The Brady Bunch 50th Anniversary. Might we finally see a Brady Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

Having spoken to a Paramount insider, the sales of television shows on Blu-ray are considered to be disappointing at best. Even at this stage, they find that when an item is released on both DVD and Blu-ray, the DVD version outsells the Blu-ray 10 to 1.

That matches my experiences as well.

A big problem for something like I Love Lucy, which basically killed CBS’s classic Blu-ray plans - Season 1 on Blu-ray had a retail price of about $120 (and was priced at about $80 on store shelves in its first week), and at the same time, you could buy the complete series on DVD for about $50. That’s just a really difficult sales pitch to make to a mass audience, especially when you can see episodes for free every day on broadcast and cable networks and streaming services.

If CBS was gonna do Brady in HD, a single season would probably cost what the complete series DVD set would be. I think there’s a small number of dedicated collectors willing to pay that but not enough of them to make it worthwhile.

I’ve been loving the chance to see classic shows in HD quality so it’s disappointing news to me. I hope that there might be another revenue stream for shows like Brady Bunch to pay for the remastering costs. Fox recently remastered MASH in HD but it wasn’t for Blu-ray, it was to be able to keep the show viable for continued licensing for reruns and streaming. So my hope is that they’ll keep making the investment in remastering even if the disc release dry up.

 

[bmasters9]

That matches my experiences as well.

A big problem for something like I Love Lucy, which basically killed CBS’s classic Blu-ray plans - Season 1 on Blu-ray had a retail price of about $120 (and was priced at about $80 on store shelves in its first week), and at the same time, you could buy the complete series on DVD for about $50.

Why would one season's worth of Lucy on Blu cost more than the all-in-one DVD?!

 

[Carabimero]

Why would one season's worth of Lucy on Blu cost more than the all-in-one DVD?!

That's a great question. I can't speak for I LOVE LUCY, but mastering season one of THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW in HD cost a ton of money. The source material was a little soft to start with, which made it even worse. And there were other things: the cost of the rights to getting the theme music to play over the BD menus was outrageous, to say nothing of the cost of simple images for box and disc art (hence the results). That set was priced a lot less than LUCY, but even at $70, it's almost a non-starter when you could get the entire DVD series for less.

 

[bmasters9]

That's a great question. I can't speak for I LOVE LUCY, but mastering season one of THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW in HD cost a ton of money. The source material was a little soft to start with, which made it even worse. And there were other things: the cost of the rights to getting the theme music to play over the BD menus was outrageous, to say nothing of the cost of simple images for box and disc art (hence the results). That set was priced a lot less than LUCY, but even at $70, it's almost a non-starter when you could get the entire DVD series for less.

I never knew there were all those costs behind the making of Lucy's Blus (as far as they've been released)! No wonder they cost as much as they did!

 

[John Karras]

That's a great question. I can't speak for I LOVE LUCY, but mastering season one of THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW in HD cost a ton of money. The source material was a little soft to start with, which made it even worse. And there were other things: the cost of the rights to getting the theme music to play over the BD menus was outrageous, to say nothing of the cost of simple images for box and disc art (hence the results). That set was priced a lot less than LUCY, but even at $70, it's almost a non-starter when you could get the entire DVD series for less.

Not to mention the costs of authoring, disc pressing, marketing and distribution. In the enthusiasm for the release of a title, people sometimes lose sight of just how costly a project can be.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I thought they couldn't do a blu ray because the original elements were chopped up prior to syndication and no longer exist? That's why the dvds look so hodge-podge in terms of editing.

True and since they tried classic TV on Blu Ray with the 1st two seasons of I love Lucy, 1st season of Andy Griffith and The Honeymooners and those didn't sell well even at the bargain prices I think they are done with classic TV on Blu Ray. With the huge remastering cost that would be needed for Brady Bunch I don't think they will even consider it unfortunately.

 

[JQuintana]

I wonder if they will just unload all seasons on their Paramount TV streaming app? Seems cheapest and easiest method at this point.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I wonder if they will just unload all seasons on their Paramount TV streaming app? Seems cheapest and easiest method at this point.

