The Fugitive, Season Two Volume 1 - Reviews - Page 7

David Von Pein · 06-12-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Ron Epstein said....

It's very painful for us to know that people who are supposed to be adults took it upon themselves to write nasty emails to a Paramount, a studio we are still in negotiations with to visit this October during our HTF Meet. Meet or not, this is not the manner in which complaints should be sent to anyone.

I'm glad to see this thread re-opened, but I'm a little confused by a portion of the above comment written by Ron Epstein.

I think a word was left out of the mix in the above comment (right?). Did you, Ron, mean for it to say (as I think you must have meant):

..."took it upon themselves to write nasty emails to a Paramount employee..." ??

You surely aren't suggesting that Fugitive fans are in the wrong for e-mailing Paramount Home Entertainment and voicing their extreme displeasure in general (i.e., through the proper channels of contacting the studio via either e-mail or snail-mail). Correct?

Because, IMO, fans of "The Fugitive" have every right to be very upset about the total destruction of the soundtracks of all 15 shows within a DVD set that Paramount, btw, is charging $3 more for (MSRP) than its previous non-altered Fugitive volume.

I, myself, sent off an e-mail to Paramount yesterday (no response from them as yet)....and I think it was a well-constructed mail that voiced my concern about the issue while remaining respectful at the same time.

I'd even like to post that e-mail message here, but I hesitate to do so for fear of saying anything of a negative nature about Paramount after seeing Ron's post quoted above.

BTW and for the record -- Prior to reading some of the posts in this thread yesterday, I did not have the slightest idea who the Paramount employee was who was being (evidently) sent some hateful e-mails. And I fully agree with Ron, et al, with respect to mails of that nature being sent to an individual employee of a studio -- that's just wrong.

But being able to voice concern and (to some extent and within tasteful limits) anger about something of this extreme nature (i.e., having every shred of music replaced on an entire DVD set) certainly shouldn't be looked upon as doing the devil's work, IMO.

If fans don't write e-mails and letters, how else can a studio take the true temperature of the people buying their products? Should we send up smoke signals?

Anyway, again, I'm guessing that Ron simply left out one single word that would totally change the context of the quoted passage above -- "employee". (I hope I'm right about that anyway.)

BTW -- I'd be happy to pay a "premium" price for a "fixed" Fugitive S2, V1 release. I'll just not buy one extra gallon of gas per week for one month (or even less). That ought to more than make up the difference in price.

David Von Pein · 06-12-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

A wiser decision from Paramount would have been to delay the release indefinitely and not put it out at all until if and when the original music could be included. Sets have been cancelled for far less.

I agree with you 100%.

Carabimero · 06-12-2008, 07:55 PM

Yes, the idea that it is nonsense to think not releasing the set was preferable is nonsense. Paramount didn't undertake the unprecedented step of rescoring the entire set out of the goodness of their hearts. It would have been easier to cancel or suspend the release. They had an agenda for doing it, and a reason for doing it on the sly.

It's too bad they can't face legal action for rescoring the DVDS.

bmasters9 · 06-12-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Favate

CBS very much pulled the wool over our eyes on this one. They could have announced the music substitutions before the release came out. They chose not to, and in so doing, intentionally misled customers. This is also a bad business decision. One of the first rules of business is "know your auidence." CBS should know that hard-core fans of The Fugitive aren't going to accept this quietly, and that they're making their customers dissatisfied with their product.

FOX was also guilty of that, Sam Favate, at least where the first season's worth of "The Fall Guy" was concerned. Granted, I, for one, should not have spent $60 at Borders on this so-called "complete" first season's worth of "The Fall Guy," but then to purchase it, open it, and then later discover that Paul Williams and a band were blurred off in the pilot, and that several songs were replaced, and that there was a host of other editing-- all that gave me a cold chill. What made it worse was that FOX (at least on the box) never told me or other purchasers about the editing, therein making us think that it was as originally aired in 1981-82. I probably should have rented it first from Netflix to test-drive it prior to blowing off $60 on a bastardized copy. This, I believe, should also have been done with these bastardized "Fugitive" discs-- that way, the purchasers wouldn't have been out what they paid for bastardizations.

Tim Tucker · 06-12-2008, 08:26 PM

Of course, the explanation I found, while highly plausible, does not solve the mystery of why Season 1 was released with its original score mostly intact. Was the rights situation a recent discovery by the Paramount legal department? Wouldn't have the release of Season 1 (and its continued availability) leave them open to potential legal action? Wouldn't have the release tipped off whoever may have the rights? And how many composers are we talking about, in additon to Pete Rugolo, Bernard Herrmann and Jerry Goldsmith? A cursory search online reveals that Rugolo is still alive.

ChrisCook · 06-12-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmasters9

FOX was also guilty of that, Sam Favate, at least where the first season's worth of "The Fall Guy" was concerned. Granted, I, for one, should not have spent $60 at Borders on this so-called "complete" first season's worth of "The Fall Guy," but then to purchase it, open it, and then later discover that Paul Williams and a band were blurred off in the pilot, and that several songs were replaced, and that there was a host of other editing-- all that gave me a cold chill. What made it worse was that FOX (at least on the box) never told me or other purchasers about the editing, therein making us think that it was as originally aired in 1981-82. I probably should have rented it first from Netflix to test-drive it prior to blowing off $60 on a bastardized copy. This, I believe, should also have been done with these bastardized "Fugitive" discs-- that way, the purchasers wouldn't have been out what they paid for bastardizations.

