Strange behaviour of TV companies

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

I suspect it may be that the owner of the series, Fox, sees little or no further financial viability in further syndication of "Rhoda" and, consequently, didn't want to spend money to clean up the edited prints they sent over to Shout! Factory. If Fox thought there was some real viability for the future syndication of this series, I think it's reasonable that they would have released the series themselves rather than licensing it to Shout! This way, they pick up a licensing fee with very little effort on their part, insofar as complete print restoration/remastering is concerned.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Looks like they might've made available the unedited versions to Shout!, or given them the choice of whether they wanted uncut (but perhaps even more inferior picture quality) prints or not.

Wonder if it's a Mama's Family type of situation, where the company owning the rights (somehow) doesn't even possess the uncut prints (in Mama's case, I think those are in the hands of producer Dick Clair, right?).

Luckily (for me), this isn't a series I'd have been buying anyway, but I can feel your pain.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

I think you answered your own question.

RHODA, and other sitcoms, don't really matter to most TV stations in this High-Def world.

If you flip around what is being shown in syndication, THE SIMPSONS, SEINFELD and FRIENDS are probably the oldest shows on the air. You now rarely see shows from the 50's, 60's, 70's or even the 80's in syndication.

Plus, local channels realize they can make a lot more from infomercials than THE BRADY BUNCH. Judge shows and talk shows are bigger than CHEERS.

Even TV Land has started running reality shows.

In RHODA's case, I think maybe MTM may be a bit at fault here. Maybe the episodes weren't complete when Fox took control of the library. I'm not sure, but it may just be a financial decision, Fox realized the costs involved in getting the best transfer isn't worth it.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

There's a reason for this. Each of the networks has a syndication arm now. CBS distributes Judge Judy and Dr. Phil. Fox distributes Judge Alex and some others. Their O&Os (which could be up to 30 stations - back in the old days it was 7 max) usually get signed to carry these shows even if local management isn't crazy about it. Then the shows go out to bid, where usually large ownership groups will gobble up this programming for the vast majority of their stations. In short it's more cost effective to have both content (programs) and delivery (stations) under your control in today's deregulated market.

As for infomercials, it's cheaper than even just having a talking heads public affairs show. The station gets paid, and only has to pay out for someone to play back in master control (and even this can be automated to a point.)

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

TV Land now into reality programming? I wonder when commercial-free stations like HBO will start to introduce ads into their lineups. AMC is totally useless these days with their worse-than-broadcast gimmicks (pop-ups, scrolls, logos, etc.). I avoid watching television at all costs and just wait for the eventual DVD release of anything current thats worth watching but when it comes to older sitcoms, yes, they look horrible. Granted, a sizable number of shows were shot on video but do they have to look so bad? Nobody set out to make low-quality productions on purpose so one has to wonder, what can be done to improve the video quality of something shot 15-20 years ago? An example: Miami Vice. Universal could've cleaned up, at the very least, those opening sequences (theme-song intros) and used them to introduce every episode. Instead, they look like VHS.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

You guys have to realize that most of these shows are old and as time passes, there are a lot of shows that don't survive or become damaged. The original film prints of Star Wars prove this fact. Studios have to pay a lot of money to restore those prints and with TV Shows, there just isn't those kinds of funds available for projects such as that.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Glenn, why don't you merely contact Shout! Factory and complain to them about it? Since they're the company that put out the DVDs, I'm sure they are more than willing to hear from a customer. Instead of bitching and moaning on this board, send an e-mail to the company or call them!

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Except for M*A*S*H, Fox pretty much treats its pre-1990 TV library as an afterthought. Mr. Belvedere vanished from TV, but it's on tape, so it's never going to look "better".


Dick Clair died in 1988. The original network length 1" tapes of Mama's Family now belong to John Hamilton, son of the late producer Joe Hamilton, who failed to reach a deal with Warner. He certainly played dumb when confronted on that DVD travesty.

Rhoda has no such ownership issues. Fox owns it lock, stock, and barrel, and any extant archival film material on the show is theirs and theirs alone. Fox just has an aversion to remastering anything not by Irwin Allen. The other MTM Productions shows already had passable masters available.

Local syndication is, for all intents and purposes, a closed shop for old sitcoms and dramas except for specialty stations like Me-TV in Chicago.

As for infomercials, who watches them? I know they get paid to show them otherwise they wouldn't air them. I think they need to be banned.

I think the problem is the culture. We live in an ephemeral culture where 1990 is year zero for most people's cultural knowledge, and Star Wars is an "old movie".

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Um, get your facts straight. Mr Belvedere Season 1 was announced by TV Shows on DVD not too long ago.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Mark, I think Matthew just meant that Mr. Belvedere was shot on videotape and not filmed.

Gosh guys--I had no idea Rhoda dvd was a crapper! I'm very sorry to hear it. I just got "California Dreams" from Shout! Factory; this was also a videotaped sitcom like Mr. Belvedere, and therefore is still going to pretty much look as did back in 1992. So far as I can tell, none of the episodes are edited (they were pretty short to begin with anyway). Also the California Dreams boxed set is attractive, the disc art is good, and I get to watch the show in stereo for the first time (I didn't have stereo tv in the early 90s). So my point is--the California Dreams boxed set is a winner but no such luck for Rhoda. So I wouldn't blame Shout! Factory--they probably only could work with the materials given to them by Fox. So back to Fox--if we must yell at someone, let's yell at them.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

But will Fox actually listen to complaints, and remaster uncut episodes of Rhoda for future Shout! Factory DVD releases, like Sony did with Father Knows Best after season one of that show was released?

That's the question.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Wow- I thought that this was a friendly place to discuss TV on DVD? There are a couple posts above that sound at least somewhat rude and hostile!

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Generally, people are nice here but it's the internet so you're going to get some jerks. It's best to just ignore them (either by skipping past those posts and people or by using the 'Ignore' function).

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Just to clarify something above, MR BELVEDERE is already on DVD from Fox / Shout Factory and looks great. The episodes are uncut.

Fox treated that well, as it was a Fox production and didn't have much of a syndication life.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Want strange behaviour by a TV company for DVD sales? Try Sony on for size. The Norman Lear collection basically repackaged a bunch of shows that already have their first seasons out and Sony doesn't seem to have much interest in even finishing the runs.

I'm lucky in that I don't have any of the shows advertised yet, so I may bite, mostly for the extras, but really, it's bad marketing IMHO to produce new season one sets of any show you haven't shown a whole lot of intent to do the entire run of.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Videotape was the only thing available back in the eighties for filming. There was no digital technology for the movie industry. My fault for being snippy. Been a bad day ... heh ...

At any rate, it's always best to check TV Shows on DVD before posting here, because they report on all information regarding upcoming releases.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Film was available since the 1890s, used on most TV shows since I Love Lucy (but the only successful sitcoms to shoot on film in the 1980s were Cheers, post-season 1 Newhart, Designing Women, and Perfect Strangers), and is still used today.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

And all of those shows (especially Newhart since the mid-1980s) were all edited onto videotape in post-production, like you've mentioned several times.

I've heard there's some sort of drawback when it comes to editing filmed shows onto videotape in post-production. Exactly what is it?

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

This videotape issue from the 80's sitcom days brings up a question that I've wondered about for a while. Whenever I view those Barney Miller & Welcome Back Kotter eps I wish they were filmed.

Question is: Why were a lot of the 70's-80's sitcoms shot on videotape vs film? Cost reasons? That would be my guess.

If only the industry had been able to see the home video future back then.....what a benefit for us years later.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Simply? On today's hi-def, widescreen TVs, the edited on video shows look like crap. Shows shot on film can easily be remastered and brought up to today's higher standards. Video doesn't get any better than it's looked since the 70s or 80s.

Also, shows like the middle Star Treks (TNG, DS9) that were shot on film but edited on video can't be remastered for hi-def easily, because all of the effects shots were created on video, not film. To bring them up to today's standards for DVD, the original film would have to be found, re-edited, and new effects shots digitally created, which would cost a lot of money for a product that might not sell well enough to recoup these costs.

