More Sgt. Bilko? (1 Viewer)

[RoyM]

Is this another show that Paramount has abandoned after one season? I really want to get the remaining three seasons, and at that short of a run (only three more releases), you would think Paramount would be more inclined to finish it.

It is one of the few genuine TV "classic" sitcoms that has had a release but not yet been completed, so one would hope it is on a short list for further consideration. But after Paramount has apparently abandoned The Beverly Hillbillies and My Three Sons (two other classics that one would think would be in demand), I'm not as confident we'll see the remaining seasons. The one hope is that Bilko had a more manageable (ie - shorter) run then the other two shows.

 

[Gene M]

I'm holding back on buying TV shows on DVD That just came out, I wanted to buy Sgt. Bilko S1, Family Matters, and others but I waited to see how well will it sell and will they release more, So far no following seasons came out! I don't want to be stuck with S1 or S2 after I find out it looks like we wont see the rest coming out! I have few incomplete sets due to the studios have not released the remaining sets! It would be nice if the Studios released The Complete set of 4 seasons or less!

 

[BobO'Link]

Originally Posted by RoyM
Is this another show that Paramount has abandoned after one season? I really want to get the remaining three seasons, and at that short of a run (only three more releases), you would think Paramount would be more inclined to finish it.

It is one of the few genuine TV "classic" sitcoms that has had a release but not yet been completed, so one would hope it is on a short list for further consideration. But after Paramount has apparently abandoned The Beverly Hillbillies and My Three Sons (two other classics that one would think would be in demand), I'm not as confident we'll see the remaining seasons. The one hope is that Bilko had a more manageable (ie - shorter) run then the other two shows.

It's not been *that* long since S1 of Bilko was released - July 2010. I think it's too early to call it "abandoned".

From what I've read, "The Beverly Hillbillies" S2 & S3 did not sell very well. That's a shame as I, for one, would purchase more if they were to continue. It seems that it's possibly a lack of an "official" release of S1 that's kept people away.

As far as "My Three Sons" it's a matter of the seasons being "butchered" by massive music replacement as well as being offered in split seasons. The vast majority of reviews I read indicate that being a major factor in its lack of sales. If it had the original score it would be in more demand. I'm in that camp as I have S1/V1 and would purchase more had the music been left alone.

It's always suprising when hightly popular shows that ran for 5-10 seasons have very low DVD sales, especially when "done right". "Green Acres" is a good example... stalled for low sales when it's possibly one of the more requested shows to get additional releases.

 

[ToddR2]

Gene, as has been mentioned on this forum many times, the approach that you (and some others) take to DVD purchases is what hinders and not helps releases of marginal sellers. It guarantees that you will see at least a few shows that you want go unfinished on DVD. Take Bilko, for example: why would you think, after less than stellar sales of the 50th Anniversary Collection, in a bad economy, that CBS/Paramount would EVER remaster and release a complete series set? This sort of thinking boggles my mind. Shows like this simply aren't going to sell as well as more simple-minded fare from the 50's-70's, as we all know. CBS/Paramount rarely license out shows (though I hope that changes), so it's not as though independents are an option. If you like a show, buy the season sets. At least you'll help to give it a chance to finish, unlike what you're doing now.

 

[Neil Brock]

My sources indicate we should hear some good news on this front some time soon.

 

[Gene M]

Could it be the reason The Studios are dropping the rest of season sets due to poor DVD sales??
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/business/la-fi-ct-sony2-2010feb02

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Originally Posted by Gene M
Could it be the reason The Studios are dropping the rest of season sets due to poor DVD sales??
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/business/la-fi-ct-sony2-2010feb02

First off, that article is over a year old.

Second, in the time since that article appeared in Feb. 2010, Sony and others have began licensing out their titles to other companies. So, what Sony finds unprofitable is often profitable enough for Shout or Timeless to complete.

