Tom & Jerry "Deluxe Anniversary Collection" 6/29

It's cartoon news worth reading! Read about the latest TV highlights, DVD releases, and much more!
User avatar
Jon Cooke
Junior Member
Posts: 4964
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:00 am

Postby Jon Cooke » Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:33 pm

I just finished making my way through the review copy. A few more quick notes/goofs:

* Like the DVD Talk review said, "The Lonesome Mouse" has the re-recorded Mammy audio track and "The Little Orphan" and "The Milky Waif" are the edited versions. "Touche Pussycat" and "That's My Mommy" are pan-and-scan (cropped) versions.

* While "The Egg and Jerry" and "Tops With Pops" are widescreen, they are NOT enhanced for widescreen televisions (like the package says), unlike the versions included on T&J Spotlight, Volume 3. In other words, if you are watching it on a widescreen TV, there are black bars on the top & bottom and on the sides. These are apparently the old LD versions.

* The Chuck Jones cartoons are the fullscreen versions, not the matted enhanced widescreen transfers from the Chuck Jones Collection DVD. This isn't really a big of deal, but, again, this isn't what was promised on the package.

* It looks like at least one Deitch short was originally going to be included. One of the menus on Disc 1 uses a big image from "Dicky Moe". Also, the Deitch shorts are touched upon in the new featurette. It seems odd that the Through the Years disc skips over them completely.

* Was the T&J Kids short "Flippin' Fido" released theatrically? It has a set of opening and closing credits I had never seen before that suggest it was at least prepared for a stand-alone release.

In the end, I sadly can't recommend this set to anyone. It's a solid collection of T&J's best, but the quality control was seriously lacking. Casual T&J fans can stick with the Greatest Chases discs and the collector's have the Spotlights/Jones sets. I am not really sure who this set was aimed at.

User avatar
gabriel_katikos
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 4:07 pm
Location: Baddeck, Nova Scotia

Postby gabriel_katikos » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:15 am

Let me guess, Jon... The Midnight Snack, Fraidy Cat, Puss n' Toots, and Mouse Trouble do NOT have their original titles restored on this set.
"The dirty f***!" (Bosko's Picture Show, 1933) :bosko:

User avatar
flyingfrog76
Junior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:25 am
Location: Outer Space

Postby flyingfrog76 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:27 am

This must be a cheap way to make more easy cash for WHV. I agree, if this had something that made this set itself apart from other releases instead of having cartoons that's already been released and dreck nobody wants. This could have been a perfect opportunity to release the Gene Deitch shorts, since one was mentioned in the little documentary.

I know what I said is an echo of what others have said, but let's just say the Spotlight Collection spoiled me.
Watching classic animation since 1992.

User avatar
Jon Cooke
Junior Member
Posts: 4964
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:00 am

Postby Jon Cooke » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:01 am

gabriel_katikos wrote:Let me guess, Jon... The Midnight Snack, Fraidy Cat, Puss n' Toots, and Mouse Trouble do NOT have their original titles restored on this set.


No, they don't. I figured that was a given. I would have mentioned it if I had noticed otherwise.

User avatar
ohmahaaha
Junior Member
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:46 pm
Location: Norristown, PA

Postby ohmahaaha » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:37 am

Jon Cooke wrote:No, they don't. I figured that was a given. I would have mentioned it if I had noticed otherwise.

What a same, but thanks for the heads up Jon. It really boggles the mind that such a fine piece of animation such as the "Tom & Jerry" franchise has gotten such slip-shod treatment by a quality control team & their leaders who, apparently, just don't care.

There was a post earlier in this thread that mentioned how the "Spotlight" collection was a "joke" in so many words; I wouldn't go quite that far because I'm fairly satisfied with that collection having gone through disc replacement processes twice, successfully ... but it shouldn't have happened to begin with. And the omission of those last 2 cartoons just doesn't make sense - the reason given for exclusion being ludicrous since many similar examples were included in the same & previous sets.

User avatar
Steve Siegert
Junior Member
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:09 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Steve Siegert » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:55 am

ohmahaaha wrote:What a same, but thanks for the heads up Jon. It really boggles the mind that such a fine piece of animation such as the "Tom & Jerry" franchise has gotten such slip-shod treatment by a quality control team & their leaders who, apparently, just don't care.

There was a post earlier in this thread that mentioned how the "Spotlight" collection was a "joke" in so many words; I wouldn't go quite that far because I'm fairly satisfied with that collection having gone through disc replacement processes twice, successfully ... but it shouldn't have happened to begin with. And the omission of those last 2 cartoons just doesn't make sense - the reason given for exclusion being ludicrous since many similar examples were included in the same & previous sets.


Without a doubt, Warner Bros. does not care too greatly about anything they own that was not originally theirs. Hopefully some day MGM can retain ownership of its classic film library, then maybe we will get Tom & Jerry and Tex Avery collections that really are intended for collectors and none of those piss poor excuses put together by Warner Bros. Family division.
[color=black]
"If I had some bread, I'd make a sandwich...if I had a witch" - Popeye (Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves)
[/color]

User avatar
Bugsy-Kun
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:19 pm
Contact:

Postby Bugsy-Kun » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:30 am

Steve Siegert wrote:Without a doubt, Warner Bros. does not care too greatly about anything they own that was not originally theirs. Hopefully some day MGM can retain ownership of its classic film library, then maybe we will get Tom & Jerry and Tex Avery collections that really are intended for collectors and none of those piss poor excuses put together by Warner Bros. Family division.


I wish that too but all of the Tom and Jerry franchise was done first by Turner Entertainment. Warner is more a affiliate of this ownership if i'm not wrong, but they take now too much credits to something they don't created at the first place.

User avatar
GarudaBoy!
Junior Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:53 pm

Postby GarudaBoy! » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:38 am

Steve Siegert wrote:Without a doubt, Warner Bros. does not care too greatly about anything they own that was not originally theirs. Hopefully some day MGM can retain ownership of its classic film library, then maybe we will get Tom & Jerry and Tex Avery collections that really are intended for collectors and none of those piss poor excuses put together by Warner Bros. Family division.


MGM can't even afford to stay open for business. They're not going to be able to buy that library back.

I know people have been disappointed in these Tom & Jerry releases, but the issue is it all relates to economics. Warner Bros. isn't going to spend the money needed to put together a collection with real care (unless people wanted to work for free on the DVD sets because they loved T&J that much, which I don't think they can legally do anyway) when they could trot out old transfers and make a similar amount in revenue.

Looney Tunes was (apparently) a different case in that it's considered WB's "flagship" animation franchise, and restoration efforts predated the DVD packaging project. I just can't invest any more emotion or disappointment into the decisions and projects of a major corporation; I'd just prefer to expect failure and be pleasantly surprised if/when they get anything right.

As for the person who asked about original titles, didn't all the first generation MGM film source material for pre-1952 works burn up in a vault fire years ago? They don't have anything on file, and at this point and time they aren't going to pay to license and cleanup collectors' prints several generations removed from the original negatives (though they should be trying to restore and preserve this material somehow, since a. it's not getting any younger and less prone to being lost and b. HD is here already)


Return to “GAC News and Reviews”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests