Dino Thunder DVD question
Michael
teaming up with Ninja Storm will be on any of the official DVD
realeases? If so, which one(s)?
Thanks in advance!
Michael
Randy Orton
I'm pretty sure we're done with the DVD releases for this season,
there's only so many numbers Disney go up in series releases to before
moving on to promote the next season, you'll see the FINALE no problem
when the first volume of S.P.D comes out, but the team-up? No chance
StarFighters76
what i dont get is why cant disney just release the whole damn series?
they released 2/3 of it already.
XPeeple
>they released 2/3 of it already.
I'm so tired of this. IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THEM FINANCIALLY. GET OVER IT.
Zarius
on DVD as a "financial experiment", you can expect a lot more people to
live in denial a little further...
Yellow Lightning
news:20041206005816...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >what i dont get is why cant disney just release the whole damn series?
> >they released 2/3 of it already.
>
> I'm so tired of this. IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THEM FINANCIALLY. GET OVER IT.
And Toei benefits financially from putting every single Sentai ep. out every
year? Every show and their brother is coming out on DVD, I think Disney can
at least give us whole seasons of the current season.
XPeeple
>> >they released 2/3 of it already.
>>
>> I'm so tired of this. IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THEM FINANCIALLY. GET OVER IT.
>
>And Toei benefits financially from putting every single Sentai ep. out every
>year?
Two key differences are that Sentai shows aren't repeated (whereas Disney needs
Power Rangers to fill its schedule on three different channels) and that
collecting is more hard-wired into Japanese culture than it is American. Disney
knows how its own home video sales work, and that their lines of feature-length
videos sell well enough that upping that order to full-season wouldn't be
astoundingly more profitable (to say nothing of the fact that the more home
video releases there are, the less attractive televised repeats look).
>Every show and their brother is coming out on DVD, I think Disney can
>at least give us whole seasons of the current season.
Disney has been specifically reluctant to release any its own complete series
or seasons on DVD; it doesn't stand to reason why they would start with PR, a
property they purchased eight years into its life, rather than one of the
multitude of shows they produced themselves with original characters. Power
Rangers was purchased as a continual source of revenue, not something to cash
in on and be done with.
XPeeple
>on DVD as a "financial experiment", you can expect a lot more people to
>live in denial a little further...
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
Zarius
fooled into thinking the Gargoyles box set will mark the beggining of
Power Rangers on DVD...
JDJF03
>I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
>
Would seem he is a little. But with your whole 'they won't release them
because' routine, why not.
As has been mentioned in another response, all sorts of shows (old and new)
are being released on DVD (wheather in compilations or season sets). It makes
no difference of this 'financial' way, or 'rerunning', that you've been
thinking of.
Sure, they get money from the sale of them, and all. But they're also put
out for the people (who want to have the shows they enjoy, and be able to watch
them whenever).
Jon-
Cartoon Quote-
"Now one close call would be enough to send a smart guy runnin', but Daggett
never had the sense the good lord gave an onion" (Angry Beavers: "The Legend
of Kid Friendly").
William C.
"JDJF03" <jdj...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20041206145646...@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
> >I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
> >
>
> Would seem he is a little. But with your whole 'they won't release them
> because' routine, why not.
>
> As has been mentioned in another response, all sorts of shows (old and
new)
> are being released on DVD (wheather in compilations or season sets). It
makes
> no difference of this 'financial' way, or 'rerunning', that you've been
> thinking of.
>
> Sure, they get money from the sale of them, and all. But they're also
put
> out for the people (who want to have the shows they enjoy, and be able to
watch
> them whenever).
>
besides did anyone like knight rider enough to wanna see it anytime they
felt like it?
i mean it was a good show don't get me wrong
Dragon Ranger
news:20041206145646...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> Sure, they get money from the sale of them, and all. But they're also
> put
> out for the people (who want to have the shows they enjoy, and be able to
> watch
> them whenever).
... You're kidding, right?
--
Brad
JDJF03
>... You're kidding, right?
>
Why? Just cause you don't think so.
You really think the monetary route is the only reason?! I mean think about
it, there's loads of older shows being released (alot of which haven't been on
for some years now), as well as shows (which are recently on TV, and others
that have been in re-runs for years).
Granted, may only be in part, but fans do have some pull in getting shows
out.
Lio Convoy
news:20041209191925...@mb-m12.aol.com:
> Granted, may only be in part, but fans do have some pull in getting
> shows
> out.
Of course, without a fan-base, the companies can't make money. The more
people write in the more money a company can make. Take a look at the Star
Trek DVD sets, $80 to $100 per season.
XPeeple
>> shows
>> out.
>
>Of course, without a fan-base, the companies can't make money. The more
>people write in the more money a company can make. Take a look at the Star
>Trek DVD sets, $80 to $100 per season.
Just because a series has a fanbase doesn't mean that it can sell DVDs, nor
does the reverse apply. People don't want to realize that PR is aimed at
children, whether or not it appeals to a dedicated group of older people, and
that stigma means that its home video release is going to be limited to what
sells for that former demographic--cheap DVDs priced at $20 or less, which has
become a keystone in Disney's revenue for the past decade. Yes, Star Trek can
charge $100+ for their seasons, but that's a franchise that has lasted four
decades and has been the pinnacle of cult with flashes of mainstream for just
as long. With PR you have in many cases the same brand of rabid fandom, but in
much smaller quantities, to say nothing of the even worse stigma that it's
nothing more than a children's toy commerical--any way you slice it, the sales
of a full-season release would be mediocre at best.
JDJF03
>With PR you have in many cases the same brand of rabid fandom, but in
much smaller quantities, to say nothing of the even worse stigma that it's
nothing more than a children's toy commerical--any way you slice it, the sales
of a full-season release would be mediocre at best.
>
Well, that might be the case. Had other shows (that were also thought of as
'toy commercials') not gotten DVD releases. But they did.
** Transformers and G.I. Joe, to name a couple.
XPeeple
>much smaller quantities, to say nothing of the even worse stigma that it's
>nothing more than a children's toy commerical--any way you slice it, the
>sales
>of a full-season release would be mediocre at best.
>>
>
> Well, that might be the case. Had other shows (that were also thought of
>as
>'toy commercials') not gotten DVD releases. But they did.
> ** Transformers and G.I. Joe, to name a couple.
Your example might apply, were GI Joe and Transformers the same kind of
perennially-changing franchises as Power Rangers. PR's success hinges on its
constant reinvention--while other properties may also change, the hell if they
have done it every year for the past twelve years. Also don't forget that the
original series of GI Joe had 139 episodes, and Transformers didn't even break
100, as compared to PR's 530+. The project would be enormous and likely not
cost-effective.
JDJF03
>Your example might apply, were GI Joe and Transformers the same kind of
>perennially-changing franchises as Power Rangers. PR's success hinges on its
>constant reinvention--while other properties may also change, the hell if they
>have done it every year for the past twelve years. Also don't forget that the
>original series of GI Joe had 139 episodes, and Transformers didn't even break
>100, as compared to PR's 530+. The project would be enormous and likely not
>cost-effective.
>
Though they may not be exactly the same type of thing, was just giving those
as examples (for similar things, in the 'toy comm.' vein you noted on).
And, granted it might not be done, but who can tell (with all the different
stuff that is being released).
XPeeple
>>perennially-changing franchises as Power Rangers. PR's success hinges on its
>>constant reinvention--while other properties may also change, the hell if
>they
>>have done it every year for the past twelve years. Also don't forget that
>the
>>original series of GI Joe had 139 episodes, and Transformers didn't even
>break
>>100, as compared to PR's 530+. The project would be enormous and likely not
>>cost-effective.
>>
>
> Though they may not be exactly the same type of thing, was just giving
>those
>as examples (for similar things, in the 'toy comm.' vein you noted on).
And what exactly *is* the same kind of thing? The closest thing to PR in the
United States is Pokemon, another Jap import, which has the same "toy
commercial" impression on mainstream as PR, and is just as overplayed in the
public eye. There's nothing quite like Power Rangers, and instead of being
grateful that so many episodes *are* released on DVD (and in so short a time),
jerks like you just want more and more. Get over your fanboy stage and realize
that entertainment is a business.
> And, granted it might not be done, but who can tell (with all the different
>stuff that is being released).
That may be the worst fucking argument I've ever heard.
Lio Convoy
m02.aol.com:
> Your example might apply, were GI Joe and Transformers the same kind of
> perennially-changing franchises as Power Rangers
Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Energon, Armada, Gen 1......
XPeeple
>> perennially-changing franchises as Power Rangers
>
>Beast Wars, Beast Machines, Energon, Armada, Gen 1......
...over a period of twenty years. You ignored the NEXT SENTENCE where I said
the difference was that PR changes EVERY year, a key difference in the
franchising venture.
JDJF03
>The
facts are that there are MANY shows seeing season releases (either as
sets like GI Joe or in one-disk increments like X-men Evolution) and
there is nothing preventing the release of Power Rangers seasons other
than that the company in charge doesn't want to.
>
First, thanks for that.
And now, to give an example of the section of the post I've quoted.
-If not for the company Media Blaster getting the rights to do it, Invader
Zim would not have seen the light of DVD. As Nick disliked the show to the
pont of A) giving it bad tme slots, B) canning it suddenly and C) wanting
hardly anything to do with it afterward (removing it from the regular Nick
channel, and giving it just a few timeslots on Nicktoons TV).
John Green
>There's nothing quite like Power Rangers, and instead of being
>grateful that so many episodes *are* released on DVD (and in so short a time),
>jerks like you just want more and more. Get over your fanboy stage and realize
>that entertainment is a business.
Whereas I can understand the fact that it will be a tall task to
release entire series, and moreover it may never happen.
Hell yeah, we're not that greatful. The DVDs they have released are
subpar, in general, at best.
XPeeple
>is aimed at children" then it's "PR is a perennially-changing
>franchises" now the insistance is that it because it changes "every
>year" (even though the first three seasons were essentially the SAME
>show under the SAME name). Face it, you are just making excuses. The
>facts are that there are MANY shows seeing season releases (either as
>sets like GI Joe or in one-disk increments like X-men Evolution) and
>there is nothing preventing the release of Power Rangers seasons other
>show doesn't prevent it. Being a "perennially-changing franchises"
>doesn't do it (and changing every year actually works in PR favor in
>regards to releases as they Could release only the "Previous and/or
>current season" as a complete season rather than having to release ALL
>previous seasons should the company decide to start releasing entire
>seasons).
I never said the reasons wouldn't or couldn't be multi-faceted. The fact of the
matter is that PR isn't like any other series out there. The show *is* aimed at
the 2-11 demographic, so making a play at a collector's market would be
ill-conceived as the show is well past its once mainstream popularity; remember
the failures that were Power Rangers OTO and the Power Playback line. With the
show's annual series change, the goal is to sell products as soon as they come
out--a new Lightspeed Rescue toy in 2005 would be as useless and confusing to
promotion as a Power Rangers Ninja Storm DVD Boxed Set when a new series is
airing. The annual change also wipes the slate clean for an increasingly fickle
audience in a time where shows struggle to keep fans for more than one season
(differeing from the quick full-season releases of serials like 24 and Alias
where knowledge of a previous season's events is necessary to follow the
current one). This is adapted from the Sentai/Kamen Rider business model where
the consumer is *supposed* to forget about the old series so products from the
current one are still appealing. Yes, Toei does release their entire series on
DVD, but the Japanese market is very different--complete series (not
necessarily Sentai) were released on *VHS* in Japan, which would have been
generally unacceptable in the American market. Disney, the parent company that
owns Power Rangers, besides in all likelihood having bought the series for a
steady revenue stream over ten or more years rather than a quick cash-in, has
been noticeably reluctant in releasing *any* of its dozens of properties in the
"season boxed set DVD" form. Compare that to the many shows that are being
released out of the blue by defunct or repurchased production companies, who
*aren't* producing as much (or any) new programming as Disney constantly is and
you'll see why other companies trying to cash in. Disney doesn't need to do
this, and likely finds the 3-5 episode DVDs more profitable than a season set,
because that format allows more releases per year, a lower price, and a
*higher* price per year for fewer episodes.
XPeeple
>facts are that there are MANY shows seeing season releases (either as
>sets like GI Joe or in one-disk increments like X-men Evolution) and
>there is nothing preventing the release of Power Rangers seasons other
>than that the company in charge doesn't want to.
>>
>
> First, thanks for that.
>
> And now, to give an example of the section of the post I've quoted.
>
> -If not for the company Media Blaster getting the rights to do it, Invader
>Zim would not have seen the light of DVD. As Nick disliked the show to the
>pont of A) giving it bad tme slots, B) canning it suddenly and C) wanting
>hardly anything to do with it afterward (removing it from the regular Nick
>channel, and giving it just a few timeslots on Nicktoons TV).
Which is relevant how, exactly? Is Power Rangers a defunct property that's so
obscure in the public eye that full seasons just *have* to be released?
XPeeple
>>grateful that so many episodes *are* released on DVD (and in so short a
>time),
>>jerks like you just want more and more. Get over your fanboy stage and
>realize
>>that entertainment is a business.
>
>Whereas I can understand the fact that it will be a tall task to
>release entire series, and moreover it may never happen.
>
>Hell yeah, we're not that greatful. The DVDs they have released are
>subpar, in general, at best.
How so? The digital transfer is good enough, and we're starting to see some
sparing bonus features, which are exactly that, and not crucial to the format
or the release. Be GRATEful.
Lio Convoy
news:20041214140136...@mb-m16.aol.com:
> Which is relevant how, exactly? Is Power Rangers a defunct property
> that's so obscure in the public eye that full seasons just *have* to
> be released?
They are releasing Monk, Gargoyles (which also had changes made), already
releasing the first season of Las Vegas even though it may not be renewed.
Harsh Realms was recently released on DVD and that didn't even make a full
season. Hell, you can even pick up the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
(40s/50s) episodes on DVD now.
So Mr Knows-it-all-about-DVD-releases, give us one REAL reason why they
haven't released a full season of PR. WHY? Disney is most likely waiting
for an opportune time when they can sell them for $100 a season like
Paramount is doing with the Trek shows.
Why must you constantly make new excuses because someone uses your own
argument against you?
Lio Convoy
news:20041214135732...@mb-m16.aol.com:
Bullshit, think of the money they could make from re-releasing PRLR and
other season toys with the DVD releases.
