|
WHY?
Sept 26, 2004 13:17:22 GMT
Post by ALEX on Sept 26, 2004 13:17:22 GMT
o.k...I`ve seen all the arguments & Debates, petty squabblings, sarcastic ramblings, jibes....Intelligent posts (and semi)....now can anybody with common sense tell THE REAL REASON why the junkings took place?....now, can we have some itelligent debate please?
Thank you All
Alex.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 26, 2004 15:10:01 GMT
Post by Andy Henderson on Sept 26, 2004 15:10:01 GMT
not when intelligent is spelt incorrectly........
but seriously, why come on here and insult everyone, who for good or bad have a common aim. You threw out such a loosely constructed question (which wouldn't start a good debate) that either you are trolling or you can't grasp some multi factorial reasons which aren't set in stone and are difficult to prove.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 26, 2004 20:56:33 GMT
Post by Helpful Hartley on Sept 26, 2004 20:56:33 GMT
You could have ask why mum threw out your best dolly, but you wouldnt get a straight answer as the reason has been long forgotten, and you can go over and over it again, and talk to all your brothers and sisters about it, and they may come back with some answers based on their life today, but even then soon the answer would make no sense, as other reasons would pop in and out of the thought process. As these thoughts changed and whirled about in your head, you would get angry with your mother and then forgive, as maybe she had a good reason at the time? but your never going to know what it was.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 26, 2004 21:04:15 GMT
Post by dubs again on Sept 26, 2004 21:04:15 GMT
1) they went out live, and weren't recorded 2) they went out from tape 3) tapes were expensive and therefor wiped and re-used 4) they had no overseas sales value 5) they had no repeat value 6) the rights had expired 7) they took up shelf space 8) the copyright didn't pass between changes of franchise 9) the owners had no idea of a wider distribution for them (repeats, VHS, DVDs etc) 10) the owners didn't give a thought to it atall.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 26, 2004 21:24:12 GMT
Post by pete on Sept 26, 2004 21:24:12 GMT
Why cry over stuff that cannot be brought back, you can moan and moan til youre blue in the face but it won't bring them back. there are loads of things that ive thrown out in the past, or taped over. the best thing is to learn the lesson as they realised in 1978 and preserve what they've saved, and rebroadcast it, and also keep and eye open and not refuse anything, no matter how small it is, whether it's broadcast quality or not, as these fragments are real gems.
basically as the BBC had the right to throw out what they wish to as it's theirs, they created it and not public property.
we all trash loads of historical things every day, without a thought for the future.
even the simple thing like the humble baked bean tin or a newspaper, can be or value to someone who collects them.
so don't blame the BBC. if you wanted them so much you should have bought a video,
if nobody had told you a lot of stuff was missing you wouldn't be so bothered now.
everything has been safe since 1978, and what exists then still does and everything recorded still does.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 26, 2004 23:03:54 GMT
Post by dubs again on Sept 26, 2004 23:03:54 GMT
"everything has been safe since 1978, and what exists then still does and everything recorded still does. "
Sadly misinformed if you believe that Pete.
There's Adventure Game eps wiped form the early 80s, Nationwide, lots of game shows aren't retained, except for "representative" editions...
Local news is only archived for as long as the legal statute expires...
No way is everything "archived", and if it it was once "archived" then it could be easily lost - look at "The Georgian House" - HTV had the Quads till they were thick with dust and handed them over to some arsehole production company to transfer onto a modern format, who managed to ruin the Quads.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 27, 2004 9:14:44 GMT
Post by Alex on Sept 27, 2004 9:14:44 GMT
Firstly Gentlemen, thank you for your comments, and No,....I`m not "Trolling" as you say Mr Anderson, if found my words offensive, then i apologise..(and for spelling mistake), also to "Dubs, H, Pete" Some Good points there, thanks for the reply
Alex.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 27, 2004 9:22:11 GMT
Post by Laurence Piper on Sept 27, 2004 9:22:11 GMT
Too right, Dubs. Complacent attitudes like this merely encourage a return to the climate where TV can be junked again.
No TV is truly safe, even now. Stuff was still going in the '80s and probably even the '90s. I have no idea what is happening nowadays but i'm certain we'd be horrified if we knew the full facts! People still think that past archiving was "bad" and current archiving "more enlightened" though! A sweeping generalisation.
All that has happened is that TV is generally more safe than it once was. We now save a larger proportion of our transmitted programmes from all genres (before it was generally mostly prestige drama, comedy and newsworthy stuff). Is this being done for the right reasons though? Sure, clips are re-used far more commonly these days and so making archiving worthwhile in a practical everyday sense. But it's not being done from a historical / cultural / sociological perspective. The BFI has failed us badly in this sense in the past (and still continues to do so).
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 27, 2004 13:50:07 GMT
Post by Alex on Sept 27, 2004 13:50:07 GMT
I also agree with dubs, once its "Archived", but what are the safe guards of Recordings being "Safe" with out undoing the hard work, for Eg:- what Dick Fiddy has Done?...intresting thought...
|
|
|
WHY?
Oct 9, 2004 13:07:06 GMT
Post by pete on Oct 9, 2004 13:07:06 GMT
i was only referring to Top of the pops and Dr Who
and anything that existes (along those two lines) now IS safe,
currently (aparrently) the BBC are going through that lot and archiving and remastering them digitally, so keep an eye on that RED button, it's there for a reason (no i don't mean the OFF button either)
basically game shows date very fast, but the news, unless it has historical value, i haven't a clue
|
|
|
WHY?
Oct 9, 2004 14:38:29 GMT
Post by Brian Fretwell on Oct 9, 2004 14:38:29 GMT
Back to the orginial question, many TV services had both domestic and foreign arms. When storage space was short and/or (sale or repeat) rights lapsed it is possible that lack of communication meant that each thought the other would keep a copy but that both doing so would be a waste.
|
|
|
WHY?
Oct 19, 2004 20:39:14 GMT
Post by John Miller on Oct 19, 2004 20:39:14 GMT
The loss of material had for some time been attributed to Equitys change in conditions for repeats in the early 1970s. The BBC bears the brunt of much critcism mainly due to its status as a licence subsidised organisation which to the payers angers them due to the lack of accountability. Some of the ITV stations were better or even much worse. The original tapes it seems now actually were prohibitively dear in the early 60s as much as 200 pounds each I've heard. The size of one 2 inch reel is pretty big as I used to have an empty reel someone gave me as as a souvenir. The main concern has been the apparent destruction of film duplicates. There are a number of stories, but relating to the BBC the main one is that due to the vague and non stringent archive vetting policies, material has taken a walk over the years. In some cases not one example of a series survives, so for enthusiasts it is a major concern that awareness & interest, especially in the lesser known items be generated.
|
|