What's new

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

Gary OS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
5,995
Location
Florida
Real Name
Gary

LOL. Yeah, I see where you are going Michael.

You definitely have some intriguing entries in your signature. Shows that I've never seen a minute of, but would love to get a shot at. I'm open to anything from the 50's and early to mid 60's. For instance I went ahead and ordered all those Timeless Media sets coming next month from CD Universe (they offer a much better deal than Amazon this time around).

Gary "it really is a shame that so many of these shows have completely disappeared off the TV landscape" O.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,280
Real Name
Ethan Riley
Can we all just agree to disagree on this one? This is a totally losing argument any way you look at it. The fact is, we all want to own the stuff from our youth. All the people on here in their 50s and 60s want shows from their youth. All the younger people want today's shows. Why is there even an argument about it in the first place? We have have different tastes and different preferences, and it's childish to sit here and say "THAT show should NEVER have been put on dvd because I don't like it!" And there is no way you can objectively state that "my generation's shows are BETTER than yours." Life is more fair than that. Please you guys--just chalk this up to a matter of personal taste and get back to enjoying what you have, and hoping for what you don't.

And to balance my point of view even further, I would like to point out the fact that not NEARLY all of today's less successful shows get on dvd. Not at all. It's still a relatively small percentage of today's shows that come out. True, 99% of the big network hits will appear but it is untrue, as has been stated in this thread, that most of the less successful shows come out. Some of them do, but where is 3 Moons Over Milford? Where is South Beach? Where is The Bedford Diaries? All these shows came out in 2006 amidst huge publicity, each failed, lasting a whopping 8 episodes each, and never showed up on dvd. So I can't understand why classic tv fans are sitting there saying that all of today's junk is out on dvd. It isn't, not by far.

I think a lot of statements made on this particular thread have been shameful, childish and unfair.
 

Gary OS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
5,995
Location
Florida
Real Name
Gary

Ummm, that's apples and oranges Ethan. You can't compare a show that got canceled after 8 episodes to a series that lasted for years, or even one year. In fact it's crazy to talk about "South Beach" or "The Bedford Diaries" and compare their non-release to some of the classics we are talking about - like "Father Knows Best" or "My Three Sons." And despite your comments, it's still a fact that there is a huge ratio difference between new shows being released an older shows being released. That's the point some of us are making. I'm fine with the younger crowd (and I'm not close to being in my 50's or 60's) getting their shows on dvd. But the original question asked what we would rather see released, old shows or new ones. And with the imbalance between newer and older shows being released, it's obvious what many of us want. And on top of that, you completely whisked right over the availability/accessibility issue. At least you had a chance to record those shows on dvd, via a nice digital signal, before they went off the air (if you so desired). We haven't had that chance at all with many of the classics.

Gary "geesh" O.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,280
Real Name
Ethan Riley
Geesh indeed, Gary--

You weren't quite following along with me in my 2nd paragraph. I was directly referring to Hank Dearborn's post of 8/25 in which he stated, "What bothers me the most are the failed current series bombs that get released while there are many failed shows from the past I would love to see." And yes, Gary, it would be crazy to compare "South Beach" to "Father Knows Best." But is it all right with you if I compare it to "Run Buddy, Run?"

The huge ratio difference you mention makes a lot of sense seeing as how there's probably 10X more television programs on the air now, thanks to cable networks, than there were in the 60s.

The whole vibe I'm getting from this and similar threads, is that the studios have prejudice against their own older titles. Well, I don't suppose some of us have ever heard of brand-name familiarity. It's far easier to sell a recent failed show than a 45 year-old failed show. The recent shows are still remembered and recognized. You can't put out certain older shows that few remember; nobody will buy them. I don't see why there's so much confusion about that.
 

BeckyST

Auditioning
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
7

I second that! I too think that there is an equal market for television shows from the past and present. I wish that more TV shows from the 1980's and early 1990's would be released. I'm still waiting news about the release of"Gimme A Break" Season 3, but that hasn't happened yet. As for current TV shows, "Ugly Betty" is my favorite. Just because a show has sexual situations and profanity, it does not make it a good quality show. Sex is kinda like crack, it may sell, but that doesn't mean that it is good for you. One can only take sex appeal and other adult situations so far anyway. I also wish that the media would report more on the positive things that celebrities do, and less on the negative things that they do. I for one am getting sick and tired of the bs anyway, just my humble opinion. :cool:
 

Elena S

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
529
Yes, the argument really isn't about which shows merit release but which time period you'd rather have, new or old. I do have to add another amen to Gary & Michael's posts, though. And thanks to you guys for giving me another idea for a thread!
 