Dr. Who had more cast changes than PR has, and it's getting released, at
least from the 2nd Doctor onward (the originals from the first Doc were
destroyed in a fire).
So quit making your stupid excuses and claiming you know everything.
Dagmar
> Bullshit, think of the money they could make from re-releasing PRLR and
> other season toys with the DVD releases.
Off whom?
These days, if I REALLY want a TV series on DVD, I don't mind paying $XX
for a box set. However, if my son had asked me to buy PR at the time, I
would've said no. Just because I would've thought it too expensive for a
kid's series -- in which he might lose interest at any point. It's the
same reasoning why I didn't buy toys I thought were too costly. And
honestly, I believe a lot of parents think that way, too -- and the
Disney marketing department probably knows that.
Hence, no PR DVDs. (At least one reason, IMO)
>
> Dr. Who had more cast changes than PR has, and it's getting released, at
> least from the 2nd Doctor onward (the originals from the first Doc were
> destroyed in a fire).
Dr. Who has a mostly adult fanbase who can AFFORD to buy the sets. PR's
MAIN fanbase is kids who are dependent on their parents' goodwill (and
funds) to buy it.
John Green
>remember
>the failures that were Power Rangers OTO and the Power Playback line.
Well, if you're talking VHS... they obviously weren't a failure since
they later released 3 more to accompany the original 3.
If you're talking about the Toy Line.... wow, you're full of crap.
Rene
"John Green" <webm...@grnrngr.com> wrote in message
news:7ogur0ls81inpbqk9...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Dec 2004 18:57:32 GMT, xpe...@aol.com (XPeeple) wrote:
>
>>remember
>>the failures that were Power Rangers OTO and the Power Playback line.
>
> Well, if you're talking VHS... they obviously weren't a failure since
> they later released 3 more to accompany the original 3.
>
Um...OTO, the supposed one-time only airing of every single episode of PR.
Cancelled after season 1.
> If you're talking about the Toy Line.... wow, you're full of crap.
Um...the Power Playback toyline was a failiure.
XPeeple
>>the failures that were Power Rangers OTO and the Power Playback line.
>
>Well, if you're talking VHS... they obviously weren't a failure since
>they later released 3 more to accompany the original 3.
>
>If you're talking about the Toy Line.... wow, you're full of crap.
Am I? I don't know about your area, but in New York, Power Playback toys
remained unsold for months at several TRU stores, before being sent to the
discount chains, where they remained unsold at half the price through the NEXT
Christmas season.
XPeeple
>> that's so obscure in the public eye that full seasons just *have* to
>> be released?
>
>They are releasing Monk, Gargoyles (which also had changes made), already
>releasing the first season of Las Vegas even though it may not be renewed.
>Harsh Realms was recently released on DVD and that didn't even make a full
>season. Hell, you can even pick up the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers
>(40s/50s) episodes on DVD now.
Monk is still in production, buddy. Gargoyles didn't even reach 80 episodes,
everyone knows it's a Buena Vista experiment, and it never went through
"changes" in the same way that Power Rangers does; not even close. Las Vegas is
a primetime soap, almost all of which are quickly sent to DVD now at discount
prices to ensure profitability in case it doesn't make syndication minima.
Harsh Realm is as I've said "a defunt property that's so obscure in the public
eye that full seasons just have to be released," because it can't be profitable
in syndication with only 13 episodes. I may be wrong on this, but the rights to
Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers are likely owned by people with little or no other
stake in the entertainment industry and live off the revenue their respective
liscences can produce, if those properties haven't already fallen into the
public domain. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
>So Mr Knows-it-all-about-DVD-releases, give us one REAL reason why they
>haven't released a full season of PR. WHY? Disney is most likely waiting
>for an opportune time when they can sell them for $100 a season like
>Paramount is doing with the Trek shows.
Apples and oranges, again. Did you grow up in an orchard?
Full seasons of PR simply won't sell competitively in the market, and Disney
has been very careful not to oversaturate the market with past PR seasons'
baggage. "An opportune time" might be a reasonable scenario, but unless
inflation reaches unheard-of levels, they'll never sell at $100 apiece, because
as Dagmar has pointed out, the main demographic depends on its parents'
goodwill for purchases. As much as you might think there's a large enough
fanbase of the disposable income crowd to warrant a rather high-end venture,
it's just not the case. And if you think that the Power Rangers fandom is as
large and as rabid as the Star Trek fandom, you're nothing short of delusional.
And don't forget that short of the ailing Enterprise, Star Trek is functionally
dead at this point, whereas Disney probably needs PR to run another seven or
eight years to just break even.
There's rarely a Disney DVD release with an MSRP over $29.99, and that's an
unlikely scenario for a show with 38 to 60 episodes a year. A parent is more
likely to buy five $14.99 releases a year than even a moderately priced $59.99
season release as a single birthday or Christmas splurge, and Disney even makes
more off releasing just a handful of episodes in that scenario.
>Why must you constantly make new excuses because someone uses your own
>argument against you?
I have no personal stake in whether PR is released or not. But you absolutely
refuse to accept the fact that it's primarily a children's program with little
to no mainstream recognition. For all the "know-it-all" comments, I did study a
lot of marketing and branding in college and am hoping to make a career in it
eventually, and with Disney's being a favorite company to watch of mine, I can
certainly see their apparent reasoning in taking or not taking many actions,
and I do think they're quite justified in taking that course of action. I could
be completely wrong, and Disney could release MMPR Season One on a Blu-Ray
three-disc set next year, but I'm basing all of my theories on the precedent
thussofar. But all you've done is be a giant baby about the damned thing crying
foul because YOU WANNA SEE POWER RANGERS ON DVD! WAA WAA WAA! Ugh.
Lio Convoy
m16.aol.com:
> and with Disney's being a favorite company to watch of mine,
Explains a lot about your arrogance.
Yellow Lightning
news:20041215004934...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> Full seasons of PR simply won't sell competitively in the market, and
Disney
> has been very careful not to oversaturate the market with past PR seasons'
> baggage. "An opportune time" might be a reasonable scenario, but unless
> inflation reaches unheard-of levels, they'll never sell at $100 apiece,
because
> as Dagmar has pointed out, the main demographic depends on its parents'
> goodwill for purchases.
Then why not make limited edition collector boxes? Release say 1000 boxes,
and when that sells out, that's it. I'm sure there's that many die hard PR
fans who would pay the high price.
Dagmar
Unless it's considered "valuable" by someone (ie, educational
institutions, critics, whatever), it just won't happen. There has been
way too much controversy about violence in the past, the production
values simply weren't (and still AREN'T) that high, nor are the stories
very original. Neither is PR as a whole considered a "classic". It's
guys in robot costumes slugging it out with guys in cheesy rubber
monster suits, for heaven's sake.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be third in line to buy season box sets myself,
but I'm being realistic about things.
Dagmar
XPeeple
>
>Explains a lot about your arrogance.
You're the one chomping at the bit to spend hundreds of dollars on DVDs they
haven't even announced.
c64...@hotmail.com
Change the goal posts much? First it was they can't do it because "PR
is aimed at children" then it's "PR is a perennially-changing
franchises" now the insistance is that it because it changes "every
year" (even though the first three seasons were essentially the SAME
show under the SAME name). Face it, you are just making excuses. The
facts are that there are MANY shows seeing season releases (either as
sets like GI Joe or in one-disk increments like X-men Evolution) and
there is nothing preventing the release of Power Rangers seasons other
c64...@hotmail.com
Lio Convoy wrote:
While I generally agree with the points you are making, there are some
errors in your example.
> Dr. Who had more cast changes than PR has, and it's getting released,
at
> least from the 2nd Doctor onward (the originals from the first Doc
were
> destroyed in a fire).
More episodes exist for the 1st Doctor than the 2nd Dcotor. The
originals were not destroyed in a fire, it was human shortsitedness
that led to theie destruction. Back in the 60s, when Doctor who first
started airing, it was produced on videotape and then the video was
recorded onto film for transmission overseas. some time after the
overseas film copies were made the videotapes would be wiped (to save
space and money as the tapes could then be reused to record other
productions). Then in the 1970s, after the overseas sales rights
expired and it was deemed that the programs had no more commercial
value (as domestic home video had yet to appear on the landscape), the
film copies would be destroyed (without ever considering that they
maybe the ONLY copy left). Today all that does exist of the first two
Doctors are the film copies that avoided destruction (there are 108
episodes of Doctor Who missing from the archives).
As for home Dr Who is getting released, there is only 1 season set
(Season 16 AKA The Key to Time) and that has only been released in the
US (as the US needed a boxset to keep the range alive on store
shelves). The BBC is very reluctant to do season sets (which is why
there won't be another anytime soon), instead opting to release single
disks (which so far average about 4 episodes a disk and 6 releases a
year in the UK, the US follows the UK release but since they started
releasing them a couple of years later than the UK they are able to
release 7 or 8 a year atleast until they catch up in the next couple of
years) in no particular order (meaning that there are several disks
from each of the 7 UK Doctors plus the 1996 American TV movie which,
ironically, has not been released in the US due to rights issues
between the BBC and Universal). However, the intention is to release
ever single Dr Who episode in existance on DVD (incidentally, every
episode is already available on VHS except for the one episode of the
1st Doctor's that was found 2 months AFTER the VHS range ended. That
episode was recently released on DVD as part of the lost in time
collection of Doctor Who episodes).
c64...@hotmail.com
> >So Mr Knows-it-all-about-DVD-releases, give us one REAL reason why
they
> >haven't released a full season of PR. WHY? Disney is most likely
waiting
> >for an opportune time when they can sell them for $100 a season like
> >Paramount is doing with the Trek shows.
>
> Apples and oranges, again. Did you grow up in an orchard?
>
> Full seasons of PR simply won't sell competitively in the market, and
Disney
> has been very careful not to oversaturate the market with past PR
seasons'
> baggage.
They don't need to. They could very easily release the entire current
season, they're already 2/3rd of the way there. Just a few disks more.
> And don't forget that short of the ailing Enterprise, Star Trek is
functionally
> dead at this point, whereas Disney probably needs PR to run another
seven or
> eight years to just break even.
They're break even a lot sooner if they would actually sell the stuff
on the market, like everyone else does.
> There's rarely a Disney DVD release with an MSRP over $29.99, and
that's an
> unlikely scenario for a show with 38 to 60 episodes a year. A parent
is more
> likely to buy five $14.99 releases a year than even a moderately
priced $59.99
> season release as a single birthday or Christmas splurge, and Disney
even makes
> more off releasing just a handful of episodes in that scenario.
While I agree that a season set is unlikely, season releases are not.
One need look no further than then "family" ailse of the local video
store to see examples of other childrens series that release their
series one disk at a time (X-men Evolution springs immediately to
mind).
> I have no personal stake in whether PR is released or not. But you
absolutely
> refuse to accept the fact that it's primarily a children's program
with little
> to no mainstream recognition.
Yes, it is a children's program but it does have some mainstream
recognition (though probably not as much as it once had) but that
doesn't stop what you're saying from being nothing more than excuses.
Gargoyles is a childrens program with even less mainstream recognition
than PR. GIJoe and Transformers are children's programs with about PR
level of mainstream recognition. and MANY other examples abound (again,
just take a gander at your local video store's shelves).
> For all the "know-it-all" comments, I did study a
> lot of marketing and branding in college and am hoping to make a
career in it
> eventually,
Well, as someone else who has studied some marketing and branding in
college, let me tell you that you have a long way to go. The first
thing you need to learn is to stop making up excuse after excuse.
> I can
> certainly see their apparent reasoning in taking or not taking many
actions,
No what you see are excuses that you've invented to justify why they do
or do not take certain actions. Excuses that do not stand up to the
light of the video store shelves.
XPeeple
>Disney
>> has been very careful not to oversaturate the market with past PR
>seasons'
>> baggage.
>
>They don't need to. They could very easily release the entire current
>season, they're already 2/3rd of the way there. Just a few disks more.
"A few discs more" entails more packaging, programming and promotion, while
running the risk of market oversaturation, to say nothing of the fact that the
remaining episodes would need to be released in Q1 of the following year, when
the next series is already running and being promoted, which goes against the
apparent mission statement.
>> And don't forget that short of the ailing Enterprise, Star Trek is
>functionally
>> dead at this point, whereas Disney probably needs PR to run another
>seven or
>> eight years to just break even.
>
>They're break even a lot sooner if they would actually sell the stuff
>on the market, like everyone else does.
You can't say that for certain. Would the advertisers on ABC Kids, ABC Fam, and
Jetix be willing to pay the same price on the repeats if every episode was
already out on DVD? Releasing all of Buffy and Angel on DVD with such quick
turnaround doesn't seem to have helped either of those shows much in their
respective syndication deals.
And while you don't want to believe me on this, there's an effort to get the
old stuff off the shelves before the new stuff comes in. What would be the
point of putting this stuff out if the company wants to get rid of the old
series as soon as the new one comes along.
>> There's rarely a Disney DVD release with an MSRP over $29.99, and
>that's an
>> unlikely scenario for a show with 38 to 60 episodes a year. A parent
>is more
>> likely to buy five $14.99 releases a year than even a moderately
>priced $59.99
>> season release as a single birthday or Christmas splurge, and Disney
>even makes
>> more off releasing just a handful of episodes in that scenario.
>
>While I agree that a season set is unlikely, season releases are not.
>One need look no further than then "family" ailse of the local video
>store to see examples of other childrens series that release their
>series one disk at a time (X-men Evolution springs immediately to
>mind).
X-Men Evolution is maybe the worst example imaginable. What other TV properties
does Marvel own the DVD licenses to, that it *wouldn't* try to squeeze every
penny out of X-Men Evolution? The company is failing, that show was horrible
and didn't even reach 65 episodes, and if PR used that structure to release all
of its episodes, it would take over a decade to release every episode to
*current* date, let alone the hundreds more they'll have produced in the
meantime.
>> I have no personal stake in whether PR is released or not. But you
>absolutely
>> refuse to accept the fact that it's primarily a children's program
>with little
>> to no mainstream recognition.
>
>Yes, it is a children's program but it does have some mainstream
>recognition (though probably not as much as it once had) but that
>doesn't stop what you're saying from being nothing more than excuses.
You're a textbook delusional PR fan. "PROBABLY not as much recognition as it
once had"? Are you fucking serious? Were you even around in 1994? The show was
the hottest thing since blue jeans. Now it's less than a blip on the mainstream
radar; most people without kids don't even know it's still in new episodes.
