Around the dial

We begin this week at Comfort TV, where David begins a new year in his continuing odyssey through primetime television of the 1970s. It's Sunday night 1975: are you watching The Six Million Dollar Man, Kojak, The NBC Sunday Mystery Movie, or something else? Tune in and see what's what and where. 

At The Syncopated Times, Garry Berman explores the history of jazz on television. It may seem hard to believe today, when there's very little music of any kind to be found on TV, but starting in the 1950s, it wasn't all that hard to see some of the all-time greats making the small screen seem that much larger.

RealWeegieMidget is back with more movies from the big and small screens, as Gill looks at at October's selections, including one described as "Enter the Dragon meets Charlie's Angels." I ask you, who could possibly ask for anything more? There's also politics, murder plots, and a disaster movie!

At Cult TV Blog, John gives us a similarily eclectic selection of old, cult TV series you can catch for free online. I'm not familiar (yet) with most of them, but it's hard to argue with John's assertion that it provides us with "an embarrassment of riches." Would that there was even more.

Rick has another of his famous quizzes at Classic Film & TV Café, and you'll really like this one: given the names of three characters, you name the TV show they came from. You're on your honor not to check the comments section for the answers.

At A Shroud of Thoughts, Terence remembers three who've passed on over the last few days: TV veteran Alan Rachins, the legendary musical genius Quincy Jones, and the simply adorable Teri Garr. You can look at these in one of two ways: you can tire of having your favorites dying at what seems to be the rate of two or three a week, or you can take the opportunity to think back to all the enjoyment they've provided over the years. Remember, death does not mean that life has ended, but merely changed.

Television's New Frontier: The 1960s travels back to 1961 and the iconic medical drama Ben Casey, starring Vincent Edwards. In this first season, we get a good overview of the show's premise, the power of its leading man, and some great links for more information on the series.

Speaking of icons, Travalanche takes a look at Walter Cronkite and some of the high points in the career of the man known as America's most trusted, including some interesting jobs you might not have known about. For instance, the Cronk a a game show host?

We'll wrap up at The View from the Junkyard, where Roger and Mike compare notes on one of The Twilight Zone's more problematic and lesser-known episodes, "The Encounter," with Lee Marvin and George Takai. What say you? TV  

Around the dial

At bare-bones e-zine, Jack kicks things off this week with the first of Thomas Grant's Hitchcock scripts, "I Can Take Care of Myself," a thin if nasty story with Myron McCormick, Linda Lawson, and Will Kuluva. Not a great episode, but it is Hitchcock.

John returns to the mysterious world of Sapphire & Steel at Cult TV Blog with part four of "Assignment Six," continuing the story that he's been relating the last few days. This assignment has its strengths and weaknesses, but it's an interesting glimpse into the direction the series might have taken had it continued for another series.

At Classic Film & TV Café, Rick reviews the streaming service Tubi and answers the question of whether or not it's worth watching. The answer is "yes," if you don't mind commercial interruptions in return for it being a free service. Read it and find out why it might be an essential part of your viewing options.

Let's stay on FAST (free, ad supported TV) for a moment, as Silver Scenes presents us with some December picks that are currently streaming on Roku. If you're looking primarily for Christmas favorites, you can find that out here. Again, if the commercials don't bother you (as they didn't for the first 50 or so years of TV history), you'll find some good viewing options.

At Drunk TV, Paul enlightens us on a massive DVD undertaking: the complete series box set of Bonanza. For those of you keeping score at home, that amounts to 431 remastered episodes on 112 discs. Stay tuned for season-by-season reviews—good luck, Paul!

We're currently making our way through the classic ABC WWII series Combat!, so it was sad to see that Jack Hogan, who played PFC Kirby, died last week, aged 94. I get that information courtesy of Terence at A Shroud of Thoughts, who has a thoughtful review of Hogan's career and credits, which include Detective Sergeant Miller on Adam-12.

At The View from the Junkyard, Roger and Mike compare notes on the Avengers episode "The Joker," a Steed/Peel adventure that's a remake of the black-and-white story "Don't Look Behind You." How does it work? Read and find out.

And let's end on a Yuletide note: The Imaginative Conservative compares versions of A Christmas Carol, including the acclaimed made-for-TV movie starring George C. Scott. How do they shape up, and how does this compare to your own rankings? TV  

Around the dial

At Comfort TV, David honors the late David McCallum with a look at some of the actor's finest classic television roles, from a 1953 performance on British TV to his 1986 reunion with Robert Vaughn on The A-Team—a career marked with warm and intelligent portrayals.

Dick Carr's work on Alfred Hitchcock Presents continues at bare-bones e-zine as Jack looks at the first season story "Salvage," co-written with Fred Freiberger, and starring a young Gene Barry, along with Nancy Gates and Elisha Cook, Jr.  

If you have the same trouble keeping up with what's on various streaming services as I do, you'll welcome this helpful note from Silver Scenes with a look at some of the latest offerings on Tubi. Classic television is always on the list, including the 1966 WWII adventure series Jericho.

At The Horn Section, Hal returns to F Troop with the season one episode "Go For Broke," in which our heroic Sgt. O'Rourke must figure out how to replenish the fort's pension fund—which O'Rourke lost in a shady poker game—before the Inspector General arrives.

Cult TV Blog continues a look at the 1970s, as John moves on to the BBC series Paul Temple, which was a big hit—in Germany!—and, hence, is only available today by watching episodes dubbed into German. Watch the episode "The Quick and the Dead," and you'll see it's worth it.

At Classic Film and TV Corner, Maddy has her recommendation for five TV horror series for Halloween. Among the series are two I can testify to: Night Gallery and Sapphire & Steel, the latter starring none other than the aforementioned David McCallum. 

Eyes of a Generation has a very interesting piece on the history of ABC's first handheld cameras. If you watch historic coverage of news and sporting events, you know the impact handhelds have had, and ABC had not one but two designs: one from LA, the other from New York.

Martin Grams has a great look at the history of the radio show Bold Venture, which starred none other than Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. It's long been highly sought after, and now a Kickstarter campaign seeks to make them available to OTR fans.  

At A Shroud of Thoughts, Terence pays tribute to the career of the great Sir Michael Gambon, who died last month aged 82. Gambon starred in such diverse projects as the Harry Potter movie series, Maigret, and the unforgettable The Singing Detective. 

Remember Andy Griffith's foray into science fiction, Salvage 1 (not to be confused with the above-mentioned Salvage)? Television Obscurities does, and Robert reviews the initial episode (after the pilot), "Dark Island," which takes place a long way from Mayberry.

We'll wrap things up at The View from the Junkyard, where Mike continues his reviews of the Saturday morning series Land of the Lost with the episode "The Hole," a literate, intelligent installment in a series that was a cut above the standard Saturday life-action fare. TV  

Around the dial

Frank Gabrielson's second and final Alfred Hitchcock Presents script is Jack's subject at bare-bones e-zine. The 1958 episode "The Foghorn" is a superior adaptation of a powerful short story, and as always Jack gives us a good look at the process of adaptation.

 Continuing his consideration of The X-Files and the American Dream, John's latest at Cult TV Blog looks at the show's third season; in particular, I'm interested in the show's link to Operation Paperclip, the real-life operation of U.S. intelligence to integrate Nazi scientists into the American space program. No easy answers here.

I remember the Saturday morning kids' show Land of the Lost; it's from the World's Worst Town era, so if I was watching TV at all, that's what would have been on. I don't want to talk about it much more, because I'm afraid the theme song will start running through my head, but it's the topic of discussion at The View from the Junkyard.

At A Shroud of Thoughts, Terence has a few suggestions for streaming services. Streamers are struggling lately; we've cancelled most of our services over the last year, leaving only the F1 channel and the Criterion Channel (we get a lot of use out of them). Perhaps more people would stick with them if they took Terence's advice. And stopped raising their prices.

Babyboomers.com has an interesting but fairly superficial article on how classic TV influenced modern college culture. I think it could do with a lot more in-depth consideration (this could have been an AI-authored article), but I think it's spot-on in the discussion "Classic Television as an Educational Tool." I've been advocating this for years.

