What's new

Strange behaviour of TV companies (1 Viewer)

Jeff Willis

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
3,386
Location
Dallas TX
This videotape issue from the 80's sitcom days brings up a question that I've wondered about for a while. Whenever I view those Barney Miller & Welcome Back Kotter eps I wish they were filmed.

Question is: Why were a lot of the 70's-80's sitcoms shot on videotape vs film? Cost reasons? That would be my guess.

If only the industry had been able to see the home video future back then.....what a benefit for us years later.
 

The Obsolete Man

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
3,808
Location
Truth or Consequences, New Mexico
Real Name
Robert

Simply? On today's hi-def, widescreen TVs, the edited on video shows look like crap. Shows shot on film can easily be remastered and brought up to today's higher standards. Video doesn't get any better than it's looked since the 70s or 80s.

Also, shows like the middle Star Treks (TNG, DS9) that were shot on film but edited on video can't be remastered for hi-def easily, because all of the effects shots were created on video, not film. To bring them up to today's standards for DVD, the original film would have to be found, re-edited, and new effects shots digitally created, which would cost a lot of money for a product that might not sell well enough to recoup these costs.

Also, as far as I know, cost reasons were why shows were recorded on videotape, or edited on videotape. Tape was cheaper than film, and who knew hi-def widescreens would be plentiful and affordable 30 years down the road? Those shows looked fine on a 27 inch CRT TV,and that's what mattered at the time.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
You hit the nail on the head. 480i composite video just does not hold up on DVD, never mind a large screen TV. The NTSC signal was never meant to be enlarged greater than, say, 36 inches.

Has anything Star Trek-related ever lost money for Paramount? I can see them remastering TNG before I see them doing the same with Cheers, Matlock, or MacGyver. But to just leave filmed shows locked in 480i forever if it is indeed possible to redo them in 1080p is a penny-wise and pound foolish approach.
 

Mike*SC

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
260
This has been answered, sort of, but let me just add what may be obvious. Yes, if you owned those shows, it would be in your best interest to have those prints around. But not everything in life is feasible. Prints deteriorate, storage is costly, mistakes have been made over the years, nobody foresaw higher resolution television coming twenty years ago (nor the sheer number of stations and delivery options that would make even long-neglected shows potentially viable). Resources are necessarily limited, even in extravagant times. So you have to set priorities. It's as simple as that. And even if you, as the owner of these shows, would like all of these series to be ready to go in good condition, the fact is some series will have to go to the back of the line. And with new series being made all the time, some will remain in the back of the line for a long, long time. Possibly forever.

It's not cynicism. It's not ineptitude. It's just reality.
 

Mike*SC

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
260
If the original film elements for these series are still around, 1080p versions are possible. But the expense would be enormous. The elements must be unearthed (many are stored in salt mines in Utah… no kidding!) and inspected for deterioration. Assuming all those elements are fine (both picture and sound), and the music tracks and other sound elements (potentially including separately looped dialogue) are all located and in good condition (for each of the hundreds upon hundreds of episodes!), the selected takes must be redigitized in high resolution, the show assembled again. Any special effects must be recreated (by this I mean any post-production effect in any kind of series, not just obvious sci-fi stuff.) The titles must be recreated. It's an enormous undertaking. And though you'd end up with 1080p, it would still be in 4x3, not widescreen.

And for a show like "Cheers," which didn't exactly set sales records on DVD (and I'm a fan, mind you), this cost would get you what? "Star Trek" has rabid fans, of course. We all know that. But I don't think very many "Cheers" fans (or "Matlock," etc.) really say they'd watch it if only the picture were sharper. They watch for the characters, and the jokes, and those come off just fine, thank you, in 480i. (Even DVD resolution revealed that much of the first season of "Cheers" features shots that are more than a little out of focus!)

Pound foolish? I don't think so.
 

smithb

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
1,536
Real Name
Brad Smith
My take on many of the shows from the 80's and 90's. While there are many excellent shows I think the demand is low for the following reasons:

- They have already been syndicated for many years before the ability to get them on DVD and are just too fresh in our minds to prioritize them above other options. The thought is that they can always be purchased later.

- Older shows, especially 50's through 60's, for many of us haven't been seen for a long time, or we may only recall glimpses from our past, or for some we've heard about but never seen. Therefore, they get more interest. Also, who knows how long they will be in print, or if they will keep enough interest for further releases, so they have the get them while you can mentality.

- Very recent shows are typically higher quality, not dated, and either have limited syndication so far, or at the very least we haven't seen the series several times across years to say we can pass on there for a while longer.

These shows from the 80's and 90's are like cars that aren't new but yet haven't attained their vintage or classic status yet. At least that's how I view them so others may feel the same.
 

