Tom & Jerry: The Golden Collection, Volume One Blu-ray

[Duck Dodgers]

I have to say that at least, Mouse Trouble doesn't look THAT bad, Eastman or not. Or if it isn't Eastman, what is it?

It looks bad indeed. My copy on "The Art of Tom and Jerry volume 1" laserdisc looks eye-popping compared to it.

[Woody Woodpecker]

Oh boy. At least people aren't blaming Jerry or George for this.

I can blame them if you want but I not going to do that but I did wellcome if they addressed some of the issue on quality control though.

[Duck Dodgers]

I started my polite campaign for a replacement disc program on the WB classic animation facebook page.
You can join me there.

http://www.facebook.com/WBClassicAnimation

Please, letìs fight together. If they see that many people write the same thing they'll listen to us.

[Woody Woodpecker]

I started my polite campaign for a replacement disc program on the WB classic animation facebook page.
You can join me there.

http://www.facebook.com/WBClassicAnimation

Please, letìs fight together. If they see that many people write the same thing they'll listen to us.

I went there and agreed with you.

[zavkram]

I've held off on posting again to this thread because I wanted to wait and see what others here, like Thad, had to say about the release once it came out. I'm disappointed that some shorts like "Mouse Trouble" are in sad shape here.

I am glad to hear, however, that "Old Rockin' Chair Tom" is not a composite of good and inferior sources. I'm hoping this means that the audio during the last 30 seconds of the cartoon won't have that little "wrinkle" that occurs (in previous DVD incarnations) in the soundtrack; as Tom sets down the pie pan and Jerry nabs it with his horseshoe magnet.

Fortunately, none of my all-time favorite T&J's made the "terrible 10" roster; so I'm looking forward to seeing great copies of "A Mouse in the House", "The Little Orphan", "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Mouse", and "Cat Fishin'"

I'm also a little disappointed that WHV decided to include the useless (IMO) commentaries by Nicole Parker; but I also realize that if had they edited them out, it would leave the excellent comments by Earl Kress sounding a bit one-sided. Also, Mr. Kress is no longer with us; so that makes having all of his commentaries all the more valuable; in spite of the dizziness of NP's contributions. I'm also glad that WHV didn't include those god-awful disclaimers on each disc by Whoopi Goldberg.

When all is said and done, I'll buy the new DVD set but also keep my Spotlight Collection; just so I'll have a slightly better-looking copy of "The Bowling Alley-Cat".

[nickramer]

I can blame them if you want but I not going to do that but I did wellcome if they addressed some of the issue on quality control though.

I don't want anyone to blame them. I was reffering to another thread where someone was bashing Jerry.

[Woody Woodpecker]

I don't want anyone to blame them. I was reffering to another thread where someone was bashing Jerry.

That post was supposed to be joke.

[trondmm]

I don't want anyone to blame them. I was reffering to another thread where someone was bashing Jerry.

I can blame them

Not for the use of the wrong prints, of course (and I'll wait until I get the set before I make up my mind on how upset I am about that). However, it does seem that they need to take some of the responsibility about the rumours and confusion about the 14 original titles people expected.

In the Comic-con panel where they talk about the upcoming T&J and LT BD releases, they say that they discovered 12-14 "original successive exposure masters", and that they would be included on this set.

http://www.radiorashy.com/media/RRSDCCTJ2011.mp3

During this panel, they showed Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Mouse, so it seems that all the rumors about 14 original titles, of which Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Mouse was definately one, comes from this panel.

Obviously, they shouldn't have to take the blame for other people misreporting what they've said, or simply assuming that it would automatically mean that the original titles had been found too. On the other hand, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that the original prints would include the original titles as well. I don't know much about animation production, though, and I don't know when in the process the titles are added. I've assumed that they were photographed together with the rest of the short, and in that case it seems reasonable to assume that original successive exposure masters would include the titles. (In this case, I'm also assuming there's only one successive exposure master, and that copies are always made as three-strip Technicolor).

Anyway - as I said - I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that original prints means original titles, and Jerry knows what a big deal a discovery of original titles is, so it would've been nice if they had pointed out that even though these are the original sucecessive exposure masters, they unfortunately did not contain the original titles. Otoh, noone in the audience bother to ask about the title cards.

[Woody Woodpecker]

I can blame them

Not for the use of the wrong prints, of course (and I'll wait until I get the set before I make up my mind on how upset I am about that). However, it does seem that they need to take some of the responsibility about the rumours and confusion about the 14 original titles people expected.

In the Comic-con panel where they talk about the upcoming T&J and LT BD releases, they say that they discovered 12-14 "original successive exposure masters", and that they would be included on this set.

http://www.radiorashy.com/media/RRSDCCTJ2011.mp3

During this panel, they showed Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Mouse, so it seems that all the rumors about 14 original titles, of which Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Mouse was definately one, comes from this panel.

Obviously, they shouldn't have to take the blame for other people misreporting what they've said, or simply assuming that it would automatically mean that the original titles had been found too. On the other hand, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that the original prints would include the original titles as well. I don't know much about animation production, though, and I don't know when in the process the titles are added. I've assumed that they were photographed together with the rest of the short, and in that case it seems reasonable to assume that original successive exposure masters would include the titles. (In this case, I'm also assuming there's only one successive exposure master, and that copies are always made as three-strip Technicolor).

Anyway - as I said - I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that original prints means original titles, and Jerry knows what a big deal a discovery of original titles is, so it would've been nice if they had pointed out that even though these are the original sucecessive exposure masters, they unfortunately did not contain the original titles. Otoh, noone in the audience bother to ask about the title cards.

And think about the titles that flamed up in the fire do we rely know if they contained original titles? the materal might even been lost back in the 50's when the original reissue came about. I mean many of Looney Tunes blu-ribbons originals are lost even if no fire clamed those negatives. And Warner is supposed to have all the original negatives for those. As the alternative happned to the original prints, explains why we see blu-ribbons on LTGC and probably on the up coming LTPC. Other wise Warner would put in all originals titles ease on LT/MM.

[matiasdf]

It looks bad indeed. My copy on "The Art of Tom and Jerry volume 1" laserdisc looks eye-popping compared to it.

I understand, I can also see how the Tech print Thad has is better than the BD print (i.e. Tom looks blue on the Technicolor print, gray on the BD, an overall more colorful picture on the Technicolor print, etc.), I was just pointing out that, to me, not all the "10" looked THAT BAD, and that, indeed, some shorts look better than others (for example, Puttin' On the Dog is faded and washed-out)