NitrateVille.com

Glad they could spell my name right...

I was more than happy to plunk down some money for this set and support the Laurel & Hardy cause. My order hasn't arrived just yet but I'm sure it'll be worth the wait.

In terms of product quality, people can quibble about this print being better than that print and so on. But the definitive set is really meant for the uber L&H fan anyway (I'll raise my hand on that one) rather than the passing fan.

I think the more pressing issue is - will L&H still have a fan base down the road? Sadly, L&H fans are dying every day and I'm not so sure they're being replaced. When I was growing up, L&H were ubiquitous on TV, etc. Now I don't think they're even on the public radar. Although I'm sure the recent "Stan and Ollie" bio pic didn't hurt.

Wow - sorry to bring the room down on a weekend

sometimes zeppo wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:25 pm

Although I'm sure the recent "Stan and Ollie" bio pic didn't hurt.

Didn't help, either. No one under 40 would go to see a movie about two old guys arguing politely about something vaguely disappointing that happened between them back in the Stone Age.

Jim

Don't sell youth short. I'm 33. I went to the theater to see it.

Randy Skretvedt and I talk about this set and L&H in the new podcast here.

maliejandra wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:10 am

Don't sell youth short. I'm 33. I went to the theater to see it.

Yeah, but you're old at heart!

Jim

31 here and proud to have helped in some small way with furthering the legacy of Stan and Ollie.

Thad Komorowski wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:27 am

31 here and proud to have helped in some small way with furthering the legacy of Stan and Ollie.

You darn seniors get off my lawn!

Jim

Jim, you're a hoot!

I want to add a shout-out for yet another feature of this beautiful set. Those of limited hearing who, like Jim and me, rely on captioning will find the yellow subtitles easy to read throughout. They're sometimes revelatory as well. For years and years I thought Charlie Hall was advising Stan and Ollie that the address atop the Music Box steps was 1127 Warwick Avenue. No dice: it's 1127 Walnut. Oddly enough, though, I've always understood Billy Gilbert's Professor Theodore Von Schwarzenhoffer, MD, AD, DDS, FLD, FFF and F, perfectly. Go figure!

I work with a lot of young film makers, and I have noticed that Laurel and Hardy feels too slow to a lot of them, and the Marx Bros are so abstract in their characters that they have trouble identifying with them. Young people totally get Keaton and they certainly appreciate Chaplin, so it isn't all lost. I love all of it myself, even the Ritz Brothers and Wheeler and Woolsey! (Not so keen on Abbott and Costello though). It's all a matter of taste. Sometimes, removing a property from the market for a long time can kill the demand for it. Hopefully, this set will mark a turn in the tides for Laurel & Hardy. I'd love to see a good set of silents.

bigshot wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:40 pm

I work with a lot of young film makers, and I have noticed that Laurel and Hardy feels too slow to a lot of them, and the Marx Bros are so abstract in their characters that they have trouble identifying with them. Young people totally get Keaton and they certainly appreciate Chaplin, so it isn't all lost. I love all of it myself, even the Ritz Brothers and Wheeler and Woolsey! (Not so keen on Abbott and Costello though). It's all a matter of taste. Sometimes, removing a property from the market for a long time can kill the demand for it. Hopefully, this set will mark a turn in the tides for Laurel & Hardy. I'd love to see a good set of silents.

I can understand L&H's deliberate comedy being a tough sell with "the kids" these days. And I'm sure the B&W prints and having grown up with the quick jump cutting of modern films doesn't help. But hey, what are you going to do? I perfectly agree with your point about L&H being absent from the market for so long. (I'm sure that's happened in the case of Harold Lloyd.) Hopefully the new L&H set will help spark some interest. I second the motion for those silents!

Laurel & Hardy films are timed for an audience. If you see them with an audience that is laughing, you need the pauses between gags or dialog is drowned out.

silentfilm wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:49 pm

Laurel & Hardy films are timed for an audience. If you see them with an audience that is laughing, you need the pauses between gags or dialog is drowned out.

Exactly. I remember reading (I think in the McCabe biography) that Ollie's camera looks were often timed for the laughs after previews and Stan hated the timing of the shorts on television and even said he would like to recut them for TV.

I can relate - I didn't care for Laurel and Hardy as a kid either. Then I accidentally saw Sons of the Desert (to my mind, one of the truly greatest American comedies) on TV my first year of college and I was hooked.

