Any news on a Carol Burnett Show DVD? (1 Viewer)

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/28224/any-news-on-a-carol-burnett-show-dvd/480#post_3990947
Hey JohnMor, is the Disaster 75 sketch on the previously released discs from CH or GR?
You think there is anything else cut on the Time Life discs that we haven't discovered?
I imagine now that the only change in disc 10 is the finale being restored, and maybe another musical number if there was one.
is the No Frills Airline sketch on disc 10 too? Was "off we go" the only cut in that sketch?

Yes, "Disaster '75" is on the CH discs (can't remember which volume number though [I'm still at the office].) I watched it on that fairly recently, which is why I hadn't watched it on the TL set yet.

Yes, the "No Frills Airline" sketch is in the Sammy Davis, Jr. episode. I am pretty sure (99%) that the only cuts were the finale (in its entirety) and the one line of Carol singing "Off we go..." in the airline sketch. Everything else seemed to match the CH dvd of that ep. The "Off we go..." line is a great joke, but the sketch still is wonderful even if that hasn't been restored (which hopefully it has), but I'm VERY glad the finale is back, as all those Harold Arlen songs are terrific.

As for other cuts, I'm not sure. I hadn't gotten to everything in the "Carol's Favorites" set because everything seemed to be there. I didn't know about the cut in the "Diasaster '75" sketch on that set until Time-Life John posted about it. In fact, I may dig both versions of that ep out tonight and watch them and see.

 

[JohnMor]

So I did watch both versions of the "Disaster '75" sketch, and indeed , as John from TL stated, that tiny bit of the nuns singing that song has been cut out on the TL set, while it does appear on the CH disc. It's actually not missed that much (except for the somewhat distracting edit), as it comes immediately after a much bigger laugh of the nuns starting to sing "My Way" ("And now the end is near and now I face the final curtain...") But I realize that's not the point in terms of advertsising the set as uncut.

What really pisses me off about this one isn't TL, but the rights holder to that song. It's a miniscule amount of the song (6 words I think) that is used, and they wouldn't clear it. If it were me, I'd say use it for free. It's not like it got a major use in a finale. Sorry, but they sound like jerks to me.

 

[David Weicker]

What really pisses me off about this one isn't TL, but the rights holder to that song.  It's a miniscule amount of the song (6 words I think) that is used, and they wouldn't clear it.  If it were me, I'd say use it for free.  It's not like it got a major use in a finale.  Sorry, but they sound like jerks to me. 

There's a question I've always had about music clearance rights.
Are there two tiers, when it comes to clearances? Is there a difference if you use a specific performance vs. when you just use a song/music performed by the show/movie cast? And how does copyright apply in these two instances?
For example, if you have The Beatles, or Sinatra, or someone on the soundtrack, or seen/listened to by the characters do you have to pay two parties - the performer and the composer/lyricist/publisher (or their agents/rights-holders)?
One example that really bothered me. On an episode of Moonlighting, there was a chase scene accompanied by the William Tell Overture. When it was released on DVD, they substituted different music (which didn't go with the staging). Now, I could understand if the particular orchestra that recorded the broadcast version wanted a lot of money, and they didn't want to pay, but I would assume that most classical music is in the public domain by now, so they could have used another orchestra's version (a less demanding $ one - i.e. BigCity Symphony wanted $1,000,000 and the Podunk Jr. High band wanted $50).
David

 

[likewow]

I remember way back, if a TV show wanted to use a popular song, they would usually have an unknown singer do it, presumably because using the 'name' singer's version would cost more.
Now it's gotten to the point where even a character speaking the lyrics costs too much!
And why would a music company deny clearance? They don't make any money that way!
Speaking of Columbia House, their VHS TV shows had songs left intact, but the DVDs of those same episodes, from other companies, had to replace them. What the...? Why the...?

 

[JohnMor]

David, it can be both. You have to pay the publishers for the use of a piece of music that is still under copyright, and you have to pay for the use of a specific recording/performance of that piece of music in most cases. Usually that's a flat fee or percentage paid to the record company, but if the "performer" is big enough (Beatles, Sinatra, Streisand, New York Philharmonic, etc.) they can also have a controlling interest, both in the price AND how and who uses it.

