|
Post by simonashby on Dec 26, 2021 21:09:36 GMT
What an utterly bizarre response.
Back on topic: just watched it through and it's superb restoration as per usual.
I assume Eric had been given a copy because it was their first programme on BBC1?
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Dec 26, 2021 21:56:01 GMT
Ahem... They literally did last night... and you saw them do it! Yes but isn't this the special they aired earlier this year with a diverse cast of explainers telling you that this was from another time etc? Seems like they sure had to do a lot of work to get this on for all the people that actually wanted it. Explain it to the nazi sjws why they won't want to watch it so they don't tune in and become enraged. Usually if you don't have a problem with a program you just air it....don't you? They don't show a bleached hair old freak that appears briefly in front of bands but something that has offense built into it is fine? Great country. lol Don't worry they only want poor pathetic fools you to vote & not think so you don't notice they are the real source of most of the problems in the country today. At least some people have eventually realised they have been sold down the river as their spin is colliding with reality.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 26, 2021 22:24:49 GMT
What an utterly bizarre response. Back on topic: just watched it through and it's superb restoration as per usual. I assume Eric had been given a copy because it was their first programme on BBC1? We’re unsure as to how it ended up where it did. If Eric was “given” a copy, why wasn’t Ernie? It seems that there was a “cache” of prints in the attic but what the other half dozen cans contained is unknown. There have been lots of discussions here regarding “unauthorised” prints in the pre-video era but, imho, it comes down to having 16mm equipment to show them - and also wanting to see yourself! Did Eric have 16mm equipment? If he did it would be interesting to know how he got the print. We know M&W was sold abroad, were negatives made?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Dec 26, 2021 23:07:56 GMT
A few interesting facts about this film.
Firstly, the actual film was an original film recording negative. It is very unusual to find a negative outside of an archive like this. It's usually prints. So why would a negative have been given to Eric Morecambe? Perhaps the negative was a reject. One reason may have been a large hair in the gate during one of the sketches, something that would have ruined the film recording, but of course a little easier to remove with modern film restoration tools. Perhaps Eric had a projector and Ernie didn't? Either way, it would have been a very odd thing to project because it was a neg.
Because it was a neg, a better resolve of the dots would have been possible, although we know the big factor in getting a good end result is the film recorder used for the film recording. Good results have been got from prints in the past and poor results from negs.
Paul
|
|
Kev Hunter
Member
The only difference between a rut and a groove is the depth
Posts: 611
|
Post by Kev Hunter on Dec 27, 2021 10:04:41 GMT
Its on now - turned into a peusdo-documentary featuring self-important oiks like self-opinionated Ross (can't stand the oik), and with Gogglebox interrupts from non-important pseudo-viewers trying to gain some kind of recognition for opinionating on humour far beyond them. And of course being ITV there are too many disruptive ad. breaks. They even feature a token slow speaking autistic female. Stephen, I agree with you that it was a fairly dreadful programme - watching people watching others on TV is about as enjoyable as root canal surgery, but I take issue with your closing sentence. The female you referred to is comedian Rosie Jones, who suffers from cerebral palsy. If you're going to use a label at least get your facts straight first.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Dec 27, 2021 13:36:13 GMT
The restoration was excellent. If you didn't know better you might assume it was just a conversion from NTSC. Also enjoyed the show.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 27, 2021 14:54:16 GMT
Colour Recovery has been around for a while, PotD3 was 2008. It would be interesting to know if the technique has been improved since then.
|
|
|
Post by seanmartindill2 on Dec 27, 2021 21:31:01 GMT
It was amusing to watch my mother and father both in their 70s chuckling at this and the cut down Xmas special before. You certainly could see in the 70 show all the elements beginning to come together. All I can say is no wonder Eric died of a heartattack with his physical effort!