I'm also of the opinion their acting style had a profound impact on animation at the time. All those guys liked to say it was "Chaplin, Chaplin, Chaplin" to be cool, but give me a break. Donald Duck's slow-burns and Wile E. Coyote's interactions with the audience clearly owe a debt to Mr. Hardy.

Thad Komorowski wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:14 am

I can relate - I didn't care for Laurel and Hardy as a kid either. Then I accidentally saw Sons of the Desert (to my mind, one of the truly greatest American comedies) on TV my first year of college and I was hooked.

Great choice! Not to go down the rabbit hole with this one but there's a shot in Sons of the Desert that's always fascinated me. It's that final shot where Stan turns to leave and Ollie throws a pot at him. It hits Stan square in the head and he does a somersault!

I wonder how many takes they had to do to get that one right? It's amazing they could pull it off so seamlessly.

Maybe keaton was a stunt double!

I’m watching Sons of the Desert right now, and it’s a magnificent print. I figured to watch it with the commentary on, but the sound is so good, I wanted to hear it too.

You can even see Ollie’s shadow on the projected backdrop in the cab!

Bob

Thad Komorowski wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:14 am

I can relate - I didn't care for Laurel and Hardy as a kid either. Then I accidentally saw Sons of the Desert (to my mind, one of the truly greatest American comedies) on TV my first year of college and I was hooked.

I'm also of the opinion their acting style had a profound impact on animation at the time. All those guys liked to say it was "Chaplin, Chaplin, Chaplin" to be cool, but give me a break. Donald Duck's slow-burns and Wile E. Coyote's interactions with the audience clearly owe a debt to Mr. Hardy.

I didn’t enjoy the Boys when I first saw them on WPIX; it was only later, as I came to see their immense affection for each other that I came to appreciate their work.

There's a discussion of Laurel & Hardy going on in the "What have you watched lately"-thread (for talkies), but as that thread is perhaps heading towards closure now (this being 2021 and all), perhaps this is the place to add my 2 cents...

The overall quality of Laurel & Hardy's work at Roach never ceases to amaze me, especially as far as their two-reelers are concerned. Chase also made some very nice two-reelers in the talkie era (although I still think he was at his best in the silents, overall), and the 1930s shorts which Todd/Pitts and Langdon did for Roach do have their moments for sure, but Laurel & Hardy made two-reel comedy masterpieces/near-masterpieces such as HELPMATES, THE MUSIC BOX, THEIR FIRST MISTAKE, SCRAM! and TOWED IN A HOLE within a single year; and then several more films of well above average quality in the same period. Who else comes close to that? Maybe Chaplin at Mutual, or Keaton in the early 1920s; but not many others, IMO. And this is not meant as a criticism of the other performers mentioned here, but rather to pay yet another tribute to Stan & Ollie. "Everyone" agrees that they were great, but it's still mind-blowing to think of the sheer consistency of their work in the 1930s.

Interesting that several people here didn't care for the duo until they became a bit older. I've been a massive fan of L&H since I was nine (I'd rent VHS tapes of their two-reelers again and again at my local video store). Then again, my interest was sparked even before I'd actually seen them on film, thanks to the comic book stories about them which I'd already discovered (and which I now realize were not at all remarkable, but at least the comics made me curious).

I still haven't bought these new restorations, though. I'm tempted, but the 21-disc set released in Europe years ago still serves me well, and then there's Flicker Alley's Laurel or Hardy set coming out soon...

Still considering this purchase... Will the BluRay version play on European BR-players, does anyone know? I think most Kit Parker Films releases do, but as the price gets quite steep with the shipping, it'd be nice to have it confirmed.

I have a region B set up and could test it if you want but the back of the set says it's for all regions.

Smari1989 wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:38 am

Still considering this purchase... Will the BluRay version play on European BR-players, does anyone know? I think most Kit Parker Films releases do, but as the price gets quite steep with the shipping, it'd be nice to have it confirmed.

BarneyS wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:02 am

I have a region B set up and could test it if you want but the back of the set says it's for all regions.

