|
Post by Andrew Doherty on Sept 26, 2004 22:37:11 GMT
One of the first places future historians and others interested in the 20th Century will be the television and radio archives. These archives will cover nearly all aspects of that century.
No, the restoration and preservation of both the BBC and ITV audio-visual archives is certainly not trivial.
Yours,
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Sept 27, 2004 9:09:27 GMT
Exactly my point all this time, Andrew. It was NEVER trivial although it's often regarded so here by a few people. It was being taken seriously way back; some people and bodies were drawing attention to it's value as an archival resource although there is a tendency these days to give the impression that it wasn't so. To say that NO ONE saw the value of TV in the '60s and '70s is simply not true and is a case of re-writing history with the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by James Phillips on Sept 27, 2004 16:23:59 GMT
Laurence,
Perhaps next time you go on holiday, you could come back with something different to say, instead of the same Piper party line.
If the BBC et al had realised the potential value of what they had, do you think they would have destroyed it..? If I said to you "hang on to that pile of beer cans - in 30 years' time they'll be worth a fortune", I dare say you'd find a corner of the attic to store them in.
They didn't know. And as we've already established, there were other factors besides.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Sept 27, 2004 17:44:30 GMT
James makes a good point. Laurence has been banging on about this for a long while (over 20 years?). Please prove me wrong, but being exceptionally passionate about a subject, doesn't seem to have made any difference. Again, I can only re-iterate that to get missing material back (usually) involves getting off your backside.
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Sept 27, 2004 18:40:42 GMT
Perhaps others will have something new to say too then? I don't agree with your views at all as regards the BBC opinion on anything, James.
I don't know whaere the 20 years bit comes in, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Sept 27, 2004 18:56:44 GMT
If you are the same Laurence Piper that wrote into Dr Who fanzines about missing episodes/archive material around 15 to 20 years ago then I'm fairly sure that counts!
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Sept 27, 2004 19:09:23 GMT
I'm not sure what's wrong with having the same point of view for 20 years but i'm sure you'll tell me, Andy. Seems to me that it's better than changing your attitude every other day.
I'm obviously saying all the right things anyway as my views are so rubbing a small number of people up the wrong way. My views won't really change as I believe what I say. I'll also not change my views just so they are more palatable to a minority of anoraks.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Boyce on Sept 27, 2004 21:20:09 GMT
While I kind of agree that the junking policy could have been seen to be wrong at the time, and is not simply a hindsight issue...
... Isn't the main point, however, that no amount of arguing about it will ever get back a single tape or can of lost material?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Sept 28, 2004 15:59:15 GMT
some people did take the junking thing seriously especialy those in the industry, which is why they spirited the odd film can away, and a fair proportion of that has still to be found, wether or not it will be "missing" material or even stuff that we find interesting is another matter, and I don't see the problem with being optimistic, after all it can't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Oct 19, 2004 21:48:33 GMT
Thanks for reinforcing my point. I can't understand why in reply to Andy Hendersons last point to me, you say that writing passionately about a subject dear to the heart will make no difference? It raises publicity for a cause. I note, now I can compose myself not to make emotive retorts, the focus in your reply to my previous e-mails on 'my frustrations'. If Paul Vanessi, Collie Knox and yourself post contraversial & debatable comments this is bound to summon a contraversial & debatable response. however, it draws attention to that aspect which side steps answers to the difficult main points made, i.e. why did the BBC apparently junk the moon landing footage from 1969. This challenges an earlier comment you made in athread about 'everything important being there in the BBC archive, such as all of Laurence oliviers performances or an interview with Jung. Other postings on this forum indicate your recognition that art outside the classical language has value, not just the cliche perceptions. Thus would you not agree that technically your statements are at least partly mistaken? Surely also in view that the catalogue of another great Thespian, John Gielgud is incomplete. And surely also any living thinking human is a cog in the wheel of humanity that turns with some degree of passion in their lifetime? Perhaps the cybermen have taken over some of the adminstrative hierachy of the BBC quantifying George Orwells model for Big Brother?
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Oct 19, 2004 21:51:14 GMT
P.S. Apologies to Pam Salem. I was referring to Pamela Nash as quoted by Ian Levine in his article on Dr Who for DWB 1992.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 20, 2004 8:06:29 GMT
John, to be brutally honest, I don't understand what you are trying to say in your post. Of course therer are always going to be exceptions and anyone can pick out examples of worthy programmes that should have been kept. You mention the Moon Landing as a example of an important event which was not kept. But as we all know it was kept and is still on its master video tapes. Again I will reiterate; the BBC kept a large amount of worthy material, much of which was deliberately kept for posterity. Most of this had historical or artistic merit, as seen from contemporary viewpoints. It seems to me that some people have difficulty accepting that Doctor Who etc was seen as trash and frankly uimportant drama. To many it still is....
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Oct 20, 2004 8:26:37 GMT
I think what john is saying is that plenty of so called important material was not kept despite it clearly being of merit at the time. I tend to agree with him. the BBC actions speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 20, 2004 18:34:30 GMT
Apart from the two dozen or so well known cases of missing BBC material, can you list what you think should have been saved for posterity which has historic significance?
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Oct 20, 2004 20:09:21 GMT
Yeh have you got a week? So much. Some of it is listed by the bfi in their most wanted section but much more too.
|
|