Let's review:

I've never said a negative word about any series in this thread. All percieved threats are just that: percieved by you.

Saying that ST sux is basically a threadcrap, so I'm not going there.

The Simpsons is an animated TV show and does not have sets and actors. So there is no comparison to XF or ST. That example has no bearing.

CSI is a crime drama on a prime time network and thus is no comparison to a sci-fi show on a syndicated network. CSI is brand new, has no conventions, books, or rabid fans and is a spin off series that is knocked off of countless police dramas. It had no bearing on the 'crime drama' genre (unlike a series like say, 'The Shield' and will basically be forgotten 3 years after it goes off the year. This argument is invalid as well. As for the awards, again they are in different genres and aiming for different things - ST was never about earning awards. It was about meaningful stories that impact our lives and a positive view of the future. That's why we are still talking about it almost 10 years after it was off the air.

Jack - Not sure why you say the quality of the show has nothing to do with pricing. If there is no quality, there is no good show. No good show, no rabid fans, no 7 or 9 seasons, no enduring legacies, spin off movies, conventions... When things like this happen and you produce a show of that tremendous great quality, you can charge all of those rabid fans as much as they think the show is worth and the fans will pay. In this case, thousands of fans are willing to pay $100 or less for some great box sets. Not sure if this would work with other series we have discussed that cost less, and you can call that 'x factor' anything you choose to, but I believe that it is the sheer quality of the product that has created the cushion to charge the extra money. Myself and others have had no problem picking these sets up and devouring them whole.

agilliland - I bow to your infinite wisdom. I think you are seeing what I am saying here. Others here are just bristling at the notion, but I think it is residue from other posts on completely different topics.

Why are they so expensive? It's because they know when there are people out there who get offended if you call them Trekkies instead of 'Treks' now they can sell whatever they want for however much they want :)

I'm talking about Quality not having anything to do with the cost of the DVD of the said show. Of course if the quality of the show isn't high then it doesn't make it to season 7 and 8. But the point of my post was we shouldn't say Quality effects the price range of a show (I.E. to say Buffy sucks so it's cheaper and X-files is better because it is 150.00) I'm sure that if BUFFY was at a higher price range their would still be buyers of it. Why? because just like X-files, there is a large "convention" market for the series. It also has about the same amount of seasons as X-files so I see no reason why anyone would say the X-files is better then buffy or vise versa simply because that goes along the lines of person preference. I don't like buffy much other then the whole lesbian witch.. but I wouldn't say that the show sucks and that's why it's cheaper for season.

the factor for pricing of a dvd is NOT because of quality of a show but because of other factors such as back end pay for the actors (X-files had higher demands from the actors, so I assume it's written in the contract for a piece of the after market sales profit) Both were fox productions and spent the same time on the studio so I see no reason why they would be considered any less in quality then each other. Hell, this shows more so why it might be expensive for x-files. They shot in canada for a while before david demanded shooting to take place in L.A. So if anything it just shows that Buffy had the comfort of being shot on the lot in santa monica so expense should be lower.. does this mean quality is lower? NO!

Now, here is the two different types of marketing. they could choose to price it low in order to hook in a larger market or they could price it high and still get those die hard fans. It seems like buffy and x-files are under two different marketing campaigns. Buffy is set to get more newer folks while x-files is shooting for the same X-file fan crowds.

I have had no problems picking these titles up. Why? I'm a fan of the x-files and a cheap price from the fox studios lot has provided me very cheap prices on them. But I wouldn't say one show is better then the other and that's why they are priced differently. Like someone else said.. the simpsons ranges from like 29-39 for season. does that mean that they are lower in quality then the x-files? I'm sure folks would buy it if it was priced around 100.00 but still, the marketing also figures to work with the average consumers price range while the x-files was one of those season sets that came out early in the life span of dvd and was priced high because of that.