Ah OK, then I guess it should work all right for me as well. Thanks!

bigshot wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:40 pm

I work with a lot of young film makers, and I have noticed that Laurel and Hardy feels too slow to a lot of them

The pacing of L&H has always been what drew me in. I always felt that was their art. There's few film moments that I enjoy more than one of Ollie's fourth-wall breaking "are you f-ing kidding me" stares. Or one of Stan's (or 3 Stooge Curlie's) "silent soliloquies" of stupidity.

Well I've finally received this set and, although I owned every film on it barring the new footage from BATTLE OF THE CENTURY before, I'm certainly glad I did get it. Only watched BATTLE... and BERTH MARKS and some of the interviews so far, but this truly looks like a magnificent release already. For that matter, I enjoyed BERTH MARKS a lot more now than I did watching it years ago; I (mis)remembered that rather claustrophobic scene inside the berth as taking up more than half of the film, but it's not really that long, and the stuff before it at the station as well as onboard the train is good.

And the bonus material looks like gold, esp. the interviews with the aging "Roach crew."

Smari1989 wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:48 pm

Well I've finally received this set and, although I owned every film on it barring the new footage from BATTLE OF THE CENTURY before, I'm certainly glad I did get it. Only watched BATTLE... and BERTH MARKS and some of the interviews so far, but this truly looks like a magnificent release already. For that matter, I enjoyed BERTH MARKS a lot more now than I did watching it years ago; I (mis)remembered that rather claustrophobic scene inside the berth as taking up more than half of the film, but it's not really that long, and the stuff before it at the station as well as onboard the train is good.

And the bonus material looks like gold, esp. the interviews with the aging "Roach crew."

I own the UCLA restoration disks, and I also own The Essential Laurel and Hardy put out a few years ago. There is some overlap of shorts on the sets and the new UCLA restoration set is much better. Not that there is anything wrong with The Essential, but in this case the double-dip was worth it. Has UCLA restored more shorts that are not yet released on home video, does anyone know?

Matthew

I actually like the Essential set better. Those transfers LOOK more like sharp old film and give the movies that feel.

The UCLA restorations are excellent, but the film look is cleaned out of them. As a former film collector and a child fan back in the 1950s when they first went on TV, I see them through that lens. Maybe it's just my own nostalgia.

Super 8 was (essentially) before my time, but I did grow up watching Stan & Ollie on some rather fuzzy VHS tapes which I rented regularly from my local video store (there were 3 tapes with 3 shorts each, if memory serves me right).* While I may get nostalgic about the time when picture quality wasn't something I "expected" from old films (I'm sure I thought they'd been fuzzy even upon original release), I'm certainly grateful for now owning several of them in a condition as crystal clear as possible.

I don't know if more of these releases are in the works at the moment, but some of the Amazon reviews seem to suggest so. Fingers crossed.

*HOG WILD was one of them, which I incidentally watched again yesterday on this set. GREAT quality.

I have the set, and have been watching a lot of it. I’ve had the 2 features and many of the shorts on 16mm for many years. One thing I noticed on my film versions and now on the Blu-ray, is that some scenes are soft. It’s not a digital mastering issue, the same scenes were soft on film. It’s like the camera man sometimes didn’t get his focus spot on. Also there seems (in the L&H films) to be no attempt at follow focus, sometimes a character in the background will be soft and sharpens up as they approach the camera. Possibly Roach just didn’t see the need for a “focus puller ” to track the action in a film. I’m not reviewing the Blu-ray rather I’m commenting on certain aspects of the films that are present in film prints and also visible in the Blu-ray.

Having done some really low-budget production myself on fairly primitive equipment, I can say that rather than take the time to attempt to follow-focus, we have had to rely on scale focusing (by measured distance). If the actor misses his or her mark, or the operator bumps the focus ring, then bingo, you have a focus mistake. If the shot is hard to recreate or the schedule is too tight, it may be that one would decide to live with it. The previously seen soft or “dupey” prints of early films tended to mask these errors.

If you look at the cameras of the 20’s and 30’s you’ll see little provision for the type of follow-focus setup that we have today. Indeed, the very early sound-proof blimps may have little or no provision for focus adjusting during a take. The Mitchell BNC of the late 1930s is the first camera that I can think of that allowed for changing focus during a take. (If I’m wrong, I’m sure others will be able to chime in.) As budgets grew and equipment improved, you see less and less of this in the standard Hollywood output as the years roll by.

I’m just delighted that we can see improved versions of these L&H films after all these years of corporate neglect.

Regards,
Martin