Cancelled TV Shows DVD Release Dates (2 Viewers)

[Ethan Riley]

I'd already settled (I thought) the debate about what constitutes a "classic" tv show in the first couple pages of this thread. To re-iterate, it has nothing to do with any one person's concept of the word "classic." Just forget about the word "classic." It means different things to different people. For some classic tv is the 50s; for others it's the 90s. The thread has to please everybody, and therefore the only criteria for getting a listing in this particular thread is for a show to get cancelled.

 

[eanlison]

collectcheaps

 

[Dirk06]

Originally Posted by silverking
Wouldn't really regard Ally McBeal' as vintage or even old though.

You automatically win this thread. And by win, I mean lose.

 

[BobO'Link]

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley
I'd already settled (I thought) the debate about what constitutes a "classic" tv show in the first couple pages of this thread. To re-iterate, it has nothing to do with any one person's concept of the word "classic." Just forget about the word "classic." It means different things to different people. For some classic tv is the 50s; for others it's the 90s. The thread has to please everybody, and therefore the only criteria for getting a listing in this particular thread is for a show to get cancelled.

I know this has already been debated but I feel the need to throw my $.02 in...

As you've indicated, "classic" means different things to different people. IMHO a "classic" is a program that engendered critical and/or popular acclaim while it was on the air but is no longer producing new episodes. As you put it in your first post "any show that is no longer on the air, whether it be from the 1950s or from 5 years ago". I'd go so far as to say "last week". One of the definitions of "classic" is: "of enduring interest, quality, or style". Using that you could easily include currently airing product.

Sorry, Gary, I have to side with Ethan on this one.

I think many people would like to apply the term "classic" to eras - i.e. "Golden Age", "Silver Age", etc., but that just doesn't work. Current shows are already considered to be "classic" - "How I Met Your Mother", "The Big Bang Theory", "House M.D.", "Dancing with the Stars" (!!!Kidding!!! just wanted to see if you were paying attention!! - though I'm sure someone thinks it is...). But like you've said, they don't truly "fit the mold" until they've stopped production. It's the same with comics, music, books, etc. "Classic" has nothing to do about how old a product is but how it is perceived. Something doesn't have to be old to be "classic" just as being old doesn't automatically make something "classic".

While you were taken to task for mentioning "Ally McBeal" it fits the description of "classic" IMHO. No, it's not vintage/old but it *is* a classic. I got your intent and would agree. That was classy and truly the way to release a series. I call it the "Time-Life" treatment and wish more would be done that way.

 

[WaveCrest]

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley
I'd already settled (I thought) the debate about what constitutes a "classic" tv show in the first couple pages of this thread. To re-iterate, it has nothing to do with any one person's concept of the word "classic." Just forget about the word "classic." It means different things to different people. For some classic tv is the 50s; for others it's the 90s. The thread has to please everybody, and therefore the only criteria for getting a listing in this particular thread is for a show to get cancelled.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you said. Everyone or mostly everyone has a different definition of what TV shows are classics.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobO'Link

I know this has already been debated but I feel the need to throw my $.02 in...



As you've indicated, "classic" means different things to different people. IMHO a "classic" is a program that engendered critical and/or popular acclaim while it was on the air but is no longer producing new episodes. As you put it in your first post "any show that is no longer on the air, whether it be from the 1950s or from 5 years ago". I'd go so far as to say "last week". One of the definitions of "classic" is: "of enduring interest, quality, or style". Using that you could easily include currently airing product.



Sorry, Gary, I have to side with Ethan on this one.

Howie, I honestly don't care how people want to define "classic" any more and I'm not looking to argue with you or Ethan or Wavecrest or anyone else. All I want to do, in the interest of both fairness and full disclosure, is let people like you know the full story so that you can properly understand why Ethan and I have had discussions and disagreements to begin with. So if you'll indulge me let me fill you in.

