|
Post by James Phillips on Dec 5, 2004 22:04:50 GMT
what is funny about that? he singlehandedly had to decide on saving a large amount of b/w doctor whos whilst surrounded by other gems which very sadly have never returned. it takes guts to make such a tricky decision and he surely follows into that camp. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Dec 7, 2004 14:56:11 GMT
and may I add ;D, that camp.
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Dec 7, 2004 14:57:34 GMT
but what about the recent cost cutting, how will this inpact on the archives?
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Dec 8, 2004 18:27:09 GMT
I do think that there is a possiblity that Ian Potts original posting was a direct tit for tat response to I think, the second posting on 'overseas stations approached' which was apparently, to my reading an un-necessarily aggressive response from a BBC rep. to a reasonably worded query from an enthusiast. However, perhaps the correspondant had said something unreasonable previously to Collie which made her respond so? Anyway, please note at this point.. Taking up on Matthew Sharps point that correspondants chastise the BBC for past errors, but not the ITV companies. I think this is largely due to a) - The BBCs higher active profile in missing material searches than ITV companies, initiated by the search for missing Dr Who over a number of years; and their interaction with collecting bodies as a source. The ITV companies are only now initiating similar searches and have yet to catch up. b) - A concern that individual quotes attempt to rewrite BBC history (not always, as the quotes on copyright stipulations are accurate but often not common knowledge) by claims that material went out exclusively live (when initially such broadcasts were often taped off-air onto Ampex or Scotch 2 inch tape); or 'the BBC kept everything that was important'. I think Matthew Sharp is right in saying that in many cases, material gains an impetus of importance with the passage of years, and that bulk erasing factory fashion is an error with hindsight. This error has been accepted by some individuals within the corporation as early as the late 1970s to 1982 period, such as David Myatt. I recall a technician at Goldsmiths college said that at that point it was being treated, with hindsight as a mistake. Technically, the tapes were said to have cost 200 pounds each, the logic that if this were rewiped 10 times it brought the final cost to 20 pounds each. Thus it was a cost effective exercise, and as I had a 2 inch PAL reel at my house at one point, the space these take up is enormous, especially within the parameters of a whole weeks tape output. We know by the abscence of programmes such as once again, examples such as Nigel Kneales 'The road' (first night 1963), or 'Thirty minute theatre - these men are dangerous' a trilogy on the minds of 3 dictators including Hitler & Mussolini, that everything that might be considered of artistic importance or of academic value was evidently not retained. One of the vague areas is whether this was by a 'throw it in the bin or wipe it' expendibility theory or 'it was actually ther once, then someone who was interested took it home' scenario, which has yet to be proven, which is always the unanswered question to look into. c) - The licence payers argument (outlined in previous mail). I think the urgency with which the correspondants actually do value the archive output is a comment on the high quality of the BBC product itself. Much of what I was hearing earlier in the thread has been much redressed by Andy Dohertys intelligent postings. Certainly I would not, should not and do not blame current staff such as Andrew Martin who I value as a conscientious individual for the apparent mistakes of yesteryears BBC staff. I think also if I knew more, which I have learned since this thread started, the perspective becomes clearer. To the BBC credit, it has kept examples from the opening of BBC2 whereas to my knowledge Thames has nothing from their opening night. Also whereas commercial pressure is set to convert & destroy; in the case of council developments for business in the Elephant & Castle, and the closing of Dreamland in Margate where character and traditions of past generations are set to be destroyed with a primary financial concern; commercial pressure has actually been a good thing within the BBC as it has initiated a higher impetus & quality of archive search & DVD releases (as Matt Sharp says again with the lesser known rare item 'black & blue' on the 'ripping yarns' release). I think the passion with which people take an urgency surely must be a compliment on the quality of the BBC product. Its natural to expect some defensiveness on part of the corporation if challenged. However the challenges aren't because people don't care about the BBCs past product, its because they DO care. I think it would be safe to say that 'the truth lies somewhere in between' in the case of both 'attack' and 'defence' here.
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Dec 8, 2004 19:35:16 GMT
I do think... 'defence' here. John, have you ever considered writing in paragraphs? It would make everyone else's life much easier and happier. L
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Dec 8, 2004 19:42:34 GMT
Pant pant.Yes. Good posting though.
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Dec 8, 2004 20:57:37 GMT
John, have you ever considered writing in paragraphs? It would make everyone else's life much easier and happier. L Sorry Louis! I guess its just the verbal (mental?) diahorrhea syndrome. Before I hear any jokes about my comments being cr*p though, just getting the points down as quickly as the thought processes evolve. And don't worry Louis, I'm wearing thin on this thread too now and will move onto others, hopefully with my carefully disguised hidden sense of humour (for current purposes) in evidence. - At least I caused unintentional amusement to Andy Henderson by misquoting the piece 'les sylphides' as 'les syphilides' (!) a variation on that well known venereal disease. Apart I'm very pleased that Ian Potts catalyst (after which he dispappeared) has caused some very well thought out and presented arguments and information from both BBC and non BBC correspondants as well as some amusing ones, and I believe we'll (mostly) be better off for this. See you on another thread, and don't worry, I will remember to credit the BBC where its due, and even Andy Henderson as anyone who likes Z cars must have their head screwed on in the right place (mine is depending on which side of the bed I fall out of, must have been that LSD in my coffee last night, yum yum..)
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Dec 9, 2004 14:50:19 GMT
another reason why the BBC get it more than ITV is that they are funded by what is in fact a public tax, so the public i.e. us feel we have a right to criticise them.
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Dec 10, 2004 13:52:49 GMT
'Connie' Knox= Collie. 'Her'=him. Right. Sorry about that. And Collie is a Dr Who fan, not a senior female BBC staff for the overseas enquiry division who launched an aggressive attack on a public enquirers apparent innocent query on new acquisitions on another thread? I seem to have missed something big here! Apologies from me rather than the BBC!
|
|
|
Post by H Hartley on Dec 10, 2004 14:30:32 GMT
I wonder if there is a connection between the missing Dr Whos and the ones with the most appalling production values? Some them were cringworthy viewing even in the 1960s, they made Crossroads look like Bridge on the River Kwai in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Dec 10, 2004 15:13:26 GMT
I wonder if there is a connection between the missing Dr Whos and the ones with the most appalling production values? Some them were cringworthy viewing even in the 1960s, they made Crossroads look like Bridge on the River Kwai in comparison. Don't think so. The Web Of Fear and Evil Of The Daleks, for example are two that (judging by the sole surviving episodes of each) were higher on production values than others from the period (I also saw Web at the time and remember it as being far stronger than others in this respect). Also, an episode of Underwater Menace DOES survive - so there's no justice, is there! I'd say - if anything - that the BEST ones were generally the ones that are AWOL (certainly as far as Troughton is concerned), rather than the worst...
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Dec 10, 2004 15:45:45 GMT
The thought "targeting disadvantaged groups (Dr Who fans)" comes to my mind... It is a widely held belief that fanatical obsession (note those two words) with such things as particular tv shows, football clubs, pop groups, etc may well stem from a very mild form of autism. Certainly, if you've ever come into contact with the more "extreme" fans of Who, then you'll certainly be able to see where that theory may have originated. I think you're overreacting, John, but should I decide to change careers, I'll bear your advice in mind. In relevance to your first comment James, I anticipated you might say that about Doctor Who fans. By the way, I don't consider this to describe myself as I have a very broad viewing taste including 'Armchair theatre', and yes I do appreciate the adult sci fi dramas like 'Out of the unknown'. I think its safe to say we have acheived stalemate as regards the threads subject. With hindsight theres no real need to quantify your 'autism' remark as the reason offered still implies that autistic people are 'inferior' to the perceived accepted norm, and should be a pedestal for off the wall university style humour, as should Dr Who enthusiasts. If you watch 'Edge of destruction' I think you will find the piece resembles single entries to the Armchair theatre series more than one targeted at children. Like Andy Henderson, from your post you clearly feel a need to demonstrate your intelligence. Why not do this by offering even a slight clue as to how, or if you actually value the subject you're choosing to speak about? I certainly have a sense of humour, but I would prefer to satirise the folly of those who choose to cause pain & cruelty to others, rather than use it to perpetuate misunderstanding of those whose social disposition is not of their own choosing.
|
|
|
Post by Lance on Dec 15, 2004 18:55:52 GMT
The question I feel DrWho fans should answer.
Supposing Dr Who was all there and every episode was crisp, clean and accounted for and had been repeated several times. would it still have such an obsessive following? if they could honestly answer yes, then that would go to some way of removing the 'anal retentives' badge they have perhaps been unfairly been stuck with.
|
|
|
Post by Frederick Thompson on Dec 15, 2004 19:37:01 GMT
Completism is a driving force in all this and is much more prevalent in males. It is just another aspect of being human and affects nearly everyone to a certain extent although many may be unaware they have it.
Just as there are those who derive a rush of pleasure from a good metal detector find we belong to a group who derive intellectual pleasure from finding that which was thought to be lost or from talking about it.
The Franklin Mint and other serial issuers of collectibles fulfil the same need but at rather more cost.
|
|
|
Post by The Wooksta on Dec 16, 2004 1:11:32 GMT
"Supposing Dr Who was all there and every episode was crisp, clean and accounted for and had been repeated several times. would it still have such an obsessive following?" The answer is probably yes! Star Trek has all it's episodes extant and available for all, yet that has a core audience of fans so obssessed (dictionaries in klingon and Klingon weddings? ?!!!!!) that they make Who fans look mild by comparision.
|
|