What's new

It's all about the elements! (2 Viewers)

Mark Collins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,552
Real Name
Mark
First I want to say great thread Neil and glad you thought of it as we end for the holiday break.

Oh I also wanted to thank Neil once more for telling us that Family 1976 was coming out I assume now in 2015. So a Sony release is being farmed out to an unnamed source which I will not mention.

Happy Holidays Neil and everyone here.
 

BlairWarner

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
7
Real Name
Blair Warner
kat.sal said:
THE future of digital I can see them usinng nore original negatives (as basis for transfers) on digital releases (when Internet speeds are better in next 5 years) as a cheap gimmick see, Digital is better. All in a lame attempt to hogwash consumers.
I can say that this part is completely off-the-mark as the studios know that this is the "golden age" of streaming and that it won't be like this in five years.

Unlike most of the world, Internet users in the US expect AYCE internet service. In most other places, Internet caps are the norm. The cable companies are itching to turn it on - they have even done limited testing (in Arizona, notably).

The problem with US broadband is not speed (though we do lag behind most other nations, even third-world nations where it's available, as they simply have newer infrastructure) but overall bandwidth/congestion. And that is going to continue until there is a vast infrastructure investment which would cost billions and billions of dollars, and if anyone does decide to invest that money, the ISP's will pass it along in the form of broadband caps. The caps are coming eventually anyway, but certainly will happen before any mass investment every take place.

There isn't some vast conspiracy keeping these shows from you. It's simple economics. I'm rather well-versed in television history, but even I had to look up some of the shows mentioned in this thread because I've never heard of them. Some of these shows would struggle to sell 100 copies if available. Maybe 200-300 if advertised well (and that costs $). Basically, even with MOD, it simply isn't worth it to offer them on disc, even for streaming - they'd pay the techs who upload and create the listing for the show more than they'd ever make on it being available.

Outside of obscurities (Peyton Place and Dr. Kildare are the only ones I've seen in this thread that would be considered well-known, and then only to folks of a certain age), the TV on DVD market is actually pretty awesome right now for more mainstream classic shows. Look at what SHOUT! is doing with Facts of Life, WKRP, The Jeffersons, etc. - and then there's Maude! :) Entire series sets are being released - but even those, they are selling in the very low (very low) five digits. That's for well-loved, mainstream shows that were hits during their runs, from a time period that still has many folks alive long enough to remember it in the first place.

If these shows were all just "sitting on hard drives" you'd be seeing them, one way or another - but they aren't, because there is no reason to. The studio doesn't need "insurance protection" for a one-season 1960's show that very few people alive have even heard of, much less care about paying for or even watching. We are lucky that they even seem to exist at all, as there was zero future market potential ever seen in many of the obscure titles talked about. Ask the folks who are fans of BBC shows - some of which were taped over because they didn't think anyone in the future would care. This thought that they have these vast digital libraries they are just sitting on is laughable, because they simply were not smart enough to have that foresight.
 

HenryDuBrow

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
1,517
Real Name
Henry.
One thing that people always seem to forget, is the fact that even if some shows were 'obscure' as Blair calls them they usually had well-known actors appearing/starring which is mainly why they're still of interest today. That is why we still like them and watch them, the familiar and known faces that kept turning up in classic shows. Therefore, in my opinion/estimation, it should still make sense for studios to invest in them and make the effort to bring them to the public. I don't think this streaming thing really is the future, to be honest, especially if too costly when not all places are well-equipped to receive good enough quality. It may very well be what keeps the disc alive...
 

BlairWarner

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
7
Real Name
Blair Warner
Please don't take my use of the word obscure as reflecting on their quality or anyone who desires to see them - I like quite a few obscurities myself. That said, there is no need for air-quotes, LOL - when you are talking just about any show that aired 5-8 episodes once 30-50 years ago, never to be shown again, you are definitely in obscure territory.