The sales aren't necessarily poor... the costs are just too high for the major studios to do lower selling material in house.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I've never understood why it would be profitable for Shout, but not profitable for the company that owns the rights in the first place. After all, wouldn't Shout have all the same costs to manufacture the product plus the licensing fees? It seems it would be more expensive for Shout, not less. But that's ok. I really don't understand much of anything about this world.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I've never understood why it would be profitable for Shout, but not profitable for the company that owns the rights in the first place. After all, wouldn't Shout have all the same costs to manufacture the product plus the licensing fees? It seems it would be more expensive for Shout, not less. But that's ok. I really don't understand much of anything about this world.

IIRC from other threads here and at Shout's boards about the subject, a company like Sony has a lot more in the way of overhead costs and people to pay to work on these sets. So, a typical set would cost Sony some absurd amount to produce, where it would only cost Shout a tenth of that absurd amount to produce the set. So, even after licensing costs, Shout can make money off of the sales that Sony couldn't.

 

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I've never understood why it would be profitable for Shout, but not profitable for the company that owns the rights in the first place. After all, wouldn't Shout have all the same costs to manufacture the product plus the licensing fees? It seems it would be more expensive for Shout, not less. But that's ok. I really don't understand much of anything about this world.

My guess would be that it isn't that a big studio couldn't make a profit since as you say they don't have the additional licensing fees, but that it's just not enough to make it worth their while (time and energy) to concern themself with (i.e., they have bigger fish to go after with larger profits). I work in IT consulting where their are companies as small as an individual and as large as 100,000+ employees. Large companies generally have higher overhead and it just isn't even worth consideration if the profits don't meet a certain minimum threshold. Shout being a much smaller company can deal in much smaller profit margins. That's my take at least.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Originally Posted by The Obsolete Man
IIRC from other threads here and at Shout's boards about the subject, a company like Sony has a lot more in the way of overhead costs and people to pay to work on these sets. So, a typical set would cost Sony some absurd amount to produce, where it would only cost Shout a tenth of that absurd amount to produce the set. So, even after licensing costs, Shout can make money off of the sales that Sony couldn't.

Then what the economics text books tell us about economies of scale must not apply to DVDs.

I have a better guess, and I'm probably wrong, but I would say a marginally profitable DVD release isn't "worth it" to a big company, because they could employ their resources for something that would bring a bigger profit, whereas that same marginally profitable release is worth it to a small company like Shout.

[And after typing this, I went back and read that Brad Smith said the same thing ]

Whatever the reality is, I'm glad we have companies like Shout and that the big companies are willing to license movies and TV series to them.

 

[Neil Brock]

Here's another difference. A company like Universal or Warner, when they release a show, usually they go back to the 35mm negs and remaster the show, using the most expensive lab in L.A. Timeless frequently uses 16mm prints and their lab, which does just as good work, charges about a quarter of the price. So, right there, you can see a huge difference in profit margin.

 

[DeWilson]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock
Here's another difference. A company like Universal or Warner, when they release a show, usually they go back to the 35mm negs and remaster the show, using the most expensive lab in L.A. Timeless frequently uses 16mm prints and their lab, which does just as good work, charges about a quarter of the price. So, right there, you can see a huge difference in profit margin.

I have always said a clean 16mm transfer is just as acceptable as a 35mm top transfer.

That lab in LA must to great work if they are the most expensive!

 

[LeoA]

It's not mentioned, but another factor is the required rate of return for an investment. A larger company with more options for a given amount of money is generally going to require a larger rate of return for a given investment than a smaller company with a more limited scope of business.

Companies don't just decide on which project to do based on if it's profitable or not, they just don't have the capital to do every last project that is forecast to turn a profit. So they're after the most profitable projects possible. So to a large corporation, something like season 2 of this program might very well be projected to make less money for their investment than another project and won't happen (Although there are promising rumors for this show).

