What's new

What do you think the next Time Life Set will be? (1 Viewer)

Gord Lacey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2001
Messages
2,449
Hank, why do you feel the need to continually bash the show? You don't want it on DVD, that's fine, but please recognize the fact that there are lots of people that do.

I don't like "Friends," but I recognize that there are millions of people out there that love it. That doesn't mean "Friends" is a bad show, it's just not a show for me. Many people on the board could care less about "Dr. Kildare," but that in no way means the show shouldn't be released on DVD.


No one claimed that strong sales means a show is high quality, just that more people bought it, and poor sales doesn't mean the quality of a show is poor. If that were the case then most things pre-90s would be considered to be complete garbage based on sales of the DVDs.

I just don't understand the need to bash a show in order to make another show look good; it just makes the poster look closed-minded and petty.

With that said, I think many people in this thread will be happy with some of the other titles Time-Life has in the works.

Gord
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew

That's the sort of attitude I was talking about. You admit you didn't watch the show, so you got second hand info from your friends. How long had it been since they saw it? If I wanted to say that I thought a show was bad, I would choose something I had actually seen and not heard about from friends or family. Some animation fans systematically dismiss all TV animation anyway.

As for "a cartoon created to sell merchandise," it may well be. I only watched it occasionally as a child (I tended to gravitate towards CBS cartoons the way my mom did towards CBS soap operas, although I watched some NBC ones and Looney Tunes when it was on ABC). But the same could be argued about the Transformers cartoons, and those apparently did well on DVD, and they even revived the show and made a movie. Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies were originally created to plug songs from the WB Music Publishing catalog. The earliest ones are virtually indistinguishable from early Mickey Mouse cartoons. It was a few years before they moved away from copying Disney and developed their own voice, style, and humor. But Leon Schlesinger's original intentions were hardly non-commercial.

Even if it is a kid's cartoon, and it probably is, who's to say that the children whose parents were kids then won't like it now? Heck, they made a series of Sesame Street DVDs just for adult collectors with warnings at the beginning! There is no denying who that show's intended audience is.

I don't attack things I never saw. I wouldn't say they shouldn't be released because of one man's opinion; that's just bad business practice. Nor is their any evidence that the many, many lousy shows on DVD has kept good ones off. The Simple Life XVIII: Paris and Nicole Become Bag Ladies didn't stop those M*A*S*H DVDs. If a good show fails on DVD it is not because a bad show was available. And bad shows (not to mention mediocre ones) fail, too.

This all boils down to a matter of opinion. Someone here once said that 1,000 scientists could say that chocolate was the only good form of ice cream, but that could not stop one from preferring vanilla or strawberry. Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors for a reason.
 

Stephen Bowie

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
222
For the record, my earlier snide remark had nothing to do with nostalgia or generational one-upmanship. I clearly remember "Ghostbusters" from when I was ten years old, too. It was crap then and it's crap now.

I guess it is generally pointless or ill-tempered to complain when a worthless show gets a release, or to poke fun at its fans. But the deluxe Time-Life Christmas set is a high-profile, one-time-a-year release, and to see it shifted from a history of adult fare to a kids' show this year is something that is legitimately upsetting to those of us who are, y'know, adults.
 

Gord Lacey

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2001
Messages
2,449
Weird, for a thread with supposedly lots of adults posting in it, that doesn't explain all the crying and temper-tantrums in the responses.

I hope I don't get into trouble for saying this; Time-Life WILL HAVE A CLASSIC SHOW RELEASED THIS YEAR.

Gord
 

GuruAskew

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2001
Messages
2,069
and "The Real Ghostbusters" was never a toy commercial. With the exception of movie-based ghosts like Slimer and Stay-Puft none of the toy ghosts ever appeared on the show and none of the ghosts that appeared on the show were ever made as toys. Furthermore, there were several discrepancies between equipment used in the show compared to the toyline. Ecto 2 was consistent but everything after that was completely independent from what was actually in the show.

Did Columbia (who was owned by Coca-Cola at the time) make a mint off of "The Real Ghostbusters" merchandise? There's no denying that, but unlike shows like "Masters of the Universe", "GI Joe", "Transformers" and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" there's literally no evidence that the toy companies had any input into the process whatsoever. It simply wasn't a show where the latest off-the-wall toy designs were incorporated into the show on a weekly basis. Did Kenner make those crazy toys with bizarre designs and action features? Yes, but you wouldn't know it by watching the show.

and as many people have said, there were respected writers like JMS working on the show and, contrary to what you friend says, "The Real Ghostbusters" was definitely written for several different maturity levels, at least pre- "Slimer and...". I mean, they did a "Citizen Kane"-based episode for Christ's sake. I didn't know why the hell that ghost kept saying "Rosebud" and why he loved his sled so much back then but I understand it now.

and granted, the animation is standard 80's Saturday Morning-quality at best, we're still talking about television here, and I don't think the other two shows that received major releases from Time Life transcended the trappings of live-action television of the era.
 

Charles Ellis

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
2,098
OK, Gord, you know something that would please us classic TV fans, but you have to keep silent until it's official, right? Rats!

Can't we have one litlle hint?
 

Jeff Willis

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
3,386
Location
Dallas TX

Says it all, Mike.

