Universal/NBC has a lousy infrastructure - Page 2

Charles Ellis · 02-14-2007, 07:34 PM

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 · 02-14-2007, 07:50 PM

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.

Quote:

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

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

Michael Alden · 02-15-2007, 01:35 AM

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! · 02-15-2007, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 02-15-2007, 09:56 AM

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 · 02-15-2007, 10:55 AM

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 · 02-15-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 02-15-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

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.

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 · 02-15-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 02-15-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Alden

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.

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.

Jeff Willis · 02-15-2007, 02:04 PM

You guys (Gary, Mike_K, Mike_A) hit the target for me as well. I might check out some recent or current series later but for now, there's too much of the late 50's-80's series that I'd like to see released. I know that there are a few good recent series that are worth checking out but it's a matter of time (lack of, that is). I also haven't seen very many commercials in years as Mike_A mentioned. The interesting thing about this, to me, is that my "millenium kid" nephew actually prefers a lot of the series that I have in my DVD sets over anything that's been aired by the networks since the late 90's. Things like the original Dick Van Dyke Show, Get Smart, Hogan's Heroes, etc. Amazing

My nephew also says that there are more in his age group out there that like the older stuff than we "old-timers" might have guessed

Jay_B! · 02-15-2007, 02:54 PM

depends on what you consider a "collector". Someone who collects every show that exists? no... Someone who collects the shows he likes? definately.

Maybe if he didn't go off and generalize me over my age and for the fact I like Firefly, I wouldn't get ticked off. But I mean, when it comes to the shows coming in the near future I plan on buying: Laverne And Shirley season 2, Happy Days season 2, Mork And Mindy season 2, Cagney And Lacey, Maude, One Day At A Time, Family Ties, Moonlighting season 5, Roseanne season 7, all but Moonlighting and Roseanne (neither of which are exactly recent at this point anyways) are twenty-five years old or older. But hey wait, I watch Veronica Mars and Joss Whedon type shows, I obviously can't like anything before 1995, can I?