A Serious Question --- Why Is Sanford And Son and All In The Family Okay And Amos And Andy Not (1 Viewer)

[Wiseguy]

One version lists 44 episodes, the other 74. It’s often hard to parse out reviews on Amazon since they don’t always adhere to the actual version being advertised. At around $40 it doesn’t seem much of a risk, but the one with 74 episodes has a disclaimer about potentially not meeting current viewing expectations, so not sure if kinescope transfers or what they have.

There were 78 episodes, copies of all episodes (varying degrees of quality) exist except for 4. All episodes are filmed, no kinescopes. If the picture quality is bad, it's because of the number of copies made. CBS has all the original film elements.

 

[Wiseguy]

The rights to A & A were purchased by Bill Cosby, and he prohibited the sale of VHS tapes or showings the series on TV for 20+years. The show was funny, with skilled actors, and just like many sitcomes that followed, the players were professionals, dumb is "smart" janitor, a conniving King Fish, and hard working self-employed cabbie. The nagging wife and mother-in-law are classics that fit all ethnicities. As a young kid watching on a 10 inch screen in the late 1950's, they where human beings, people I liked and most episodes delivered a moral lesson. Sure Stepin Fetchit steotypes existed but considering the era, and all black cast, they broke new ground for TV. Frankly, they offered better role models than good ole boy shows or country bumpkin sitcomes. Amos and Andy was good entetainment.

Never heard that Bill Cosby bought the rights. Doesn't seem likely rights to a CBS series could be bought outright and then banned.

 

[RobertMG]

Never heard that Bill Cosby bought the rights. Doesn't seem likely rights to a CBS series could be bought outright and then banned.

CBS has them locked away someone I know said thet are rotting away in film cans

 

[Wiseguy]

I’m 61 so I grew up watching LOTS of Norman Lear shows. I know of A&A but have never seen it. From the fascinating Wikipedia entry it sounds like when the show moved from radio (with white actors in many main roles) to TV the tone of the show changed too.

There was no big change when the series moved to TV (new episodes still aired on radio after the move to TV with many of the same actors (except for the two radio leads). The big change was in 1943 when the series changed from a 15-minute mostly dramatic serial (titled Amos 'n Andy, without an audience) to a half-hour sitcom (retitled The Amos 'n Andy Show, the same title used for the TV version, with an audience).

 

[Wiseguy]

CBS has them locked away someone I know said thet are rotting away in film cans

That's what I've always heard or assumed, although the "rotting" is probably not accurate (I would hope not, anyway).

 

[Wiseguy]

As I said, I saw this series after I'd grown up in the 1960's and then watched all the Norman Lear shows like the ones mentioned above and I had a context with which to view the show that the NAACP did not think white people ever had from the radio days and into the 60's. I didn't watch that show and think all black people behaved the way the Kingfish did or were as gullible as Amos, who was a lawyer, could be. In the series Andy mostly narrated the show; don't know why that was changed. Kingfish's wife was mostly the way 1950s wives were portrayed in a lot of sitcoms. The mother, played by Amanda Randolph, was a typical Mother-in-Law character, like George Jefferson's mother was. They could have been interchangeable.

Amos was the narrator and a cabdriver. Calhoun was the lawyer (added to the radio cast in 1948-49).

 

[LouA]

Does anyone know what the quality of this Amazon set of 74 episodes is like?
It's listed as: "Amos & Andy Show All 74 Complete Dvd Set" (I did read some
of the online reviews, but wondering if anyone on HTF has them or seen them

If it’s the one in the small brown box , the quality is fairly good. I have that one , and it has the most episodes -a few are still “lost”, but they do exist in the CBS vault.

 

[LouA]

I haven’t seen any mention of the actors who helped create Amos And Andy. Tim Moore who played Kingfish was a really talented comedian. So were Amanda Randolph and Spencer Williams.The rest of the cast was also excellent. While we can view and appreciate the work of most early TV stars like Gleason, Caesar, Berle , we can’t enjoy Mr Moore’s best known work. And I think that’s wrong.

 

[mskaye]

Never heard that Bill Cosby bought the rights. Doesn't seem likely rights to a CBS series could be bought outright and then banned.

