Is the b&w era of TV on DVD slowly coming to an end? (2 Viewers)

[LouA]

What would be even nicer is if CM would have used complete episodes with fresh transfers. After reading comments in the Lone Ranger thread from an individual who bought the mega set this went to my do not purchase list unfortunately. I noticed that the sets that my Costco got in for $99 have gone untouched so would expect to see this clearanced out at some point. CM laid an egg with this in my opinion and they focused too much attention on style and not enough on substance. The LR deserves better.

I agree, and don't forget the user "un-friendly" packaging on the CM set.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Gary "everyone's different, but for me there's nothing like 50's and early 60's television - I wouldn't trade them for any other decade or era of TV" O.

I know Gary hates me, but boy do I agree with that! If you look through the TV listings up through about 1965 and compare them to now, it's like looking at two different Universes. There was some junk back then, of course, but for the most part the shows of that era were more intelligent, decent, interesting, well made, and funny without resorting to "bodily function" humor. What a pleasure to watch shows without hand-held cameras, dark lighting, mumbling actors, etc.

It's very sad to think that television got off to such a good start and how short that era was -- about fifteen years of programming that's not a total waste of time, followed by almost fifty years now of pretty much worthless junk, with very, very few exceptions.

 

[Gary OS]

I know Gary hates me, but boy do I agree with that!

I'm always ready and willing to let bygones be bygones. So allow me to humbly extend the proverbial olive branch to you.


Gary "take care, Joe - hope you are feeling well and have a good 4th of July tomorrow" O.

 

[Professor Echo]

I too would like to bury the hatchet from past skirmishes here, but only because Sony is paying me to bury the hatchet as a promotion for THE LONE RANGER. I understand it needs all the help it can get.

 

[Gary OS]

I too would like to bury the hatchet from past skirmishes here, but only because Sony is paying me to bury the hatchet as a promotion for THE LONE RANGER. I understand it needs all the help it can get.

Gary "I can always count on you for some good humor on these threads - take care, buddy" O.

 

[Steve...O]

I too would like to bury the hatchet from past skirmishes here, but only because Sony is paying me to bury the hatchet as a promotion for THE LONE RANGER. I understand it needs all the help it can get.

My wife wanted to see the new movie and and so we went this afternoon. I chose to overlook the critics and hoped this would prove to be like the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes series (faithful and respectful to the character and successful at creating a new generation of fans).

I was very, very mistaken. This was one of the worst movie going experiences I ever had. Sometimes a movie will leave you flat and you leave disappointed.....I left mad. Mad that I wasted 3 hours (2.5 for movie, .5 for commercials and previews) watching a movie portraying the LR as a really unlikeable wimp and the LR/Tonto relationship as antagonistic, even mean spirited at times. The story is all over the place and plays more like an Owen Wilson/Ben Stiller comedy than a re-telling of the LR legend. Finally I was mad because the TV series STILL isn't represented well on home video.

Clearly I'm not giving a thumbs up to this train wreck of a movie (no pun intended for those familar with it)

If you look through the TV listings up through about 1965 and compare them to now, it's like looking at two different Universes. There was some junk back then, of course, but for the most part the shows of that era were more intelligent, decent, interesting, well made, and funny without resorting to "bodily function" humor. What a pleasure to watch shows without hand-held cameras, dark lighting, mumbling actors, etc.

Agree wholeheartedly with Joe here. The writing on TV in the 60s in particular was top notch and holds up all these decades later. To be fair, there are some real gems in the 70s - 00s as well but it is hard to top the best of the 50s/60s. In my opinion the re-watchability of this era's shows tops anything since then.

Also, I'll echo the thoughts above and wish everyone a safe and happy 4th; may you spend it with your loved ones. Please remember our veterans, including those who fought 240 years ago to gain our independence and all those who have served since then to preserve it.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I'm not mad at anyone here, and never was. I appreciate the good wishes and return them.

Now on with the ranting!

"The Lone Ranger" is a perfect example of the difference between "then" and "now." How lucky I was to grow up in an era when we were satisfied with simple, straightforward things.

Tonto was a guy dressed like an Indian, period. In the new version, he looks like something out of a freak show from another planet. Why does it have to be that way? God forbid Johnny Depp shouldn't call attention to himself for his $40,000,000 payday. (And could I think of better uses for that amount of money!)

Everything now has to be over the top. Something can't just be loud, it has to be deafening. It can't be quiet, it has to be so far below the threshold of human hearing, it's inaudible. It can't be risque, it has to be filthy. It can't be fast moving, it has to be so fast it's incomprehensible. It can't be slow, it has to be glacial.

As for violence, I don't like it at all, but in the older shows, someone would get shot and they'd fall down. It was stupid, and maybe made people think violence wasn't so bad -- but it was better than now, where they linger over the violence and show all the blood and guts they can, and that's supposed to be "entertainment."

I honestly believe modern movies and television would make a visitor from another planet think that people are sick and stupid. When I'm subjected to it by accident I want to run to my complete set of "Leave It to Beaver" as fast as possible.

 

[Gary OS]

I completely agree with Steve and Joe on this subject (but everyone already knew that).


Gary "I figured the new Lone Ranger movie was going to be garbage, but it's good to get confirmation from a trusted source like Steve" O.

 

[Ron1973]

I completely agree with Steve and Joe on this subject (but everyone already knew that).


Gary "I figured the new Lone Ranger movie was going to be garbage, but it's good to get confirmation from a trusted source like Steve" O.

