Re: Who is fed up with the studios attitude on releasing TV Shows?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MatthewA
You hate the industry? That's a shock to me, as every post I've ever read by you is a defense of it.
|
Interesting that my reputation precedes me! A defense? Gee, I think of it as an explanation. I suppose I do defend against what I consider unreasonable attacks.
It may seem strange to you, but I really don't think I'm taking sides. But I do think it's important to realize that things happen for reasons that are, ultimately, logical, even if they're not what we would like.
Quote:
| demanding transparency from a publicly held company is not, and never will be, "nuts". |
No amount of transparency on any publicly held company gets into the nitty-gritty of individual releases that are a tiny part of a corporation's bottom line. And even if you had this information, what good would it do you? Is the idea that you would analyze their claims of what is profitable and what is not so you could decide for them? I'm sorry, not trying to be dense, I just don't get it.
Quote:
| And don't assume for a second that personal attitudes towards shows or films play no part in their DVD treatment, or Song of the South would be available by now. Remember that a Sony executive once said something contemptuous in a public statement to the effect of, "Who wants more than one season of Sanford & Son?" |
The unavailability of "Song of the South" is a business decision. Disney doesn't want the publicity. It is considered a racist film, and honestly I don't remember it well enough to judge the merits of that argument. Doesn't matter, anyway. They don't see the upside as outweighing the downside. It is out of circulation for purely pragmatic reasons.
As for "Sanford and Son," who cares what some executive flippantly said? It's not relevant. I have no idea of the context of that not-a-quote you cite, but I can easily imagine he was simply saying that he doubted it would be a profitable venture. And then it was, because they gave it a shot. So… what's the scandal here?
Quote:
| except for rare instances where only the first season is any good, I don't know what mindset believes that fans of a show would only want one season and none others. In fact, first seasons are usually inferior to subsequent ones, yet they sell better in every instance. It's a sad irony. And if it's the public's fault for not liking The Mary Tyler Moore Show (where many fans simply don't like the first season), and if the show at what some consider its weakest is all that's available on DVD (and it was until 2005), would it have made a difference if more than one season had been released, or all of them? Would you buy more seasons if you had only seen season one and disliked it? People have had fond memories of a show, hadn't seen it in years, bought its first season, and been disappointed. Perhaps their tastes have changed radically. Or perhaps their memories were formed based on later seasons. |
I'm sorry, I'm losing track of your point here. Yes, I do believe that a relatively weaker first season may have dissuaded some fans from future seasons (a friend of mine told me it wasn't as great as he remembered, and I had to tell him "No, but it gets as great as you remember!"). But I guess I don't see what a studio is supposed to do about that. Unless they released it as a box set to begin with, it's just a trap of that (and some other) series.
Quote:
| I never pre-order. I buy a show based on reviews stating whether or not it's been screwed up. |
Great! Good idea! (See, we agree on some things.)