Back in 2009 I had the privilege of having several different sources from different studios key me in to some trends and I therefore knew, without question, that the TV on DVD industry was going to start scaling back on some of their titles, mostly older releases because as most everyone knows the newer shows generally sell better than the older ones. That's a pretty well established generalization. There are always exceptions, but generally that rule holds. Anyhow, I mentioned that a slowdown was coming for "Classic" shows on TV on DVD. Most people clearly understood what I meant by that. While I don't know of any official HTF poll to prove this point, I'd say the majority of readers here know when someone like me uses the word "Classic" or "Vintage" I'm talking about older TV shows from the 50's & 60's, and maybe some from the 70's & 80's. But certainly not shows that had only just gone off the air.

When Ethan started this thread he was clearly referencing my opinion in his initial post when he said he wanted to, and I'm paraphrasing, disprove the proposition that Classic TV on DVD was waning. The huge problem I had is that he used the word "Classic" in the title, yet chose to widen the definition of "Classic" to any show that's off the air. By doing so he was purposely skewing the release numbers to try and show that I was wrong about a slowdown. I called him on this very point and said that if one wants to widen the definition of "Classic" to include any show (not just a critically acclaimed recent series like you are talking about, but literally ANY show that's been off the air for even just a year) then yes, there's not going to be evidence of a slowdown because studios are going to continue releasing newer shows because those sell better. But that was NEVER my point when I talked about Classic TV on DVD slowing down. And I felt that any reasonable person would know that. So the originally stated purpose of this thread, in my opinion, was intentionally misleading. And along with that, I do think the average fan seeing a thread entitled "Classic TV Release Date Thread" would think it would reference older series of some vintage, not shows that just went off the air in 2008 or later.

Anyhow, this the last time I'm going to explain this here because I'm tired of it. I honestly thought about starting a thread and entitling it "Vintage TV Release Date Thread" the same day I saw this one by Ethan because I felt his was a misleading thread and title. But I didn't do it because at the end of the day I didn't think it was worth it to waste more bandwidth here just for the sake of making a point (however honest the point would be).

Finally, I'd also point to the first page and encourage people to read Jeff Willis and Brad Smith's posts. I think they sum up my feelings pretty well.


Gary "I get your point, Howie - no hard feelings" O.


Addendum: I just noticed that Ethan has recently edited his initial post on the front page to remove the comment I referenced above where he wanted to disprove the proposition that Classic TV on DVD was waning. While I'm glad he removed that, I didn't want anyone to think I was making that part up. You can see his quote about that in post #3 on the first page, where I quoted him. Again, I'm only mentioning this so no one thinks I'm making stuff up.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by Gary OS
Quote:

Howie, I honestly don't care how people want to define "classic" any more and I'm not looking to argue with you or Ethan or Wavecrest or anyone else. All I want to do, in the interest of both fairness and full disclosure, is let people like you know the full story so that you can properly understand why Ethan and I have had discussions and disagreements to begin with. So if you'll indulge me let me fill you in.

Back in 2009 I had the privilege of having several different sources from different studios key me in to some trends and I therefore knew, without question, that the TV on DVD industry was going to start scaling back on some of their titles, mostly older releases because as most everyone knows the newer shows generally sell better than the older ones. That's a pretty well established generalization. There are always exceptions, but generally that rule holds. Anyhow, I mentioned that a slowdown was coming for "Classic" shows on TV on DVD. Most people clearly understood what I meant by that. While I don't know of any official HTF poll to prove this point, I'd say the majority of readers here know when someone like me uses the word "Classic" or "Vintage" I'm talking about older TV shows from the 50's & 60's, and maybe some from the 70's & 80's. But certainly not shows that had only just gone off the air.

