criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:Cry Vengeance in July

Yay!

Exciting new announcement:

Betty Boop

I wish they would fit more onto volume one, but this is still great news. I've been anticipating this since they got the republic library.

Finall...huh that's a pretty random collection. I wonder how the selection process is done. And they'll need ~9 volumes to release eveything at this rate.

God's Little Acre is also announced for July

And some very very disappointing news:

Betty Boop

How is that disappointing?

Because 60 or so Betty shorts will not be included. The collection from Olive will represent less than half of Betty's filmography. Since the rest are public domain anyway, it's disappointing that Olive have decided to leave them out.

That said, of course I'm still very excited for the 49 we will get.

edit: I just came across this, from when they originally announced Betty Boop.

Jerry Beck "calling them out" on their decision to leave out the PD stuff. He insinuates their reasoning is fear of competition from "unofficial" sets.

edit2: Indeed, their rep confirms it was primarily out of fear of competition from cheap unofficial sets that led them to decide to not bother with the others.

EddieLarkin wrote:Indeed, their rep confirms it was primarily out of fear of competition from cheap unofficial sets that led them to decide to not bother with the others.

So, Capitalism - at its crass, self-serving worst - strikes again. Fear of competition!!! WTF?!?! How arrogant, while at the same time transparently cowardly, can a company be? Especially when one has become the holder of such a public trust? As well as being incapable of constructing a viable solution such as releasing the material in two volumes (it clearly would take no more, but even so - Okay, three volumes!) that combines the proprietary and pd titles in a uniquely desirable product. In comparison, would anyone but an idiot now buy a $5 copy of HIS GIRL FRIDAY? But, by all means, if you cannot be guaranteed a sizable return on your investment - proudly FUCK the public trust, proudly FUCK the consumer, proudly FUCK history, and most definitely PROUDLY FUCK ART! It is, after all, the American Way.

To date, I have been unable to boycott a product I wished to own (for any of the laundry list of offenses, omissions and just plain stupidity perpetrated by media companies) but this definitely is the last straw for me. (Perhaps I've just bit my tongue too many times while Olive has been heralded in order to decry the offenses of Twilight Time.) But, as far as I'm concerned this should be a Rental Only title for all interested consumers, or the best case yet for media piracy, unless they remedy the situation. STEAL THIS BLU-RAY anyone? Count me in.

What? You're going to boycott/steal a blu-ray set with 49 shorts on the ground that it doesn't also contain 60 others, which can be gotten elsewhere? It's not like they're releasing a censored cut of them or an uprezzed DVD version or pirating the rights or something, they're just putting out slightly less of the unique and desirable product than you'd like. Boycotting it is shooting yourself in the foot, and stealing it is totally unjustified.

I think Olive's made some dumb moves, and obviously it'd be nice if they'd do the whole set, but that's a really strange overreaction right there.

matrixschmatrix wrote:What? You're going to boycott/steal a blu-ray set with 49 shorts on the ground that it doesn't also contain 60 others, which can be gotten elsewhere? It's not like they're releasing a censored cut of them or an uprezzed DVD version or pirating the rights or something, they're just putting out slightly less of the unique and desirable product than you'd like. Boycotting it is shooting yourself in the foot, and stealing it is totally unjustified.

I think Olive's made some dumb moves, and obviously it'd be nice if they'd do the whole set, but that's a really strange overreaction right there.

Yeah, right. Not.

Jerry Beck is probably just upset as this is the first set of classic animated shorts released in months that doesn't have his "authority" on the matter. If he's not making money off of it, of course he'll complain about it. He's bitter and obviously sore on the podcast linked to earlier. It's also volume one, so expect more.

Now, why is it that Betty Boop of all things brings out the hyperbolic reactions?

I think it's really stupid to overlook the PD titles. Unless I'm wrong there are no blu-rays of them on the market, the Public Domain titles include the most worthwhile shorts (come on! I want that Cab Calloway-ghost rotoscopy in HD! Scan those original neg the PDs don't use!) and why not add a few Bimbo shorts for value? And christ, just sprinkle the PD titles among the other titles, you're still winning.

But yeah. Only a few somewhat interesting shorts here in these 12 titles, I'll keep my R2 dvds instead (the complete Betty Boop collection by Films sans Frontières, but beware the shorts are sometimes badly encoded) Fear of competition? Well look at that, that's what made the competition win!

matrixschmatrix wrote:What? You're going to boycott/steal a blu-ray set with 49 shorts on the ground that it doesn't also contain 60 others, which can be gotten elsewhere? It's not like they're releasing a censored cut of them or an uprezzed DVD version or pirating the rights or something, they're just putting out slightly less of the unique and desirable product than you'd like. Boycotting it is shooting yourself in the foot, and stealing it is totally unjustified.

I think Olive's made some dumb moves, and obviously it'd be nice if they'd do the whole set, but that's a really strange overreaction right there.

To respond further: none of the objections that you attempt to ascribe to me (censored cuts, up-rezzed DVD versions, or most confusingly of all "just putting out slightly less of the unique and desirable product than" I would like) have anything to do with the present discussion. And check your math, 60 is both significantly more than a few or "slightly less", and significantly less than the seemingly insurmountable percentage that Olive's rhetoric would have us believe. It is 49 proprietary titles and 60 public domain titles - roughly 8% off from a 50-50 split. And therein lies the core offense. Olive's proposal is by definition half-assed. They have been given the the keys to the vault, literally!, and they like so many corporate entities before them mistake a golden opportunity to be occasion for pissing all over the contents, and cherry-picking it into further disrepair. One of the most bloated chapters in the history of cinema is the greed-driven neglect and destruction (both willful and inadvertent) of original film elements, indeed, of any and all materials. Olive might wish us to take their hand-wringing over this issue seriously (poor beleaguered Olive might not make the profit they expect), but it is certain to be a losing proposition for anyone else to provide current state-of-the-art transfers of the material once they are done with the material. And that is the other point - if not Olive, who? Who else has or might be given access to the vault materials via Paramount? Anyone? No. Simply Olive. And they admit to being not up to the task! So if it seems a losing proposition to them, sub-license it to another entity that has the resources and the personnel capable of constructing a viable market package. Now, if they were making the case that these public domain titles' elements are simply not available to them because they do not exist, that would be one thing; but that is definitively not the case. And such a statement would also simply be untrue. It is pure greed-driven neglect and as such, a position I believe is totally unworthy of market support unless rethought and re-presented. And my or any consumer being satisfied with budget-line or on-line reproductions from degraded 16mm or smaller gauge reproductions is not acceptable either. Not in this instance. Boycotting the purchase of the material by renting it for viewing purposes is a perfectly reasonable solution for those not intent on possession of the material. Boycotting is in principle shooting oneself in the foot, that is its' essence. (Better to do without than support the insupportable.) Frankly, my suggestion of theft was meant more rhetorically than literally, still, rather than shoot myself in the foot, I'd prefer to shoot Olive in its distribution arm. And so, doing a digital-rip of the material is a perfectly reasonable answer for those who do want to possess it - such "theft", particularly as a reasoned act of civil disobedience is more than justified. I do not suggest anyone walk into their local Barnes&Noble and lift a copy (though I'd never waste tears on B&N either.) There is in such instances a matter of public trust and if Olive, or whomever, is not up to the required task, they should step aside. But, of course, they don't have to. Most of us have been too well conditioned to do as Daddy says, say our prayers and accept that our option of paying for degraded product A or degraded product B is the essence of freedom. I'm sick of accepting, from anyone, the perverted rationale that "the right thing to do is not-profitable" as justification for doing the wrong thing.

Note to Olive: If capital is in such short supply, stop wasting it on garbage like THE GIRL WHO KNEW TOO MUCH and FIRE MAIDENS OF OUTER SPACE. But then you might lose your fanboy share of the market whose critical faculties - pardon the expression - lead them to perceive all "old" movies as some undifferentiated mass of camp.

david hare wrote:George I am hugely sympathetic to your points.
...
Now maybe I am being hallucinatory but as a well known anti capitalist around here, all that Olive is doing now is simply following orders from the Paramount CEO or whoever the hell determines these things (just as it determines how not to use Tag video essays, or English HOH or god knows what else).
...
there are always other alleys and sideshows.

David, as always, I respectfully take your point. However, I still question the necessity, not to mention the wisdom, of repeating past mistakes. The "informed" response at HTF implies that the choice was an economic one, as opposed to access. This may or may not be the case. Paramount's disregard for their holdings is notoriously criminal. And on a related note, your point about following orders reminds me how eager I am to soon see the sublime Sukowa as HANNAH ARENDT.

Access was presumably not an issue, as Olive's rep says they would indeed have done a full set, including the PD stuff, if the PD shorts were a more manageable amount, say an additional 20. But 60 was too much, costs/profit wise.

Saturnome wrote:(come on! I want that Cab Calloway-ghost rotoscopy in HD! Scan those original neg the PDs don't use!) and why not add a few Bimbo shorts for value? And christ, just sprinkle the PD titles among the other titles, you're still winning.

Olive's idea of what is PD and what isn't is unusual. Here is the full list of 49 shorts that they will put out:

CHESS NUTS (1932)
BETTY BOOP, M.D. (1932)
BETTY BOOP’S BAMBOO ISLE (1932)
BETTY BOOP FOR PRESIDENT (1932)
BETTY BOOP’S PENTHOUSE (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S BIRTHDAY PARTY (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S MAY PARTY (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S HALLOWE’EN PARTY (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S RISE TO FAME (1934)
BETTY BOOP’S TRIAL (1934)
BETTY BOOP’S LIFE GUARD (1934)
THE FOXY HUNTER (1937)

Be Up To Date | Betty Boop Limited | Betty Boops Big Boss | Betty Boops Bizzy Bee | Betty Boops Little Pal | Betty Boops Museum | Betty Boops Prize Show | Betty Boops Ups And Downs | Boop Oop A Doop | Bimbos Initiation | Dizzy Dishes | Ha Ha Ha | I Heard | I'll Be Glad When You're Dead, You Rascal You | Minnie The Moocher-Betty Boop | Morning, Noon And Night | Mother Goose Land | New Deal Show | The Old Man Of The Mountains | Out Of The Inkwell | Parade Of The Wooden Soldiers | Poor Cinderella | Pudgy In Thrills And Chills } Pudgy The Watchman | Red Hot Mama | Riding The Rails | Sally Swing | Services With A Smile | She Wronged Him Right | Snow White | Stop That Noise | Stopping The Show | Swing School | There's Something About a Soldier | When My Ship Comes In | You Keep In Style | Zula Hula

Note a number of Bimbo shorts, and Minnie the Moocher (very happy about this one!). Apparently that is the official list from Paramount of what they have the copyright to. Everything else is PD.

The thing is, a lot of those shorts were until now believed to be PD. A lot of them appear on the "unofficial" cheapo sets. So Olive are competing against them anyway, whether they want to or not.

EddieLarkin wrote:Because 60 or so Betty shorts will not be included. The collection from Olive will represent less than half of Betty's filmography. Since the rest are public domain anyway, it's disappointing that Olive have decided to leave them out.

That said, of course I'm still very excited for the 49 we will get.

No. That's wrong. There are far more copyrighted shorts than the 49 Olive has decided to release, but because of their sloppy research, they will be omitted.

This release needed Jerry Beck. He's the one who helped Warner make their Popeye sets as good as they were, not to mention the Looney Tunes, Woody Woodpecker and Jolly Frolics sets. This is one instance where Olive's usual pooh-poohing of outside help and criticism will be utterly detrimental to the end product.

The old Republic laserdisc had 115 shorts on it, pretty much everything (PD or not) sans shorts not known to exist and the first Popeye short. I think the fact that this new Blu-Ray is less complete than a fifteen-year-old laserdisc set is going to be noted and that will put a damper on sales.

Though still no Swing You Sinners unfortunately.

And of the 115+ Betty shorts (including shorts that weren't on the laserdisc), only about 42 have been verified to be in the public domain. All the rest were renewed long ago and are still protected.

Yes, that's still a big number, but the copyrighted shorts outnumber the PD ones almost 2 to 1. Olive could have easily configured the sets to spread the PD shorts around, so this set would be complete. Unfortunately they lack any real passion, let alone knowledge, with the films they've been handed, and the folks who live and breath cartoons are shut out.

In light of the above, I thought this speculative post on HTFabout how Olive may have reached their final number of 49 was interesting.

He too implies that there are 30+ shorts that are indeed still under copyright, but Olive are skipping them anyway because their research is lacking.

knives wrote:I've only gotten to Meanwhile and the AV is excellent. Well worth getting.

warren oates wrote:I agree with knives that Meanwhile looks great, a definite improvement over his self-distributed standard def only release. I've scanned through all of the other BDs too and they all look good, with Trust and Flirt looking particularly strong relative to what's been available before. The Book of Life and The Girl From Monday are standard def video/DVD only and they look no worse to me than the previous releases.

Btw, the Possible Films email list sent a recent message highlighting the U.K. Artificial Eye release of Amateur, so take that as you wish. I get the sense they wouldn't necessarily do that if a U.S. release of that title were imminent.

Thanks guys (belated response, I know). Just ordered the The Unbelievable Truth (still, I think, my favourite Hartley, despite all the great films that came after it) and Flirt BDs, but yes, I'm definitely most looking forward to seeing what sounds like a really nice looking release of Amateur from AE. Haven't seen it since the days of VHS, and remember enjoying it immensely - I think at the time mostly for the presence of Elina Lowensohn - hard to believe given the inclusion of Martin Donovan & Isabelle Huppert too!

George Kaplan wrote:To date, I have been unable to boycott a product I wished to own (for any of the laundry list of offenses, omissions and just plain stupidity perpetrated by media companies) but this definitely is the last straw for me. (Perhaps I've just bit my tongue too many times while Olive has been heralded in order to decry the offenses of Twilight Time.) But, as far as I'm concerned this should be a Rental Only title for all interested consumers, or the best case yet for media piracy, unless they remedy the situation. STEAL THIS BLU-RAY anyone? Count me in.

Stealing a BluRay of films made by a Hollywood studio is not a revolutionary act. It's an act of brattish entitlement.

zedz wrote:Stealing a BluRay of films made by a Hollywood studio is not a revolutionary act. It's an act of brattish entitlement.

You are right, of course. It is just that.
As I responded earlier, my provocation was meant more rhetorically than literally. My attempt at allusion falling understandably flat. Clearly, I let my sense of outrage overshadow my primary suggestion, that of boycotting an effort I believe to be shockingly insufficient, given the circumstance. I hope to find that I am wrong in this instance as well, and that Olive eventually publishes the entire collection of elements made available to them.
(No doubt you did not mean to strictly limit the principle to "Hollywood studio" material.) :-#

Here's a complete list of 11 titles that will no longer be released by Olive Films due to poor film elements provided by Paramount.

Blood on the Sun (1945)
Breakthrough (1979)
Cadence (1990)
Dakota (1945)
Fighter Attack (1953)
A Lady Takes a Chance (1943)
The Last Command (1955)
A Man Alone (1955)
Marjorie Morningstar (1958)
One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)
Oregon Trail (1936)