Gary OS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
5,995
Location
Florida
Real Name
Gary

Well, I've personally tried my best NOT to give that vibe in my posts. I sadly admit that it's not about any personal bias, but instead about money. And while I do think there are some titles that could do better than studio execs give them credit for (I think Sony and WB don't give their older catalog any real thought), I also admit that the entire ratio issue is about money. David Levine did a wonderful and succinct job of pointing this out, and I agreed with him. So I get that. But I thought the point of the thread initially was not about what "reality" is right now, but about what we wanted to see, and why we wanted to see it.

Gary "sorry about any misinterpretation of your post" O.
 

BeckyST

Auditioning
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
7

I agree wholeheartedly, and I also think it would be great if the independent studios like Shout!, Anchor Bay, BCI, S'more, and VEI could get the licenses to the rights of all the shows from the 50's through the 90's. And, if they could get the rights to any special features, such as promo spots, outtakes, etc., that would boost sales all the more. There really is a market for TV shows from the last few decades, and I believe that the independent studios would benefit greatly from the sales of these sales. What do you all think?:)
 

Duane Alford

Second Unit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
310


Well I'm in that all important 18-40 male demographic, but I prefer older shows. Of the shows I have, 8 are one and done (Land Of The Giants should have had 2 releases instead of one, but Ultraman should have been two releases instead of one). Of the shows I want, 19 would be one and done (although the George Carlin Show and Stingray ran for 2 seasons they ran 25 episodes and 23 episodes each they could be done in one release).

Now look at my want list by decade:
1950's: 8 shows
1960's: 13 shows
1970's: 22 shows
1980's: 23 shows
1990's: 10 shows
2000's: 2 shows

In the 90's I started watching tv less and less. I only got into 2 shows that come out after 2000 and both have all their seasons released. This goes to show that tv execs and tv studios really don't know squat about what the all important male demographic actually watches.
 

Jason Seaver

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
9,303
No, it goes to show that they are not marketing to you, specifically. It's very important to remember that You Are Not A Representative Sample, and that just because you and some people you know/talk to want something doesn't mean you can extrapolate a huge, untapped demand.
 

Hank Dearborn

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
715
Real Name
Hank


Notice how that's always the case with people making the argument. They always just conveniently gloss over the fact that they could have recorded the new shows for themselves if they were smart enough and not lazy. Not really the same option was available for shows from the 50s, 60s and 70s, especially those that have never reaired anywhere.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,426
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Yeah, they could record the show and it would have network bugs, banners for other programs, commercials and quality not even close to a DVD. I tape the shows that I want to rewatch (so, by your standards, I'm smart and not lazy) but I have those to tide me over until a decent copy becomes available for purchase. I'm sure most people, including myself, would love to have even poor copies of unreleased shows that they love but a copy of today's network broadcast isn't close to the quality that you get from today's DVDs.
 

Pete Battista

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 20, 1999
Messages
2,309
Location
Shepherdsville, KY. USA
Real Name
Pete
There is also the fact that you can't always record all shows... I still at this time... using a dvr (Like Tivo) on my cable box to watch new shows... and can record up to 2 channels at one time (something you couldn't do with VHS)... and I still miss shows I want to check out since at times there is 3 or more shows on at the same time... so even if you are recording shows... there is just no way you can tape everything you want to check out!
 

Mary_P

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
456
... and that recording in the early days of home video was prohibitively expensive. I've seen this charge of "laziness" crop up from time to time, and it completely overlooks the economics of the matter. My first VCR cost a significant percentage of my annual income in 1978, and blank tapes were close to $25 a pop for two hours of recording time -- I don't think I'd want to know what that is adjusted for inflation. It was simply not financially possible to record EVERYTHING I might potentially have some interest in seeing again.

As prices came down, I recorded more, but even now, with a DVR and several VCRs in the house, I don't record everything I watch, and as others have noted, watching a tape of the original airing isn't the same experience as watching a clean, commercial- and bug-free DVD. Now, because of TV on DVD, I record less and less of current shows. What I do still record is mostly specials that aren't likely to be rerun, or shows that I like a lot (and therefore are doomed to a short run :) ), where I have a pretty good idea that it won't last long and won't be coming out on DVD.

In general, I'd rather see older shows released, especially if they were fairly short-run and thus haven't been seen in syndication since their original airings. Taking "It Takes a Thief" and "Studio 60" as examples, I'd buy them both, but "Studio 60" will probably sit on my shelves for a few years before I watch it again because I just saw it during this past TV season. If Universal will get off their duff and release ITAT, I'll not only buy it, but I'll probably watch it a lot sooner than a lot of other stuff in my collection, simply because I haven't seen it in probably a decade or more.