The Cosby story is an utter myth and was also used about his so-called purchase of the Our Gang shorts for similar reasons. I think recent history has shown that Bill Cosby never had a higher moral purpose for anything besides criminally taking advantage of women. Ironically, someone SHOULD buy the Cosby show and hide it forever or will someone here - one of the defenders of the Amos and Andy show - think that one can still enjoy it "as a product of its time?"

 

[LouA]

The Cosby story is an utter myth and was also used about his so-called purchase of the Our Gang shorts for similar reasons. I think recent history has shown that Bill Cosby never had a higher moral purpose for anything besides criminally taking advantage of women. Ironically, someone SHOULD buy the Cosby show and hide it forever or will someone here - one of the defenders of the Amos and Andy show - think that one can still enjoy it "as a product of its time?"

Yes, it was also mentioned that Cosby bought the rights to The Little Rascals, also untrue.
I’ve heard from a good insider type source that CBS Paramount still owns the show and all of the material still exists and is being well cared for. All the masters were transferred from a NY facility to a California one.
Back in the nineties, CBS briefly thought about releasing Amos And Andy in their Video Library series. Many shows were issued under that umbrella, but they decided to avoid controversy and didn’t release A&A.

 

[MartinP.]

Ironically, someone SHOULD buy the Cosby show and hide it forever or will someone here - one of the defenders of the Amos and Andy show - think that one can still enjoy it "as a product of its time?"

For the record, I have never liked Bill Cosby that much and so know very little of his work. I don't think I ever watched one episode of his highly rated comedy series. I am a supporter of the Amos n' Andy Show and not as "a product of its time."

Are you an absolutist that if you find one thing you don't approve of or like about someone that their work should be erased? TV and movies are collaborative arts and none would survive if the directors, producers, writers, actors etc. -- if all their lives were thoroughly delved into. Do you think all of Michael Jackson's music should disappear, for example? Yes, it is problematic for individuals when someone or something you like is tainted because of the actions of someone associated with it. Some refuse to watch Woody Allen movies any more.

No one is perfect. If you judge others and their work in only the light of their imperfections then you'll definitely end up not liking much.

 

[smithbrad]

People like to use the term "banned" a lot when referencing the lack of a release for the Amos n' Andy Show and Song of the South. Yes, there are questions regarding the suitability of both in current day society, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've been actually banned. Both of these are just single entries in a long list of TV shows and movies that will likely never see the light of day in an official release, being lost to future generations. Public opinion, as well as cost of restoration/transfers, evaluation of return on investment, lack of a market, licensing costs, ownership complications are just a few of the reasons on why somethings sit collecting dust in a vault. These two always seem to stand out regarding the racial stigma associated to them but they are hardly alone when it comes to shows/movies of the past and current day political correctness questions. I personally don't perceive them as banned but just not worth marketing from a purely business perspective, as is the same for many other titles.

As for the number of "YouTube" hits and outcry on forums as a way to try to justify the monetary value of a release, well that has been noted on many other releases that were attempted and failed due to a loss or too low of a return versus cost to produce. It's a faulty statistic to bank money on.

 

[RobertMG]

For the record, I have never liked Bill Cosby that much and so know very little of his work. I don't think I ever watched one episode of his highly rated comedy series. I am a supporter of the Amos n' Andy Show and not as "a product of its time."

Are you an absolutist that if you find one thing you don't approve of or like about someone that their work should be erased? TV and movies are collaborative arts and none would survive if the directors, producers, writers, actors etc. -- if all their lives were thoroughly delved into. Do you think all of Michael Jackson's music should disappear, for example? Yes, it is problematic for individuals when someone or something you like is tainted because of the actions of someone associated with it. Some refuse to watch Woody Allen movies any more.

No one is perfect. If you judge others and their work in only the light of their imperfections then you'll definitely end up not liking much.

Went to the tapings of both Cosby shows in Queens NY spent time in his dressing room took my friends to meet him too.

