Thanks to NCVARick to bringing this up in the pilot thread.

Okay, so I tuned into the Hallmark Channel yesterday to watch the 1st season B&W episodes of I Dream of Jeannie only to find out they'd been colorized. At first I was like, "What the...", but actually, it's pretty cool.

So my question is, if someone decided to colorize all the ILL episodes and air them, would you be totally opposed?

Yes,I would be very opposed to colorizing I Love Lucy. I feel changing anything about this show would be very disrespectful and
unatural. I always say,don't try to change anything that ain't broken.

------------------
Amy M. Weaver

Black and White all the way!!! The best shows on TV are black and white, and for people to monkey around with is just plain awful. I wouldn't dream of I Love Lucy being in color. The same as I couldn't bare to see Leave it to Beaver in color, or the Patty Duke Show. It's a piece of 50's Americana, not to be trifled with. It may be neat to get to experience some shows in color, but to colorize them without giving their fans a choice in the matter is just atrocious. Sorry if I sound heavy-handed or preachy, but I take my B&W very seriously. LOL. Incidentally, about a month ago, I went to Hollywood Video looking to rent the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" for some horror movie fun. They didn't have the original, just that cheesy 80's retread. But they did have a copy for purchase, so I snagged it. But then when I put it on later, I found to my disgust that it was colorized, and not even very well. So I turned the color knob down on my TV, and all was well!

---Barrett Reynolds, "The Teenaged "Beatnik

Have you actually look at the color detail o the colorized I Dream of Jeannie? It looks like it was drawn by a 5 year old. You can tell that it wasn't originally in color. Jeannie's hair kinda looks a shade of strawberry blonde instead of regular blonde. And the walls that are green look too bright. I Love Lucy wouldn't look good colorized.

I know this is off topic, but "I Dream of Jeannie" had some very good colorizers! When I first saw it I at first thought Hallmark must have screwed up and gone to the second season!

But, "Gilligan's Island" looks terrible in color, because they didn't colorize it rite.

That's Ted Turner, for you.

< I always say,don't try to change anything that ain't broken. >

If Lucy had not *changed* her "mousy brown" hair to the red color which helped create her image and spawned so many jokes on the show, it may not have reached such enduring popularity that this would be debated. I wouldn't say 'Don't change *anything* that ain't broken.'

Originally posted by Sean Snow:
I know this is off topic, but "I Dream of Jeannie" had some very good colorizers! When I first saw it I at first thought Hallmark must have screwed up and gone to the second season!

But, "Gilligan's Island" looks terrible in color, because they didn't colorize it rite.

Speaking of Ted Turner, this reminds me of something Jay Leno said back when Turner bought -- what was it, the MGM film library? Anyway, Turner had recently acquired ownership of all these classic movies. This was around the time he was also colorizing lots and lots of old black and white films and TV shows. Leno noted that Ted Turner was now in the process of having the first 20 minutes of "The Wizard of Oz" colorized.

Originally posted by dawsongirl:
Thanks to NCVARick to bringing this up in the pilot thread.

Okay, so I tuned into the Hallmark Channel yesterday to watch the 1st season B&W episodes of I Dream of Jeannie only to find out they'd been colorized. At first I was like, "What the...", but actually, it's pretty cool.

So my question is, if someone decided to colorize all the ILL episodes and air them, would you be totally opposed?

My feelings are very split on this issue. I do believe that colorizing black and white film undermines the artistic integrity of the film. It's important to realize that not only are the actors and writers artists, but so are the directors. The cinematographers who were responsible for all aspects of the film quality painstakingly worked to get the best image possible for black and white film. The lighting and camera angles were configured expressly for the purpose of creating the best black and white image possible. Different lighting techniques are used for black and white as opposed to color film. In the case of "I Love Lucy," the person responsible for this aspect of production was award-winning cinematographer Karl Freund. By colorizing these shows, they are basically destroying the artistic work of Freund. It's like colorizing an Ansel Adams photograph. Artistically, it makes no sense.

On the other hand, there are one or two generations of young folks who grew up watching color television and movies and quickly dismiss anything that's in black and white. I guess it's kind of the way I feel about silent movies. I have a hard time sitting still to watch them. So it seems a shame that so many people might be turned off by "I Love Lucy" merely because it's in black and white. By colorizing those shows, I think the audience base for the show could be greatly expanded and the life of the show extended well into the next century and beyond. I guess it boils down to what's more important: artistic integrity or widening the audience base.

Originally posted by Slippery Dan:
I Love Lucy wouldn't look good colorized.

Actually, the company that colorized the "L.A. at Last!" episode that I saw did a truly fantastic job. Everybody who saw it was commenting on how authentic looking it was. The only strange thing was the opening and closing. The background behind the satin heart was green (???), and the heart itself looked kind of purple. As Lucy might say, the opening and closing looked like a bad dream one might have after eating too much Chinese food. But the show itself was nearly flawless.

Where did you see that "L.A. at Last" in colour at? My first reaction was a very strong NO to colourizing Lucy, however, Rick brought up a good point about kids being strongly opposed to black and white things and perhaps they'd give the show a chance if it had colour. I think maybe for kicks they should colourize a couple of them and maybe do a marathon or something, but I think it would be a farce to permenantly do it and/or always show them in colour.

------------------
"Don't take this personally Ethel, but I'm sick of the sight of your face."

Originally posted by Roz1013:
I think maybe for kicks they should colourize a couple of them and maybe do a marathon or something, but I think it would be a farce to permenantly do it and/or always show them in colour.



I like that idea. Maybe release a few on DVD so if you wanted to see them, you could buy it but if not, then you could stick with the black and white.

Originally posted by NCVARick:
On the other hand, there are one or two generations of young folks who grew up watching color television and movies and quickly dismiss anything that's in black and white. I guess it's kind of the way I feel about silent movies. I have a hard time sitting still to watch them. So it seems a shame that so many people might be turned off by "I Love Lucy" merely because it's in black and white. By colorizing those shows, I think the audience base for the show could be greatly expanded and the life of the show extended well into the next century and beyond. I guess it boils down to what's more important: artistic integrity or widening the audience base.

I used to be that way. Everything made before I was born was boring and hard to sit through. However, it was this show (in all it's black and white glory) that turned me on to the generations of the past, so who knows...

