"The Fugitive" (1963): Season 1; Volume 1 Rumored To Be In The Works! - Page 10

Gary OS · 08-07-2007, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve...O

Do any of the well connective "Fuge" fans know what CBS's plans are for releasing this series? I'd hate to think it's going to be done "PERRY MASON" style, which is essentially one season per year which means that it will be 2011 or 2012 before it wraps up (assuming it gets that far). For those of us who've never seen much of the show, that's a long time to wait.

I'd still like to know what some hour long shows like HAWAII Five -0 and Diagnosis Murder get full season releases and others get split. Makes no sense unless those shows sell that much better.

I wish I knew something definitive, Steve. Right now it simply looks like Paramount will treat THE FUGITIVE like it does PM, THE UNTOUCHABLES, and RAWHIDE. Looks to me like the determining factor as to whether a particular classic series gets released in full season vs. half season sets is twofold:

1) How many episodes per season? If the show is an hour long, and has over 28 episodes per, then it's getting split.

2) The dreaded "black & white" issue does seem to be in play here. If you eliminate the episodes per season thing out of the equation, and just look at the color vs. b&w issue, then it seems painfully obvious to me that the older, black & white shows are getting the shaft. WWW, MI, and Hawaii Five-0 are all color episodes and getting the better full season release treatment. Conversely, FUGITIVE, PM, RAWHIDE, UNTOUCHABLES are all getting half season treatment.

I believe it's a combination of the two factors I listed. There are some exceptions to the color/b&w issue, but the length of a season (# of episodes) seems to be a big factor.

Gary "I'm hoping THE FUGITIVE does well enough to merit perhaps 3 releases a year (4 a year is too much to ask for), which would get us done a little quicker" O.

Jeff# · 08-08-2007, 01:16 AM

"The Streets of San Francisco" eliminates both # 1 and # 2 of the above given theories as to the reason for hour-long season sets being split up.

I believe the real reason is simply because Paramount has more confidence in some series selling than they do in others.

beatlejam · 08-08-2007, 03:54 AM

Regarding the episode order of season one, it really is out of whack.

For instance, in episode #2, "The Witch," the narrator (William Conrad) says: "Now ten months after his escape...."

Then, in the very next episode, #3, "The Other Side of the Mountain," the narrator says: "Another dreary point in time for Richard Kimble, eight months a fugitive."

There are other examples as well.

But the great thing about having a show on tape (and soon, DVD!) is the power to view them any way you wish. When I get the DVD, I'm going to view "The Girl from Little Egypt" after "Fear in a Desert City" (my episode #2, if you will). I'm also going to view the episodes in an order that follows the timeline accurately, as provided by the narrator. One can also "spread out" the romantic, character, and action stories so things don't get "bogged down". I heartily recommend Ed Robertson's terrific book, The Fugitive Recaptured, as a great companion to guide you through the episodes for maximum enjoyment. Can't wait till next week!

Harry-N · 08-08-2007, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beatlejam

For instance, in episode #2, "The Witch," the narrator (William Conrad) says: "Now ten months after his escape...."

Then, in the very next episode, #3, "The Other Side of the Mountain," the narrator says: "Another dreary point in time for Richard Kimble, eight months a fugitive."

...I'm also going to view the episodes in an order that follows the timeline accurately, as provided by the narrator. ... I heartily recommend Ed Robertson's terrific book, The Fugitive Recaptured, as a great companion to guide you through the episodes for maximum enjoyment.

Unfortunately, two facts are working against you here. Episode #2 was both filmed and aired before episode #3, according to the book you cite - it was just carelessness on the part of the producers/writers that no-one caught the mistake. Also, the countdown of months pretty much disappears after these early episodes anyway, with only an occasional mention of how long Kimble's ordeal has been going on. It's not as "neat" in that respect as, say, the Stardates on STAR TREK in trying to figure out an episode order.

Still, the beauty of DVD's, as you say, is the ability to play them in any order you'd like - and I do recommend "The Girl From Little Egypt" be played early if one is so inclined. Back in 1963, we didn't have that option. ABC aired them, and we watched them.

Harry
...now six days till THE FUGITIVE escapes the "warehouse", online...

beatlejam · 08-08-2007, 08:24 AM

I don't think anything is "working against me".

I'm aware of the things you mentioned because (1) I'm a big fan of the show whose seen every episode multiple times and (2) obviously, I've read Robertson's book.

The point I was trying to make is that it just seems more logical to view the early episodes in a manner that jibes with the info provided by the narrator (despite when episodes were filmed and any other behind-the-scenes facts), and it's nice that we can do that.

Harry-N · 08-08-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beatlejam

I don't think anything is "working against me".

I'm aware of the things you mentioned because (1) I'm a big fan of the show whose seen every episode multiple times and (2) obviously, I've read Robertson's book.