My kids were wanting to see this, but they're familiar with the original series (my three teens have good taste!). I had a feeling it was garbage as well....nice to see the confirmation before I wasted money.

 

[Professor Echo]

Everything now has to be over the top. Something can't just be loud, it has to be deafening. It can't be quiet, it has to be so far below the threshold of human hearing, it's inaudible. It can't be risque, it has to be filthy. It can't be fast moving, it has to be so fast it's incomprehensible. It can't be slow, it has to be glacial.

You have perfectly described the last (at least) 20 years of popular culture in this country.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I just saw on Yahoo! News that "The Lone Ranger" isn't doing too well at the box office. It might lose money. How heartbreaking. And they only spent $225,000,000 on it (that would probably have paid for 100,000 episodes of the TV series.)

 

[TravisR]

Sorry to rain on your schadenfreude parade but that movie will make so much money internationally that it's US take almost doesn't matter.

 

[BobO'Link]

I completely agree with Steve and Joe on this subject (but everyone already knew that).


Gary "I figured the new Lone Ranger movie was going to be garbage, but it's good to get confirmation from a trusted source like Steve" O.

Ditto. As soon as I saw "Tonto" I *knew* I'd probably hate the film and none of the few promos I've seen have done anything to change my initial reaction. I *really* want the original series to be given the restoration it deserves and needs.

 

[Matt Hough]

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, Johnny Depp is very popular internationally, but in an American western parody? I'm not expecting it to break records overseas either. It'll likely do better there than here, but with a $225 million price tag plus advertising here and over there, we're talking about at least $350 million overall costs meaning it would need a gross of $520 million to break even. I don't see that happening.

 

[TravisR]

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, Johnny Depp is very popular internationally, but in an American western parody? I'm not expecting it to break records overseas either. It'll likely do better there than here, but with a $225 million price tag plus advertising here and over there, we're talking about at least $350 million overall costs meaning it would need a gross of $520 million to break even. I don't see that happening.

The latest Pirates movie made more than a billion dollars and about 3/4 of that came from the international market. This movie is more or less being marketed as Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Old West (and probably even more so internationally) so I think it can pretty easily pull in half of what a Pirates movie did even with the 'hindrance' of being a western.

And since this thread is for people who don't watch TV today to say that it's all bad, the movie business discussion should be moved to a more appropriate thread.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

And since this thread is for people who don't watch TV today to say that it's all bad, the movie business discussion should be moved to a more appropriate thread.

I'm not sure what this sentence means. But the B&W series "The Lone Ranger" is 100% appropriate to this thread and the perverted modern movie version of it is appropriate, too, to point out exactly why we prefer old B&W television as compared to the waste of time and money garbage being made today.

 

[Matt Hough]

The Pirates films are a tentpole franchise known all around the world. The Lone Ranger is neither of those things. But I'm willing to wait and watch and eat my words if I'm proven wrong.

And I certainly agree that the original TV series is unbeatable in entertainment value; the heart it portrays and the values it stands for aren't really worthy of parody.

 

[TravisR]

I'm not sure what this sentence means. But the B&W series "The Lone Ranger" is 100% appropriate to this thread and the perverted modern movie version of it is appropriate, too, to point out exactly why we prefer old B&W television as compared to the waste of time and money garbage being made today.

Yes, discussing The Lone Ranger TV series vs. the movie seems to be appropriate for this thread but discussing its box office take seems to be a topic that's more suited for a thread in the Movies section.

EDIT: Matt posted as I was posting

The Pirates films are a tentpole franchise known all around the world. The Lone Ranger is neither of those things. But I'm willing to wait and watch and eat my words if I'm proven wrong.

And I certainly agree that the original TV series is unbeatable in entertainment value; the heart it portrays and the values it stands for aren't really worthy of parody.

Like I said, the marketing for The Lone Ranger is heavily pushing that it's from the same creative team behind the Pirates movies (they even have the Pirates skull and crossbones logo in the trailers) and since those movies were HUGE hits around the world, I think The Lone Ranger is going to ride the coattails of those movies. I'm also willing to eat my words and since I'm not a Disney stockholder, I couldn't care less if they lose $500 million on their fairly dopey movie but unlike some here, I see no reason to be happy if they lose money either. And for what it's worth, the movie doesn't parody the old TV series. There's no mockery or deconstruction of the character and TV series. The humor (or rather the attempts at humor) come from the characters cracking jokes or being placed in situations that are funny and not from mocking the characters or poking fun at the ideas or values behind the original incarnation of the characters.

 

[Professor Echo]

Travis, I think the reason why some of us here want the movie to fail is to send a signal to the studios that this is not the type of treatment a pop culture icon deserves.Of course, knowing the studios as I do they will invariably miss that particular signal and place all the blame on it being a western and/or the character being unknown to today's target audience. That will definitely account for a large part of it should it fail, but I also hope they will read the numerous negative reviews from critics who disparaged their misguided and disrespectful portrayal of a once popular, legendary American media figure.

 

[TravisR]

^ Having seen the movie, I don't feel that it's particularly disrespectful to the character or its previous incarnations. Like every origin movie (which seems to be the only thing that Hollywood can make any more), he's new to the job and thus makes some mistakes for the sake of comedy but it's not like The Lone Ranger is a total goofball in this movie either.

All that being said, I'm not recommending anyone go and see it because despite a surprisingly fun and exciting finale, it's not a very good movie overall.