Why are they putting out all of these bombs? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

I just saw a TV Show booklet with ads for some truly mind-boggling choices for TV Series DVDs. Does anyone really need a season set of THE SIMPLE LIFE - and it's now up to SEASON 2 while MARY TYLER MOORE is still stalled at Season 1??? Please, no more talks on how we need to understand the sales priorities of the studios and all of that -- I know this already, but there has to be some way to preserve the great and popular shows of old too. If it's "only" about dollars, that means we're stuck getting any garbage as long as it's new and hot, instead of great TV that won emmys and so forth. It's sad and unfair to punish the better, old shows whose only crime was merely that they came out at a time when there was no such thing as DVD...

 

[David Lambert]

Such talk CANNOT be avoided in a discussion like this, sorry.

If you want classic TV shows to be put on the market on DVD at a not-for-profit situation, you better start finding a rich old coot who agrees with you so he can bankroll it "for artisitic/historical" purposes, or get your Senator to introduce a bill or something. The studios sure aren't going to be the source of that.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Studios are so smart, that they would never digitally restore a show like, say, Mary Tyler Moore Show season 2 (complete with tons of commentaries and original documentaries) only to decide later not to release it. Nah, they're too smart to do that.

 

[Joshua Lane]

What they are is "too smart" to continue releasing something that doesn't make money for them.

I think everyone here needs to realize that the DVD world does NOT revolve around your tasts and priorities. For every release you WANT that gets released, there's going to be another you DON'T want that comes out. Deal with it.

 

[David Lambert]

Carlos, what does that have to do with what I said? I never said that studios don't make mistakes. We all make mistakes...perhaps me more than most!

Josh, well said. Fox, especially Peter Staddon (who just got a titular promotion, congrats!), has been very up-front with us on the situation. And they've made it clear that they haven't given up, they're just looking for the best way to move forward. I suspect the split-season set route (a la Lost In Space) is what will happen, but we'll see. When Fox is good and ready.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

David is right, you can't avoid this discussion. This is the problem that needs to be solved in order for you to get what you want on DVD. Ignoring this problem in threads like these would be like a bunch of people getting together in order to figure out how to get an elephant out of their living room without actually discussing the elephant itself.

The thread talks about the problem of classic television being absent from DVD, or since there are actually classic series coming to DVD the real problem as stated by the thread is that what is coming out is too much of the modern stuff and not enough classics and perhaps it should be flipped.

Why is this a problem? Because of the sales priorities of the studios. You can't solve the one without dealing with the other.

However, there is away that this can not be brought up. The less threads we have on this subjects the less the sales priority talk comes up.

As David said, if you can find someone with a lot of money to take this problem head on then wonderful, but until that solution comes about as long as the one question is brought up, the one answer will naturally come to the forefront. We see all the complaints about these shows being absent from DVDs, but nobody is offering reasonable solutions to this problem within the current framework of studio business practices. Telling the studios they need to change their practices IMO is not a reasonable solution.

Solve the studio sales priority problem, and the absense of classics on DVD problem goes away. Ignore the sales priority problem, and you'll always have the other.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Frankly, I'd be much more worried about the elephant dropping a load. You need to get that animal out - fast!

Just like the studios want to extend their profits, now! Does anyone here think that the prices of the sets have probably been hiked up a few more bucks to cover the costs of the (older) shows that might not sell as well in the future?

I do. The range in prices baffles me. Some shows that I think would cost a fortune are priced relatively low, and vice-versa too. Look at Star Trek. No big names and no music issues. The come-back for that is that they are priced 'as to what the market will bear', but well, ok. Now they have a ton of extra money for the other shows.

Unfortunately, I think that the studios will change their minds a few years down the road too, and decide that if it isn't going to make money, forget it.

Glenn

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Sounds fair enough to me. As long as you at least allow some of us other old coots to get it off our chests with threads like this one. I like them.

Once more for the umpteenth time, it's not so much that the studios are LOSING money -- it's more that they want to hit a home run each and every time without settling for a double now and then.

EDITED TO ADD: So, where are all you fans of THE SIMPLE LIFE?

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Can someone explain why a show like "Make Room For Daddy"(AKA: The Danny Thomas Show) gets released, yet a show like Mary Tyler Moore gets put on hold after season 1's release? Isn't the studio pattern to release only shows that have been in the spotlight recently? Last I saw, Mary Tyler Moore was on TVLand up until last year, seems like it got plenty of exposure. When was the last time anyone saw (yet can remember) Make Room For Daddy? The early 90s maybe, on TVLand/Nick At Nite?