RickER

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
5,128
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Real Name
Rick
Rhoda was a film show, wasnt it?

The last time i saw this show was on TV Land, 10 years ago?

As i recall, the show didnt have much of a syndication life anyway, as it only ran 2, maybe 2 1/2 seasons?

Just a bunch of thoughts, and questions, no answers here.
htf_images_smilies_smile.gif
 

Mark Talmadge

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
2,379
It has always been cost reasons, in regards to film or tape. Take a look at the interview Sherwood Schultz gave regarding the production costs for Gilligan's Island. Back when Season 1 was being produced, Sherwood had said he wanted to produce the first season in color but decided against it because the costs for color film stock was too high for the series. This is why they produced the first season in black and white.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew

The only way we can get answers is if the people who know them speak up. Rhoda was indeed on film (MTM Productions only used tape for WKRP in Cincinnati, and we all know why that was, and how it came back to bite them in the tail 20 years later), but the condition of the film is unknown. The only answers we have received have been vague ones.

Rhoda had five seasons (and was cancelled in late 1978 because its ratings collapsed due to cast turnover and time slot changes). Perhaps you are thinking of Phyllis, the 1975-1977 Cloris Leachman series. Ironically, because it was rarely rerun it has more of a chance turning up uncut on DVD.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Videotape gets a beating in this thread, but while I grant you that videotape isn't going to look great on HD, it is a format that often can suit some shows better like for instance "Barney Miller" which was a show always structured like a stage play. Tape gave that show a greater sense of stage-like intimacy which fueled its great sense of comedy and IMO it was not a show that would have been suitable for the glossier look of film.
 

DeWilson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
2,517
Real Name
Denny

Joe Hamiltion is holding the uncut masters for Ransom - Warners owns the rights, but he owns the only Physical uncut master tapes. We can assume Warners did the syndication edits and then wiped the safty copies they used or returned the master tapes they used when they prepared the edits. He's taking advantage of their lack of holding onto uncut masters.

Why? Pehaps his father didn't get a big enough cut in the first place,or Joe wasn't the heir to any residuals and wants a piece of the action. Who knows.
 

Mike*SC

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
260

But again, if you shot on film back then (as many, many shows did at the time), you cut it on film. That was simply the available technology. So let's not canonize Mr. Arnaz too much.

Okay, I've probably come off as a jerk here, and if I have, I regret that. I just think it's important to be realistic about this situation.
 

RickER

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
5,128
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Real Name
Rick
Its all good info Mike, thanks!

Thanks for the info as well Matthew, on Rhoda. I watched it, and Phyllis as a kid. Loved both shows, but i sure dont remember them very well.
htf_images_smilies_smile.gif


I was thinking about Paramount. I know they have made mistakes, but shows like Hawaii Five-0, Mission: Impossible, and Perry Mason all look great on DVD. All filmed shows, and all being restored...to some point.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew

Joe Hamilton died in 1991. His son, John Hamilton, inherited any rights he held. The syndication edits to the two NBC seasons were made in 1986 at the behest of Lorimar-Telepictures (which is how WB got into the picture) when they brought the show back in first-run syndication. All copyrights are registered to Joe Hamilton Productions.
 

Jon Martin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
2,218

And I, for one, don't have a problem with videotape. It adds more of a sense of nostalgia to watching it years later than film does.

You feel like you are watching something of a moment, like say SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. If on film, there is no dating to it.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,280
Real Name
Ethan Riley

I always loved the feeling of immediacy of videotape for certain types of shows. I did always feel like I was watching a live stageplay. There's puh-lenty of 70s/80s/90s sitcoms that I can't imagine having been done on film: Alice, Three's Company, the Jeffersons, Family Ties and yes, Mama's Family. Videotape makes the viewer feel more like an active participant in the storyline. Maybe the reason is psychological, because the videotape is free of film grain and other obstacles? But nevertheless, if you followed any of those shows (and many more) it felt like you really were there. I think that format works best for "around the house" sitcoms; film is best when the actors move around and they do location filming.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew

You have a point there. Many of the shows from that era are written like stage plays, so it's appropriate. It's also interesting you mention film working best for outdoor location shooting, because taped British TV shows like Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, and The Benny Hill Show did that all the time in the 1970s. Whenever someone would go outside you would switch from video to film.

I didn't mean to say that all tape is bad. It obviously has benefits; it's cheap, you can see what you have done without having to process it, and it takes less time to manipulate the image. When a show originates on tape, that's that, but for shooting film, if telecine improvements have been made since then, and a way can be found to take advantage of those improvements in a cost-effective manner, why not?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,597
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top