When Ethan started this thread he was clearly referencing my opinion in his initial post when he said he wanted to, and I'm paraphrasing, disprove the proposition that Classic TV on DVD was waning. The huge problem I had is that he used the word "Classic" in the title, yet chose to widen the definition of "Classic" to any show that's off the air. By doing so he was purposely skewing the release numbers to try and show that I was wrong about a slowdown. I called him on this very point and said that if one wants to widen the definition of "Classic" to include any show (not just a critically acclaimed recent series like you are talking about, but literally ANY show that's been off the air for even just a year) then yes, there's not going to be evidence of a slowdown because studios are going to continue releasing newer shows because those sell better. But that was NEVER my point when I talked about Classic TV on DVD slowing down. And I felt that any reasonable person would know that. So the originally stated purpose of this thread, in my opinion, was intentionally misleading. And along with that, I do think the average fan seeing a thread entitled "Classic TV Release Date Thread" would think it would reference older series of some vintage, not shows that just went off the air in 2008 or later.

Anyhow, this the last time I'm going to explain this here because I'm tired of it. I honestly thought about starting a thread and entitling it "Vintage TV Release Date Thread" the same day I saw this one by Ethan because I felt his was a misleading thread and title. But I didn't do it because at the end of the day I didn't think it was worth it to waste more bandwidth here just for the sake of making a point (however honest the point would be).

Finally, I'd also point to the first page and encourage people to read Jeff Willis and Brad Smith's posts. I think they sum up my feelings pretty well.


Gary "I get your point, Howie - no hard feelings" O.


Addendum: I just noticed that Ethan has recently edited his initial post on the front page to remove the comment I referenced above where he wanted to disprove the proposition that Classic TV on DVD was waning. While I'm glad he removed that, I didn't want anyone to think I was making that part up. You can see his quote about that in post #3 on the first page, where I quoted him. Again, I'm only mentioning this so no one thinks I'm making stuff up.

Ahem. Well, since I feel I'm being vilified and misinterpreted in my own thread, I guess I'll respond. First of all--I did not "recently" remove that comment on the initial post. I removed it over a year ago. And I did not make the thread in order to disprove that classic tv was waning; I made it to prove that it was still surviving. On the contrary--I know damn well that it's waned down to the point where we're getting only about 1/8th the stuff we used to get on a regular basis. I also made the thread when MODs started coming about--in order to give fans hope that some of their favorite shows might make it onto dvd after all. And I was right--a lot of shows did come out as MODs from Shout and Warners. Stuff we thought would never see the light of day, like "All in the Family."

The thread came about because some on the forum were getting too fatalistic about classic releases: some people were claiming it was out-and-out dead, period. That's not true. There's at least a few releases every month and as MODs pick up, and the economy improves, we may even see more. Maybe we won't. But the hobby is still alive, and that's why this thread exists.

As to the word "classic." I've already covered my definition of the word. See post #134. It means whatever people want it to mean, and that's inclusive of everybody on the forum. Everybody has their own idea of what shows were "good," and I have to include older shows on here whether I personally like them or not. I personally think that "Leave it to Beaver" is the single worst sitcom in the history of American television, and yet I've followed it closely as long as it's been coming out. And if I followed your definition--that "classic" only means stuff from the 50s and 60s, it'd be a mighty thin thread. I would have personally stopped it at the 80s, but what you don't know, or couldn't know is that people were sending me messages asking me to cover stuff of later vintage like late-90s seasons of ER and the Simpsons that were coming out at the time. I think another forum member asked to add a Law & Order set on here, because it was from a 90s season and deserved to be included. Fine. And some of the bluray re-releases like Twilight Zone were by request of other forum members. Whatever people want me to add to the thread, I add--because it's got to please everyone who's keeping track of these things. Classic can mean one or both of the following: vintage shows or really good shows. But I can't leave out bad, newer shows, or I'd only be covering "excellent shows from the 50s and 60s" and that would be too personal a list and not inclusive of enough forum members' tastes to make it universally interesting.

