Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 16:07:30 GMT
Come on lads, theres no need to argue! Everyone's efforts to retrieve missing material are greatly appreciated. You've made my point nicely, Greg: Everyone's efforts, official or unofficial. |
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Oct 24, 2011 16:23:49 GMT
There is of course a world of difference between contacting an archive and saying "you've got this in your archive - the BBC would love a copy back please" and saying "could you have a look and see if you've got anything missing". It's going to be largely down to the amount of effort required from the person on the end of the phone... It's the former, if anything, but I email rather than phone, and I use 'please' in any correspondence. I have never yet had any problem from an archive, and I have been doing this for 18 months now. I try not to tread on any toes at all. And if it's someone who has footage (rather than a library), I give them Kaleidoscope's details, or the BBC as relevant. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Simon Broad on Nov 8, 2011 17:20:49 GMT
Anyone know if there is any news on new discoveries i know i saw a youtube video and it showed that lots of Hartnell stories were sold to barbados but never confirmed to be destroyed??
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Nov 21, 2011 17:38:02 GMT
Come on lads, theres no need to argue! Everyone's efforts to retrieve missing material are greatly appreciated. You've made my point nicely, Greg: Everyone's efforts, official or unofficial. ...unless the unofficial efforts hamper the official efforts. Or do you disagree with that..? And if you do disagree with that, how on earth do you ensure that you're not treading on the toes of an official enquiry..? Because I sure as hell wouldn't know how to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Nov 21, 2011 17:40:20 GMT
There is of course a world of difference between contacting an archive and saying "you've got this in your archive - the BBC would love a copy back please" and saying "could you have a look and see if you've got anything missing". It's going to be largely down to the amount of effort required from the person on the end of the phone... It's the former, if anything, but I email rather than phone, and I use 'please' in any correspondence. I have never yet had any problem from an archive, and I have been doing this for 18 months now. I try not to tread on any toes at all. And if it's someone who has footage (rather than a library), I give them Kaleidoscope's details, or the BBC as relevant. ;D Speaking to an individual via YouTube is a different kettle of fish though, Ray, and you are to be applauded for the stuff you've found, but dealing with a foreign broadcaster needs a different approach. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2011 18:06:06 GMT
...unless the unofficial efforts hamper the official efforts. Or do you disagree with that..? Official efforts can also be inept (and official bodies don't always act on information received anyway as they are often not interested in retrieving material, as we all know; fact is, it's often the drive of fans and individuals that gets results). People are free to do as they please anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Burrows on Nov 21, 2011 20:11:05 GMT
This all seems to point to a central record of searches on going and sources categorically searched and ruled out, which I and others have advocated on more than one occasion. Obviously the work Paul Vanesis is doing is sensitive, and TV stations and dealers/collectors get annoyed at repetetive casual enquirers, but I think these points validate the argument. As it appears that nothing is being turned up, and nothing has turned up for a long time, I do not believe as many people asking as many questions as possible can do any harm at all at this stage. I'm sure I'll be shot down, but regardless of being told I shouldn't be doing it, I'm still going to look in hope at a number of sources 1) because I don't know where other people are looking and 2) because it's something I have always loved and I want to see it completed. Good luck Ray, keep up the good work. On a different note: When the hell is Running Through Corridors Vol 2 being released? Tired of waiting  |
|
|
|
Post by Steven Sigel on Nov 21, 2011 20:51:48 GMT
On the few occasions where I've listed Dr. Who material for sale on ebay, I've been flooded by emails from amateur episode hunters. Things like - "tell me what else you have", or "the BBC will pay you millions for that" or "you aren't allowed to have that" etc... And in fact, amateur hunters also nearly ruined a deal for me about six months ago -- I had won the bidding on a 16mm T/R of an episode of "Terror of the Autons" on ebay and someone emailed the seller and told him it was worth a fortune and that he shouldn't be selling it because the BBC would pay him more for it -- he called me on the phone and was going to back out of the sale. I fortunately managed to convince him that it was just a bunch of nonsense...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken Griffin on Nov 22, 2011 13:44:11 GMT
So, if you were making an unofficial enquiry to an overseas broadcaster, what checks would you make to ensure that you weren't screwing up an official one..? Or are you saying that you wouldn't bother..? What I would say is that its all down to the approach taken by the inquirer. Having been on the receiving end, I can say that Ray's approach is effective because he is polite, patient and he provides sufficient detail for me to forward his query to the relevant people. Other approaches are far less effective - some of the inquiries are insufficiently detailed; the inquirers are rude or aggressive and, unfortunately, a percentage of them come from 'traders' who want me to release footage illegally. Television archives handle quite a volume of public inquiries each year. The problem that television enthusiasts have is that they often adopt the wrong approach or their fellow enthusiasts have done so in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by John Andersen on Nov 23, 2011 4:49:46 GMT
On the few occasions where I've listed Dr. Who material for sale on ebay, I've been flooded by emails from amateur episode hunters. Things like - "tell me what else you have", or "the BBC will pay you millions for that" or "you aren't allowed to have that" etc... And in fact, amateur hunters also nearly ruined a deal for me about six months ago -- I had won the bidding on a 16mm T/R of an episode of "Terror of the Autons" on ebay and someone emailed the seller and told him it was worth a fortune and that he shouldn't be selling it because the BBC would pay him more for it -- he called me on the phone and was going to back out of the sale. I fortunately managed to convince him that it was just a bunch of nonsense... Are you absolutely 100% sure it was an episode hunter? It could just as easily have been a troll or a hoaxer that delights in making Doctor Who fans miserable. If I recall correctly, you posted your purchase here for everybody to know, and then all the problems started. It sounds like some troll or hoaxer read the forum to see what kind of trouble they could cause, and then they decided to try and sabotage your purchase and destroy any hope of ever getting any more episodes through that seller, which is what they probably did. Even the most amateur Doctor Who episode hunters would probably have some idea that all the Pertwee episodes exist in one form or another. From what you described, that person was not trying to recover anything. He was trying to cause harm. Could it have been an episode hunter? Possibly, but when somebody is behaving in the fashion you described, it sounds more like a troll looking to intentionally cause trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by andyjefferys on Dec 8, 2011 17:07:47 GMT
I've just read a very interesting article about the CBC Barbados archive by Sherwood McCaskie, Head of Archives and Information Department, Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation, Barbados which can be read in full here: soima.iccrom.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=76If you go to page 3 of the article it states under the section Selection, Acquisition, and Retention that "Additionally, the harmful practice of the indiscriminate erasure of audiovisual material without reference to the archives had resulted in the loss of some of the archival assets." This potentially means not only their own cultural archive has suffered through their lack of archive control in the past but may also have affected whatever collections of other imported programs including DW they held. Looks like their archives are now in far better shape through the initiative described in the article which would make any searching there a lot easier. Is this an avenue that Paul Vanezis has explored? Also did Ray ever receive a reply from his contact over there? Looks potentially grim but never say never... |
|
