Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: YCDTOTV Missing Episodes 1979 on Youtube

  1. #21

    Default

    I just want to clarify one more thing, David, if I may:

    My understanding from you is that it was Roger Price's idea to mar the episodes with these watermarks, including the two advertisements; in fact, that he insisted upon it as a condition of release. To go even further, that was the main point of this release in his eyes: not to allow the fans to see the episodes in and of themselves, which he did not want released, but to advertise two products, and to use these rare and long-sought-after episodes as a vehicle to advertise them. The combination of the scarcity of the episodes, and the popularity of Chris's channel, were figured, by him, as ideal because they would expose the greatest number of people to these advertisements. The whole "episode release" issue, which we fans have been so excited about, was a mere incidental, in his eyes, to the advertisements. Not only were they not added without his consent, as some have assumed, but they were added on his initiative.

    Correct?
    "Now me, I play for fortune
    And those velvet curtain calls
    I've got a black limousine and two gentlemen
    Escorting me to the halls
    And I'll play if you have the money
    Or if you're a friend to me
    But the one-man band
    By the quick-lunch stand
    He was playing real good
    For free..."
    -Joni Mitchell

  2. #22

    Default

    It was Roger Price's idea NOT to release these episodes until a formal distribution could be achieved. Since release discussions are ongoing, he agreed that offering exposure to my under-exposed film and Matt's forthcoming book could help generate even more interest in the series itself, since a lot of people would not find the episodes by only visiting this site. Roger was directly involved with my film and the book, and wanted to help.

    Though I can see your points, I don't understand where the damning tone of your messages is coming from. There hasn't been a personal slight to you or anyone else. These episodes are extremely rare, yes. To my knowledge, Nickelodeon doesn't even have these episodes in their possession. Because of that, they will NOT be offered without protective watermarks until Roger is certain that proper distribution cannot be achieved. It's obviously his right to seek compensation, since Viacom apparently skipped informing him of their iTunes releases.

    When you say "we fans" keep in mind that I'm right there beside you. Outside of the last six months, I've had to wait as long as the entire world to see these episodes. The thought that protective watermarks make you "sick" or "disgraced" is absurd. Again -- nobody is deliberately slighting you. It's being perceived as that, but it's truly not happening.

    I know the frustration and I've had plenty of it recently. Watermarks and a low bit rate have not rendered these videos unwatchable. They are merely distractions. It gives everyone the chance to view them without waiting another year or two. Since I'm the one who personally encoded and offered these episodes, and it continues to bother you, I'll offer my apologies once more.

  3. #23

    Default

    "Watchability" is in the eye of the watcher, and "sickness" is not an absurdity to the person who's been sickened. I never referred to myself as "disgraced," and I am not self-important enough (God forbid) to consider anything having to do with YCDTOTV, its production, its distribution, its legacy, etc., as a deliberate personal slight against me. If you can cite examples of where I have said anything to that effect in the course of this discussion, I would be most grateful.

    Tone is a difficult thing to convey in written communication; as a writer, I know that all too well, and it's no less difficult for someone who does it full-time. This is part of the reason why I went out of my way, in the message I addressed to you late last night, to make it clear that I was not attacking you on a personal level. Alas, this seems to have been lost in your reading and interpretations of my posts here.

    Obviously, my opinion of the episodes has been registered, and there's no point in my beating you about the head and shoulders with it any longer. Your opinion is that the watermarks are merely "distractions," and that's an opinion that many others share, as the comments here and on Youtube amply attest. It's not been my intention to try to change that opinion...though admittedly it baffles me, and is reflective (in my mind) of a culture that has devalued art to a point where serious compromises in its quality and even in its content are considered acceptable. To me they are unwatchable, and the disappointment of their unwatchability, combined with the anticipation beforehand, has broken my heart. You may consider that a serious loss of perspective, and all things considered it probably is, in the sense that a hundred years from now it isn't going to matter in the least. You can even mock me for thinking of YCDTOTV in terms of "art" in the first place; I make an easy target on that score, I realize, and others have had great enjoyment at the expense of that attitude.

    That's fine. I don't mind being mocked. But consider this: my attitude does no harm to anyone who takes the opposite view. The trouble with your (and, apparently, Roger Price's) attitude that watermarks are mere "distractions," and do not represent a fundamental alteration or defacement of the artwork presented, is that, if put into practice, it diametrically impacts the experience of that art for those of us who think differently. You plaster the episodes with watermarks, thinking that the effect on the art, if any, will be negligible, and we don't have any choice in the matter; you've simply ruined the episodes for us. Whereas if there are no watermarks, or if the watermarks are less obtrusive, those on your side of the question are not going to sit there and say, "God, there should be watermarks all over the screen, and the fact that there aren't is really detracting from my experience."