We are in a market right now where shows that had 15-30 million viewers a week and ran for 5, 7, or even 10 years - as much mainstream as a TV show can get - that struggle to sell, so comparatively, there just isn't a better word.

That said, of course I wish everything would come out, I just understand the realities of why they sometimes don't. While it would be wonderful if all these shows were just "sitting on hard drives" - they aren't. I'm not "in the industry" but I have experitise in a specific show owned by one of the companies being discussed, and I assisted on the extras with a 3rd party who licensed it for release, and I touched the masters with my own hands (my first request was to see them LOL, just for myself).

Perhaps in the future there will be more of a historical/museum/non-profit push to get these things out there and make them available, I think that's a more likely scenario for a lot of these shows than any commercial release.
 

ChrisALM

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
918
Real Name
Chris
BlairWarner said:
Perhaps in the future there will be more of a historical/museum/non-profit push to get these things out there and make them available, I think that's a more likely scenario for a lot of these shows than any commercial release.
And it's surprising to me that there isn't already more of this taking place.
 

BlairWarner

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
7
Real Name
Blair Warner
ChrisALM said:
And it's surprising to me that there isn't already more of this taking place.
Sadly, and I mean - real, heart-wrenchingly sadly - I'm not. :(

I mean, look what happened to the Debbie Reynolds collection. She had the single greatest collection of Hollywood artifacts (I think it degrades it to call it "memorabilia" - "memorabilia" is commercial trinkets) ever assembled, the largest and only collection of it's size and importance in the world. You really cannot overstate the importance of her collection - everything from Chaplin's hat, to the Cleopatra costumes that Burton and Taylor were wearing when they met, to Dorothy's gingham dress, and what is perhaps the most iconic costume every filmed - Marilyn's famous "grate" shot dress. Such a collection will never exist again, and now it's scattered to the wind and in the hands of 1000's of different people who will likely never share or show them again.

Yet, she went hat in hand to every power in Hollywood - even the so-called guardians of film preservation, like Scorsese, Spielberg, and of course Lucas, among many others - not trying to sell it, simply asking for help to fund a museum to put it in so the world could appreciate it. They all met with her, but not a single one of them offered help. If one, or several of them, had assisted, she was ready to just sign the whole thing over if someone was willing to keep it together and display it for the public to be able to appreciate. If you watch/listen to her talk about it, the emotion is so raw - even for someone as practiced as she is at composure. In the end, she made tens of millions selling it, but that was just because there was nothing else to be done with it. If you ask her, and I believe her, she would be spending her final years much happier that her nearly life-long mission was fufilled, instead of just having money in the bank she didn't really need and never will really use (and her children are just fine - Carrie's Star Wars point alone ensures that, and her son is successful as well).

That's getting off of the topic, I know - but it's just another example - if you can't even get folks to save Marilyn Monroe's dress or any of the 1000's of artifacts in the collection, the chances of an organization saving some of these very-short lived shows (and even some of the more well known ones) is tiny, if even the studios would allow them to do so. While a single film now costs 10-30x what it would have cost to preserve that collection for the good of everyone, it still wasn't "worth it" to them.
 

ChrisALM

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
918
Real Name
Chris
Well, I understand what you are saying. I was referring to the actual films, but I am not meaning to lessen the importance of the issues you are addressing.
It just seems odd to me that there is such a lack of concern about the future of these irreplacable films. Restoration and eventual DVD sales, or whatever future income from any restoration, would offset some of the cost of the initial restoration. Even if it only covered a small portion of the cost, the historical value contained in these films would be preserved. It just seems to me that the historical preservation aspect should matter, a lot more than it does.
 

