|
|
Post by Pete Morris on Apr 30, 2012 5:52:44 GMT
missingepisodes.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=7188&page=1#71336Paul Vanezis : "I am not someone who believes everything should be kept. But I do believe the right things should be kept." What ARE the right things to keep? These are just my opinions. Please share yours. Okay, for a start any kind of dramatic presentation should be kept. That's a no-brainer. Any thing with a scrupt where actors play a story is a unique and irreplaceable bit of television. None should ever be junked, no matter how loved or hated it is. Not even "Heil honey I'm home" should be thrown away. But there's plenty of things I don't care about keeping. I've never been interested in sport. I recognize that some people do, but is there any need to archive it? Does anyone care if horse racing from 1973 is lost forever? Keep significant ones, junk the rest. Pop music: in studio performances by bands are pretty interchangeable, IMHO. If you have one example of Bananerama performing Walk Like An Egyptian, do you need ten? They're just miming to a prerecorded track anyway. Interviews with Showaddywaddy on TISWAS, fair enough. Some people might be interested in that, even decades later. But frankly I'd be much more excited by the recovery of a Lenny Henry sketch. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Smith on Apr 30, 2012 6:20:09 GMT
Remember that it wasn't just "what should be kept"? There were also issues regarding copyrights, contracts expiring etc. Would you rather retain a programme that would be able to be repeated or released commercially, or one that you'd have to jump through hoops to even have the ''possibility' of a repeat?
As far as your other ideas, well it's all personal isn't it? I like football, and would like as much football as possible to (have) be(en) kept. On the other hand, things like darts and snooker bore me and I can see no reason to even show them in the first place. However, many others would disagree.
I also don't think Bananerama OR Bananarama ever performed 'Walk Like An Egyptian', but as a huge fan of popular music, I would like as much as is possible to be retained, even music that I don't personally like.
Really, the rights issues must play a part. However, I'm quite sure there was a lot of subjective "reasoning" as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Morris on Apr 30, 2012 7:23:12 GMT
D'oh. Brain fart, there. Yes, It was the Bangles that did Walk Like An Egyptian..
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Apr 30, 2012 7:34:04 GMT
I think everything broadcast should be kept. Period. In fact TV stations now have to keep recorded output (for a period, I'm not sure how long it is specified that they do), and at least a couple of smaller networks (BEN being one, IIRC) were find for not doing so.
This also applied to radio stations, even community radio stations. I have appeared on a few of these and when asking for copies of appearances, they have stated that they have to do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Apr 30, 2012 8:14:16 GMT
I think everything broadcast should be kept. Period. Well, there are several reasons why I don't think everything should be kept & I float some of them here. Firstly, I think I should qualify the statement. Regarding material which was broadcast more than ten years ago, archiving policy needs to be much more rigorous. The people that made those shows may not be around to argue their case for them to be kept. It's also possible to shoot yourself in the foot & dump something that is still for sale, so you need a system of checks. Secondly, what programmes are at risk? It's clear to me that it's not the one off or the obscure, but the high volume low budget shows which for technical and/or out of time reasons don't work in a modern schedule. These programmes are currently kept, but I know for a fact that the plan is to keep only format examples eventually. The question is this: Do we need 478 episodes of 'To Buy or Not to Buy'? Why not keep a few examples per series? They are after all following the same format week in week out; I know, I directed a lot of them. As a programme maker I'm not too fussed if some went providing they had some meaningful criteria in place to decide what should stay & what should go... Paul |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 9:21:23 GMT
I think everything broadcast should be kept. Period. In fact TV stations now have to keep recorded output (for a period, I'm not sure how long it is specified that they do), and at least a couple of smaller networks (BEN being one, IIRC) were find for not doing so. I'm with you on this 100 per cent, Ray. Two relevant points really: 1) What's important is a very subjective term anyway. No one today can say for sure what will be considered "important" in 30 or 50 years time. Even then, there will be some people who think something is ephemeral even though others will be glad it's still around to enjoy (and they should have the right to still enjoy it). 2) We're fast getting to a point now where decisions on keeping material based on storage space will not be relevant. In the near future it will be possible to archive everything and for it to take up very small amounts of physical space. I'm of the view that anything which is broadcast thereafter belongs to everybody; a kind of intellectual public domain. Nothing to do with rights or royalties but the item should exist for people to re-view whenever, should they so wish (for whatever reason and not just for elitist "research purposes" by the select few either). The sooner we arrive at a point where the decision as to what is kept moves away from resting with TV people themselves (or anyone in a position of influence) and is decided by everyone, the better. Technology is going to be providing that means soon enough now anyway. We're talking about our culture and history in vision and it's sheer madness to me that anyone should even think that TV shouldn't be kept anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by Neil Megson on Apr 30, 2012 9:55:07 GMT
How much sport has actually been kept ? Was most of it shown live and never recorded at all, or were tapes routinely re-cycled after use ? And are there any rights issues involved with repeating old sporting events ? To take one specific example, the 1966 World Cup Final definitely exists, but what about the Group games and quarter/semi finals - especially those not featuring England ? How many present-day hard disk drives would it have taken to keep everything from 1936 - 1976 ? Anyone want to work it out ? And to stay on-topic - I have to agree with what's been said so far - with modern storage costs being as low as they are, keep everything, there's no reason not to. |