    To sum up, if you have detected a tone of "personal" slight or attack, perhaps it is based on the fact that you and the rest of the "watermarks are okay" crowd will always have an inherent advantage, since you'll enjoy the episodes either way, with or without watermarks. I am just asking you to empathize with people like me, GoingGreat, and others to whom they *have* been rendered unwatchable. Your saying that they haven't is not going to change that.
    Last edited by mcguinnfan; June 10th, 2013 at 02:53 PM.
    "Now me, I play for fortune
    And those velvet curtain calls
    I've got a black limousine and two gentlemen
    Escorting me to the halls
    And I'll play if you have the money
    Or if you're a friend to me
    But the one-man band
    By the quick-lunch stand
    He was playing real good
    For free..."
    -Joni Mitchell

  4. #24

    Default

    I think it's implied that I consider this show a work of art. I don't think I would've made a documentary if it hadn't affected me in such a way while growing up. I'm going to go back to a previous quote -- "Why are you so special that you get to watch these episodes as Roger Price intended, but no one else?" -- I've made this clear: Roger wants the episodes to be properly released, as originally intended to be viewed. In order to do so, a formal distribution agreement must be secured. This method of using YouTube with watermarks is in effect pacifying those who are curious to see the episodes sooner than later, and upsetting those who want them untouched. The only alternative while still protecting Roger's ability to secure distribution would have been to hold these episodes for another year or two. Unfortunately, both groups of people can't be pacified.

    I agree completely that tone is difficult to convey in written form. I understood your reasoning last night and the fact that you were not trying to attack me personally. The problem for me are the words being used and the intensity of the structure. It seems to me that there is an implied general sense of entitlement on both sides of this discussion. There is a feeling that everyone is entitled to see the episodes on YouTube right now, crystal clear, and there is a feeling that I or Roger should not be entitled to withhold these episodes. Again, these are implied.

    I can certainly understand where you're coming from. Of course the watermarks are more than distractions. If I were to play a copy of my documentary on DVD and see the same things over my film, I'd be upset. The difference, however, is that my documentary was formally released by a distributor and it's understood by the general public that the formal release would not contain such intrusions on the art. There has never been a claim that this particular YouTube method is the official distribution of the 1979 season, or that it would be the only means of ever seeing the episodes.

    I'm sorry, mcguinnfan, and to all of the others who are making their frustrations known. I'm also sorry for taking issue with "sick" and other words while paraphrasing. I've tried throughout my life to keep as many people happy as possible. I know that's a virtually impossible task. I can only hope you understand where I'm coming from.

  5. #25

    Default

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    Rob Homa
    Slime Society "Info Dude" since 1995!

  6. #26

    Default

    The quotation you cited, David, is not one, alas, for which I can take credit; that belongs to GoingGreat...but I did quote it with approval. While I can't speak for GoingGreat, my understanding of the question at that time (from the context of the entire message), was that it was directed at Chris Bryant, whom I then had reason to believe had been personally responsible for applying the watermarks. I owe Chris an apology for this, and the only excuse I can offer is that nothing had been said or explained beforehand to make me think otherwise.

    The issue of whether the same question ("Why are you so special that you get to watch these episodes as Roger Price intended, but no one else?") can justifiably be applied to you, knowing as I now do that it was *you* who applied the watermarks, is a more complex one, and I'm not so glib as to offer an answer before I've thought it through. Certainly, it raises questions which I think demand a reassessment of your documentary, which was presented, and has always been presented, as an unofficial, unauthorized, independent study of the show, but which is now being endorsed by the show's creator/producer, and the making of which has apparently entitled you to the special privileges mentioned in GoingGreat's question, among others. But these questions have more to do with artistic integrity, ethics and motives, and therefore are much more subjective, and too deep to delve into here.

    There is no "sense of entitlement" on my own part; until a few months ago, I had no idea these episodes even still existed, and therefore it's not exactly clear to me how I could have felt "entitled" to view them in any form, or within any specified time frame. I frankly think "sense of entitlement" is an ad hominem (and for that matter rather lazy) catch-all, a brush with which to tar anyone who raises a reasoned objection to the way you've presented these episodes. I think you're better than that, David, and I can only assume that the heat of this argument has gotten to you, as it has admittedly gotten to me at times, and led you to make this very ill-considered characterization of the people debating this issue, which I hope you'll withdraw upon further reflection.