What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that studios all have different set patterns for releasing any specific show on DVD. So I don't want to hear that every studio wants to release recent stuff first because of its recent exposure to the public. Fox released Lost In Space. When was the last time that show aired, the early 90s (again!) on Sc-Fi channel? Outside of the 40+ crowd who grew up watching that show, how many others can say they have fond memories of it and are going to buy it on DVD? Did Fox do us a favor by releasing that show only for the fans? How many blind buys will it take to make that show a hit? It certainly didn't get the exposure MTM has gotten.

The answer is simple. Fox blew millions in order to restore MTM, add commentaries and documentaries (even though I'm sure fans of MTM would rather have the entire run of the show even if it meant no extras) and now they don't know how to recover their money. So the fans are being punished for their blunder. Certainly they can release the rest of MTM (Seasons 2-7) barebones, with no extras, and even unrestored (Like they released Lost In Space) and fans would still buy it. I doubt they will though, because instead of looking at the big picture (making up their loss on season 1 with releases of seasons 2-7), they are still thinking of a way to charge fans $50 for the restored season 2 set, when they already saw how that price tag caused season 1 to be a failure.

I think the whole DVD world is a crap shoot when it comes to whether a favorite old show gets released or not. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's been in the public eye recently. Over the last 20 yrs, the Mary Tyler Moore Show has been seen in syndication as much as the Dick Van Dyke Show, yet now it's treated like junk because the studios didn't plan its initial DVD release properly.

So now I'm left to wonder, why is it that older shows like Make Room For Daddy (which hasn't been seen in syndication for a while) get to be released, while MTM is still on hold? I suppose it all depends on what studio owns the rights to the shows we want to see.

Fox released season 1 of MTM then gave up when sales of the show failed. On the other hand, Image Entertainment (a virtual unknown company by comparison) actually released all 5 seasons of the Dick Van Dyke Show without even worrying about what sales for season 1 did.

Maybe what the fans of these old (yet to be released shows) should do is to find out who owns the rights to their favorite (unreleased) shows. Then find out that company's track record on releasing old classics. If they don't seem to want to release oldies, don't bother to give them the right DVD treatment (restore the picture, add commentaries, documentaries, etc.), then maybe fans need to plead with those companies to sell their products to other companies that do seem to care about oldies (Image Entertaiment seems like one that does). It may be the only way we'll ever get to see the shows we loved come out on DVD.

 

[Matt Stone]

Haha. I hate The Simple Life as much as anyone, but I'm not going to use my hatred of the show as a viable reason for Fox to not release it on DVD. I'd rather see The Mary Tyler Moore Show than The Simple Life...but I'd rather see Firefly than The Mary Tyler Moore Show. My point is just that everyone has something they like better than something else. Nobody is going to be happy all the time with regards to TV on DVD releases.

 

[Ravi K]

It doesn't hurt me if Cedric the Entertainer's show is on the shelves. In fact, it helps me. If that show can get released, it means other fairly unpopular shows can get released, including some that I like.

 

[Mark To]

Here, you want a solution? Do what the music labels do. Create a separate division for older product. Sony Music has Sony Special Products. Universal Music has Hip-O. All of the major labels created special divisions to release their back catalogue. And what they didn't put out themselves they licensed to Collectibles, Sundazed, Varese, Taragon and CCM. Very simple solution. Paramount has, what, 20,000 series? Let them sublicense the ones they wouldn't put out before the year 3000 to another company.



Yes Image did a good job with Dick Van Dyke but not so good with I Spy. They basically took the tapes that Peter Rodgers sent them, cut or otherwise, and transferred them to DVD and put them out. In other words, they pulled a Rhino. And they also put out cut/timesped Combat as well. So I don't think they are any great shakes either. Credit for the quality of the DVDS release goes to Brownstein Productions for putting it together, not for Image.

 

[David Lambert]

Carlos, let me respond to your very good note, point-by-point!






Now here's the REALLY crappy part: studios that own a given property have a hard time licensing a property to another studio, because there is inevitably some guy in the management structure who's feelings are "if we can't make a profit from this property, then I'll be damned if I watch another company - a competitor in every sense of the word - make a profit from it!" So the property sits in the vaults, waiting. It's not often that such a license happens, because of this attitude. Sucks, don't it? :frowning:


Oh, one last thing: I actually enjoy broadcasts of The Simple Life well enough, if there's nothing else on, but I have no desire to re-watch ever, so DVDs aren't an option.