 

[NY2LA]

TV commercial running today still says 25 Complete Uncut original episodes As They Originally Aired, repeatedly emphasizing that with phrases like "all the..." (repeated a lot, even by Carol) and "Just as you remember them."

 

[AndyMcKinney]

Speaking of Columbia House, their VHS TV shows had songs left intact, but the DVDs of those same episodes, from other companies, had to replace them. What the...? Why the...?

It might have to do with the fact that the section of US copyright law concerning music on TV/home video got stricter either in the late '90s or early '00s, meaning music that was easy to clear in the VHS days might have been more difficult/expensive by the time DVD arrived.

 

[timelife jb]

It might have to do with the fact that the section of US copyright law concerning music on TV/home video got stricter either in the late '90s or early '00s, meaning music that was easy to clear in the VHS days might have been more difficult/expensive by the time DVD arrived.

Additionally, at least relating to music, the special markets groups at the labels helped clear a lot of special-use and cross-label content -- now with the ability of consumers to pick off singles at will through amazon or itunes, that's a harder business overall for them and so there are fewer resources put against it and it's a lower business priority. Makes it harder to get attention on all the clearances.

 

[NY2LA]

So is it now confirmed that the finale of the Sammy Davis episode is the ONLY thing put back, and all the other ten or 11 episodes on how many other discs are still cut?
Has anyone got the replacement disc yet, and when do you suppose Time Life will drop all synonyms for "complete" from their ads?
PS: JB- were you near any of the storms, and are you and your home okay?

 

[David Rain]

Don't Expect Time-Life to Go to the Trouble of Changing Any of Their Commercials For the Product. They Should But I'd be Shocked If it Happened.

 

[NY2LA]

Just got word that John is okay and unaffected by the storm. Which is the best news we've had from TL so far.

 

[Garysb]

Per TMZ 11/21/2012:
For once, someone's NOT laughing at "The Carol Burnett Show" -- namely the guy who helped create the TV classic, and is now suing over a home video deal, but the catch is ... HE'S DEAD.
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in LA County Superior Court by Bob Banner's production company ... and according to the docs Bob had a partnership to co-produce the show with Carol from 1967 to 1972.
Bob died in 2011 from Parkinson's disease ... but according to the lawsuit Burnett and Time Life struck a home video distribution deal in the summer of 2012. The suit alleges Bob -- or rather, his company -- was cut out of the profits from that deal.
Banner's company is demanding a full accounting of all profits earned from the 'Carol Burnett Show' -- including the home video deal ... and, of course, wants its cut.
We reached out to Carol's people, but haven't heard back.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/11/21/carol-burnett-show-lawsuit-home-video-sales-bob-banner/

 

[NickLotay]

I'm surprised more people haven't commented on this alarming development.
I really thought, with the release of the six sketches from those early years, that we'd get to see full-length episodes from those years be released in the near future. After all, those six sketches are completely full and unedited, with the original orchestra music intact, etc.
I perhaps wrongly assumed Bob Banner Associates had given the green light to Time Life to release those six sketches into the big box set, but it definitely looks as if they hadn't. Some website shared a PDF of the actual complaint (I'll try to find it to show you), and it states that Burnett told Time Life to go to BBA to get permission to release them onto DVD. It then states that Time Life did ask BBA, and then they enquired about the master tapes of the 1967-1972 years, only for BBA to discover it didn't have them. The document then states that Burnett/Whacko holds the master tapes for all the episodes and Time Life went ahead and released the six sketches without BBA's consent.
It's probably wrong to assume this, but I do think that Time Life assumed that if Carol holds the masters, she owns them outright and can sanction the release of older skits - which is not right. Something's not right somewhere. As far as I know, Carol and Bob Banner were always on very good terms while he was alive. It just smacks of somebody wanting to cash-in somewhere.
Something else puzzling me... why the hell is BBA also claiming they need reimbursing for Mama's Family? They say they need some compensation because it was a spin-off of the Burnett show which they happened to co-produce for the first half of its run. Surely this has to be a load of crap? BBA only co-owns everything up to 1972, and the first Family skit (on which Mama's Family is based) aired in March 1974. I fail to see why they need to profit from this. (By the way, the complaint refers constantly to something called "Mama's House". )
Hello people, by the way...!

 

[JohnMor]

Hi Nick. Welcome to Home Theater Forum!