Speaking of which, one of the nice things about retirement is the ability to travel without regard to time off from work, etc.,  so we're driving out to the Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention this year! It's the first time we've gone in a few years, and we could use some fun. I'm not making a presentation this time, we're just spectators. Are any of you planning to attend? If so, let me know and we'll plan to meet up! TV  

Television in its natural state

Although classic television is my primary beat, that doesn’t mean I don’t pay attention to what’s going on in more contemporary TV news. And, as is usually the case, once I start digging around on a topic, one thing leads to another. In this case, I've been reading a pair of articles at Slate. (Who says I'm closed-minded?) The first, which came via a Google search that took me back to October 31, 2019, is called "The Golden Age of TV Is Over," by Sam Adams. The second, also by Adams, is from March 5 of this year, and it's entitled "Peak TV Is Over. Welcome to Trough TV." 

You might wonder about the difference between the "Golden Age" and "Peak TV," and although on first glance the two terms may seem similar, they really aren't. The Golden Age of Television, whichever one you think of (Adams thinks in terms of "the halcyon period that dates from the premiere of The Sopranos in January 1990) is steeped in quality, while "Peak TV" ("the halcyon days when streamers would throw money at established creators and new talents alike, and no idea was too strange to try for a season or three.") measures things in terms of quantity. During the Golden Age, streamers were flush with cash and therefore willing to try anything; the Peak era saw nearly 600 original series aired, hoping to overwhelm potential viewers with choices in hopes they wouldn't notice that the quality, with few exceptions, had dropped.

Now that we've got this out of the way, what does the end of Peak TV mean, and what does it have to do with our website? Well, Adams points out certain trends, from which I've extrapolated certain theories, which amount to the following:

1. Because streamers (HBO Max, Netflix, etc.) are looking to monitize their back catalog of programs, previous seasons of your favorite show may just up and disappear, stuck in limbo until they wind up on another streamer, probably ad-supported.
   
   Solution: a return to physical media. You know, DVDs and such. Your physical media can't disappear without notice unless you've just been robbed and your DVD collection is the onlya thing of value you own, in which case you have my sympathies.
   
   
2. It can take up to two years for the next season of your favorite show to drop.
   
   Solution: a return to a fixed seasonal structure. As far as I know, nobody ever waited two years for the next season of Friends or ER.
   
   
3. The freedom of not having a fixed episode length encourages showrunners to write stories that may run for as many as 20 minutes over what the typical episode length is. While proponants claim this prevents stories from being truncated in order to fit a set length, some critics note that these expanded running times often encourage self-indulgence at the expense of tight editing.
   
   Solution: a return to a standard running time as the rule, not the exception. That "very special" cliffhanger? OK, let it run a few minutes over, but try a little discipline, people!
   
   
4. Some shows, even ones with an established fan base, might disappear without ever having a resolution. 
   
   Solution: a return to self-contained episodes as the norm, with storyarcs that run for several episodes, not several years. Not every television show has to have a final episode that wraps things up.
   
   
5. Too many new shows each season! Nobody can possibly watch them all, which means some will invariably get short-changed.
   
   Solution: I don't know; maybe fewer new shows? Like when there were only three networks plus a healthy inventory of first-run syndicated series.

If you've been reading carefully, you might notice that almost every concern that's been raised by the end of "Peak TV" and the onset of "Trough TV" can be tackled by returning to more traditional methods of television broadcasting. True, Trough TV may be plagued by a lack of originality, copycat concepts, and appealing to the lowest common denominator. As Adams points out, "For the first time in recent memory, it feels possible to revive the complaint from the pre–on demand era that there’s nothing good on." And, surprise, surprise: "No wonder audiences and critics alike have thrown their arms around Abbott Elementary, an old-fashioned network sitcom that provides new laughs 22 weeks out of the year."

There's an old saying that it doesn't do any good to close the barn door after the horses have escaped, and there's a good reason why it's an old saying: it's true. Not that we were ever going to return to the old days of three (OK, four) commercial networks and a handful of cable networks dominating your viewing via an inflexible schedule of programs with set start- and stop-times; between cord-cutting and streamers, we're never returning to that era again. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not; as someone who doesn't watch a lot of new television, I'm not really in a position to say. 