    My personal reasons for being so strenuous are aesthetic and emotional. I can't speak for anyone else, but GoingGreat's very eloquent comment criticized the watermarks on those grounds as well, and the other two (brief) anti-watermark comments here have been purely aesthetic. So I don't know where a "sense of entitlement" (implied or otherwise) comes into it. My intense personal belief in this show and its importance, and my love of this show from an aesthetic standpoint, along with my passion for art as art (as opposed to a vehicle for commerce or personal ownership claims), and for its preservation as art, have been my motivations throughout. There is a sense in which, looking back over my posts on this subject and others, I have endeavored to act (if unconsciously) as something of a "conscience" for those responsible for this show and its legacy: a gadfly of sorts, urging you to prioritize aesthetic purity (insofar as is possible) over and above all else. The results are not all in, but I do feel that my efforts on this score have been largely a failure...with these episodes, and the ensuing bad feeling, as Exhibit A.

    Again, I would add (probably futilely, as ever) that I wish we'd been warned in advance what was coming; some of the blood that has been spilled, and some of the outrage that has been felt and expressed, might have been avoided if we'd known what to expect. You knew there were going to be watermarks well in advance, and you knew why. You could have explained it ahead of time, and I'm not sure why you didn't. (You might even have solicited advice or counsel as to how this could be done in a way that would strike a reasonable balance between the diametrically opposed objectives you've cited above.) If you didn't expect anyone to care or even particularly notice, that would lead me to question your judgement. If you expected us to shower you with unblinking and unquestioning gratitude just for presenting the episodes, no matter how degraded or defaced, then I think it's you who might justifiably be indicted for displaying a "sense of entitlement."
    Last edited by mcguinnfan; June 10th, 2013 at 04:52 PM.
    "Now me, I play for fortune
    And those velvet curtain calls
    I've got a black limousine and two gentlemen
    Escorting me to the halls
    And I'll play if you have the money
    Or if you're a friend to me
    But the one-man band
    By the quick-lunch stand
    He was playing real good
    For free..."
    -Joni Mitchell

  7. #27

    Default

    Your command of the English language allows you to have the most finely crafted retorts I've ever seen in my life. You're probably not aware of this, but everything you say -- in its context -- tears people down. It doesn't offer criticism. I've taken plenty for my own art. It simply tears people down. I don't know who you are, while it's painfully obvious who I am, and it certainly makes it easier to offer any rebuttal behind the veil of a screen name and keyboard.

    I'm perplexed as to how you're still not sure why any of this wasn't made clear in advance. I think YOU are better than that -- whatever your real name is. Business transactions are not shared with the public unless they have to be. You were not entitled to know. Period. Further, how dare you make judgements on me or any of my decisions. Read what you write. Regardless of your intent, most of what you have said is irrelevant.

    These episodes were shown to the people of Ottawa in 1979. Beyond that, they never needed to be seen again. Roger found them. So what? As a life-long fan of this program, I could have honestly gone my entire life never seeing them. They are part of the YCDTOTV canon. Big deal. Now that they exist, this is what is happening. You continue to belabor the notion that more info should have been shared, or it shouldn't be the way it is for whatever reason. I've sincerely apologized and you continue to tear me down. Yet, I bet still won't be able to see it this way.

    This conversation has unnecessarily reached a level that I'm not comfortable with. If you want to discuss further, contact me through the board. Otherwise, my side of this conversation is closed.

  8. #28

    Default

    Thank you for your honesty. My first name is James, by the way, and I apologize for not having made that clear before. If you'd like my full name, I'll consider giving it publicly and certainly will be pleased to give it to you privately, via PM, if you wish. Most people on this board use pseudonyms, including one of the moderators (who, in the interests of absolute accuracy, also incorporates his real name into his signature). You made the choice not to do that, and to have your name, which is known in this community for your work as it relates to the show, associated with your profile. I respect that, and won't argue the question of whether it puts me at an advantage, or you. For the purposes of this board, I had always assumed that my posts would serve to identify me, insofar as identification was needed. If you will go back and read my old posts, you will see that I often refer to the people I'm addressing: by their real name if I know it, and by their pseudonym if I don't. Not only was I taught to do this at a very young age (ironically for our purposes here, as a sign of respect for the person being addressed), and have never got out of the habit, but also I find it important on a board like this, where other posts by other users may intervene, to make clear which user I am addressing. For instance, while I was typing my last post, Rob made a much shorter post that went up before I had finished replying to you. My use of your name was in part an effort to make clear that I was responding to you, not to him.