There's really not too much to comment on with this right now. We just have to wait and see what unfolds. The fact that a lawsuit was filed doen't mean it has any merit or will go anywhere. (I'm not saying it doesn't or won't. but it's way too early to know.) It could be a whole lot of nothing by the time the dust settles. (As far as my intuition goes, it does smell of cash grab to me. And the misnaming of Mama's Family makes it look amateurish at best.)

 

[Mark Y]

Has this kind of thing ever happened to you... in the supermarket, there is a whole section, 2-3 rows of Lay's Potato Chips, and a big sign that says "Buy One Get One Free!" You pick out a Ranch Flavor and a Barbecue. You get home and find your were charged for both. Hey! WTF?? You go back and the manager says "oh, the barbecue flavor was not on sale." WHAT? MGR goes over to the display with you and you see that the Barbecue chips, right next to all the others, are not directly UNDER the sign that says 2 for 1. The store can claim they weren't misleading anyone, but come on... Because they know most of us aren't THAT vigilant to scrutinize every item and price. We see the 2 for 1 sign, we see the whole line of flavors there... there isn't a sign that says "Except BBQ" and it's right there with all the others. Savvy merchants know they will make a certain amount more money by doing this. Savvy buyers will get pissed off over it and maybe not trust that merchant anymore.

Many years ago I used to work in the shoe department of a retail department store. The jewelry counter was across the aisle. One day a customer was about to buy a pair of work boots. I rang them up. He stopped me and said, wait a minute, these are supposed to be 25% off (or whatever the discount was). I knew nothing of this. The sign says so, he said. He pointed across the aisle to a banner over the jewelry counter which said "25% off all fine jewelry." The "all fine jewelry" part might or might not have been in slightly smaller lettering underneath the "25% off" part, but it was clearly visible from a distance (no asterisk or small print), and the banner was placed over the jewelry counter, across the aisle from the shoe department -- IOW, there is no reasonable way anyone who actually read the sign could have construed it to suggest work boots were on sale. But the guy wanted to fight about it. And it was fairly well known that as far as the management was concerned, "the squeaky wheel got the grease" and if he made a fuss, they'd give it to him. This is just one example. Stuff like this happened on a regular basis, and plenty of people became experts at finding "IGOTCHA" opportunities and taking advantage of them. And we were expected to smile and say "please kick me again." I often wondered silently, "hey, you know we're gonna give it to you anyway, so why be nasty and abusive?"
Of course, this isn't what you're talking about. But it did remind me of those days. (Thanks for the opportunity to -- belatedly -- vent a little.) I agree that to include prominent references to "complete" and "uncut" in advertising a set where those terms don't apply to every episode is just asking for trouble.

 

[Mark Y]

TV commercial running today still says 25 Complete Uncut original episodes As They Originally Aired, repeatedly emphasizing that with phrases like "all the..." (repeated a lot, even by Carol) and "Just as you remember them."

It's quite possible that whoever produced the commercials/infomercials didn't know there would be cut episodes, or maybe the commercials were prepared before the content was even reviewed/finalized. I got the Guthy-Renker DVDs via an infomercial a couple years ago (which was still running recently; I saw it again not long before the Time-Life set was announced) and among the clips are scenes from shows included on the final ten volumes, which were not available through Guthy-Renker.
That said, it would be wise for them to revise their advertising and promotional stuff.

 

[Garysb]

As far as the lawsuit is concerned I suppose alot has to do with the original contract between Bob Banner and Carol Burnett. Just because Bob Banner was no longer a producer on the show after five years does not mean he did not have any rights to profits in the show for the entire run not just the first 5 years. I am not saying that he did I am just saying it is possible. It is also possible he is considered a creator of the show and entitled to compensation for any spin offs which would include Mama's Family, Again this is all speculation and it might turn out that the lawsuit is thrown out.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

So... anyone up for the first 5 seasons on DVD?

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Carol-Burnett-DVDs-Planned/20482

 

[classictvfan40]

So... anyone up for the first 5 seasons on DVD?

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Carol-Burnett-DVDs-Planned/20482

Just read that…wish they had done this first instead of all the scattered best of releases.

 

[chadHobbick]

I have a feeling that this will be just like the other scattered releases that we have got, in other words not complete seasons, just different compilations that will now include full episodes from the first five seasons.