Here is a suggestion: instead of colorizing "I Love Lucy", they should bring back "The Lucy Show" since it's a LUCY program that is in color. I am sure that will attract some of the younger generation. Anyone like this idea?

I'm opposed to colorizing movies like "The Maltese Falcon" because the B&W photography was so crucial to the feel of the movie. That said, TV sitcoms are a different breed. It has been stated in several different references that Desi Arnaz originally wanted to film the "Lucy-Desi" hours in color, but the budget wouldn't permit him to. He was a pioneer, and I'm sure he would have filmed the entire series in color had he been able to. In fact, Desilu started filming "The Lucy Show" in color several years before it was actually broadcast in color (unusual for the early 60s), because the producers knew the show would be more valuable in syndication later if it were in color.

So, ultimately, I'm not opposed to the colorization of the show. And you have to admit that colorization techniques have come a long way over the past 10 years.

I like the idea of colorizing a few, but how about colorizing a few at first, see how well those do, and if they do well, colorize all of them, but, of course, make sure that the black and white episodes are still existant and that they are still aired.

nevermind

[This message has been edited by Jenny (edited 11-03-2001).]

::thinks someone joined in the conversation without completely reading it:: It has been pointed out that, while some people do do some cheap colorizations, that new colorizations (ala I Dream Of Jeannie's first season) have been doen very nicely. Also, it has been mentioned that colorization would not be on original tapes, hence there would still be black and white tapes. Not only that, though, by colorizing episodes would help to pull in younger demographics, while other airings of black and white episodes of the series would help to satisfy the people who do not believe in the colorization of classic sitcoms. This would, therefore, help to attract new viewers without alienating the other ones.

I would be 100% opposed to colorizing ILL. Have you ever seen the color version of "It's A Wonderful Life"? Yuck.

Nuff said.

I think it needs to be re-iterated for those who haven't taken the time to read everything (and I think, if you want to contribute, you should read all posts), but some shows (i.e. I Dream of Jeannie's first season) have had some masterful colorizations.

Originally posted by Roz1013:
Where did you see that "L.A. at Last" in colour at?

It was played at this year's Loving Lucy convention.

If they ever colorize it, I hope it's done by the people who did 'Jeannie' and "Bewitched". I went to their site, and it says they've colorized French films, the two above mentioned series, and "The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin".....They had pictures from those, and they looked great!

If they made this, and TV Land picks those up (WHich They Almost Certinally Wouldn't), I would maybe have one of the repeats in color with the rest in B&W

Originally posted by LucyFan:
Here is a suggestion: instead of colorizing "I Love Lucy", they should bring back "The Lucy Show" since it's a LUCY program that is in color. I am sure that will attract some of the younger generation. Anyone like this idea?


How 'bout this: Colorize the classic first 30 episodes of "The Lucy Show," then remove from rotation the 40 or so weakest episodes of the 72 episodes produced during the last three seasons of the series (the "California episodes"). (I have my own ideas about which 40 episodes should be withdrawn.) This way, those mediocre episodes that have always turned people off to this series, and which no doubt have hurt this series' success in syndication, would no longer be around to burden the show. And those stations that in the past have neglected to air the outstanding first 30 episodes simply because they're in black and white (even though they are by far the best episodes of the series) would air them. Even with 40 episodes withdrawn from the syndication/rerun package, there would still be a sufficient number of episodes left for rerun purposes (116 episodes out of a total 156 produced; 100 episodes is generally what's considered necessary for a show to be eligible for syndication reruns; by comparison, "The Brady Bunch" has 117 episodes). This is my idea for a leaner, meaner "The Lucy Show," which might elevate the series to a level of quality closer to to that of "I Love Lucy."

Originally posted by PPatters:
but some shows (i.e. I Dream of Jeannie's first season) have had some masterful colorizations.

I agree. I think it looks great. The only thing is Jeannie's hair. It does at times look strawberry blonde. But with Lucy, since her hair color was fake anyway, it wouldn't matter.

BTW, if anyone has the Columbia House Lucy tapes, you get to see a sample of a colorized Lucy at the beginning of the tape.

------------------
Get your kicks on Route 66!

Happy Birthday to Me!

Originally posted by NCVARick:
How 'bout this: Colorize the classic first 30 episodes of "The Lucy Show," then remove from rotation the 40 or so weakest episodes of the 72 episodes produced during the last three seasons of the series (the "California episodes"). (I have my own ideas about which 40 episodes should be withdrawn.)

I like your idea alot. That would probably help the series tremendously. Maybe the network thats running "The Lucy Show" could air the 40 or so weakiest episodes upon viewer request only. By the way, which 40 episodes do you think should be withdrawn? I am curious to know.



[This message has been edited by LucyFan (edited 11-04-2001).]

Originally posted by LucyFan:
I like your idea alot. That would probably help the series tremendously. Maybe the network thats running "The Lucy Show" could air the 40 or so weakiest episodes upon viewer request only.

Or offer them on video as "lost" episodes of "The Lucy Show."

Originally posted by LucyFan:
I like your idea alot. That would probably help the series tremendously. Maybe the network thats running "The Lucy Show" could air the 40 or so weakiest episodes upon viewer request only. By the way, which 40 episodes do you think should be withdrawn? I am curious to know.

Or perhaps they could offer those withdrawn episodes on video as "lost" episodes of "The Lucy Show." As for the ones I would withdraw, it would probably be easier to name the ones I would keep. They withdrawn episodes would almost all come from the final three seasons of the series. I would keep the first two episodes of the fourth season, "Lucy at Marineland" and "Lucy and the Golden Greek," not because they're great episodes, but because they establish Lucy's relocation in California and her meeting Mary Jane Lewis. I would also keep "Lucy Helps Danny Thomas" for similar reasons. This is the episode where she first goes to work for Mr. Mooney (strangely, the opening scene of that episode where Lucy talks Mooney into hiring her has been cut from certain syndication prints, including those aired on Nick-at-Nite). The only other episodes I would keep from that season are "Lucy the Undercover Agent," "Lucy and Art Linkletter," "Lucy Dates Dean Martin," and "Lucy, the Gun Moll." Most of the rest of the episodes from that season involve the ridiculous theme of Lucy "coincidentally" running into Mr. Mooney -- ridiculous because this is the huge city of Los Angeles, not Danfield.

From the fifth season, I would keep "Lucy the Bean Queen," "Lucy and the Ring a Ding Ring," "Lucy Goes to London" (and turn the special "Lucy in London" into a two-part episode of TLS), "Lucy Gets a Roommate" (with Carol Burnett), "Lucy Gets Caught in the Draft" (but delete that scene where Lucy refers to her son as "Jimmy"), "Lucy and John Wayne," "Viv Visits Lucy," "Lucy Meets the Law" (where Lucy is mistakenly arrested for grand larceny, but she thinks she's been jailed for dropping a candy wrapper on the sidewalk), and "Lucy Meets Sheldon Leonard."

From the sixth season, I would keep "Lucy Meets the Berles," "Lucy Gets Trapped" (where Lucy gets her picture in the paper for being the millionth customer at a store on a day she stayed out of work, pretending to be sick), "Lucy and the French Movie Star" (for the drunk scene), "Little Old Lucy," "Lucy Gets Mooney Fired" (I love the "Gaslight" treatment Lucy does on Mr. Cheever), "Lucy Sues Mooney" (funny courtroom scene with Lucy feigning serious injury), "Lucy and the Pool Hustler," "Lucy and Carol Burnett, Part One" (where Lucy and Carol become flight attendants; part two is horrible, though, so should be left out); "Lucy and Viv Reminisce," "Lucy Gets Involved" (the one where Lucy moonlights at a drive-in and is a disaster, "Lucy and the Stolen Stole" (guest-starring Buddy Hackett, whose character keeps landing Lucy and Mooney in jail), and "Lucy and Sid Ceasar."

I think that totals 30 episodes, including the hour-long "Lucy in London" special, which means I've actually withdrawn 44 episodes. But if you add these 30 episodes to the 84 from the first three seasons, you wind up with 114 episodes. Any other opinions? Perhaps some episodes I've kept out that some of you feel strongly should remain?

Originally posted by NCVARick:

I think that totals 30 episodes, including the hour-long "Lucy in London" special, which means I've actually withdrawn 44 episodes. But if you add these 30 episodes to the 84 from the first three seasons, you wind up with 114 episodes. Any other opinions? Perhaps some episodes I've kept out that some of you feel strongly should remain?

From the fourth season, I would keep "Lucy at Marineland," "Lucy and Joan," "Lucy Helps the Countess," "Lucy and the Sleeping Beauty," "Lucy and the Countess Have a Horse Guest," (William Frawley made a brief appearance in this episode) "Lucy the Undercover Agent," "Lucy Bags a Bargain," (The stilts scene) "Lucy the Choirmaster," (Christmas episode)"Lucy and Art Linkletter," "Lucy and Dean Martin," (Lucille Ball's favorite episode of this series) "Lucy the Robot," (Lucy pretending to be a toy robot is hysterical!) "Lucy and Clint Walker," (Charming episode)"Lucy, the Gun Moll," and "Lucy the Superwoman" (a classic!)

From the fifth season, I would keep "Lucy and George Burns," (another classic) "Lucy the Bean Queen," "Lucy and the Ring-A-Ding Ring," "Lucy Gets a Roommate," "Lucy and Carol In Palm Springs," "Lucy and the Submarine," "Lucy Gets Caught In a Draft," "Lucy and Paul Winchell," (a classic!)"Lucy and John Wayne," "Lucy Goes to London," "Viv Visits Lucy," "Lucy the Babysitter," "Main Street U.S.A." Part 1, "Lucy Puts Main Steet On the Map" Part 2,
"Lucy Meets the Law," "Lucy and Sheldon Leonard," "Lucy and Tennessee Ernie Ford," (a classic!)

From the sixth season, I would keep "Lucy Gets Trapper," "Little Old Lucy," "Lucy Meets the Berles," "Lucy Gets Jack Benny's Account," (a classic among classics) "Lucy and Robert Goulet," "Lucy Gets Mooney Fired," (this episode is very hysterical when Lucy trys to convince Mr. Cheever not to fire Mr. Mooney) "Lucy Sues Mooney," "Lucy Gets Involved," "Lucy the Philantropist," "Lucy's Mystery Guest," (Mary Wickes guest stars in this episode) "Lucy and Viv Reminisce,"
"Lucy and the Lost Star," (Vivian Vance guest stars in this episode) "Lucy and Sid Caesar," and the final episode "Lucy and 'The Boss of the Year Award".

That is 45 episodes I would keep from of the last three seasons which means I've withdrawn 27 episodes. If you add these 45 episodes to the 84 from the first three seasons it comes out in total of 129 episodes. I find the fourth season to be the weakest season from the series.

At some point, it's going to happen (just like your favorite tune being covered by another artist). Let's just hope that they'll do a good job. The purists will always have their B&W tapes/DVD's.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/quest.gif

I seem to remember that the day Lucy died, CBS did a tribute show to her in the early evening hours. It was kind of thrown together and badly edited, but I recall that it contained a colorized scene of an ILL episode. I think it was "Lucy Goes to the Hospital." Does anyone else remember this?

I doubt removing episodes, whether you determine they are bad or not, is going to go over well with anyone. People do not want to see an incomplete library. Even if you think the episode is bad, others may not, and eventually they start complaining, and then they'll want to know why, and they can be told that TV Land decided that they were in-sufficient, and that's going to bring in TONS of viewers, I'm sure, if they knew that TVLand removes shows just because THEY don't like them (or, in this case, you). Pulling episodes simply is just going to make more people mad then it is going to satisfy people.

Originally posted by PPatters:
I doubt removing episodes, whether you determine they are bad or not, is going to go over well with anyone. People do not want to see an incomplete library. Even if you think the episode is bad, others may not, and eventually they start complaining, and then they'll want to know why, and they can be told that TV Land decided that they were in-sufficient, and that's going to bring in TONS of viewers, I'm sure, if they knew that TVLand removes shows just because THEY don't like them (or, in this case, you). Pulling episodes simply is just going to make more people mad then it is going to satisfy people.

Whether or not all episodes are available to viewers, people who like the show will watch whatever they are able. For years, only the 39 filmed episodes of "The Honeymooners" were available in reruns. People didn't tune the show out simply because the kinescope copies were not available also. Similarly, only five seasons of episodes of "The Carol Burnett Show" have ever been made available for syndication; the other six seasons have never been seen since the original run of the show, and there are no plans to ever include them. Nevertheless, fans of that show still tune in and watch. They don't boycott the show just because most episodes are not made available to them. Similar tactics have been used with numerous other series, such as "Gunsmoke" (some syndicated versions only include the hour long color episodes) and "The Twilight Zone (routinely, only the half hours are made available in syndication) and for years "My Three Sons" (prior to Nick-at-Nite, the black and white episodes were not included in the usual syndication package). So this certainly wouldn't be new ground. Fans of a show will watch regardless of whether they get to watch all episodes. Besides, nobody in this discussion said people should be prevented from ever getting their hands on those withdrawn episodes. We suggested they be made available in some format such as video or DVD. The idea here is to attract new viewers to the show -- people who otherwise might be turned off by the many less-than-stellar, unpopular episodes of the show, and then tune the show out completely. All I'm doing here is trying to suggest a constructive way to make "The Lucy Show" attractive to broadcasters. If the show's syndicators come back with the same product that has already been rejected by viewers (and it has; if you don't believe me, write Nick-at-Nite/TVLand and ask why they have no plans to ever air the show again), nobody is going to want to pick it up. And no, I'm not suggesting that the episodes selected to be withdrawn should be based merely on *my* opinion of what should be included. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I opened this up for discussion to see what episodes other people think should be withdrawn were such a proposal to go forward. I made the point that the episodes kept should be those "universally" liked. That means, not based solely on my preferences, but the preferences of most potential viewers.

By the way, you repeatedly seem to be very contrary towards me in your messages. Why? This should just be a friendly discussion.

Of course I prefer "I Love Lucy" in B&W, but I think it would also be nice to see colorized episodes. I know that some people think it is just horrible that B&W movies or sitcoms get the colorized treatment, but I feel as long as we still have the original B&W prints what is wrong with also having a colorized version? I just love all of the Shirley Temple movies that have been released as colorized. I personally would buy colorized episodes of "I Love Lucy". As long as we have both options what is the problem?

There is a difference between what your doing and what they did. To pull certain seasons and black and white episodes from syndication is much different from deciding what the country would like and what the country wouldn't. For you to decide what is good and is bad would in fact upset people more than having specific seasons removed. Also, a show like "I Love Lucy" has a much larger following than those other shows, and removing episodes would certainly arouse the attention and the anger of several people.

Originally posted by PPatters:
There is a difference between what your doing and what they did. To pull certain seasons and black and white episodes from syndication is much different from deciding what the country would like and what the country wouldn't. For you to decide what is good and is bad would in fact upset people more than having specific seasons removed. Also, a show like "I Love Lucy" has a much larger following than those other shows, and removing episodes would certainly arouse the attention and the anger of several people.

First of all, I don't follow your logic. Why would removing certain episodes be more upsetting to people than removing entire seasons worth of shows? Second, the examples I cited were not ONLY of series where black and white episodes were removed, as you seem to be implying. For example, I mentioned "The Carol Burnett Show." That entire series was filmed in color. Third, as I've stated *several times*, the issue is NOT about me being the person who should decide what episodes to remove. In fact, the only reason I mentioned what episodes I believe should not be removed is because LucyFan asked me. So why do you keep making that baseless point? Fourth, we were talking about removing episodes of "The Lucy Show," not "I Love Lucy." Where the **** did you come up with that? Have you read ANY of this discussion? It appears you're not reading this thread very well. If you were, you wouldn't be saying these things and making these arguments. I suspect maybe you're just trying to be argumentative. It's making you appear to be a troll.

On the Columbia House DVDs, there is a montage of I Love Lucy scenes in which the main characters are colored set to the show's theme. Only the characters are colorized, and they look gorgeous. It was almost worth the price of the dvd for this feature.

Okay guys, neutral corners.

I don't want to get in the middle of anything and I enjoy reading everybody's opinions, but if we keep bickering, TJ's gonna close this thread. (it's happened)

Just a little warning. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/smile.gif

Here's a question: Why would you want to remove episodes? (And before you go there, believe me people would be mad. Maybe it would wear away eventually, but people would be mad. I've seen people get upset when ONE episode is skipped in a rotation of shows, and when it comes to an episode of a show starring a comedic legend... People will be mad.) Those 30 or 40 episodes have no doubt not hurt the show enough to cause a dramatic decrease in viewership.

Originally posted by PPatters:
I've seen people get upset when ONE episode is skipped in a rotation of shows,

Now, that I can personally attest to. For some dumb reason, TV Land keeps skipping Adam-12 episodes and I have been mad more than once about that. I'm trying to collect them and that's hard when they aren't all shown. So anyway, he's right, it happens, no matter what the show is.

Removing thirty or less later episodes from "The Lucy Show" I think will do the series a lot a good. I am particially convince that some of the later episodes was what ruined the show in reruns. Besides, all of the episodes should be available to the network (that is running the series) but that doesn't necessary mean they should air the weakest episodes in every rotation. I think it would be a great idea if they aired the weakest episodes by viewer request only. Anyone agree?

I have seen no proof as to even begin to imply that there could possibly be a chance that those thirty or so episodes caused such a dramatic decrease in viewership that the ratings would have changed so dramatically that it would even be affected by even .1%. I have also seen proof to support that people get mad when episodes are taken away from a series reruns, and that such things COULD affect the ratings in a poor manner.

PPatters, okay, since NCVARick's idea doesn't float with you, then what do you suggest to make "The Lucy Show" a little bit more appealing to broadcasters? So far from what I gathered the networks really don't want "The Lucy Show" and what we are trying to do is to have the series appeal better to them. I would love to you know your suggestion on this issue.

This is a really interesting discussion. On one hand, I agree with the point that removing episodes because of creative quality is different from removing them because of B&W or royalties issues. That said, it has been done before. Carol Burnett has said several times that she doesn't want the early episodes of her show rerun because they're not as good as the later ones. I also agree with the comment about people being upset when not all the episodes are included in a syndication package -- I'm one of them.

