|
|
Post by dubs on Oct 21, 2003 22:00:57 GMT
Now that Carlton/Granada have basically taken over ITV (England) in this monsterous conglomerate, and that Viacom (or whoever - Murdoch etc) may buy it out - what the hell is going to happen to the archives of the constituent companies, when a multi-national takes over.
I mean why would Viacom give a sh** about material basically retained that has no commercial benefit to the the shareholders?
I'm bloody worried about this, donno about anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 22, 2003 0:58:02 GMT
Me too! Carlton may well be thorough about cataloguing and transferring their ATV archive but is this just a "tarting-up operation" so as to sell off at the maximum price? If a company with Murdoch anywhere near it buys then it may well make Polygram's trashing of the library look like they were acting as sensitive custodians of our heritage in comparison to what COULD happen!
|
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Oct 22, 2003 15:11:33 GMT
do we want disney!! to own it?, it could happen they are interested
|
|
|
|
Post by dubs on Oct 22, 2003 23:00:10 GMT
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but if a big conglomorate has control of the whole of ITV (England) , the the first thing they will do is get the bean counters in to "assess" the company's assets.
Assets including archives.
For all the hard work done over the past decades trying to recover/unearth lost programmes may be undone in a few years by companies looking for a fast buck, or at the whim of shareholders looking for a quick return and have no sympathy and even less understanding of UK TV archives.
Get your fav progs now from the pirate circuit, I can't see Murdoch keeping something as superb as "Beasts" in the archive unless it is inflating his already obscene bank balance.
Yours,
still worried.
|
|
|
|
Post by H Hartley on Oct 23, 2003 9:07:37 GMT
on the other hand they may invest money and return the stuff to the public conscience and therefore spark interest from newer generations of people?
Surely it must be better than the situation we have now? in which thousands of hours of programmes are hidden away from mainstream viewing and are seen only by the Masonic few.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Oct 24, 2003 16:10:38 GMT
bibble
|
|
|
|
Post by dubs on Oct 24, 2003 17:59:06 GMT
Bibble?
Anyhow - would be ironic if the Yanks made a better fist of exploiting this material than we did, their archives astonish me with the amount of material they have retained in genres like variety/entertainment etc.
And finally -
Bibble.
|
|
Brian D not logged in
Guest
|
Post by Brian D not logged in on Oct 25, 2003 8:52:44 GMT
Is it possible to amend thread titles so that we can stop parading misspellings ?
( Done and Dusted - Admin. )
And why are two threads which have not been the most recently posted-to staying at the top of the list?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Oct 25, 2003 12:28:42 GMT
Yes, i'd been wondering about that! The most recently added-to threads have of late been a couple down from the top!
|
|
|
|
Post by David Buck on Oct 25, 2003 21:48:29 GMT
Locked on - that little icon to the left of the top two posts means that the thread is locked at the top of the list - presumably Mark felt these two posts, both relating to material actually recovered should be kept at the top of the list so that people who don't visit frequently don't miss them.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Oct 27, 2003 16:40:58 GMT
I felt that "bibble" was an accurate representation of my inner mental termoil at the ITV merger and my general feeling of bibble
|
|