I never saw the ITV programme and would most likely agree with how much these programmes can be annoying. How ever more sad is someone on here thinks someone with a disability should not be on screen. The fact is disabled individuals are 20 percent of the population and rarely appear on television. I am sure the individual in question would like women, us gays, non white people and disabled individuals to know their place and keep off the screens. Though I guess not knowing the difference from palsy or autism says it all. How sad
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Dec 27, 2021 21:53:44 GMT
It was amusing to watch my mother and father both in their 70s chuckling at this and the cut down Xmas special before. You certainly could see in the 70 show all the elements beginning to come together. All I can say is no wonder Eric died of a heartattack with his physical effort! I never saw the ITV programme and would most likely agree with how much these programmes can be annoying. How ever more sad is someone on here thinks someone with a disability should not be on screen. The fact is disabled individuals are 20 percent of the population and rarely appear on television. I am sure the individual in question would like women, us gays, non white people and disabled individuals to know their place and keep off the screens. Though I guess not knowing the difference from palsy or autism says it all. How sad Well said, any minority bashing because it's considered "anti socially aware" should expect no mercy.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,864
|
Post by RWels on Dec 27, 2021 22:48:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 27, 2021 23:56:29 GMT
I think it’s worth diverging slightly to clarify a few things. To some extent the way disabilities are seen is a generational thing. When I was young disabled people were rarely seen, that’s the way it was. Subsequently the approach changed and in, for example, schools they’re now often, to the greatest extent possible, integrated. When I was a kid I don’t think I knew anyone in a wheelchair, with cerebral palsy, Down’s syndrome, autism, etc, etc.
The figure of 20% with a disability is, I believe, correct but it’s important to remember that just as heroes don’t all wear capes not every disability is obvious. In my case I’m registered partially sighted. It means that I need a lot of light to read and don’t have a driving licence.
The point I want to make is that people’s knowledge, etc needs to be understood in the context of their background, there are probably millions, maybe tens of millions, of people who have had very little, if anything, to do with (obviously) disabled people.
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Dec 28, 2021 1:32:54 GMT
I didn't watch the Ross programme as it was clear what it would be like. The problems with such a programme is its structure (everything's broken up) & the fact that mainly not very interesting celebrities are used, whose opinions usually aren't in any way helpful or funny. With the odd exception - eg. the comedian with cerebral palsy I've seen elsewhere & if memory serves, she's quite fab.
The fact that some of the celebrities may be eg. from ethnic minorities, gay, disabled etc. is mainly irrelevant. It should go without saying that people from all these groups, just like - Shock Horror! - everybody else, can talk utter piffle eg. piffler in chief; white, male, middle-aged Jonathan Ross. It is celebrity & the programme's structure which is the problem - not the social makeup of those involved. As - and hopefully equally obvious - many, many people from the very same minority groups will likewise view this stuff as boring piffle.
The individual's characteristics are mainly incidental in this context. Sure, the programme creators may have tried to include people from various minorities but they are no more representative of these groups than Ross is of me (also a middle-aged white male - but not rich😂). The key point is they are drawn from a pool of celebrities & that "celebrity-ness" is their defining characteristic in this context; not the other stuff. Hence to bring some of the celebrities other characteristics of the types mentioned into the conversation in a disparaging manner is rather gratuitous & certainly unpleasant.
Also; "Quotas" can seem mechanical & forced at times (see post 2005 Doctor Who), but if the alternative is to mainly exclude or disparage various social groups then I'll stick with a quota, thanks. The problem eg. in new Who isn't that certain social groups are included but that characterisation, plot & general tone are at fault - ie. hackneyed, exploitative & so on. Well written & directed stuff with the same social elements can be excellent - that it often isn't, isn't the fault of minorities being included but the more general superficial & soulless way these things are usually put together these days.