>Gargoyles is a childrens program with even less mainstream recognition
>than PR.
And much fewer episodes, and a built-in animation interest. I don't recall that
Season Two has even been announced yet, and the project could easily fail.
However, you fail to realize that while Gargoyles may indeed have been a
children's program, it was leaps and bounds above PR. As much as I enjoy PR,
the way it's structured, you never get real characterization, no one "learns"
anything, and the storylines are short-sighted. Gargoyles was a giant in the
kids programming world, professionally put together and magnificently animated;
probably one of the few shows from the 1990s that will stand the test of time.
You seen MMPR-2 lately? Most of it didn't stand the test of time the first time
it was aired, and if you're going to argue that, then, well, I'll hand you a
straitjacket and move along.
>GIJoe and Transformers are children's programs with about PR
>level of mainstream recognition.
Not at all. Both of those shows started long enough ago that their fans have
grown up with fondness for them. Power Rangers is still only eleven years old,
and its mythos is very different from either of those properties.
>and MANY other examples abound (again,
>just take a gander at your local video store's shelves).
"Take a gander" my ass. I'm well aware of what shows are out there. Give me an
example of a show that's exactly like Power Rangers in terms of business
structure.
>> For all the "know-it-all" comments, I did study a
>> lot of marketing and branding in college and am hoping to make a
>career in it
>> eventually,
>
>Well, as someone else who has studied some marketing and branding in
>college, let me tell you that you have a long way to go. The first
>thing you need to learn is to stop making up excuse after excuse.
Marketing is built on excuses, buddy. Why do you think it's so important to
blur the line between a consumer's wants and needs?
>> I can
>> certainly see their apparent reasoning in taking or not taking many
>actions,
>
>No what you see are excuses that you've invented to justify why they do
>or do not take certain actions. Excuses that do not stand up to the
>light of the video store shelves.
You act like the idea of season sets just never occurred to anyone at Disney or
Buena Vista, as if you alone were the first person to connect the fact that
sets like this are available on the market, but that Disney has properties they
could release and haven't. Wake up and realize that these are businesspeople
who have their own jobs to keep, paychecks to earn, and stockholders to please.
If the project were significantly more profitable long-term, you can bet your
fanboy ass it would have already been done.
Dagmar
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:44:08 +0100, Dagmar <dagma...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>These days, if I REALLY want a TV series on DVD, I don't mind paying $XX
>>for a box set.
>
>
> you don't like the dubs ...
True, but apart from them being German-language versions only, it's ALSO
PRTF only. I liked the series, yes, but what I'd really want would be
MMPR/Zeo ...
selaboc
XPeeple wrote:
> "A few discs more" entails more packaging, programming and promotion,
while
> running the risk of market oversaturation, to say nothing of the fact
that the
> remaining episodes would need to be released in Q1 of the following
year, when
> the next series is already running and being promoted, which goes
against the
> apparent mission statement.
If they *PLANNED* their yearly release with a full season release in
mind, they wouldn't have the "Q1" problem. and a "few more disks" would
NOT oversturate the market. Were talking an additional release date a
year (instead of the current 3 it would be 4), if we were talking
monthly releases, then I could see there being an oversturation risk.
> >> And don't forget that short of the ailing Enterprise, Star Trek is
> >functionally
> >> dead at this point, whereas Disney probably needs PR to run
another
> >seven or
> >> eight years to just break even.
> >
> >They're break even a lot sooner if they would actually sell the
stuff
> >on the market, like everyone else does.
>
> You can't say that for certain. Would the advertisers on ABC Kids,
ABC Fam, and
> Jetix be willing to pay the same price on the repeats if every
episode was
> already out on DVD? Releasing all of Buffy and Angel on DVD with such
quick
> turnaround doesn't seem to have helped either of those shows much in
their
> respective syndication deals.
DVD is a small niche out of the entire viewing audience. The episodes
they DO have released hasn't negatively affected advertising revenues
of the endless repeats of those episodes (Or of other series like
Giligans Island, Happy Days,m Raymond, Seinfeld or Star Trek The Next
Generation to name but a few). ANd considering the number of episodes
of past Ranger series they keep skipping in rotation, they could spend
years releasing just the skipped episodes without ever affecting the
advertising rates of the ones they endlessly repeat.
> And while you don't want to believe me on this, there's an effort to
get the
> old stuff off the shelves before the new stuff comes in. What would
be the
> point of putting this stuff out if the company wants to get rid of
the old
> series as soon as the new one comes along.
Your right, I don't believe you because the reality I see when walking
into the local video store is a lot differnt then the excuse you give.
ALL year long, I've seen the Ninja Storm DVDs on the shelves (selling
and being restocked I might add) while the Dino Thunder DVDs were being
released. Back when Ninja Storm was the "new stuff" I could find the
WildForce and Time Force VHSes on the shelves (don't know if they were
selling and being restocked) and if VHS wasn't dead, I'd guess that
some of those would still have been available for purchase this year.
> >While I agree that a season set is unlikely, season releases are
not.
> >One need look no further than then "family" ailse of the local video
> >store to see examples of other childrens series that release their
> >series one disk at a time (X-men Evolution springs immediately to
> >mind).
>
> X-Men Evolution is maybe the worst example imaginable.
Only because it blows your excuses out of the water.
> What other TV properties
> does Marvel own the DVD licenses to, that it *wouldn't* try to
squeeze every
> penny out of X-Men Evolution?
> The company is failing,
No it isn't, It got out of Chapter 11 years ago and is turning a
healthy profit these days.
> that show was horrible
Obviously you never seen the show.
> and didn't even reach 65 episodes,
So? How many seasons a show is on the air (X-men Evoolution was on for
4 seasons/52 episodes) is not an indicator of how good or bad a show
is. There are many bad shows that run for long times and many good
shows that can't even make a full season. Network executives are not
arbitors of good and bad.
> and if PR used that structure to release all
> of its episodes, it would take over a decade to release every episode
to
> *current* date, let alone the hundreds more they'll have produced in
the
> meantime.
Which would be atleast a decade sooner than they are currently
releasing all those episodes!
> >Yes, it is a children's program but it does have some mainstream
> >recognition (though probably not as much as it once had) but that
> >doesn't stop what you're saying from being nothing more than
excuses.
>
> You're a textbook delusional PR fan.
No, the only delusional person around here is the one making excuse
after excuse after excuse after excuse every time one of those excuses
is shot down by the cold hard facts of reality.
> "PROBABLY not as much recognition as it
> once had"? Are you fucking serious? Were you even around in 1994?
yes, that's around the time I discoverd the series.
> The show was
> the hottest thing since blue jeans.
Only to most people with kids. Most people without kids barely even
knew it existed, even in 1994.
> You seen MMPR-2 lately? Most of it didn't stand the test of time the
first time
> it was aired, and if you're going to argue that, then, well, I'll
hand you a
> straitjacket and move along.
By MMPR-2 I take it you are refering to the Godawful Turbo movie?
> >GIJoe and Transformers are children's programs with about PR
> >level of mainstream recognition.
>
> Not at all. Both of those shows started long enough ago that their
fans have
> grown up with fondness for them. Power Rangers is still only eleven
years old,
> and its mythos is very different from either of those properties.
Excuses. The "mythos" has nothing to do with it. To the mainstream
viewer (not the fondly remembering nostalgasist), GI Joe and
Transformers have as much "name recognition" as Power Rangers. To
todays Kids, I'd hazard to guess that Power Rangers tops Gi Joe and
Transformaers in the "name recognition" department (considering how
many kids I still see dressed up as power ranger on Holloween vs Gi Joe
and Transformer characters and how many time I see kids buying the
Power Ranger toys vs the toys for Gi Joe and Transformers).
> >and MANY other examples abound (again,
> >just take a gander at your local video store's shelves).
>
> "Take a gander" my ass. I'm well aware of what shows are out there.
Give me an
> example of a show that's exactly like Power Rangers in terms of
business
> structure.
Power Ranger is NOT the unique entity you like to paint it out as.
Bottom line it is JUST another childrens show. Again, just walk into
yout local video store and see how other shows are being released. For
someone claiming to have such marketing smarts you are certainly coming
off as marketing stupid.
> >Well, as someone else who has studied some marketing and branding in
> >college, let me tell you that you have a long way to go. The first
> >thing you need to learn is to stop making up excuse after excuse.
>
> Marketing is built on excuses, buddy. Why do you think it's so
important to
> blur the line between a consumer's wants and needs?
Well, that explains why you are so marketing stupid buddy. Maretking
Successes are marked on successful ideas, marketing failures are marked
by excuses.
> >No what you see are excuses that you've invented to justify why they
do
> >or do not take certain actions. Excuses that do not stand up to the
> >light of the video store shelves.
>
> You act like the idea of season sets just never occurred to anyone at
Disney or
> Buena Vista, as if you alone were the first person to connect the
fact that
> sets like this are available on the market, but that Disney has
properties they
> could release and haven't. Wake up and realize that these are
businesspeople
> who have their own jobs to keep, paychecks to earn, and stockholders
to please.
> If the project were significantly more profitable long-term, you can
bet your
> fanboy ass it would have already been done.
Nonsense. First, I'm not advocating season sets in particular (indeed,
I recall suggesting "just a few more single disk releases" to finish
off the season).
Second, No-one said releasing PR in season sets is the most profitable
long-term goal, only that it would be profitable and as such represents
a missed opportunity on Disney's part. IF, as you suggest above, PR's
recognition is fading, then by not releasing now, they losing that
profitability opportunity as they would be able to sell more now when
the recognition is relatively higher than later when that recognition
is relatively lower.
Third, your back to excuse making. this time it's the nonsense excuse
that "it would already be done" as to why it hasn't been done. Disney
is a large company and their marketing people have their own ideas
about what their marketing priorities are. Those priorities are not
necessarily the most proftiable long-term (if it were the case that
business people ALWAYS make the most profitable long-term decisions,
businesses would not fail, ever!) Indeed, many times their priorties
are for short-term profits. and their priorties could be with other
properties (for reasons OTHER than profitability, A marketing persons
pet projetc a corporate culture that views Disney created properties
more highly than Disney purchased ones, etc) even though spending a bit
of extra effort on the properties they aren't prioritzing could result
in just as much or more profitability than the properties they do
prioritize. That you would believe 1) that companies always take the
most profitable long-term approach, and 2) that companies would already
be doing something if it would be "significantly more profitable"
clearly shows how little you know about companies and how far you have
to go before you are ready for a career in marketing and business.
Here's a clue for you, you start by dumping the excuses.
Yellow Lightning
news:32bgolF...@individual.net...
> Yellow Lightning wrote:
> >
> > Then why not make limited edition collector boxes? Release say 1000
boxes,
> > and when that sells out, that's it. I'm sure there's that many die hard
PR
> > fans who would pay the high price.
> >
> >
> For a kid's show like PR??? Get Real!
Why is that such a far fetched idea? They'd be aimed at people like us, not
the fans who are still kids. Disney could offer them exclusively through
their website or something. All us internet fans would know, and we'd buy
them up in no time. If Disney thinks 1000 is too much, then how about 500?
If it works they can make more, if it fails then at least they tried. I
don't think that kind of thing is too high a risk for failure.
Dagmar
One reason: Producing such a small number in a professional way/quality,
on a par with industry standards, would be prohibitively high. Disney
would price themselves right out of the market of the few 1000 (if we
are that many) adult PR fans who'd be willing and able to pay for box
sets. This is not some home-burned disc, which are comparatively cheap;
instead it would mean using professionals and professional facilities.
Salaries and rental costs alone would be too high.
As I said before, I'd be willing to buy PR season box sets if they ever
came out, but prices would HAVE to be reasonable. There are a number of
more mainstream series out there which I'm NOT willing to pay for
because they're just too expensive. (Buffy was just about right -- and
that was 22 one-hour eps per season.)
John Green
I'm a stickler for the basics: if they can't release the episodes
intact (ie each with it's OWN opening credits and it's OWN ending
credits), I frankly wish they wouldn't bother at all.
XPeeple
>intact (ie each with it's OWN opening credits and it's OWN ending
>credits), I frankly wish they wouldn't bother at all.
I'm usually the same about releases, but if the credits don't change for all
the episodes on a given disc, it doesn't make so much of a difference to me. I
enjoy the "play all" feature these days and I'd actually prefer to not have
ending credits between episodes unless there's something there, or the ending
theme is decent.
XPeeple
>while
>> running the risk of market oversaturation, to say nothing of the fact
>that the
>> remaining episodes would need to be released in Q1 of the following
>year, when
>> the next series is already running and being promoted, which goes
>against the
>> apparent mission statement.
>
>If they *PLANNED* their yearly release with a full season release in
>mind, they wouldn't have the "Q1" problem. and a "few more disks" would
>NOT oversturate the market. Were talking an additional release date a
>year (instead of the current 3 it would be 4), if we were talking
>monthly releases, then I could see there being an oversturation risk.
It's not necessarily something they would or could plan. It's very difficult to
put shows out quickly; while the PR releases have been some of the quickest in
the history of the DVD format, there's an obvious logic to it as far as when an
episode is broadcast and when it's available for home video. I don't know what
the physical production process of DVD's is, but I imagine it takes a few weeks
at least--this wouldn't be conducive to an airing schedule that has new
episodes until mid-to-late-November when the final release needs to be out the
first or second week of December, especially with (now) many new episodes held
off broadcast until January or February.
>> >> And don't forget that short of the ailing Enterprise, Star Trek is
>> >functionally
>> >> dead at this point, whereas Disney probably needs PR to run
>another
>> >seven or
>> >> eight years to just break even.
>> >
>> >They're break even a lot sooner if they would actually sell the
>stuff
>> >on the market, like everyone else does.
>>
>> You can't say that for certain. Would the advertisers on ABC Kids,
>ABC Fam, and
>> Jetix be willing to pay the same price on the repeats if every
>episode was
>> already out on DVD? Releasing all of Buffy and Angel on DVD with such
>quick
>> turnaround doesn't seem to have helped either of those shows much in
>their
>> respective syndication deals.
>
>DVD is a small niche out of the entire viewing audience. The episodes
>they DO have released hasn't negatively affected advertising revenues
>of the endless repeats of those episodes (Or of other series like
>Giligans Island, Happy Days,m Raymond, Seinfeld or Star Trek The Next
>Generation to name but a few).
