Warner Bros. upsets me - Page 3

MatthewA · 07-22-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gord Lacey

Back when MTM was released it was considered a failure because it didn't sell as many copies as they had expected. This was their first classic TV set, and they expected to sell as many copies as the newer shows, so it was a rude awakening when it didn't. It took Fox awhile to realize that classic TV doesn't do as well as newer stuff, so they lowered their expectations and released season 2.

Gord

How many copies did they expect it to sell? 1,000,000?

It may have helped if they did some advertising on the set. I don't recall seeing ads for this set anywhere at any time.

What has any of this stuff got to do with WB?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey3rd

I'm just amazed that Welcome Back Kotter was dropped that fast. They did do promotion via Entertainment Tonight to get the word out. At least they put out both seasons of F Troop.

F Troop starts with an F. If it had been called G Troop or X Troop it would not have seen its second season out (okay, maybe if it had been called XXX Troop

). They should have renamed it Fwelcome Back Kotter. Few people interested in purchasing 1970s TV shows tend to watch Entertainment Tonight anyway. When was the last time ET did any reports about actual entertainment and not just butting into the personal lives of the stars? I know I refuse to watch any of those shows for (partly) that very reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizH

How did "Seinfeld" make "Friends" possible? I don't understand.

Friends is considered in some respects to be a watered-down version of Seinfeld. An article critical of the former show when it went off the air four years ago said it was to Seinfeld as Hootie and the Blowfish was to Nirvana. And I like neither of those bands.

Scott_J · 07-22-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

I love...no wait, what's the opposite of love...hate, how you and others can accuse me of claiming to be an authority on sales by saying that a show was not a failure while at the same time claiming absolute certainty that it was.

A.) I said nothing about you claiming to be an authority regarding sales figures - that part of my post was geared toward another poster (indicated by my quoting three of his posts before my comments). I was only referring to your post about "writing-off" losses on DVD sets.
B.) I never said MTM's sales made it a failure. I simply asked for proof that it made a profit, which at least one poster seemed to state as a fact. I admit to not knowing with certainty if it lost money or made a profit (though I lean toward the former). But none of us know that with certainty, which was my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aryn Leroux

I guess you overlooked there is new hope for stalled shows thread. There are small studios looking to get in on some of these shows

I'm well aware of that thread, but you indicate that smaller studios are interested in licensing out "these shows," which leads one to believe you're talking about shows from this thread but the shows we're discussing have been mentioned to be among the shows involved in talks.

JohnMor · 07-22-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA

F Troop starts with an F.

Yes but these don't:

Dallas (up to S9)
Dukes of Hazzard (up to S7)
Gilligan's Island (Completed)
Kung Fu (Completed)
The Waltons (up to S7)
Wonder Woman (Completed)

Corey3rd · 07-22-2008, 11:59 PM

Not to get too lengthy, but remember that these shows are primary for broadcast purposes. A few years back, classic TV was losing ground. The Independent channels were getting locked down by the mini-networks, TVLand was clogged up, and normal TV stations didn't have slots for shows older than Friends. But now Fox has a deal with American Life, Universal/Paramount is hooked up with RTN, Warner and Sony has the deal with Ion and other digital substation nostalgia packages are being shopped.

The studios are back to being concerned about getting these shows back on the air since that's sure money. There's no fear of returns to the warehouse.

Isn't Dukes completed? And they put out the two reunion movies.

F Troop seems to be the only series to have survived the 'test" single DVD release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor

Yes but these don't:

Dallas (up to S9)
Dukes of Hazzard (up to S7)
Gilligan's Island (Completed)
Kung Fu (Completed)
The Waltons (up to S7)
Wonder Woman (Completed)

MatthewA · 07-23-2008, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor

Yes but these don't:

Dallas (up to S9)
Dukes of Hazzard (up to S7)
Gilligan's Island (Completed)
Kung Fu (Completed)
The Waltons (up to S7)
Wonder Woman (Completed)

The F rule only applies to sitcoms. Gilligan's Island, which has never been off the air in over 40 years, is the exception that proves the rule. Take that out of the equation and you have no other sitcoms there. The only other sitcoms to make it past season 1 are Friends, Full House, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and now F Troop.

JohnMor · 07-23-2008, 02:01 AM

Well, actually they (WB) did complete Everybody Loves Raymond too. But I didn't include it as it is a newer show. But that is strange how many F sitcoms have been completed.

Tony S · 07-23-2008, 09:55 AM

^Also, 2 1/2 Men and Martin have been released by WB and have gone well beyond the first release.