That said, something needs to be done about "The Lucy Show", and I like the suggestions about colorization/removal. Those later episodes really do hurt the show. I remember watching the show in reruns when I was younger, and we'd turn off the show if it was a California episode, because so many of those were terrible. Here's an idea: package 100 or so episodes as "The Best of 'The Lucy Show'", and run them on weekdays. The remaining episodes could be run under the original title in some late-night slot. That way, you satisfy the completists, but you expose casual fans to only the best episodes.

Unfortunately, even if this did happen, I would imagine that it's probably too late to salvage the reputation of TLS. Too bad someone at Paramount didn't think about this 30 years ago. There really are some great episodes of TLS, but you have to wade through a lot of mediocrity to find them.

This is a really interesting discussion. On one hand, I agree with the point that removing episodes because of creative quality is different from removing them because of B&W or royalties issues. That said, it has been done before. Carol Burnett has said several times that she doesn't want the early episodes of her show rerun because they're not as good as the later ones. I also agree with the comment about people being upset when not all the episodes are included in a syndication package -- I'm one of them.

Okay, if Lucille Ball wants to come back from the dead and remove some episodes because she didn't find them of proper quality, I don't think people would mind as much, but to have someone whose opinion is no better than another viewers' opinions remove episodes is a totally different subject.

That said, something needs to be done about "The Lucy Show", and I like the suggestions about colorization/removal. Those later episodes really do hurt the show. I remember watching the show in reruns when I was younger, and we'd turn off the show if it was a California episode, because so many of those were terrible. Here's an idea: package 100 or so episodes as "The Best of 'The Lucy Show'", and run them on weekdays. The remaining episodes could be run under the original title in some late-night slot. That way, you satisfy the completists, but you expose casual fans to only the best episodes.

As I mentioned, there is no proof to support the assessment that those episodes have hurt the show so much that the ratings even changed by .1% in the Nielson ratings, and until I see such proof, I seen no reason as to remove any episodes for any reason except unless the tapes themselves are too poor a quality to be aired.

Unfortunately, even if this did happen, I would imagine that it's probably too late to salvage the reputation of TLS. Too bad someone at Paramount didn't think about this 30 years ago. There really are some great episodes of TLS, but you have to wade through a lot of mediocrity to find them.

All that would have happened is that they would have done it, and 30 years later we'd be pondering why the HECK they would have done that, because I've seen no evidence to support that such an action would have helped the series.

PPatters, okay, since NCVARick's idea doesn't float with you, then what do you suggest to make "The Lucy Show" a little bit more appealing to broadcasters? So far from what I gathered the networks really don't want "The Lucy Show" and what we are trying to do is to have the series appeal better to them. I would love to you know your suggestion on this issue.

I'm not sure if much can be done, but to remove episodes because it is someone's opinion they are bad is the completely wrong way to go. All you can really hope for is that a cable station finds that it is fitting to air, and if it gets decent enough ratings, then maybe it would look a little better to affiliates.

Don't forget the "Ed Sullivan Show", which is currently syndicated in "Best of" packages. This was done after Ed's death, so someone else was making the call. Or how about "Bonanza"? For years, only selected episodes from that show's final seasons were in syndication, in part because it was thought that they were weaker creatively. Family Channel eventually bought the "lost episodes" and showed them.

(To be honest, even if Lucy were around, I wouldn't want her to have final say in any "best of" package of TLS. Ultimately, she was the head of Desilu, so she was responsible for producing the mediocre episodes. Her shows clearly suffered when Desi wasn't around to lend his vision.)

As far as the proof that this would work goes, no, there's no proof. I think there is proof that "Best of" packages have worked in the past (though not with sitcoms). And there is proof that the current syndication package is pretty much dead, so what do you have to lose?

This whole discussion is probably moot, because I think Paramount has bigger things to worry about than TLS. Still interesting things to ponder, though.

What do you have to lose? You have so many things to lose. You can lose viewers on a longer-term basis (hence giving the show for any cable pick-up in the future) because they get too mad because episodes. It's been proven that even skipping an episode here in there, even in series' that ran for a long time and had many episodes, upsets people, especially devotees. Sure, who knows, a package titled "Best Of" could work, but it couldn't. As I mentioned, there's not much that can be done to save this show right now. All you can really hope for is that a cable station decides to pick it up and it keeps it on the air and that would spark some syndicated interest.

[This message has been edited by PPatters (edited 11-07-2001).]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/smile.gif To me, they have nothing to lose, because the show has virtually no viewers now, because it's barely airing. "Best of" packages have worked in the past for variety shows and dramas, so it would be an interesting experiment to see if it would work with TLS. I definitely wouldn't suggest it for a classic like ILL, though.

Ultimately, I don't think there's enough evidence to support either mindset, quite honestly. It's really just speculation.

[This message has been edited by TV Guy (edited 11-07-2001).]

I think that trying such an expirment for maybe one rotation in syndication (a five-day-a-week syndication), however if it didn't work, I don't think they should continue with it. Or possibly, they could poll people as to which episodes they thought were of less quality.

Originally posted by PPatters:
Or possibly, they could poll people as to which episodes they thought were of less quality.

That's a good idea, but out of pure curiosity, what people would you poll? If someone came up to me and asked me which episodes of TLS I liked and didn't like, I couldn't give them a very good answer because I haven't seen that many. So I'm just wondering if it would be random, or something else.

Well, I thought this through, and you would originally poll some classic television experts, such as workers for TVLand, of a very general idea of SEVERAL (like more than say 60) of some of the lesser quality episodes, and then you would show episodes to focus groups, and those focus groups would decide which were the least quality, and the 30 that were determined as having the least quality would be omitted from let's say two rotations, and then for another two rotations they wouldn't be omitted, and you would compare ratings to make a determination on which is best for the series.

Originally posted by PPatters:
and the 30 that were determined as having the least quality would be omitted from let's say two rotations, and then for another two rotations they wouldn't be omitted, and you would compare ratings to make a determination on which is best for the series.

But we already know what would happen if you include all the episodes in rotation. There's no need to experiment with what would happen if the series were aired in its entirety because we already know. The ratings would be low. That's why the show isn't on the air now. If they try airing the series with the bad episodes cut out, and the ratings turn out to be higher than they were in the past, why screw it up again by reintroducing those bad shows? All that would happen then is you would turn viewers away again. Just leave well enough alone. If the ratings are higher than in the past, then leave it alone. And as someone mentioned, they should call the show something slightly different, like The Best of The Lucy Show, so people know it's not he same old thing. They might be more inclined to watch it they know they are going to watch something that's been determined to be worth watching and not a waste of time. I love Lucy as much as anybody, but so often with this show I just can't sit through many of the episodes. In the past when this show was on Nick at Nite and they were airing one of the stinkers, I would always hope some person wasn't tuning in for the first time that night because I knew they would never tune it in again.

