Consumer Silence (1 Viewer)

[Joseph DeMartino]

(7) The studio's market research indicates that they'd have to raise the price so much to cover the music rights that they couldn't sell enough units to make a profit. Studio drops release entirely, because they've got 50 other things in their back catalog that they can release and they really don't need this crap.

(8) Entire internet explodes in one, long sustained whine that can be heard on the rock formerly known as the planet Pluto because the show is not being released. (Note the exactly the same whine would erupt if the studio kept the sets affordable and profitable by replacing the music.)

The underlying assumption of this whole thread is that it is in every case and without exception possible to give us exactly what we want and that the only reason we don't get this is because people acting out of bad motives have decided we shouldn't get it. The corollary is that if we only cross our arms, stamp our little feet and threaten to hold our breath until we turn blue, we'll be rewarded with our hearts desire.

This premise is not only false, it is laughable. In the real world (as opposed to Planet Music-Never-Gets-Replaced) everyone involved in the process is working within constraints of time, money, schedules, and competing claims on all of the above. These aren't emotional impulses, these are facts that cannot be ignored, or wished away, or made to disappear. Sometimes it just isn't possible to craft a deal that actually works for everybody, and then the choice is compromise in some respect or don't do the release. Because the studio can't do anything else. Not won't, can't.

Why some people seem determined to deny that this is even possible is soemthing I don't understand. Or rather, I understand it too well. If you admit that what you want may not be possible, and that the people who can't give it to you might not be evil, your whole argument collapses. And in such a case most people will cheerfully ignore facts in order to hang onto their beliefs.

Regards,

Joe

 

[george kaplan]

Joseph,

If as you say, it is sometimes not possible to get the original music, then it is far better that it doesn't get released at all, rather than in an abomination of a version.

If all of the estates of everyone involved in Casablanca suddenly got the right and the ability to prevent the actors from being shown in dvd versions, would you accept that a new version with CGI new characters imposed over the original actors would be better than nothing? Or would it be better to release nothing in such a case.

I realize you disagree, but for some of us, replacing the music is just as unacceptable as replacing the actors, and we'd rather wait until it gets done right, than roll over and say "Thank you sir, may I have another crappy version with more music replacement".

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Are you listening to yourself?

So, no version of any DVD that does not meet the high standards of george kaplan should be allowed to exist?

We're not talking about George's right not to buy something he doesn't like folks, we're talking about his right to prevent you from buying something you do like. In George's world, you aren't allowed that choice. The studios aren't allowed to make rational business decisions, you aren't allowed to decide for yourself what you will and will not buy. If there's a 22-episode set you'd like but it had one song replaced, or one syndicated version, tough luck. That set should never have been produced, according to the beliefs of the Church of Pure TV, George Kaplan High Priest.

"And Lo, George did look upon the DVD set with music replacement
And it was an abomination in his eyes, and he smote it with his remote control"

Are you seriously suggesting that your personal preferences constitute some kind of cosmic law and that nothing that you don't approve should be allowed to exist?

Geez, and people say I have a healthy ego. I'm not even in your league.

Regards,

Joe

 

[AnthonyC]

Apples and oranges. Casablanca is an absolute classic. You can't really say that about Alf (no offense to any Alf fans).

 

[MatthewA]

So I take it from this statement that you approve of the alteration of a TV show you do not like? I loathe, loathe, loathe "Survivor" and all reality TV but the principle of alteration is the same. The merit of the work is not the issue. Or does this forum's mission statement only apply to movies? Some of the worst movies ever made are on DVD exactly as they were in the theaters.

 

[MatthewA]

From: OUR MISSION, as listed under "Forum Rules".

 

[Cees Alons]

"We strive"....


Cees


PS:
He didn't say that. He said it was not fully comparable to painting a CGI-figure over Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. That's all he said or implied.
C.

 

[MatthewA]

Maybe not. All the footage would still be there, just suppressed by digital crayolas.

Then how about Star Trek: TOS? That is exactly what they are doing to that show; painting new CGI effects over the old ones, adding things that were not there before. Is that acceptable because the original special effects are not, and never were, state of the art?

If colorization is not acceptable, why is this acceptable?