Which brings us back to the somewhat obscure title of this piece. Perhaps there is what we might call a "natural state" for television. Maybe things were the way they were for a good reason, and that we're now finding out that the tried and true methods were the best ones after all. Maybe some of the challenges we're facing in this so-called Trough TV era exist because we strayed too far away from those methods. Maybe another old saying—what's old is new again—is right after all. Or maybe I'm just trying to fit all of this into some fantasy that things really were better back in the day. That could well be, and it wouldn't be the first time; I don't know. 

But one thing is for certain—television is entering yet another period of change, and as long as that's the case, it might not be a bad idea to take a second look at the "old" way of doing things. Like your parents, maybe the people who came up with them actually knew what they were doing. TV  

Around the dial

Wou might recall that a couple of months ago, we looked at a TV Guide cover story on Gail Davis, star of the syndicated Western series Annie Oakley. This week, I received a very nice email from Windham Taylor and Brian Miller at the website Ammo.com, on an article they'd published (by Molly Carter) on the real Annie Oakley, America's most iconic woman sharpshooter. Would I be interested in the article? You bet I would, and I'm happy to share it here today. It's in the best tradition of the "Background" feature that TV Guide used to run, an article that would tell the story behind an upcoming movie or special. I appreciate getting links like this, and if any of you have similar things you'd like to share, please let me know!

My Twitter friend Herbie Pilato has a terrific article at the Television Academy website—you know, the people who do the Emmys—on the 50th anniversary of the Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour. Fifty years, which would make me, let's see—too old. Whether or not you were a fan of the duo, you'll be a fan of the article.   

At The Ringer, Alison Herman examines one of the many ways that streaming television has changed the very product it provides: all the conventions that governed classic TV, from the length of the show to the length of the season, are now up for grabs, with the result being what she calls "form confusion": "an exciting array of possibilities that also leaves room for error."

On a philosophical note, at The American Spectator, Lou Aguilar has an interesting—and provocative—article on how today's television is redefining masculinity. TV has the power to shape perception and behavior, of course; otherwise, advertisers would be throwing their money away. There's a reason why some people prefer classic television, back when things were black-and-white—so to speak.

In a somewhat similiar vein, at Comfort TV, David says television should always have a Superman. A simple, declarative statement, but I think it goes beyond Superman the character, to Superman the iconic hero. There's some thought that in these days when Marvel seems to dominate all forms of entertainment, the antihero's time is over, and the age of the hero is back. We could use some.

Week in and week out, one of my favorite stops on the trip around the dial is at bare•bones e-zine, especially when it's time for one of Jack's Hitchcock Project entries. For those of you scoring at home, or even if you're alone, here is a complete index to all the episodes covered so far. The closer he gets to the end, the closer we are to seeing that much-needed book!

Speaking of recaps, you won't want to miss Joanna's recap of this year's Christmas in July feature at Christmas TV History. Considering the hot, dry summer we've been experiencing here in Minnsota, it's kind of nice to think about Christmas in July. Come December, though, we might already be sick of the snow.

At The Horn Section, Hal stops by F Troop long enough to ask the question, "What Are You Doing After the Massacre?"  It's a delightful second-season episode featuring the great Phil Harris guesting as the 147-year-old Chieftan Flaming Arrow, aiming to get the entire United States back, one parcel of land at a time. 

One of the more popular memes out there asks you to tell people your age without using numbers. For me—well, I'm old enough to remember when MTV ran nothing but music videos. (Even typing that sentence has aged me.) At A Shroud of Thought, Terence takes a look back at the history of the groundbreaking network on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

Finally, at Eventually Supertrain, I'm back to talk about the Search episode "The Gold Machine" with Dan; stick around as Dan discusses Planet of the Apes with Amy The Conqueror, and chats about Kolchak with Tim. Some people ask why I so often promote my own links at the bottom of the page, and the truth is it's because I have every confidence in you, my loyal readers, that you'll read to the very end, right? Right? TV  

Around the dial

Now, this is my idea of shopping. Mind you, I actually do like to shop; it's just that—well, isn't it true that everything's better with TV? I suppose it depends on what kind of TV, though. For example, what does NBC's new streaming service Peacock have to offer? Over at Classic Film & TV Café, Rick takes a closer look and decides there not much to see for fans of the classics.