Let's forget the arguments about "quality" and break this down mathematically. Let's compare an "expensive" 1st season of X-Files at discounted Deep Discount DVD price against a "cheap" season of the Simpsons 1st season at DDD and also an average episode-length season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

24 episodes of X-Files x 42 minutes=1008 minutes
DDD Price $109/1008=10.8 cents per minute

13 episodes of Simpsons x 21 minutes=273 minutes
DDD Price $29/273=10.6 cents per minute

22 episodes of Buffy x 42 minutes=924 minutes
DDD Price $49/924=5.3 cents per minute

Analysis:
STNG would compare with X-Files on the Cents per Minutes. Compared to TV series such as the Simpsons, it is comparatively the same. If we compare the likes of X-Files, STNG, and the Simpsons with Buffy the Vampire Slayer it may seem expensive. Let us not forget that if you ask the average Joe Six Pack on the street, if he's heard or watched X-Files, STNG and the Simpsons, he'll will have heard/seen all three. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is definitely more "underground", the actors/franchise have less value. Series such as the Simpsons and X-Files which have existed for over/and about a decade have a dedicated following and popular cultural awareness that a less than decade old and less-than-popular cultural awareness of Buffy has.

Conclusion:
Considering production costs alone, X-Files and STNG are a bargain compared to the Simpsons even though they average about the same cost per minute.

Buffy is the best bang for the buck, but its cheaper cost can be explained by its underground following and its non-mass cultural appeal.

(Great - I come back, and I find this old chestnut still alive and kicking. Ah what the hell! I don't have anything better to do at 2 in the morning)

No actors? Then what has Dan Castellaneta been doing for 14 years?

As for the no sets - clearly you don't know that much about animation. Sure the work is done in Korea for much less than if it was done in the US, but 24 drawings a second for half an hour ain't cheap. I'm not sure that it's the million+ bucks an episode that Trek costs, but it's still a pretty penny.

You know, I think you may be overstating the popularity of Star Trek. If Trek is all that popular, then why is Star Trek IV the only movie to appear in the top 275 movies of all time (beat by The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Ghostbusters 2 and Porkies). Why did the very first series struggle for two years and was nearly canceled for it's third. Why Voyager only survived because UPN couldn't afford to kill the cornerstone show of their brand new network. And why the ratings for Enterprise are in the toilet.

Sure the brand name awareness is there, but to the Man on the Street, I dont think the show rises above "That old sci-fi show with the overacting captain and Dr Spock".

It would seem to me that it's not the quality of the show (real or imagined) that drives prices, but the intense group of core fans willing to be parted with their money at any price.

But whatever. In the long run it doesnt matter. You dig the show, so you'll happly pay any price. I dont think it's worth a hundred bucks, so I'll gladly give it a miss (while silently lamenting the fact that if the old school series was done up in season bundles at a reasonable price, I very well might be swayed). We can go back and forth forever and never see eye to eye.

Good job, <B>Chew</B>. At least you have him backtracking and changing his position. So now, to be clear, it's "quality dictates price when comparing a show I like with a show I don't like; however, numerous other factors dictate price in every other instance when I want it to be that way."

Reality check. These reasons listed for why <I>C.S.I.</I> and <I>TNG</I> are different apply to the differences between the pricing structures of all shows, and are the reason everyone rebuts the assertion that "quality dictates price." It's just coincidence that two favorite shows are also the two most expensive. Numerous factors dictate the pricing structures of all DVD sets, and in fact, all products. While the highly subjective concept of quality may indirectly affect a show's ability to get on the air or sustain an audience, it has almost zero effect on pricing once it's been on the air. The highest quality shows aren't the highest rated. The highest rated aren't the highest cost. The highest cost aren't the highest quality. None of these things go hand-in-hand with one another. It's all jumbled up. It's a combination of timing and market strategies.

Marketing analysts decide how many units they can sell at one price versus how many units they can sell at another price and then try to maximize the overall return. Shows with established and fairly constant rabid fan bases should probably sell high. Shows with still growing rabid fan bases should probably sell low to keep drawing them in. Shows with large casual fan bases that are constant may also sell low, but for a different reason: few will be willing to pay the high cost. And this is just the beginning. Countless other things factor into the pricing structures, from box construction to contractual obligations to promotion levels, etc. Hell, the price of many DVDs is directly affected by the price of <I>another</I> DVD that happens to be released on the same day.