If this is the future, I've got some suggestions:

—Bewitched: On the last 3 seasons, superimpose Dick York's face on Dick Sargent's body.
—All in the Family: The Bunkers' living room is ugly. Let's redecorate it.
—The Mary Tyler Moore Show: Give Lou Grant a CGI toupee.
—Dallas: Have J.R. shot with a bazooka instead of a handgun, and make the shot nice and loud.
—The Golden Girls: Make Sophia as tall as her daughter, Dorothy.

The music rights holders have a right to expect compensation, but it is not in their best interests to price themselves out of the market. No song ever written is worth $60,000.

 

[Cees Alons]

Matthew,

Your words only.
You have every right to disagree with someone's words, but not to "explain" those words differently and then say the person endorses something he doesn't.


Cees

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

The operative word here is "achievable". And can we please stop with the deperate, ludicrous "analogies" already? Nobody ever lost the rights to the black and white version of a film and was forced to colorize a movie. Ditto with transforming a mono track into a multichannel one. I'm not even going to dignifiy that loopy fantasy about descendents magically getting the movie rights to the images of their dead relatives - oh doing whatever nonsense was alleged might be done with them - with a reply. Life is too short.

I don't like colorized movies - I don't watch them and I don't buy them. I don't like pan and scan. I don't like that, don't buy such films (as a rule), don't watch 'em if I can avoid them. But as long as the original is still available, it is no off my nose if other people choose to avail themselves of such things. And when the only version of a film that is available on home video is pan and scan (as is still the case with many "family" films and comedies) I don't go around telling people that we'd all be better off if nobody could own it and it had never been produced. Sometimes I've even bought a copy myself if it is a film I really like.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite since I still strive to get the highest achievable video quality. It just makes me a resident of the planet Earth.

Regards,

Joe

 

[george kaplan]

Are you?!?!?!?!

My God, you just don't get it, do you. It's all about artistic integrity.

Look, let's say that somehow, someone got the copyright to all words that started with the letter N or B.

So, now, Shakespeare comes out with word replacements like "To exist or the opposite of to exist."

You'd be perfectly happy with that. I wouldn't.

This isn't about some arbitrary standards I have. This is about wanting works of art to be released intact, and complaining when they're not.

I'm sorry that you are unable to grasp this very simple concept. I give up trying to explain it to you, but I absolutely will not allow you to paint my position in terms that you want to do so, which have nothing to do with what my position is. And so, if you want to continue misconstruing my words, I'll keep right on correcting you, as boring as that is.

I wrote the above before reading your last post.

Just because you think an analogy is ridiculous, doesn't make it so.

 

[Johnny S]

No, you're theory is just ridiculous. You have every right to not purchase a set for whatever reasons, but you are trying to convince us that if it is not 100% unedited it somehow should never be released whatsoever. Believe it or not George, not everyone has the same state of mind as you. Most people don't get bent out of shape over things like this because to them a edited series is still enjoyable.

 

[MatthewA]

Apparently artistic integrity only applies to "absolute classic", i.e. stuff he likes, which is what I assumed the implication was. I apologize for that.

And I agree with everything George has said.

Would you rather have Casablanca with "Baby Got Back" instead of "As Time Goes By" if the author's estate got greedy? Would that be better than not having it at all?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Right, because that "example" is just like the kind of real-world substitutions of background music that we're talking about here. 1) "As Time Goes By" was virtually a plot point in Casablanca, and therefore impossible to replace short of reshooting key scenes. (As Max Steiner intended to do, by the way, replacing the song with his own composition. He was unable to because Ingrid Bergman cut her hair for her next role and they couldn't reshoot the scenes.) 2) If we all were living on Fantasy Island, and it was therefore possible for Warner Bros. to lose the rights to "As Time Goes By" they would replace it with a tune from the 40s or one written in the style, not "Baby got back". Just like the TV music substitutions aim to fit the basic style of the show and the original music.

But when your argument doesn't really hold water I guess you have to reach for absurdities like CGI Casablanca and "Baby Got Back" because reasonable analogies that resemble what we're actually talking about simply don't advance your cause. As the old saying goes, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

Regards,

Joe

 

[TravisR]

Man, the one thing that you can say about these music substitution threads is that new ground always gets covered. Oh wait, it's just the same people saying the same things over and over and over.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Guilty as charged, Travis.

Pro: No music substituion, EVER!

Con: Sometimes the studios have no choice.

Rinse.

Repeat.



Joe

 

[Jay_B!]

I don't like musical substitutions but as long as the company at least puts forth an effort (look at Fox's Roswell and Buena Vista's Popular sets... both of them have a lot of replaced music, mostly background music and the sort, but yet key songs remain), I have more respect for the product than for the cheap-out way Sony did Dawson's Creek. There was a website awhile back that listed all of the musical substitutions to the show's original network airings vs. DVD and after season 2, Sony got so cheap that every single song by an artist who more than ten people have heard of was replaced, including the theme song (which is synonymous with the show). It wasn't like Sony could renegotiate key moments in the show, instead, they cleaned house and didn't even attempt to preserve some of the music. Compare this to Roswell, which retained Dido's theme song, Dave Matthews, Sheryl Crow, Christina Aguilera and various other songs that played parts of the show (and even Majandra Delfino's own rendition of In The Air Tonight made it... remember that Katie Holmes' interpretation of some 80's hits were axed off the DC season 5 DVD set), and which the set had a written apology from Jason Katims explaining that Fox wasn't able to clear all music rights and that the sets would be astronomically priced. While it would've been nice for ALL the music to be cleared, they at least handled it with class and an explanation and they at least tried to get the most important songs to the show entact (most of the replaced music was then-current alternative/rock songs that could be faintly heard in the background at the Crashdown Cafe)

 

[AnthonyC]

Nope, and I realize I phrased that somewhat poorly. FWIW, I do believe that all shows and films should be released intact (Alf included--and even though it's a favorite of mine, I don't consider Survivor a classic). I was simply saying that it's ridiculous to say that a music change in what is arguably one of the top five movies ever is the same as a music change in a late-80s sitcom about a furry alien...or Survivor for that matter (there's a music change in one episode in the first season).

Apologies for anything I might have implied otherwise.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I'm sorry, but how do you know that Sony "didn't even attempt to preserve some of the music"? Were you in the room during the negotiations?

One of the things that ticks me off in these threads is people who quite literally do not know one, single fact about a situation declaring that studios are "cheap" or "didn't even try". It is one thing to say you're disappointed about a release, but inventing "explanations" and ascribing motives to anyone in the complete absence of facts is quite another. And no, "Studio A was able to secure some of the music on Show 1" is not evidence that Studio B didn't try to get the music for Show 2. For that matter neither is "Studio B got some of the music for Show 3", because each show, in fact each song represents a unique set of circumstances.

Regards,

Joe

 

[MatthewA]

I disagree. A music change is a music change, no matter what film or TV show you're changing. The principle is the same. I don't care if it's Casablanca (a great film, yes) or a TV sitcom.

Look at King of the Hill, a popular Fox series that has been on the air nearly a decade. They have sacrificed extras to keep the music intact and the shows uncut at a reasonable price. I hate some of the music they use (the Spice Girls, for instance), but it was part of the show originally, so it should be there. One song that was left intact was White Christmas.

Sony may have cut corners on Dawson's Creek (and though I don't own any of the sets and don't intend to, I suspect sales of season 1 might have been adversely affected by putting 5 hour-long episodes to a disc), but they didn't on The Nanny, whose music, mostly performed by characters on the show, has included Irving Berlin (including "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better," which was replaced on one of Fox's Mary Tyler Moore Show sets), Rodgers and Hammerstein, and the Beatles.

The objective is not to deliberately piss people off. It is in the best interest of both studios and music rights holders to come up with a reasonable compromise for relicensing songs on TV shows for DVD release. Even if the rights holders have a right, legally, to charge an exorbitant fee, it blows up in their faces. This is why music is replaced; studios won't pay an unreasonable amount for one song unless they absolutely must. The rights holders (dinosaurs most of them) get nothing except smug satisfaction, which isn't as good as money in the bank.

What bothers me is those who should act like we should take inferior products and like them. We need to actively boycott these releases, write letters to the studios and everyone else involved with the releases, including and especially music rights holders.