Talk:DuMont Television Network: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
:I'll grant you "Wolf Lake," but "Veronica Mars" was aired on UPN, and only a couple of episodes were aired on CBS last summer in order to help boost viewership; that hardly counts. --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
:I'll grant you "Wolf Lake," but "Veronica Mars" was aired on UPN, and only a couple of episodes were aired on CBS last summer in order to help boost viewership; that hardly counts. --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
::On a side note, I think Veronica Mars will feel right at home on the CW, especially since its production company ([[Warner Bros.]]) owns half the network. [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:06, 26 July 2006
Just a personal observation, whoever re-wrote most of this from my DuMont web site did a truly lovely job, with no objections from me whatsoever. I have tweaked a few lines. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) was formerly the Blue Network of the National Broadcasting Company. Ed Noble, the inventor of Lifesavers's candy, bought the radio network from NBC in the 1940's. DuMont was already airing television shows when ABC radio began producing television shows. ABC was forced to use DuMont's studios in New York City. Thus, DuMont was television network #3, ABC was #4.
- True enough, but DuMont is generally called the "fourth network" because ABC passed it in the mid-1950s, and also because DuMont did not survive, while the "Big Three" did. Similarly, Fox is often referred to as the "fourth TV network," even though they have now been on the air for twenty years, and are rarely fourth in the ratings. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
And, technically, DuMont was broadcasting network programs before CBS, so chronologically it would be #2. Naturally, though, it only makes sense to call it the "fourth network" as Clarke points out. --Firsfron Apr 24 2006
- A note of sorts: For various reasons, both Fox and UPN could be considered "revivials" of DuMont. Fox because of WNYW and WTTG, UPN because like DuMont, it has a significant connection to Paramount Pictures. CoolKatt number 99999 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Adding on: As you saw, CBS would merge with Westinghouse in 1995 and gain ownership of KDKA-TV, the former WDTV. In 1999, Viacom merged with CBS. See the irony? Viacom had bought Paramount in 1994, and Paramount's refusal to help DuMont would help lead to DuMont's downfall. For WBBM-TV, the former WBKB-TV, it was also a reunion of sorts with Paramount, the original owners of the station. CoolKatt number 99999 05:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fingers?
the Paramount Pictures movie studio, which had previously had its fingers in the young CBS
Er, isn't there a better way to phrase this, like "Paramount Pictures, which once had a financial interest in CBS..."? The old phrasing makes CBS sound like a terrified young girl on her wedding night... -- RMc
- A bit of irony can be seen in that statement, since Viacom would buy both in the 1990s. CoolKatt number 99999 02:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What About the DuMont Stations?
"Some have suggested that Fox is a revival of DuMont." Who has suggested that, and what exactly is the basis for that suggestion? It needs to be spelled out more clearly, or else this fuzzy comment should be removed from the article. —Mark Mathu Jan. 1, 2006
- I presume its claimed becase six MetroMedia stations were the founding six Fox stations, and that MetroMedia took over a number of DuMont's. Its a messy analogy, though. --Kiand 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- DuMont's stations, and the remains of the network, were purchased by John Kluge and became the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation, later changing its name to Metromedia, the company which Rupert Murdoch bought to start the Fox network. Channel 5 in New York and Washington were key owned and operated stations for both DuMont and Fox. Fox is a direct lineal descendant of DuMont, and I have amended the line to state this. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Logo
Dumont.jpg has an image tag that says it is still a copyrighted logo. If the network no longer exists, wouldn't it be pd? Mattderojas 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessarily... AnonMoos 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The DuMont logo shown was used on television sets, not specifically for the television network. I did not upload or tag this image, but I believe it is still under copyright. Because DuMont was sold off in pieces (the stations/network to John Kluge, the laboratories to Fairchild, and the radio/television manufacturing operations to Emerson, and all this over a period of years), the copyright issues are complex, although some of the trademarks and service marks reside with the Fox network. Clarke Ingram 152.163.100.138 08:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Atomic Bomb
What is the connection between the bombing of Nagasaki and the DuMont network? This should be spelled out more clearly in the article.