Upconverted DVD masters probably will end up there.

 

[JQuintana]

I'd be fine with that option.

I currently just Tivo them from MeTV.

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

Paramount Television was spun off into CBS.

And yes, I'd buy it as streaming as well.

Regarding the edits and missing footage, do we know for certain what was used for the DVD? The show was finished on film, so I've got to imagine the uncut negative survives and would be the source for a new HD transfer. It sounds like the DVDs were sourced from video masters.

Given the differences in PQ on some episodes on my DVD sets of The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family, I’d say you’re correct about the video masters.

 

[Carabimero]

Not to mention the costs of authoring, disc pressing, marketing and distribution. In the enthusiasm for the release of a title, people sometimes lose sight of just how costly a project can be.

I authored classic TV on DVD discs for years and it seemed like with each new project, my mouth dropped at all the expenses I'd never thought about--most of them to do with rights issues and legal clearances.

After I was given permission to publicly post FIXING THE FUGITIVE, I got steady work. My first job was for a different studio, but on a beloved, long-awaited DVD set. I wasn't hired to author it but to produce special features for the bonus disc. I was told I had 62 minutes of screen time on the disc, given a list of cleared topics and sources, a ticking clock of 42 days, and a small production budget of a few thousand dollars.

I was determined to come in on schedule and under budget, which I did. Then I was told, "Eight minutes have opened up on the disc if you want them."

Hell yeah I wanted them. While I had come in under budget, it wasn't by much. As luck had it, however, once upon a time I had read scripts for one of the principal actresses in the show. I called her and asked if she'd be willing to do an interview for the special features disc (no one had thought to contact her earlier, and she hadn't been one of my assigned packages). She said she'd love to.

I had $500 left in my budget and gave it to her. Luckily I had my own production equipment, so it was a simple matter to take a couple of soft boxes, a tripod, my camera, and a mic, and go do the interview at her house. I shot three hours of raw footage, then worked a couple of 15-hour days cutting it into a seven-minute package. I reasoned that I could use clips from the series to make my transitions. After all, I believed, the studio owned the series.

I submitted the package. A week later I received this message: "We can't include your featurette since it would require 17 clearances at an estimated cost of $124,000."

When I asked for details, I learned that rights issues are so complex and convoluted that the conversation quickly became a waste of my time, which would better be spent cutting out those clips and doing a straight interview package. Which I did and delivered with a few hours to spare.

I thought since I'd made my deadline, they'd use the package, in which the star had answered the best fan questions I had received for her.

Two weeks passed. I heard nothing. When I inquired, I was told that lawyers had to review the interview. Of course by the time they did and cleared it, it was too late to be included on the set.

Once the set came out, I thought I could post the interview on YouTube so at least the fans could see it. But what a lot of people don't understand is that when I get hired to work on these sets, it's a work for hire. Yes, the studio employs me, but I don't get health insurance and ANYTHING I produce is their property. So they owned the interview. And once it was explained to me, I understood that.

I learned a lot from that job, mostly that everything cost way more than I ever thought, and took way longer to clear than I ever imagined. My perceptions on the outside of the door as a fan were so completely naive compared to the realities of actually being in the room and producing those sets that it still humbles me to this day.

 

[Brian Himes]

Regarding the edits and missing footage, do we know for certain what was used for the DVD? The show was finished on film, so I've got to imagine the uncut negative survives and would be the source for a new HD transfer. It sounds like the DVDs were sourced from video masters.

Ok, from what I remember from the various discussions about the edits and the fluctuating picture quality this is why the DVDs look the way that they do.

When Paramount was preparing the series for DVD release, they did indeed intend to include the series as it was originally broadcast complete and uncut. In order to do that they had to locate all of the missing footage. Sadly, there were no 35mm or video tape versions of the complete episodes. While the original negatives may or may not still exist, if I remember correctly, it would have been too costly to make new prints. Additionally, the negatives also needed restoring which added more cost to the project. There were 16mm versions available that were more complete. Not 100% complete but at least more complete than the then current syndicated prints. So, it was decided to utilize the missing footage from the 16mm versions inter cut with the better quality syndicated prints to reassemble the episodes as closely to original broadcast length as possible. As has been noted, not all of the missing footage was located and the fill in squares at the end of the Grand Canyon (part 1 & 2) and Hawaii (part 1 & 2) episodes are also missing. Paramount did release a statement at the time explaining part of this so that is how we knew 16mm versions were used and 35mm versions (or complete video tapes) could not be located. Since it has never been stated otherwise, it is assumed that the original 100% complete negatives do still exist. What it would cost today to strike new uncut prints (and restore the negatives) is still unknown. I doubt the cost has gone down all that much since the DVDs were released.