And another thing: your comment about my "skewing the numbers." I didn't "skew" anything, (although I now feel like I've been skewed). I'd only be skewing the numbers if I followed your own, personal definition of the word "classic." People wanted news of the 90s stuff. So I added news of the 90s stuff. And that made the release count larger. If I'd realized that you were going to construe this as a personal attack, I'd have settled it with you off the boards. But I was never, ever thinking for one brief second "oh yeah--I'm gonna add E.R. to this list, skew the numbers on my side and piss off Gary!" Again, please understand this one small fact: This thread has nothing to do with you. It's something I'd wanted to do for a long long time, and its creation literally was not inspired by you, nor was it my chance to repudiate your claims or teach you a lesson. And keep in mind that you were the one, in post #3, who assumed the thread was a personal response to your views. Notice that I never even responded to that, not because I agreed with you, but because I thought you were being ridiculous.

This thread has to do with my love for "vintage" (okay, let's use that word) television shows and their release schedules for dvd. It's a love I share with a lot of people who want special coverage of shows that aren't on the air. And we need special consumer awareness of these releases because the studios don't generally promote them as heavily as they do their current releases. The inclusion of certain shows grew because forum members asked me to expand coverage. It evolved naturally over time, and if that made the original post "misleading," then so be it. But one last time--it was never intended as a personal slap in the face to you or anyone else.

To prove my goodwill, I have changed the Thread Title to something that I hope makes more sense to all and gets them back into the business of buying, discussing and lobbying for more such releases in the future!

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley
And keep in mind that you were the one, in post #3, who assumed the thread was a personal response to your views. Notice that I never even responded to that, not because I agreed with you, but because I thought you were being ridiculous.

Ethan, I'm not going to go tit for tat with you on this. I feel like there are many things you've written that are begging for a reply from me, but the only thing I'll say is that if you didn't intend for me to assume "the thread was a personal response to [my] views" then it sure would seem like the easy thing would have been for you to politely respond to my post #3 and let me know your comments had nothing to do with my views. I know that I'd have taken that approach if the shoe were on the other foot and I sincerely didn't want someone to misunderstand me. But whatever...

Please go ahead and change the title of the thread back to what you originally had. I surely don't want to be blamed.


Gary "funny, now I feel as if I've been skewed" O.

 

[BobO'Link]

^ & ^^ - Wow! Sorry guys! I didn't mean to stir up trouble/open wounds!!! When reading through this thread I gathered there seemed to be a great disparity of what exactly constituted "classic".

I posted my observations because when I came to this thread the first time I felt exactly the same as do you, Gary. I'd see posts about programs from the 80's up and think "What!?!? *That's* not "classic" TV!!" Several times I started to post supporting your opinion, but reading through the entire thread caused me to re-evaluate how I felt, at least for this thread. While my gut/initial reaction for "classic" is *still* 40's through early 70's I decided this attitude could do a disservice for newer programs which truly have/deserve "classic" status. A lot of this comes from the comic world where you have "classic" stories that were initially published in the mid-late 90's. It's then that I look at the decade and go "oh... that's new, not classic" but it's been 10 or more years. Wow... it seems like yesterday but it's been *10+ years*! So while my gut still says "40's, 50's, 60's, and early 70's" is "classic" my mind attempts an override to include newer deserving product.

So... that said I like the new title and feel it better reflects the nature of the thread. However, many shows were not cancelled but simply stopped production for various reasons. I don't know of a single word that reflects what Ethan wants to list/track which is really "no longer in production" TV shows release dates.

Again, I apologize for stirring this back up!!

 

[Gary OS]

Originally Posted by BobO'Link
^ & ^^ - Wow! Sorry guys! I didn't mean to stir up trouble/open wounds!!! When reading through this thread I gathered there seemed to be a great disparity of what exactly constituted "classic".

I posted my observations because when I came to this thread the first time I felt exactly the same as do you, Gary. I'd see posts about programs from the 80's up and think "What!?!? *That's* not "classic" TV!!" Several times I started to post supporting your opinion, but reading through the entire thread caused me to re-evaluate how I felt, at least for this thread. While my gut/initial reaction for "classic" is *still* 40's through early 70's I decided this attitude could do a disservice for newer programs which truly have/deserve "classic" status. A lot of this comes from the comic world where you have "classic" stories that were initially published in the mid-late 90's. It's then that I look at the decade and go "oh... that's new, not classic" but it's been 10 or more years. Wow... it seems like yesterday but it's been *10+ years*! So while my gut still says "40's, 50's, 60's, and early 70's" is "classic" my mind attempts an override to include newer deserving product.