Apples and oranges again. Gilligan and Happy Days have likely been profitable
three times over; DVD is just a new venture of an archive of episodes of a
functionally dead franchise with remaining novelty value. Raymond has only
released one season, and its demographics don't match the DVD-buying crowd.
Seinfeld *did* hold off on a DVD release for any number of reasons. Star Trek
*isn't* in syndication anymore, the repeat rights belong to Spike TV (the high
price of the sets also defers more casual viewers from straying away from the
aired repeats).
>ANd considering the number of episodes
>of past Ranger series they keep skipping in rotation, they could spend
>years releasing just the skipped episodes without ever affecting the
>advertising rates of the ones they endlessly repeat.
I don't know anything about this stuff here, but I don't see why they would
start arbitrarily from some middle series. It's either current or first.
>> And while you don't want to believe me on this, there's an effort to
>get the
>> old stuff off the shelves before the new stuff comes in. What would
>be the
>> point of putting this stuff out if the company wants to get rid of
>the old
>> series as soon as the new one comes along.
>
>Your right, I don't believe you because the reality I see when walking
>into the local video store is a lot differnt then the excuse you give.
>ALL year long, I've seen the Ninja Storm DVDs on the shelves (selling
>and being restocked I might add) while the Dino Thunder DVDs were being
>released. Back when Ninja Storm was the "new stuff" I could find the
>WildForce and Time Force VHSes on the shelves (don't know if they were
>selling and being restocked) and if VHS wasn't dead, I'd guess that
>some of those would still have been available for purchase this year.
I was mainly talking about the toys, but you could be correct. Still wouldn't
make much sense to put even *more* DVDs out there, though.
>> >While I agree that a season set is unlikely, season releases are
>not.
>> >One need look no further than then "family" ailse of the local video
>> >store to see examples of other childrens series that release their
>> >series one disk at a time (X-men Evolution springs immediately to
>> >mind).
>>
>> X-Men Evolution is maybe the worst example imaginable.
>
>Only because it blows your excuses out of the water.
No, it doesn't.
>> What other TV properties
>> does Marvel own the DVD licenses to, that it *wouldn't* try to
>squeeze every
>> penny out of X-Men Evolution?
>
>> The company is failing,
>
>No it isn't, It got out of Chapter 11 years ago and is turning a
>healthy profit these days.
>
>> that show was horrible
>
>Obviously you never seen the show.
I have seen the show, and it was awful.
>> and didn't even reach 65 episodes,
>
>So? How many seasons a show is on the air (X-men Evoolution was on for
>4 seasons/52 episodes) is not an indicator of how good or bad a show
>is. There are many bad shows that run for long times and many good
>shows that can't even make a full season. Network executives are not
>arbitors of good and bad.
Fine. For argument's sake, we'll say that X-Men Evolution was a good show. A
great show. A fantastic show. It swept the daytime Emmys and put Marvel back on
the map. Why *wouldn't* they put it on DVD? Do they have any projects that they
are producing themselves lined up? Do they have many other sources of revenue?
>> and if PR used that structure to release all
>> of its episodes, it would take over a decade to release every episode
>to
>> *current* date, let alone the hundreds more they'll have produced in
>the
>> meantime.
>
>Which would be atleast a decade sooner than they are currently
>releasing all those episodes!
Such a fucking baby.
>> >Yes, it is a children's program but it does have some mainstream
>> >recognition (though probably not as much as it once had) but that
>> >doesn't stop what you're saying from being nothing more than
>excuses.
>>
>> You're a textbook delusional PR fan.
>
>No, the only delusional person around here is the one making excuse
>after excuse after excuse after excuse every time one of those excuses
>is shot down by the cold hard facts of reality.
How is it an excuse if I've no personal stake in the matter?
>> "PROBABLY not as much recognition as it
>> once had"? Are you fucking serious? Were you even around in 1994?
>
>yes, that's around the time I discoverd the series.
>
>> The show was
>> the hottest thing since blue jeans.
>
>Only to most people with kids. Most people without kids barely even
>knew it existed, even in 1994.
You couldn't be more wrong there. Whether they liked it or lumped it, everyone
was quite aware of Power Rangers for two years or so. Among other things,
Rangers made the cover of TV Guide at least three times, were all over the news
world (be it for toy sales or what not), Tommy's jump to White Ranger was
enormous, and the first feature film was promoted the fuck out of. The Rangers
were everywhere.
>> You seen MMPR-2 lately? Most of it didn't stand the test of time the
>first time
>> it was aired, and if you're going to argue that, then, well, I'll
>hand you a
>> straitjacket and move along.
>
>By MMPR-2 I take it you are refering to the Godawful Turbo movie?
I don't know in which language the letters "M - M - P - R" spell "Turbo," but I
meant the second season of the show.
>> >GIJoe and Transformers are children's programs with about PR
>> >level of mainstream recognition.
>>
>> Not at all. Both of those shows started long enough ago that their
>fans have
>> grown up with fondness for them. Power Rangers is still only eleven
>years old,
>> and its mythos is very different from either of those properties.
>
>Excuses. The "mythos" has nothing to do with it. To the mainstream
>viewer (not the fondly remembering nostalgasist), GI Joe and
>Transformers have as much "name recognition" as Power Rangers. To
>todays Kids, I'd hazard to guess that Power Rangers tops Gi Joe and
>Transformaers in the "name recognition" department (considering how
>many kids I still see dressed up as power ranger on Holloween vs Gi Joe
>and Transformer characters and how many time I see kids buying the
>Power Ranger toys vs the toys for Gi Joe and Transformers).
Of course Power Rangers has more "name recognition" (which I don't think were
my words)--it has had a constant supply of new episodes, toys and suits. GI Joe
and Transformers don't even come close.
But remember that GI Joe and Transformers didn't have the negative stigma that
PR does. Neither of those shows ever had gay spandex suits, horribly off-synch
dialogue from some old Japanese woman, clunky robots fighting what was
obviously a guy in a rubber monster costume, hokey moral lessons, or (in some
cases) beyond-god-awful acting. *This* is the mainstream's perception of the
Power Rangers series. GI Joe and Transformers weren't seen as having as much
going for them as working against them.
>> >and MANY other examples abound (again,
>> >just take a gander at your local video store's shelves).
>>
>> "Take a gander" my ass. I'm well aware of what shows are out there.
>Give me an
>> example of a show that's exactly like Power Rangers in terms of
>business
>> structure.
>
>Power Ranger is NOT the unique entity you like to paint it out as.
>Bottom line it is JUST another childrens show. Again, just walk into
>yout local video store and see how other shows are being released. For
>someone claiming to have such marketing smarts you are certainly coming
>off as marketing stupid.
That's nowhere near as clever a pun as you'd think, and your perception is way
off. Most children's series have a very limited life, especially when toy sales
are the crux of the franchise. PR avoids that problem by completely reinventing
itself every year, with all-new themes, products and marketing. What other
property can claim that?
>> >Well, as someone else who has studied some marketing and branding in
>> >college, let me tell you that you have a long way to go. The first
>> >thing you need to learn is to stop making up excuse after excuse.
>>
>> Marketing is built on excuses, buddy. Why do you think it's so
>important to
>> blur the line between a consumer's wants and needs?
>
>Well, that explains why you are so marketing stupid buddy. Maretking
>Successes are marked on successful ideas, marketing failures are marked
>by excuses.
That doesn't make a lick of sense and I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing
with Ralph Wiggum. Success is not indicative of a "successful idea," but in
many cases just good advertising.
>> >No what you see are excuses that you've invented to justify why they
>do
>> >or do not take certain actions. Excuses that do not stand up to the
>> >light of the video store shelves.
>>
>> You act like the idea of season sets just never occurred to anyone at
>Disney or
>> Buena Vista, as if you alone were the first person to connect the
>fact that
>> sets like this are available on the market, but that Disney has
>properties they
>> could release and haven't. Wake up and realize that these are
>businesspeople
>> who have their own jobs to keep, paychecks to earn, and stockholders
>to please.
>> If the project were significantly more profitable long-term, you can
>bet your
>> fanboy ass it would have already been done.
>
>Nonsense. First, I'm not advocating season sets in particular (indeed,
>I recall suggesting "just a few more single disk releases" to finish
>off the season).
Which would require more money, more planning, and possibly cause a dip in
sales.
>Second, No-one said releasing PR in season sets is the most profitable
>long-term goal, only that it would be profitable and as such represents
>a missed opportunity on Disney's part.
Just because something is "profitable" doesn't mean it's the best choice. Maybe
you should take some economics courses while you're working on whatever
marketing thing you claim to be learning. By taking any course of action, a
company is forfeiting another option; the idea is to make the *best* choice.
While releasing more discs per year might still indeed turn a profit, if that
projected profit were greater than what they're making now, it would probably
have been done.
> IF, as you suggest above, PR's
>recognition is fading, then by not releasing now, they losing that
>profitability opportunity as they would be able to sell more now when
>the recognition is relatively higher than later when that recognition
>is relatively lower.
That's dangerously speculative and goes against Disney's need for this project
to make money long-term (more on that later). The franchise is rooted in the
fact that recognition can be kept at a steady level, even if that's a blip on
the mainstream radar, so long as sales are strong.
>Third, your back to excuse making. this time it's the nonsense excuse
>that "it would already be done" as to why it hasn't been done. Disney
>is a large company and their marketing people have their own ideas
>about what their marketing priorities are. Those priorities are not
>necessarily the most proftiable long-term (if it were the case that
>business people ALWAYS make the most profitable long-term decisions,
>businesses would not fail, ever!) Indeed, many times their priorties
>are for short-term profits. and their priorties could be with other
>properties (for reasons OTHER than profitability, A marketing persons
>pet projetc a corporate culture that views Disney created properties
>more highly than Disney purchased ones, etc) even though spending a bit
>of extra effort on the properties they aren't prioritzing could result
>in just as much or more profitability than the properties they do
>prioritize. That you would believe 1) that companies always take the
>most profitable long-term approach, and 2) that companies would already
>be doing something if it would be "significantly more profitable"
>clearly shows how little you know about companies and how far you have
>to go before you are ready for a career in marketing and business.
>Here's a clue for you, you start by dumping the excuses.
Hoo, boy. A lot to go on here.
Successful companies balance between ensuring short- and long-term
profitability. A company that focuses too much on long-term profitability will
fail just as quickly as a company that throws caution to the wind when thinking
about the future. Disney is a corporation with thousands of employees, many of
whom are trained for in-depth "business" thinking. For all your arguing that
Disney isn't handling the release of its television shows to DVD 'correctly,'
it's not an unlikely scenario that this hasn't already been discussed to death
in Disney boardrooms. Clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, a decision has been made
against it. We're getting Gargoyles Season One, which has the possibility of
putting a real chink in the armor, but it's an experiment--Disney has not done
this before.
PR has, already, many DVD releases as a result of the 2001 buyout. This is
completely within Disney's scope, as feature-length home videos have been a
great source of the company's revenue for years. Now, you have to understand
Disney's thinking in this. Remember that the purchase of All Things Saban was a
big one. Fuck, it was monumental. A billion dollars. A BILLION. You think they
paid anywhere near that for Doug? Pixar? I doubt it.
In any kind of investment, you've got to make sure you can turn profit. Again,
you might be right: they may be able to turn profit releasing full-season
releases. But, again, they run the risk of market oversaturation. That's not
something they can afford, only three years into a billion dollar purchase.
They've maybe made back half of the purchase amount by now if they're
incredibly lucky, which isn't likely. They've no doubt got at least few more
years to break even on the Saban deal, and *then* need years more to generate a
real profit; they probably can't take a big risk on this right now. The
solution? Run things like Saban did. Better yet, cut the budget of the show in
half. Then release several feature-length DVDs a year as Disney does anyway. No
major, high-risk changes.
And I don't know why you're even arguing with me over this. What you call
"excuses" are my explanations for Disney's behavior in the DVD market. Your own
putting a buzz word on that doesn't change the fact that you're not getting
what you want. I'm trying to understand Disney's methods, while you're just
trying to make it look like you know more about how things *should* be done
there than the people who actually work there do. What difference would it make
if I made an "excuse"? Does that undermine your want for these DVD's?
Clearly Disney isn't planning a full-season release in the near future. THAT'S
A FACT. My using precedence to try to figure out Disney's methodology is
supported by that fact. What are you arguing? That Disney *should* do
full-season sets? What is your factual basis for argumentation? That
full-season releases *might* be profitable? Can you say for certain that they
would be *more* profitable than the way the franchise is handling now? Do you
think it's worth Disney taking that risk that some doof on Usenet wants to see
EVERY EPISODE OF POWER RANGERS ON SPECIAL BONUS COLLECTOR'S EDITION DVD FOR ME,
YIPEE!!!! ? Do you have marketing research to back up your claim? Scientific
surveys? Cost/benefit analyses? Earnings reports?
Or are you just some goddamn spoiled fan who's too enthusiastic about his
obsession to actually see if it's feasible?
John Green
Well, the end credits have been different for every episode of NS and
DT, because they credit the guest actors and the MOTD VAs.
And, based on what you've written in this post, you're obviously not a
"season box set purist" who wants the episodes on DVD the way they
were originally shown.
Much like with the individual DVDs, if they're not gonna do season box
sets right some day, I would prefer they don't at all.
XPeeple
>>>intact (ie each with it's OWN opening credits and it's OWN ending
>>>credits), I frankly wish they wouldn't bother at all.
>>
>>I'm usually the same about releases, but if the credits don't change for all
>>the episodes on a given disc, it doesn't make so much of a difference to me.
>I
>>enjoy the "play all" feature these days and I'd actually prefer to not have
>>ending credits between episodes unless there's something there, or the
>ending
>>theme is decent.
>
>Well, the end credits have been different for every episode of NS and
>DT, because they credit the guest actors and the MOTD VAs.
I meant the opening credits, which I'm much more concerned about. Ending
credits are a luxury anyway.
>And, based on what you've written in this post, you're obviously not a
>"season box set purist" who wants the episodes on DVD the way they
>were originally shown.
Just because I understand Disney's apparent reasoning in not releasing
broadcast-accurate boxed sets doesn't imply that I wouldn't like to see them.
But I was already out of the show's main demo by the time the second season
rolled around--I wouldn't expect them to change that now and start aiming PR
stuff at my age group just because there's a new home video format.
