|
Post by Mike Biggs on Mar 8, 2017 23:31:57 GMT
I worked on a show with Gerry Campion in the 1980s - lovely chap! I was able to send him a couple of Billy Bunter eps on VHS which were copies of ones I had from the BBC archives to take clips from. Somewhere I have his note still but I'm sure he said in it that he was very grateful because he didn't have any other copies... Not to say he might have had a film copy somewhere, but he didn't mention it. I've long been suspicious of the term 'skipped'. The very notion is a modern one, that has no counterpart in the 1960s. A film might have been incinerated back then; but landfill is another modern concept that just didn't exist in the Sixties. The only way of ascertaining what Enterprises actually did with stock for disposal is to talk to ex-BBC staff who worked for Enterprises. Just a small point, I am aware that the modern idea of landfills started in the 1920s. In New Zealand (at least) it was often used to create flat land out of hilly valley areas, which was then often turned into parks or sports fields. The records from the 1920s refer to it as "Bradford Tipping".
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 9, 2017 10:33:03 GMT
It's blindingly obvious that Enterprises gave reels away, most likely to their own staff. I don't think it's blindingly obvious at all. There's absolutely no evidence that they simply gave away material they had no use for. There were certainly skips in the 1960s and waste disposal companies that handled them. And we know the now defunct company that handled the film disposal for Enterprises - using skips!
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 9, 2017 10:44:48 GMT
I'm really glad you've made this point, because I meant to make it. BBC Enterprises didn't have a pile of 16mm film prints on a shelf. What it actually had was a carefully preserved vault containing master negatives. I think you can do away with the notion of Enterprises having a "carefully preserved vault". What they had was an office room that was filled with Dexion racking, stacked with film cans. That's true, but only as far as the five-year (later, seven) period of the initial contract. Once that was expired and Enterprises still wished to market the property, then the scriptwriter had to be contacted and permission gained for a rights extension. If they didn't grant it, then Enterprises could no longer sell the programme. So, whilst the scriptwriter signed over those transmission and sales rights in their initial contract and had no say in how the programme was used for that initial period, they certainly did after that.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Brown on Mar 10, 2017 16:08:14 GMT
That's true, but only as far as the five-year (later, seven) period of the initial contract. Once that was expired and Enterprises still wished to market the property, then the scriptwriter had to be contacted and permission gained for a rights extension. The point I was struggling to make is simply that there is no truth in the rumour that, in the 1960s, overseas tv stations were not buying Troughton serials because Power of the Daleks could not be included as part of Season 4. Whatever the contractual position might have been after 1972 (i.e. after the initial contract period of 5 years), in 1966-69 there was no contractual obstacle to the sale of that serial in overseas markets. One might reasonably make the point that all serials had to have their contracts renegotiated if Enterprises wished to continue to sell them overseas more than 5 years after the initial UK transmission. This factor was one all 'Who' serials had in common: it applied equally to Hartnell episodes and to Troughton episodes. Thus it was not a factor which influenced the prospects of Hartnell episodes having a better survival rate than Troughton episodes. Given that the Hartnell serials began to air in 1963, they would have started requiring contract extensions from 1968 onwards, i.e. after 5 years had elapsed since their first airing. This makes it more likely that contract difficulties - if indeed there ever were any such - would have only affected Hartnell episodes, in the Sixties, since even the earliest Troughton serials didn't run into this particular issue until the Seventies. Additionally, since it was David Whittaker (not Terry Nation) who wrote Power of the Daleks, and as Whittaker had no axe to grind with the BBC, it is difficult to see why Whittaker would have raised any contractual objection to his serial being repeated in overseas markets. Accordingly, I still maintain my original point: the available evidence indicates that the marketability of the Daleks, in the absence of William Hartnell, was greatly reduced. This was simply a reflection of the fact that the marketability of 'Dr Who' itself, in the absence of Hartnell, was greatly reduced. The fact that the Troughton episodes survive so poorly is a reflection of Hartnell's absence, and can't be ascribed to a (wholly mythical) decision by Terry. This insight, if taken into account, can help to give us a better understanding of the particular problem faced by the Troughton era serials. On a seperate point, David Stead has rightly drawn to our attention in this forum the fact that the 'Wheel in Space' episode he recovered had been held