Universal/NBC has a lousy infrastructure (1 Viewer)

[Jay_B!]

actually, other companies like Warner and Universal should seriously consider lower-priced split-season sets after seeing Fox rescuing Lost In Space from sales failure into a success by doing them as half-seasons. Hell, Paramount's been able to keep Touched By An Angel coming by splitting the seasons in half while the season 1 set flopped. Plus, their prices are so reasonable it's hard to find fault, it's not like they were wanting $60 for a half season like Universal has been known to do with sets with just eight episodes

 

[michael_ks]

Recall that when intitially released, LIS S1 was selling for the ridiculous price of around $75-80. Wal-Mart balked and the split season set was born. If it had been sensibly priced at under $40 like other B/W shows from that era (e.g. "Wild Wild West") the supply/demand point would have been reached well enough. Fox got too greedy thinking they had a "Star Trek", but the problem is that there are far, far more 'trekkies' in need of a life than there are LIS fans.

 

[JoshuaB.]

For the record, I'm 30 years old and while I think Firefly is a fantastic series, I'd never call it greater than the original Twilight Zone (and I rarely watch new shows nowadays). I enjoy vintage TV shows too (anybody can check my TV on DVD collection as proof on my dvdaficionado link), but my point was that Fox hasn't been idle releasing contemporary or vintage shows on DVD. I know there are people on this forum who grit their teeth at people (like me) who enjoy Buffy, Alias and other contemporary programs on DVD when there are still plenty of vintage TV that has yet to be released, but that doesn't mean we sneer at the mention of vintage TV. I'm still waiting for The Fugitive, The Invaders, The Man from UNCLE, the rest of the BW episodes of the Saint and even Batman to hit DVD. I guess I was just trying to convey that I've liked what Fox has released so far and how they're going about it--if I'm in the minority in this thread, so be it.

 

[Jay_B!]

I agree, there is a bit of snobbery and an elitist attitude from some of the older posters towards anything that might have a cast member who is currently under fifty in it. I think it's pretty condescending to call someone out and make arrogant assumptions about us simply because we actually might find something entertaining about Firefly... knowing damn well that if Firefly aired in 1972 instead of 2002, "why haven't Fox released Firefly on DVD? that show was short lived but it's such a classic".

Just because some people stopped watching contemporary TV in 1975 doesn't mean that those of us who still live in the present and realize that there are plenty of good shows to pick and choose from today can't also appreciate the "oldies" as they seem to be called these days. I have a huge number of current/recent shows in my collection, but I also have a reasonable selection of Bewitched, Lucy, Jeannie type shows too, and hell... most of the DVD's I'm mostly anticipating this spring are from the 1970's (Maude, One Day At A Time, seasons 2 of Happy Days, Laverne And Shirley and Mork And Mindy). I'm sorry that I didn't quit watching TV after 1985, but then if I had, I would've missed out on so many great series.

 

[TravisR]

PREACH! TESTIFY!

 

[michael_ks]

Personally I don't feel as though I owe a debt of gratitude to fans of these shows that I may now enjoy series like "Rawhide" and that they somehow 'paved the way' for classic TV on DVD. It should have been seen as a foregone conclusion that people would collect "The Simpsons", for no other reason than its having been popular enough to be on the air now for 10 years. And anyway, older shows appeared on VHS before any of these newer shows were put to DVD which even then should have given some indication of the marketibility of vintage tv.

 

[Jay_B!]

maybe so, but I think if Simpsons, Buffy, X-Files, et al had proven to be poor sellers on DVD, companies would've never even thought to go back into their catalogs if the modern cult classics with the built-in devoted followings weren't going to buy their fave shows. It took the more recent cult shows to establish the TV-on-DVD market as profitable and lord knows how few shows would be out presently if even The Simpsons or Buffy had proven to be incredibly poor sellers, Buffy/Angel fans are as devout as Trekkies and if those fans wouldn't have wanted those shows on DVD, the companies wouldn't have even bothered with 90% of what's followed.

 

[Darren Gross]

$5000 sounds pretty inexpensive to me, when you consider that studios have been known to spend tens of thousands and more on feature film transfers and more on compression fees.

The main cost issue is one of unions. The big studios are union shops-- they can't for the most part outsource their work, especially if they have an in-house transfer and encoding facility. They're restricted by the unions to paying those union wages for the relevant jobs that are involved here.

That's not even considering the studio overheard, creative accounting etc.

 

[JeffWld]

And Universal were leaders in the "creative accounting" department....just ask James Garner.

 

[Michael Alden]

Not really that many actually. And I don't know where you get this generalization. Everyone that I know who is into vintage television also samples most new shows, watching at least an episode or two. Just because we don't like a lot of these modern "classics" like Firefly, doesn't mean we don't like anything. Yeah maybe I would have liked it too if I was 10 when it came on. I could say that for a lot of shows. But I wasn't 10 and to me the show stunk. Obviously it didn't appeal to a broad audience as besides the show bombing, the movie version bombed as well. Hey look, no one is saying that fans of this crap don't have a right to get it, what we're saying is we want our shows as well and that when some modern POS gets released while really great shows don't it is very frustrating.

 

[Charles Ellis]

Exactly. And it really gets my goat when cettain people look down on fans of vintage TV shows with scorn, as this forum thread has shown. I recently talked to DVD producer Paul Brownstein via an internet talk show last week and he confirmed that Fox and other majors have let themselves be ruled by demographics. It's like putting out the latest Adam Sandler comedy on disc while classics by people like Laurel & Hardy and Keaton are still awaiting the DVD treatment.

 

[MatthewA]

How did we get off track in discussing Firefly?

I thought we were discussing how studios could keep costs down on TV show sets without sacrificing quality or content.


That's a new one to me. What do you mean by this?

 

[Michael Alden]

Part of his contract for Rockford Files gave him a percentage of the show's profits. Even after selling the series in syndication many times all over the world and reaping hundreds of millions of dollars, Universal's accountants had the books saying the show was still in the red and not turning a profit yet, thereby denying Garner any income from the sales. He had to sue them to get any money out of them. That's what he meant when he said to ask Garner about their creative accounting.

 

[Jay_B!]

isn't it actually the other way around? The fans of vintage television who look at people whose favorite series might be from say, 1993, and dismiss them as amateurs who watch tv with a closedmind, and then act like no television series which contains actors who are currently under 50 could possibly be good.

The "Buffy sucks, Lost sucks, Veronica sucks, X-Files sucks, Simpsons sucks" mentality is far more noticable and previlent on this forum than "Lucy's dead, move on to newer sitcoms", why? nobody thinks that way. But... all shows after 1980 being crap is actually not an uncommon opinion here, and people who happen to enjoy shows from more recent years are treated condescendingly, much like your little rant against Firefly, a show you probably haven't even seen

 

[michael_ks]

The two greatest obstacles for me in enjoying just about anything post 1995 has much less to do with series conception or acting. They are:

1. Political correctness/anti-family values/raunchiness

2. "Clever" special photographic trick shots, rapid editing and near constant camera movement. Gives me a migraine.

 

[Jeff*H]

I guess I'm the rare bird who loves shows from all eras, since my vast TV-DVD collection is about 50-50 classic vs. new. I love everything from Ozzie and Harriet, Burns and Allen, Leave it to Beaver, Sgt. Preston, Jack Benny, Boris Karloff's Thriller, GIlligan's Island, and Get Smart to today's shows such as Arrested Development, The Office, Lost, 30 Rock and Heroes. There were crappy shows back then, particularly in the 70's, and there are plenty of crappy shows today too. BUt there are plenty of gems in every era to enjoy.

 

[Gary OS]

Spot on comments, Michael. Those are my primary reasons for not caring for more recent tv shows (although I might carry your 1995 date back even a bit further to include the entire 90's, with only a few exceptions). I guess I could actually add a third reason that's on a lesser level than the two you mentioned, but aggravating to me nonetheless:

3. Having to endure ear-busting, mind-numbing, morally reprehensible commercials every 7-8 minutes. These sick things make watching most any channel, even those that run older classics as opposed to recent or current television series, almost impossible. However, this is more an issue of watching via television as opposed to dvd. But my point is that even if I had an interest in tuning into a current show to see if I liked it or not, I wouldn't be able to endure the commercials that would accompany it and therefore I'm not going to know if a current show is worth a dvd purchase. But the points Michael raised pertain directly to the show and can't be argued away regardless for me.

Gary "I'm guessing all these points just don't matter to the younger set, but they do to me so I have to abstain and watch the older classics" O.

 

[michael_ks]

Great one, Gary! Actually, this was the third (and primary) reason I suspended service with Dish Network two years ago... I'm not saying that everything out there is bad but the limited programming to make way for insipid, blaring commercials just kills it for me.

One of these days I'll Netflix "24", maybe "Lost" and almost certainly "Nowhere Man". But for now, I've got 50+ sets to classic shows to keep me plenty satisfied, so it'll be awhile. And though a peak may possibly have been reached with the release of vintage tv, there's still enough 50s-70s stuff on the horizon that it seems I've yet to endure a 'dry spell'.

 

[Michael Alden]

I'm so glad you're not generalizing at all. And I really don't hear too many people saying that The Simpsons sucks, which is a show that started in the 80s by the way. Are you a collector? If not, then I'm sure you've never even seen most of the great shows from the early sixties because with the exception of Naked City, none are on DVD. And here's a concept that may be difficult for you to understand, but liking quality TV has nothing to do with age or era. I have liked shows of all eras. I thought Murphy Brown was a great show as was Moonlighting, Wonder Years, Wiseguy, Married with Children, Freaks and Geeks. All relatively modern era shows. I guarantee you I have seen more of the shows from this era than you've seen of the past. I still enjoy the Law and Order shows, mainly because they are immune to much of what makes current television unwatchable - all of the camera tricks, the treacly pop songs, etc., although Criminal Intent seems to be inching towards that direction and I'm on the verge of giving up watching it.

As for the point about commercials, well, I haven't actually "watched" television in many, many years. I watch programs but I don't watch live television. Anything I wish to see, even if I'm home when it's airing, I record on my DVD hard drive (or in the past on tape) and then watch later so I can forward thru the commercials. I have no interest in sitting for an hour to watch 42 minutes of a show. Do people actually still do this? I think the only show I've watched while it was on in the last 20 years is Deadwood on HBO, where of course there are no commercials.

 

[JeffWld]

This is the most important point. My argument with the younger crowd is that they tend to make definitive statements about the current crop of shows being "classics" or "the greatest" without ever having seen 90% of what broadcasting has had to offer. There's simply just not enough frame of reference to make those kind of claims. There's a lot to be said for the cumulative nature of experience when shaping perspective.