Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV on DVD and Blu-ray' started by Gary OS, Feb 19, 2008.
The BH was actually very intelligently written and sublimely acted. That's why it remains a classic.
The cast (including the lesser players) was quite accomplished.
But even though we are rushing to the aid of a classic TV show, we digress...
I've been asked to no longer post my reviews on HFT.
Paul, nice review.
As one who watched the show originally all those years ago, this is one show that I can honestly say I don't really recall the music cues for. And your review actually makes me want to view them all over again - even WITH the music substitutions - an idea I hate.
It's another great review, Paul. Thanks for taking time to write it. And to be honest I'm really conflicted. I can completely understand where you are coming from. I really can. There's certainly merit to your point of view. For me it really came down to standing on principle (I just think it's very, very wrong to remove an entire underscore) and the fact that I personally thought the new music wasn't in keeping with the show and was a distraction. But I realize that's a very individualistic assessment, and I can certainly see your point of view.
Gary "still can't support the release though, but that's only my opinion" O.
I really appreciated your review. You state right up front that the music was changed; and you don't back away from the fact later in the review. Instead you provide a reasoned viewpoint as to why the set still deserves to be purchased in spite of the altered music. And I also enjoyed the insight you provided regarding the production of the show. I always wondered how MacMurray managed to juggle a TV series with his movie schedule.
Of course, due to "The Fugitive" I can't even begin to consider purchasing this set. (And Fred MacMurray was one of my favorite actors; so this would otherwise be a "no brainer" purchase.) After CPS/Paramount cut the very soul out of "The Fugitive" (and waited until the second season vol 1 release to do it) I will not under any circumstance purchase a TV series set from them with a substantial amount of the underscores totally replaced.
But thanks for the review: I really did enjoy reading it.
Nice job, Paul.
Very informative and descriptive. Just what a review should be. Your knowledge on the subject shone through.
I get tired of reviews for edited and altered TV shows on DVD trying to rationalize that the alterations are not really that bad because hey when originally broadcast we were watching on small crappy CRT TVs with poor reception and 2" tinny speakers so what difference does it make if the music is changed, its much better than it originally sounded. I do not think so. And commercials were only 4 minutes of every half hour. Back in 1960 TV's were nearing the pinnacle of picture quality and sound was as good as it would ever be. Do a little research. 1950-1959
CRT picture tubes are far superior to LCD or plasma in every aspect.In 1960 you could get TV's that came standard with two 21"x 9" woofers and electrostatic tweeters and stereo phono outs to hook up to your home stereo. http://www.tvhistory.tv/1960-GE-Ad.JPG
Think your 3 or 4 thousand dollar Home Theater amp sounds better than a early sixties TV? Think again. TV fidelity has been going downhill ever since solid state came in in the later 60's. I am not against solid state But When op amps and IC's completely replaced FET's that was the end of fidelity.
Well, Jim B., if the only thing that ticked you off was the mention of my old TV in my review, I'll take that as a compliment!
The only thing is, I wasn't watching TV in 1960, according to your reference date. I wasn't born until 1965, so the TV set I'm referring to was from around 1972 or so, and I can assure you, Jim - it was indeed cheap and crappy (owing to our being...poor). Other people may have been able to afford the kind of TV set you refer to, back before my time, but not us. And trust me: everything looks and sounds better on my widescreen today, regardless of what you may believe -- if you grew up on my little portable, you'd agree, too!
And I don't think my 3 or 4 thousand dollar Home Theater amp sounds better than an early sixties TV...because I don't have that expensive of an amp today. Again, the whole "poor" thing.
You sound like an expert on this kind of thing, though, Jim B. (as well as rather upset by the whole thing), so I'll take your word for it.
Do not take my comments too personally Paul. Even if you were familiar with the original scores you may not hear the depth and complexity and beauty, many people do not. But you do recognize it in all the other aspects of the show and you will really like volume 2 of this season, the shows just keep getting better, but the music also gets even better so we have been ripped off by Paramount again. There is NO excuse for Paramount not to warn people who would buy this set. They are low life theives and you should realize that.
P.S. I referenced 1960 because that is the year these shows were created and broadcast.
Not to scare you or anything Paul, but we are the same age.
Gary "I grew up watching smaller portable TVs too" O.
It may be that *some* television equipment in 1960 might have been OK, but having lived through it (I'm from 1951, folks!), I can certainly testify that *most* televisions were far removed from what we have today.
Those ancient CRT sets with their rounded corners, clunky tuners, and tubes that blew at the most inopportune times, were hardly the match of today's sophistocated display devices.
First, you were lucky if you lived near enough to a station's broadcast tower to receive a relatively clean signal. That meant dealing with antennas and getting them oriented correctly.
Next, getting the signal properly tuned in was a challenge at best. Pictures rolled horizontally and vertically if everything wasn't just so. Many TV's would start their rolling images when they got hot - some rolled *until* they warmed up.
Then there is the sound. Most TV's of the day had crappy speakers, to put it bluntly. An oval 4x6 speaker in a portable black & white set is hardly hi-fi. Those wealthy enough to have a console TV got better speaker systems - BUT, network sound was delivered to affiliates over telephone lines, eliminating most high and low frequencies, and delivering mid-range mush to whatever televisions were receiving them. So even if you had GREAT sound capabilities, the sound that was delivered to it was largely low fidelity. Unless you happened to live in New York or Los Angeles, the source of network broadcasts, the sound you got was really awful.
So I refuse to accept the *greatness* argument about yesterday's television equipment. Today's equipment is far better, delivering much better pictures and sound to the home audience.
I would always tolerate most deviations from the original material that were necessary to see them on TV or video.
The big problem to get around is the level of changes for both The Fugitive and My Three Sons. Altering all the background music is pretty much altering part of the fabric of the show itself.
I do not know either shows well enough to know the difference but it would still bother me.
Television audio and image quality were mediocre at best in the 60s for most of us, with the possible exception of network control rooms.
Six to eight inch speakers were the norm, high overscan had to be part of television design to compensate for the image shrinking as the set aged, resolution was mediocre at best, and network audio didn't extend much beyond 3 khz. In the United States, network audio didn't begin to enter the high fidelity era until the late 70s, and image quality didn't take a quantum leap forward until the home video era was ushered in around the same time, which eventually brought us much improved monitors with comb filters and video/audio input and output connectors.
I love television programming from the 60s...I grew up during that era...but I don't have warm memories of the equipment being sold for viewing at the time. It had a long way to go.