Would you rather see new shows or older ones released on DVD? (1 Viewer)

[Van594]

Oh I wouldn't lump all of us into such a broad catagory...the list you gave of recent shows kind of points to one reason many of us prefer the classic shows or at least like to balance it out. I agree those are good shows for the most part but they are also for the most part very violent, cynical and down right depressing. If I watched nothing but the new shows you listed I think I would put a bullet in my head by weeks end...lol...seriously though sometimes you just like to watch something light hearted and fun, and many of the old shows fill that bill. I like balance.

As for the original question...I would just like to see them finish sets they left me hanging with then worry about new releases. Finish what you started studios!

 

[Gary OS]

Different strokes for different folks. I just couldn't disagree more with your worldview, John. I think we too quickly abandon the morals on display in the 50's and 60's TV shows even though we all know they were an ideal and not always close to reality. And you can pass it off as a condescending joke all you want (i.e. "EishenhowerLand-of-the-Mind"), but we aren't better off as a society today with the "let it all hang out" mentality that pervades so much of TV today. I know I'll be in the huge minority with this next statement - heck I might be by myself entirely - but I'd much rather have the Breen Production Code back in effect when I look at what happened to Hollywood's output once it was done away with in the late 60's. But regardless, I'm not going to get into a debate about censorship or what have you on these boards. The bottom line is that I'm not going to label listening to profanity & sexual innuendo, watching pornography, and witnessing graphic glorified violence as art or entertainment. It's none of those things to me. I have another word for it that I will not use on these boards.

Gary "nuff said" O.

P.S. Again, I'm not saying there haven't been recent shows I found okay. Hank mentioned "The Wonder Years", which I found to be a great show. And I've been known to catch things like "Smallville" from time to time (although I don't think it's a great show). But there are a few decent shows on today. My point is just that almost everything produced today gets a dvd release rather quickly - even the truly rotten shows. On the other hand, there are still many true classics that may never see the light of day because they are in b&w or just too "decent" for the tastes of the majority of the dvd buying public. And that's a shame, IMHO.

 

[MatthewA]

My collection stands today as follows, excluding specials, TV-movies and mini-series:

1950s: 10
1960s: 17
1970s: 71
1980s: 40
1990s: 34
2000s: 14

If I had more money to buy all the shows I wanted to buy, and all of them were available and the releases met the criteria for shows I would purchase (mainly that they are unedited), the scales would tip much heavier towards shows made prior to 1990. Already the 1970s alone has greater representation than the 1990s and 2000s combined.

There was always good and bad TV, and there always will be. The difference is that now we have so many more options (not necessarily better ones), and the resources are spread so thin, and the law of diminished returns has set in, so that stuff which wouldn't pass muster 40, 30, or even 20 years ago is now considered Emmy-worthy. When we do, as the movie "Idiocracy" suggested, get a show called "Ow My Balls," it will be the #1 show on TV and win 12 Emmies and a Peabody Award in its first season.

And society isn't going to Hell in a handbasket; I have a feeling we're already there if wall-to-wall Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan coverage passes for serious news reporting when there's a war going on overseas (about which I don't want to get into here). And when suburban white kids are playing gangsta rap that is laden with violent imagery, racial slurs, misogyny, and homophobia, I think we can all agree that this isn't exactly utopia.

As far as I am concerned, greater frankness in the depiction of sex and violence plus the use of profanity does not, nor has it ever, equal better entertainment. The same things which always equaled better entertainment: writing, acting, production values, etc.; have. This merely reflects the change in mores over the years. I'm not advocating going back to the 1950s but I still think we have gone too far in the other direction.

As far as sales go, there needs to be a balance of old and new as there is clearly a market for both. It is not a zero-sum game, but because the "new" requires less TLC and preparation than the "old" for various reasons, these releases are easier and cheaper.

 

[Steve...O]

In my opinion, making broad generalizations on this topic is not really conducive to a good discussion here. I believe we should all agree to disagree on our choices and respect differing opinions. Although I may disagree with someone else's take on this issue, I still find their opinions interesting as long as it has some reasoning behind it.