So, on the plus side the DVDs did indeed include footage that hadn't been seen in over 30 years but as stated they were not perfect.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At this point, in 2019, I don’t see the need to strike new prints - that expense can be saved by scanning the original negatives, which certainly makes more sense in terms of asset protection.

Scan the original negatives and you have a new archival asset that can be leveraged and repurposed in countless ways. Scan a print and you get a new video master of limited use.

 

[bmasters9]

Scan the original negatives and you have a new archival asset that can be leveraged and repurposed in countless ways.

As has been done with the Blus of TNG, for one?

 

[Ethan Riley]

I'm pretty sure they were saying, at the time the dvds came out, that the original negative do not exist. The syndication prints were edited right from the original negatives, cut up and the footage was discarded. Maybe someone can dig up old threads because I can't find the one we were discussing that on, years ago.

 

[Carabimero]

I don't know if the negatives exist, but as of 2014, they were not in the Paramount vaults. I know because I checked when I was working on another project. But they could easily be somewhere else. That said, my opinion is that they are not extant.

 

[Brian Himes]

If the original negatives are indeed gone, then that complicates matters. The existing 16mm prints may be the only thing close to the original broadcast episodes left. Sad that such an iconic show has been partially lost.

I watched a few episodes on MeTV a couple of years ago and they were using new syndicated cuts that contained some of the 16mm footage that was on the DVDs. I don't know if Paramount has made new syndicated tapes or if these were done by MeTV. The older syndicated tapes were looking pretty shabby. I remember those from TV Land and they looked awful. Really, really grainy and washed out color. Plus TV Land rarely (if ever) showed the Subject Was Noses (Marcia and the football) and Her Sister's Shadow (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia) episodes. I don't know why. I taped the series from TV Land at the time. TV Land cycled through the series three times while I was attempting to get every episode, and they didn't show those episodes once.

 

[ClassicTVMan1981X]

If the original negatives are indeed gone, then that complicates matters. The existing 16mm prints may be the only thing close to the original broadcast episodes left. Sad that such an iconic show has been partially lost.

I watched a few episodes on MeTV a couple of years ago and they were using new syndicated cuts that contained some of the 16mm footage that was on the DVDs. I don't know if Paramount has made new syndicated tapes or if these were done by MeTV. The older syndicated tapes were looking pretty shabby. I remember those from TV Land and they looked awful. Really, really grainy and washed out color. Plus TV Land rarely (if ever) showed the Subject Was Noses (Marcia and the football) and Her Sister's Shadow (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia) episodes. I don't know why. I taped the series from TV Land at the time. TV Land cycled through the series three times while I was attempting to get every episode, and they didn't show those episodes once.

At least one other episode is rarely shown on TV now: "What Goes Up..." It is the one where Carol misidentifies Peter as Chris (as in Christopher Knight: the real name of the character's portrayer).

~Ben

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

At least one other episode is rarely shown on TV now: "What Goes Up..." It is the one where Carol misidentifies Peter as Chris (as in Christopher Knight: the real name of the character's portrayer).

~Ben

Kinda wondering how often the episode “Two Petes In A Pod” has been shown. Especially considering the scene where Pete’s “twin” is initially smitten with Jan Brady and how Jan can’t believe her brother is actually being nice to her for a change.

 

[Albert71292]

I don't know if the negatives exist, but as of 2014, they were not in the Paramount vaults. I know because I checked when I was working on another project. But they could easily be somewhere else. That said, my opinion is that they are not extant.

I wonder if the original negatives might be in the hands of Sherwood Schwartz estate.