions, but look at how blown-out the blacks are in a couple of the frames above from the restored Nit-Witty Kitty compared to the unrestored version, obliterating part(s) of the backgrounds. That just doesn't seem right. If this is WB's fault, then it wouldn't be the first time this has been the case.

 

[Dick]

Jerry Beck has indicated that Warner home video wants to release it with all the shorts intact but the legal department refuses to budge on the issue. Who knows how true that is, but it would make sense.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

I cannot imagine there could be any "legal" action against such a release. A few scattered complaints and threats of lawsuits from the NAACP, but with the proper disclaimers before each cartoon, these cartoons simply fall into the "historical context" category.

 

[JoHud]

I cannot imagine there could be any "legal" action against such a release. A few scattered complaints and threats of lawsuits from the NAACP, but with the proper disclaimers before each cartoon, these cartoons simply fall into the "historical context" category.

Not external legal pressure, more internally like the nonsense that held up The Devils because some VIP(s) in the studio set up a quai-legal road block because they don't like those two specific cartoons. Except its more ridiculous because it's really a couple of 5-10 second gags out of the whole cartoon that's gotten them condemned, the same sorts of gags that went through V1 without any fuss

 

[JoeDoakes]

I cannot imagine there could be any "legal" action against such a release. A few scattered complaints and threats of lawsuits from the NAACP, but with the proper disclaimers before each cartoon, these cartoons simply fall into the "historical context" category.

There wouldn't be any legal action against the release. What the lawyers would be afraid of is someone suing Warner for racial discrimination and claiming that there was a culture of insensitivity to racial discrimination.

 

[bigshot]

I have cels from Slicked Up Pup and Nit Witty Kitty, and the colors in the new transfers there are very accurate.

 

[Ruz-El]

There wouldn't be any legal action against the release. What the lawyers would be afraid of is someone suing Warner for racial discrimination and claiming that there was a culture of insensitivity to racial discrimination.

I'd argue that they aren't even afraid of a lawsuit but instead scared that someone from "Salon" or some other high minded site that is easily outraged over anything that could possibly be misconstrued as politically incorrect will call them out on Twitter and they well get a day of bad press on Gawker and what not. I mean, looking at the cartoons, they are technically racist in their depictions of minorities and for many casual viewers who wouldn't of bought the product in the first place they're an easy target when turned into a meme on Facebook.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Russell is correct. If it was Criterion or some non-mega-corporation releasing them it wouldn't be a problem, but when you have these large corporate entities worried about protests that can effect their ancillary products (theme parks, tv shows, magazines, etc.), providing the opportunity for "outraged" PC police to gather their voices against them is not seen as being in their best interest.

 

[Jari K]

So people really believe that the "outraged" masses would boycott WB if a couple of really freaking old cartoons about the cat & mouse would be officially released?

 

[JoHud]

So people really believe that the "outraged" masses would boycott WB if a couple of really freaking old cartoons about the cat & mouse would be officially released?

Not really. Especially considering that the two T&J cartoons here don't have any infamy among the general public like the C11 or Song of the South does. Like with Volume 1, which had the same sort of gags I seriously doubt V2 would caused any issue.

 

[TravisR]

So people really believe that the "outraged" masses would boycott WB if a couple of really freaking old cartoons about the cat & mouse would be officially released?

I don't but just the threat alone is enough to cause sleepless nights in business people. The only thing that would happen is that people would complain on Twitter and say they were going to boycott X, Y and Z but then they'd do absolutely nothing and forget the whole thing within a day or two because they're be something new to tell everyone that they're outraged by. In other words, it'd be the same thing that always happens on Twitter.

In all fairness to Warners or Disney, it is easier to have a handful of people on a message board mad that something isn't coming out rather than deal with a day or two of being called racist in the mainstream media.

 

[bigshot]

They aren't worried about lawsuits. One of the top executives in the legal department at Warner Home Video is a black lady who has vowed that these cartoons will be released over her dead body. She is well entrenched, has the power to nix, and isn't retiring anytime soon.

 

[dana martin]

One of the top executives in the legal department at Warner Home Video is a black lady who has vowed that these cartoons will be released over her dead body. She is well entrenched, has the power to nix, and isn't retiring anytime soon.

And this individual, wasn't in that same position, during the last release?

 

[bigshot]

She was, but from what I'm told, she is operating off a list. The 13 banned cartoons have increased in number and she is the source of it.

 

[Dick]

They aren't worried about lawsuits. One of the top executives in the legal department at Warner Home Video is a black lady who has vowed that these cartoons will be released over her dead body. She is well entrenched, has the power to nix, and isn't retiring anytime soon.

Did you mean "these cartoons will not be released over her dead body"? Confusing post.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I would point out that young children won't have a clue about racism in these animated cartoons, it's adults who put that stuff into their heads, the kids would probably just sit back and enjoy the cartoons and adults are perfectly capable of making their own minds up without undue censorship, the real reason these shorts are being omitted is because someone at Warner Bros objected to them, if it's true that it's one person then that is just plain sad, an abuse of power and it should not be allowed.

So what exactly is being objected to here, i mean in detail, can i see these "banned" shorts on YouTube. ?