The beginning of the end for classic shows? (1 Viewer)

[Scott_F_S]

So what's your point? I prefer to buy than to rent or watch them in broadcast so I can watch them on my own time instead of being on a schedule or deadline. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[michael_ks]

Fans of classic tv realistically don't expect 'everything in sight' to be released but we are getting frustrated over a lack of announcements for series that set the bar in their day. And I have no doubt that several of the series in my wish list will be released--perhaps not "M-Squad" or "The Defenders", but certainly "The Fugitive" and at least a half dozen of the others I have listed. Just a matter of time.

I envy you in a way, being over 45 and not clamoring for the shows of yesteryear. One never has to want when one is content with the somewhat contrived, topical and politically correct shows filmed with a camera suffering from MS that are the norm these days. Worse still is the predlilection for producing series wherein a 5' 4", 104 lb. blonde dukes it out with the men...

 

[JeffWld]

Scott: "I buy the Buffys and the Angels and the Sopranos and the Shields and the Nip/Tucks. I have no interest in buying classic shows."

Asked and answered, eh Gary?

 

[MatthewA]

I'm 23 years old and 90% of the shows I collect now, or will ever collect if they are released, premiered prior to 1985. I personally consider 95% of current TV awful and the other 5% overrated. I refuse to watch reality TV and I believe that scripted TV should take precedence in DVD releases.

 

[TravisR]

It doesn't make his point any less valid. It'd be great if there was more classic stuff available but just because there's some people who want it doesn't mean that it'll sell well enough to be a profitable release for studios. They could have the greatest show of all time sitting in their vaults and if it won't sell, it ain't coming out.

 

[michael_ks]

I would hope that "the greatest show of all time" would sell, because if not, there's no point in releasing anything.

Over the last several years classic tv collectors have, in all likelihood, become more appreciative of the technical obstacles and legal entanglements that many vintage shows are faced with. Detractors here are getting too hung up on the "it's too old, therefore it won't sell" argument, just one facet of a considerably more complex issue.

 

[Michael Alden]

Well, I guess you and I run in different crowds. As someone who has collected television shows for over 25 years, on tape, film and now DVD, I can say that most of my friends are also big collectors and we buy just about every decent release that comes out of a 50s and 60s show. I also have other friends that ask me where the hell such and such 60s show is (Untouchables, Fugitive, Ben Casey, Dr. Kildare, Man from UNCLE, etc.) As most of my friends are single, we don't have tuition to pay, need more than one cell phone, buy much new furniture or have a need to change our kitchens. I budget a couple of hundred a week towards my hobbies, be it DVDs, CDs, records, whatever.

 

[Gary OS]

Yep, and now things make a lot more sense. Generally, when someone makes the claim that the classics won't sale and that's why they aren't being released, that person has no desire for the classics in the first place. It's easy to make the blanket statement "they won't sale", but there's just too much evidence to the contrary for me to believe the answer is that simple. I think we have to qualify "won't sale." They'll sale, and they'll make some profit, just not as much as the studios might want them to make. But if you are in the business of making money, it's seems like it would be worth the effort to get something out of a show that you otherwise will get nothing from! Even if the profit is small.

Gary "busy weekend for me, but I'll try to get back to this thread next week - very interesting stuff" O.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Why anyone would buy shows that are currently being run is beyond me. I mean at least with I Love Lucy or Dick Van Dyke we know the shows have been butchered and time sped beyond belief, but shows airing for today's market? Heck if I was really interested in them I'd just videotape/DVD record them and save some money in the process.

 

[Scott_F_S]

The big studios aren't interested in small profits. They're interested in big ones. Why spend your time and effort on a product that will return $X when you can produce something that will return $5X? That's my point. I'm not saying there is no market, I'm saying it's not substantial enough for the studios to justify expending a lot of cost and effort on it.

Some posters keep trying to skew my point to try to deflect the discussion as a way to prove me wrong. What I'm interested in and not interested in or the buying habits of me or my friends is not the point here. I have nothing against classic TV. I just don't have any interest in revisiting it. But that's my choice. We can go round and round all day about whether TV from the 60s and 70s is better or worse than TV in the 90s and 2000s. That's a subjective argument and there is no right or wrong opinion on that.