One of the series they do have, though, is Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which means you'll be able to watch the episode "Coyote Moon," the third script for the show by Harold Swanton, as detailed by Jack at bare•bones e-zine.

At Comfort TV, David tells us about ten more forgotton shows he'd like to watch, shows such as Please Don't Eat the Daisies and Marlo and the Magic Movie Machine. Unfortunately, Peacock isn't going to help us any here.

Carol Ford and Linda Groundwater appeared earlier this week on Gary and Keith Leavitt's radio program Gary Leavitt and Friends on WMEX in Boston. You can read all about it, as well as hear the interview, at Bob Crane: Life & Legacy.

That interview coincided with Bob Crane's birthday, which was July 13. Also born on that date, thirteen years earlier, was Dave Garroway, and Jodie celebrates his birthday (as well as the birthday of her blog) at Garroway at Large. I wonder if they knew each other?

At The Hits Just Keep On Comin', JB has a nice look at the "Bring Back Howdy Doody" movement that saw Buffalo Bob Smith on tour, resulting in the album Buffalo Bob Smith Live at Bill Graham’s Fillmore East. Does this take the prize as the most unlikely thing you'll see all year? TV  

Around the dial

Ithink most of you can tell that's Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ was a great television watcher, both before and while he was president; in the Oval Office, he had a console installed with three television screens, so he could watch news coverage on all three networks at the same time. But what is he watching here? The answer at the end.

Since we're in a mystery frame of mind, let's continue with the latest Hitchcock Project at bare-bones e-zine, with Jack continuing his look at the works of James P. Cavanagh. This week it's the season one episode "The Creeper," based on a real-life murder mystery that was unsolved at the time it was originally dramatized for radio.

At The Horn Section, Hal is back to Hondo, with "Hondo and the Death Drive," from December, 1967, a four-star whoopass episode if ever there was one. But as Hal reminds us, "Your lives are meaningless compared to HONDO!"

Most classic TV fans know that the British series Till Death Us Do Part was the model for the American series All in the Family, but as Thrilling Days of Yesterday points out, since Till Death never achieved the mass release in America that, say, Monty Python did, not a lot of people know what that British series was like. Ivan sets out to shed some light on it.

Keeping it all in the (British) family, Cult TV Blog offers a first look at a series that's new to John, Gideon's Way, from 1965. Does it hold up well today? Does it make John want to watch more? Read and find out.

The Broadcasting Archives at the University of Maryland links to this Washington Post article on how the average American has even more ways to stream television. I look at this kind of thing frequently, always wanting to weigh my options, to see what the possibilities are. It always gives me a headache when I do.

One of my favorite shows, Peter Gunn, is the latest subject of Television's New Frontier: the 1960s.  A fascinating look at how the show comes to an end, and the future endeavors of cast and crew.

Continuing his look at 1989, Television Obscurities explores the issue of January 28, 1989, with the stars of Roseanne, Roseanne Barr and John Goodman, on the cover, and a variety of stories guaranteed to take you back 30 years in time.

* * *

So what is LBJ watching? I plucked this picture from Google images, and although there was no description with it, I'm sure you could find one if you looked moderately hard. But even without a description, we know a few things. The man speaking has a longish badge on his left lapel, probably a convention credentials badge. The curtain behind the speaker has stars on it, and the only occasion I can think of that fits the bill is the 1960 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. Since the Speaker of the House traditionally served as convention chairman back in the day, and since the gentleman on the screen looks bald, I'm prepared to identify him as "Mr. Sam," Sam Rayburn, longtime House Speaker and LBJ's mentor. Which means this picture is probably LBJ in his hotel room, preparing to watch the roll call for president, at which he'll finish second to John F. Kennedy. Look at his expression—I think he knows he's going to lose this vote. Could anyone possibly imagine what the future has in store for him?  TV  

The It's About TV! Interview: Stephen Rodgers of PROClassic TV

We haven't had a good interview lately, so I thought this time we might take a look behind the scenes of the classic television streaming business with Stephen Rodgers, CEO of the Peter Rodgers Organization (PRO), the company behind PROClassic TV, If you're a classic television fan, you may have heard of PROClassic TV, or you may even be signed up for it. If not - well, let's find out more about it, along with Steve's views on why classic television remains popular, why the studios have no incentive to release their classic library on DVD, why "what people want to watch" is not the real question, and more.

