Press Release WHV Press Release: Max Fleischer's SUPERMAN 1941-1943 (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[jayembee]

They are also available (in SD) in The Superman Motion Picture Anthology set from 2011 (on the discs of the two films that Josh mentioned).

 

[Will Krupp]

Regarding the 1941-1943 Superman, was there another DVD release besides the 2000 Image release?

In addition to the sets mentioned above, there's a 2009 standalone DVD release from Warner which, I have to assume, uses the same masters that are included in the Anthology sets. That may be a better bet as those included on the Anthology blu-rays are (necessarily) interlaced, while the standalone set will almost certainly be progressively scanned at 24fps, at least.

See on Amazon

 

[Douglas R]

I’m not going to cancel my order on the basis of one report, no matter how well qualified the author is. I want to see the shorts in HD and am happy to judge them for myself.

 

[Robert Harris]

I’m not going to cancel my order on the basis of one report, no matter how well qualified the author is. I want to see the shorts in HD and am happy to judge them for myself.

Agreed. However, we’re seeing two reports from Mr. Hunt. First a tweet, followed by his review on the Bits, which is about as negative as it might be.

Historically his reviews tend to side with the studio, so coming out with a negative this bad doesn’t bode well. Hopefully, I hope to have a copy shortly and will able to offer a yea or nay.

But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.

Except obviously whomever did final QC, who must believe it to be spot on!

Which is why I’m not seeing any downside for the consumer beyond the time and effort of going through the steps toward replacement.

Best move for those w/o incoming orders is probably to hold off.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

So my question at this point is if anyone seriously thinks Warner is going to fix this disc?

I would bet not, though I hope I am wrong. They already have two faulty boxed set releases in the past month we all know won't get corrected.

They have reached Paramount Studio status with putting out inconsistent quality product.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Agreed. However, we’re seeing two reports from Mr. Hunt. First a tweet, followed by his review on the Bits, which is about as negative as it might be.

Historically his reviews tend to side with the studio, so coming out with a negative this bad doesn’t bode well. Hopefully, I hope to have a copy shortly and will able to offer a yea or nay.

But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.

Except obviously whomever did final QC, who must believe it to be spot on!

Which is why I’m not seeing any downside for the consumer beyond the time and effort of going through the steps toward replacement.

Best move for those w/o incoming orders is probably to hold off.

I haven't preordered this particular release so I'll just hold off. Anyhow, I need to watch these toons to see if I'll enjoy them enough to buy them again. I have them on the following releases:

 

[Robert Crawford]

So my question at this point is if anyone seriously thinks Warner is going to fix this disc?

I would bet not, though I hope I am wrong. They already have two faulty boxed set releases in the past month we all know won't get corrected.

They have reached Paramount Studio status with putting out inconsistent quality product.

I wouldn't go that far. Also, if one of those boxed set releases is the Rocky movies then that's not really Warner's issue as they're only the distributor of the product. MGM is the culprit when it comes to that problematic release.

 

[Patrick McCart]

If Warner is trying to save money but not having a dedicated QC team, I'm sure there's plenty of members here who would be happy to do it for free if it meant they'd be able to purchase a quality release (myself included).

 

[dpippel]

But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.

Except obviously whomever did final QC, who must believe it to be spot on!

This is the kind of thing I just don't understand about botched releases like this, and they keep occurring. The studio invests a LOT of time, money, and expertise to get a title out the door, and then the whole thing comes crumbling down due to lax or uninformed QC, possibly at the hand of a single individual? That's not a smart way to run a business if you want to make fans happy AND make a decent profit. There appears to be a real lack of checks and balances in the workflow, and it happens fairly often, with some studios (I'm lookin' at you, Paramount) having a worse track record than others. So they put themselves in the position of either ignoring the issue and alienating customers, or going through the trouble of initiating a replacement program at significant cost and losing money.

You'd think the powers that be would learn from both their own mistakes and the mistakes of others so that these kinds of blunders would occur a lot less frequently. They should adopt the old carpenter's edict and live by it - measure twice, cut once.

 

[Paul Penna]

But I’m not feeling good about this. The one positive is that if the product is that bad, WB will have to offer replacements for those who purchased. This is my presumption because the work has been going on for quite a while, with a very large investment of both time and budget. No one involved will want to be aligned with a product this potentially problematic.

Jerry Beck made these comments on the Facebook group "The REAL Flesicher Studios Group" in response to questions about the Digital Bits review and the production in general.

"It isn't the 'horror show' that digital bits describes... but it's a huge disappointment for those of us that wanted these properly restored."

And to make clear this wasn't a Warner Archive production and that he and George Feltenstein weren't involved:

"Different people did this - it’s a long story." "Because George wasn’t there… done behind his back when he was away."

 

[justarandomstan]

How do you F up such a straightforward task? Honestly. They had ONE job.... wow.

