The Fugitive, Season Two Volume 1 - Reviews - Page 10

Carabimero · 06-14-2008, 02:08 PM

I thought the music was too loud in several spots in MAN IN A CHARIOT. Since that's the only bastard episode I have seen or will ever see, that's the extent I can comment.

Ronald Epstein · 06-14-2008, 02:46 PM

Hold on a second here.....

I have been knee-deep in planning this forum's EMA trip next week.
I had to stop what I was doing to clean up the mess that happened in this
thread a few days ago. It was a huge sidetrack for me. Point is, I have been
skimming through posts as of late and not quick to catch articles of interest.

...and now I see I missed something here that was very obvious
to everyone else....

I caught the fact that a member of this forum participating
in this thread totally took my words out of context.

What I just realized is that this was posted on a blog?!

Quote:

Ronald Epstein, proprietor of the widely-read Home Theater Forum website, praised Paramount for its 'wise decision' regarding the Fugitive music replacement."

Are you nuts?! I never "praised" the studio. All I was implying was
that if Paramount foresaw legal problems down the road by releasing
THE FUGITIVE that perhaps this was their only choice between releasing
this title to DVD or not.

Praising the studio? I don't think so.

...and even after another person called the member in question out on his
misquote, the author of the blog decided that his interpretation had to be
the right one.

Listen...

I think I am a little more qualified to make some judgements here
due to the fact I have been talking with studio people for years. Can't
be too many people here that can say the same.

These rights issues are a HUGE ordeal for the studios. There is
stuff I have been pushing a studio to release for the past few years
that is in "limbo" because, perhaps much like THE FUGITIVE, there
are rights issues that may never be resolved.

...but let's be realistic, none of us here know what the issues are.
Yet, the feeble-minded think that the correct action to take is to slam
some poor guy at Paramount with hate mail. How pathetic!

Studios don't look to bastardize these releases. Sometimes the choice
they have is to change music or other problems that may cause them
legal hassles, or not release the material at all.

I am not a fan of THE FUGITIVE but I get the idea that this is the first
release to DVD ever! If I am correct, that's a long road for a series
to be released that even I know has a big following. I suspect the studio
had been holding up this release for years. It is my GUESS that they felt that
instead of continuing to hold it up, they would release it with any changes
that they felt legally bound to make.

That's where I stated that perhaps it was a wise decision on their part to
release it this way so they don't get bitten in the ass down the road.

It doesn't mean I agree with it nor think its fair that they didn't make
a more considerable effort to let fans know what they were doing.

I wasn't "praising" Paramount as the author would have you believe....but I guess
his interpretation is the right one no matter what -- even if other people call him
out on it.

...and you want to know something else?

Perhaps Paramount felt whether they announced the changes or not, they
would still take a whole lot of flack from their consumers. It kind of looks
like a "no win" situation for them.

...but I have been sympathetic with your cause and have even openly chastised
Paramount for not being honest. Gee, did that make it into the blog?

I wholeheartedly agree Paramount was in the wrong for not being forthcoming.
However, the reaction they got from some individuals in this thread is the
reason why we can't get them on this forum or even on the phone to explain their actions.
Even if someone from Paramount came to this forum, gave you the most legitimate
and logical answer to this problem, there would still be people slamming them.

Sometimes I have to sit here and give studios the benefit of doubt because
I know many of these people. I speak with them regularly and hear their stories
about material they just cannot get rights clearances for. When that happens, fans
usually don't get the stuff they want released.

Now I have an individual in this thread taking out his anger in a blog, misinterpreting
the meaning of what I said. For that, I got people raking me over the coals who did not
have the opportunity to read what I really posted in the first place over here.

Listen, I appreciate someone thinks highly enough of me to mention
something I said on this forum.

Sometimes I piss people off and they post all sorts of lies all over
the Internet about things I supposedly said. Those kind of things
never bother me because usually it's apparent in their posts that
they are disgruntled.

However, for what appears to be a legitimate blog, do you think that
perhaps this member (without mentioning names) could have conveyed
more accurately the meaning of what I was saying?

TheGreatOz · 06-14-2008, 02:47 PM

To drown out or even approach overpowering William Conrad's closing monologues is a sacrilege IMHO. But when they dummy up and fake the Closing Credits, that's what really angered me to return the DVDs.

