|
Post by Robert Lia on Jan 17, 2014 23:27:10 GMT
If its not an AFRTS sale and its not a sale to Taiwan where the paerwork went walkies then I would say that when the ABC was s hipping all these episdoes back to the U.K. in 1975 they were not paying close attentino to what they were packing in the shipping crate and these are left over prints that had been missed during the clear out from the ABC. . . .
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 17, 2014 23:33:29 GMT
If its not an AFRTS sale and its not a sale to Taiwan where the paerwork went walkies then I would say that when the ABC was s hipping all these episdoes back to the U.K. in 1975 they were not paying close attentino to what they were packing in the shipping crate and these are left over prints that had been missed during the clear out from the ABC. . . . Or it could be "Thank you for the loan of a dozen rabbits,six adult males and six adult females.All twelve are returned,with thanks".
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Jan 17, 2014 23:41:58 GMT
If its not an AFRTS sale and its not a sale to Taiwan where the paerwork went walkies then I would say that when the ABC was s hipping all these episdoes back to the U.K. in 1975 they were not paying close attentino to what they were packing in the shipping crate and these are left over prints that had been missed during the clear out from the ABC. . . . I think that this 'alleged' return is one of several elephants in the room.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 17, 2014 23:55:29 GMT
If its not an AFRTS sale and its not a sale to Taiwan where the paerwork went walkies then I would say that when the ABC was s hipping all these episdoes back to the U.K. in 1975 they were not paying close attentino to what they were packing in the shipping crate and these are left over prints that had been missed during the clear out from the ABC. . . . I think that this 'alleged' return is one of several elephants in the room. When I first registered here a couple of years ago,the disappointing thing was to hear so often 'definite' announcements that possibility x,y,z etc. was a dead-end because the paperwork proved-or strongly suggested-that all prints had been returned/destroyed/gone missing.It seems to be becoming clear (or clearer) that what some people said they did (a)might not have been true or (b)might not have been all the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Jan 17, 2014 23:56:31 GMT
I am begging to think there was a big box marked for stuff returned to the BBC but no one bothered to actually check the contents to make sure all 6 episodes of (insert story title) were actually in the box, how ever ABC invesntory sheet was marked of as returned to the BBC
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 18, 2014 0:12:36 GMT
It's clear that episodes did "escape" and I've posted scenarios as to how that could happen in either Australia or the UK.
Basically it comes down to low paid, "grunt", labour that doesn't really care.
At the Australian end someone can't find a print to be shipped back to the UK so they cross it off the list anyway.
Back in the UK a similar sort - but with a Cockney accent - then can't find a print but as it's just intended to be destroyed and no-one will ever know, or care, they cross it off their list too.
So that's a print in Australia that has either already gone walkies or is available to go walkies. As to how many could go that way, I don't know.
In the UK there are a few prints, clearly returned from "down under", that escaped destruction and seem to have been taken by an opportunistic magpie.
However, the mechanism by which the number of prints in Taiwan could have escaped is uncertain.
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Jan 18, 2014 0:15:46 GMT
Are the 'cross-matched' censor cuts - of recovered stories - frame perfect as such?
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Jan 18, 2014 0:19:23 GMT
I also don't see grunt labor packing them up and heading to the Australian Post Office and mailing them to Taiwan either, I could see a few film prints ending up in an AFRTS storage room in Chinese Taipei but not ten. SO the person who takes over the AFRTS studio in 1979 then left them there in storage for 42 years.
Soon enough they will make there way back to the BBC where a determination will hopefully be made as to when these prints were made and for whom they were made.
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Jan 18, 2014 0:42:29 GMT
Would it really have been a breach of contract for the ABC to makes dupes of Who episodes to distribute around the continent? They would have paid an amount based on the right to screen and repeat them in Australia, rather than just the cost of prints.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 18, 2014 0:48:21 GMT
Are the 'cross-matched' censor cuts - of recovered stories - frame perfect as such? One of the 2011 recoveries, I think UM2, had cuts that matched the Australian censor cuts. I recall, I think, Paul explaining how he got these transferred so that they could be slotted back in.
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Jan 18, 2014 0:48:40 GMT
Would it really have been a breach of contract for the ABC to makes dupes of Who episodes to distribute around the continent? They would have paid an amount based on the right to screen and repeat them in Australia, rather than just the cost of prints. Absolutely not I feel. As I mentioned elsewhere I wouldn't be surprised if it included broadcast to Australia and its territories - embassies and Antartica - possibly armed forces etc
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Jan 18, 2014 0:49:50 GMT
Are the 'cross-matched' censor cuts - of recovered stories - frame perfect as such? One of the 2011 recoveries, I think UM2, had cuts that matched the Australian censor cuts. I recall, I think, Paul explaining how he got these transferred so that they could be slotted back in. I think HD scans of the cuts were also made recently?
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Jan 18, 2014 0:52:54 GMT
I guess the ABC be expected to wipe, destroy, or return any duplicates along with the originals, but with extras floating around some would probably escape.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 18, 2014 0:52:58 GMT
Would it really have been a breach of contract for the ABC to makes dupes of Who episodes to distribute around the continent? They would have paid an amount based on the right to screen and repeat them in Australia, rather than just the cost of prints. I agree. Have the dates of the introduction of microwave links been definitely established and compared with the Australian transmission dates in the outback ? The interesting thing is that dupes would have been made after the censor cuts so if any of these ended up in Taiwan they should be identifiable from those.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 18, 2014 0:56:26 GMT
Would it really have been a breach of contract for the ABC to makes dupes of Who episodes to distribute around the continent? They would have paid an amount based on the right to screen and repeat them in Australia, rather than just the cost of prints. Absolutely not I feel. As I mentioned elsewhere I wouldn't be surprised if it included broadcast to Australia and its territories - embassies and Antartica - possibly armed forces etc It's slightly ironic that, with a very few exceptions (such as "Evil" tacked on to the end of Season 5), the viewers in many foreign countries had more opportunities to see classic, real Who than those in the UK
|
|