    The way I write is the way I write, and my writing style is not intended as a weapon with which to "take people down." I am sincerely sorry, on both aesthetic and personal grounds, that you see it that way. I would say that most of the time, when I've been criticized in the past, it's been for over-qualifying, i.e., for not being explicit enough in expressing firm opinions, for using too many "perhapses" or examining a situation from too many angles. There is an extent to which, in my eyes at least, an excessive politesse on my part is detectable in other posts. To put it bluntly, I often pull punches. Perhaps I should have done so here.

    My passion for the show has led me to be a bit dogged, some might say a bit overwrought or even a bit ridiculous, from time to time on this board. I have often reflected that, if an Andy Kaufman-style vote were held to decide whether I should be permitted to post here any longer, I might very well lose. Indeed, I'm sure there will be many people who will read your remarks above and say, "Way to go, [name redacted]." I accept that. A fly in the ointment is not always popular, and rightly or wrongly, that's what I've been. Perhaps I've been more trouble than I'm worth, and it's probable that I will scale back, if not outright cease, my activity here, now that you have alerted me to the fact that it has been counterproductive and hurtful to others.

    I won't debate your points above, and I agree with you that, from a business perspective, we were not and are not "entitled" to know a damn thing. Sometimes, with a show like this, it's easy to forget that business factors are still paramount; and in a community like ours, it can sometimes be hard to discern who is "inside" the business, and who is "outside."

    I understand that you will not reply to this message, and I think that's fine. We have gone far enough in insulting each other and hurting each other's feelings. I only post it publicly because some vestigial sense of honor won't let an attack on me go publicly unacknowledged. I apologize for my role in bringing us to this point, whatever it may have been.
    Last edited by mcguinnfan; June 10th, 2013 at 06:32 PM.
    "Now me, I play for fortune
    And those velvet curtain calls
    I've got a black limousine and two gentlemen
    Escorting me to the halls
    And I'll play if you have the money
    Or if you're a friend to me
    But the one-man band
    By the quick-lunch stand
    He was playing real good
    For free..."
    -Joni Mitchell

  9. #29

    Default

    I suppose I should chime in...

    Thank you for the further context, David. I suppose I was rather hasty in disparaging your documentary - I know how difficult making things are and that it takes superhuman effort to finish anything and release it. It's just that self-promotion is a pet peeve of mine, well-beyond anything on this website, and my hackles tend to be up about it. I do apologize for snarking on someone else's work, that wasn't necessary.

    That said, I do trust you're sincere and that there are efforts underway for official, clean release of these in some way. In fact, I very much like your idea of beginning in Canada for an official release and allowing those in the US interested to be able to buy them via import. I've purchased many an item from Amazon.co.uk and even Amazon.de (the German version). I have some knowledge of licensing and such so I can imagine that between Viacom/Nickelodeon and everything else in the US, it may just be easier to restrict it to our Neighbors To The North.

    As for me, the tone of my messages was more informed by the fact that we've seen this kind of thing before as long-time fans of this wonderfully odd little show, and it really was a shame that after so much buildup it only slowly comes out that these were "holdover" releases while something more official could be worked out. And that said, I feel like anybody who'd buy them on DVD would do so regardless of whether clean copies were available elsewhere. It's a shame that the full situation couldn't have been made known from the start, especially since withholding of information and materials has been an unfortunate part of "rediscovered YCDT" over the years.

    So I hope we can perhaps move on for the moment? Those of us genuinely upset by the watermarking have made our points heard loud and clear. It really does mar what should have been an absolutely joyful occasion, the unearthing of lost treasures. But it sounds as though the situation will eventually be rectified, and clean versions will be made available (at a better resolution than 240p, please!!!) If something similar is being intended with "Don't Look Now", perhaps the powers-that-be can let us all know the details before we get an unpleasant surprise when we watch the videos.

    And the one thing that still genuinely confounds me, and maybe David can shine some light on this: why in the world were the initial descriptions for the episodes on iTunes synopses of never-since-seen 1979 episodes? It mentioned the Ottawa Water Slide and things like that. Why/how in the world...? Which leads me to believe that something has been planned for the "found" '79s for a while...

  10. #30

    Default

    First of all- thanks, David. I think you've cleared everything up. Hopefully Roger can work out a release. Knowing that we'll eventually get to view these episodes exactly as they are, I can settle for what's currently being shown to us.

    Second- how about some comments on the episodes? The first episode looks and feels so unpolished, and the kids looked very nervous. They seem to have relaxed more by the following week's show that we've always known as CJOH Shoestring. Also, Brad Hampson was such a natural, had confident attitude, and seemed to have really enjoyed being on the show. It's sad that he wasn't used more often.
    Mark

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •