|
|
Post by Ben Walker on Feb 7, 2006 4:20:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by L Haberfield on Feb 7, 2006 11:22:07 GMT
:DProbably not a bad thing!
Afterall they were awful!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Feb 7, 2006 11:25:02 GMT
I doubt it, although you never know with people like Adam Lee freely roaming the BBC archives. Glad I recorded the whole of that series anyway (which I liked)!
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew martin on Feb 7, 2006 13:15:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by James Phillips on Feb 8, 2006 1:18:57 GMT
Wikipedia nonsense..? Whatever is the world coming to? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew martin on Feb 8, 2006 19:27:24 GMT
Amazing isn't it...
|
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Feb 9, 2006 1:27:06 GMT
Presumably the first series was made on 1", which has now been transferred to D3 or similar, and the original tapes wiped, junked or passed onto the NFTVA? Cobblers to suggest that the shows don't exist in broadcast quality form, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Feb 9, 2006 10:19:08 GMT
Presumably the first series was made on 1", which has now been transferred to D3 or similar, and the original tapes wiped, junked or passed onto the NFTVA? Cobblers to suggest that the shows don't exist in broadcast quality form, though. so you have access to the bbc archive listing to know categorically do you? even before someone with Andrew Martins inside knowledge says for certain? thats cobblers as well.we know the archives have made big bad errors of judgement before so whos to say they still don't from time to time? |
|
|
|
Post by SteveS on Feb 9, 2006 10:55:33 GMT
Then, naturally, there are the nineties wipings by Adam Lee. So it does make you wonder who you can believe when someone says that this sort of thing never happens any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Feb 9, 2006 14:01:46 GMT
so you have access to the bbc archive listing to know categorically do you? even before someone with Andrew Martins inside knowledge says for certain? I have no access to the BBC archive, and you will notice that I commented after Andrew had contributed to this thread. However, even if Andrew hadn't, I would have assumed the series to survive in transmittable form, seeing as it's been transmitted on Paramount at least twice in the last 5 years. Admittedly the Paramount showings were chopped to fit ads in, but I'd assume/hope that the tapes supplied to them by the BBC were uncut. Maybe so. However, I was merely suggesting a way in which the Wikipedia entry could be right while also being wrong. The original tapes might have been junked, but broadcast-quality digital clones of them survive. Read messages properly before flying off the handle. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Feb 9, 2006 15:15:00 GMT
I must say, I personally don't trust the BBC to not wipe anything again. Once bitten, twice shy where the TV archives are concerned. I'd LIKE to think differently...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Feb 9, 2006 18:15:08 GMT
Read essages properly before flying off the handle. I'm sure Andrew Martin does not need a monkey to tell us all that somethings cobblers on his bahalf after hes already posted and said what the state of play is.Just whos flying off the handle here then? |
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Feb 9, 2006 21:24:13 GMT
I'm sure Andrew Martin does not need a monkey Well at least it's a mammal. My current opinion of you doesn't even go that high. Right. So all threads must close once Andrew has spoken? That's the logical corollary of what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Feb 9, 2006 22:53:38 GMT
That last comment was almost funny.Hasnt convinced me you dont love the sound of your own voice though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Feb 10, 2006 0:39:45 GMT
That last comment was almost funny.Hasnt convinced me you dont love the sound of your own voice though. This is an open forum. When I feel I have something to contribute, I contribute something. Moreover, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything other than that my original point about the ABoF&L master tapes was a valid one. Which it is. |
|