by the collector from whom he obtained it since at least 1973. This indicates that Enterprises had parted with it during the 5 years since its transmission in 1968, and - significantly - before Enterprises had withdrawn it from overseas sale. I note on the Airdate listings (linked to on BroadWcast) that it aired in Gibraltar, for example, after this. The implication is that episodes were making their way out of Enterprises storeroom before the BBC were junking the relevent serial. Over and again I see people posting here about "the junkings", but it appears to be the case that episodes were circulating among film collectors before the BBC had gotten around to doing the supposed junking. Not that I'm denying the 'junkings' - far from it. But it seems to me that Enterprises, whose main assets were the master negatives, would have been junking those negatives - which, for obvious reasons, no private film collector could make use of. There is a long standing myth within fandom that Enterprises junked the film prints, and that when it did so these found their way into the hands of film enthusiasts. But a more logical scenario is that Enterprises were mainly junking negatives, which were useless to private collectors; and the film prints themselves were disposed of in New Zealand, or some other distant land, at the end of the 'cycling' process. Whatever prints leaked out of Enterprises in the early Seventies most likely did so by a less legal route than the (perfectly lawful) one of retrieving a print from the bin after it had been thrown out in the trash. Film collectors who managed to obtain a print by these more dubious means will have a strong motive for drawing a discrete veil over how they came by the print. But, logically, if it "fell off the back of a lorry", it didn't do so of its own accord. It would have needed a bit of a push: and thus we are, logically, looking for an employee at Enterprises - perhaps more than one - who was willing to do the necessary bit of "pushing". Perhaps a genuine push, to put a film reel into the hands of a collector; but, equally possible, perhaps the collector was actually someone who worked at Enterprises, around 1970. If we take onboard this more realistic view of the likely origin of single-episode recoveries (those made in the UK at least), we can perhaps gain a clearer understanding of the overall situation. If we search for such episodes in the Antipodes we can, reasonably, assume that single episode recoveries do originate in prints thrown away at the end of the 'cycling' chain; but that scenario seems a lot less credible for episodes found in the UK. Clearly, this is quite different to the situation where an actor or technician is in possession of a print with the knowledge and consent of the BBC, as in Gerald Campion's case. In his case the tv series he worked on had ended, and no further domestic or overseas repeats were envisaged, so prints held by the BBC were in the process of disposal. But in the case of 'Who', which was still in production, such an action was less likely (although the Troughton era serials might have been equated to a discontinued series such as Billy Bunter, once Troughton serials were no longer in production after 1969).
|
|
|
Post by Jon Preddle on Mar 10, 2017 20:15:46 GMT
This was simply a reflection of the fact that the marketability of 'Dr Who' itself, in the absence of Hartnell, was greatly reduced. The fact that the Troughton episodes survive so poorly is a reflection of Hartnell's absence, and can't be ascribed to a (wholly mythical) decision by Terry. Nation pulling the Daleks from sale is a documented fact; memos and letters to/from Nation's agent and the BBC about this and the agreement exist. DWM even ran an in depth feature article about this paperwork several years ago. On a seperate point, David Stead has rightly drawn to our attention in this forum the fact that the 'Wheel in Space' episode he recovered had been held by the collector from whom he obtained it since at least 1973. This indicates that Enterprises had parted with it during the 5 years since its transmission in 1968, and - significantly - before Enterprises had withdrawn it from overseas sale. I note on the Airdate listings (linked to on BroadWcast) that it aired in Gibraltar, for example, after this. This assumes that Stead's print is an ex-broadcast print. It might not be. After a telerecording negative is struck, at least one positive would be made to check that the negative is not out of focus, framed poorly, scratched, etc. If the negative is unsatisfactory, then another would be created, and a print struck to check it, etc. But on the whole, all telerecording negs would have been satisfactory after the first attempt, and the 'test' print supplied to a foreign station, but on rare occasions there would be the odd ones that were deemed unsatisfactory. Stead's film could very well be one of these 'test' prints. Although I can't recall if Wheel ep 3 had any faults on it to indicate that it might be a rejected print.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Mar 11, 2017 1:53:48 GMT
Now correct me if I am wrong but was not the print of episode 1 that was sent to CBC-TV in Toronto deemed unacceptable by the network? I remember reading that in the end they agreed to transmit it any way.
I also seem to remember that The Quatermass Experiment was pre sold to Canada before the BBC made the decision to stop tele recording the live broadcast
|
|
|
Post by Jon Preddle on Mar 11, 2017 4:30:49 GMT
Now correct me if I am wrong but was not the print of episode 1 that was sent to CBC-TV in Toronto deemed unacceptable by the network? I remember reading that in the end they agreed to transmit it any way. Not unacceptable as such, just that the grading was very "dark", since much of the middle section was set at night. I doubt there would have been any problems with the scenes set in the school or in the bright glare of the TARDIS.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 11, 2017 12:41:38 GMT
The point I was struggling to make is simply that there is no truth in the rumour that, in the 1960s, overseas tv stations were not buying Troughton serials because Power of the Daleks could not be included as part of Season 4. Whatever the contractual position might have been after 1972 (i.e. after the initial contract period of 5 years), in 1966-69 there was no contractual obstacle to the sale of that serial in overseas markets. As, Jon indicates, there absolutely was a contractual issue in the form of the entirely non-mythical block that Terry Nation put on the exploitation of any of the Dalek stories both in the UK and overseas after 31 December 1967 (much to the horror of some of the licensees). The documentation that I rediscovered nine years ago proves it categorically. Regardless of who wrote the stories, Nation had control over the creatures he had invented and chose to pull the plug on the sales of all Dalek series, making it quite clear (at the time) that he had no intention of writing any future Dalek stories for Doctor Who and that they would no longer be appearing in the programme.
|
|
|
Post by bevanthomas on Mar 11, 2017 22:00:48 GMT
The point I was struggling to make is simply that there is no truth in the rumour that, in the 1960s, overseas tv stations were not buying Troughton serials because Power of the Daleks could not be included as part of Season 4. Whatever the contractual position might have been after 1972 (i.e. after the initial contract period of 5 years), in 1966-69 there was no contractual obstacle to the sale of that serial in overseas markets. As, Jon indicates, there absolutely was a contractual issue in the form of the entirely non-mythical block that Terry Nation put on the exploitation of any of the Dalek stories both in the UK and overseas after 31 December 1967 (much to the horror of some of the licensees). The documentation that I rediscovered nine years ago proves it categorically. Regardless of who wrote the stories, Nation had control over the creatures he had invented and chose to pull the plug on the sales of all Dalek series, making it quite clear (at the time) that he had no intention of writing any future Dalek stories for Doctor Who and that they would no longer be appearing in the programme. Thankfully this block was lifted a year later in time for New Zealand (and, later, Singapore) to broadcast both Troughton Dalek serials between about 1969 & 1972. Australia had luckily got in before the block back in '67, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas Fitzpatrick on Mar 12, 2017 4:25:41 GMT
I also seem to remember that The Quatermass Experiment was pre sold to Canada before the BBC made the decision to stop tele recording the live broadcast Yes. Not surprisingly, there's a thread on that next door. missingepisodes.proboards.com/thread/8867/quatermass-survivals - on the second page I wrote a summary of what I could find out. There's indications that CBC in Canada (well, Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa in those early days of TV) aired the first episode - or at least were planning to, as it appeared in both the Ottawa and Toronto newspapers for Friday July 31 for that evening. Only 13 days after transmission on BBC-TV. Whether they actually did air episode 1, and then cancel the rest (or discover there that the 3rd episode on August 1 on BBC wasn't telerecorded) or cancelled it at the last second, I don't know. There's no doubt that episode 1 at least, made it way to Canada. Whether the copy found in the UK was this one, or another copy I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Brown on Mar 12, 2017 22:13:57 GMT
This was simply a reflection of the fact that the marketability of 'Dr Who' itself, in the absence of Hartnell, was greatly reduced. The fact that the Troughton episodes survive so poorly is a reflection of Hartnell's absence, and can't be ascribed to a (wholly mythical) decision by Terry. Nation pulling the Daleks from sale is a documented fact; memos and letters to/from Nation's agent and the BBC about this and the agreement exist. DWM even ran an in depth feature article about this paperwork several years ago. I wasn't aware of that DWM article. It would be worth considering when that correspondence occured. Did it happen in 1966, or did it only happen 5 years later, in or after 1972? That could make a significant difference to the marketability of Season 4. If the problem only occured in 1971 it would inevitably have less impact (the impact on Troughton sales might be minor, if the problem only arose after Pertwee had taken over in the role, so that the main sales efforts by the BBC at the time were in relation to overseas sale of Pertwee serials). Did it relate only to earlier serials, i.e. those actually written by Nation? He may have raised the point when his first serial, aired in 1963/64, came up for a contract renewal after 5 years, i.e. in late 1968, for instance. And the dispute, in that event, might have been limited to overseas sale of the first 2 serials. The later ones - aired in 1965 - would not have come up for a 5 yearly contract renewal while Troughton was still in the show.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 12, 2017 23:02:10 GMT
As previously mentioned, the enforcement was announced in 1967 and took effect on 31 December. It affected all Dalek stories and Dalek licences.
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Mar 13, 2017 22:49:36 GMT
As previously mentioned, the enforcement was announced in 1967 and took effect on 31 December. It affected all Dalek stories and Dalek licences. Was that why Evil was written as the end of the Daleks, because they knew this was coming?
|
|
|
Post by bevanthomas on Mar 14, 2017 11:29:43 GMT
As previously mentioned, the enforcement was announced in 1967 and took effect on 31 December. It affected all Dalek stories and Dalek licences. Was that why Evil was written as the end of the Daleks, because they knew this was coming? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Brown on Mar 16, 2017 12:06:55 GMT
Why does this only apply if the print is an ex-Broadcast print? I don't see that at all.
The significant point is that BBC Enterprises parted with the print during the period when they were still marketing this serial for sale in overseas markets. It does not matter whether the print is one that was returned from overseas, only that the print could not have been junked - because at the point when it was given away, or otherwise became "lost", Enterprises had not yet reached the point of junking this serial.
I happen to have seen David Stead's print of this episode: so have you. It was used, IIRC, to make the DVD 'Lost In Time'. It is a very high quality print, which had few problems on restoration. It most certainly is not a 'dud' or flawed print that would have been rejected as unusable.
One part of your observation is incorrect. Whenever a telerecording negative was made, a print would be made from it to send to the overseas customer. This print is what would be inspected, to check for any damage on the negative. You seem to be implying that an additional print was struck to check the negative, but I see no need for such a step.
If the negative was faulty, maybe it was immediately thrown away, but it never made it into David Stead's hands. A faulty print could reasonably be expected to be thrown away, too. But David's print wasn't faulty.
Moreover, I happen to possess the original VHS release of 'Cybermen: The Early Years' by JNT. That presented the BBC's original print of this episode, which David's better quality print later replaced. [It may well have been episode 6 I'm thinking of here - see Addendum, below]
That VHS tape presented one very poor, very low quality print, that I heard described at a convention as a 'dupe' (duplicate) print - which would have originated either from a duplicate negative, or from a positive: i.e. it was struck (in the 1960s) either by duplicating the master negative and printing from the second (duplicate) negative, or by printing it from a positive (because there was no negative). Every duplication meant the loss of one generation in quality (the well-known phenomena of 'generation loss'), just like the loss involved in copying a VHS tape.
Now, this opens up a whole new field of enquiry. If there was no negative on hand, either the BBC had already destroyed (junked) the negative (this was NOT the David Stead print, so we do NOT have a date for it), or the print was made overseas by a broadcaster which needed a new print but had no access to the negative - because, say, they were in Australia (whilst the negative was in London). We know that, in Australia, a print would arrive at ABC in Sydney, which would broadcast it to their State, then send it physically round their chain of transmitters, to each transmitting station in each other State in turn.
This scenario meant ABC could have done with having a second print; and if they were going to broadcast an episode simultaneously in 2 or more States they absolutely had to have 2 or more prints. ABC thus had a very strong motive for striking additional prints from their master print. And the JNT 'Cybermen' VHS tape is evidence that the BBC had possession of duplicate prints, which they had no obvious motive for making themselves: if they had the original print, or the original negative, they had no need to make a copy. One print only was all they needed to broadcast an episode in the UK. But a much larger country, such as Australia or Canada, had a definite need which having a second print would have met, so it is more likely that a duplicate positive was made overseas, then later returned to London in a batch of prints.
The possibility therefore exists that overseas countries were making duplicate prints, from a single positive. The process gives much poorer results than striking a print from a negative, and JNT's VHS tape had all the fingerprints of that process, according to the panellist who spoke at the convention.
Addendum: It has been suggested to me that David's print of episode 3 is the only print in existence. This indicates to me that my recollection of JNT's 'Cybermen' VHS tape must have gotten switched around in my memory, i.e. that it was episode 6 which was the poor quality one. Sorry about that: my remarks all still apply, but the episode with the poor quality duplicate positive must be episode 6.
|
|