Mary Tyler Moore S2 Likely In 2005 (1 Viewer)

[Carlos Garcia]

Season 2 was already remastered, so we can expect the quality to look as great as the season 1 episodes looked. However, since Fox took a bath on the season 1 sets, and since season 2 had already been remastered (when they actually thought season 1 would be a hit), chances are good that if they release the rest of the series, none of those episodes will be remastered. This means we can probably expect inferior quality for seasons 3-7. Just my opinion, but I think that's how Fox will be releasing the rest of the series. It's sad, because season 1 (and I'm sure season 2) looked so great! It would've been great to see the rest of the series look just as good. Oh well, beggers can't be choosers.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Carlos, you're confusing remastering with restoration. Any analog-source material has to be remastered for a digital format like DVD.

What you're talking about is restoring the material--usually digitally when we're talking about DVDs, not the kind of film restoration that Bob Harris does--to make it look better. And on that subject, I don't think it should be a major concern. Those costs are built into just about any DVD release, at least from Fox, and aren't a huge chunk of change in the scheme of things.

When I talked to Fox's Peter Staddon last year about clearing music rights, he described the first basic step in releasing a TV show on DVD this way: "You'd have to do some restoration work on the films and prints, and that's pretty much par for the course."

Then he went on to talk about the "real costs" of releasing a DVD, such as clearing music rights.

Things can always change, and I know you're just stating an opinion. But it seems odd to complain about DVDs--"It would've been great to see the rest of the series look just as good"--that don't even exist yet.

 

[JoshuaB.]

If MTM's picture quality for a possible S2 (and beyond)is as good as the M*A*S*H DVD sets, I'll be happy. MTM S1 was an excellent release despite the high price, so if and when S2 is released as a split, I'll pick it up with no hesitation. Even if a season is split in two, you're still getting the full season, so it's definitely better than not getting a release at all.

I'm not surprised that M*A*S*H sells well on DVD: it's inexpensive because there are no extras (other than the godsend of removing the laugh track) and the show is intentionally dated (the Korean War), so green khakis are less distracting than 70s fashions.

Fox has done a great job with the rest of their TV DVD sets, so I'm confident that we'll see Mary back in some form!

 

[Chris:L]

Would it be wise to split up a season with shows that don't sell as quickly as others? I know that was a rhetorical question. What I meant was why don't they do this with The Jeffersons and All in the Family (shudder)?

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

I'm thinking way too far ahead, but if this works, maybe they could try the technique with WKRP in Cincinnati -- that is, create a season 1 release, sell it for the high price that the music licensing would require, but split the season up into two sets so the price wouldn't seem quite as high? I know, I know. Ultra-wishful thinking.

Edit: I'm aware that the main issue is the cost of clearing the music, but that's connected to the question of how much money they expect to make from a season release, which is related to sales and pricing. (E.g. the SCTV sets are high-priced because of the music costs, which are similar to WKRP's.) But like I said, it's wishful thinking and thinking way too far ahead.


I don't think we'll have anything to worry about in terms of picture quality -- as Randy Salas says, "remastering" is pretty much a given.

One thing that's sort of a DVD revelation is how good a lot of '70s sitcoms look, at least the ones shot on film: MTM, and also the Paramount stuff like Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley and (though it's not '70s) Cheers. In syndication a lot of these shows looked and sounded terrible, because of the crappy prints that were used, but on DVD they really look and sound good. The videotaped shows from the same era, like the Norman Lear shows, look more "timeless" -- because video techniques date less than film techniques -- but nowhere near as good. No wonder sitcoms aren't shot on videotape any more.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

The question with WKRP is would Fox want to pay out the music rights fees necessary to release the show on DVD. All the other things like pricing of the set, and what format to put it in are secondary to the question of how much does fox want to spend clearing music?

So, say they want to sell each part of a split set at $340, the question is will they want to pay X number of dollars out to music rights holders just to get in to that posible scenario?

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Is this true? I hadn't gotten around to buying M*A*S*H yet, but if the DVD sets have removed the original laugh track, there's no way I'll be buying them! Why do they have to tamper with these shows? Why can't they be shown the way they were originally aired?

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

The M*A*S*H DVDs contain both the soundtrack with the laugh track and without the laugh track; you can choose either version. Both, BTW, are authentic in the sense that they were prepared at the same time and M*A*S*H, I think, aired in England without the laugh track. And Larry Gelbart has said that he preferred it without the laugh track, but CBS of course insisted. Which of course gets us into a weird area -- which is the more authentic version, the way it originally was presented to the American public, or the way the showrunner would have preferred it to air? Hard to say. But the charge of "tampering" doesn't apply here, especially since you can hear the laugh track if you want.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Jaime, thanks for clearing that up!