Also, as far as I know, cost reasons were why shows were recorded on videotape, or edited on videotape. Tape was cheaper than film, and who knew hi-def widescreens would be plentiful and affordable 30 years down the road? Those shows looked fine on a 27 inch CRT TV,and that's what mattered at the time.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

You hit the nail on the head. 480i composite video just does not hold up on DVD, never mind a large screen TV. The NTSC signal was never meant to be enlarged greater than, say, 36 inches.

Has anything Star Trek-related ever lost money for Paramount? I can see them remastering TNG before I see them doing the same with Cheers, Matlock, or MacGyver. But to just leave filmed shows locked in 480i forever if it is indeed possible to redo them in 1080p is a penny-wise and pound foolish approach.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

This has been answered, sort of, but let me just add what may be obvious. Yes, if you owned those shows, it would be in your best interest to have those prints around. But not everything in life is feasible. Prints deteriorate, storage is costly, mistakes have been made over the years, nobody foresaw higher resolution television coming twenty years ago (nor the sheer number of stations and delivery options that would make even long-neglected shows potentially viable). Resources are necessarily limited, even in extravagant times. So you have to set priorities. It's as simple as that. And even if you, as the owner of these shows, would like all of these series to be ready to go in good condition, the fact is some series will have to go to the back of the line. And with new series being made all the time, some will remain in the back of the line for a long, long time. Possibly forever.

It's not cynicism. It's not ineptitude. It's just reality.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

If the original film elements for these series are still around, 1080p versions are possible. But the expense would be enormous. The elements must be unearthed (many are stored in salt mines in Utah… no kidding!) and inspected for deterioration. Assuming all those elements are fine (both picture and sound), and the music tracks and other sound elements (potentially including separately looped dialogue) are all located and in good condition (for each of the hundreds upon hundreds of episodes!), the selected takes must be redigitized in high resolution, the show assembled again. Any special effects must be recreated (by this I mean any post-production effect in any kind of series, not just obvious sci-fi stuff.) The titles must be recreated. It's an enormous undertaking. And though you'd end up with 1080p, it would still be in 4x3, not widescreen.

And for a show like "Cheers," which didn't exactly set sales records on DVD (and I'm a fan, mind you), this cost would get you what? "Star Trek" has rabid fans, of course. We all know that. But I don't think very many "Cheers" fans (or "Matlock," etc.) really say they'd watch it if only the picture were sharper. They watch for the characters, and the jokes, and those come off just fine, thank you, in 480i. (Even DVD resolution revealed that much of the first season of "Cheers" features shots that are more than a little out of focus!)

Pound foolish? I don't think so.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

My take on many of the shows from the 80's and 90's. While there are many excellent shows I think the demand is low for the following reasons:

- They have already been syndicated for many years before the ability to get them on DVD and are just too fresh in our minds to prioritize them above other options. The thought is that they can always be purchased later.

- Older shows, especially 50's through 60's, for many of us haven't been seen for a long time, or we may only recall glimpses from our past, or for some we've heard about but never seen. Therefore, they get more interest. Also, who knows how long they will be in print, or if they will keep enough interest for further releases, so they have the get them while you can mentality.

- Very recent shows are typically higher quality, not dated, and either have limited syndication so far, or at the very least we haven't seen the series several times across years to say we can pass on there for a while longer.

These shows from the 80's and 90's are like cars that aren't new but yet haven't attained their vintage or classic status yet. At least that's how I view them so others may feel the same.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Rhoda was a film show, wasnt it?

The last time i saw this show was on TV Land, 10 years ago?

As i recall, the show didnt have much of a syndication life anyway, as it only ran 2, maybe 2 1/2 seasons?

Just a bunch of thoughts, and questions, no answers here.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

It has always been cost reasons, in regards to film or tape. Take a look at the interview Sherwood Schultz gave regarding the production costs for Gilligan's Island. Back when Season 1 was being produced, Sherwood had said he wanted to produce the first season in color but decided against it because the costs for color film stock was too high for the series. This is why they produced the first season in black and white.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

I'm glad it would be in 4x3. I will not support tilt-and-scan versions.

