Peter M Fitzgerald
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 1999
- Messages
- 2,314
- Real Name
- Peter Fitzgerald
I've been meaning to start a topic like this for several years now, from reading (and sometimes starting) threads like 'Hope for long lost shows?', 'Is the b&w era of TV on DVD slowly coming to and end?' and the innumerable 'Most wanted short-lived TV shows' and 'Is ______ coming to DVD?' posts. I didn't want to divert or derail any of those with this subject, so I figured I'd start fresh with this one.
The title of this thread is probably more rhetorical than anything, and will probably make for some pretty depressing reading, so I give you fair warning on that. I myself have no ties to the industry (not even any 'crystal balls'), but I listen to people who post on forums like this who are in the industry, or at least seem to know what they're talking about, as far as I can tell.
Let me begin by making it clear that I'm not saying that I expect studio X to go to the trouble and expense to resurrect some forgotten/obscure film or TV series on disc, likely at a loss, just because I want it in my collection. I also well understand that the industry is gradually moving away from physical media, in favor of streaming and downloads, and the Millennial consumer base, in particular, has embraced this, which makes the chances for the appearance of a 'moldy oldie' (however you want to define that) on the current market even less likely than before.
Other than buffs/geeks, like me and (perhaps) you, most people obviously don't wish to own huge collections of films and shows... most aren't even interested in watching anything more than once or twice, and the majority aren't usually interested in much beyond the current or the fairly-recent (i.e. anything produced before their own childhood, apart from a famous classic or two... if that).
Instead, I'm trying to look at things from a studio perspective, as best I can. Most have pretty huge libraries, especially from corporate mergers and acquisitions over the years. Other than the obvious big stuff, I'm sure the upper echelon of any given studio has little knowledge of (or even interest in) what they specifically own, other than what their legal departments bring to their attention, or if (the rare) individual CEOs or VPs are film buffs themselves (i.e. George Feltenstein at WB), nor would I expect them to. Extension of copyright law, spearheaded by Disney, primarily to protect their most popular, ever-profitable properties (Mickey Mouse, James Bond, etc), covers pretty much all of their holdings, apart from a few items that have slipped into the public domain, due to clerical errors or neglect.
Most anything they'd consider for release on disc or streaming usually has to meet a modern quality threshold for HD broadcast, and just the process of transferal to digital from old film and tape sources is time-consuming and expensive, even if no major restoration is required. I'm sure there is likely a shortage of personnel qualified to do this work, even if there was ample budget allocated to this endeavor. Then there is the labyrinth of music clearance and other legal hurdles to be overcome, especially if the property is jointly-owned.
So, what we are left with are masses of programming of varying quality, duration and importance --some restored, some not-- that sit on shelves in temperature-controlled rooms, or in salt mines, waiting... for what? There are less venues, that they'd be viable for, than before. The DVD boom is largely over and Blu, while great, hasn't been quite as big. Fewer cable/satellite networks fill their schedules with classic and/or esoteric programming, especially with inexpensive reality shows and infomercials to pad out their schedules, or 'marathon blocks' of a single show. With few exceptions (mainly Warner Archive Instant), streaming services haven't really taken up the mantle for these, either, as they typically offer the big classics and the same-old same-old (they seem to be a bit more adventurous with offering some deep catalog films).
Digital over-the-air channels, like MeTV, Antenna, RTV and Cozi, are wonderful throwbacks to the glory days of Nick@Nite and TVLand, but even here, what they air are the old standbys, plus series that had already gotten transfers for cable play and/or DVD in the last couple of decades. They don't have the budgets or audience numbers to bankroll the restoration and clearances for anything beyond what they already license, off-the-shelf and ready-to-go, from the studios (which are sometimes their parent companies).
Given this --and as much as it would horrify me, you, other fans, historians and preservationists-- sometimes I wonder why they just don't deliberately destroy some films and TV series that 99.9% of the public neither knows or cares about, have essentially no profitability, and that have close to 0% chance of being shown anywhere outside of an archive or a privately-owned print. Wouldn't that be even more cost-effective for their owners than paying for the storage of the original materials?
Warner Brothers, Sony and MGM seem to be the most serious about taking care of, and exploiting, as much of their libraries as they can, and I know that all the majors have had restoration programs in place in recent years, and have done some amazing (even miraculous) work, but I wonder if they have any kind of ultimate game plan with the bulk of their holdings.
I well understand that we can't expect every last little thing to see the light of day, or would have much in the way of popular public interest, but at the same time, there's an insatiable appetite for content, especially via streaming services. The one-season (or less) wonders of the past don't seem quite so paltry now, compared to the current state of TV production, where a season is now often down to 10-14 episodes per season, and where 'binge-watching' is an increasingly-popular method of viewing, especially via streaming. You'd think there would be a cornucopia of older short-run series, made-for-TV movies, unsold pilots, etc, made available to fill some of that need, but with very few exceptions, apparently not.
So, it seems to be a lot cheaper and easier to let a lot of things sit in a vault, forever, to ultimately fade and/or deteriorate (Universal springs to mind here, in particular), forgotten by all but a dwindling few, than do much of anything else with them. What's the point?