Carabimero · 06-14-2008, 03:57 PM

I was half-joking to someone in an e-mail that I'm so angry I feel like going around to stores, buying the set, waiting a day and then returning each set back to stores unopened, just to send a bottom-line message. When I remarked that I knew that wasn't "playing fair," my friend commented that neither was misrepresenting the content.

Of course, like any effective message, it takes more than one person...

Gord Lacey · 06-14-2008, 05:21 PM

It also makes it difficult for anyone else to buy if the store doesn't have any in stock. Consider it a public service.

Those CBS lawyers and the disclaimers they love so much may have missed an important piece of text on the back of the box, "Transfered from the original negative with restored audio." The definition of restored is:

re·store
1. to bring back into existence, use, or the like; reestablish: to restore order.
2. to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting.
3. to bring back to a state of health, soundness, or vigor.
4. to put back to a former place, or to a former position, rank, etc.: to restore the king to his throne.
5. to give back; make return or restitution of (anything taken away or lost).
6. to reproduce or reconstruct (an ancient building, extinct animal, etc.) in the original state.

Basis for a lawsuit? I don't know enough about the US legal system.

Gord

Carabimero · 06-14-2008, 06:08 PM

Yeah, taking the existing audio tracks off, say, the one-inch tape masters likely used for 90s syndication and transferring that to DVD is not restoring, it's archiving, right? Except for four or five LOST IN SPACE episodes, many people don't realize that at least the season one LIS DVDs were made from one-inch video, not from the original negatives. Restoring would be going back to a superior discrete element, say the original magnetic tracks, and creating your digital audio master from those. If Paramount did that for the latest Fugitive disaster, I commend them; however, we have no way of knowing because they weren't smart enough to use such specific language as a selling point on back of the box.

Edit: I'm going on memory but I think the Twilight Zone definitive edition was specific in its disclaimer in this regard.

BillyFeldman · 06-14-2008, 06:23 PM

I'm sort of new here, and totally new on the TV board - hi, all. I bought The Fugitive Season 2 Volume One, having loved the show way back when, and having really enjoyed the first two volumes. It was instantly apparent the music was altered, so I decided to see if anyone had written about it, and now I've finished wading through the ten pages of posts.

So, while I'm sorry that one poster apparently sent a rude e-mail, I respectfully have to say that to let Paramount off the hook for this is ridiculous. They need to be held accountable. Lawyers who work at studios today are basically paid to do this sort of thing - come up with any excuse to justify their salaries and their jobs - in other words, to cause trouble where there is no trouble. I'm not just talking about Paramount here - and nothing I'm saying should come as any surprise to anyone who lives in the litigious world we live in.

That said, clearly there is something rotten in the state of Paramount. As many have pointed out, this music is owned by Viacom - both the Rugolo material and the CBS Library material. The music was work for hire - the composers or their estates have no rights whatsoever, other than to receive their publishing. Someone has mentioned that it's most likely the publishing that is the problem. I'd be very surprised if the publishing on the Rugolo and CBS libraries was owned by anyone but Viacom - it would make no sense on any level. I don't think CBS would have been so foolish to assign its publishing elsewhere, thereby losing a portion of its profits to a middleman.

I suspect the truth probably lies with the post that said that some lawyer earning his fee sat there with the cue sheets, saw something he didn't recognize, and put out the warning sign, and most likely for no reason, as these things usually go. It is reprehensible that this happened. It's bad enough when they have to replace source music because of greedy rights' holders, but here, they are the rights' holders.

However, if the publishing was the issue, there is no way it could not have been tracked down - we're not talking about a tiny independent company - we're talking about CBS, QM, and Viacom and Paramount.

At the end of the day, I think someone is going to be fired over this - whether the wrong will be righted is anyone's guess, but it should be, or, as someone suggests above, given the wording on the DVD, a lawsuit might certainly be in order.

Paramount keeping silent is certainly not the answer - that's just bad customer relations and it will come back to hurt them. This music has been part of both already released seasons - nothing could have changed, that's really the bottom line. No, this is some lawyer screwup and something needs to be done about it, because The Fugitive deserves better - and if this sets precedent, it will not stop here. And no, there has never once been an instance of a complete background score for an episode of a TV show being replaced (on home vid or DVD) - ever. The only music substitutions in TV shows heretofore involve music clearance rights on songs and/or instrumental compositions that use existing songs as their basis.

Carabimero · 06-14-2008, 08:06 PM

If history shows anything, it's that if someone gets fired over this, it probably won't be the person who spearheaded the decision.

David Lambert · 06-14-2008, 10:13 PM