- Awards
- 27
Was ABC known for their bad quality broadcasts?
Why would they do that and why did people watch it?
ShoutFactory US-Release - just HORRIBLE quality, or did i get a bootleg?!
- Thread starter Matthew Blaisdel
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Why would they do that and why did people watch it?
- Awards
- 11
You know, you got a point there-- maybe that bad quality had no reason or excuse.
- Awards
- 21
In the late-'80s, the network shows were beginning to experiment with new (crappy, cheapy) post-production techniques, like with Lorimar and DALLAS in 1986 when Pam woke up to a low-resolution blur which looked like old-style videotape (not corrected for 40 years).
Aaron Spelling looked into the new process ("Telecine"??) and thought it was awful, refusing to use it. Instead, he did -- or allowed -- something else equally lousy. So beginning with the last third of Season 6 (spring 1986) of DYNASTY, the broadcast prints in the States became so splotchy, so ruddy, so grainy that it was shocking that ABC would acquiesce to the idea of airing it that way for two years.
When the DVDs later came out, the Region 1s were much better, but other regions apparently were not. And some of the old, original broadcast prints which were so ghastly were still circulating somewhere.
You'd never believe how bad Blake's masquerade ball looked when it first aired (I used to have a screen grab, printed in the tabloids, which reflected it, but I've since lost it). THE COLBYS was pretty much the same.
When nobody in these industries gives a phukc, nobody gives a phukc.
- Awards
- 27
I have no memory of 1980s TV looking particularly great or particularly bad. I guess it was all acceptable enough to let us focus on the stories.
But if they spent so much money on the Dynasty spin-off you'd think they would want to make it look good.
But if they spent so much money on the Dynasty spin-off you'd think they would want to make it look good.
- Awards
- 21
Please re-read my last post. It's a topic we've discussed before.