Hmm, odd one. Nice try with the concept, even if the reason for the trip
was really forced, but the rifts and bickering and everything didn't
seem to have even as much justification. Nothing really connected or
paid off. The reveal about the true meaning of the waterfall was cute
though.

And last week's second airing of 35ABF01 on April 14 left out the
original's dedication to Istvan Majoros. The original may have been
timed slightly differently near the end of the credits, as its final
vocal ended before the dedication, but in this "regular" version, it
carries over into the Gracie logo.

> Matt Garvey wrote:
> Hmm, odd one. Nice try with the concept, even if the reason for the
trip
> was really forced, but the rifts and bickering and everything
didn't
> seem to have even as much justification. Nothing really connected
or
> paid off. The reveal about the true meaning of the waterfall was
cute
> though.
>
> And last week's second airing of 35ABF01 on April 14 left out the
> original's dedication to Istvan Majoros. The original may have been

> timed slightly differently near the end of the credits, as its
final
> vocal ended before the dedication, but in this "regular"
version, it
> carries over into the Gracie logo.

Exactly why do they make
these changes from the original versions?

On 4/23/2024 7:28, MummyChunk wrote:
>
> > Matt Garvey wrote:
> > Hmm, odd one. Nice try with the concept, even if the reason for the
> trip
> > was really forced, but the rifts and bickering and everything
> didn't
> > seem to have even as much justification. Nothing really connected
> or
> > paid off. The reveal about the true meaning of the waterfall was
> cute
> > though.
> >
> > And last week's second airing of 35ABF01 on April 14 left out the
> > original's dedication to Istvan Majoros. The original may have been
>
> > timed slightly differently near the end of the credits, as its
> final
> > vocal ended before the dedication, but in this "regular"
> version, it
> > carries over into the Gracie logo.
>
> Exactly why do they make
> these changes from the original versions?
>
>
>
>
>
>

As far as I can tell, in most cases it's that the original airings are
themselves changed from the normal/standard/canonical version of the
episodes, except of course when it's a rerun getting a dedication wedged
in because it couldn't wait. Almost no dedications (out of the dozens
that have now aired over the years) have "stuck" permanently, and it's
really a shame, especially in the latter case when not nearly as many
people would be watching.

The best way to view it (if not the best way to conceptualize it!), I
suppose, is that the broadcast itself is "in loving memory" of the
person. I'd vastly prefer it if each such episode stayed dedicated
forever, in all incarnations, the way a book or film is dedicated to
people or in honor of the recently deceased.

> > On 4/23/2024 7:28, MummyChunk wrote:
> >
> > Matt Garvey wrote:
> > Hmm, odd one. Nice try with the concept, even if the reason for
the
> > trip
> > was really forced, but the rifts and bickering and everything
> > didn't
> > seem to have even as much justification. Nothing really
connected
> > or
> > paid off. The reveal about the true meaning of the waterfall was
> > cute
> > though.
> >
> > And last week's second airing of 35ABF01 on April 14 left out
the
> > original's dedication to Istvan Majoros. The original may have
been
> >
> > timed slightly differently near the end of the credits, as its
> > final
> > vocal ended before the dedication, but in this
"regular"
> > version, it
> > carries over into the Gracie logo.
> >
> > Exactly why do they make
> > these changes from the original versions?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Matt Garvey wrote:
>
>
> As far as I can tell, in most cases it's that the original airings
are
> themselves changed from the normal/standard/canonical version of
the
> episodes, except of course when it's a rerun getting a dedication
wedged
> in because it couldn't wait. Almost no dedications (out of the
dozens
> that have now aired over the years) have "stuck"
permanently, and it's
> really a shame, especially in the latter case when not nearly as
many
> people would be watching.
>
> The best way to view it (if not the best way to conceptualize it!),
I
> suppose, is that the broadcast itself is "in loving
memory" of the
> person. I'd vastly prefer it if each such episode stayed dedicated

> forever, in all incarnations, the way a book or film is dedicated
to
> people or in honor of the recently deceased.

I agree completely. Seems like just creating additional work for
someone to change it from the original right? But no reason to remove
something that was important at the time of the original airing.
Maybe someone should be given some feedback about this?