The more intelligent the show, the worse it does on DVD? (1 Viewer)

[exliontamer]

This is the best post on the topic so far. The "smart"/"dumb" dichotomy is bogus -- most of us have a tendency to believe the shows we love are somehow superior, and if they don't sell well on DVD it's tempting to blame the shows we don't like that do sell. Big marketing budgets, strong nostalgia value, and release timing, among other factors, have as much to do with a show's DVD success as intelligence or lack thereof.

What's "smart," anyway? Lots of people consider Dallas twaddle, but it's actually elegantly written and emotionally complex (in the early seasons, anyhow). And The West Wing is as sharp as they come, but it has plenty of detractors (even some Democrats). I just don't buy this argument.

 

[David Levine]

I don't agree with the term "LCD" here, but the basis of this is correct. Obviously the shows that appeal to the most people do extremely well. But that's true of "smart" or "stupid" shows.

 

[MatthewA]

I've always wondered what people mean when they talk about the supposed intelligence of a show. The quality of the writing? The intelligence of the characters? The term is thrown about constantly but is ill-defined.

 

[Corey3rd]

Those sound like fighting words. "Love and the Phonies" is an amazingly well written and performed sketch. Sure the quality of Love American Style varies, but it's amazing how they wrote these shows without being able to come right out and talk about the real subject. Ever see the one where the guy puts his mouth around the doorknob? And don't mess with the Mod Squad. I'm watching the second half of the first season and I'm hooked.

I'm hoping they wise up after finishing up Gomer and put out Bilko - seeing how they've put out all of Hogan's Heroes and F Troop plus McHale's Navy is wrapping up. there's a need for military humor.

 

[Hank Dearborn]

Well, since I started the topic I guess I'll give my definition. To me a smart show is one that is intelligently written. Smart scripts. Rules out anything Sherwood Schwartz had anything to do with. Actually, it's kind of like what someone once said about the definition of pornography. They said they couldn't really describe it but they know it when they see. Same thing with smart shows. I know them when I see them. Pretty much anything produced by Herbert Brodkin, David Susskind or MTM Enterprises tends to be smart. Anything by Aaron Spelling post-1970 (except for Family) isn't.

 

[MarkBirds]

I'm seriously bummed I only had a chance to buy two seasons of Hill Street Blues and one season of St. Elsewhere. I was ready to go the distance. Apparently not a lot of others were.

Hopefully, I'll be able to download shows like these one day.

 

[whisperintherain]

I tend not to think of TV shows in terms of dumb and smart. I prefer to divide them in two categories : "fun shows", the ones you watch for sheer entertainment value (these would include shows such as LAS VEGAS or the Spelling productions) and "brainy shows", the ones that both entertain you and make you think(these would include THE WEST WING, GILMORE GIRLS, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, BABYLON 5...).

The emotional complexity someone mentioned regarding DALLAS is actually even more applicable to its spin-off, KNOTS LANDING, which managed to keep its characters's emotional lives at the core of the show for fourteen seasons. Yet, although better-written and better-acted, it never got the same worldwide success as its predecessor (or even rival show DYNASTY) and the first season did not do well enough so far on DVD for WARNER to release further seasons (ironically enough, the WARNER-owned shows I prefer seem to be the ones that don't sell : KNOTS LANDING, EVERWOOD and LIFE GOES ON). I think the real problem here is more one of popularity rather than one of quality.

 

[exliontamer]

whisperintherain, I'm with you on Knots Landing. As much as I continued to enjoy Dallas, and as true as it remained to the more prickly aspects of its premise, it defaulted to formula about halfway through its run -- a victim of its own success, maybe. Knots just got better over time.

Too bad it flopped on DVD. I blame Warner's crummy, misguided marketing of the first season set and its cynical expectation of Dallas-like sales rather than any off-putting "smartness." I'm still hopeful that the rest of the seasons will be made available at some point, though; there's money to be made from the show, so I doubt that it'll languish forever.

Knots (and Dallas, and a bunch of other shows) prove the silliness of the smart vs. dumb debate: From a distance it seems vapid, but from inside it's sophisticated and well-observed. That's part of what makes TV on DVD so great -- it gives us a chance to reassess series that may have been ignored, missed, or dismissed, and discover what was and remains inventive about them. In that sense, and with an open enough mind, even Sherwood Schwartz deserves props for being smart about slapstick -- whether his shows float your boat or not.