 

[RobertMG]

People like to use the term "banned" a lot when referencing the lack of a release for the Amos n' Andy Show and Song of the South. Yes, there are questions regarding the suitability of both in current day society, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've been actually banned. Both of these are just single entries in a long list of TV shows and movies that will likely never see the light of day in an official release, being lost to future generations. Public opinion, as well as cost of restoration/transfers, evaluation of return on investment, lack of a market, licensing costs, ownership complications are just a few of the reasons on why somethings sit collecting dust in a vault. These two always seem to stand out regarding the racial stigma associated to them but they are hardly alone when it comes to shows/movies of the past and current day political correctness questions. I personally don't perceive them as banned but just not worth marketing from a purely business perspective, as is the same for many other titles.

As for the number of "YouTube" hits and outcry on forums as a way to try to justify the monetary value of a release, well that has been noted on many other releases that were attempted and failed due to a loss or too low of a return versus cost to produce. It's a faulty statistic to bank money on.

Best way to get touchy stuff out is simply third party bet some companies would release them in legit releases if framed properly --- heck Whoopi even wanted Song out!

 

[smithbrad]

Best way to get touchy stuff out is simply third party bet some companies would release them in legit releases if framed properly

Yes, however the difficulty with something that has no readily available transferred prints is the cost to go back to the original negatives from the vaults to create new masters. I'm not sure what state the Amos n' Andy Show is in but take "The Defenders" (a somewhat controversial show in its own right) released by Shout! The word is that they sold a decent quantity for season 1, but not enough to justify the expense to create new masters for a season 2 release. While the smaller independents are more likely to take a chance on older shows that the originating studios will not, their budgets are more limited, they have licensing costs, and a smaller window of time to get a return on the investment. Another Shout! release "Peyton Place". They tried multiple times to jump start sales on that one before finally giving up. For that one they had available prints, so the initial cost was far less, but the quality of the prints was questionable resulting in fewer sales.

 

[LouA]

Yes, however the difficulty with something that has no readily available transferred prints is the cost to go back to the original negatives from the vaults to create new masters. I'm not sure what state the Amos n' Andy Show is in but take "The Defenders" (a somewhat controversial show in its own right) released by Shout! The word is that they sold a decent quantity for season 1, but not enough to justify the expense to create new masters for a season 2 release. While the smaller independents are more likely to take a chance on older shows that the originating studios will not, their budgets are more limited, they have licensing costs, and a smaller window of time to get a return on the investment. Another Shout! release "Peyton Place". They tried multiple times to jump start sales on that one before finally giving up. For that one they had available prints, so the initial cost was far less, but the quality of the prints was questionable resulting in fewer sales.

This should be happening anyway. Every large corporations that has assets that include vintage films and TV shows should conscientiously be setting aside part of their yearly budget to preserve their assets. Companies like CBS Paramount, and Disney ( which now owns Fox) have plenty of money and make large profits every year.
Once remastered, these films could be offered to interested cable TV networks and companies that specialize in releasing vintage fare on DVD.
Oh but I forgot - it’s all about greed and the bottom line these days.

 

[smithbrad]

This should be happening anyway

I assume you are referencing new masters being made. If so, yes in the theoretical sense, but when it comes to the reality of cost from a business perspective, not necessarily. It just isn't practical from a real world perspective.

 

[LouA]

I assume you are referencing new masters being made. If so, yes in the theoretical sense, but when it comes to the reality of cost from a business perspective, not necessarily. It just isn't practical from a real world perspective.

Yes entered prematurely. See complete post below.

 

[LouA]

I assume you are referencing new masters being made. If so, yes in the theoretical sense, but when it comes to the reality of cost from a business perspective, not necessarily. It just isn't practical from a real world perspective.

So why is it ONLY about business?

 

[RobertMG]

So why is it ONLY about business?

I messaged Andrea Kalas on Linkedin mentioning the negs for Amos and Andy she did see the message-the thing is showing the show on youtube is getting pple watching them and NO outcry for youtube to take them down and pple are making money on them on youtube I assume? But CBS run by corporate does not want pickets etc in front of their locations - third party best way --- interesting the beloved Don Rickles insulted every person every color creed and we all laughed --- we need more of that thinking today