◊ ◊ ◊
It's About TV: Tell me a little about PRO Classic TV. How did the idea come to you? How many shows do you currently have in your catalog? Do you know how many subscribers you have?

Stephen Rodgers: PROClassic TV was done for multiple reasons. Primarily, it was to be an educational experience necessitated by the spawning demand for content that could be delivered online directly to the consumer, since we were witnessing a decline in DVD sales on a retail basis. Before PROClassic TV, our business dealt on an executive level only with other companies whose business plans were that of retail sales to the general public. Kind of like a consumer buying their car directly from Ford or GM, rather than going through a dealer. We also recognized the growing demand for content by hundreds of start-up on-line platforms, but were dissatisfied with the modest revenue sharing proposals offered by these platforms for our content.

Ray Walston and Bill Bixby of "My Favorite Martian"

As the number of DVD retail sales declined, we needed to examine a way to continue providing classic television shows to the consumer. We were never in a position to manufacture physical DVD or tape formats for retail (we usually licensed the rights to companies whose primary business was such) so we felt that we could feasibly digitize our library into an on-line platform, which could be delivered to the consumer electronically. This removed the traditional risks associated with physical retail sales, such as returns, sales taxes, and seeking retail distribution to brick and mortar locations.

Today, PROClassic TV platforms are available on streaming services like HULU, You Tube and set-top device systems like ROKU, and on PRO’s exclusive web base site, proclassictv.com. Combined, these exhibition platforms regularly draw an average of over 3 million views every 90 days. (Quarterly)

How does it differ from other streaming services and retro subchannels out there?

The key difference is that PROClassic TV is dedicated to the content that PRO represents on behalf of its producer owners. While other services offer content, their content is comingled among many other content providers, which creates a fragmentation of revenue and makes promoting specific content to a single content provider impossible. PROClassic TV also ensures the viewer every episode from every season and offers a commercial free environment for a cost, which is competitive with other platforms, but allows us to retain 100% of the revenues for distribution to our clients and owners of the content, without questionable or unverifiable expenses. The other difference from other retro channels is that PRO’s content is copywritten and this translates to content offered exclusively that consumers will not find on other classic retro platforms who use a high percentage of television content in the public domain. Examples of identical episodes on numerous retro platforms include The Lucy Show, and sporadic non-sequential episodes of Bonanza, Dragnet, Robin Hood and more.

Why this attraction that people have to classic television? We continually hear that we’re in another Golden Age, and yet there’s a group of TV viewers out there who keep gravitating back to the classics. In your opinion, what is it that the new age is missing? 

Classic television has earned its stripes. Many of the shows are household names, solidly branded as a result of decades of television exposure, cultivating fan bases numbered in the millions. Classic TV shows attracted ratings numbers that are impossible to achieve today. This is why so many theatrical remakes are based on classic TV shows that are universally recognized – there is already a substantial loyal following and so they require less effort and expanse to promote. The “new age” viewer, as you call it, is increasingly exposed to branding on a much smaller scale. Some of the brands recognized by younger viewers are a result of “flash in the pan” exposure, which is soon displaced because they do not endure the time necessary to really establish them. Something may be on fire for two or three seasons, but wean shortly after. These new age shows cannot achieve the same tenure from a three-year stint as some classic tv shows which have spanned three decades.

I write a lot about classic television, obviously, and I keep hearing two things: first, that younger people have absolutely no interest in black-and-white programming, and second that the demographic for classic television skews so old that it really isn’t a very valued group. What do you say to that?