I've been following this thread since I saw one fan’s post on "Whats the last TV DVD you bought" thread the other day. Never imagined there would be music replacement and to such an extent with this one. I've been extremely vocal about "The Fall Guy" and about Fox and their treatment of Season 1. It even pointed to the possibility that for once they had secured the original broadcast music: the higher-than-usual price for the complete season 1 release; as well as releasing it in two split-volumes. Like "The Fugitive", it played an important part in the show. The sad thing is there's been no word officially from this studio about a second season release and about securing the music this season or acknowledging what transpired with the first season. What's even sadder is that I "googled" prior to street date and found out that this was coming with replaced music, which I posted on one of "The Fall Guy" threads here. As Ben said, it was so obvious what they did - they tried to cover it up and badly. Even going so far as to disrupt the bar fight scene in the pilot episode. I sympathize with "The Fugitive" fans and I hope CBS rectifies, if possible, this situation.

Cees Alons · 06-12-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

You surely aren't suggesting that Fugitive fans are in the wrong for e-mailing Paramount Home Entertainment and voicing their extreme displeasure in general (i.e., through the proper channels of contacting the studio via either e-mail or snail-mail). Correct?

Correct.

Ron was voicing his displeasure that the e-mails seemed to be sent to totally the wrong guy, but he was very annoyed that several of them were actually filthy. The word 'chicken-shit' being one of the milder terms of abuse, if you see what I mean.

And I must say: neither do I understand that aspect at all, or the sense behind it.

Cees

Gord Lacey · 06-12-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Tucker

Over at the Film Score Monthly forum, a poster mentioned that the problem is with the publishing rights to the music. The rights were assigned to a defunct company, and CBS/Paramount were unable to find anyone to whom the rights were transferred. So, to avoid any potential legal action, the DVDs were rescored.

Tim, this is along the lines of something I heard from a 3rd party, so it may be true.

Gord

David Von Pein · 06-12-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

The rights were assigned to a defunct company, and CBS/Paramount were unable to find anyone to whom the rights were transferred. So, to avoid any potential legal action, the DVDs were rescored.

Does this then mean that a DVD company (like CBS/Paramount, or whoever) is forced, by law, in effect, to search and search till the ends of the earth in order to find a specific rights-holder....even to the point of possibly having that trail lead them to a "defunct company" with nobody to physically purchase the rights from?! (If the above example is accurate here.)

If a concerted, valid attempt at securing the legal rights from the owners was made by the DVD company (Paramount, Universal, or whoever it is), but those owners could not be located anyplace on the globe, wouldn't there be some justification for the DVD company to use the original material anyway, sans any "official rights" to do so?

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it's what popped into my head just now anyway....

It's kinda like a guy who finds a wallet with $1,000 in it in the gutter one day. He then places an ad in the paper and searches high & low for the rightful owner, but comes up dry. Therefore--finder's keepers.

I only wish music rights could be as simple as that "finder's keepers" analogy. I fear it is not....and Hamilton Burger would be lurking behind the curtain ready to pounce if such a policy was adopted by Paramount.

But even so...if the rightful owners of the material did come forward only after it was released onto a DVD product, why would that have to signal the end of the world for Paramount either? Especially if Paramount DID initially try to secure the proper rights, but couldn't find the owners? They could just settle the issue with the rights holders after the fact...instead of prior to the DVD release.

Am I being idiotic and simplistic here? Or is my point the slightest bit valid--in a common-sense (if not altogether "legal") manner?

Professor Echo · 06-12-2008, 10:57 PM

I doubt I will receive a reply, but here is the letter I sent to Paramount today:

To Paramount Home Video:

Add me to your ever growing list of disappointed fans of THE FUGITIVE who will not be buying this most recent release due to the background score being removed and replaced.

I think you really dropped the ball on this release. I can understand the vast, complex legalities regarding music rights, especially when not all cues were composed specifically for this particular program. But to so summarily dispose of one of the essential components of this classic series and then hide behind a minuscule blurb on the packaging which barely even hints at the major alterations made, is just unethical and unprincipled. Be upfront with your potential buyers, with the millions of fans of this series worldwide, don't just shout caveat emptor and ignore us.

This was a very bad decision on every level and the amount of negative publicity and word-of-mouth you are getting around the world is negating all the other DVD releases of series you have done such a good job on in the past. I have supported your efforts up until now, but there is no way I am ever going to settle for a bastardized version of this classic series, a series that is often called "The greatest in the history of television."

Please tell the lawyers to go back to the boardroom and straighten this one out or you may lose all the good faith you have engendered up until now as a studio and home video manufacturer.

Sincerely,

David Von Pein · 06-12-2008, 11:09 PM

FYI.......

Out of the last 21 reviews posted at Amazon.com for The Fugitive S2, V1, 20 have been 1-Star reviews written by ticked-off fans of the series. Plus, one of the previously-written pre-release 5-Star reviews has been removed.