|
|
|
Post by Marie Griffiths on Dec 30, 2021 17:44:00 GMT
Yes but isn't this the special they aired earlier this year with a diverse cast of explainers telling you that this was from another time etc? Seems like they sure had to do a lot of work to get this on for all the people that actually wanted it. Explain it to the nazi sjws why they won't want to watch it so they don't tune in and become enraged. Usually if you don't have a problem with a program you just air it....don't you? They don't show a bleached hair old freak that appears briefly in front of bands but something that has offense built into it is fine? Great country. lol That was a show on ITV a few months ago - they only showed extracts in b&w. There showed the whole show in all its glory. Well done BBC. This was NOT the travesty they had on ITV although the same source material.
|
|
|
Post by Marie Griffiths on Dec 30, 2021 17:49:06 GMT
An excellent restoration. Was it all recovered from black and white? A feature on the recovery would be just as good as interesting. my friebd did not believe it was recovered. The only bit I could tell was a lack of colours in the roses in the garden scene. Maybe the editors were a bit distracted by the other prety things in the garden. The PC BBC would not not show a sketch like that these days. AFAIK it was a 16mm telerecording with chroma dots. The garden was, of course, all studio and we haven’t got anything to compare with. Ive done colour restoration with similar software at the findmypast website on old photos. I had to manually tweak the flowers in a rose garden. This took ages. Not really sustainable for lots of frames. The AI models are improving all the time though. I wonder if there should be a universal mark to declare colour has been restored in the corner of the frame?
|
|
|
Post by Marie Griffiths on Dec 30, 2021 18:10:11 GMT
I totally agree. I had no problem with the presenters it was how they were used. It wreaks of padding. There is a genre of programmes like this where they get a celeb to tell you exactly what you have just seen without adding any insight and they are god awful. Some of the programmes having good archival material as well. e.g. Most Shocking Christmas TV Moments having an hilariously dated Fanny Craddock cooking demonstration and a cringe-worthy opening of TVS.
I have enjoyed the post 2005 Dr Who. I even favoured the idea of a female Dr Who but they picked exactly the wrong actress. I wanted Phoebe Waller Bridge in the role. Putting light entertainment characters like Bradley Walsh and John Bishop will kill the show in the same way it did by adding Bonnie Langford. <SPOILER>Barbara Flynn as Dr Who's mother is great, she would have done a good job as the Doctor herself.</SPOILER>
I didn't watch the Ross programme as it was clear what it would be like. The problems with such a programme is its structure (everything's broken up) & the fact that mainly not very interesting celebrities are used, whose opinions usually aren't in any way helpful or funny. With the odd exception - eg. the comedian with cerebral palsy I've seen elsewhere & if memory serves, she's quite fab. The fact that some of the celebrities may be eg. from ethnic minorities, gay, disabled etc. is mainly irrelevant. It should go without saying that people from all these groups, just like - Shock Horror! - everybody else, can talk utter piffle eg. piffler in chief; white, male, middle-aged Jonathan Ross. It is celebrity & the programme's structure which is the problem - not the social makeup of those involved. As - and hopefully equally obvious - many, many people from the very same minority groups will likewise view this stuff as boring piffle. The individual's characteristics are mainly incidental in this context. Sure, the programme creators may have tried to include people from various minorities but they are no more representative of these groups than Ross is of me (also a middle-aged white male - but not rich😂). The key point is they are drawn from a pool of celebrities & that "celebrity-ness" is their defining characteristic in this context; not the other stuff. Hence to bring some of the celebrities other characteristics of the types mentioned into the conversation in a disparaging manner is rather gratuitous & certainly unpleasant. Also; "Quotas" can seem mechanical & forced at times (see post 2005 Doctor Who), but if the alternative is to mainly exclude or disparage various social groups then I'll stick with a quota, thanks. The problem eg. in new Who isn't that certain social groups are included but that characterisation, plot & general tone are at fault - ie. hackneyed, exploitative & so on. Well written & directed stuff with the same social elements can be excellent - that it often isn't, isn't the fault of minorities being included but the more general superficial & soulless way these things are usually put together these days.
|
|