Ron Ely's Tarzan? (1 Viewer)

[Eric Paddon]

I also have to put myself in the camp of those who give Fox in general a big thumbs down, and it isn't just their slowness on vintage TV releases that I've got a problem with, it's also their botching of several movie titles on DVD big time (like releasing the cut version of "One Million Years BC" rather than the longer LD version). Their handling of the MTM Show situation was a giant disgrace.

 

[Bert Greene]

I didn't know that Fox now owns "Life of Riley." Hate hearing that, as it would probably decrease its dvd potential from infintesimal to impossible. It seems we have better luck when such properties are owned by smaller outfits than with these monster-size corporations. I guess I really should give up all hope of seeing certain shows again in my lifetime.

 

[Gord Lacey]

You're right. That's because those companies don't own anything else to make money off, so they release what they can license.

Charles, I understand what you're saying, but I don't see that Fox owns many POPULAR older shows, at least none that Mark listed. The majority of Fox's titles are newer, so that's what they concentrate on releasing. If the majority of their popular shows are newer then it's no surprise that's what they focus on. Then there's a company like Sony (formerly Columbia TriStar) which has released mostly pre-2000 shows because that's what the majority of their catalog is made of. If you can't list any popular old shows, then I still fail to understand how you can call for the firing of an executive. I think it would be better if you posted something like, "It's a shame Fox didn't own any popular older shows." It's much harder to predict sales of older shows than newer ones. Let's see how many of those older shows that have 1 season behind them are continued before you praise the companies that release them. Yes, it's taken a long time for MTM season 2 to come (and it's still not announced), but Fox put themselves out there before most studios were releasing older catalog titles.

Gord

 

[Gary OS]

Gord,

I understand much of what you are saying. I know FOX is in the business of making money first, and pleasing fans of some older shows isn't a priority if they think it isn't profitable for them. And for this very reason I'm of the same mind as Bert - my hopes have gone from "infinitesimal to impossible."

Having stated that, I would like to clarify one comment you made. You state that these shows are not "popular" based almost exclusively on the stats from your site. I believe the more precise comment from you should have been that those shows are not popular with the younger fan base that FOX is concentrating on. You can say your site (which is excellent and I visit almost daily) has a balanced age representation, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of voters on your site are not teens and twenty-somethings. If you can honestly tell me that there are an equal amount of people in their fifties and forties (or even thirties) as there are younger fans, then sobeit. But I really doubt that's the case. And yes, I know that younger age group buys more dvds. But my point is that it isn't fair to say those shows aren't popular just because you haven't heard of them or even because they aren't cracking your site's top 500.

I could be crass and start naming many "newer" shows that are absolute crap (excuse the word, but it fits) and yet get more votes on your site. Doesn't mean a thing to me, other than to demonstrate how much lower the standards of the average tv viewer is today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. But if I go any further on that point it will do nothing but start a flame war based on personal preferences, and I don't want to do that. The only thing that really irritates many of us "older show" fans is that we haven't been able to watch our favorites for years, but these new shows can be seen over and over again on tv yet they are released on dvd. It's really disheartening.

FOX had a poll a year or so ago and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" came in second. Yet many other lower ranked shows from that poll either have been released or are ready to be released. Why place shows on the poll if you really aren't going to take it seriously? You can say they did take it seriously, but if that's the case then why haven't we heard even a hint about "Voyage" or "Time Tunnel" (which also did well, I believe)?

Gary "I do agree with you that FOX doesn't have a lot of older shows in their possession, but they do have a few that would be considered classics and they don't seem to be giving them as much thought as other studios might" O.

 

[Gord Lacey]

Yes, a poll which allowed people to vote more than once, and which produced invalid data. Fox has all but admitted that the poll was poorly planned, and the publicity department didn't even know it was going on. I believe it was something the web people posted without much involvement from anyone else. I laughed when I saw it, since I knew whatever data they were hoping to obtain would be rendered useless by people voting more than once.

As I mentioned before both "Time Tunnel" and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" are in the works at Fox.

Since you asked about the stats on the site, here they are:
Female - 47.62%
Male - 52.38%

Ages:
10-18 - 10.99%
19-24 - 29.38%
25-34 - 28.27%
35-44 - 17.77%
45-54 - 10.22%
55-64 - 2.74 %
65+ - 0.63%

I think it's pretty evenly split between the under 30's and the over 30's if you take half of the 25-34 and apply them to both sides of the pie.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this conversation. The "why doesn't _____ studio release more classics" pops up every few months and the same people present the same reasons as to why things aren't being released, or why they should be released. The fact remains that the studios can make more money off the cancelled crap of a year ago than they'd make releasing quality classics (with some exceptions), so that's what they'll continue to do. It's costlier to release older material that has to be restored, and they'll sell fewer sets.

Gord

 

[Gary OS]

Gord,

I don't want to continue the discussion either. I have nothing against you, and I'm aware you just do the "reporting" on these stats. Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I get that. And nothing I will state in the rest of my post is in any way directed at you, so please don't take it personally.

First: The FOX Poll. Ok, it wasn't set up right and a few rabid fans were able to manipulate it so that the old crusty "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" ranked higher than the highly popular "Greg the Bunny". The forces that be at FOX recognized this horrible, insidious plot and fixed things. We now have "Greg the Bunny" complete on dvd, while allowing "Voyage" to wallow in the deep in of the pool. Thank God that mistake was averted. [sarcasm inserted].

Second: It's really true what they say about stats. You know, that you can make them say whatever you want them to say. You gave the impression that there's an even split amongst age groups. I see something different with those stats. First I see that the under 25 age bracket comprises 40% of the pie. Second, I see that the under 35 bracket comprises over 2/3 of the pie! And lastly, I see that the under 45 bracket comprises almost 90% of the pie. That's hugely one-sided to my way of thinking.

Third: I still take exception to you categorizing some great old shows as unpopular simply because they aren't getting heavy vote totals on your site. That's just not right. Whether FOX or anyone else wants to acknowledge it, many of the older series are classics and deserve better treatment. And other studios seem to be stepping up to the plate on this one, while FOX holds back - and if need be throw the fan base a line of bull, like when a question was asked at the last chat concerning the "Charlie Chan" series being released. Instead of getting an honest answer about the hotbed of PC junk they were embroiled in at that moment, they simply told us to release those wonderful films would cost them their proverbial shirts. Baloney!!!

Anyhow, I simply took exception to your characterization that those FOX shows were not popular. That's a relative term, and I don't think classic tv deserves to be shot down with carte blanche statements like that.

Take care,

Gary "btw, this is the first I've heard that FOX is looking into VOYAGE & TIME TUNNEL, so I hope your sources are right on it" O.

 

[Mark To]

And other unreleased Fox shows and their rank:

Wonder Years - 6
WKRP in Cincinnati - 21
Hill Street Blues - 113
St. Elsewhere - 159
Rhoda - 427
White Shadow - 771
Phyllis - 1230

Again, other than the fact that you guys have an affinity for the Fox exec who's in charge of TV, I see absolutely no evidence that they are doing anything resembling a good job. Maybe they are with their recent shows, of which I don't really pay any attention to, but they are dead last when it comes to their historical shows. Other than Lost in Space, can you name one show from the 50s and 60s they've released? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe MASH, a season of Mary Tyler Moore and the upcoming Bob Newhart Show are the extent of their 70s releases.
I'm not going to argue over the viability of releasing the older shows as its been rehashed back and forth many times. Lets just say if you are going to compliment them on their fine work in this area you should qualify it as only referring to recent programs as their work on archival material gets a failing grade.