And to a smaller company like Shout that selects among shows larger companies decided not to release or to continue with, something like this show just might be at the top of their list of potential projects when it comes to profitability even though they're having to pay to license it.

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I've never understood why it would be profitable for Shout, but not profitable for the company that owns the rights in the first place. After all, wouldn't Shout have all the same costs to manufacture the product plus the licensing fees? It seems it would be more expensive for Shout, not less. But that's ok. I really don't understand much of anything about this world.

 

[Corey3rd]

if a studio has any desire to exploit the property in the 21st Century, they need to transfer the 35mm film to HD master for the ability to broadcast it. These transfers aren't just being done for the sake of the DVD.

 

[Neil Brock]

Originally Posted by Corey3rd
if a studio has any desire to exploit the property in the 21st Century, they need to transfer the 35mm film to HD master for the ability to broadcast it. These transfers aren't just being done for the sake of the DVD.

And how many places do you see broadcasting shows that are 40, 50 years old? The window has closed on a great many shows.

 

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Gene M
I'm holding back on buying TV shows on DVD That just came out, I wanted to buy Sgt. Bilko S1, Family Matters, and others but I waited to see how well will it sell and will they release more, So far no following seasons came out! I don't want to be stuck with S1 or S2 after I find out it looks like we wont see the rest coming out! I have few incomplete sets due to the studios have not released the remaining sets! It would be nice if the Studios released The Complete set of 4 seasons or less!

"...I don't want to be stuck with S1 or S2 after I find out it looks like we wont see the rest coming out!..."

Interesting that some feel an all or nothing approach. Personally, I rather be able to enjoy some then none. And in some cases I might even prefer some to all (only so much $'s in the budget to go around). For Gene. or anyone else of the "all or none" philosophy, what exactly is so bad about having only one or a few seasons of a show when the alternate could have been none? Especially, when this buying approach may jeopardize having a series finished.

 

[Corey3rd]

right now you have RTV, Antenna and THiS running old shows. Along with ME stuff up in Chicago.

If studios have given up on a show, they should just let if fall into the public domain.

Originally Posted by Neil Brock
And how many places do you see broadcasting shows that are 40, 50 years old? The window has closed on a great many shows.

 

[BobO'Link]

Originally Posted by smithb

"...I don't want to be stuck with S1 or S2 after I find out it looks like we wont see the rest coming out!..."

Interesting that some feel an all or nothing approach. Personally, I rather be able to enjoy some then none. And in some cases I might even prefer some to all (only so much $'s in the budget to go around). For Gene. or anyone else of the "all or none" philosophy, what exactly is so bad about having only one or a few seasons of a show when the alternate could have been none? Especially, when this buying approach may jeopardize having a series finished.

I"ll echo your sentiment, smithb. While it's annoying to "be stuck with S1 or S2" I buy what I *enjoy*. If I only get a season or two out of 10, well... so be it. I may not like it but at least I can watch *some* of it when I want with no "commercial" interruptions. If I purchased with only complete seasons in mind I'd not own any of "The Bob Newhart Show", "Newhart", "Green Acres", "The Beverly Hillbillies", "Petticoat Junction", "My Hero", "Man About the House", etc., etc... Heck, I even purchased S1 of "WKRP" even though it has massive music replacement. It's *still* funny in spite of that and I just ignore it (although it *would* be better "complete"). Like you, I have a few where a season or three or five is all I really want/need in spite of the entire series being available. My main complaint is sometimes paying a *huge* premium for some complete series by purchasing this way, expecially with British TV shows.

I'd *love* to see more Bilko, but if it's not in the cards I'll be happy to at least have the one season.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock
My sources indicate we should hear some good news on this front some time soon.

I was looking at the recently found link for the CBS Syndication Bible referred to in another thread. First, I couldn't tell anything about DVD release plans from it. Second, I did notice that it provides regarding this show, "Four episodes are not available for distribution: 68, 89, 117, 119." Do you think that this would be an obstacle for a DVD release? Thanks