|
|
|
Post by Ken Griffin on Apr 30, 2012 10:48:50 GMT
Do we need 478 episodes of 'To Buy or Not to Buy'? Why not keep a few examples per series? It's interesting to see the same mistakes possibly happening again. I'll give you a sobering example from the UTV archive and the headaches that the decision to wipe low budget, high volume shows from the 1960s and 1970s has given the station. I can talk about these because the details are in the public domain. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were two programmes which were almost in continual production at UTV: the local version of Romper Room (1964-74) and variants of a programme called Teatime with Tommy (1962-75) starring a local musician called Tommy James, who wasn't a brilliant piano player but was extremely charismatic. Both formats featured significant input from members of the public - Romper Room featured local children and Tommy James' shows had a slot where unknown talent was featured. Over 2,000 episodes of Romper Room were made. Two survive. At least 1,000 episodes of Tommy James' various series were made. None survive. The headache is as follows: all the kids on Romper Room grew up and UTV is inundated with requests for footage from practically every episode from the series. At this point, the station probably would have made back the cost of keeping the tapes multiple times over. Meanwhile, a lot of Tommy James' talents became famous, either locally, nationally or internationally. The two most notable being Roger Whittaker and Val Doonican but there have been plenty of requests for performances from Irish acts from the series. Ironically, having been wiped because of being of no lasting value, Romper Room and Tommy James material now tops the local unofficial 'missing believed wiped' wants list along with Boatman Do Not Tarry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 11:03:02 GMT
Now there is way too much junk TV. It angers me that there are seemingly thousands of editions of trash like Doctors, Weakest Link, Bargain Hunt, Deal Or No Deal and especially Eggheads that is being archived since as if anybody - apart from the smug Eggheads themselves - would want to watch all of that again in 20 or 30 years time? It's garbage production line drivel. Select about 10 episodes of each then junk the rest. There are digital AVI or DVD copies of most of them out there anyway so it's never gonna end up "lost."
Given the state of today's TV, almost none of it is worthy of archiving in my view. I wish I could be more balanced and reasoned about it, but as wiggy Wonnacott gushes on about leftover lolly for the 3.048th time as I type, one's patience has truly snapped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ewan Montague on Apr 30, 2012 12:18:42 GMT
I should think there's probably an off air copy of almost everything now anyway, although with hardisk recorders perhaps that's not the case now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Apr 30, 2012 12:41:34 GMT
What's important to one man may not be important to another.
It's a simple as that, and that's why everything should be archived.
How do WE, the 'viewing public' of 2012, know any better than the cognosccenti at the varying TV companies in the last few decades what's 'important'. How do I know any better than you what's 'important'? It's all one person's opinion's against another. Who is to know with absolute certainty what will be important for future generations? Noone. You can guess, but you may be at least wrong in some of your guesses. The future is, however good people get at futurology is unknown, and TV companies should preserve everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 13:09:52 GMT
Sorry but I disagree. I just fail to see why several thousand editions of Eggheads should be deemed important enough to archive. Odd editions to be archived as a general overview, fine, but not every episode and that goes for most spam TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Apr 30, 2012 13:25:37 GMT
Interesting responses.
These are the issues which I'm afraid are regardless of your opinions.
1. Not all broadcasters are compelled to maintain an archive.
2. Independent companies own the programmes they make, the broadcaster just buys a licence to broadcast them for two years. Indies are not compelled to maintain an archive.
3. Broadcasters including the BBC will not keep forever all the programmes they broadcast today, they will keep examples only.
4. If you don't like what will happen to what we currently have and what we will be broadcasting in the near future, you've only got yourselves to blame if you just moan about it here.
One of the legitimate arguments a broadcaster will use is who is going to pay to back everything up every ten years. It's a massive cost.
Paul
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 15:07:48 GMT
My argument is that the programmes belong to everybody once they've gone out. They're in our collective memories as part of our make-up. Regardless of legal or physical ownership, that's something which isn't going to change. As long as broadcasters see the programmes as property and not culture (with a responsibility to preserve) then things will always stay the same. As I mentioned, cost and storage space will become less and less of an issue so it isn't really worth hanging on to this narrow and outdated definition of ownership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Apr 30, 2012 15:28:46 GMT
...cost and storage space will become less and less of an issue so it isn't really worth hanging on to this narrow and outdated definition of ownership. Well, lovely as your view is, it's not how the broadcasters see it. Cost may become less of an issue, but it's still going to be EXTREMELY expensive, particularly for a broadcaster like the BBC. You can also forget about any kind of collective ownership; the broadcasters don't see it like that and nor do the media moguls who are trying to increase their cut of the broadcasting marketplace. Yes, that's what it is. A marketplace. If you want to keep everything though, there's nothing to stop you buying the appropriate gear to make your own recordings now is there. Nothing is free, it costs to produce, it costs to broadcast and it costs to store it. Paul |
|