>Much like with the individual DVDs, if they're not gonna do season box
>sets right some day, I would prefer they don't at all.
As they're not directed at you in the first place, it's your option not to buy
them, as obnoxiously trite a solution as this is.
selaboc
> It's not necessarily something they would or could plan.
It most certainly *IS*.
> Apples and oranges again.
Nothing but more and more poor excuses. I can name 100 TV series on DVD
and you would just list excuse after excuse why you consider them
"totally different". You'll never making it in the career you claim to
be interested in if all you can do is offer excuse after excuse why you
think things can't be done.
> >ANd considering the number of episodes
> >of past Ranger series they keep skipping in rotation, they could
spend
> >years releasing just the skipped episodes without ever affecting the
> >advertising rates of the ones they endlessly repeat.
>
> I don't know anything about this stuff here,
Clearly there is a lot you don't know anything about!!!!!!!
> but I don't see why they would
> start arbitrarily from some middle series. It's either current or
first.
There's plenty of episodes from the FIRST season that they continually
skip, they can start with those! And other series have started in
arbitrary places. Avengers started with the 2nd or 3rd Emma Peel season
(Before going back to cover the first Emma season and then the seasons
before and after Emma). The Honeymooners did single disks of random
selections of episodes of the "lost episodes" before finally doing a
"season set" of the syndicated "Classic 39" (which fall in the middle
of the Lost episodes chronologically speaking). Don't bother listing
your excuses for why you consider those "different" cases.
> I was mainly talking about the toys, but you could be correct.
Well, I've only ever been talking about the DVDs. Stay on subject.
> >> X-Men Evolution is maybe the worst example imaginable.
> >
> >Only because it blows your excuses out of the water.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes it does!
> >No it isn't, It got out of Chapter 11 years ago and is turning a
> >healthy profit these days.
> >
> >> that show was horrible
> >
> >Obviously you never seen the show.
>
> I have seen the show, and it was awful.
I've seen the show, it was EXCELLENT!
> >So? How many seasons a show is on the air (X-men Evoolution was on
for
> >4 seasons/52 episodes) is not an indicator of how good or bad a show
> >is. There are many bad shows that run for long times and many good
> >shows that can't even make a full season. Network executives are not
> >arbitors of good and bad.
>
> Fine. For argument's sake, we'll say that X-Men Evolution was a good
show. A
> great show. A fantastic show. It swept the daytime Emmys and put
Marvel back on
> the map. Why *wouldn't* they put it on DVD? Do they have any projects
that they
> are producing themselves lined up? Do they have many other sources of
revenue?
You're kidding? Marvel comics have MANY sources of revenue. The comics,
obviously. A few movies you may have hear of (Like X-men, Spiderman,
Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Blade), Toylines and other licensing deals,
as well as other cartoon properties. The real question is not why
wouldn't Marvel put their cartoons on DVD, but why Disney won't put
more of their stuff on DVD. And so far all you've provided is WEAK
excuses and little facts.
> >Which would be atleast a decade sooner than they are currently
> >releasing all those episodes!
>
> Such a fucking baby.
Yes you are, glad we could agree on that! (and watch your language,
this is a forum for a kids show, presumably the occasion kid will be by
to read these messages).
> >Only to most people with kids. Most people without kids barely even
> >knew it existed, even in 1994.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong there.
No, it is you who couldn't be more wrong. The key word in that sentence
was barely. Yes they knew a kids show called power rangers featuring
multi-colored heroes existed, but that's about ALL they knew about it
because that's all they cared to know about it.
> >By MMPR-2 I take it you are refering to the Godawful Turbo movie?
>
> I don't know in which language the letters "M - M - P - R" spell
"Turbo," but I
> meant the second season of the show.
Then say the second season. Which, BTW, was better than the 1st season
(IMHO) and stands the test of time quite well (so far atleast). What
about it makes you think it doesn't?
> Of course Power Rangers has more "name recognition" (which I don't
think were
> my words)--it has had a constant supply of new episodes, toys and
suits. GI Joe
> and Transformers don't even come close.
Your words were "recognition" to the "mainstream" which would be "name
recognition". If you meant something else, please elaborate.
> But remember that GI Joe and Transformers didn't have the negative
stigma that
> PR does.
BWahahahahahahaha. You're kidding right? these are the shows that
fired off the whole TV show as nothing but toy commerical debate back
in the 80s.
> Most children's series have a very limited life, especially when toy
sales
> are the crux of the franchise. PR avoids that problem by completely
reinventing
> itself every year, with all-new themes, products and marketing. What
other
> property can claim that?
AS we are talking DVD, what they do for the toyline is irrleavnt.
> That doesn't make a lick of sense and I'm starting to feel like I'm
arguing
> with Ralph Wiggum. Success is not indicative of a "successful idea,"
but in
> many cases just good advertising.
What is not indicitive of Success is EXCUSES. Which is why it didn't
make sense to you, all you know how to offer is exuceses.
> >Nonsense. First, I'm not advocating season sets in particular
(indeed,
> >I recall suggesting "just a few more single disk releases" to finish
> >off the season).
>
> Which would require more money, more planning, and possibly cause a
dip in
> sales.
Nonsense. It would require PROPER planning (as ther'te almost there to
begin with) with only a bit more money (but then it would also bring in
more money) with possibly a raise in sales.
> >Second, No-one said releasing PR in season sets is the most
profitable
> >long-term goal, only that it would be profitable and as such
represents
> >a missed opportunity on Disney's part.
>
> Just because something is "profitable" doesn't mean it's the best
choice.
About the only true thing you've said so far.
> Maybe
> you should take some economics courses while you're working on
whatever
> marketing thing you claim to be learning.
Sorry, already have taken economics and marketing a long time ago in
college.
> By taking any course of action, a
> company is forfeiting another option; the idea is to make the *best*
choice.
Which Clearly we disagree on whether or not Disney is making that
*best* choice.
> While releasing more discs per year might still indeed turn a profit,
if that
> projected profit were greater than what they're making now, it would
probably
> have been done.
And that is where you go off the rails. you assume the because they
aren't doing it that it is because they are already making the *best*
choice (and then you proceed to make excuses based on that assumption).
But as anyone with a lick of knowlegde about how business operate in
the real world, just because a company makes a choice it is not
automatically the *best* choice they could make. Again, if companies
*always* made the best choices, there would never be companies that go
bankrupt.
> > IF, as you suggest above, PR's
> >recognition is fading, then by not releasing now, they losing that
> >profitability opportunity as they would be able to sell more now
when
> >the recognition is relatively higher than later when that
recognition
> >is relatively lower.
>
> That's dangerously speculative and goes against Disney's need for
this project
> to make money long-term (more on that later). The franchise is rooted
in the
> fact that recognition can be kept at a steady level, even if that's a
blip on
> the mainstream radar, so long as sales are strong.
And they can have strong sales and still release complete seasons,
regardless of whatever exuses you dream up.
> For all your arguing that
> Disney isn't handling the release of its television shows to DVD
'correctly,'
> it's not an unlikely scenario that this hasn't already been discussed
to death
> in Disney boardrooms.
And for all your arguing that is has, it's not an unlikely scenario
that is HASN'T (and indeed the boardroom is the last place I'd expect
such an arguement to be held, that is an arguement that would take
place primarily in the marketing department. but then anyone with a
lick of knowledge about how businesses operate in the real world would
already know that).
> Clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, a decision has been made
> against it. We're getting Gargoyles Season One, which has the
possibility of
> putting a real chink in the armor, but it's an experiment--Disney has
not done
> this before.
EXCATLY, they have not done it before when other companies have.
Clearly they have NOT "argued it to death" like you seem to think they
have as they are just now dipping into the season release idea.
> PR has, already, many DVD releases as a result of the 2001 buyout.
About on par with the non-disney VHS releases pre-2001 (in otherwords
business as usual).
> In any kind of investment, you've got to make sure you can turn
profit.
Wow, two true statments, you're on a roll.
> Again,
> you might be right: they may be able to turn profit releasing
full-season
> releases. But, again, they run the risk of market oversaturation.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how quickly they do it.
> That's not
> something they can afford, only three years into a billion dollar
purchase.
> They've maybe made back half of the purchase amount by now if they're
> incredibly lucky, which isn't likely.
Considering the saban purchase was more than just power rangers and
they've left a large chuck of the non-power rangers (as well as a large
chuck or the power rangers for that matter) shows langushing in the
vaults collecting dust, I can see why they would need to be incredibly
lucky....
> They've no doubt got at least few more
> years to break even on the Saban deal, and *then* need years more to
generate a
> real profit; they probably can't take a big risk on this right now.
Releases a full season is NOT a big risk.
> And I don't know why you're even arguing with me over this. What you
call
> "excuses" are my explanations for Disney's behavior in the DVD
market.
Yes, they are excuses!
> Clearly Disney isn't planning a full-season release in the near
future. THAT'S
> A FACT.
No one is desputing that fact.
> My using precedence to try to figure out Disney's methodology is
> supported by that fact.
And when other people use precedence in the market place (IE other
shows on DVD) you make excuses about why that precedence doesn't apply.
The FACTS are, there are plenty of example of season releases (set and
single disks) of shows and power rangers is just another show that
*COULD* be released in that fashion *IF* disney wanted to regardless of
how many excuses you come up with about how "unique" power ranger is.
> Or are you just some goddamn spoiled fan who's too enthusiastic about
his
> obsession to actually see if it's feasible?
I'm a comsumer in the DVD market place who sees other shows (shows even
more obscure than power ranger and shows more well know that power
rangers, shows aimed at kids and shows aimed at adults) being sold to
the market place in season releases (sets and/or individual disk).
Considering the shear number of such shows on the DVD shelves, it
doesn't take much to see that such release are profitable (otherwise so
many companies would not be releasing them that way). You're trying to
paint those who disagree with you as "obessed uberfans who want special
collectors edition DVDs" doesn't change the FACTS of the DVD
marketplace that is filled with shows in season releases.
selaboc
XPeeple wrote:
> It's not necessarily something they would or could plan.
It most certainly *IS*.
> Apples and oranges again.
Nothing but more and more poor excuses. I can name 100 TV series on DVD
and you would just list excuse after excuse why you consider them
"totally different". You'll never making it in the career you claim to
be interested in if all you can do is offer excuse after excuse why you
think things can't be done.
> >ANd considering the number of episodes
> >of past Ranger series they keep skipping in rotation, they could
spend
> >years releasing just the skipped episodes without ever affecting the
> >advertising rates of the ones they endlessly repeat.
>
> I don't know anything about this stuff here,
Clearly there is a lot you don't know anything about!!!!!!!
> but I don't see why they would
> start arbitrarily from some middle series. It's either current or
first.
There's plenty of episodes from the FIRST season that they continually
skip, they can start with those! And other series have started in
arbitrary places. Avengers started with the 2nd or 3rd Emma Peel season
(Before going back to cover the first Emma season and then the seasons
before and after Emma). The Honeymooners did single disks of random
selections of episodes of the "lost episodes" before finally doing a
"season set" of the syndicated "Classic 39" (which fall in the middle
of the Lost episodes chronologically speaking). Don't bother listing
your excuses for why you consider those "different" cases.
> I was mainly talking about the toys, but you could be correct.
Well, I've only ever been talking about the DVDs. Stay on subject.
> >> X-Men Evolution is maybe the worst example imaginable.
> >
> >Only because it blows your excuses out of the water.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes it does!
> >No it isn't, It got out of Chapter 11 years ago and is turning a
> >healthy profit these days.
> >
> >> that show was horrible
> >
> >Obviously you never seen the show.
>
> I have seen the show, and it was awful.
I've seen the show, it was EXCELLENT!
> >So? How many seasons a show is on the air (X-men Evoolution was on
for
> >4 seasons/52 episodes) is not an indicator of how good or bad a show
> >is. There are many bad shows that run for long times and many good
> >shows that can't even make a full season. Network executives are not
> >arbitors of good and bad.
>
> Fine. For argument's sake, we'll say that X-Men Evolution was a good
show. A
> great show. A fantastic show. It swept the daytime Emmys and put
Marvel back on
> the map. Why *wouldn't* they put it on DVD? Do they have any projects
that they
> are producing themselves lined up? Do they have many other sources of
revenue?
You're kidding? Marvel comics have MANY sources of revenue. The comics,
obviously. A few movies you may have hear of (Like X-men, Spiderman,
Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Blade), Toylines and other licensing deals,
as well as other cartoon properties. The real question is not why
wouldn't Marvel put their cartoons on DVD, but why Disney won't put
more of their stuff on DVD. And so far all you've provided is WEAK
excuses and little facts.
> >Which would be atleast a decade sooner than they are currently
> >releasing all those episodes!
>
> Such a fucking baby.
Yes you are, glad we could agree on that! (and watch your language,
this is a forum for a kids show, presumably the occasion kid will be by
to read these messages).
> >Only to most people with kids. Most people without kids barely even
> >knew it existed, even in 1994.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong there.
No, it is you who couldn't be more wrong. The key word in that sentence
was barely. Yes they knew a kids show called power rangers featuring
multi-colored heroes existed, but that's about ALL they knew about it
because that's all they cared to know about it.
> >By MMPR-2 I take it you are refering to the Godawful Turbo movie?
>
> I don't know in which language the letters "M - M - P - R" spell
"Turbo," but I
> meant the second season of the show.
Then say the second season. Which, BTW, was better than the 1st season
(IMHO) and stands the test of time quite well (so far atleast). What
about it makes you think it doesn't?
> Of course Power Rangers has more "name recognition" (which I don't
think were
> my words)--it has had a constant supply of new episodes, toys and
suits. GI Joe
> and Transformers don't even come close.
Your words were "recognition" to the "mainstream" which would be "name
recognition". If you meant something else, please elaborate.
> But remember that GI Joe and Transformers didn't have the negative
stigma that
> PR does.
BWahahahahahahaha. You're kidding right? these are the shows that
fired off the whole TV show as nothing but toy commerical debate back
in the 80s.
> Most children's series have a very limited life, especially when toy
sales
> are the crux of the franchise. PR avoids that problem by completely
reinventing
> itself every year, with all-new themes, products and marketing. What
other
> property can claim that?
AS we are talking DVD, what they do for the toyline is irrleavnt.
> That doesn't make a lick of sense and I'm starting to feel like I'm
arguing
> with Ralph Wiggum. Success is not indicative of a "successful idea,"
but in
> many cases just good advertising.