jimmyjet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
3,054
Real Name
jimmy
i wouldnt let it concern you too much

just remember, they still own the film, and there is a reason for that

they value this stuff a lot more than i think some of the htfers think
 

BlairWarner

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
7
Real Name
Blair Warner
ChrisALM said:
Well, I understand what you are saying. I was referring to the actual films, but I am not meaning to lessen the importance of the issues you are addressing.
It just seems odd to me that there is such a lack of concern about the future of these irreplacable films. Restoration and eventual DVD sales, or whatever future income from any restoration, would offset some of the cost of the initial restoration. Even if it only covered a small portion of the cost, the historical value contained in these films would be preserved. It just seems to me that the historical preservation aspect should matter, a lot more than it does.
Oh, I got ya - was just drawing a parallel to how overall the history of film/television seems to have very few champions out there. I mean, Debbie Reynolds got all that stuff from what amounted to studio yard sales to begin with - they simply don't seem to care much about the historical value of anything that cannot be exploited for immediate profit. But even the folks outside of the studios who are supposedly interested in overall historical preservation of Hollywood history seem to be very selective in what they care about.

Studios just don't care about historical value, and just off-setting the costs isn't enough for them - unless they can get immediate profit from it, they aren't interested. While I think that's a shame - it's an overall symptom of them being corporations like any other - where folks come and go so quickly and if they don't prove themselves (immediate $$$) it's going to be even more quickly they will be gone. No one thinks five, ten, or more years down the road, because they likely won't still be there for it to matter to them - if they think more than a year ahead, it's an anomoly.

Sad but true, pretty much everywhere these days. About the only company with a different philosophy is Disney, only because somehow they have remained "independent" (never been bought out by a larger entity) and of course their entire brand is largely about nostalgia.
 

jimmyjet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
3,054
Real Name
jimmy
hi blair,

while i am not as pessimistic on the long-term release of these products as others may be, certainly our american economy, on the whole, has been like that ever since i can recall.

i know when they would compare us to japan, the japanese had plans 100 years out. while we were only interested in what was at arm's reach.

this is another reason why i think we are very lucky to have sam nelson in charge of the ozzie project. his goal is not about making some quick dollars.

it is similar to what would be preferable if the goal was preservation of a product.
 

Richard V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,962
Real Name
Richard
BlairWarner said:
Sadly, and I mean - real, heart-wrenchingly sadly - I'm not. :(

I mean, look what happened to the Debbie Reynolds collection. She had the single greatest collection of Hollywood artifacts (I think it degrades it to call it "memorabilia" - "memorabilia" is commercial trinkets) ever assembled, the largest and only collection of it's size and importance in the world. You really cannot overstate the importance of her collection - everything from Chaplin's hat, to the Cleopatra costumes that Burton and Taylor were wearing when they met, to Dorothy's gingham dress, and what is perhaps the most iconic costume every filmed - Marilyn's famous "grate" shot dress. Such a collection will never exist again, and now it's scattered to the wind and in the hands of 1000's of different people who will likely never share or show them again.

Yet, she went hat in hand to every power in Hollywood - even the so-called guardians of film preservation, like Scorsese, Spielberg, and of course Lucas, among many others - not trying to sell it, simply asking for help to fund a museum to put it in so the world could appreciate it. They all met with her, but not a single one of them offered help. If one, or several of them, had assisted, she was ready to just sign the whole thing over if someone was willing to keep it together and display it for the public to be able to appreciate. If you watch/listen to her talk about it, the emotion is so raw - even for someone as practiced as she is at composure. In the end, she made tens of millions selling it, but that was just because there was nothing else to be done with it. If you ask her, and I believe her, she would be spending her final years much happier that her nearly life-long mission was fufilled, instead of just having money in the bank she didn't really need and never will really use (and her children are just fine - Carrie's Star Wars point alone ensures that, and her son is successful as well).