I would say to ask contemporary B&W photographers like Mary Ellen Mark, whose B&W images still draw high numbers and continue to inspire young adults through the presence of her works in galleries worldwide, or motion pictures produced in B&W even though color was well available. Color was not necessary for box office results. Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, for example, was produced in the 1970’s, yet both the picture and its producer are renowned and recognized. B&W also helps set a theme or period unique to its genre, something the viewer comes to expect.

Chuck Conners, "The Rifleman"

An example of this is Schindler’s List, a Spielberg film that mixed both B&W and color sequences to better express a point or authenticity to a particular time. It is also an element of authenticity for shows like Westerns or period pieces. Our series, The Rifleman, has no problem earning hundreds of thousands of viewers on-line every month, as well as national cable exposure via AMC - with ratings, I might add, that exceed other notable series of the time that were produced in color.

As far as skewing older viewers, I can only say that history usually repeats itself. If not, it certainly rhymes, and such is true with genres and styles of production. If classic TV were reliant on only older demographics, then one would expect B&W content would have faded away many years ago.

But it hasn’t, has it?

No! In fact, there are a number of shows that continue to draw new viewers by way of their simplicity and B&W values. Look at I Love Lucy, The Rifleman, or even late-night runs of Perry Mason, all shows that relied on brilliant writing and plot, as opposed to flashy effects or being shot in color.

So you think there’s more to these shows than just the recognition factor – that there’s a values system that viewers are looking for, or a way of storytelling that they don’t seem to find in contemporary television?

You're right, it's all about the storytelling. Sure, you can cram a production with a bunch of explosions and special effects, but without a basic story...what's it all about?

And it’s true that even after the move to color, you had numerous shows still being shot in B&W, and many times fans of those shows say they prefer the B&W ones to the later color seasons.

PRO represents the first western television series even shot in color, which aired on NBC in the late 50’s, The Cisco Kid, at a time when not even half of television households owned a color TV set. Did it make a difference-? The answer is - no. Many B&W TV series followed with equal or greater success, even when shooting in color was possible.

I also hear a lot from classic TV fans about their frustration at so many of their favorites being unavailable to them, for one reason or another. You might not be in a position to answer this, but in your opinion what can be done to get some distributors to be more “generous” with their catalog? Is there any way that PROClassic can become involved in, say, the WB or Fox inventory?

(Laughing!)  Studios don’t want old shows available to consumers; they have already made their money back on these productions. Studios deliberately “shelve” older content, because they want revenues earned on the newer productions they remain in the red for. This is especially true with broadcast and cable platforms. Studios are in constant production, but there are only 24 hours in a day and selling an older series in any particular timeslot means a new production won’t air there. From a studio standpoint, why promote and offer an old show (regardless of popularity) that has already recouped its costs, when a new show awaiting recoupment needs to afford a return on the studios investment?

Roger Moore - the one and only "Saint"

I have personally witnessed dozens of instances when a producer/owner we represent has reached the end of its contract with us, lured away by a studio, offering a considerable upfront advance, only to see their beloved series languish on the shelf, because its the mentality of these studios to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to keep something off the air, to afford the millions it needs to break even or realize profit on their latest work. Studios are not interested in entertaining or brand preservation, they only live to produce more content and profit from the new works created. Studios may be the source of remakes of branded content, but they are the leading killer of the classic shows from which they originate. Studios don’t want companies like PRO to approach them, or even exist, because we take away audience they need to satisfy their financial goals on their current works.

In other words, if you’re fed up with Warners not putting out one of their catalog shows and you complain to them, their answer is likely to be something like “tough luck.”

And that's assuming you can even get to anyone at Warner Bros.

Based on the feedback you’ve gotten so far, what kinds of shows do people want to see? And are there any types (genre, age, star) that you’ve been surprised by, either that the response was better than you expected, or not as good?

How long is a line, and how high is up?

What people want to watch is not the question. The question is this: what is currently available to see? Look at the basic cable networks today, which started as specific genre channels during their growth in the 1990s. A&E, supposedly Arts and Entertainment, has content that has nothing to do with either anymore. AMC, American Movie Classics, now runs movies less than 10 years old, as well as original series. Discovery Channel now only discovers what’s at the bottom of some swamp, and TV Land abandoned classic TV altogether and produces first-run content. None of these networks shows the content for which they were originally created, because the viewing habits of consumers changes with the availability of content to watch. This is why on-line viewing has been dramatically reducing standard TV and Cable numbers. In response, these channels, once dedicated to over-the-air or cable-delivered, are now expanding to online platforms, trying to keep their viewership respectable.

Overall, it comes down to the death of scheduled programing. Viewers no longer have to wait for a specific day and time to see their favorite shows on a scheduled basis. They want to see what they want, when they want to. This was what DVRs tried to harness, but have been losing grip to as a result of on-line and on demand platforms.

What is the process you go through to obtain the rights to add a series to your catalog?

We do not obtain or license anything. We are the exclusive representatives for the actual producers, owners or in many cases, the estates and families of their producing family member. After 43 years of business, we are approached by these individuals and entities, seeking a way to monetize the asset left them by their parent or experienced the reversion of long term rights on content, tied up since its original production and network release. We also represent companies with film libraries, which do not have the tenure of domestic distribution as PRO does. There are also those that are too focused on new productions and the financing of such, to extend the efforts required to license classic content in their libraries.

What kinds of things do you look for when you’re considering adding a series? Things like the quality of transfers, number of episodes, availability in other media?

I focus on brands - plain and simple. We know we are not going to acquire “The Second Coming of Christ” with the original cast, but we know we don’t have the leverage to push “Who Shot Paul in the Ass in Patty’s Room” either. Obviously, the more episodes the better, as any series with less than 75 episodes won’t satisfy a Monday – Friday schedule and that’s where the lion’s share of acquisition budgets are. There is little support to spend resources on a show that is relegated to weekends only by virtue of not enough episodes to air beyond that.

Are there any programs (that you’re at liberty to discuss) that are on your radar for the future? Any shows that you’ve really wanted to add but were unable to make work? 

Yes to both. I know studio vaults house dozens of series that I know I could successfully sell, but never will because of the reasons I stated above. There have been a couple of series we aggressively pursued, only to see them swooped up and shelved by the very same studios. This recently happened to The Honeymooners and the Zorro series we represented - it was not renewed because of a studio upfront that never allowed it to see the light of day or a penny afterwards.

It’s just business and one which places more interest in the bottom line than in entertaining the public or fulfilling their content demands. This is another aspect of the threat that on-line exhibitors present.

Celebrities strike out!

What’s the definition of success for PROClassic TV? How large do you want to get in terms of your catalog, and how many subscribers are you shooting for?

Our definition of success is providing content which has established milestones in television history and that viewers want to see, which result in a respectable revenue stream for those who worked hard to produce them and their heirs, effectively preserving the brand these time-honored productions so richly deserve.

Do you have your own personal favorite of the shows you currently have in your catalog?

Actually, I don’t think I’ve seen more than 10 episodes of any of the TV series we represent! I do, however, hold these classics in the highest regard and recognize each of them for the qualities they possess and the fact that they were made at a time where entertainment was the primary motivation for their creation and the money they earned, was merely the icing on the cake, over and above the enjoyment they brought to millions of viewers, each and every week. For fulfilling the drams, not necessarily the pockets, of those creative individuals for which Hollywood was made.

If you were to remake one series from the past, what would it be and why?

I make deals, not productions, so it’s difficult for me to answer this question. My personal favorites do not necessarily reflect the preferences of others. You question would depend on the desire to remake for creativity, popularity or for monetary reward. Generally, I appreciate the wholesome, simple yet sometimes-dangerous plots surrounding westerns. Many of these concepts hold true today, whether it be a single father trying to single-handedly raise a young boy in the old west or a pair of truckers or cowboys riding from place to place, helping those who need help along the way, Classic TV series rely more on values and story than current productions, giving them an admirable quality. To remake these today would demand the inclusion of special effects or shock value elements that would result in something very different than what their preceding origins would have liked or intended.

◊ ◊ ◊
My thanks again to Stephen Rodgers for his time, and to Tim Williams for facilitating our interview. You can find out more about PROClassic TV at their website, or by checking out their YouTube channel.