As for MTM, one of the reasons it was a failure is that the MSRP was $70. In 2005 they dropped it to $30. This is when sales started to pick up. This led to Seasons 2, 3, & 4.

As for a "writing this off their taxes", people are under the impression that a company that does this will get back every penny that they spent on a project that fails. That is a fallacy.

If a company has a profit of say $1,500,000 and tax bill of $500,000 (we'll go with a one third tax rate for simplicity) and they decide to "write off" a project that they had invested $90,000 in. This means that now their profit is now $1,410,000 and their tax bill is now $470,000. They only get about a third of the project cost.

And in the case of a tv show on dvd. They can't simply write off thousands of units they have in inventory, right away, if they are still moving slowly. They will have that money tied up in inventory for several years; money that they could be earning interest on instead of paying storage fees.

Mike Frezon · 07-23-2008, 12:00 PM

I submit no one here (with the very possible exception of Gord Lacey) has enough knowledge of the actual sales of any classic TV shows to make any firm statements about conspiracy theories on the part of the studios as to why they cease DVD production on any particular series. A couple of random numbers quoted from chats or internet posts or vaguely-remembered articles do not an argument make.

I'd further say that Sir Isaac Newton had about as much to do with the development of the hugely successful TV show Friends as did the popularity of Seinfeld. To take someone else's written criticism of Friends (basically calling it "Seinfeld-lite") and using it to argue that the existence of one led to the existence of the other is ludicrous.

There is a lot of sentiment flying around this thread that is maddening. "I never saw any advertising" is supposed to be taken to mean that the studios didn't sufficiently market their product...which is then supposed to somehow be extrapolated to mean that the studios were intentionally trying to sabotage the release.

And what, praytell, is the basis of the thought that people interested in buying '70s TV Shows on DVDs don't watch Entertainment Tonight? Craziness.

For some reason, this issue (of dropped TV shows) seems to result in more spurious arguments on this forum than any other. Although I’m sure there are those who might point to some other flashpoint debates such as DD vs. DTS or Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD.

Passion is fine. In many instances it’s admirable. But not when it supercedes logic and organized thought in a debate about something as important (or unimportant as the case may be) of why a certain TV show’s DVD run is not being completed.

I'll repeat the questions of my last post. Why do posters insist there are ulterior motives on the part of studios to cancel production of classic TV shows on DVD? Why isn't lack of profitability enough? What other reasons would they have?

Mike*SC · 07-23-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

Why do posters insist there are ulterior motives on the part of studios to cancel production of classic TV shows on DVD? Why isn't lack of profitability enough? What other reasons would they have?

That's the crux of it right there, Mike, and I'm not surprised that nobody has attempted to answer it. What possible motivation would anybody working at a studio have to quash a moneymaking venture? Can anybody answer that?

MatthewA · 07-23-2008, 01:14 PM

Here's what Larry David, creator of "Seinfeld", and Jerry Seinfeld, formerly of "Benson", had to say:

FOXNews.com - Did Friends Rip Off Seinfeld? Creators Say Yes - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

Jerry supposedly also said that much on "On The Record with Bob Costas" on May 16, 2003. I will try to find the exact quotes for both programs if I can.

Back to the main topic,

If I had actual documented proof that these sets were losing money for their studios, I would not like it, but I would accept it. Not vague wording from studio reps, or the conclusions you jumped to, but cold hard proof. Until this shows up, this entire discussion is academic.

You can accuse me of conspiracy-mongering and craziness all you want, but you cannot dismiss the contradictions in statements made public by Fox.

If you don't trust Fox News, maybe you trust TVShowsonDVD.com. Let's see what they had to say:

TVShowsOnDVD.com - Currently Offline

And another source, which I hope meets with your approval:

Blogs @ herald-dispatch.com: Stay Tuned: "WKRP": The Great Music Debate

And here's the chat that started us down the rabbit hole:

Chat Transcript: 20th Century Fox's Peter Staddon on Home Theater Forum

These are not "random quotes from chats" or "vaguely remembered articles". This is indeed pertinent. It states two diametrically opposed results of sales figures. I don't need to make stuff up. Otherwise I could go on about the Illuminati, Halliburton, Ron Paul, and Bigfoot, and there are better forums for that than HTF.

My point is that lack of sales does not necessarily mean lack of interest.

Thank you, Tony S, for explaining in greater detail the process of a tax write-off. I guess that suggestion is off the table. It was just an idea I had.

TravisR · 07-23-2008, 02:07 PM

Besides low/not high enough sales, what possible reason could there be for studios dropping a series? I'm not asking for anyone to say that it is definitely this or that but I can't even think of one reasonable possibility for a studio to drop a series besides low sales.