Warner Bros. upsets me (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Friends is considered in some respects to be a watered-down version of Seinfeld. An article critical of the former show when it went off the air four years ago said it was to Seinfeld as Hootie and the Blowfish was to Nirvana. And I like neither of those bands.

 

[Scott_J]

I'm well aware of that thread, but you indicate that smaller studios are interested in licensing out "these shows," which leads one to believe you're talking about shows from this thread but the shows we're discussing have been mentioned to be among the shows involved in talks.

 

[JohnMor]

Yes but these don't:

Dallas (up to S9)
Dukes of Hazzard (up to S7)
Gilligan's Island (Completed)
Kung Fu (Completed)
The Waltons (up to S7)
Wonder Woman (Completed)

 

[Corey3rd]

Not to get too lengthy, but remember that these shows are primary for broadcast purposes. A few years back, classic TV was losing ground. The Independent channels were getting locked down by the mini-networks, TVLand was clogged up, and normal TV stations didn't have slots for shows older than Friends. But now Fox has a deal with American Life, Universal/Paramount is hooked up with RTN, Warner and Sony has the deal with Ion and other digital substation nostalgia packages are being shopped.

The studios are back to being concerned about getting these shows back on the air since that's sure money. There's no fear of returns to the warehouse.


Isn't Dukes completed? And they put out the two reunion movies.

F Troop seems to be the only series to have survived the 'test" single DVD release.

 

[MatthewA]

The F rule only applies to sitcoms. Gilligan's Island, which has never been off the air in over 40 years, is the exception that proves the rule. Take that out of the equation and you have no other sitcoms there. The only other sitcoms to make it past season 1 are Friends, Full House, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and now F Troop.

 

[JohnMor]

Well, actually they (WB) did complete Everybody Loves Raymond too. But I didn't include it as it is a newer show. But that is strange how many F sitcoms have been completed.

 

[Tony S]

^Also, 2 1/2 Men and Martin have been released by WB and have gone well beyond the first release.

As for MTM, one of the reasons it was a failure is that the MSRP was $70. In 2005 they dropped it to $30. This is when sales started to pick up. This led to Seasons 2, 3, & 4.

As for a "writing this off their taxes", people are under the impression that a company that does this will get back every penny that they spent on a project that fails. That is a fallacy.

If a company has a profit of say $1,500,000 and tax bill of $500,000 (we'll go with a one third tax rate for simplicity) and they decide to "write off" a project that they had invested $90,000 in. This means that now their profit is now $1,410,000 and their tax bill is now $470,000. They only get about a third of the project cost.

And in the case of a tv show on dvd. They can't simply write off thousands of units they have in inventory, right away, if they are still moving slowly. They will have that money tied up in inventory for several years; money that they could be earning interest on instead of paying storage fees.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I submit no one here (with the very possible exception of Gord Lacey) has enough knowledge of the actual sales of any classic TV shows to make any firm statements about conspiracy theories on the part of the studios as to why they cease DVD production on any particular series. A couple of random numbers quoted from chats or internet posts or vaguely-remembered articles do not an argument make.

I'd further say that Sir Isaac Newton had about as much to do with the development of the hugely successful TV show Friends as did the popularity of Seinfeld. To take someone else's written criticism of Friends (basically calling it "Seinfeld-lite") and using it to argue that the existence of one led to the existence of the other is ludicrous.

There is a lot of sentiment flying around this thread that is maddening. "I never saw any advertising" is supposed to be taken to mean that the studios didn't sufficiently market their product...which is then supposed to somehow be extrapolated to mean that the studios were intentionally trying to sabotage the release.

And what, praytell, is the basis of the thought that people interested in buying '70s TV Shows on DVDs don't watch Entertainment Tonight? Craziness.

For some reason, this issue (of dropped TV shows) seems to result in more spurious arguments on this forum than any other. Although I’m sure there are those who might point to some other flashpoint debates such as DD vs. DTS or Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD.

Passion is fine. In many instances it’s admirable. But not when it supercedes logic and organized thought in a debate about something as important (or unimportant as the case may be) of why a certain TV show’s DVD run is not being completed.

I'll repeat the questions of my last post. Why do posters insist there are ulterior motives on the part of studios to cancel production of classic TV shows on DVD? Why isn't lack of profitability enough? What other reasons would they have?

 

[Mike*SC]

That's the crux of it right there, Mike, and I'm not surprised that nobody has attempted to answer it. What possible motivation would anybody working at a studio have to quash a moneymaking venture? Can anybody answer that?

 

[MatthewA]

Here's what Larry David, creator of "Seinfeld", and Jerry Seinfeld, formerly of "Benson", had to say:

FOXNews.com - Did Friends Rip Off Seinfeld? Creators Say Yes - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

Jerry supposedly also said that much on "On The Record with Bob Costas" on May 16, 2003. I will try to find the exact quotes for both programs if I can.

Back to the main topic,

If I had actual documented proof that these sets were losing money for their studios, I would not like it, but I would accept it. Not vague wording from studio reps, or the conclusions you jumped to, but cold hard proof. Until this shows up, this entire discussion is academic.

You can accuse me of conspiracy-mongering and craziness all you want, but you cannot dismiss the contradictions in statements made public by Fox.