Of course, there are some more recent shows that I would both buy and watch immediately, in particular shows that were cancelled mid-season with several episodes left unaired, or shows where the network messed with the schedule so much that I'm sure I missed some episodes.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
How about the fact that, in addition to the cost of VCRs and tapes at the time, some of us had just been born.

And don't forget that U-matic tapes and machines were available in 1971. They may have weighed 60 pounds and been expensive, but it was still possible to record a TV broadcast at that time.

How about the additional fact that filmed shows, up until the mid-1980s, were still being run off crummy film chains from prints.

Or even the fact that if they did record their favorite shows in the 1980s, there were still announcers talking through the end credits, weather alerts, visual defects when switching to the network feed, and bunny ears reception if they didn't get cable.

Or even today, the fact that DVRs have limited space, and there is no really good, practical way to save an HD broadcast for posterity for most people, since DVHS went nowhere.
 

jamesGA

Agent
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
35
Older shows.

I dont need to see newer shows, they are gonna be aired for the next 10 years. And newer shows are still dresh in my memory.

And the best reason, is that newer shows suck.
 

Gary OS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
5,995
Location
Florida
Real Name
Gary

Understood, but as you said yourself, better to have a copy with those "defects" or annoyances rather than nothing at all. And that's the key to this discussion, IMHO.

The original question, which seems to be lost on some people, isn't whether or not it's profitable for the major studios to release older, b&w shows. We know that in most cases those vintage shows aren't going to be as profitable for the studios as newer releases. David Levine has done an excellent job (and he knows better than all of us) sharing how that works. But the question was a subjective one - What would each of us rather see released: Old shows or new ones? Again, the question isn't what's more profitable for the studios. We know the answer to that one. This is purely a "fan" question based on individual preferences.

Inherent in the question, to my way of thinking, is WHY we'd rather see old shows or new shows released. And those of us that would rather see older series released have given two basic answers. One, we feel the older shows are inherently superior. But that's a question of taste, and we can go back and forth on that one. So I'd say it's best to refrain from getting into that too much because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But the second answer as to why we'd rather see older shows released seems to me to be the more valid one (even though it does NOT take into account profitability for the studio - thus it's still a "fan" thing). I'm talking about the issue of accessibility. No matter how you slice it, even if you want to talk about people having a chance to record something 30 years ago - a bit of a stretch, IMHO - it's still not the same as today. We've now got a media form (DVD) that hold more data than the old vhs tapes did. And it's supposedly a media that will last much longer without any deterioration.

Add to all the above the fact that it's much, much cheaper to record things today than it was 20 years ago. And that we benefit from superior signals, and there's just no comparison. People that want current shows on dvd ought to be admitting to vintage fans that they have it better and there's really no argument with regards to accessibility. As we have already pointed out - they really do have a legitimate shot at archiving their shows even without official studio releases onto dvd. Vintage fans do not have that option, in most cases. And that's the main reason I'd rather see older shows released. It's completely a "fan" issue. I realize that. But it's also a reality that new show fans ought to be able recognize. They have it much better and should be sympathetic to their vintage fan brothers, not condescending and unfeeling.

Gary "hope that makes sense" O.
 

Jay_B!

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
1,746
::claps:: I remember on another board some time back, a person complained when Sony announced a Seinfeld set for release, replying with "why not release something classic?". Ummmm, Seinfeld IS a classic, just because it's stars aren't eighty or dead doesn't make it any less of a classic, Seinfeld is one for the ages and will still be beloved in 40 years like Lucy and Honeymooners are today. Just because the show aired in the 90's instead of the 50's and 60's doesn't make it less of a classic, it's already heralded as one of the all time greats.
 

Jay_B!

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
1,746
some people obviously don't understand the economics of things. Newer shows equal bigger sales, why would the companies sacrifice the potential to sell millions of Lost or Heroes sets because some older TV fans have an aversion to anything after 1975? It makes no sense. A show like Heroes will bring Universal the revenue to actually contemplate bringing out a show from the 60's that they might not have the faith in releasing otherwise.

Plus I am sick of the "my show from 1967 is better than your show from 2007 mentality". Like music and movies, I don't give a crap what year or era a tv show I like is from. I love a lot of current musical groups like The Killers, Maroon 5, Scissor Sisters, Mika and others.... and I also love The Beatles, Simon And Garfunkel, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, Frankie Valli And The Four Seasons, The Supremes, The Monkees and others whose heyday was forty or more years ago. Same goes with movies and television. Why limit your tastes because of the age something is?

People who automatically dismiss a show as garbage because it aired after their childhood is no more openminded than a younger person who refuses to watch anything that pre-dates Friends or Sex And The City because it's "too old".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,716
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top