I'm not arguing that classic TV has no place on DVD. What I'm saying is that the studios make a gazillion times more profit on TV shows that are in the public conciousness than shows that are no more than a distant memory to most of the public. Rightly or wrongly, that's a fact. The marketplace is speaking here. And there's not really anything any of us can do or say or wish for to change that.

 

[Michael Alden]

And they make 0 profit on shows that just sit in the vaults forever. For shows that are 40, 50 years old the only avenue left to make any money is on DVD. They are not going to air anywhere. Even niche channels like SciFi want the new garbage rather than the 50s and 60s shows. So the only place these things will ever turn up will be on DVD. No one is saying that they can't make more off new drek. But if these suits can find a way to be creative they can make money off the older shows. Firstly, they need to do what Sony does and set up an in-house system to do the transfers so it doesn't cost $5000 a print or whatever the ridiculous number is that Paramount, Universal and Warner pay. Then they can either set up a division specifically to cater to smaller pressings for a niche market or just license it out. That whole idea about flooding the market and competing with themselves is bullshit. No one worries about that in music. Universal music has Hip-O select, Rhino (part of Warner) has Rhino handmade. They release limited pressings of CDs with a small interest, usually just a few thousand. So maybe they have a bit higher price point but at least it gets out. There's no reason this can't be done with television, other than the fact that no one has thought to do it yet.

 

[BernieV]

I believe that's the point, though. A well-managed publicly owned corporation chooses projects that are expected to yield the highest return on investment. They operate under a model called "zero-based budgeting". That means ordering new development according to forecast profitability and drawing a red line above those investments that fall below the budget. Otherwise they wouldn't get the highest return on the dollar.

I agree with the sentiment that older shows from the 50's-70's often outshine more recent programs in terms of writing, acting and directing. Contemporaries of that era are an ever-decreasing fraction of the market, however, and as HL Mencken once wrote No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

 

[MatthewA]

I think stores need to shoulder some of the blame for carrying 50 or 60 copies of recent garbage, especially "reality" TV, while carrying 1 or 2 of anything worthwile from the past. There's no need for a store to carry more than 5 copies of any show at one time. And frankly, with online shopping now commonplace the "shelf space" complaint does not hold water.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

I think today's TV honchos are definitely underestimating the boomers of yesteryear who mostly enjoy shows from the past. They somehow believe that if they tease us with classic shows from the past, they might be able to lure us into enjoying today's shows. A good example would be TVLand and Nick at Nite. When those channels were first established they showed great TV from the 50s and 60s, and very little from any later era. Today they run more shows from the 70s, 80s and even 90s and beyond than they do the older stuff. See if that's not the pattern when you discover a new cable channel that runs a classic...They start out running older shows, but as their sponsorship starts to grow, they phase out the older shows in favor of new stuff. Another example would be the annual TVLand Award Show. They keep honoring old shows with a few of the old stars, while mixing in alot of today's stars, as if the average viewer would know these people, let alone care why they're up there in the first place. Then they'll actually give an award to a "future classic" or such nonsense, as if they could predict such a thing...hehehe, talk about a dysfunctional award show...When it originally started though, they had it right, a show about the classics, featuring people who participated in the classics...Now, like everything else, they've become a show featuring cameo appearances by classic stars in a show promoting today's drek...For me it's "record it and keep the FF button handy".

 

[TravisR]

The stores will stock the most of whatever is selling. They don't care what it is as long as it sells. If a show from the 1950s is selling as quickly as they get it, they'll get more copies. When the next release of that series hits, they'll be sure to get more copies initially.

 

[Jeff Willis]

I have to go with Mike Alden's previous post. Well said, Mike. I also think that they should be able to make at least a modest profit with the older series vs, as you said, 0 $'s in a vault. I am hoping that the older releases aren't on the backside of the bell-jar curve. I remember thinking, as probably most classic TV fans have, "When will this great ride of 50's-70's releases slow down?" As for 'Boomers not spending much on TV/DVD sets, I recently returned from a vacation in LA and I can tell those here that, minority or not, we're "out here" buying these sets I talked to several TV/DVD collectors in the 40-50 yrs age group, including a couple from London, and we are all collectors of series such as, Time Tunnel, Voyage....Sea, Perry Mason, Adam-12 (one that's out, that is), Big Valley, Columbo, Combat!, Hogan's Heroes, Avengers, Danger Man, Rifleman, Rawhide, Rat Patrol, Wanted...Dead Or Alive, Wild, Wild West, etc. I'm not about to say that there's a huge TV/DVD 'Boomer market out there since I don't have access to the #"s, but I can say that "we're not alone" I have found it interesting that, for at least a day or so, a 60's series such as Time Tunnel would rank highly at Amazon. As a 'Boomer that loved this one years ago, that's a nice surprise to me. As for some comparisons that I read at HTF (old vs new, etc), I try to look at it this way: Soon, Buffy, Alias, Lost, etc will be "classics" or at least they will have been released for some time. Then, I can check out some of those series. Who knows, I might be surprised I did like "Firefly" although it was a short-lived series. Excepting that one, the latest series that I have in my collection dates to the mid 90's, such as "Earth 2". The vast majority are 60's - 80's sets and a couple of late 50's ones. Those era's series definitely sell, it's just....Do they sell enough to keep the great ride going? We'd need a crystal ball to answer that one, I guess.

 

[Phyll]

Hopefully this is just a lull and these companies will start gearing up shows for next year. I like both old and new shows. What is bothering me is that some of the best shows are not being released like the Fugitive. But I do believe shows like that are too good not to be released. I think Paramount seems to have a knack for getting their older shows to sell like Perry Mason and the Wild Wild West. Some of it has to do with when the sets are released. Because if you release say an older show on the same day as say Seinfeld or Lost then you just shot yourself in the foot. I think what would help is if the cable companies would start showing more of these older shows.
I noticed that tvland tied in the release of Daniel Boone with the dvd release and it seemed to help sells. I also noticed they will do the same with That Girl in December. But I really don't think this is the end. I think it is just a lull and nothing more. I do think it is good business practice to find out what sells and what doesn't. Maybe some shows should just go to mail order only .

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I would suspect old shows resulted in losses for the companies. I think even a small profit would have encouraged them to continue releasing classic shows.

I feel really, really pessimistic. Based on all indications, there will be very few, if any, TV series from the '50s and '60s released in season sets in the future. Even shows which hit Number One in the ratings, like "Gunsmoke," "Wagon Train," "The Beverly Hillbillies" or "Bonanza" have not had season sets (other than Season One for "Hillbillies"), so what does that tell us about the less successful shows?

 

[ChadP2k]

I think the reason for the apparant "slowdown" isn't one factor but many. First of all you've had many libraries change hands this year and several mergers that have slowed down releases of some sets. Also you've seen more of an effort to "fast track" some series in order to complete them. For instance I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, The Brady Bunch, and other classic series will have all been completed by years end. Then you have the big boys like Seinfeld that occupy time. I'm disappointed in the philosophy of the studios at times too, but I think those collecting classic TV should be realistic. To put it bluntly if the show isn't in syndication at all and hasn't been for a while the liklihood of it ending up on DVD is very slim right now. Granted I am younger but I've never heard of or seen a single episode of many of the "hits" listed in this thread. Then you have shows like the Beverly Hillbillies that I'd love to see, but due to the massive # of episodes the studio likely knows it wouldn't be a money maker.

I think another major reason for the slowdown right now is that studios are increasingly trying to catch up modern series with large fan bases, or provide past season releases to end up coming out around the time the new seasons began. For instance you've got shows like CSI, where all three versions see the season that just ended a few months ago released this month or next month. This ends up making more $ for the studio, and releasing current shows is much easier because no remastering or searching is necessary.

I guess I look at it differently. I'd rather the studios focus on a small number of classic series, COMPLETE them, and then move on to others. It irks me to death that there are huge lulls between seasons in shows, or that some are abandoned all together. For instance Dragnet Season 1 and Green Acres Seasons 1-3 are sitting on my shelf waiting on the rest to come out, a day that sadly might never come. I think once a studio releases one season of a show that has a short run, or 2-3 of a season with a longer run they owe it to fans to complete the series. I love the "Get Smart" model of sitting back, remastering all the episodes, and then giving fans the option of buying it all at once or in individual season sets.

Another example is F-Troop, and the Jeff Foxworthy Show. Granted Foxworthy had a limited focus but when you release season 1 of a two season show you should be prepared to fork out for the other season regardless of sales levels or not release the first season at all.

 

[MatthewA]

However, plenty of short-lived shows that have never been syndicated did come out, while others that ran a while and were syndicated remain on the shelf


That's exactly how I feel, especially where Sony is concerned. Hopefully they won't just continue to throw 100 shows to the wall and see which one sticks.