Quantum Leap Season Two - Music Replaced! (1 Viewer)

[Greg_S_H]

Yeah, I'd forgotten I'd agreed that was a good point. Let me have my optimism a little longer, though, please.

 

[Linda Thompson]

"Georgia On My Mind" IS mentioned in the script, when Al asks Sam if he got the record for Beth.

"Louie, Louie" is at least debatable, since characters onscreen only mouth the words silently. The song isn't mentioned by name, or technically 'sung' onscreen.


Universal sure managed to clear the rights for a lot of Ray Charles songs, including "Georgia On My Mind", for the movie RAY. I simply find it hard to believe that they literally COULD NOT get the rights for the song for "M.I.A."

Maybe because they'd already spent a reported $2 - 2.5 million for rights for Season 1 of Miami Vice? I give them major kudos for that...don't get me wrong. I just don't see why ALL of the Miami Vice hurdles could be worked out (as were all of the QL S1 hurdles), but only a very small fraction the QL S2 hurdles could, unless it was either a very deliberate and premeditated cost-cutting measure, or a time-saving measure.

Look at that list again:

http://tinyurl.com/46mx5

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up as anything else to me.

 

[Cees Alons]

Linda,

True. But then again we don't have all the information, nor can we expect to get it all.


Cees

 

[george kaplan]

Well, I have all the information I need. Music replacement = No Sale, no matter what the reason or what the price. For me, at least, original music intact is just like OAR and uncut in other ways.

Frankly, if a studio can't (or won't) get the music rights, then they should just not put out that product. There are very few shows I like as much as WKRP, but I'm much happier with it not being released at all since they can't get the music, than I would be if they released it with substitute music, which I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

 

[Terry H]

Well, there is a catch-all, cover-our-ass atatement if I ever saw one. I'm sure they know exactly what has been replaced and refusing to provide that information so people can make an informed choice seems to demonstrate a complete distain for the consumers of their product. I hope they reconsider this decision.

 

[Cees Alons]

George,

This is too much!
So, if a builder cannot build a house the way you like it, he shouldn't buy a house at all. If a painter cannot paint a painting that moves you, he should start writing novels. And then if....


Cees

 

[TravisR]

I see your point Cees but some people aren't satisfied unless it's the original version. Forget the fact that they like the show, they changed songs so they'd die before they'd buy it. And since its their money, they are entitled to decide whether to buy it or not. To me, it makes no sense to say "I like that show but won't get it because they changed some music eventhough I like it." but that's me.

In the end, it defintiely sucks that the music changed but some people need to lighten up and realize it's only a TV show

 

[ZackR]

I am not saying they should not releasae it. It is their product - they can do what they want with it. I am not saying they shouldn't release it. I just doubt I will be buying many altered releases unless I am reasonably sure that the alteration was unavoidable. Music is just a very important part of many shows and I think whenever possible it should be respected just as picture quality and OAR should. I know that I can not realistically expect the studios to reveal confidential information on rights negotiations, etc. However, if music MUST be replaced, then there should at least be a little effort in finding reasonable replace ment music. I am sorry, but the music in QL: S2 is not well-chosen at all. My friend owns the set and I do not believe much effort was taken in selecting the replacemet music. However, if the original creator is involved and there was no way to reasonably secure the original music, then I would definitely consider a purchase of a show I really like...It is just a frustrating situation in general. Perhaps I have been too hard on Universal... The music rights holders are probably just as much or more to blame. The whole thing really seems ridiculous to me. Anyways, one great thing about DVD is there are plenty of excellent releases to choose from. If one does not suit one's taste for some reason, there are plenty of others to enjoy. Basically, if I am unhappy with music replacements in a rlease, I won't buy it. If I think care and consideration went into the selection of appropriate replacement music that is reminiscent of the original, then I will consider purchasing it.

 

[Cees Alons]

Travis, Zack,

I agree. But even when I wouldn't buy something myself, I would find it too demanding to say that they shoudn't make it at all, so no-one could buy it, even those who like it (just enough, perhaps) as it is!


Cees

 

[george kaplan]

Cees,

There are certain minimum standards that I think should apply. Let's say that a car company wants to expand into the truck business. They work out the business plan and discover that the only way for such a product to be profitable is to build it so it's unsafe. Should they build it? No. If they can't afford to make it safe, they shouldn't build it at all.

A book publisher wants to put out The Complete Works of William Faulkner, but can only get rights for 95% of his books. Should the put it out anyway?