 

[MatthewA]

Hank, you have still not clarified what you mean, only using the word itself and producers you personally like and dislike as examples. If you say that it is a relative term, then it is therefore meaningless. Even if one were to establish a clear meaning, most shows would be of average intelligence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Warner dropped the ball on Knots Landing and dropped it HARD. They could have combined seasons 1 and 2, since there were only 31 episodes between them, and as like many shows it did not come anywhere near its stride in its first season.

Some shows, regardless of the arbitrary definition of "intelligence", just plain suck in their first season. Many people despise the first season of The Simpsons, but the show is so popular and well-known that it has made it to season 10 so far. Other shows that have been out of syndication for years that get released on DVD have not been so lucky. A fan who hasn't seen the show in decades buys the first season, sees that it is not up to par with what he remembers, and assumes the rest of the show is that bad. Unfortunately he has done the show an injustice. Perhaps multiple seasons at a time or complete series might work better.

Until we agree on a clear definition of intelligence in this context the debate is built on a foundation of sand. But to me, the primary considerations for what I look for in a show are: Do I care about the characters enough to want to look into their lives? Is it funny (in a comedy)? Are the stories believable within the context set up by the premise? Does the overall execution work well enough to offset any minor caveats that may arise? Does it not tick me off in some way?

 

[bmasters9]

Count me guilty in that belief. I've always blamed the roadblocks of "Hill Street Blues" and "St. Elsewhere" (at 2 and 1 respectively)on "Friends", "Seinfeld", and "Raymond"-- specifically, it seems that more people like those '90's comedies (which I never liked) than "Hill Street" and "St. Elsewhere" (both of which I thought were well-written and well-acted, at least in the seasons which I saw of them). Of course, as the old saw goes, "different people have different tastes," and as such, the people that enjoy the '90's comedies that I mentioned might not care for the '80's (and '60's and '70's), and because I like the '80's (and '60's and '70's), I don't care for the '90's-- it works both ways.

 

[MatthewA]

The roadblocks to HSB and SE, both excellent shows, were poor promotion which contributed to poor sales. I don't believe you can blame unrelated shows for the failure of other shows. It's also important to keep in mind that these shows (St. Elsewhere especially) were kept on the air for years for prestige and for their desirable demographic: urban, overeducated 18-34 year olds. They drew ad rates comparable to top 10 shows and higher than shows with older audiences like Murder She Wrote. They both failed miserably in syndication, as do most shows with continuing story lines.

 

[bmasters9]

Good point, there. I stand corrected. I always thought that it was a difference in tastes that was the roadblock, but now that I see that, as you said, neither were promoted well, which led to subsequent poor sales, I stand corrected. I always thought (it seems incorrectly here) that unrelated series could make or break a particular series' DVD releases based on tastes between or among the two or three series in question.

 

[Jay_B!]

Well, I do remember an article from over two years ago that pointed out how little Who's The Boss and Night Court sold compared to Seinfeld and Friends respectively for said companies, and you know what, it's two years later and they still have yet to release another season for either show. Keep in mind Seinfeld and Friends are now finished on DVD, which means more room to finish other shows, but alas, they aren't.

 

[Jay_B!]

I agree, the whole "dumb vs. smart" thing seems condescending as well.
I might not consider The Brady Bunch or Aaron Spelling shows to be high art, but to just call them "dumb" is being condescending to those who just like those shows for what they are... mindless entertainment.

 

[MatthewA]

Probably Sherwood Schwartz's biggest mistake as a writer is failing to clarify the logical conundrums such as those that allow the Castaways to have many different changes of clothes, or even two pairs.

 

[Ockeghem]

Corey3rd:
I love the show. I was hooked forty years ago, and I'm watching it with a vengeance these days. We just watched Twinkle Twinkle, Little Starlet. I thought it was quite good, and some scenes were very intense (as much of that show is anyway). I guessed incorrectly who the murderer of the young women was, too. In case you haven't seen that episode, I won't spoil it for you, except to say you will have fun trying to figure it out.

Addendum: I just realized that you wrote that you are watching the second half of the first season, so you've probably seen the episode I'm alluding to here.

"Keep the faith. And don't spread it thin." --Lincoln Hayes