 

[David Lambert]

I agree completely!

 

[Carlos Garcia]

David, thanks for your thoughtful response to my rambling post. You make alot of valid points and I appreciated reading them.


It's interesting that you would mention this, because while I was reading this paragraph, one word came to mind: BATMAN. The point you have made is why the Batman TV show is currently in limbo and may be there for several years. As I've pointed out in other posts, Fox owns the property of that show, while WB owns the rights to the characters. Let's forget all the rumors that WB never wanted to release the show because they either felt embarrassed by it or were afraid today's fans might be confused as to whether the character is supposed to be seen as serious or as a baffoon. The bottom line is money, and both companies probably want alot more than the 50% profit share they are most likely entitled to. I read all the time that Fox definitely wants to release the show but WB won't settle the negotiations. Well, logic would tell you that if WB doesn't really care about the show, they should probably sell their share to Fox. However, as you've stated here, more than likely, the thinking of many of these execs is that they would rather let a product rot in their vaults, rather than see a competitor make a ton of money off of it. This is probably why we won't be seeing Batman out on DVD for a LONG time. :frowning:

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Yep! That seems to explain why the studios don't ask us what we want. It's just like with the movies. They'd rather let the movie rot rather than farm it out to someone else.

I don't know how much this matters, but wasn't the MTM set short that Christmas song? If so, and I if I heard about it before I picked the season up, I'd probably think twice. If they left that out, who is to say that nothing else would get left out in future seasons? If they want to increase sales, maybe they should redo the disk and make it available.

Glenn

 

[EricSchulz]

Yes, there was an edit made during the episode where Mary spents Christmas in the studio by herself. I seem to recall it was "White Christmas", and it was a music clearance issue. I own MTMS S1 and if the front cove of the box had a neon sign attached telling me about the edit I would still buy it (I know, I know...i just pissed off ALOT of people here!) MTMS is still one of my all-time favorite shows and I (still) anxiously await seasons 2-7!

 

[Steve...O]

Regarding Mark To's great post: hasn't Warners in essence done this already with their film division (George Feltenstein)? Other studios would be wise to look into this as well for their TV properties. If the right people are chosen, it could be a viable idea. One reason why WHV has been so successful with their classic films is that Mr. Feltenstein isn't just an exec, he's a fan, and he brings a genuine enthusiasm with him to his job.



I hear what you're saying Dave and have no argument with you. My argument is with the guy who says this without considering all the facts. A property sitting in the vaults is making no money and is actually costing money when storage costs etc are factored in. If a potential licensee offers to pay for DVD authoring costs in addition to paying a license fee; that strikes me as a win win deal. The licensor generates revenue on a dormant property without assuming much of a financial risk and the licensee reaps the benefits of the sales and increased marketplace exposure.

There are caveats of course. The first is that my finance background is in the services industry and I am not familiar with the particulars of the entertainment industry. Second, the above will work primarily in cases where the licensor probably wouldn't have done anything with the show anyway. For example, Paramount would be foolish to license out I Love Lucy, but a show like Perry Mason (hint hint ) might be worthy of outsourcing to A&E or Image given their record with similar type shows. Finally, there may be legal restrictions inherent in the original contracts that make subsequent licensing difficult or impossible. The final caveat is that my analysis assumes that decision makers use common sense. As all of us who have worked in an office can attest, egos, pride, and a desire to stick it to the other guy (what Dave alluded to) too often get in the way.

In the end, my preference is what Mark said, keep it in-house under the control of people who know the properties and who (in theory) can do a quality control check. Day 1 training for these people should be a lesson on determining the correct running time for their shows.

Steve

 

[David Lambert]

Ah, but they did! Columbia House gets to release it to club members long before it's on store shelves...I think it's a six-month or one-year window or something like that? Whatever it is, it's a deal that seems to work for Paramount, and noone seems to have hurt feelings for it. And every episode is remastered, and all kinds of extras, and fans seem to be happy all the way around.





re: Batman. I am worried about that, too, but in my heart I feel that Warner's delaying tactics are so that they can "come to an agreement" just in time for the set to be released around the same time Batman Returns hits theaters. It just makes sense for them to want the tie-in. We must also remember that there may be factors outside of both Fox and Warner that is holding up the release.

 

[Tony J Case]

So a quick Batman question. If the show is tied up in rights hell, then why were they able to release The Movie? Same characters, same studios - yet no hassle. How'd that happen?