In the end, the pricing structure for a DVD is an attempt to maximize units sold x revenue/unit. That's it. In the early days of DVD, no one knew how to judge those factors, and there are some very oddly priced DVDs that indicate this. Now they have a pretty good idea of how to maximize the market. Even so, some great shows will be expensive, and some will be cheap. Some crappy shows will be expensive, and some will be cheap. It depends on the market strategy of the studio ... not some subjective notion of content quality.

das

Some good opinions, all.

Even after your Captain Ahab-like tendencies to refute my theory, it still stands.

No one can address the fact that higher quality shows tend to do better and are more expensive than lesser quality shows. Yes, you did change my overall thesis, but I assumed that it was always common sense that we were discussing 'like genres' due to the previous posts on the subject on another thread.

While some of you champion CSI as the most popular quality show ever, that clearly refutes the high quality and higher price of ST:TNG, I had thought that one would stick to like genres to prove their point.

Star Trek, despite what some of you have said, is an American Icon. EVERYONE knows what Star Trek is. This is because it is a show of such importance, that it has permeated every aspect of American life, meaning that everyone has given some time no matter how small to figuring out what Star Trek was all about. This is due to the time, care, energy put in to all aspects of ST and this equals quality.

100 years from now, people will still talk about Star Trek. It's vision and craft are that important. It's 'quality' is that high. Shows like this, I'm sorry for some, are going to be worth a lot of money. I'm not sure how any of you can dispute any of that.

But anyway, there's always CSI for those of you with wool over your eyes...

By the way, there is no bigger fan of the Simpsons than me, and yes, it is easier to animate characters than to produce real actors and sets. Also, Dan Castallanetta is a 'voice actor' - his voice is able to do things - but he's not a real actor when performing on the simpsons. Sorry. I know plenty about animation - I collect cels and I am a syndicated cartoonist. Put simply, it is easier to draw something for someone with those talents than it is for an actor to produce great acting.

What are you talking about? Ford is exactly where it should be.

Kia is cheaper than Ford
Ford is cheaper than Chevy
Chevy is cheaper than Honda
Honda is cheaper than Toyota
Toyota is cheaper than Acura
Acura is cheaper than Lexus
Lexus is cheaper than Audi
Audi is cheaper than BMW
BMW is cheaper than Mercedes

Am I leaving any major production brands out?

I think Ford is priced right where it should be. The only one that is misplaces is Audi. I think that should be between Toyota and Acura.

What other Sci Fi shows are you talking about? There has been mention in this thread of CSI --- not Sci Fi? I don't watch the show, but I'd have to guess it's drama.... and Buffy? Also not Sci Fi... more of occult, but too many people think they are going to hell if they watch occult shows.

I'm sure everyone that has ever helped produce an animated show would disagree. The actors that do the voice -- are actors. They don't lounge around sipping on sodas while someone records them reading a script. They "act" the lines. If you ever go to a studio where they record voices, you will see they act just as much as any other actor in any other movie (with exception to Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves films).

There are sets as well, they just "burn down" every take and have to be rebuild the set for each scene, each episode, each time they change a little bit in a scene. Just because they are drawn instead of hammered together doesn't mean they aren't sets.

Everyone may know what Star Trek is, but a great many people equate it to a cult show that has a large geek fanbase that really has no connection to real life, never gets out of their parents basement and wears spock ears wherever they go.

Ah - back to the whole quality thing. Ok, lets assume for a second that I hate Star Trek. Lets say that I think it's the stupidest show on the planet, that it sucks, sucks, sucks.

(This of course is not the case, but for the purposes of the discussion lets say it is.)

Who then is right? You say it's the acme of television, the pinnical of human achievment. I say that the show isnt worthy to wrap dead fish in. You say that millions of people watch it. I say that the most a Trek movie has made is barely a hundred million. Every factoid you put forth to prove it's worthyness, I counter with 'proof' of it's suckage.

Who is right?

Thats the thing you seem unable to get - quality is subjective. Quality is an opinion, not a quantifiable fact. There is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion.

Does he have a SAG card? (most likely) Then he's an actor. Doesnt matter if he's a mime or a voice actor - he's still an actor.

I won't get into 'whose show is better in this thread', if you want a slice of that, go to page 1 and click on the links to see my opinions of 'other shows' my opinion hasn't changed, but try not to drag that thread in here...