If you don't trust Fox News, maybe you trust TVShowsonDVD.com. Let's see what they had to say:

TVShowsOnDVD.com - Currently Offline

And another source, which I hope meets with your approval:

Blogs @ herald-dispatch.com: Stay Tuned: "WKRP": The Great Music Debate

And here's the chat that started us down the rabbit hole:

Chat Transcript: 20th Century Fox's Peter Staddon on Home Theater Forum

These are not "random quotes from chats" or "vaguely remembered articles". This is indeed pertinent. It states two diametrically opposed results of sales figures. I don't need to make stuff up. Otherwise I could go on about the Illuminati, Halliburton, Ron Paul, and Bigfoot, and there are better forums for that than HTF.

My point is that lack of sales does not necessarily mean lack of interest.

Thank you, Tony S, for explaining in greater detail the process of a tax write-off. I guess that suggestion is off the table. It was just an idea I had.

 

[TravisR]

Besides low/not high enough sales, what possible reason could there be for studios dropping a series? I'm not asking for anyone to say that it is definitely this or that but I can't even think of one reasonable possibility for a studio to drop a series besides low sales.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I read Randy Salas' interview with Peter Staddon and then read the Staddon chat transcript. They seemed to contain the same information and conclusions. That there were high expectations for MTM: S1 and that sales were 150,000 (375,000 for MTM: S1-4). Also, in the chat, Staddon talks about the high cost of getting various clearances for the older shows.

Nowhere do I see "diametrically opposed results to sales figures." Nor do I see anything which indicates "lack of sales doesn't mean lack of interest."

======================

I'm not calling you crazy and I'm not calling you a conspiracy monger. I just don't know what ulterior motives you think studios might have when they halt DVD production of our classic TV favorites (I forgot to include St. Elsewhere in an earlier post which sits alongside Leave It to Beaver in my heart). Short of disappointments on profit...what could the motives be?

 

[troy evans]

I think MatthewA is spot on with some of his points. My thoughts are to the reasons we see newer series from the 90's to now has nothing to do with younger buyers. It has nothing to do with popularity of a show (although I'm sure that can help). It also, to some degree, has nothing to do with how well a show sells. Even though I know sales do factor in. The simple reason is that newer shows don't need the effort put in that an older one does. Most new shows are ready to go on dvd with no remaster or restorations which cost the studio money. So alot of the new shows can be and have been slapped together in dvd sets with little to no effort. Then, put on the market at a more limited cost to a studio than an older show would be. Now, there are shows from the vault coming out like Cannon whose quality leaves alot to be desired. Where as that's not a good thing, it could mean more classic shows show up on dvd. Simply because studios are perceiving demand to outweigh quality. So MTM and all the other shows may very well be coming, but, what to expect from them worries me.

 

[MatthewA]

Mike (both Mikes, actually),

I don't know what the ulterior motives, if any, there are. There may not be any. But if there are any I'd sure like to know how 150,000 units sold is a failure.


Another thing Warner needs to be chided for. Some of the transfers on the Waltons are horrendous. But it was said here that their infrastructure is so bloated as to make in-house telecine economically unfeasible for TV shows. A problem that could be solved by shopping around for less expensive new transfers. Unless the in-house telecine technicians have a powerful union. Sony had an independent firm do the restorations and remastering of their TV shows, including Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie.

Universal will probably be forced to remaster their stuff because many of their current video masters were lost in that fire recently.

The transfers of Cannon don't surprise me after seeing a miniseries released by Paramount called "Holocaust." This Emmy and Peabody-winning NBC Big Event was released with an early 1980s transfer replete with film chain artifacts. They didn't produce it, they just inherited the video rights from Worldvision, so they may not have had access to the negative or any film print, if they exist. Cannon, on the other hand, I don't know. Maybe the negatives were in too poor a shape to run through a telecine? Meanwhile Dynasty looks like it was shot yesterday. They're like the girl in the Edward Lear poem: "When she was good, she was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid."

Sales are a big part of it, I would never deny that. But there has to be more to it than that. Internal costs can't not play a part.

 

[Mike*SC]

Sure I can. People say publicly what suits them at that moment. Recall the statements during the writers' strike of this past year, when CEOs bragged to Wall Street about the tremendous revenues generated by online distribution of content, while at the same time telling the Writers Guild that they were losing money on the internet. Which was true? Almost certainly, the truth was in between. They knew their audiences, and said what they thought would make them the most money (or cost them the least).

So again, if they are making money on these sets, why in the world would they stop producing them?

 

[MatthewA]

They could be making money, just not making enough money to satisfy their appetites.


If this is the case why should we swallow ANY STATEMENT the studios feed to us at all?

The only "these sets" I mean were of The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

 

[Mike*SC]

I spent so long on my last, bloated post that your latest post crossed mine in the... um... cyberspace.

Now, I think, we're getting somewhere. I believe what you're suggesting is that these companies are too big to do these sets in an economically viable way. With this, you'll be happy to know, I do not disagree. But this is the way of things in 2008. I think it's a terrible state of affairs, but it goes so far beyond the issue of television on DVD, I don't really know how we can address it here.

 

[Mike*SC]

We crossed again!

This may be right, but I'll say for the 100th time (this is not a lecture, I'm just apologizing for my tedious repetition) that any studio must prioritize, and they will naturally put things they expect to make a lot of money (or have a history of doing so, or promote currently airing series) in line ahead of things that make a small profit. I can't say that I blame them for that. Do you?

 

[Mike Frezon]

I think that poem belongs to Longfellow. It is often intentionally misquoted (think Mae West) with the implication that "when she's good, she's good...but when she's bad, she's even better."

 

[troy evans]

That's just it, it seems the work around studios may adopt is a sacrifice to quality or sell rights to smaller companies who want to take the chance.