|
|
Post by Stuart Douglas on Aug 11, 2010 12:30:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2010 13:17:08 GMT
This is news to me as well, Stuart. Last I knew, two or possibly three editions were known to exist, mostly in private hands! Is there any confirmation on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Aug 11, 2010 13:34:57 GMT
I'll speak to Lance. Give me 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Aug 11, 2010 13:41:10 GMT
Have messaged Lance. Will let you know what he says.
|
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Aug 11, 2010 19:02:48 GMT
The existence of The Hippodrome Show in US TV heritage collections ie Chicago and the Library of Congress has been known about for some years. But only the copyright holder can request a copy and since A-R is no more that wont happen. I believe the Chicago Museum set are in colour aswell.
The A-R copyright holders in this country have indicated they do not wish to pursue the matter since it is very costly to get the material back to the UK, and then even costlier to clear for re-use.
c
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Aug 11, 2010 19:34:24 GMT
The existence of The Hippodrome Show in US TV heritage collections ie Chicago and the Library of Congress has been known about for some years. But only the copyright holder can request a copy and since A-R is no more that wont happen. I believe the Chicago Museum set are in colour aswell. The A-R copyright holders in this country have indicated they do not wish to pursue the matter since it is very costly to get the material back to the UK, and then even costlier to clear for re-use. c Eddie Albert's company (IIRC) bought the rights for America. The rights in the UK remain whether Rediffusion exists or not . Archiebuild inherited the rights just as they sold Ready Steady Go to Dave Clark. Not questioning you Chris just Archiebuild's whole dismal attitude to its AR archive. |
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Aug 11, 2010 20:10:56 GMT
I agree Pete entirely, except I never said Archbuild weren't the copyright holder so not sure what your point was?
It's Archbuild, who are not a TV company as you know, who don't want to pursue the matter. I don't find their attitude dismal, they have been very helpful to us, but its outside their field of expertise, and the market to release a DVD over here of an old music show is very limited.
One thing though - are you sure they sold RSG to Dave Clark? I understood from John Johnson that deal was done back in the 1970s?
c
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Aug 11, 2010 20:53:54 GMT
Hi Chris
I dont want to confuse you too much. but I understood that Archbuild was the keeper of the Rediffusion flame?
but what I dont get is, if this is their task in life as a company why they seem to have a so so attitude towards what they are suppose to be looking after.
I understand that certain people made it as difficult as hell for you to show
THE INFORMER at one of your afternoons?
So this is what I dont understand about Archbuild's role in life?
I am not sure now who DC bought RSG rights from , but the point is he bought them from someone and presumably would have had to buy them whatever decade
the RSG films were discovered in the Kingsway tax office cupboard (I think that was where they were found?) .
So the Hippodrome rights for the UK must surely be intact and passed on to Archbuild rather than an American company?
but please excuse my outbursts I sometimes get carried away and suffer with verbal diarrhea and there is no cure at the moment ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Aug 12, 2010 6:34:49 GMT
Hi Pete
I understand your point now mate.
OK I can clarify a few things here for you then.
First off, Archbuild are a property company, they bought A-R having been misled, they thought they would get an archive ready for sales, they actually inherited no physical stock, just debts. Archbuild have always been great supporters of Kaleidoscope.
The stumbling block has been the National Film Archive. They asked for £3000 to copy The Informer for us. Our relationship with the BFI is much much better now, so The Informer may well be shown next year, but 10 years ago they were very hard to deal with.
As for RSG, John Johnson told me that Rex Firkin and him bought RSG off A-R since Rex owned the format rights, and they sold it on to Dave Clark in the late 70s. Not sure how true that is, but that's what he said.
c
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Aug 12, 2010 7:48:04 GMT
I messaged Lance, and here's what he said:-
""To answer the question,yes.
I found complete 16mm b/w prints in the US Library of Congress A/V collection. Took quite a bit of time tracking this down as had to make a viewing research appointment to read the printed (huge by the way) manuscript from the state library archives.
After quite some time and pages later found listings for every individual episode of The Hippodrome Show on 16mm film, b/w sadly ,believe was distributed in the US through now defunct Van Bernard Productions I believe.I also found a few oddball editions of a series called Spotlight, also listed in Library Manuscript as being UK production through Van Bernard Productions. ""
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Aug 12, 2010 14:23:16 GMT
Thanks Chris for clearing that up I see how Archbuild fits into it now.
Re Van Bernard productions .Yes I think this was part owned by actor Eddie Albert and another couple of American celebrities.
They helped irwin Allen get his Lost in Space types stuff distributed I believe ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2010 14:45:26 GMT
What I don't understand in all this is that if Archbuild are a property company (i'm asking why on earth would such a business buy TV programmes of all things?!? A bit like a software firm buying up a job lot of fruit and vegetables!). OK, so now that they know what they bought isn't what they hoped for, why don't they just sell the archive on to someone else in the correct field? An obvious question but the obvious thing to do I would think! This is no reflection on Archbuild themselves, of course.
It just makes me very angry and frustrated that UK programmes like this sit in overseas archives unseen with no chance of being retrieved! If Archbuild have no physical prints (only the rights) then one way of obtaining physical prints would be to recover material like this when it's found to exist. That way they would be slowly increasing the actual physical archive and value of what they have if they wanted to sell it on.
A crazy, crazy situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ingerson on Aug 13, 2010 13:41:47 GMT
OK, so now that they know what they bought isn't what they hoped for, why don't they just sell the archive on to someone else in the correct field? An obvious question but the obvious thing to do I would think! Would they be able to find a buyer at a good price? After all, how many companies would spend good money to buy an empty archive? (I wonder if the only reason Archbuild succeeded in buying it in the first place was because the companies who knew more about it also knew that it wouldn't be profitable.) |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Aug 13, 2010 13:54:15 GMT
OK, so now that they know what they bought isn't what they hoped for, why don't they just sell the archive on to someone else in the correct field? An obvious question but the obvious thing to do I would think! Would they be able to find a buyer at a good price? After all, how many companies would spend good money to buy an empty archive? (I wonder if the only reason Archbuild succeeded in buying it in the first place was because the companies who knew more about it also knew that it wouldn't be profitable.) Yes they could well do, because at the end of the day rights are everything and if they were at least smart enough to buy the rights then they dont need an archive because somebody is (hopefully) storing at least some of the programmes at no cost to them . With the legal rights they have control over every dog eared copy of their programmes anyware. However if they did buy an empty archive with no rights attached then they did get a very bad deal. If Archbuild have the British rights to the Hippodrome Show, then pursuing colour copies (if they still exist in colour?) would be very worthwhile I would have thought? as this type of show does not date (apart from the musical acts) and would be worthy ITV3/4 or BBC4 material . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2010 16:48:16 GMT
That's what I would have thought too! There were a few guest groups in the series (e.g. The Zombies) and - if nothing else - good colour clips like this are always in demand in docs / compilations etc. With a bit of outlay, they could ultimately make more financially of what there is.
I can't work out though if Archbuild knowingly made a shrewd move in buying the rights or a very dumb one. If a dumb one then they must eventually conclude it's good sense to cut their losses and sell on at whatever price.
|
|