That's getting off of the topic, I know - but it's just another example - if you can't even get folks to save Marilyn Monroe's dress or any of the 1000's of artifacts in the collection, the chances of an organization saving some of these very-short lived shows (and even some of the more well known ones) is tiny, if even the studios would allow them to do so. While a single film now costs 10-30x what it would have cost to preserve that collection for the good of everyone, it still wasn't "worth it" to them.
Seems to me that if she really wanted simple preservation, she could have gone directly to the Smithsonian. No need to start a new museum. I'm willing to bet that they would have taken her collection with open arms.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,594
Real Name
Jack
But where would the Smithsonian have put it? You seem to forget that they would have to then create space for it or put it all in a storage annex facility for which the taxpayer would be footing the bill. Not exactly a valid option. Also the Smithsonian doesn't pay to buy stuff from private collectors (that too would be a waste of the taxpayers money).
 

Richard V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,962
Real Name
Richard
Jack P said:
But where would the Smithsonian have put it? You seem to forget that they would have to then create space for it or put it all in a storage annex facility for which the taxpayer would be footing the bill. Not exactly a valid option. Also the Smithsonian doesn't pay to buy stuff from private collectors (that too would be a waste of the taxpayers money).
The original post, if I'm not mistaken said that Ms. Reynolds didn't want money, that she would have been fine donating it. As for space, when I visited the Smithsonian, I saw Archie Bunker's chair and "the Fonz's" leather jacket on display (which I consider to be rather minor Pop Culture artifacts), then I"M SURE, they could find space for such important relics as Dorthy's dress, Chaplin's hat, and MM's dress, which I think everyone here would consider more iconic that the aforementioned articles. BTW, have you visited the Smithsonian? It is a massive complex of multiple buildings, I don't think space is a real issue. If you have then I don't know how you can make the argument about finding space. Just my .02 cents.
 

LeoA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
3,552
Location
North Country
Real Name
Leo
As far as I know, what they have on display is just a mere fraction of their collection.

And sadly, they do end up having to give up on dreams due to the lack of both time and money as railfans can attest to. They've owned both a GG1 off the Pennsylvania Railroad and a Alco PA1 from the Santa Fe, among other notables, only to eliminate them before ever restoring and displaying them.

And that's an industry that probably has played a greater role than any other in the development of this country and is one that is the healthiest it has ever been that's poised to play a valuable role in the future.

Yet it's terribly underrepresented in Washington. So I hardly think it's a sure thing that they could've done this collection any justice. I bet most of it would never be seen and a good portion would be sold or given away.

I doubt it would be kept intact like she wanted.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,594
Real Name
Jack
Yes, I have visited the Smithsonian *many* times since the 1980s. And I do know for a fact that they are limited on space and have frequently rotated things in and out. The Museum Of American History in fact removed what for me was once of their signature displays the Foucault Pendulum which I remember how the tourists would love to watch. They also closed the Arts and Industries Museum which housed all the exhibits of the 1876 Centennial Exposition and have no plans to ever open it again and just speaking for myself that is a much more significant historical legacy that has in effect become "lost" to the public. You would have to find another separate facility just like they had to build a new one at Dulles Airport to house their larger aircraft collection like the Concorde etc. and that would have to be paid for by the taxpayers and much as I find the Reynolds collection significant, that is not something we should be footing the bill for.

There were some private investors who were willing to help her out, but the problem was that Reynolds ended up failing to repay loans on more than one occasion and there were protracted legal struggles dealing with that.
 