Prove to me that taking out the bad episodes would raise the ratings. Prove it. You can't prove it. For all you know the ratings will be as poor, or, given how demographics have changed, they could be even poorer than before. Of course, why should we have an open mind? HOW DARE WE HAVE AN OPEN MIND. SHAME! SHAME!

You re-introduce the episodes as to better compare the ratings. Things have changed a LOT. And you can not POSSIBLY EVEN BEGIN TO PROVE that the ratings would improve with the "bad episodes" being removed. The only way to prove this is to run one cycle with episodes removed and one cycle without them removed. That's how it works. There's no other way to compare them on a national level.

Originally posted by PPatters:
Prove to me that taking out the bad episodes would raise the ratings. Prove it. You can't prove it. For all you know the ratings will be as poor, or, given how demographics have changed, they could be even poorer than before. Of course, why should we have an open mind? HOW DARE WE HAVE AN OPEN MIND. SHAME! SHAME!

Calm down, will ya? LOL! How can we possibly prove something that hasn't been done yet? This is the whole point! Try it and see what happens. If the ratings improve over what they were before the episodes were taken out, we'll then have our proof. But until we try it, we can never know. All we know now is that will all the episodes included in the rerun rotation, teh ratings are low. This ain't rocket science.

Originally posted by PPatters:
You re-introduce the episodes as to better compare the ratings. Things have changed a LOT. And you can not POSSIBLY EVEN BEGIN TO PROVE that the ratings would improve with the "bad episodes" being removed. The only way to prove this is to run one cycle with episodes removed and one cycle without them removed. That's how it works. There's no other way to compare them on a national level.

My gosh, are you dense or what? THE RATINGS ARE LOW NOW. The Lucy Show is no longer even on the air because the ratings are so low. If the series is reconfigured to remove the bad episodes and it's advertised as having the bad episodes taken out, and then the ratings suddenly go up after those episodes are removed, then we'll know removing them was a good idea and that the public likes the idea and doesn't want to see the lousy episodes. But then if those boring episodes are put back in after the ratings have already gone up, that would be stupid. You're bound to lose viewers again and wind up where you were before. Why do that? It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by dawsongirl:
Okay guys, neutral corners.

I don't want to get in the middle of anything and I enjoy reading everybody's opinions, but if we keep bickering, TJ's gonna close this thread. (it's happened)

Just a little warning. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/smile.gif

I'm certainly not trying to bicker. But I have to defend myself when someone attacks me and twists my words. In a previous message, I asked this P Patters person to please attempt to bring this dialogue to a friendly level. But what I got in response was yet another attack with more unfounded accusations and putting things into my mouth that I didn't even say. What would you do?

Originally posted by LucyFan:
I think it would be a great idea if they aired the weakest episodes by viewer request only. Anyone agree?

I agree to the extent that there is great viewer demand to see certain of those episodes. The goal should be to please the masses. That's the goal of broadcasters anyway because they want to get the biggest audience possible to attract advertisers.

Originally posted by LucyFan:
PPatters, okay, since NCVARick's idea doesn't float with you, then what do you suggest to make "The Lucy Show" a little bit more appealing to broadcasters? So far from what I gathered the networks really don't want "The Lucy Show" and what we are trying to do is to have the series appeal better to them. I would love to you know your suggestion on this issue.

Thank you. And thanks for recognizing that all I'm doing here is trying to put our minds together to find a way to save this series. "The Lucy Show" is pretty much near death. Fully resurrecting it would require bold moves on the part of programmers. But doing nothing, it will surely remain in the near-death state it's in at the moment. This is the only show I can think of that went from absolute excellence to mediocrity within the same series. I think it's almost tragic that the public is being deprived of seeing those truly classic episodes.

Originally posted by TV Guy:
This is a really interesting discussion. On one hand, I agree with the point that removing episodes because of creative quality is different from removing them because of B&W or royalties issues. That said, it has been done before. Carol Burnett has said several times that she doesn't want the early episodes of her show rerun because they're not as good as the later ones.

I didn't realize that was the reason. That makes it the perfect analogy. Someone had told me the reason she didn't want those episodes included was she didn't like the way she looked during those years. But what you say sounds more plausible.

I also agree with the comment about people being upset when not all the episodes are included in a syndication package -- I'm one of them.

But you probably wouldn't tune the show out just because they're not showing all episodes. The Christmas episode of "I Love Lucy" has never been included in the syndication package of "I Love Lucy," but that never kept viewers from watching. And PAX didn't run the O.J. Simpson episode of "Here's Lucy" when the ran the series a few years ago.

That said, something needs to be done about "The Lucy Show", and I like the suggestions about colorization/removal. Those later episodes really do hurt the show. I remember watching the show in reruns when I was younger, and we'd turn off the show if it was a California episode, because so many of those were terrible.

Same here. When TBS reran the series, they aired the original opening sequences. So the kaleidoscope meant a California episode. Back in 1986/1987, they were airing the show out of sequence and at odd hours. I would set my VCR to tape it whenever it was on. When I would go to play it the following morning, I would pray not to see that kaleidoscope.

Here's an idea: package 100 or so episodes as "The Best of 'The Lucy Show'", and run them on weekdays. The remaining episodes could be run under the original title in some late-night slot. That way, you satisfy the completists, but you expose casual fans to only the best episodes.

I like that idea. But I think I would slightly alter the title to something like "The 100 Best . . ." so people don't think they're getting the very best of the best (like the top 10). And also, I would have that at the very beginning of the opening credits, and then segue into the actual, original opening credits. In other words, don't open every episode with just that kaleidoscope opening, but use all the other original openings.

Unfortunately, even if this did happen, I would imagine that it's probably too late to salvage the reputation of TLS. Too bad someone at Paramount didn't think about this 30 years ago.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I think it's worth a try. What have they got to lose? Besides, if they advertise it right, and really get the word out that all the weak episodes have been removed, maybe people would give it a second look.

