Brian D not logged in
Guest
|
Post by Brian D not logged in on Aug 28, 2004 9:33:39 GMT
We know all the regular contributors' positions on this. Can I make a plea that Gareth R makes a self-denying ordinance not to post on this thread?
The people I feel sorry for are those whose one notable thing in life was to appear on TOTP in the sixties and now in the twilight of find their appearance has been junked. Maybe the drummer in Honeybus went back to being a car mechanic.....
By the way, I made the last bit up - I have no idea what became of the drummer in Honeybus (or even if there was one). But you get my drift.
Apologise? Never! The British Nepotism Corporation is accountable to nobody.
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Aug 28, 2004 9:54:54 GMT
A bit of a complicated issue this one.
A few points people may like to comment on.
1. All of these problems have been caused by one thing, namely filthy lucre!
2. Hindsight is a wonderful thing
3. Auntie Beeb would not have junked so much stuff as it has if it had known about dvd's and videos. Not for artistic reasons, but love of lovely lolly!
4. Would you be willing to carry the can for a mistake that a boss at your firm made 30 years ago? I certainly wouldn't!
5. The bbc doesn't really care even now. I don't see them busting a gut to recover lost stuff. So long as they can churn out umpteen dvd's of the Office and make a few quid, they don't give a monkeys.
6. I don't blame ex employees for hanging onto their stuff. They should be entitled to a cut of any dvd/vide/tape deal imo.
7. I think the problem is now one of availability. What is the use of returning a show if it is never rebroadcast? Apart from the Likely Lads and TDUP and Dad's Army, I can't think of a show that has been rebroadcast after discovery.
8. What annoys me is the callous nature of how some stuff was junked. e.g. Peter Cook was not allowed to keep his stuff. He was actually informed it was going to be wiped!
9. There is more chance of Ian Paisley and the Pope getting married than there is of Auntie Beeb apologising!
Look forward to your comments!
|
|
|
Post by H Hartley on Aug 28, 2004 10:41:51 GMT
To add my ten pence worth. When colour came along in the 1960s if i recall correctly there was no difference in the TV licence cost, however as we moved into the 1970s the colour licence had climbed to a substantial cost compared to B/W, so there was quite a hostile reaction from people who had paid all this extra money having to watch B/W programmes. From this reasoning the junking in the 1970s happened, because those in the position of juggling money and space, thought that nobody would ever want to watch a B/W programme again..of course this does not excuse the colour junkings. My own theory on the ( lots of colour) music junkings is that music changed so rapidly during the 1960/70s that once again any music item even a year old was regarded as 'old hat' and stale . Its difficult to imagine now, but a teenager at the end of the 1960s might have regarded the Beatles singing 'she loves you' as quaint , tinny and naff compared to say 'hey jude'
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Aug 28, 2004 14:03:57 GMT
Has the BBC ever apologised? yes , and no but I agree that there are probably a few people sitting on stuff that we would like to see, any missing material would go straight to the bbc and perhaps they wouldn't want the beeb to benefit from it.
|
|
|
Post by jeff not logged in on Aug 31, 2004 13:01:39 GMT
what's TDUP? (3rd posting above)
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Aug 31, 2004 23:13:48 GMT
has the BBC ever apologised to performers, producers, etc. of programmes that have been junked? Hi Ian. I don't think the BBC needs to apologise for junking material and it's certainly not for todays generation to complain about it. At the end of the day it is precisely those artists who are now upset that episodes of various things have been junked whose rights were being 'protected' when the junkings happened. Additionally, episodes were made, usually for one broadcast and one repeat within two years. If the repeat didn't happen, that was that. There are quite a few here who believe that the BBC are somehow responsible entirely for the state of affairs and certainly I for one am mightily pissed off that it happened. However, knowing the background I can see exactly why it happened and I'm afraid there isn't really one person or one organisation to blame. The main problem however, is that TV was an extremely disposable medium. The strength of the unions and the rights of artists were of greater importance than maintaining an archive that couldn't be supported by the licence fee. In many ways it's a miracle that what we know does exist has survived in the numbers they do. There are regular posters on this board who think that the BBC as an organisation should apologise for what they regard as 'mistakes' or TV genocide. I'm afraid that's all a bit over the top. For every really high quality production in the sixties there were probably 10 which were not worth keeping (and I base this on having seen quite a lot of sixties archive TV). I would agree that these days, in an environment in which everything is kept (although in fact it is not) we are in a situation in which we can watch anything, however old, as long as we have a DVD player and/or a VHS machine. I remember a time when if you missed a programme, that was it. Your one opportunity to watch something was gone. It may be difficult for some of you to imagine that, but the reason ratings are down is because people know that the material is there somewhere or sometime for them to watch. There is no 'share' in the experience of watching a TV show, no national experience. We get this every now and then with the Queen Mothers funeral or 9/11 but that's about it. So, for those of you that want an apology, it will never come. The people in the BBC now are just as frustrated as you that they don't have the pick of TV history to fill the small number of slots they have for repeats. The management of the BBC have bigger fish to fry actually running and trying to manage a very large organisation which is funded in a very haphazard way and has to satisfy a public highly influenced by a Daily Express FRONT PAGE last Bank Holiday Monday which proclaimed the so-called public outrage of 16 hours of repeats that day. Obviously a VERY slow news day. Yes, it's sad that every episode of Adam Adamant Lives! doesn't exist, but frankly we get the gist from what is there. Yes, it is fantastic when something does get returned and by god, there are a lot of us here who have spent much of our personal time and money trying to benefit the various TV archives over the years. But in reality, most of it has gone and it was done for all sorts of reasons which wasn't our business 30 years ago however much we want to make it our business now. As for volunteers writing on behalf of the BBC to apologise...what for? It's a very naive attitude to take if you don't mind me saying. People who have this material knowing what they have, will return it or they won't. A letter from someone apologising on behalf of the BBC isn't going to swing them into returning the material. On top of that, anyone with a brain who knows anything about the way things happened wouldn't lay the blame entirely at the door of the BBC. People have material because they want to have it and that is that or because (and I know about this particular case) they haven't had time to return the material since they were told the 16mm copy they had was unique. My regards, Paul
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Sept 1, 2004 11:53:36 GMT
At the end of the day it is precisely those artists who are now upset that episodes of various things have been junked whose rights were being 'protected' when the junkings happened Indeed, that's something that seems to escape many people... why aren't they insisting that Equity and other rights organisations should apologise for enforcing rights agreements and repeat fees that were deliberately designed to be so restrictive and expensive that it would be more economical for broadcasters to make new programmes (and thus keep Equity and MU members in work) than archive old ones indefinitely?