Neil Brock

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
4,325
I'm constantly amazed at the level of naivete that I read on this forums, even discounting e.e.'s posts. Major studios are in business to make money. They don't have sentiment or historical perspective, just the bottom line. That's why 90% or more of all silent films are lost. They did not appear to have any future financial value. No financial value, no incentive to keep them. The only studio whose silent history is fairly well preserved is Columbia's and the rumor is that its only because Harry Cohn was too cheap to pay people to get rid of them. None of these entities care one iota about the historic value, or any other kind of value other than monetary value. That's why Jack Webb dumped all of his elements on Noah's Ark, Pete Kelly's Blues and the black and white Dragnets. Its why Jack Chertok chucked out his elements on My Living Doll. Its why hundreds of thousands of hours of game shows, talk shows and sporting events were taped over or thrown away. The people who own these properties DON'T CARE. I can't stress that strongly enough. They have no vested interest. If it involves family, such as Sam Nelson with his grandparents show or the Thomas siblings with their dad's, that's a different story. But no one at Universal or Sony or any of the majors has the slightest interest in obscure shows from decades ago that no one working there has ever seen or heard of. These companies are in the business of making millions and they are not about to waste valuable worker time dealing with shows that will earn pennies. Oh, and as for archives, I hope no one here values the Paley Center (or whatever their name is this week) very highly as they have material that's been sitting in their storage for decades on film or tape that they still have never transferred to a viewable medium. Not to mention donations they've been given which they can't even locate. Other than UCLA, and maybe Wisconsin or Library of Congress, any other entity is like a black hole when it comes to receiving television donated properties.
 

Neil Brock

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
4,325
Jack P said:
Yes, I have visited the Smithsonian *many* times since the 1980s. And I do know for a fact that they are limited on space and have frequently rotated things in and out. The Museum Of American History in fact removed what for me was once of their signature displays the Foucault Pendulum which I remember how the tourists would love to watch. They also closed the Arts and Industries Museum which housed all the exhibits of the 1876 Centennial Exposition and have no plans to ever open it again and just speaking for myself that is a much more significant historical legacy that has in effect become "lost" to the public. You would have to find another separate facility just like they had to build a new one at Dulles Airport to house their larger aircraft collection like the Concorde etc. and that would have to be paid for by the taxpayers and much as I find the Reynolds collection significant, that is not something we should be footing the bill for.

There were some private investors who were willing to help her out, but the problem was that Reynolds ended up failing to repay loans on more than one occasion and there were protracted legal struggles dealing with that.
I was actually just there 2 weeks ago and was surprised at what wasn't on display. No museum has room for the amount of material they are donated.

As for the Debbie Reynolds collection, I'm really surprised that no one would take it on just from a financial perspective. As much of a tourist town as Hollywood is, I would think that a museum with her artifacts would have been a guaranteed money maker. I mean, the Paley Center is right in the heart of Beverly Hills, just off Rodeo Drive. It must be costing them a fortune in rent and there's never even anyone in the place. How they get funding for that joke of an entity is beyond me but if they can get it, Debbie must not have been talking to the right people.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Debbie also tried but failed to convince M-G-M to turn their studio into a Universal-style theme park to spare the backlot. Some people don't see the value of things until they're gone.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,594
Real Name
Jack
Greg Orman, the guy who lost the US Senate election in Kansas this past year, once loaned Reynolds over $1 million for her museum because he saw supporting it as a good financial investment. When that wasn't repaid because the museum Reynolds was first housing it in wasn't making money, there was a lengthy legal battle in court lasting several years that ended in a settlement, in which sale of part of the collection was necessary to just clear out that debt.

One facility I would add to the list of those who have done an outstanding job of preserving TV history AND making it available is Vanderbilt Television News Archives, which on their own began recording evening newscasts in August 1968 along with live coverage of major stories like Conventions and Election Nights. In the process they preserved a lot of news broadcasts that the networks weren't saving in the 1968-72 bracket (albeit in a B/W videotape format rather than color). Vanderbilt makes this material available to researchers in a way that is not cheap but not out of the realm of impossibility.
 

Professor Echo

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
2,003
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Glen
Hollywood history museums have not fared well in Los Angeles nor do museums in general prosper in that city. I've lived there since the 80's and my gf has worked extensively in the museum business. The problem is that LA is a perpetually youthful city doting on 20-somethings and those who wish they were 20-somethings. This is not conducive for museum attendance. LA is not a place that reveres history. I believe Paley donated the land in Beverly Hills for his namesake "Center" and his estate funds it along with other well heeled industry types, but it is not successful and its's anyone's guess how long they can operate at a loss.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,821
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top