What is not indicitive of Success is EXCUSES. Which is why it didn't
make sense to you, all you know how to offer is exuceses.
> >Nonsense. First, I'm not advocating season sets in particular
(indeed,
> >I recall suggesting "just a few more single disk releases" to finish
> >off the season).
>
> Which would require more money, more planning, and possibly cause a
dip in
> sales.
Nonsense. It would require PROPER planning (as ther'te almost there to
begin with) with only a bit more money (but then it would also bring in
more money) with possibly a raise in sales.
> >Second, No-one said releasing PR in season sets is the most
profitable
> >long-term goal, only that it would be profitable and as such
represents
> >a missed opportunity on Disney's part.
>
> Just because something is "profitable" doesn't mean it's the best
choice.
About the only true thing you've said so far.
> Maybe
> you should take some economics courses while you're working on
whatever
> marketing thing you claim to be learning.
Sorry, already have taken economics and marketing a long time ago in
college.
> By taking any course of action, a
> company is forfeiting another option; the idea is to make the *best*
choice.
Which Clearly we disagree on whether or not Disney is making that
*best* choice.
> While releasing more discs per year might still indeed turn a profit,
if that
> projected profit were greater than what they're making now, it would
probably
> have been done.
And that is where you go off the rails. you assume the because they
aren't doing it that it is because they are already making the *best*
choice (and then you proceed to make excuses based on that assumption).
But as anyone with a lick of knowlegde about how business operate in
the real world, just because a company makes a choice it is not
automatically the *best* choice they could make. Again, if companies
*always* made the best choices, there would never be companies that go
bankrupt.
> > IF, as you suggest above, PR's
> >recognition is fading, then by not releasing now, they losing that
> >profitability opportunity as they would be able to sell more now
when
> >the recognition is relatively higher than later when that
recognition
> >is relatively lower.
>
> That's dangerously speculative and goes against Disney's need for
this project
> to make money long-term (more on that later). The franchise is rooted
in the
> fact that recognition can be kept at a steady level, even if that's a
blip on
> the mainstream radar, so long as sales are strong.
And they can have strong sales and still release complete seasons,
regardless of whatever exuses you dream up.
> For all your arguing that
> Disney isn't handling the release of its television shows to DVD
'correctly,'
> it's not an unlikely scenario that this hasn't already been discussed
to death
> in Disney boardrooms.
And for all your arguing that is has, it's not an unlikely scenario
that is HASN'T (and indeed the boardroom is the last place I'd expect
such an arguement to be held, that is an arguement that would take
place primarily in the marketing department. but then anyone with a
lick of knowledge about how businesses operate in the real world would
already know that).
> Clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, a decision has been made
> against it. We're getting Gargoyles Season One, which has the
possibility of
> putting a real chink in the armor, but it's an experiment--Disney has
not done
> this before.
EXCATLY, they have not done it before when other companies have.
Clearly they have NOT "argued it to death" like you seem to think they
have as they are just now dipping into the season release idea.
> PR has, already, many DVD releases as a result of the 2001 buyout.
About on par with the non-disney VHS releases pre-2001 (in otherwords
business as usual).
> In any kind of investment, you've got to make sure you can turn
profit.
Wow, two true statments, you're on a roll.
> Again,
> you might be right: they may be able to turn profit releasing
full-season
> releases. But, again, they run the risk of market oversaturation.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how quickly they do it.
> That's not
> something they can afford, only three years into a billion dollar
purchase.
> They've maybe made back half of the purchase amount by now if they're
> incredibly lucky, which isn't likely.
Considering the saban purchase was more than just power rangers and
they've left a large chuck of the non-power rangers (as well as a large
chuck or the power rangers for that matter) shows langushing in the
vaults collecting dust, I can see why they would need to be incredibly
lucky....
> They've no doubt got at least few more
> years to break even on the Saban deal, and *then* need years more to
generate a
> real profit; they probably can't take a big risk on this right now.
Releases a full season is NOT a big risk.
> And I don't know why you're even arguing with me over this. What you
call
> "excuses" are my explanations for Disney's behavior in the DVD
market.
Yes, they are excuses!
> Clearly Disney isn't planning a full-season release in the near
future. THAT'S
> A FACT.
No one is desputing that fact.
> My using precedence to try to figure out Disney's methodology is
> supported by that fact.
And when other people use precedence in the market place (IE other
shows on DVD) you make excuses about why that precedence doesn't apply.
The FACTS are, there are plenty of example of season releases (set and
single disks) of shows and power rangers is just another show that
*COULD* be released in that fashion *IF* disney wanted to regardless of
how many excuses you come up with about how "unique" power ranger is.
> Or are you just some goddamn spoiled fan who's too enthusiastic about
his
> obsession to actually see if it's feasible?
I'm a comsumer in the DVD market place who sees other shows (shows even
XPeeple
>
>Nothing but more and more poor excuses. I can name 100 TV series on DVD
>and you would just list excuse after excuse why you consider them
>"totally different". You'll never making it in the career you claim to
>be interested in if all you can do is offer excuse after excuse why you
>think things can't be done.
You really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I never said
"things can't be done" like some Nazi foreman before thousands of unpaid
laborers. Things AREN'T being done. That's a fucking fact; it's the one you're
for some reason trying to argue against. Anything CAN be done within a certain
scope, including getting all your damned episodes on DVD. But is it likely?
FUCK NO. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD.
>> but I don't see why they would
>> start arbitrarily from some middle series. It's either current or
>first.
>
>There's plenty of episodes from the FIRST season that they continually
>skip, they can start with those! And other series have started in
>arbitrary places. Avengers started with the 2nd or 3rd Emma Peel season
>(Before going back to cover the first Emma season and then the seasons
>before and after Emma). The Honeymooners did single disks of random
>selections of episodes of the "lost episodes" before finally doing a
>"season set" of the syndicated "Classic 39" (which fall in the middle
>of the Lost episodes chronologically speaking). Don't bother listing
>your excuses for why you consider those "different" cases.
I could also name series where this has been the case, but there have been
reasonsings for all of them. I'll point out that now you're the one making
"excuses," giving hints on how Disney *could* pull this off.
>> I was mainly talking about the toys, but you could be correct.
>
>Well, I've only ever been talking about the DVDs. Stay on subject.
The toys are equally as if not more important than the show itself.
>> >No it isn't, It got out of Chapter 11 years ago and is turning a
>> >healthy profit these days.
>> >
>> >> that show was horrible
>> >
>> >Obviously you never seen the show.
>>
>> I have seen the show, and it was awful.
>
>I've seen the show, it was EXCELLENT!
You also show the language skills of a 14 year old, so I imagine it would be a
magnificent, groundbreaking series to you.
>You're kidding? Marvel comics have MANY sources of revenue. The comics,
>obviously. A few movies you may have hear of (Like X-men, Spiderman,
>Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Blade), Toylines and other licensing deals,
>as well as other cartoon properties. The real question is not why
>wouldn't Marvel put their cartoons on DVD, but why Disney won't put
>more of their stuff on DVD. And so far all you've provided is WEAK
>excuses and little facts.
The movies are licensed and produced by outside studios, and likely pay Marvel
a lump sum rather than a steady revenue stream, outside of Lee and Arad's
producer fees. The toy line has been steadily fizzling for years; the toys for
the first X-Men movie remained unsold on shelves for years after the fact (I
guarantee you that there's still a few at my closest KayBee), and I don't see
how it's a big chunk of Marvel's earning power anymore.
X-Men Evolution, as I understand it, was one of the few shows that Marvel
produced itself under the Warner Bros. umbrella (someone correct me if I'm
wrong here). The point here is that if they've got no other properties to put
out on DVD themselves, of course they're going to. Yes, they have the film
properties, but the studios handle the home video releases there. The DVD sales
of X-Men Evolution likely give them a higher return, and Marvel Studios (or
whatever the fuck they're calling themselves these days) probably doesn't have
anything else to put out itself. They don't have the vast libraries or
unlimited capabilities of a company like Disney. Also remember that X-Men
Evolution is no longer in new episodes, so there's incentive to make money off
whatever library they have--PR is fortunate enough to be in new episodes until
Sentai ends, and maybe after that; there's less of a pull to get those DVD's
out for PR.
>> >Which would be atleast a decade sooner than they are currently
>> >releasing all those episodes!
>>
>> Such a fucking baby.
>
>Yes you are, glad we could agree on that! (and watch your language,
>this is a forum for a kids show, presumably the occasion kid will be by
>to read these messages).
Show me a fucking 7 year old who knows what Usenet is, newbie.
>> >Only to most people with kids. Most people without kids barely even
>> >knew it existed, even in 1994.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong there.
>
>No, it is you who couldn't be more wrong. The key word in that sentence
>was barely. Yes they knew a kids show called power rangers featuring
>multi-colored heroes existed, but that's about ALL they knew about it
>because that's all they cared to know about it.
Your point being? The argument here was that there was a massive amount of
mainstream recognition in 1994 as compared to today. I don't know a damned
thing about The Sopranos or The West Wing or Will & Grace or Sex in the City or
Carnivale or Six Feet Under or Desperate Housewives or Lost or Two and Half
fucking Men but the hell if I don't recognize them because of all the media
coverage. A decade ago, Power Rangers had just as much media coverage as
today's Spongebob did.
>> >By MMPR-2 I take it you are refering to the Godawful Turbo movie?
>>
>> I don't know in which language the letters "M - M - P - R" spell
>"Turbo," but I
>> meant the second season of the show.
>
>Then say the second season. Which, BTW, was better than the 1st season
>(IMHO) and stands the test of time quite well (so far atleast). What
>about it makes you think it doesn't?
"MMPR-2" is common and fairly obvious abbreviation for the second season; it
was in use well before I started posting here five or six years ago. I don't
know when you got here, but I've never seen anyone befuddled by it. The moniker
has no semblance whatsoever to "Turbo."
The opinion that much of MMPR-2 (THE SECOND SEASON OF *M*IGHTY *M*ORPHIN
*P*OWER *R*ANGERS, FOR THE UNINITIATED) was a travesty in the franchise is a
common and well-founded belief. Mixed footage between DaiRanger and ZyuRanger,
the worst bits of Zyu2, horrible photo- and voice-doubles of principal
characters, the abrupt and achingly obvious loss of those three characters due
to failed contract negotiations, the shift to three terribly inexperienced
replacements amidst abhorrent writing, the Oz episodes, and the presence of
something called "Alpha's Magical Christmas" together created a shameful period
in the series. If you can't see that, then you're hopeless.
>> Of course Power Rangers has more "name recognition" (which I don't
>think were
>> my words)--it has had a constant supply of new episodes, toys and
>suits. GI Joe
>> and Transformers don't even come close.
>
>Your words were "recognition" to the "mainstream" which would be "name
>recognition". If you meant something else, please elaborate.
Well, "name recognition" isn't necessarily a good thing. Kids are likely to
grow out of any childhood franchise, but with PR, there's a greater possibility
of growing out of it with a vengeance--MMPR-2 can be looked at as a fantastic
example of this.
This was a period in which the show could literally have killed off all of its
characters and have Tommy fighting Putties with Megazords in the background for
22 minutes and still make money. It came damn close to that, and when they lost
people for holding back on profit sharing, the show fell to pieces. It was
terrible beyond words for a stretch of time, and still thrived with stronger
sales and ratings than the previous year's (IIRC). But watch those episodes
now. They're absolutely horrible. Even a moderately aware fan knew this, and
ten years later, the state of makeshift that defined that year glares though
Lord Zedd's money-saving mouthpiece. Honestly, I thought "The Great Bookala
Escape" was something I had dreamed up until i downloaded it off the IRC
channel a while back and damn near vomited.
Now, compare this with Transformers. Yes, Transformers was a living toy
commercial. But it was a damned good one, and there's nary a fan who grew up
watching the show--let alone those who have watched it years later--who found
it overtly flawed. Obviously there's some deal of dating to the material, but
it's nonetheless a very watchable show. That speaks volumes about the nostalgia
factor.
Whether they're into a PR series that's good or bad, a PR fan ultimately finds
himself saying "this is dumb." Yes, there are often nice fighting bits, great
storylines, cool designs and interesting characters, but the inner reductionist
will always nag you to realize that the show is fucking awful. If you're over
10 and you like it, you're always liking it 'in spite of' its flaws. And that's
a rare case. Most kids grow up, realize it's dumb, and will end up disliking it
for those flaws. Now, you try marketing those horrible episodes again to the
kids who grew up to hate them? It's gonna be a big chance trying to sell them.
>> But remember that GI Joe and Transformers didn't have the negative
>stigma that
>> PR does.
>
>BWahahahahahahaha. You're kidding right? these are the shows that
>fired off the whole TV show as nothing but toy commerical debate back
>in the 80s.
The negative stigma to the kids. See above.
>What is not indicitive of Success is EXCUSES. Which is why it didn't
>make sense to you, all you know how to offer is exuceses.
This isn't a politcal debate and I do wish you'd stop using that irrelevant
word. I'm sure there have been plenty of successful ventures that were rooted
in excuse-making, though, look at the ever-expanding junk food market.
>> >Nonsense. First, I'm not advocating season sets in particular
>(indeed,
>> >I recall suggesting "just a few more single disk releases" to finish
>> >off the season).
>>
>> Which would require more money, more planning, and possibly cause a
>dip in
>> sales.
>
>Nonsense. It would require PROPER planning (as ther'te almost there to
>begin with) with only a bit more money (but then it would also bring in
>more money) with possibly a raise in sales.
"PROPER" planning would entail more money for more attention to detail. You're
also giving no basis for judgment that full season releases would guarantee
profit, or a better financial situation for the property in general, other than
the fact that a handful of fans would like it.
>> Maybe
>> you should take some economics courses while you're working on
>whatever
>> marketing thing you claim to be learning.
>
>Sorry, already have taken economics and marketing a long time ago in
>college.
Then maybe an English course would be more beneficial.
>> By taking any course of action, a
>> company is forfeiting another option; the idea is to make the *best*
>choice.
>
>Which Clearly we disagree on whether or not Disney is making that
>*best* choice.
And it's Disney's decision to make, not yours. But of course, you *must* know
the best for the Disney Corporation, what with all your experience in the
field. God forbid Disney should make its own decision about a property it owns
without consulting a fan of said property beforehand.
>> While releasing more discs per year might still indeed turn a profit,
>if that
>> projected profit were greater than what they're making now, it would
>probably
>> have been done.
>
>And that is where you go off the rails. you assume the because they
>aren't doing it that it is because they are already making the *best*
>choice (and then you proceed to make excuses based on that assumption).
>But as anyone with a lick of knowlegde about how business operate in
>the real world, just because a company makes a choice it is not
>automatically the *best* choice they could make. Again, if companies
>*always* made the best choices, there would never be companies that go
>bankrupt.
I'm not necessarily assuming that they are making the best choice, but it's the
decision that they've made, and that *they* presumably think is the best course
of action. What the "best" decision is can be different to the investor, the
employee, and the fan, obviously. But you refuse to give Disney the credit it
deserves for making its own decisions, and instead just whine that *you* feel
they're making a mistake. Boo fucking hoo.
>> > IF, as you suggest above, PR's
>> >recognition is fading, then by not releasing now, they losing that
>> >profitability opportunity as they would be able to sell more now
>when
>> >the recognition is relatively higher than later when that
>recognition
>> >is relatively lower.
>>
>> That's dangerously speculative and goes against Disney's need for
>this project
>> to make money long-term (more on that later). The franchise is rooted
>in the
>> fact that recognition can be kept at a steady level, even if that's a
>blip on
>> the mainstream radar, so long as sales are strong.
>
>And they can have strong sales and still release complete seasons,
>regardless of whatever exuses you dream up.
Strong sales just might not cut it. A boom in sales now can be misleading, and
potentially damaging to the long-run profitability of the franchise.
>> For all your arguing that
>> Disney isn't handling the release of its television shows to DVD
>'correctly,'
>> it's not an unlikely scenario that this hasn't already been discussed
>to death
>> in Disney boardrooms.
>
>And for all your arguing that is has, it's not an unlikely scenario
>that is HASN'T (and indeed the boardroom is the last place I'd expect
>such an arguement to be held, that is an arguement that would take
>place primarily in the marketing department. but then anyone with a
>lick of knowledge about how businesses operate in the real world would
>already know that).
The TV-on-DVD venture is a giant one with lots of chances for capital gain, as
you've pointed out, more or less. It's one that could make or break a
shareholder's decision to keep investing in the company; I don't doubt that
this has been discussed in a boardroom, whether about PR or any of the other
properties.
>> Clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, a decision has been made
>> against it. We're getting Gargoyles Season One, which has the
>possibility of
>> putting a real chink in the armor, but it's an experiment--Disney has
>not done
>> this before.
>
>EXCATLY, they have not done it before when other companies have.
>Clearly they have NOT "argued it to death" like you seem to think they
>have as they are just now dipping into the season release idea.
Juh? Because they're just getting into it now doesn't imply that it hasn't been
discussed before, it indicates that they previously decided against it.
>> PR has, already, many DVD releases as a result of the 2001 buyout.
>
>About on par with the non-disney VHS releases pre-2001 (in otherwords
>business as usual).
Business as usual? Yes. Not on par at all, though--however, certainly within
the same scope. Saban released one or two tapes a year past MMPR with maybe six
episodes, tops. Disney traditionally tries to put out a couple of releases a
year for children's properties. This was a beneficial mix.
>> Again,
>> you might be right: they may be able to turn profit releasing
>full-season
>> releases. But, again, they run the risk of market oversaturation.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how quickly they do it.
You act as if there's this mad dash to get stuff out there before PR fades away
like Doc Brown killed its father. It doesn't work like that, and you're still
failing to get the annual nature of Power Rangers. Slow and steady wins the
race--you can't have people get sick of Power Rangers now or they won't buy
next year's product. You start putting a bajillion videos out there and that's
just what might happen.
>> That's not
>> something they can afford, only three years into a billion dollar
>purchase.
>> They've maybe made back half of the purchase amount by now if they're
>> incredibly lucky, which isn't likely.
>
>Considering the saban purchase was more than just power rangers and
>they've left a large chuck of the non-power rangers (as well as a large
>chuck or the power rangers for that matter) shows langushing in the
>vaults collecting dust, I can see why they would need to be incredibly
>lucky....
I was unable to read through that mangled garbage.
>> They've no doubt got at least few more
>> years to break even on the Saban deal, and *then* need years more to
>generate a
>> real profit; they probably can't take a big risk on this right now.
>
>Releases a full season is NOT a big risk.
Assuming you meant "Releasing a full season is NOT a big risk" or some
variation thereof, this is an OPINION on your part. Were it not *some* kind of
risk it would likely be done.
>> And I don't know why you're even arguing with me over this. What you
>call
>> "excuses" are my explanations for Disney's behavior in the DVD
>market.
>
>Yes, they are excuses!
An excuse implies that I have anything at all to do with it.
>> Clearly Disney isn't planning a full-season release in the near
>future. THAT'S
>> A FACT.
>
>No one is desputing that fact.
Learn to fucking spell.
>> My using precedence to try to figure out Disney's methodology is
>> supported by that fact.
>
>And when other people use precedence in the market place (IE other
>shows on DVD) you make excuses about why that precedence doesn't apply.
>The FACTS are, there are plenty of example of season releases (set and
>single disks) of shows and power rangers is just another show that
>*COULD* be released in that fashion *IF* disney wanted to regardless of
>how many excuses you come up with about how "unique" power ranger is.
You can't use precedence to support something unrelated. Are any these billions
of shows you're proclaiming as being on DVD Disney properties? Are they an
annually-reinventing franchise? Are they children's series with 38 episodes a
year *guaranteed*?
>> Or are you just some goddamn spoiled fan who's too enthusiastic about
>his
>> obsession to actually see if it's feasible?
>
>I'm a comsumer in the DVD market place who sees other shows (shows even
>more obscure than power ranger and shows more well know that power
>rangers, shows aimed at kids and shows aimed at adults) being sold to
>the market place in season releases (sets and/or individual disk).
>Considering the shear number of such shows on the DVD shelves, it
>doesn't take much to see that such release are profitable (otherwise so
>many companies would not be releasing them that way). You're trying to
>paint those who disagree with you as "obessed uberfans who want special
>collectors edition DVDs" doesn't change the FACTS of the DVD
>marketplace that is filled with shows in season releases.
You seem to be against the notion that you are one of the obsessed fans, but
you fail to listen to any reason in any of this. Be what they are, Disney has
reasons for not releasing full-season sets. Your only arguments are that "there
are so many shows already on DVD" and "releasing PR in full seasons would be
profitable" but you choose to continually ignore the facts that (a) Disney
doesn't regularly put their shows out in full-season sets, (b) Disney already
puts a hefty percentage of new PR episodes out on the format (c) the Power
Rangers series is mainly kept alive by advertising toys, and there's not much
concern for other demographics than 2-11, (d) PR has terrible stigma attached
to it and virtually no mainstream presence, (e) only an extremely limited
fanbase would even be interested in buying full-season sets, and (f) Power
Rangers has no foreseeable end in sight, which means that new series will get
the marketing attention before an old one.
I'm tired of reading through your mangled English and all-too-personal rants
that all 534 episodes of Power Rangers should be DVD. You may be "a consumer in
the DVD market place (sic)," but you're not EVERY consumer in the marketplace.
Because there's obscure stuff out there doesn't mean that EVERY obscure thing
will be released on the whim of an eccentric fandom. It feels like you're
trying to push along these imaginary releases like the Gargoyles fanbase,
because after all the Gargoyles people got their way (ignoring the fact that
Gargoyles hasn't had a new episode since 1997 and Disney had done nothing to
reap the benefits of that still-kicking fandom). Power Rangers is making money
the way it is, and that's how Disney apparently wants to keep it. Get the fuck
over yourself.
I'm not responding to any more posts in this thread, nor am I reading them. I'm
giving you possible explanations, you're giving me petty, whiney cries that you
want what's not out there. Good-bye.
selaboc
> >> Apples and oranges again.
> >
> >Nothing but more and more poor excuses. I can name 100 TV series on
DVD
> >and you would just list excuse after excuse why you consider them
> >"totally different". You'll never making it in the career you claim
to
> >be interested in if all you can do is offer excuse after excuse why
you
> >think things can't be done.
>
> You really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
THAT would be *YOU*, oh clueless one.
> I never said
> "things can't be done" like some Nazi foreman before thousands of
unpaid
> laborers. Things AREN'T being done. That's a fucking fact; it's the
one you're
> for some reason trying to argue against.
I've never argued against the fact that they aren't being done. That's
the whole point, they aren't being done. And GROW UP. relying on such
language show a lack of maturity and intelligence on YOUR part.
> Anything CAN be done within a certain
> scope, including getting all your damned episodes on DVD. But is it
likely?
Not if people don't let Disney know what they want it isn't. Because
something isn't being done does not mean that the situation can not be
changed. when will you get that through YOUR head?
> I could also name series where this has been the case, but there have
been
> reasonsings for all of them. I'll point out that now you're the one
making
> "excuses," giving hints on how Disney *could* pull this off.
Pointing out concrete examples of *how* something *could* be done (by
way of how it *Has* been done elsewhere) is not an excuse. Making up
reasons (like you have been doing) of why something is not being done
is. Though I doubt by now that you are capable of telling the
difference between the two.
> >> I was mainly talking about the toys, but you could be correct.
> >
> >Well, I've only ever been talking about the DVDs. Stay on subject.
>
> The toys are equally as if not more important than the show itself.
Not in a discussion about the DVDs it isn't.
> >> I have seen the show, and it was awful.
> >
> >I've seen the show, it was EXCELLENT!
>
> You also show the language skills of a 14 year old, so I imagine it
would be a
> magnificent, groundbreaking series to you.
Bwahahahahahaha. This from the person who cannot form a coherent
arguement without the use of the F-word?
> >You're kidding? Marvel comics have MANY sources of revenue. The
comics,
> >obviously. A few movies you may have hear of (Like X-men, Spiderman,
> >Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Blade), Toylines and other licensing
deals,
> >as well as other cartoon properties. The real question is not why
> >wouldn't Marvel put their cartoons on DVD, but why Disney won't put
> >more of their stuff on DVD. And so far all you've provided is WEAK
> >excuses and little facts.
>
> The movies are licensed and produced by outside studios, and likely
pay Marvel
> a lump sum rather than a steady revenue stream, outside of Lee and
Arad's
> producer fees. The toy line has been steadily fizzling for years; the
toys for
> the first X-Men movie remained unsold on shelves for years after the
fact (I
> guarantee you that there's still a few at my closest KayBee), and I
don't see
> how it's a big chunk of Marvel's earning power anymore.
All are sources of revenue. Some of the earlier marvel movies were
licensed but as they became hits, Marvel had greater lattitude in the
deals for the later movies (IE more revenue). The point is X-men
Evolution isn't the only source of Home entertainment revenue you are
trying to paint it as.
> X-Men Evolution, as I understand it, was one of the few shows that
Marvel
> produced itself under the Warner Bros. umbrella (someone correct me
if I'm
> wrong here).
Warner Brothers owns DC Comics, Not Marvel. X-men Evolution aired on
the WB network hence your confusion.
> The point here is that if they've got no other properties to put
> out on DVD themselves, of course they're going to.
The internet Movie Database lists 50 titles for Marvel Enterprises with
X-men evolution listed at number 19 about 20 are listed as TV series
(mostly variations of Spiderman, X-men, Fantastic Four and Hulk)
> Also remember that X-Men
> Evolution is no longer in new episodes, so there's incentive to make
money off
> whatever library they have--PR is fortunate enough to be in new
episodes until
> Sentai ends, and maybe after that; there's less of a pull to get
those DVD's
> out for PR.
There you go with the excuses again. Other shows still in production
release seasons on DVD. Besides which Disney missed, IMHO, a golden
marketing opportunity this past season for some back catalogue DVD
releases in that with the return of Tommy, the 500th Flashback episode
and the Tommy faces his past Ranger identities episode intrest in past
Tommy episodes was at the highest it could be for new and old fans
alike. Even without releasing season sets, the could have had a three
individual disk tie-in "best of" releases. A green, a while and a red
disk (Highlighting the Green white and red ranger careers of Tommy).
> >> Such a fucking baby.
> >
> >Yes you are, glad we could agree on that! (and watch your language,
> >this is a forum for a kids show, presumably the occasion kid will be
by
> >to read these messages).
>
> Show me a fucking 7 year old who knows what Usenet is, newbie.
Well, you're here, and considering the level of your temper tantrum,
I'd say calling you a 7 year old is being generous.
> Your point being? The argument here was that there was a massive
amount of
> mainstream recognition in 1994 as compared to today. I don't know a
damned
> thing about The Sopranos or The West Wing or Will & Grace or Sex in
the City or
> Carnivale or Six Feet Under or Desperate Housewives or Lost or Two
and Half
> fucking Men but the hell if I don't recognize them because of all the
media
> coverage. A decade ago, Power Rangers had just as much media coverage
as
> today's Spongebob did.
Your point being? I agree that a decade ago Power rangers had more
recognition than it does today, that was NEVER in contention.
> >Then say the second season. Which, BTW, was better than the 1st
season
> >(IMHO) and stands the test of time quite well (so far atleast). What
> >about it makes you think it doesn't?
>
> "MMPR-2" is common and fairly obvious abbreviation for the second
season; it
> was in use well before I started posting here five or six years ago.
I don't
> know when you got here, but I've never seen anyone befuddled by it.
The moniker
> has no semblance whatsoever to "Turbo."
When movies were mentioned, the 2 could be a reference to the 2nd
movie. but whatever.
> The opinion that much of MMPR-2 (THE SECOND SEASON OF *M*IGHTY
*M*ORPHIN
> *P*OWER *R*ANGERS, FOR THE UNINITIATED) was a travesty in the
franchise is a
> common and well-founded belief. Mixed footage between DaiRanger and
ZyuRanger,
> the worst bits of Zyu2, horrible photo- and voice-doubles of
principal
> characters, the abrupt and achingly obvious loss of those three
characters due
> to failed contract negotiations, the shift to three terribly
inexperienced
> replacements amidst abhorrent writing, the Oz episodes, and the
presence of
> something called "Alpha's Magical Christmas" together created a
shameful period
> in the series. If you can't see that, then you're hopeless.