The title of this thread is probably more rhetorical than anything, and will probably make for some pretty depressing reading, so I give you fair warning on that. I myself have no ties to the industry (not even any 'crystal balls'), but I listen to people who post on forums like this who are in the industry, or at least seem to know what they're talking about, as far as I can tell.
Let me begin by making it clear that I'm not saying that I expect studio X to go to the trouble and expense to resurrect some forgotten/obscure film or TV series on disc, likely at a loss, just because I want it in my collection. I also well understand that the industry is gradually moving away from physical media, in favor of streaming and downloads, and the Millennial consumer base, in particular, has embraced this, which makes the chances for the appearance of a 'moldy oldie' (however you want to define that) on the current market even less likely than before.
Other than buffs/geeks, like me and (perhaps) you, most people obviously don't wish to own huge collections of films and shows... most aren't even interested in watching anything more than once or twice, and the majority aren't usually interested in much beyond the current or the fairly-recent (i.e. anything produced before their own childhood, apart from a famous classic or two... if that).
Instead, I'm trying to look at things from a studio perspective, as best I can. Most have pretty huge libraries, especially from corporate mergers and acquisitions over the years. Other than the obvious big stuff, I'm sure the upper echelon of any given studio has little knowledge of (or even interest in) what they specifically own, other than what their legal departments bring to their attention, or if (the rare) individual CEOs or VPs are film buffs themselves (i.e. George Feltenstein at WB), nor would I expect them to. Extension of copyright law, spearheaded by Disney, primarily to protect their most popular, ever-profitable properties (Mickey Mouse, James Bond, etc), covers pretty much all of their holdings, apart from a few items that have slipped into the public domain, due to clerical errors or neglect.
Most anything they'd consider for release on disc or streaming usually has to meet a modern quality threshold for HD broadcast, and just the process of transferal to digital from old film and tape sources is time-consuming and expensive, even if no major restoration is required. I'm sure there is likely a shortage of personnel qualified to do this work, even if there was ample budget allocated to this endeavor. Then there is the labyrinth of music clearance and other legal hurdles to be overcome, especially if the property is jointly-owned.
So, what we are left with are masses of programming of varying quality, duration and importance --some restored, some not-- that sit on shelves in temperature-controlled rooms, or in salt mines, waiting... for what? There are less venues, that they'd be viable for, than before. The DVD boom is largely over and Blu, while great, hasn't been quite as big. Fewer cable/satellite networks fill their schedules with classic and/or esoteric programming, especially with inexpensive reality shows and infomercials to pad out their schedules, or 'marathon blocks' of a single show. With few exceptions (mainly Warner Archive Instant), streaming services haven't really taken up the mantle for these, either, as they typically offer the big classics and the same-old same-old (they seem to be a bit more adventurous with offering some deep catalog films).
Digital over-the-air channels, like MeTV, Antenna, RTV and Cozi, are wonderful throwbacks to the glory days of Nick@Nite and TVLand, but even here, what they air are the old standbys, plus series that had already gotten transfers for cable play and/or DVD in the last couple of decades. They don't have the budgets or audience numbers to bankroll the restoration and clearances for anything beyond what they already license, off-the-shelf and ready-to-go, from the studios (which are sometimes their parent companies).
Given this --and as much as it would horrify me, you, other fans, historians and preservationists-- sometimes I wonder why they just don't deliberately destroy some films and TV series that 99.9% of the public neither knows or cares about, have essentially no profitability, and that have close to 0% chance of being shown anywhere outside of an archive or a privately-owned print. Wouldn't that be even more cost-effective for their owners than paying for the storage of the original materials?
Warner Brothers, Sony and MGM seem to be the most serious about taking care of, and exploiting, as much of their libraries as they can, and I know that all the majors have had restoration programs in place in recent years, and have done some amazing (even miraculous) work, but I wonder if they have any kind of ultimate game plan with the bulk of their holdings.
I well understand that we can't expect every last little thing to see the light of day, or would have much in the way of popular public interest, but at the same time, there's an insatiable appetite for content, especially via streaming services. The one-season (or less) wonders of the past don't seem quite so paltry now, compared to the current state of TV production, where a season is now often down to 10-14 episodes per season, and where 'binge-watching' is an increasingly-popular method of viewing, especially via streaming. You'd think there would be a cornucopia of older short-run series, made-for-TV movies, unsold pilots, etc, made available to fill some of that need, but with very few exceptions, apparently not.
So, it seems to be a lot cheaper and easier to let a lot of things sit in a vault, forever, to ultimately fade and/or deteriorate (Universal springs to mind here, in particular), forgotten by all but a dwindling few, than do much of anything else with them. What's the point?
. Unfortunately, I think my generation is the last that will care about classic film. And that is what I believe the studios see and why deep catalog films will never see blu-ray editions. Hell, if we can't get them to release classics like The Alamo, Around the World in 80 Days, and others, then what hope do we have for lesser classic films like the Errol Flynn films, or They Were Expendable, etc?