As for El Kabong's assertion that ST sucks or could suck, I would point out that it's success is contary to that notion. Look around, shows that suck don't do so well.

Quality is not subjective, I'm sure it could be measured if standards were put into place. I'd be glad to define them :D

First of all I don't know how you can say one car company is priced above or below another in this matter. They each compete by brands with the other companies, i.e SUVs, compacts, sport cars. By reading your "list" you seem to think all Fords are cheaper than BWM? The Ford GT will be over 125,000 next year and the Cobra is already more than the BMW 3 series. Doesn't sound cheaper to me.

Now the point I am trying to make is that in the car industry price does not always = quality. Case in point, a new Cobra costs 34-38 grand. It is the only vehicle still riding around on a chassis designed in the mid 70s! Ride in any new Mustang and you will quickly see the cars not about build quality. I could have bought many better built cars from Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford, GM, and even the BMW 3 series for less than what I paid for my Mustang. See my point?

Wow kerborus, Looks like you are the one with the "wool over your eyes". Really, your ideas seem silly. Star trek is known by everyone, but it's not liked by everyone. The franchise in general has been dragged around and the stone bleeds no longer. I enjoyed TOS and TNG but I hated the rest. That's my view but really, the quality of the shows isn't shared for all the different series.

to say star trek will be talked about in 100 years, yes it may be true, but then again which series wont be talked about in 100 years? Star wars on the same assumption will also endure that test of time with it's many fans. To say CSI fans folks with wool over there eyes.. seems very troll like if you ask me.

Voice animation also.. animators feed off the voice actors reaction, body movement, etc. to say they are not acting is stupid when you read the title of their job.. Voice ACTORS. Also just because you are a syndicated cartoonist doesn't mean you are king of animation. there is a bit of difference between still art and motion. Then again here's my comment.. Just because you draw cartoon characters for a living doesn't mean you are an artist.. Bold words aren't they.

Yeah, cause the box office intake of nemesis just goes to show how much everyone loves the star trek series and wants another one right away..... oh wait..

I'll try to say something about this. High quality does not mean a successful show, look at the plights of Homicide: Life on the Street or Sports Night- both shows featured exceptional writing, a terrific cast, dared to do something new and different and received major critical acclaim- and both struggled in the ratings the entire time they were on.

Conversely, low quality doesn’t mean a show won't be successful, look at Baywatch or the current run of 'talent' shows that are airing everynight in prime time. Look at Ray Romano, currently the highest paid sitcom star, who's doing a show that falls into the same formula of just about every basic sitcom in TV history. Why didn't the stars of Sports Night get that money for daring to do something different and bringing new life to a tired genre?

Of course, there I go, talking about "acting" and "writing" and "trying something new". That’s what I think about when I think about a "quality" show. Your definition may be a little different, like "Quality means that the aliens and spaceships look really cool". If that’s your definition of quality, then I guess you got me- neither Homicide or Sports Night ever had aliens and spaceships on their shows.

Of course, to be fair, Homicide: Life on the Street does list at $70 for the first 13 episodes- we can guess that 22 episodes would be twice that, which is on par with ST:TNG and XF. Sports Night lists at $60 for the entire 2 seasons, that's 45 half hour episodes or 22.5 "hours" of shows. This is closer to the Buffy/24 pricing. So what does this prove? Some hours of TV cost more than others, but we knew that already. What does it prove about the cost of quality? Sadly nothing.

As far as your second point in the above quote, the actual cost to make a high vs. low quality show, I'm curious how much an episode of Fastlane costs to film- but I don't want to say too much about it, as I've never seen an episode of this (what I perceive to be 'low quality') show.

Do that well? Ok, lets take a look at the box office numbers for Star Trek, shall we?

Star Trek IV - the only movie to make it into the top two hundred movies according to boxofficemojo.com - made $109,713,132

Lets look at some of the other movies that made more money (and therefore are more popular, and therefore must be of higher quality)

#216 - Porky's $111,289,673
#204 - Wild Wild West $113,805,681
#137 - Godzilla $136,314,294
#106 - Scooby Doo $153,294,164

The 1997 Godzilla is better than every single Star Trek film ever made? Ouch.

The next highest grossing Trek film is First Contact at $92,027,888, then the Motion Picture at $82,258,456 and Khan (considered to the best out of the lot by most people) only made a paltry $78,912,963

The lowest grossing Trek movie - Nemesis made only $43,126,102. For a comparison, The Master of Disguise made $40,388,794. Battlefield Earth made $21,471,685. Dont feel too bad tho. Even Nemesis beat Pluto Nash hands down (Only $4,420,080)

Care to rethink that whole money=quality standpoint? Or are you going to admit that Nemesis was only about twice as good as Battlefield Earth?

Of course quality is subjective - it's an opinion. You know, a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

However, if you would like to break out some standards to measure this opinion with, feel free to post them and I'll be more than happy to poke holes in them.

So, he isn't an actor because we can't "see" his actual human body, or because all we can see or hear is voice?

I guess blind people don't believe in actors at then, do they. They must think the Actor's Guild is a big government conspiracy.

Don't lose the points people are trying to make. They are talking about correlating quality with what something costs, not with how much it makes. See a difference?

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Wolf Husky •<HR SIZE=1>Don't lose the points people are trying to make. They are talking about correlating quality with what something costs, not with how much it makes. See a difference? <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah ... one "doesn't make sense", and the other "makes no sense." It's a slight, but significant difference.

das

Ah - perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Let me try again

I was drawing a comparison between popularity and quality. The thesis is that people flock to quality things. Therefore something of quality will rank high in the Neilson ratings and make all kinds of bank at the box office - and that the boxed sets will be priced exceptionaly high.

I was merely pointing out that according to the box office take, Trek doesn't have the draw as some other movies. Therefore it would appear isn't as popular as one would think.

There - does that make sense?

Just leave Kerborus alone, everyone except him knows the truth, so why bother talking to him? when he breaks out of 1997 and realises that X-Files and Star Trek are no longer the be all and end all of Science Fiction, try talking to him then :)

You know, I've never seen a "24" or CSI convention.

Buffy though I think was a fluke. I'm pretty sure they could've gotten away with charging more.

I find it strange that everyone seems to be overlooking the likely fact that The X-Files sets likely have extra costs that other shows don't.

If the talent on that show is guaranteed a certain royalty rate, then it becomes impossible for Fox to release thos shows below a certain price point.

It's like, say you have to pay out, say forty dollars per season set for royalties, then Fox can't release the sets for a $60 MSRP. It's just not mathematically possible. Because you have to factor in the costs to produce the sets, the store mark-up, and the profit Fox wants to make from each set.

Now, if Fox were to release X-Files at a $60 MSRP like all of their boxed sets -- Buffy, Angel, Dark Angel -- I'm sure that they would be making even more than they are at the higher price because they would sell tons more than they are now.

Not sure how much the Trek movies make has anything to do with the TV series box sets costs or the quality determining the price of it has to do with anything.

So what is the truth? Is it out there? ;) I see you posted too, sir, have anything useful to add besides sarcasm?

None of you will admit that high quality affects price, but I wonder why some of you get so angry over it. Those that rail away have no alternate answer except that Paramount and Fox are either greedy or stupid. Both answers I reject. Anything else? (Specifically from das and el-kabong my favorite running mates, as Jack has made an eloquent point which I think in fact does have something to do with the higher price - adds to it, but in addition to my theory as well.)

I see that others point out that other sets of so and so are also high priced. I never said that some studios don't try and gouge prices on their sets, I am just saying that in these cases, they can charge this much because of the type of programs they have created.

In your minds, every TV series is worth the same amount and it irks you that the current series that you like are all coming out in the bargain bin and in your heads you think man, the show I really want (X-Files or ST) is gonna come out and be the same price! But then - Bam! It's too much for you, and that means you try and justify your lack of money by going crazy towards the studios - your minds forget the high quality of the series and those factors that make these 2 series better than the rest, and you squeal about gouging, dying franchises, etc etc, while others who have no problem and can't wait for these groundbreaking series, run out, lay their money down and go home and watch them. While you are typing on your computer, these folks are watching Mulder find his sister - wow how cool! - in season 7 which they recently picked up.

In the end, the joke's on you.