Most of what you described can also describe most of the other seasons
of MMPR (except for the abomination called "Alpha's Magical Christmas",
which as I recall was a direct to video release and not an actual
episode in the shows run)
> >Your words were "recognition" to the "mainstream" which would be
"name
> >recognition". If you meant something else, please elaborate.
>
> Well, "name recognition" isn't necessarily a good thing. Kids are
likely to
> grow out of any childhood franchise, but with PR, there's a greater
possibility
> of growing out of it with a vengeance--MMPR-2 can be looked at as a
fantastic
> example of this.
I don't see it. There's really nothing about MMPR-2 that's any worse
than MMPR-1 (if anything, MMPR-2 seems more polished in some respects
than MMPR-1)
> It was
> terrible beyond words for a stretch of time, and still thrived with
stronger
> sales and ratings than the previous year's (IIRC). But watch those
episodes
> now. They're absolutely horrible. Even a moderately aware fan knew
this,
In your opinion. For the most part I disagree.
> and
> ten years later, the state of makeshift that defined that year glares
though
> Lord Zedd's money-saving mouthpiece. Honestly, I thought "The Great
Bookala
> Escape" was something I had dreamed up until i downloaded it off the
IRC
> channel a while back and damn near vomited.
No worse than some of the silly stuff that appeared in the first
season. Pudgy Pig anyone? Rita using Trini's stupid Mr. Ticklesneezer
doll as a monster?
> Now, compare this with Transformers.
Having never been into Transformers, I can't really comment on it's
quality.
> Whether they're into a PR series that's good or bad, a PR fan
ultimately finds
> himself saying "this is dumb." Yes, there are often nice fighting
bits, great
> storylines, cool designs and interesting characters, but the inner
reductionist
> will always nag you to realize that the show is fucking awful. If
you're over
> 10 and you like it, you're always liking it 'in spite of' its flaws.
And that's
> a rare case. Most kids grow up, realize it's dumb, and will end up
disliking it
> for those flaws. Now, you try marketing those horrible episodes again
to the
> kids who grew up to hate them? It's gonna be a big chance trying to
sell them.
Someone must still like them or else Power Picks and Best of and next
year Generations would have been pulled from the airwaves years ago.
> >BWahahahahahahaha. You're kidding right? these are the shows that
> >fired off the whole TV show as nothing but toy commerical debate
back
> >in the 80s.
>
> The negative stigma to the kids. See above.
Sure they do. They're kids cartoons. At some point people outgrow kids
cartoons. Same arguement/excuse you use in regards to outgrowing power
rangers applies here.
> >What is not indicitive of Success is EXCUSES. Which is why it didn't
> >make sense to you, all you know how to offer is exuceses.
>
> This isn't a politcal debate and I do wish you'd stop using that
irrelevant
> word.
When you stop making excuses I'll stop using that word. (though
considering I asked you to stop with the foul language and you didn't
kind of robs you of any credibility in asking me to stop the use of any
particular word)
> I'm sure there have been plenty of successful ventures that were
rooted
> in excuse-making, though, look at the ever-expanding junk food
market.
Name one. The only excuses in the "junk food market" are the ones
people give for blaming it for the obesity of Americans. Excuses didn't
make that market, the idea of fast "convienient" food did.
> >Nonsense. It would require PROPER planning (as ther'te almost there
to
> >begin with) with only a bit more money (but then it would also bring
in
> >more money) with possibly a raise in sales.
>
> "PROPER" planning would entail more money for more attention to
detail.
Not really, just better attention to scheduling details. Did you know,
for example, that in the UK some TV series are released in boxset
BEFORE they finish airing the last episode on TV? And this isn't too
new of a phenomena. in 1996, the Doctor Who TV movie was released on
VHS in the UK before it aired on BBC1.
> You're
> also giving no basis for judgment that full season releases would
guarantee
> profit, or a better financial situation for the property in general,
other than
> the fact that a handful of fans would like it.
You're giving no basis for judgment that a full season release would
NOT make a profit, other than your excuses as to why you think they
aren't doing it. The fact is the PR rangers DVD they do release make
profit (I think on that we can agree) There is no indications that
increasing such releases to include the rest of the season (we're
talking only 2 or 3 more disks here) would sudden change that profit
into a loss.
>
> >> Maybe
> >> you should take some economics courses while you're working on
> >whatever
> >> marketing thing you claim to be learning.
> >
> >Sorry, already have taken economics and marketing a long time ago in
> >college.
>
> Then maybe an English course would be more beneficial.
Actually, a typing course would be beneficial. But then again, I can
always tell when someone is losing an arguement, rather than deal with
the facts and ideas in the post, they start dealing with the way the
post was made.
> >> By taking any course of action, a
> >> company is forfeiting another option; the idea is to make the
*best*
> >choice.
> >
> >Which Clearly we disagree on whether or not Disney is making that
> >*best* choice.
>
> And it's Disney's decision to make, not yours.
As a consumer of their product it is my right to express my opinions of
their product and on what I think they are doing right and doing wrong
in providing that product in a timely fashion.
> But of course, you *must* know
> the best for the Disney Corporation, what with all your experience in
the
> field. God forbid Disney should make its own decision about a
property it owns
> without consulting a fan of said property beforehand.
They can make what ever decisions they wish wihtout consulting anyone.
But as consumers of thier products, it is our right to tell them when
they've got it "right" and when they've got it "wrong". It's called
Feedback. as someone who claims to be interested in a career in
marketing, perhaps you've heard of the concept.
> >And that is where you go off the rails. you assume the because they
> >aren't doing it that it is because they are already making the
*best*
> >choice (and then you proceed to make excuses based on that
assumption).
> >But as anyone with a lick of knowlegde about how business operate in
> >the real world, just because a company makes a choice it is not
> >automatically the *best* choice they could make. Again, if companies
> >*always* made the best choices, there would never be companies that
go
> >bankrupt.
>
> I'm not necessarily assuming that they are making the best choice,
Yes you are, when you go off on your "they'd already be doing it"
excuses.
> >And they can have strong sales and still release complete seasons,
> >regardless of whatever exuses you dream up.
>
> Strong sales just might not cut it. A boom in sales now can be
misleading, and
> potentially damaging to the long-run profitability of the franchise.
and conversely a boom in sales now can be very helpful in boosting the
long-run profitability of the franchise.
> >EXCATLY, they have not done it before when other companies have.
> >Clearly they have NOT "argued it to death" like you seem to think
they
> >have as they are just now dipping into the season release idea.
>
> Juh? Because they're just getting into it now doesn't imply that it
hasn't been
> discussed before, it indicates that they previously decided against
it.
No, you assume it indicate that they previously decided against it. The
TV-ON_DVD market (and season releases in particular) is a relatively
new one. That they haven't done it before now could just as easily be
an indication that they hadn't given it much thought at all until
recently when they saw how profitable it's been for other companies in
the past few years.
> >Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how quickly they do it.
>
> You act as if there's this mad dash to get stuff out there before PR
fades away
> like Doc Brown killed its father. It doesn't work like that, and
you're still
> failing to get the annual nature of Power Rangers. Slow and steady
wins the
> race--you can't have people get sick of Power Rangers now or they
won't buy
> next year's product. You start putting a bajillion videos out there
and that's
> just what might happen.
You are agrueing against strawmen here. I get the "annual nature" of
Power Rangers. Remember I've been discussing getting the full season of
the CURRENT YEARS run on DVD. I have not been talking about putting "a
bajillion videos out", just 2 or 3 more disks a year. Would I like to
see the past seasons released? Sure. Do they have to relases them "all
at once"? no. It would be nice if they released *soemthing* from the
past seasons, even if it's more along the lines of the Ultimate Rangers
DVD once or twice a year than actual season sets. (but as I have most
of them on tape except the odd Lost Galaxy and Time Force episode I can
always burn my own DVDs if I wanted to)
> >> That's not
> >> something they can afford, only three years into a billion dollar
> >purchase.
> >> They've maybe made back half of the purchase amount by now if
they're
> >> incredibly lucky, which isn't likely.
> >
> >Considering the saban purchase was more than just power rangers and
> >they've left a large chuck of the non-power rangers (as well as a
large
> >chuck or the power rangers for that matter) shows langushing in the
> >vaults collecting dust, I can see why they would need to be
incredibly
> >lucky....
>
> I was unable to read through that mangled garbage.
What did you fail to understand?
1) that the Saban purchase was more than just a purchase of Power
Rangers (There were *other* series in the Saban library)
2) that those other Saban shows have not been made use of by Disney
or
3) That A large portion of the Power Rangers material has alos not been
made use of by Disney (they keep skipping large numbers of episodes in
their repeat runs).
> Assuming you meant "Releasing a full season is NOT a big risk" or
some
> variation thereof, this is an OPINION on your part. Were it not
*some* kind of
> risk it would likely be done.
Again assumptions and excuses on your part. 2 or 3 more disk (to finish
off the series) is NOT that big of a risk.
> >> And I don't know why you're even arguing with me over this. What
you
> >call
> >> "excuses" are my explanations for Disney's behavior in the DVD
> >market.
> >
> >Yes, they are excuses!
>
> An excuse implies that I have anything at all to do with it.
No, it doesn't. Just that you are satisfied with the status quo and
make up excuses to defend that status quo.
> >> Clearly Disney isn't planning a full-season release in the near
> >future. THAT'S
> >> A FACT.
> >
> >No one is desputing that fact.
>
> Learn to fucking spell.
Learn to articulate with out resorting to needless profanity.
> >And when other people use precedence in the market place (IE other
> >shows on DVD) you make excuses about why that precedence doesn't
apply.
> >The FACTS are, there are plenty of example of season releases (set
and
> >single disks) of shows and power rangers is just another show that
> >*COULD* be released in that fashion *IF* disney wanted to regardless
of
> >how many excuses you come up with about how "unique" power ranger
is.
>
> You can't use precedence to support something unrelated.
They are NOT unrelated in that they are the SAME thing - TV on DVD.
NONE of your excuses changes that. One could come up with as many
excuses as one want to show that one TV show is completely different
from any other, but the bottom line is they are ALL just TV shows and
the DVD market for TV shows really is NOT that different (other then
the number of disks it takes to release them) between new shows still
in production and old shows no longer in productions, between top ten
series and obscure old ones, or between long running series and short
lived ones.
> You seem to be against the notion that you are one of the obsessed
fans, but
> you fail to listen to any reason in any of this.
Bwahahahaahahaha. Coming from the king of excuses that is funny. Forget
marketing, you have a future in comedy.
> Be what they are, Disney has
> reasons for not releasing full-season sets.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Considering they are just now dipping their toe
into those waters it remains to be seen what reasons they have or have
not and how valid those reasons are.
> but you choose to continually ignore the facts that
I've ignored nothing, I just haven't agreed with your excuses, there's
a differnce (but, at this point, I'm not surprised it escapes you).
> (a) Disney
> doesn't regularly put their shows out in full-season sets,
So? That they don't *currently* do this, doesn't mean they
shouldn't/couldn't or that those who would like to see them do so
shouldn't voice that opinion.
> (b) Disney already
> puts a hefty percentage of new PR episodes out on the format
So? That doesn't mean they shouldn't/couldn't finish the job or that
those who would like to see them do so shouldn't voice that opinion.
> (c) the Power
> Rangers series is mainly kept alive by advertising toys, and there's
not much
> concern for other demographics than 2-11,
So? Toys have nothing to do with the DVD releases.
> (d) PR has terrible stigma attached
> to it and virtually no mainstream presence,
So? there are plenty of other shows on DVD with "Stigma's" and even
less mainstream precence than power rangers (you'd be surprised at some
of the down righht obscure stuff that has been released on DVD).
>(e) only an extremely limited
> fanbase would even be interested in buying full-season sets, and
Good thing then that I haven't been argueing for full-season sets, just
finishing the job a releasing the 2 or 3 more disks needed to release
the full season on individual disks.
> (f) Power
> Rangers has no foreseeable end in sight, which means that new series
will get
> the marketing attention before an old one.
So? that still doesn't prevent them from a) finishing the job when
releasing the current season or b) occasionally releasing a disk of the
old stuff (particularily on those rare occasion, like this past year,
when the new stuff ties into the old stuff so perfectly)
> I'm tired of reading through your mangled English and
all-too-personal rants
> that all 534 episodes of Power Rangers should be DVD.
translations: you've run out of excuses that haven't been shot down in
flames.
> You may be "a consumer in
> the DVD market place (sic)," but you're not EVERY consumer in the
marketplace.
> Because there's obscure stuff out there doesn't mean that EVERY
obscure thing
> will be released on the whim of an eccentric fandom.
> It feels like you're
> trying to push along these imaginary releases like the Gargoyles
fanbase,
> because after all the Gargoyles people got their way
Please point out ANY post where I've claimed the existance of a
Gargoyles fanbase or that such a beastie "got it's way". pointing out
that Gargoyles got a release is NOT the same thing as claiming the
stuff you just stated.
> Power Rangers is making money
> the way it is, and that's how Disney apparently wants to keep it. Get
the fuck
> over yourself.
You are the one who needs to "Get the fuck over yourself." and you can
start by learning some new words other than "fuck" for expressing
yourself.
> I'm not responding to any more posts in this thread, nor am I reading
them. I'm
> giving you possible explanations, you're giving me petty, whiney
cries that you
> want what's not out there. Good-bye.
Nope, you've given nothing but EXCUSES and petty crybaby "go fuck
yourself" rants. Now that your excuses have been shredded, you run away
and sulk in the corner like the baby that you are. Good riddance.
JDJF03
>Not really, just better attention to scheduling details. Did you know,
>for example, that in the UK some TV series are released in boxset
>BEFORE they finish airing the last episode on TV? And this isn't too
>new of a phenomena. in 1996, the Doctor Who TV movie was released on
>VHS in the UK before it aired on BBC1.
>
Coming in again, to give an example on this part of your post--
As you note, the UK has been doing this. And the US has been getting into
some of it too.
One recent instance (to mirror the Dr. Who one you note), the Nicktoon As
Told By Ginger, which I've read has had it's last episodes aired in other parts
of the world (with 1 of them happening to air in the US, as it was a
Thanksgiving episode - and aired on Nicktoons TV during that time). Anyway,
even with most of that last batch of episodes not having aired here, they've
released the series-finale 3-Part special on DVD.
Jon-
Cartoon Quote-
"Now one close call would be enough to send a smart guy runnin', but Daggett
never had the sense the good lord gave an onion" (Angry Beavers: "The Legend
of Kid Friendly").