So... that said I like the new title and feel it better reflects the nature of the thread. However, many shows were not cancelled but simply stopped production for various reasons. I don't know of a single word that reflects what Ethan wants to list/track which is really "no longer in production" TV shows release dates.

Again, I apologize for stirring this back up!!

You need not apologize for anything, Howie. I'm the one that is sorry. I allowed myself to get dragged back into this. It's on me and I should have just let it go. Please accept my humble apologies.

Gary "OK, signing out in this thread for good" O.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Please go ahead and change the title of the thread back to what you originally had. I surely don't want to be blamed.

If you feel that way, it's because, again, you're assuming everything's about you. Not so. And a reason I didn't respond to your post #3 is because you were basically putting me on the defensive, and I didn't want to get into it with you over nothing. Since I'm a big boy, I chose to ignore it. But I see I should have responded way back when, because here we are, getting into it, just with a delay of a year and a half.

And now that everything's settled, can't we just get back to the business of begging for more season releases of Welcome Back Kotter and the Flying Nun?

 

[Professor Echo]

Threads in an online forum, and by the nature of an open forum itself, often evolve way beyond their original ideas and ideals. It's a bit disingenuous to keep amending the intent and then claim it to be the root intention from the start. Semantic dickering is bound to develop over the course of a thread when its impetus and primary definition for existing keeps being altered, no matter how endlessly explained or defended. One thing is certain: Whether there is a genuine demand for it or not, the constant tinkering and debatable additions certainly keep this thread and its progenitor on the first page of this forum.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo
Threads in an online forum, and by the nature of an open forum itself, often evolve way beyond their original ideas and ideals. It's a bit disingenuous to keep amending the intent and then claim it to be the root intention from the start. Semantic dickering is bound to develop over the course of a thread when its impetus and primary definition for existing keeps being altered, no matter how endlessly explained or defended. One thing is certain: Whether there is a genuine demand for it or not, the constant tinkering and debatable additions certainly keep this thread and its progenitor on the first page of this forum.

Um, no...I did amend the intent, but I also said that it was evolving over time. I never claimed it to be "the root intention from the start." And the alterations are because people asked for them. This is not for my personal glory or to keep a thread I created at the top of the forum. How stupid is that. In fact, I went through a stretch where I didn't even update it for a good 5 months and it had fallen to about page 7. And also, keep in mind that buttinskys that offer their 2 cents worth of illogic also can bump a thread to the top of a forum.

 

[Professor Echo]

Oh how silly of me, I completely forgot about all the multitudes of emphatic devotees of this thread who could not just publicly post their requests, but had to PM and E mail you to maintain this invaluable public service. I'm sure all of them appreciate your benevolent custodianship. This thread is a classic.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo
Oh how silly of me, I completely forgot about all the multitudes of emphatic devotees of this thread who could not just publicly post their requests, but had to PM and E mail you to maintain this invaluable public service. I'm sure all of them appreciate your benevolent custodianship. This thread is a classic.

Oh, so now I'm a liar too? I never said it was that big of a deal, but people are certainly making it into one. There were like 4 guys who emailed me about things they wanted me to add to the post. Big deal. So, Professor--who are you? Gary's alt? Anyway, thanks for butting in. Hope your Sunday was just great as well.

 

[Dirk06]

 

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Dirk06

Haha. Yep!

Gary is a great guy who has contributed lots of worthwhile posts in these forums and I agree with him a lot of the time, including with most of what he's posted in this thread, but no, we are not the same person. Two different people, an entire country apart on two different coasts and we have never met. I speak for myself and only myself and my posts speak for themselves. Besides, as well spoken as Gary is, he is nowhere near as eloquent as I am.

And my Sunday was fine, thanks.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley
So, Professor--who are you? Gary's alt?