My personal preference is for television from the late 50s throughout the 1960s because I believe the writing of that era is exceptional, particularly for dramas. 1970s TV is hit or miss for me. For every MARY TYLER MOORE or BOB NEWHART there's an offsetting HOLMES AND YO YO or BRADY BUNCH VARIETY HOUR.

I've sampled some current reality fare and had the misfortune of catching a half episode of SON OF THE BEACH once and found almost all of it repulsive and offensive. However some enjoy it and I'm cool with that since I know that my favorites bore some people to tears (their loss not mine ). There are other current shows like LAW & ORDER/L&O SVU and the SOPRANOS that I find highly entertaining and well written. There are probably others that I would enjoy, but just don't have time to watch. I admit I watch little broadcast TV since I'm primarily a classic movie buff.

To me, good writing and intelligent storylines trump everything else no matter what the era. I make no apologies for rejecting material that I think plays to the lowest common denominator or is just plain offensive to get ratings points. As history as shown, these types of shows tend to flame out fairly quickly anyway as any fad does. In 2015 is anyone really going to remember SON OF THE BEACH? Probably not. But they'll still remember DICK VAN DYKE, MASH, SEINFELD, et al.


Edit to acknowledge this great comment from Matthew. The dumbing down of society and disdaining of personal responsibility in general is very bothersome to me. It seems that the increased use of "adult" material is used far too often just to get people to watch. I am not a prude, but enough is enough. SVU often uses more adult material and situations but doesn't insult the viewer while doing so. Rather it presents it within the context of dealing crimes in modern day America. That I can handle.

Steve

PS - no joke, I am starting to see bumper stickers locally proclaiming "I LIKE IKE". President Eisenhower still has his fans

 

[Gary OS]

Excellent post, Matthew. I give a hearty "amen" to everything you've written.

Gary "I'm not necessarily advocating a return to the 50's, but if I absolutely had to choose between the values in '57 TV vs. the values in '07 TV, I'll take the former without hesitation" O.

 

[TravisR]

Explicitness certainly doesn't make a show good but shows like The Sopranos and Deadwood show that you can have it both ways. They may have more sex, violence or profanity than some people want to watch but that doesn't take away from both of those shows' top notch writing, acting, directing, cinematography and editing.

 

[Elena S]

I never meant for this thread to turn argumentative or for people to feel like they had to list what they already own for each era. I was just wondering, percentage-wise, how many on this board would prefer seeing older shows released as opposed to newer ones. The main reason I want older ones released is because I haven't seen them in years and had no way to tape them for future viewing. Not releasing the older shows is unfair to people who grew up loving them, IMO, especially when today's generation can tape anything they want off the television.

 

[Gary OS]

Your original question was pretty obvious to me, Elena. And a very logical one too. The thread just got sidetracked because I'm one of these people that do feel the older shows, percentage wise, are definitely getting the short end of the stick when it comes to releases. Then other people have to come in and get condescending about the entire issue. It's frustrating when modern shows that, by most standards (acknowledging of course that YMMV), are pretty poor still get dvd releases based solely on the fact that they are "new" shows. And as you say, most of these shows could have been taped directly off TV by their fans because most everyone has access to VCRs or DVD recorders.

On the other hand, those of us that like vintage shows are really at the mercy of dvd releases in many cases if we want to see a show because so many of those series haven't aired in years/decades. The last time many of them were on television we didn't have the luxury of taping them onto videos and certainly didn't have the luxury of getting solid digital signals and transferring them directly onto dvds. So it is frustrating. So I'm with you 100%. I want to see the older shows released because they are the most difficult to come by. I'd hazard a guess that if you wanted to see most any show from the last 20 to 30 years, you can find it somewhere on cable/satellite. And if it's not on at this very second, you can usually count on it being on in the near future. Not so with the 50's and 60's programs. Many of them will never be seen again if they aren't released on dvd.

Gary "us vintage fans have been blessed with some great releases over the last several years, but there's so much more that's still out there - that's not the case with modern programs which almost automatically get releases at this point" O.

 

[Charles Ellis]

Well, I've made no bones about my preference for classic shows, yet I just bought Ugly Betty and plan to get Season 7 of CSI and Heroes. It's pretty much a given that music issues aside, all of today's hit shows get an automatic release. If only the 'suits' went into the vaults more often- there's many a treasure from the past there!

 

[Doug Wallen]

I will also cast my vote for older, vintage shows as they represent wonderful family moments from my childhood. When there were only three networks, television viewing was an event. Schedules were rearranged, homework completed early just to be able to watch Mission:Impossible or Ironside or Dragnet. The family would be in the same room sharing special time. Of course it also helped that the shows were well written and engrossing. Monday nights - Lucy and then Gunsmoke. Each night had at least one special show. That is what I enjoy about this TV on Dvd phenomena. It is so nice to be able to sit down with my son (14 years old) and allow him to see shows that shaped my childhood. It is always pleasurable when he gets involved in them.

There aren't to many current shows that I wish to introduce to him. That is not to say that todays shows are not good. I just believe that older shows are more accessible.

 

[David Levine]

This is an important point from a studio's perspective.

Newer shows are easier, generally cheaper and (to the studios) more appealing than classic shows.

First, the elements are easier to track down and often require no work to get them "DVD ready". You have easier access to the stars and creators, plus you have things like EPKs, trailers and web content that can easily (and cheaply) be converted to special features.

In more recent shows, you may already have music cleared for home video. And we're very much in an age where music clearance can be the difference between a show coming out or never seeing the light of day.

And generally newer shows sell better - especially because, bar far, the biggest buyer of DVDs is the 18-40 year old male. Probably the hottest "genre" in DVD are the recent shows that only lasted 1 (or a partial season). Most of them seem to really find new life on DVD because they are "1 and done", there is no time or monetary commitment beyond that 1 box.

The smartest thing the studios could do would be to license more classic series to independent studios like Shout!, Anchor Bay and BCI. Places where the shows will get more attention than if they stay at the majors, and also where they can still be quite profitable to the independent despite not doing "studio mandated" numbers.

 

[Gary OS]

Thanks David. As always, your comments are welcome and informative. I know all the reasons that the studios release more new stuff. It's always about profitability, and there's just no way to argue against that. But I also love your point about these larger studios licensing things out to Shout!, Anchor Bay, BCI and the others. I wish some of them (Sony & WB in particular) would be more willing to do this.

Gary "the realities of the situation are frustrating for vintage TV fans like myself, but those are the facts" O.

 

[Ron68]

I prefer older ones mainly because I enjoy watching shows again that I used to watch when I was a kid, that aren't shown on TV anymore or not very often. I'm also discovering that I'm really enjoying series that first started airing on TV between 1964 and 1968. I also like buying new shows like 24 and Lost, they are better on DVD than on TV.

 

[michael_ks]

My preferences are for the older shows, pre-1974. I believe the most recent series in my collection is "Kung Fu" S2. I'm not specifically against sampling something newer (like perhaps "Nowhere Man") but I've been fortunate enough to amass a decent enough library of tv/dvd sets from the 50s and 60s (plus checking out 60s titles at the local libary ["Honeymooners", "That Girl"]) to keep me entertained for a very long time.

Finally, after all these years I'm able to program my own "nostalgia" channel with my collection-- commercial free, uncut, with superior restoration for the most part. To me the "Golden age" will always be 1951-1964 with the "Silver age" around 1965-1974.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Mike,

post! Sounds like that could be a thread-starter. If I was picking the years/time span, I'd probably go for....

Golden Age: '57 - '83
Silver Age: '83 - '96

I'm not yet up to your library levels, but I'd be able to maintain a limited-broadcast channel

Thanks to you guys here, I've been expanding the years from '57 - '64 more and more. I'm still a little "slow' to explore before the late 50's but I remember a few shows from those years that I'd buy if available.

Kudos, Gary, Mike, Bob H , and others here that I've talked to in PM's & E-mail's If you guys ever get to Dallas, the BBQ lunch is on me (Mike's already in the neighborhood!)

 

[Gary OS]

I'm with you, Michael. Those year designations sound right on to me.

And lest someone get the wrong impression from my earlier postings, let me take a second and clarify a few things.

Firstly, I'm happy for people when their favorites make it on to dvd, whether that be a vintage show from the 50's or a brand new one from this past season. I really don't begrudge anyone that privilege and joy.

Secondly, when I mention my frustration with the ratio of new shows to older ones on dvd, it's not because I speak out of ignorance. I'm well aware of the issues David Levine shared above, and realize that financial considerations (whether production or sales) will always play a huge role in studio decisions. I'd think it's obvious that when I bemoan the ratio of newer shows to older ones I'm speaking as a fan, not a studio exec. We've been through that before and I wouldn't think we need to hit the subject again for the umpteenth time.

Thirdly, my argument really comes back to accessibility. The new shows, whether they are released on dvd or not, are accessible to their fans. I can think of no reason anyone who's a big fan of, let's say "Heroes" (coming out on dvd today), wouldn't have already taped the show onto vhs or dvd for future viewing. Of course we all knew it would be released onto dvd anyhow, so the point is moot. But you get what I'm saying. At least the opportunity is there for a person to archive the program for future viewing.

But this is not the case with older shows, for two reasons. Number one, when many of those shows were being aired we didn't have means to archive them, and number two, even though we have the means now the shows aren't airing so we still don't get a shot at archiving them. It's a lose-lose situation unless the studios release these vintage series onto dvd for us. That's why I speak so passionately about the unbalanced ratio of older shows to newer ones. It's about accessibility. I'd like everyone to be able to enjoy their favorites, regardless of the decade. But right now the younger generation, and what they generally prefer to watch, is getting the largest piece of the pie. I'd just like to see that pie divided up a bit more. And again, I speak as a fan when I say that. I know it's not always practical or as profitable for the studios. It's just what I'd like to see.

Gary "if only Universal would finish LITB, and Sony and WB would get off their duffs with the older shows..." O.

 

[michael_ks]

I'm looking up the definition to "amen" to see that it applies here--yep, amen it is.

I really have to roll my eyes when I read of the excitement over "Ugly Betty" coming out on dvd. Let's see...I've waited, what, 40 years to see the complete "T.H.E. Cat"? And I have my doubts that I've managed to see every episode of "The Invaders" (as cut and faded prints, no less).

 

[Jeff Willis]

I guess one has to be one of the "vintage TV" fans to understand Like you guys said, it's about availibility. It's great that the "Smallville", "Alias", "X-Files", "Simpsons", "Lost", "24", "Buffy", etc collectors have that option. If I could, I'd go back in Irwin Allen's Time Tunnel and change the past to where all of the TV series were cleared for home video at the time of their broadcasts.

 

[Gary OS]

Darn it, Michael. I was trying so hard to come off as being gracious and kind and then you write something that I can so readily identify with and must "amen" too. Yes, I confess (as horrible as this sounds) that I too roll my eyes quite often at the same thing you do. It's just too dang hard not to. '

I'd say of the shows contained in my signature (which are only a portion of the ones I'd like to see released), at least 3/4 of them are shows I can honestly say I've never seen every episode of. At least 75%, if not more! So I can identify with you, brother. I really can.

Gary "and there are some shows in my signature that I haven't seen at all in decades!" O.

 

[michael_ks]

Indeed it is, Jeff because the release for series post 1985 have, to some extent made it possible for older shows to "ride the wave" of the tv/dvd explosion. So I begrudgingly welcome their release.

And Gary, I don't know about you but I have a few shows in my signature list that I've never even seen a single minute of. I just use simple formulas like these:

1965 + B/W western + Rod Serling creator/writer = must have ("The Loner")

1959 + B/W foreign intrigue + David Hedsion & Lucianna Paluzzi = MH ("5 Fingers")

You see where I'm going with this.