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Sept 1, 2004 22:40:31 GMT
That's it, yes....no one seems to remember that Equity effectively put a ban on drama being recorded almost as soon as it was possible to do so. This was coupled with a general mid 50s BBC opinion that recorded wasn't as 'good as' live. The focus has always been on what "isn't there".
And whilst we have heard a thousand squeals of disgust over Quatermass, we never hear people enthusing generally over what is still there. So, little chance we can expect a full critique of the following; the 1955 Production of Romeo and Julliet; Les Sylphides danced by Fonteyn and of course, not forgetting; Black and White - the history of Political Caricatures. Probably more representative of 50s pre-ITV BBC.
Junking wasn't a gleam in the eye of some Dr Who hater of the 70s either. Substantial amounts of programmes were thrown out in the 50s too.
|
|
|
Post by JezR on Sept 2, 2004 9:22:03 GMT
There was a paranoid fear in Equity in the late 1950s that with the introduction of video recording after a few years nothing new would be produced and television would be one long repeat cycle.
Inconsistently they also opposed the introduction of at least some additional channels in the 1960s, even though these would have provided either new work for their members or a secondary television market yielding a source of income from repeats.
As to the live / recorded argument Associated-Rediffusion in 1955 apologised in the TV Times for so much of their drama being recorded (on film) and promised these would be replaced by llive studio performances when they were able.
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Sept 2, 2004 10:13:44 GMT
That's it, yes....no one seems to remember that Equity effectively put a ban on drama being recorded almost as soon as it was possible to do so I guess that it's always been simpler and more satisfying to blame the BBC, especially since it allows easy use of the "we pay our licence fee" argument. I've noticed that whenever this topic has been debated before, the people who are most vociferous in their condemnation of the BBC (and broadcasters generally) never ever want to engage on the subject of Equity and performers' rights, even when it's pointed out by others. I guess that to acknowledge that Equity was directly responsible for creating the climate in which broadcasters felt it appropriate to junk material would destroy their key article of faith. In fairness, that's probably at least partly due to the fact that we're able to see so little of what's still there! Good point - if it's not telefantasy or comedy, or certain dramas, it doesn't seem to stand a chance of being reappraised. For some reason, the fact that a lot of genuinely important arts programming still exists will always be overshadowed by the loss of some badly-acted children's sci-fi. Ultimately, it's a shame that interest in archive television is generally pursued by such a narrow clique. If it attracted a broader church, especially (shock horror) women, the results could be quite interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Sept 2, 2004 12:40:14 GMT
I don't think the BBC needs to apologise for junking material and it's certainly not for todays generation to complain about it. So what about the generation that was around at the time then (like myself)? My own views on junking have always been the same, that it was a short-sighted blunder by people who should have had more vision.
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Sept 2, 2004 13:05:11 GMT
What are your opinions about Equity, Laurence? I'm sure you'll agree that you cannot talk about programme junkings without covering the restrictions, deliberately imposed by Equity, that encouraged broadcasters to junk material in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Doherty on Sept 2, 2004 18:55:26 GMT
Over the years this discussion has cropped up again and again.
It is not a very profitable exercise, except that it reminds everyone that the wretched junking and wiping of television programmes, for whatever reason, must not happen again.
The discussion should be on the topic of how to avoid such errors in the future and improving the situation if (and where) possible.
There has been a great improvement in the approach to handling the Television Archives.
Programmes are being uncovered and shown, albeit usually at the Missing Believed Wiped Events. Also, there will more finds to come; that is now a certainty.
As I have said before, it is nothing short of the miraculous that so much material has survived not to mention missing programmes, which have been and are being uncovered.
Yours sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Sept 3, 2004 19:03:12 GMT
I don't actually find it at all miraculous that so much stuff has survived (really!). I think it's also the tip of the iceberg; as you say, more finds in future goes without saying. A lot of people out there obviously had more foresight at the time it mattered than those in positions of influence and felt that such material was worth saving.
My opinions about Equity, Gareth? For what it's worth, pretty much the same as those about TV archive policy at the time. Although unions serve their purposes, by the '70s they were out of control with excessively restrictive preactices. Just another one if the factors that conspired to consign a large chunk of our TV past to the bin.
|
|
|
Post by Further Moore on Sept 3, 2004 20:04:38 GMT
I remember sitting with my father to watch "Danger Man" a favourite show ..he suddenly got up and switched channel . I said "oh i was watching that" he said "its a bloody repeat , i dont want to see it again"
|
|