Only stepping in for a second to issue this breaking news alert. No Ethan, I can assure you that I am not Professor Echo. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.


Gary "speaking of 'assuming everything is about you'..." O.

P.S. I had started to compose this post but stepped away from my computer for a while and just now see that Glen posted above. Sorry about the repeat. And yes, Glen always says it better than me.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Well, I have read these posts and things are not settled at all, imo.

To the OP:

Let's see....a lot of mod's have been released on TV/DVD? Please define that phrase for all of us on this forum. I don't see that as accurate from the releases at WB and the other MOD outlets. At the time you started this thread, "The 11th Hour" had been released, correct? As to your contention that you saw the mod market on the rise, that sounds reasonable to me. Point taken on that one.

You are including Shout Select pressed TV/DVD sets as mod releases? Why is that? According to the Shout site, those releases aren't defined as mod's. That term wasn't mentioned at their site. Check their site and let me know if this is in error. It is my understanding that Shout is not in the mod DVD-r market at this point.

I may be in error about the definition of mod as it pertains to TV/DVD releases. I perceive it to be "make on demand" or "burn on demand" DVD-r's. I'd like some opinions on this issue, in addition to the OP's. If that definition is accurate, would it not then exclude Shout's Select pressed releases, as the OP has mentioned one of those releases in an attempt to make his case?

Speaking to your statement that you were proven right with regards to a lot of TV/DVD mod releases are available, is that how you see it? I don't see it that way. Perhaps some of our other forum members will voice their thoughts on this comment that you made about yourself in this thread.

Regarding your use of "All in the Family" in an attempt to prove your point, is that not available at Amazon? Was it a prior Shout Select title? I see that AITF S8 is also available at Amazon, both releases residing in the site's regular outlet section, and not in the mod section. Prior season's AITF releases were distributed by Sony and not relevant to your point in this mod discussion.

Regarding your contention that some on this forum were stating that classic releases were dead, I don't recall that statement being made by anyone on the board. I do recall them, as well as myself, stating that the classic TV/DVD market had peaked and was on the decline.

Regarding your comment about LITB being the single worst sitcom in the history of American television....ok.....I disagree and wonder why you happened to chose that specific show in an attempt to make a point. Care to enlighten us? Could it be related to another member's interest in that particular series?

I invite the LITB fans on this forum to refute that statement of the OP's which seemed to be rather transparent with an agenda in mind.

Regarding the comment about someone being ridiculous, that can be perceived another way, perhaps in another direction?

Regarding your statement for us to forget the word 'classic', no, I don't believe I will do that as that's not your right to dictate such actions on this forum or an open thread such as this one.

Regarding your comment that you perceive yourself to be a big boy, perhaps it might be prudent to better align your posting habits to that definition of yourself by refraining from using colorful language when you reply to my post, consequently your opinion of yourself in that category will be more accurate with that statement.

Subsequent to reading my post, can we expect that I will be the next recipient of colorful names as you aimed such big-boy behavior at another member in an earlier post, ie "Alt-Gary", with another colorful word included?

No, I'm not an "alt" either. Perhaps you may be surprised that there's more than a couple of members that respect and agree with Gary's points in this thread.

Regarding the original title of this thread, I'm not alone in the opinion that it was mis-understood. You have changed the title. That's a good move imo.

Regarding the statement that you feel vilified? Interesting. I've read your posts at this forum and I don't see it that way. Is there a concern about your perception of your status at this forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Echo
Haha. Yep!

Gary is a great guy who has contributed lots of worthwhile posts in these forums and I agree with him a lot of the time, including with most of what he's posted in this thread, but no, we are not the same person. Two different people, an entire country apart on two different coasts and we have never met. I speak for myself and only myself and my posts speak for themselves. Besides, as well spoken as Gary is, he is nowhere near as eloquent as I am.

And my Sunday was fine, thanks.

I agree about Gary and I also know that you two are not the same guys . There's no "cloning" machine that has been active either.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Dear Jeff: Here is what I have to say to you: