«

Fox is creating DVDs from their television series'
and specials like the Simpsons, 24, etc....why did
Malcolm in the Middle, Season 1 come out ages
ago without any releases since? According to
Amazon.com, it sold very well and you'd think that
they would want to continue to profit from it.

DK

"Dave King" <> wrote in message
news:XEAXc.27980$...
> Fox is creating DVDs from their television series'
> and specials like the Simpsons, 24, etc....why did
> Malcolm in the Middle, Season 1 come out ages
> ago without any releases since? According to
> Amazon.com, it sold very well and you'd think that
> they would want to continue to profit from it.
>
> DK
>
>

It's going into syndication next month, so maybe it has something to do with
it.

"kaydigi" <> wrote in message
news:rcBXc.5947$2B4.216@trnddc06...
>
> "Dave King" <> wrote in message
> news:XEAXc.27980$...
> > Fox is creating DVDs from their television series'
> > and specials like the Simpsons, 24, etc....why did
> > Malcolm in the Middle, Season 1 come out ages
> > ago without any releases since? According to
> > Amazon.com, it sold very well and you'd think that
> > they would want to continue to profit from it.
> >
> > DK
> >
> >
>
> It's going into syndication next month, so maybe it has something to do
with
> it.

Well, i'm still waiting for Volume 2 of Son of the Beach. They put out
Volume One 18 months ago and I haven't seen hide, nor hair, of Notch's unit
ever since.

--
ICEBREAKER
"Everybody who is a person of color in this country has benefited from
affirmative action. There has not been anybody who has gotten into college
on their own, nobody who has gotten a job on their own, no one who has
prospered as a businessman or businesswoman on their own without affirmative
action."

"Dave King" <> wrote:

> Fox is creating DVDs from their television series' and
> specials like the Simpsons, 24, etc....why did Malcolm
> in the Middle, Season 1 come out ages ago without any
> releases since? According to Amazon.com, it sold very
> well and you'd think that they would want to continue to
> profit from it.

"Sold very well" depends on one's point of view. The bottom
line is whether it pulled in the dollars that were expected
(or hoped for). That Amazon was happy doesn't necessarily
mean that Fox was.

-- jayembee

jayembee wrote:
> "Dave King" <> wrote:
>
>
>>Fox is creating DVDs from their television series' and
>>specials like the Simpsons, 24, etc....why did Malcolm
>>in the Middle, Season 1 come out ages ago without any
>>releases since? According to Amazon.com, it sold very
>>well and you'd think that they would want to continue to
>>profit from it.
>
>
> "Sold very well" depends on one's point of view. The bottom
> line is whether it pulled in the dollars that were expected
> (or hoped for). That Amazon was happy doesn't necessarily
> mean that Fox was.
>
> -- jayembee


According to a news conference given by Fox about eight or nine months
ago, Malcolm and other DVDs with music queues were being held up because
of the cost of licencing the music queues. Fox says the Malcolm in the
Middle DVD sold well and warrented a second season release, but they
could not do it without further negotiations with the copyright holders
of the music. This is a widespread problem in the television industry
with regard to shows made prior to 2002. At the time of production, the
music was licenced for broadcast and not for distribution in another
medium. That is why in order to get some television shows released on
DVD music queues had to be changed. Apparently Fox would like to
release Malcolm in its original form as it was broadcast. I would like
to see them release all the seasons with the original music intact. If
it means that Fox needs to hold up future releases until they can make
the appropriate deals, which may include the new syndication deals, then
I am for it. I do wish they could find a way to get Malcolm season two
released soon though. I enjoy the show, especially the first three
seasons. I thought the show slipped a little during Jane's pregnancy,
but I think it has since rebounded. I would buy all the seasons if they
were released, but I prefer to have the music queues as they originally
were broadcast. They were chosen for a reason, and I believe they
enhance the stories.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:48:17 GMT, JAM <> spewed forth
these words of wisdom:


>
>According to a news conference given by Fox about eight or nine months
>ago, Malcolm and other DVDs with music queues were being held up because
>of the cost of licencing the music queues. Fox says the Malcolm in the
>Middle DVD sold well and warrented a second season release, but they
>could not do it without further negotiations with the copyright holders
>of the music. This is a widespread problem in the television industry
>with regard to shows made prior to 2002. At the time of production, the
>music was licenced for broadcast and not for distribution in another
>medium. That is why in order to get some television shows released on
>DVD music queues had to be changed. Apparently Fox would like to
>release Malcolm in its original form as it was broadcast. I would like
>to see them release all the seasons with the original music intact. If
>it means that Fox needs to hold up future releases until they can make
>the appropriate deals, which may include the new syndication deals, then
>I am for it. I do wish they could find a way to get Malcolm season two
>released soon though. I enjoy the show, especially the first three
>seasons. I thought the show slipped a little during Jane's pregnancy,
>but I think it has since rebounded. I would buy all the seasons if they
>were released, but I prefer to have the music queues as they originally
>were broadcast. They were chosen for a reason, and I believe they
>enhance the stories.

Are you saying that producers finally wised up in 2002 and licensed music for
both broadcast and distribution in another medium? That should've been a
no-brainer!

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley

Galley <> wrote:

>Are you saying that producers finally wised up in 2002 and licensed music for
>both broadcast and distribution in another medium? That should've been a
>no-brainer!

Except that prior to that, TV series on home video were few and far
between, because the syndication market was the primary aftermarket
revenue generator.

If the studio never intended to release a show on home video, what
would be the point of spending extra money to obtain music licenses
that covered that medium?

It wasn't until TV on DVD really took off that they realized they did
need to spend that extra money.

-- jayembee

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 04:23:50 GMT, jayembee <> spewed
forth these words of wisdom:

>Galley <> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying that producers finally wised up in 2002 and licensed music for
>>both broadcast and distribution in another medium? That should've been a
>>no-brainer!
>
>Except that prior to that, TV series on home video were few and far
>between, because the syndication market was the primary aftermarket
>revenue generator.
>
>If the studio never intended to release a show on home video, what
>would be the point of spending extra money to obtain music licenses
>that covered that medium?
>
>It wasn't until TV on DVD really took off that they realized they did
>need to spend that extra money.
>
>-- jayembee

OK, that makes sense, but doesn't the same also apply to motion pictures when
they were re-released on DVD?

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley

Galley <> wrote:

>jayembee <> spewed forth these words of wisdom:
>
>>Galley <> wrote:
>>
>>>Are you saying that producers finally wised up in 2002 and licensed music for
>>>both broadcast and distribution in another medium? That should've been a
>>>no-brainer!
>>
>>Except that prior to that, TV series on home video were few and far
>>between, because the syndication market was the primary aftermarket
>>revenue generator.
>>
>>If the studio never intended to release a show on home video, what
>>would be the point of spending extra money to obtain music licenses
>>that covered that medium?
>>
>>It wasn't until TV on DVD really took off that they realized they did
>>need to spend that extra money.
>
>OK, that makes sense, but doesn't the same also apply to motion pictures when
>they were re-released on DVD?

No. The movie industry already learned that lesson back in the 80s.

(1) A lot of movies, when released on videotape, had to have some
music changed because the initial licenses applied only to the usual
film distribution channels (theatrical and TV). Some films didn't come
out for a *really* long time because of it (the most notorious example
was HEAVY METAL, which took 17 years to come out on home video).

(2) The infant CD industry ran into problems with a number of groups
(the Beatles, Pink Floyd, and the Alan Parsons Project being the most
notable examples) when their agents argued that CD was a completely
new medium, and therefore the previous contracts didn't apply. The
labels had to renegotiate a lot of contracts before they could release
some albums on CD.

The movie industry wasn't stupid, and the contracts from that point
on probably included language that allowed for as-yet-undeveloped
new media to fall under the "home video" rights. So the development
of DVD didn't render the previous licenses null and void.

-- jayembee