The point I was trying to make is that it just seems more logical to view the early episodes in a manner that jibes with the info provided by the narrator (despite when episodes were filmed and any other behind-the-scenes facts), and it's nice that we can do that.

My goodness, people are certainly a bit sensitive in this thread!

The phrase, "working against you" is just that, a common usage phrase that I pulled out of my brain to impart the fact that your idea of watching the series in some kind of correct chronological order will fall apart very quickly. My apologies if you thought I meant anything negative toward you.

Looking through the narrations for the first two seasons, only the following episodes give any such time frame indications:

E# - time given
#1 - 6 months
#2 - 10 months
#3 - 8 months
#6 - 11 months
#8 - more than a year
#15 - two years
#21 - countless weeks and months
#26 - past two years
#34 - 26 months
#39 - two years from the night of the murder
#49 - two years ago he was Richard Kimble

My point was simply that out of sixty episodes (that I've perused here), only eleven mention any kind of time frame, and some of those are pretty vague. In your earlier post you said that you were going to "view the episodes in an order that follows the timeline accurately, as provided by the narrator." And my point was just to state for anyone out there who hasn't seen the series that it's not really possible to do that, since a time frame isn't given at all in most episodes.

If your intention was merely to correct the order of episodes #2 and #3 based on the official narrative time given, so be it. There's no harm in that. Indeed in my post I re-iterated your idea that on DVD we have the freedom to watch these in any order we'd care to.

Even the time frames mentioned have a good deal of vagueness about them. "Two years from the night of the murder" - are we to believe that Kimble had some kind of rushed trial and days later was sentenced to death? Or, realistically, can we assume that at least a year or two went by for arrest, trial, conviction, and the train wreck. If that's the case, then this episode should be placed fairly early in the order of things, if it's only two years from the night of the murder.

Again, my point is that these narrations need to be taken with a grain of salt. They were done without real thought as to what "reality" might be. They were simply mentioned to impart the long stretches of time that have passed by in Richard Kimble's ordeal. Months/years on the road, running, is something not many of us can relate to. By stressing it, the narrator's jop is to give us a sense of the "way it is with him."

Again, feel free to watch these in any order you'd like. They weren't filmed with any real order in mind - they were simply hours of episodic television, meant to be entertaining, each in their own right.

Harry
...with no malice intended at all, online...

AndyMcKinney · 08-08-2007, 10:06 AM

The mention of the A&E telecasts brings up a question in my mind:

to those of you who have seen this set already: are these the truly uncut and untampered versions, with the original tonight's episode narration and title card intact?

I seem to remember that the version shown on A&E removed these (perhaps to remove the reference to tonight, in case some idiot got confused about the time of day) and replaced them with newly-created episode titles that were keyed-in on top of the live action.

Gary OS · 08-08-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyMcKinney

The mention of the A&E telecasts brings up a question in my mind:

to those of you who have seen this set already: are these the truly uncut and untampered versions, with the original tonight's episode narration and title card intact?

I seem to remember that the version shown on A&E removed these (perhaps to remove the reference to tonight, in case some idiot got confused about the time of day) and replaced them with newly-created episode titles that were keyed-in on top of the live action.

I wish I knew the answer to that one, Andy. I'm hoping the original title cards are intact. While I didn't mind the A&E openings (they were actually very well done, all things considered) nothing compares to the original "tonight's episode" narration after the opening.

Gary "just a few more days, folks!" O.

ToddR2 · 08-08-2007, 10:43 AM

Andy, Your memory of the A&E modifications is correct (never understood that either). I've not received my copy yet, but I'd bet the original title cards will be intact. Maybe Colin will step back into the snake pit and let us know.

Harry, you are spot on about the level of touchiness WRT this thread. Odd, eh?

Gary OS · 08-08-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff#

"The Streets of San Francisco" eliminates both # 1 and # 2 of the above given theories as to the reason for hour-long season sets being split up.

I believe the real reason is simply because Paramount has more confidence in some series selling than they do in others.

I knew someone would bring up "Streets." It's literally the only show in Paramount's rotation that throws my theory around. But I believe the two points I mentioned are still in play, and that "Streets" is just an anomaly. It was released at the same time as "The Untouchables" and it probably was the least well known of the Paramount titles (not up there with MI, Hawaii Five-0, or WWW). Therefore it's not surprising that it would get the half-season treatment.

Your point about Paramount basing these decisions on what they think will sell best is surely correct. But I believe a part of their thinking ties back into the old "b&w won't sell like color will" mentality. There's just too much evidence to the contrary for me to believe otherwise, "Streets" not withstanding.

Gary "if Paramount was ever going to give an hour long, black & white classic the full season treatment, it would have been THE FUGITIVE - it's got to be the highest profile b&w drama in their stable" O.