 

[Ken_Martinez]

I can't wait for the inevitable review. "5/5. Never looked better. Highly Recommended".

 

[Robert Harris]

I can't wait for the inevitable review. "5/5. Never looked better. Highly Recommended".

From whom?

 

[Trancas]

"Warner Bros. Discovery’s advanced remastering process began with a 4K, 16-bit scan of Fleischer’s original 35mm successive exposure negative. Staying true to the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.37-to-1, the highest quality raw image was then scanned and then entered into the recombine process – utilizing special proprietary software to merge the successive exposure Technicolor negatives into a single RGB color image. The end result are pristine animated shorts that have been restored to the animators’ originally intended production quality."

"the recombine process – utilizing special proprietary software"...doesn't that indicate that the Archive staff were involved at some point? They wouldn't have untrained staff using this software. Why would another division of WB have any involvement in this at all? It's a vintage product that needs a lot of specialized work to yield a finished result that will only appeal to a crowd that loves and buys old movies. Were the Archive people taking too long? With George F. not there, was it taken away and given to the regular mastering staff to speed things up?

 

[Paul Penna]

"Warner Bros. Discovery’s advanced remastering process began with a 4K, 16-bit scan of Fleischer’s original 35mm successive exposure negative. Staying true to the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.37-to-1, the highest quality raw image was then scanned and then entered into the recombine process – utilizing special proprietary software to merge the successive exposure Technicolor negatives into a single RGB color image. The end result are pristine animated shorts that have been restored to the animators’ originally intended production quality."

"the recombine process – utilizing special proprietary software"...doesn't that indicate that the Archive staff were involved at some point?

Not necessarily, that work would be done by MPI, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. Jerry Beck is saying that neither he, George Feltenstein or the Warner Archive was involved at all - see quotes in my post a few spaces up.

 

[Trancas]

Not necessarily, that work would be done by MPI, Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. Jerry Beck is saying that neither he, George Feltenstein or the Warner Archive was involved at all - see quotes in my post a few spaces up.

Where does MPI end and Warner Archive begin? So MPI must have developed the recombine software. Did they also develop the proprietary retouching software that gets rid of dirt and scratches without (reasonably) affecting the film grain? Is there a constant back and forth between the divisions? Would they be bothered with old film restorations? Isn't that below their pay grade? Aren't they the software gurus who do special effects for blockbusters? Or does MPI do the heavy lifting in old film restorations and Warner Archive does final editing and mastering? Look at this Tweet announcement - they both are given credit:
Curse of Frankenstein: Before and After

 

[Robert Crawford]

Where does MPI end and Warner Archive begin? So MPI must have developed the recombine software. Did they also develop the proprietary retouching software that gets rid of dirt and scratches without (reasonably) affecting the film grain? Is there a constant back and forth between the divisions? Would they be bothered with old film restorations? Isn't that below their pay grade? Aren't they the software gurus who do special effects for blockbusters? Or does MPI do the heavy lifting in old film restorations and Warner Archive does final editing and mastering? Look at this Tweet announcement - they both are given credit:
Curse of Frankenstein: Before and After

If you're trying to assign blame here, good luck with that endeavor, especially looking from the outside to inside a large corporation. Let's just say that Warner failed here and that they need to do better.

 

[Trancas]

This is from a current interview of George Feltenstein:
"In about an hour, I’m going over to our motion picture imaging facility, which is where we do most of the mastering, to look at a film of ours from the 1920s that’s getting a brand new restoration – so that people can look at this that’s nearly 100 years old and be compelled by the entertainment and cinematic magic of that film."
Country & Town House

So isn't MPI doing the actual restorations? How could they do the Looney Tunes and Tex Avery cartoons one way and then do these Superman cartoons in another way?? Wouldn't you assign Ed, Laura and Anush to work on Superman because they had experience restoring the LT and TA cartoons?

 

[Robert Harris]

This is from a current interview of George Feltenstein:
"In about an hour, I’m going over to our motion picture imaging facility, which is where we do most of the mastering, to look at a film of ours from the 1920s that’s getting a brand new restoration – so that people can look at this that’s nearly 100 years old and be compelled by the entertainment and cinematic magic of that film."
Country & Town House

So isn't MPI doing the actual restorations? How could they do the Looney Tunes and Tex Avery cartoons one way and then do these Superman cartoons in another way??

Because none of the problem (whatever if might be) has anything to do with the basic scanning or recombine.

 

[jayembee]

I haven't preordered this particular release so I'll just hold off. Anyhow, I need to watch these toons to see if I'll enjoy them enough to buy them again.

I should watch them again, too, but only because I haven't watched them in a while. I know that I like them enough to buy again, if the quality justifies it. I also have it on this:

If the negative reports about this release turn out to be true, I figure I'm happy enough with the SD versions in the Superman MPA.