 

[Mike K]

Hi Randy,

This is interesting , because on the Region 1 LIS Season 2 set is says "Digitally Remastered" whereas it is not stated on the Region 2 full season set. By your definition , this is sort of a marketing ploy by Fox-US since "DVD" and "Remastered" mean the same thing basically when it comes to analog source materials... ?

I understand that Fox put Season 2 LIS through a "Digital Cleaning" process :

From : Synthesis
Sent : Tuesday, April 6, 2004 11:50 AM
To : "Jupiter-2 Jup2.com"
Subject : Re: Remastering Season 2 for DVD ?

Fox Home Entertainment is using the 1988 1" video masters for Season Two.
This is the same source as the Columbia House VHS tapes and the Japanese laser discs, etc. Fox assures me, however, that these analog masters have been put through an additional digital cleaning and color correction step, so they should look better than ever (although not as "crisp" as digital
transfers would).

Extras are sparce, but should be better than Season One.
We're working on it.

KB


But would not say they were digitally "remastered". Is this all just a play on words? Is the definition of "Digitally Remastered" so broad that it can mean just about anything and/or everything?

Most confusing!

Thanks,

Mike

P.S. It sure sounds like LIS Season 3 will be a Two Volume Release ...

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

On M*A*S*H for a second, I'm glad they at least had the decency not to have the laugh track present when they were working in O.R. That's why BTW, the season 3 episoded titled O.R defaults to no laugh track, because it did not originally air with one. I side with the creator on this one and am glad I can turn it off.

 

[GlennH]

M*A*S*H is so much better without a laugh track that it isn't even a contest. I don't care how it was originally broadcast, the humor of the show stands on its own without the annoying canned laughter telling us when to laugh.

Just watch a few episodes without the laugh track. It's a breath of fresh air.

IMO, of course.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Mike, LIS S2 was "digitally remastered" in any region. That phrase has been being used ever since the early days of CD. It states the obvious and, as I noted earlier, doesn't really mean what people think it does--that it has cleaned up or improved the quality of the original source material.

 

[Mike K]

Thanks for the confirmation Randy.

Tell me this then , if you will ; What SHOULD it say when a tv series HAS BEEN remastered from the original analog MASTERS and cleaned up , improved and becomes what everyone THINKS it is when something is labelled "digitally remastered" ?

Which it apparantly isn't.

Does that question make sense to you? I hope you get what I am trying to ask. :b

Sounds like it should read "digitally transfered" or somethnig like that ... "Remastered" just sounds like they are trying to deceive or pull the wool over the "less-knowing of the process" people - like myself.

Thanks!

Mike

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Mike K, I know what you're getting at. LIS is remastered, because they transferred the analogue 1 inch video master to DVD. I suppose that's what they mean by remastered. It is NOT, however, digitally restored. This is why when you look at the original Star Trek (which IS restored), the picture looks very sharp, the colors look very bright and the show looks like it could've been shot only a few yrs ago. When you look at Lost In Space, the picture looks slightly blurry, you see video scanning lines, and the colors look orangy at times, and they also tend to bleed. Definitely NOT restored by any means.

 

[Bob_S.]

I'm proud to say I was #15,856 of the 85,000. I was just watching season 1 the other night wishing that season 2 would come out someday soon. This is GREAT news!! I can't wait!

 

[Chris:L]

why do they not restore television shows? Like Lost In Space and the third season of All in the Family?

And I'm sure certain other shows have been served the same type of injustice.

These production companies hoodwink alot.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Chris, it's all about money and the perception of potential sales. Star Trek has a massive following, so Paramount knew the show would be a huge seller whether they restored the picture quality or not. So they decided to spend the money restoring it, and add on the cost to the consumer (knowing very well the fans would pay whatever the cost to have them done right). Shows like Lost In Space, while as good as Star Trek in the eyes of many fans, just don't have the fan base that Star Trek does. This is why Fox is reluctant to spend the money to restore the picture quality of the show. I for one feel this is a shame, because Lost In Space, like Batman, came along at a time when color shows were being introduced to television, and these shows were done to showcase the look of color. This is why most shows from the mid-60s have very bright colors. It would be nice to someday see these shows looking the way they were intended to be seen.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

In adition to what Carlos said, its not like there is a never ending number of facilities around that can clean up and restore all of these things. This is not just true of TV shows, but it works for movies as well, the big ticket movies, IE those expected to sell well are more likely to undergo restoration than those not likely to sell as well, plus it also has to do in part to the age. Some films especially need to under go the restoration process before they hit DVD just b/c of the poor condition they're in.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Carlos,

There are so many flaws left in the Star Trek episodes, the BBC considers them unfit for broadcast.

Chris:L,

I don't remember any of the AITF seasons looking that great on DVD, but consider the fact that this show was shot on video, not on film. I don't think there are as many options for restoring video, and even if they did the results would not be that great since early 70s live video looked like crud to begin with. What we get on DVD is probably not that much worse than what the original broadcasts looked like.