Table of affiliates
I've begun a table of DuMont affiliates. The list is still a bit VHF-heavy, but I haven't yet found references to more UHF stations. I'm still looking! This will be a good start, though.--Firsfron 00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- And as you can see (compare the version at the time), he's come a long way in the 13 days since then! In fact, this list is starting to approach fancruft status, and probably should be split into a separate article. Morgan Wick 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't split the page off earlier because of fears of "'cruft" deletion, and am reluctant to move it because of that fear. I don't think the list comes anywhere near 'cruftiness, because the data is historically relevant and there are certainly precedents for other (current) networks to have affiliate lists, but I do worry that some Wikipedia editor will come along and delete the page, citing a "Non-notable network I've never heard of" (or something similar). From my experience, list pages are more vulnerable to this sort of deletion.--Firsfron 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the list of affiliates is helpful. It's better than the list on my own DuMont Web site. Splitting it off would probably make it less relevant and more likely to be deleted. Doesn't bother me here. Clarke 152.163.100.138 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Clarke. To tell the truth, even my best efforts have only produced an incomplete list. For the life of me, I still can find no reference to stations in Arkansas, Hawai'i, Montana, or North Dakota. If DuMont's claims that they were viewable in (roughly) 99% of the country were accurate, then there must be stations in those states that I'm not finding.--Firsfron 11:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It's worth remembering that with respect to DuMont "affiliates," we are talking about only a handful of stations (no more than 10 or 15 at the peak of the network, according to some sources) that carried the DuMont program lineup full-time. DuMont claimed hundreds of affiliates for their NFL football games, but these were really the affiliates of other networks clearing time (in this case, weekend non-prime time) for a DuMont show. With "Life is Worth Living," many stations that aired the show ran it out of timeslot, using kinescopes. Also, there were short-lived UHF stations that carried DuMont and quickly went dark because virtually no one was watching. (DuMont's own UHF station, KCTY in Kansas City, suffered this fate after only a few months.) Trying to follow this trail fifty years later is frustrating, to say the least, and the "affiliate" situation back then was much different than it is now. I'm sure some of the stations on your list only ran one or two DuMont shows per week, and those probably out of sequence. Clarke 64.12.117.6 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Clarke. I have found many claims that DuMont had only 10-15 primary affils, but several of the TV guide listings from that era list independent stations as "DuMont". I wish I could find more TV guide listings for all the markets! I'm aware that stations at that time could "cherry pick" the most popular programs, and I did try to emphasise this in the list. The list really only has 27 primary DuMont stations in the entire network's history, with over half of them (14) UHF stations, in line with the common estimate that DuMont had no more than 10-15 primary affiliates.
- Further commentary would be welcome.--Firsfron 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I made some changes just now, and I think it is time to split the list into a new aritcle. CoolKatt number 99999 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Logo, Part 2
The DuMont logo looks an awful lot like the Du Pont logo. Is there any connection? KriZe 02:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Electronicam
I see references to use of kinescopes here, but no mention of the Electronicam, a 35mm film camera attached to a TV camera which was used to record the Honeymooners [1] [2] [3]. It appeared in 1955 so it antedated Karl Freund's 3-camera film-only system developed for Desilu in 1951 [4], but predated Jerry Lewis' "video assist" for use in motion picture production (1960 or 61, imdb). Jeffreykopp 08:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- If the Electronicam appeared in 1955, then it only surfaced briefly at the end of the DuMont Network's history.--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, what do you think?
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 9 That should be good enough for a draft of a seperate aritcle about the DuMont affiliates, don't you think so? CoolKatt number 99999 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is there a need for a separate article? And, if so, why in this order?--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is a need, because it is getting overly long in the main DuMont article. Also, sorting by where it is now, then frequency, then state makes it easier to read IMO. CoolKatt number 99999 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorting by City/State is easier than a confusing sort by "where is now", then "frequency", then "state", then "city". None of the other articles is sorted that way, and people looking for information aren't going to be looking for it by frequency. And lists such as this, without an accompanying article, are more apt for deletion and tags of insufficient context.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is a need, because it is getting overly long in the main DuMont article. Also, sorting by where it is now, then frequency, then state makes it easier to read IMO. CoolKatt number 99999 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, thanks for the adjustments in the table. It does look better.--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is there a need for a separate article? And, if so, why in this order?--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
More DuMont/Paramount/UPN stuff
Here are the similarites between UPN and DuMont:
- Paramount Pictures owned a stake in both networks -- in fact, UPN once stood for United Paramount Network
- Both networks struggled in the ratings
- Both networks closed down after around a decade -- with UPN's closure coming 50 years after DuMont's
- Both networks had faced challenges from media consolidation (DuMont faced Paramount's anti-trust fears, UPN control gradually shifted to CBS after its merger with Viacom)
- Both networks aired shows that also aired on CBS (DuMont had The Honeymooners, UPN had Wolf Lake and Veronica Mars)
Therefore, UPN could also be considered a revival of DuMont
Can anyone think of any more? CoolKatt number 99999 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll grant you "Wolf Lake," but "Veronica Mars" was aired on UPN, and only a couple of episodes were aired on CBS last summer in order to help boost viewership; that hardly counts. --Mhking 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- On a side note, I think Veronica Mars will feel right at home on the CW, especially since its production company (Warner Bros.) owns half the network. CoolKatt number 99999 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)