Having the original music is a minimum quality standard as far as I'm concerned. This isn't a choice of whether or not to include commentaries or other extras, or whether to put in a snapper or keepcase or whether to include an insert or not. This is an integral part of the show!

Not having the original music is simply unacceptable, and if they can't afford to get it, then yes, it shouldn't be put out at all.

That's hardly the same thing at all. We're not talking about an artistic choice made by the show's creator. Classic straw man argument.

 

[Cees Alons]

We are talking about artistic merits. Not safety measures.


Cees

 

[george kaplan]

The studio is not making an artistic choice when they replace music. What they are doing is going against the artistic choices that the artists made when they created the show with the original music.

 

[Linda Thompson]

We are talking about something which affects the integrity of the final product, enough so that some people (like myself) find it unacceptable and not worthy of a purchase.

That, of course, is a personal choice.

Just because I (and some others) believe in the ethic of keeping a show of this caliber intact, in ALL its aspects, or else not releasing it at all, that doesn't mean that we wish to deny it to those who are willing to accept what we consider to be an inferior offering. (And I don't mean for that statement to sound elitist.) It simply means that we've made our choice to pass this one by, for the stated reasons.

I've stated elsewhere that I gladly purchased the similarly-altered "21 Jump Street" set, and I've even defended its release in discussions exactly like this one. But, personally, I consider QL to be a much high-caliber show overall, and I'm of the opinion that greater care should have been taken with its release. In my eyes, this is a much worse "crime" than some of the other alterations, just because, IMO, QL was worthy of better treatment. THAT's why this one hurt so much, and has angered and upset so many. (No offense intended towards fans of other altered shows.)

 

[Linda Thompson]

If I buy a coffee-table picture book titled "The Complete Works Of Michaelangelo", I expect to see pictures of his original art, unchanged, and in its original form.

If I find, while flipping through the book, that the publisher thought that it would be OK to add little smiley faces to the pictures of the Cistine Chapel artwork, or to adorn the statue of David with a pair of pink Speedos, I'm gonna be a little upset.

Then, if the publisher was asked why such changes were made, and their reply was that the reasons were complex and confidential, but that the practice was becoming quite common these days...well, that would upset me quite a bit too.

According to the logic of your arguments above, you would think all of this was OK? And you would be happy with a purchase of such a book?

 

[Chris_Wa]

Would you accept a black and white version of the Last Supper or the Mona Lisa as being "good enough" and appreciate it as much as one that is simply in its original color?

The original music IS part of the original show and an integral part of it. We're not talking about a title/theme song - we're talking about music that MADE the scene. To have this attitude that its better than nothing - obviously you're not a fan. But give it time - if they do this to QL, they WILL do it to something YOU like one day.

QL is a substandard product that I would rather have not been released than to be done the way the hacks at Universal are doing it. At least then I'd always have the hope someone with half a mind was going to put it out RIGHT. Now, its out - its bad - end of story.

Wonder how long it takes for any of this to ever become public domain?

 

[JasonLa]

I think it would be public domain after 50 years assuming that TV shows follow literary works and songs. However I don't know if the rights are renewable. This would be better answered by those that know the law better than I.

 

[Chris_Wa]

Only 50 years? I'll wait.

Maybe by then I can transfer it into my halodeck and play along with Sam and Al.

 

[Cees Alons]

Linda,

And so, when rejecting it, we use artistic considerations. We're not having to judge safety measures as in the comparison you used twice in your "straw man" post.


Cees

 

[george kaplan]

Cees,
I used the safety example once - in the truck example. I then used an example of an incomplete Complete Works of an author - nothing safety related about that.

My point is, that when a product can't be made up to certain standards (whether they be safety standards, artistic standards, or whatever), then it would be better for a company to not put it out at all.

Now, in the case of a company like Madacy, which is proud of putting out crap, perhaps that's OK. But when a company claims, as Universal does that "Universal always strives to bring the consumer the best possible product.", then it's particularly egregious when they happily put out a clearly inferior product.

 

[Cees Alons]

George,

Not to really nitpick , because basically we agree, but you used it twice: once for the cars and once for the builder who didn't build according to the safety codes. Thus making your straw-man-line hit back at your own post.

But let's leave it at that, I just meant to say that IF it was true that a certain film or show could not be released on DVD "perfectly", then perhaps some people would still want to have it even with a specific imperfection than not at all - and that we shouldn't decide for those people.


Cees