The Mary Tyler Moore Show: The Complete Third Season -- A Personal Review (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

George K. wrote.......


But not Andy Seasons 3 or 4, I'll bet. Those both contain edits. Plus I Love Lucy S.4 (with small edits too; although via a disc-replacement program, evidently you can get the edited footage presented as an "extra" on one of those S.4 discs...a replacement I decided wasn't worth the trouble of persuing).

And I'm not thrilled with those edits either. But I decided it was worth getting those DVD sets anyway. I think it's a matter of "degrees" of editing. And while I don't like having just 22 of the 25 minutes of "The Darlings Are Coming" (from Andy G. S.3), plus one other missing 1-minute epilogue in that season set, there's so much good stuff that easily outweighs the 1% of negative stuff. Therefore, a purchase (for me) is mandatory of a favorite show like Andy Griffith on DVD (which are products, other than a very few bad things, that have sparkled in every other respect IMO).

And when I think of the crap-like transfers and hacked-up syndicated versions of every TV show that we could conceivably be seeing on virtually all TV-DVD sets, I, for one, am grateful that (for the most part, but with a few exceptions, of course) the studios producing these TV-On-DVD season-by-season boxed sets for the masses have done a terrific job.*

* = Again -- All Things Considered .... which really means: I'm thankful that most of the shows I like and want to get on DVD have been treated with respect and contain good-looking video plus uncut episodes.

And re. MTM-3's Ted Baxter edit -- I watched that ep. and didn't have the slightest idea a song had been cut out of it. Hadn't a clue. Wouldn't have known at all if someone else hadn't pointed it out. (Which makes me actually wonder how many other teeny-tiny snippets have been made to TV shows on DVD, without any eagle-eyed customers even noticing?)

All TV-DVD buyers' mileage (and editing tolerance) will vary, as is everyone's right. But I am certainly not going to let a few seconds of dubbed-in mumbling or a 10-second edit somewhere else spoil an otherwise-unspoiled barrel of apples.

And if by buying a product with 0.05% edited content I am "sending the wrong message" to the studios, then I'm sorry, but I guess such non-buying "messages" are just going to have to be sent by people like George Kaplan. Because I simply cannot bring myself, personally, to toss out the almost-perfectly-clean baby with the bathwater.

Which might bring up another problem with the "Not Gonna Buy If It's Edited" scenario -- If everybody did just that, HOW would the studios know the real reason the product didn't sell well? Are they just going to assume people didn't buy because of a small edit or two? Or might they not think it didn't sell for other reasons -- like, just perhaps, the quality of the show itself, pricing, or some other reason not related to "edits"? (Unless each person not buying wrote a complaint letter to the studio or something, how will the studios "get the message" and know for certain the reason very few people bought a particular item?)

 

[Mike Williams]

Recently I took a similar stand as George Kaplan when I stated in a thread that I refused to buy any further episodes of "All in the Family" because I thought the picture quality was so very poor. I was told it was probably as good as it was going to get, so I should just go ahead and get them anyway. That only solidified my decision not to buy them, because -- according to some -- they will ALWAYS look like crap.

I was chastised by some, pitied by others, and told that I should buy a show that I was very unhappy with and would end up not watching anyway, even if I had bought it. I was told that it was better than nothing at all, so I should just spend my money on it cause I was "missing out."

I may have had different reasons than George for not purchasing a great, classic TV show. In fact, I do intend to get Season Three of Mary Tyler Moore, despite the few seconds of music changes. But my point is this:

For all those people who still want to buy Mary Tyler Moore, or All in the Family, or Gunsmoke (with its less-than-stellar picture quality), how is George or me or anyone else NOT buying it robbing them of their enjoyment. If they wish to enjoy MTM with its music edits and George wishes to enjoy something else, because of MTM's music edits, who cares? Everyone who wants to enjoy these shows as they are currently presented, by all means, enjoy them, and allow those who do not wish to spend their hard earned money on what they consider an inferior product, spend it on something else.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I'm glad this was pointed out, because it illustrates the Berlin problem. "Alexander's Ragtime Band" was what made Irving Berlin world famous; it was his first great hit. This occurred in 1911. Copyrights lasted 58 years in those days, so it went into public domain in 1969. Irving Berlin was 81 years old that year, and for the last 20 years of his life (he lived to be 101!), it galled him that people could use his great hit without paying him a penny.

The copyright law has been subsequently changed, so "White Christmas" and "Anything You Can Do" are still protected (they were 1942 and 1946, respectively.) So, as far as "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" is concerned, we don't hear the more recent two songs, but there's no problem with "Alexander's Ragtime Band."

 

[Will Krupp]

I do applaud Mike and George for standing by their convictions, but by their own admissions they can live without either release so it's not a great hardship for either one of them.

MTM and All in the Family are two shows I really don't want to live without. It WOULD be a great hardship for me to give up Season 3 of Mary for a few seconds of overdubbing. So I'm not going to.

The problem with some of George's posting is the feeling that comes across that we who are buying this release are somehow wrong. HE can take MTM or leave it, so it doesn't mean anything for him to do without it.

I'm sure that isn't George's intention, but there you have it. There's nothing wrong with me plunking down my hard earned cash for something I love, have watched, and will treasure.

 

[Randy_Cre]

I would be curious to know if the edits were also made in the R2 versions since it seems like most rights holders seem to hold out for higher fees for R1 versions.

It seems like buying versions intended for Europe are going to become more popular. I refused to buy the butchered season 2 and 3 versions of Quantum Leap, so I was elated to hear that the music wasn't replaced in the R2 sets.

I know personally, I've found myself unwilling to buy a lot of sets immediately when they're released, and instead waiting for them to be viewed by fans to see what things the studios may have tried to slip by consumers, music edits, syndication cuts, etc.... and then if the changes are significant to me, I'll then end up waiting for fan feedback on R2 sets to see if they were produced without the annoying alterations.

This particular alteration isn't a huge one by my preferences, though annoying nonetheless, but it does make it clear to me that I no longer have any trust that companies will put out original unedited episodes.

When I first started buying TV/DVD sets, I didn't give it any thought that I would be paying for anything less than the original versions.

Now I feel like the companies have to show me that they didn't shortchange fans before I will give them my money. And that feeling should be a concern to the studios.

 

[george kaplan]

I'm going to respond to very little of these posts, simply because I don't want to drag this out. However, I will respond to thisWell, you certainly have the right to buy whatever you want. You're not "wrong" for doing so, anymore than someone is wrong for buying a pan & scan dvd of Ben-Hur. And we all make compromises, and you get to decide what compromises to make.

But I do think that while you're not wrong, the studio is. They should never put out a product that isn't artistically as sound as possible. That certainly means they should never put out a pan & scan dvd. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't put out cut versions of films or tv shows, as sometimes that's the best possible version that exists. If I'm coming across strong, it's not against people who buy the dvds, it's for the people who make them.

Of course, maybe MTM is as complete as possible. Maybe Irving Berlin, Jr. refused to sell the rights. Maybe it was chopped up in syndication years ago, and the original masters don't exist. But, without some kind of evidence to that effect, I'm not going to give demonstrably overly greedy studios the benefit of the doubt.

I'm obviously different than some here. I'm glad that WKRP has not been released. I'd rather see it never released, than released with music replacement. I understand that it probably isn't economically feasible for them to put it out right, and in my opinion they're doing the right thing, by not putting it out at all. I hope someday it does get released intact, and I for one will gladly pay a premium price for it. But I'll be saddened if a cut-up version with Muzak that'd make Johnny Fever vomit gets released. But I'm sure that there are some who disagree, and would rather have a heavily edited version than no version at all. But not me.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

I'm not sure I completely understand the MTM (and other shows) music rights issue. Does the problem with certain music scenes not using the original track (because of copyright problems) only exist in the DVD release of these shows, or have they also compromised the same shows on their syndication showings? If they still run the shows with the original (undubbed or cut) scenes in question intact, why not simply copy those 2 episodes from cable and simply add them as an extra to ones collection? I don't advocate pirating shows, but since these shows have aired on and off throughout many stations, I would think someone making a personal over the air copy to simply add to their store bought DVD collection may be a compromise to many who don't agree with studio tampering. The rights to the song "Love and Marriage" wasn't secured for the opening of "Married With Children" on DVD, yet they run the orignal opening constantly in syndication. If the rules are different for TV runs than they are for DVD ownership, then I agree it's not what the fans expect when they buy the shows on DVD. However, if shows like MTM, Quantum Leap, Married With Children and others are showing scenes on TV that they alter on DVD, what's to keep us fans from copying them to our collections, and simply adding them as extras to otherwise complete DVD sets? The VCR/DVD recorder is your friend.

 

[george kaplan]

Carlos,

I personally, haven't watched reruns on tv of any of these shows for a long time. I did prolifically until about 1980, and then only on Nick at Nite until the mid to late 90s, and now pretty much limit myself to dvd.

Having said that, I think it very unlikely that the episodes are better off in syndication. Yes, it might be that in syndication a missing music scene would still exist, but almost certainly other things would be missing. What would be needed wouldn't be just to record the show off the air, but to then be able to edit the dvd episode with the show off the air. That is possible, though extremely difficult for the casual user to do, and I couldn't do it myself with any existing freeware, but would have to buy some software to do so (I leave out any details due to forum rules). And of course, that assumes that the missing parts are on the syndicated version, and you find that episode playing.

So, for me anyway, too difficult and too expensive.

 

[Rob W]

Hate to open up another can of worms since we're getting so far off track here, but Region 2 versions of ANYTHING film- based comes with their own compromises, namely PAL speed-up. If total fidelity to the original is what you're looking for, you won't find it in Region 2.

 

[george kaplan]

Well fortunately, most television I want is available in region 1. I dislike PAL speedup as much as any of the other things I listed, so there are no region 2 dvds in my collection, though I have a player capable of playing them. Of course some region 1 dvds come from PAL masters (e.g., Chaplin MK2 films), and that brings the PAL speedup with them. :frowning:

 

[Randy_Cre]

R2 obviously isn't the best option in all cases. With QL it's about the only option in my opinion as the heavily-music edited R1 versions of S2 & S3 are complete garbage IMO. It just seems like it becomes a possible option when music replacement is involved.

It is interesting to me how different the music rights clearance issue is for the different reasons. I've never been sure if it was different legal issues for the different regions, or just a desire by the right's holders to demand more because they think it'd be easier to gouge R1 consumers.

Since these edits in MTM apparently are driven by the Irving Berlin Estate, hopefully it galls them to no end that Alexander's Rag Time Band is included in the set.

 

[Mike*SC]

I hardly think that anybody need jump to George Kaplan’s defense, because this discussion has been very courteous and rational – as it should be, of course, but this being the internet, it’s a pleasant surprise. I point this out because I’m about to go on a long spiel, and if anybody takes it as any sort of personal attack, that is absolutely not my intention.

I think it’s hard for anyone who hasn’t had to deal with music clearance issues to really grasp how incredibly exhausting, complex, random, counter-intuitive, and ultimately exasperating a process it truly is. I have no idea about the specifics of the MTM song issue, I don’t know any of the people involved. But I do work in television, and have dealt with this sort of thing extensively. I’m not making apologies, I’m not making excuses. But I am sympathetic.

Here’s the thing about music clearance that you must remember above all: There is no logic to it, there is no consistency to it. Do not make any assumptions. The statement “…there are lots of dvds with Irving Berlin music in them, uncut, so I have a hard time believing that the studio couldn't have secured the rights for an economically feasible price” is a completely false assumption (though sure, the circumstantial evidence would make it seem logical). You have no idea how the music rights were originally bought. Were they just broadcast rights? (In 1972, who would have imagined you’d need anything else?) Were they worldwide rights, or just for North America? Were they bought for a limited time or in perpetuity? This doesn't apply to this specific example, but if you want to use a pre-recorded song, you need both sync rights (the rights to the song itself, generally held by the publisher) and master rights (the rights to the actual recording, generally held by the label that released it). Which means for any recorded music tracked into a show, you need to get rights separately from two (or sometimes more) different entities whose interests are often in conflict. Beyond this is something called grand rights – essentially, if a song is performed in a way reminiscent of a famous previous use (the song “Top Hat” sung while tap dancing, for instance), you need these too, often from still more people. Even more insanely complex is something called “rear window,” wherein any song at all written in the early-to-mid ‘70s is off-limits, as no definite legal determination has been made as to ownership, or publishing rights, or something (for reasons I still don’t get, this window gets shorter each year, and in a few years will no longer be a problem).

Point is, if in 2006 you wind up producing DVDs for a show that, thirty years ago, negotiated only for broadcast rights, or for some other insufficiently broad rights, you have to go back to the rights-holder, or rights-holders. This is not the same as going to them in advance, when you can say “Hey, we’d love your song, but if you won’t play ball, we’ll buy another.” Here, you’re trapped, and they know it.

Does this mean the rights-holders are being greedy? Maybe. But everybody wants the most they can get – this is just human nature – and generally, we’re all predisposed to think that somebody else is trying to rip us off. Whatever it is, more often than not, people are reasonable and it can be worked out. But not always. Definitely not always.

I don’t know on which DVDs you’ve seen those Irving Berlin songs – if they were in a movie, that means the rights purchased at the time were not just for broadcast, obviously. But even if you’re referencing a television show, as with everything else, these negotiations hinge on relationships and often just pure chance. Sometimes, the very fact that a song has been cleared before makes the owner unwilling to clear it again!

An example: On a show I was doing, we used a well known Broadway song in a fairly elaborate production number. The lawyers negotiated the rights and we shot the sequence, confident that all was fine. Subsequently, the lawyers watched the show and feared that we actually needed the aforementioned grand rights, which we did not have. And those grand rights were held by one of the creators of the Broadway show. Who by now was a cranky old man who resented everybody and thought this particular song had been overused and who, by the way, knew he had us over a barrel. (We had finished the season of the show by this point – reshooting the production number and all references to it would have been monstrously expensive.) It looked very bleak for quite a while, until, by amazing chance, we discovered that the head of casting for the company I worked for had grown up with the children of this rights-holder, and who used to summer at his beach house! (Amazing, but true!) She made the calls for us, and the guy finally agreed to sell us the grand rights for a small fortune, but for less than it would have cost to reshoot.

Why wouldn’t somebody want to sell you the rights to their music? Well, it could be anything. One time, we wanted to use a fairly obscure song by a fairly obscure band and we figured it would be pretty cheap. It turned out that that very song had been used ad nauseum in a European television commercial and the band wound up resenting its overuse and what they considered insufficient compensation for it. They would not sell it to us, period. Another time, a feud between two rights-holders kiboshed a deal for a song.

(Quick aside: Another famous Berlin story – though he’s not the only culprit, of course – is that Steven Spielberg’s film “Always” had that title because he wanted to use Berlin’s song of that name in the film (“I’ll be loving you always…”). Berlin, who was almost 100 at the time, refused to sell the song to Spielberg for any price, despite repeated appeals, because Berlin said he wanted to reserve the song for a new project he was planning to embark on! Spielberg had to settle for “Smoke Gets in My Eyes.”)

I believe in another thread, George or somebody pointed out that the “Dick Van Dyke Show” DVDs had no music replacement. But (as that thread was lamenting) buying season three of “Dick Van Dyke” will set you back more than three times what season three of “Mary Tyler Moore” will. So it all comes down to economic and creative decisions. How much must be altered to retain the integrity of the show and still keep price point where they feel it will sell?

This, George, is where you’re absolutist: any cut, no matter how small, no matter how inconsequential to the story or jokes, is unacceptable to you. I don’t happen to share that belief. There are, of course, places where we all draw the line, but I draw mine with some flexibility, depending on the specific instance and my love for the material. In the case of MTM, I love the show (it was one of the shows that inspired my career!), and the tiny alterations do not bother me, not even a tiny little bit. Minor compromises were made, but my enjoyment was not compromised at all. But that's me, and nobody else has to agree with me (though I'd really appreciate it if everybody would, please).

One more thing, and then I'll shut up. George, you've basically acknowledged this, but let me endorse that acknowledgment. Not buying a DVD set because it is altered will absolutely save you money on something you don't want, and save you space on your shelves, and that is indisputably your prerogative. But it will not send a message of any kind, not in any way. DVDs are made or broken based not on sales to enthusiasts like us, but to the non-aficionado public at large, who are the vast majority and who don't know what's coming out every Tuesday until they see it on the shelves at their store. It's easy, reading these discussions, to extrapolate the attitudes shown here (whether enthusiasm or outrage) to the DVD-buying public. But it's inaccurate.

Okay, I've said my piece. (Ummm... for now.) I'm going to go enjoy the hell out of "Mary Tyler Moore" season three, and then wait for season four, which I hope will not be changed at all, but which I will happily live with if it is slightly. George, it sounds like you have more than enough DVDs to keep you occupied, and though MTM will not be one of them, enjoy what you've got!

 

[Joseph Bolus]

This is my position exactly on this issue. (Loved your entire post, BTW. Thanks for sharing the insight!)

I would never knowingly purchase the syndicated versions of a show on DVD (which is why I didn't purchase Alf or the first season of Cosby). With the syndicated versions of the eps typically three to four minutes are missing per episode. This really compromises the overall presentation quality of the show; and is not representative of how the show was originally aired. And I would also hesitate to purchase a season of a show that had extensive music replacements that impacted multiple episodes. But a minor 10 second (or less) alteration out of the entire season is just no problem as far as I'm concerned. "Flexibility" is the key word here!

 

[Mark_TS]

she sure is sexy on the fron cover

 

[george kaplan]

Just a few quick responses.

Well I don't agree that it sends no message at all, but I do agree that the message is very small, and probably misunderstood. But then, that's true of the message (or lack thereof) sent by purchasing a DVD.

 

[Mike*SC]

Obviously, as neither of us has any inside info, we're both just guessing. My sympathy for the DVD producers comes from similar experiences where I'm not guessing. But as I myself pointed out, one case has nothing to do with another, so I'm clueless.

That said, I'm not exactly sure what evidence would suffice. In the cases you cite, the producers could make a fairly compelling case about what materials they were unable to unearth, and which are apparently lost to time. Even then, we're taking their word for it, but they can present their case. Where music clearance is concerned, what exactly could they include? The paper trail of letters from their legal departments, or transcripts of phone calls? A budget breakdown of the manufacture of the DVD with an analysis of the cost/benefit ratio of a few seconds of music? Certainly not any sort of liner notes suggesting that a music rights-holder was being unreasonable, as that would forever kibosh pretty much any negotiations for the future. Really, how would we know?

It is easy to imagine the people responsible for these DVDs to be cynical, cigar-chomping executives in suits exclaiming "Those suckers will never know the difference!" I see this attitude a lot on the internet, but in all my dealings with studio executives (many of whom I very much dislike, mind you) I have never, ever encountered a person like this. They are, however, aware that most people do not have forty extra dollars to spend on a DVD so a few seconds are restored.

 

[george kaplan]

I don't know Mike, I might take them at their word if they said that they tried and couldn't get the music clearances. But they don't even do that. They just present the cut episodes without even acknowledging it, much less attempting to explain it.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

That wasn't good ol' Irving? I'd love to know who it was and what the song was. If you don't want to come out and say, give me a hint; I'm pretty good at guessing stuff like this.

 

[Mike*SC]

Fair enough, though in this case, a disclaimer would take as long to read as the alteration to the episode lasts. Still, I understand why you would want it, and I respect that.

Somehow, this reminds me of the classic Monty Python sketch "Crunchy Frog," where a police inspector complains to a candy store owner about a confection named "Crunchy Frog," which is not a candy frog but in fact a chocolate-covered actual frog.

Inspector: "I must warn you that in future you should delete the words 'crunchy frog', and replace them with the legend 'crunchy raw unboned real dead frog', if you want to avoid prosecution."

Store Owner: "Our sales would plummet!"

 

[george kaplan]

Well, I guess I'm one of those who doesn't want to eat a real chocolate covered frog.