We are not talking about obscure shows that ran half a season and whose demises are lamented by nobody. This would not have to be just for DVD, but syndication too. It's not a matter of simply making a DVD look prettier. It's about making studios' assets more appealing to any market around the world. And in some cases, it's making sure they're in a condition to be used at all. And it's already being done.


Then why shoot on film if no one would see the benefits in 1982 (and for the out of focus first season, there are 10 more seasons apparently in focus)? And why did Paramount already make HD masters of all but one episode in 2001 (yet apparently used older masters for post-Season 3 episodes on DVD), even going so far as to remix seasons 1-3 in stereo? They could make BD versions right now if they wanted to. The remastering costs have already been paid for.

CBS already has a serious plan in place to remaster their film library for HD. They already have all of I Love Lucy and Hogan's Heroes remastered and are slowly working their way through their vaults. Sony appears to have done remastering work, too. It is Fox that is content to rely on outdated tape copies for most of their archives (M*A*S*H is the exception, having been remastered at least once), regardless of their condition. But then again, this is the studio that only made quick-fading CRIs of its nitrate, 3-strip Technicolor films of the 1940s and junked all the nitrates.

WB remastered their stuff in the early 1990s, and apparently feels those tapes are good enough for DVD (if you've seen some of The Waltons episodes on DVD the opposite is true). Universal may have no choice but to remaster after their library fire wiped out their tape masters. MGM appears to have done pretty good remasters (at least on Green Acres), but their library keeps bouncing around so anything can happen there. Disney remastered its relatively small film-based TV library (which, other than ABC acquisitions like Moonlighting, consists mainly of The Wonderful World of Disney, Zorro, and The Mickey Mouse Club) in the late 1990s for the Disney Channel.

There was a thread years ago talking about studios' bloated infrastructures (and Universal and WB were the worst offenders), and that it cost $5000 to $7000 to remaster one episode of a TV show in-house at some studios. CBS and Sony simply found cost-effective ways to do it, otherwise they'd probably be using outdated, composite tape masters, too. I know that Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie have been restored, but by an outside company and not by Sony's restoration department. They didn't even have trouble remastering the short-lived cult shows Square Pegs (which actually aired on HDNet) and Quark. They also totally rebuilt Seinfeld in HD, so if they wanted to do a Blu-Ray release they could.

These studios deserve to have to go through this trouble for being so short-sighted in the first place. They were talking about the future being HDTV all the time in the late 1980s and all through the 1990s.

Even though Desi Arnaz went out of his way to make sure I Love Lucy would be on film for future generations, regardless of what people could see on TV at the time (and the film-to-video technology really didn't improve much until the 1980s) even in the 21st century some people still think 480i is good enough.

Tape was created for convenience, not quality, and the tapes of many shows since 1956 may survive (and sadly, too many were wiped so the tapes could be recycled), but there's also a chance that they'll outlast the machines made to play them. Even for stuff on more recent formats Betacam or DigiBeta will have to be migrated to some newfangled format when the players start breaking (someone on the forums at Stevehoffman.tv claimed to have worked behind the scenes on "The Golden Girls" and said it was the first sitcom shot in Betacam when everyone else was still shooting in 1"). Meanwhile, the original 35mm nitrate negative of The Great Train Robbery is safely tucked away in the Library of Congress, where any modern telecine or film scanner can handle it.


The only way we can get answers is if the people who know them speak up. Rhoda was indeed on film (MTM Productions only used tape for WKRP in Cincinnati, and we all know why that was, and how it came back to bite them in the tail 20 years later), but the condition of the film is unknown. The only answers we have received have been vague ones.

Rhoda had five seasons (and was cancelled in late 1978 because its ratings collapsed due to cast turnover and time slot changes). Perhaps you are thinking of Phyllis, the 1975-1977 Cloris Leachman series. Ironically, because it was rarely rerun it has more of a chance turning up uncut on DVD.

Re: Strange behaviour of TV companies

Videotape gets a beating in this thread, but while I grant you that videotape isn't going to look great on HD, it is a format that often can suit some shows better like for instance "Barney Miller" which was a show always structured like a stage play. Tape gave that show a greater sense of stage-like intimacy which fueled its great sense of comedy and IMO it was not a show that would have been suitable for the glossier look of film.