Was it LBJ that said, "Come, let us reason together"
htf_images_smilies_drum.gif
 

Professor_Echo

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
95

Excellent post on every level, Matthew. You make some very perceptive and salient points and did so with both intelligence and eloquence, two things that are not always so apparent in forums such as these. For what it's worth I agree with everything you say in this post and it has given me a new standard by which to judge the topic at hand. Thank you for posting your thoughts and reflections in such a learned and provocative way.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew

I'm glad you feel that way. However, I wouldn't want one to get the impression I was trying to tear down any media from any such era. That's the last thing I would want to do. If one considers the Golden Age of Hollywood to be the 1930s and 1940s (I would also include the 1950s and 1960s up to 1968), it raises questions. First, does this designation include the overall product, or just the films that aren't lost to time? Second, why were the beginning and ending dates chosen? Third, what events or people caused the beginning and end of the golden age? Without establishing these criteria, it's too subjective. But that's the problem. Good and bad are objective concepts applied subjectively. This is why I don't put much stock in film or TV critics' reviews of content (but where picture and sound are concerned, that's a different matter altogether).

I have heard laughable suggestions as to what caused the end of the so-called "Golden Age of Television," the most laughable one being the switch from monochrome to color. Some blame the switch to color for the decline of "The Andy Griffith Show," even though it coincided with Don Knotts' departure from the cast, which would have had a more adverse effect. If anything affected the overall quality of TV adversely, it would be the over-reliance on the false god of demographics, which fueled the belief that overeducated, 18-34 year old urbanites were more worthy of being catered to by the alphabet networks than suburbanites, rural dwellers, minors, or anyone over 35. Shows have been cancelled for getting good ratings in other demographics but not enough in the almighty 18-34 demo.

Some may say it's not about old vs. new but about good vs. bad, but I disagree somewhat. It's about using old and new to determine good and bad. Of movies being made today, how many that were vilified by critics and ignored by audiences will be lionized by future generations? Will it be held up as representative of the times?

This applies to all metal-designations of media. And as for the "Great American Songbook," sure these are great songs, but in a year of club attendance in the 1930s you would have been lucky to hear 10% of these songs. When we talk about something standing the test of time, why do we never talk about time's testing standards?

I could go on about age restrictions when applied to entertainment. People complain when movies get tagged with an R or NC-17 rating by the MPAA. Why shouldn't one complain when a piece of decent entertainment for all ages is cynically dismissed as "just for kids" (like so many of the great Disney movies)? I'm not the one to ask for an opinion on The Real Ghostbusters because as a kid, I could take it or leave it, and I haven't seen it in this century. But to judge something by its audience is to sell it short.

I didn't mean to write a thesis. I was just flabbergasted at the vitriol that mature adults have for the impending DVD release of a 1980s Saturday morning cartoon, or for the vitriol towards people who were children at the time who hold nostalgia for it.
 

Hank Dearborn

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
715
Real Name
Hank


Hmmm, I'm looking into my crystal ball. I see a show deemed controversial for it's time. I'm seeing color 2-inch videotape.
 

TVAdam

Grip
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
24
Real Name
Adam
I'm new here, but I've been lurking for some time. I'm 26 years old and love collecting shows from all decades on DVD.

I'll just say that I loved it when Time-Life released the complete series of both "Get Smart" and "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." I purchased both sets. I would love for Time-Life to stick to complete series sets of classic shows. However, I'm very happy about "The Real Ghostbusters" because it's a favorite of mine. So this will be the third complete series from Time-Life that I plan to purchase.

I love classic television from the 1950s and 1960s. The main shows I want on DVD are: My Three Sons, The Donna Reed Show, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, Car 54 Where Are You?, The Patty Duke Show, Make Room for Daddy (from season 1 this time), Mister Ed and so on. Pretty much any show that has appeared on Nick at Nite from the 1980s through the 1990s. Other shows I want are Nickelodeon's "Hey Dude" and "Salute Your Shorts."

So, yeah. In short, I'm happy that "The Real Ghostbusters" is coming, but I understand people wanting Time-Life to stick to the older shows.
 

Charles Ellis

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
2,098
I've heard rumblings of the Smothers putting out a DVD compilation of their classic series, but the whole shebang- now that would be the DVD release of the year!
 

Sam Favate

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
12,948
Real Name
Sam Favate

I'd buy a farm, and then sell it!

While I doubt it will be, no one would do a better job with the 1966-1968 series than Time Life.
 

Jay_B!

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
1,746
I don't get the condescension towards The Real Ghostbusters. I was the target age for it when it came on and I never was a fan of it, but... a lot of people were. (I was more of a Back To The Future kid myself)

Classics don't depend on age. Seinfeld is a classic and that aired a decade ago. Even The Sopranos is quickly becoming a classic and the last episode aired a year ago. Why do some people value My Mother The Car over The Sopranos or Buffy simply because it's from 40 years ago?

There are many 70's, 80's and possibly even 90's shows that Time Life should do and could do a good job with it (I could see them doing Ally McBeal or The Wonder Years or another 90's show which is a victim of music rights hell and clear things up, etc...)
 

michael_ks

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,295

Up until around the last decade or so, the word "classic" was MOST definitely synonomous with age, since the shifting of an era was always viewed as necessary for comparative study. The ever-quickening pace of our lives and the instantaneity of everyday life wrought by the marvels of "technological improvements" has changed our perspective on time so that what aired last night for instance, is often tagged an instant "classic".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,685
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top