Exactly! But like I said in a previous post, I think it would be a good idea to alter the title to something along the lines of "The Best 100 of 'The Lucy Show'" so as not to make people think that what they are tuning into on a particular night is a top ten.

Originally posted by JaneTVFan:
But we already know what would happen if you include all the episodes in rotation. There's no need to experiment with what would happen if the series were aired in its entirety because we already know. The ratings would be low. That's why the show isn't on the air now. If they try airing the series with the bad episodes cut out, and the ratings turn out to be higher than they were in the past, why screw it up again by reintroducing those bad shows? All that would happen then is you would turn viewers away again. Just leave well enough alone. If the ratings are higher than in the past, then leave it alone. And as someone mentioned, they should call the show something slightly different, like The Best of The Lucy Show, so people know it's not he same old thing. They might be more inclined to watch it they know they are going to watch something that's been determined to be worth watching and not a waste of time. I love Lucy as much as anybody, but so often with this show I just can't sit through many of the episodes. In the past when this show was on Nick at Nite and they were airing one of the stinkers, I would always hope some person wasn't tuning in for the first time that night because I knew they would never tune it in again.

Originally posted by JaneTVFan:
[B] Calm down, will ya? LOL! How can we possibly prove something that hasn't been done yet? This is the whole point!B]

I get the sense P Patters just wants to argue, troll, or whatever. Or is just one of these people who you dare not disagree with . . . or else. Whatever the case may be, her comments haven't been conducive to a mature and constructive discussion. I appreciate all the rest of you who have offered intelligent commentary. Now if we could only convince Paramount to pull this series off the shelf and do something bold so that it can be saved. There's a lot of great comedy tucked inside that show. It's a real shame new generations of viewers aren't able to see it.

Originally posted by NCVARick:
This is the only show I can think of that went from absolute excellence to mediocrity within the same series. I think it's almost tragic that the public is being deprived of seeing those truly classic episodes.

Just to clarify my comment here: I know most series do decline in quality over time. What I meant was that for "The Lucy Show," this decline was very drastic and happened much more quickly than normal.

Originally posted by NCVARick:
I get the sense P Patters just wants to argue, troll, or whatever. Or is just one of these people who you dare not disagree with . . . or else.


I agree with NCVA. I think P Patters is trying to convince us all that he/she is right about this issue and knows everything about it. Apparently it is NOT working one bit. I find P Patters constantly repeating him/her self and not really explaining his logic of the matter. I understand NCVA's logic of the matter, but I don't with P Patter's logic.

You're right, comparing new ratings to ratings of a few years ago is a great representation of the viewing audience right now. Come on, things have changed. Shows like The Mary Tyle Moore Show used to be big Emmy-winners, now it's shows like Will & Grace. Even things have changed in the past few years. The only way to compare them is to run a CURRENT rotation with all the episodes versus a CURRENT rotation with the bed episodes removed.

Let me clarify: Shows that used to do well in syndication, even as few years ago as 1996, like The Rosie O'Donnell Show and The Jerry Springer Show have recently seen major changes in ratings. To say that a show that used to be shown in syndication will have the same poor ratings now, several years later, is a mis-statement. You can not compare ratings from a few years ago to the ratings right now. The only way to compare the ratings of The Best of The Lucy Show to re-runs of the whole run of the show, you must have current ratings. Now, I know that there is a chance someone will tune into a bad episode and never, ever watch again, but that's a risk you have to take when wanting to find a really good comparison.

no offense or anything but i think that black and white episodes can't be converted to color ones because there is no such technology to. unless, they would reshoot the episodes in color

Originally posted by NCVARick:
I get the sense P Patters just wants to argue, troll, or whatever.

Yep, just check out the latest from Pee Patters. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/smile.gif

Originally posted by PPatters:
You're right, comparing new ratings to ratings of a few years ago is a great representation of the viewing audience right now. Come on, things have changed. Shows like The Mary Tyle Moore Show used to be big Emmy-winners, now it's shows like Will & Grace. Even things have changed in the past few years. The only way to compare them is to run a CURRENT rotation with all the episodes versus a CURRENT rotation with the bed episodes removed.

You really don't quit, do you? Geesh! You keep changing your arguments just so you won't have to admit being wrong. These arguments are getting more and more ridiculous too. Puleez just give it up already.

Originally posted by blue5001:
no offense or anything but i think that black and white episodes can't be converted to color ones because there is no such technology to. unless, they would reshoot the episodes in color

Of course they can. Lots of old black and white movies and TV shows have been converted to color. Like Gilligan's Island.

I have not changed my "excuse" and it is a perfect valid excuse, and if you ask anyone that has any knowledge of television, they would agree that comparing ratings from a few years ago to current ratings would give you misinformation, and would be of poor judgement. If we were to go by the ratings of a few years ago, The Jerry Springer Show should be on for years to come, and Hollywood Squares could get a renewal for at least another five years.

And how mature do you want us to take you when you deicde it would be funny to call me "Pee Patters". If you would like to address me by a name other than my screen name, you may ask my real name. It is Patrick Patterson. You, however, may call be Pat. To find it humorous to use the initials of my name to compare it to urine is just sad and pathetic.

Originally posted by NCVARick:
What would you do?


Oh, I know how you feel. Been there, done that. I didn't do anything different than you are. You oughta ask him about our feud over Richard Dawson. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/lol.gif I just didn't want it to get out of hand because then the topic would get shut down and no one would get to say anything.

Originally posted by PPatters:
and if you ask anyone that has any knowledge of television, they would agree that comparing ratings from a few years ago to current ratings would give you misinformation, and would be of poor judgement.

I agree with that. It makes perfect sense. Just look at how people's taste in TV has changed in just the last 2 months because of the terrorist attacks. Comedies are big now and people are turning against reality, which wasn't the case a few months ago.

Originally posted by PPatters:
I have not changed my "excuse" and it is a perfect valid excuse, and if you ask anyone that has any knowledge of television, they would agree that comparing ratings from a few years ago to current ratings would give you misinformation, and would be of poor judgement. If we were to go by the ratings of a few years ago, The Jerry Springer Show should be on for years to come, and Hollywood Squares could get a renewal for at least another five years.

The Lucy Show had declining ratings through the '70s. By the '80s you could hardly find it on TV anywhere. Every time someone put it on it was usually gone in no time because of bad ratings. Things didn't get better in the '90s. Two cable channels tried to run it and cancelled it because the ratings were never good enough. Do you see the trend here? Down, down, down. If you were a broadcaster and did something to try to improve the ratings, then the ratings went up after you did it, would you then change it back to the way it was before the ratings went up just to see if they stayed up? If you did, you would be an idiot. If something is working, broadcasters aren't going to tamper with it no matter how much P Patters wants them to. They only make changes when things are wrong and they think they could be better. Maybe you're too dense to understand this but I thought I'd give it a try.

Originally posted by PPatters:
And how mature do you want us to take you when you deicde it would be funny to call me "Pee Patters".

Sorry, but your behavior was reminding me of something that pees. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/wink.gif

I know that shows that were once doing poorly in the ratings were brought back in syndication and did well. I know that there is a definite chance that if the show were brought back, and it got enough advertisement, and included the "bad episodes", you could still see a difference in the ratings. You can't establish a trend over a period of 30 years! Things change too dramatically. You just can't do that. Anyone in the business knows that. You can establish that, by coincidence, The Lucy Show has not done well in the ratings over the last few years, but to call it a TREND and to say that that trend will continue is a mis-statement.

Originally posted by PPatters:
I know that shows that were once doing poorly in the ratings were brought back in syndication and did well. I know that there is a definite chance that if the show were brought back, and it got enough advertisement, and included the "bad episodes", you could still see a difference in the ratings. You can't establish a trend over a period of 30 years! Things change too dramatically. You just can't do that. Anyone in the business knows that. You can establish that, by coincidence, The Lucy Show has not done well in the ratings over the last few years, but to call it a TREND and to say that that trend will continue is a mis-statement.

You are so ridiculous. The Lucy Show has been in syndication for 30 years. It's never been taken out of syndication. You can't bring something back that was never taken away to begin with. The only reason it's not on hardly anywhere is that nobody wants to air it because it gets low ratings. Do you sniff glue or something?

I am going to admit, I had totally forgot that fact. (Maybe it's because, of all of the listings of syndicated ratings I have seen, The Lucy Show must have been SO LOW, it doesn't even register.) Still, though, if you propose to bring the show into wider syndication, allowing it to have more pick-ups, you must still compare the ratings by showing one run with the removed episodes and one without them.

Originally posted by PPatters:
I am going to admit, I had totally forgot that fact. (Maybe it's because, of all of the listings of syndicated ratings I have seen, The Lucy Show must have been SO LOW, it doesn't even register.) Still, though, if you propose to bring the show into wider syndication, allowing it to have more pick-ups, you must still compare the ratings by showing one run with the removed episodes and one without them.

It has been confirmed. You are a certified moron. There's no hope for you.

Ya know what. It's not worth it. I had something, but an arguement with someone without a brain is an arguement that shouldn't be fought. I have an obviously unfair advantage over the closed-minded JaneTVFan.

[This message has been edited by PPatters (edited 11-14-2001).]

I'm ROTFLMAO!

Originally posted by PPatters:
Ya know what. It's not worth it. I had something, but an arguement with someone without a brain is an arguement that shouldn't be fought. I have an obviously unfair advantage over the closed-minded JaneTVFan.

[This message has been edited by PPatters (edited 11-14-2001).]

Originally posted by JaneTVFan:
Yep, just check out the latest from Pee Patters. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/smile.gif

No offense to P Patters but I laughed so much when I read "Pee Patters". My apologies (to P Patters) I will try not to smile.

Originally posted by JaneTVFan:
You really don't quit, do you? Geesh! You keep changing your arguments just so you won't have to admit being wrong. These arguments are getting more and more ridiculous too. Puleez just give it up already.


I totally agree with this statement because it is so true. Jane does have a point there about P.Patters not giving it up. Also, how many more times do we need to listen to the same old speech P.Patters preaches?

Originally posted by JaneTVFan:
Sorry, but your behavior was reminding me of something that pees. http://www.sitcomsonline.com/ubb/wink.gif

LOL! His (P.Patters) behavior reminds me of a broken record.

Originally posted by PPatters:
I am going to admit, I had totally forgot that fact.

P Patters, out of curiosity, do you have alzheimer's disease? The reason why I ask is because I have been noticing some symptoms (forgetting, repeating yourself) of Alzheimer's disease in your behavior. Just wondering . . .

Originally posted by PPatters:
Ya know what. It's not worth it. I had something, but an arguement with someone without a brain is an arguement that shouldn't be fought. I have an obviously unfair advantage over the closed-minded JaneTVFan.
(edited 11-14-2001).]

Ya know what. It is sad when someone corrects someone else of making fun but that same person ("the correcter") goes off and makes fun too. This post from P Patters (up above) is a good example of it.

Ya know what LucyFan, do you not have a brain? Because I'm noticing a few symptoms of a person who doesn't a brain. Being dumb, stupid...

By the way, I wasn't making fun of anyone. I was making a very real observation about my obvious advantage over the close-minded, laugh-aholic, JaneTVFan.

Originally posted by PPatters:
Ya know what LucyFan, do you not have a brain? Because I'm noticing a few symptoms of a person who doesn't a brain. Being dumb, stupid...

Why are you taking this SO offensively? There is no need to get angry just because
of a question being asked by (and about) you. Besides, why are you always in arguements? So far, you have argued with three people and called them names. I suggest you first take a GOOD look at yourself BEFORE you judge others of being dumb & stupid.

Originally posted by PPatters:
By the way, I wasn't making fun of anyone. I was making a very real observation about my obvious advantage over the close-minded, laugh-aholic, JaneTVFan.

These statements really get me angry because they are not true. First of all, JaneTVFan being close-mind is your OPINION PPatters, and it hasn't been proven of being a fact. Second of all, it is your fault that you feel you are being taken advantage of. How many more people do you want to argue with? How more many times do you want to argue? When is it going to STOP?

Alright look. If I could, I'd shut this topic down now, but I'm not a moderator so I can't. But if the arguing and name-calling doesn't stop, I'll find someone who will.

I think we've seen enough discussion on this topic, locking thread... It's a shame such a good topic turned into personal attacks, I hope this doesn't happen again.