|
|
Post by Ian Beard on Mar 11, 2006 23:36:35 GMT
Gloves off then!
Your posts come across as being written by an immature, over-excitable idiot: I doubt anyone has gleaned anything of real value from all the tedious, barking posts you have written.
I'm not alone in thinking you may be a troll.
The OG thought was just advice - you'd certainly be more at home with there!
|
|
|
|
Post by James Phillips on Mar 12, 2006 0:10:17 GMT
Gloves off then! Your posts come across as being written by an immature, over-excitable idiot: I doubt anyone has gleaned anything of real value from all the tedious, barking posts you have written. I'm not alone in thinking you may be a troll. The OG thought was just advice - you'd certainly be more at home with there! Hmm, I've given Lance a fair share of stick in my time, but I think this is unnecessarily harsh, Ian. |
|
|
|
Post by Aaron Buderi on Mar 12, 2006 1:11:49 GMT
I was remembering fans saying last year that we need to be checking foreign television station archives for missing stories. However, all of these stations want some sort of enticement ( $$ ) to go searching through their archives for 30-40 year old telerecordings. If an episode was returned the BBC would make bank on the sales of the episode, as we have all proven here. Maybe they could offer some sort of small compensation in the sale of the episode to the nation or media company which supplies the episode? Just a thought, which has been discussed before, but never seems to go anywhere. Are Ian Levine and Paul Vanezis still searching?
Lance, you don't need to be checking archives and if you do, you will only waste their time. The film archives do not need uniformed idiots ringing them up with no credentials and a great many assumptions.
I guarantee that whatever ideas you have, they were thought of years ago and there is mild conceit in imagining that Ian Levine or Paul Vanezis are or aren't searching. If they were, they aren't going to pass that information on to you.
If you have concrete information, that is good, but there is nothing in your postings to indicate you do. Good ideas aren't good enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by LanceM on Mar 12, 2006 7:12:08 GMT
You are very right Aaron, good ideas are not enough, but they are a start. Look at the Wright Brothers, they had an idea for a crazy flying machine. Which started from a good idea. It takes time and effort to make a good idea a reality. But that is all these ideas and theories of mine are. I thought that people would realize something new, or from the past and have something to say about it. No matter if it was widely discussed or not. And you are probably right that this has been discussed countless times in the past. I am just trying to spurr people's creative thought. I do not in any way mean to come accross as brash or consieted.If I have a idea or theory I am wondering about, I will post it if I feel that the fan community might also have something to say on the subject. If some people out there do not like what I post, they are under no obligation to read it if they do not want to. I try not to upset any one in my postings. I just want to exchange ideas and thoughts with other Doctor Who and BBC TV fans, since there are not a lot where I am. Plus that posting was from a while ago, and I am not really planning to throughly persue that particular idea.That is all I wanted to say.
Lance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Brown on Mar 12, 2006 11:12:01 GMT
no fighting please people.
|
|
|
|
Post by LanceM on Mar 15, 2006 20:09:39 GMT
Now, we can get back to the root question of this thread. I do see the reason behind the BBC's reasons not to release this material at this time. It just seems like they should test the market, to see if such a release could be profitable. I know I stated this earlier, but it did not seem to go anywhere. If anyone has an idea or comment, please leave a reply. I hope we can all get along here, and make this thread an enjoyable one for all interrested.
Thanks, Lance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 16, 2006 21:46:33 GMT
I also hope the BBC make an official release. It was mentioned that it might be easier to clear episodes that weren't from stories that were published earlier. These were written specifically for OOTU, ()=missing :
Series 1
Stranger In The Family
Come Buttercup, Come Daisy
Series 2
(Frankenstein Mark II)
(Second Childhood)
(Too Many Cooks), published after
(Walks End)
Series 3
(Something In The Cellar)
(1+1=1.5)
(The Fosters)
Series 4
(Taste Of Evil)
To Lay A Ghost
This Body Is Mine
(The Sons And Daughters Of Tomorrow)
Welcome Home
(The Last Witness)
The Man In My Head
(The Chopper)
(The Uninvited)
(The Shattered Eye)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Levine on Mar 22, 2006 16:16:37 GMT
086.134.200.025
VERY EXCITING NEWS
THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FACT.
If A For Andromeda gets enough viewers next Monday, then BBC 4 are looking at doing an "Out Of The Unknown", complete with original titles and music.
This is something I've personally longed for throughout the last thirty years.
Please help by spreading the word and getting everyone you know to watch the new A For Andromeda this coming Monday on BBC4.
The chance of an Out Of The Unknown depends solely on viewing figures, this is straight from the horse's mouth, and I was given permission to let this scintillating titbit of information be known.
PLEASE help.
And there is also a very high chance of the A For Andromeda episode that I recovered being shown on BBC4 along with a repeat of the new version in the very near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Mar 22, 2006 16:43:48 GMT
This may well be a stupid question, but its only a stupid question if you dont know, right? Can they actually accurately tell what people are watching on digital TV? I know that the old analogue stuff was compiled via market research wasnt it, which is a deeply flawed science. Are the modern methods actually any better? I am a bit cheesed off as I dont actually have this digital or cable channel; so im gonna have to grab this as and when i can  |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 22, 2006 18:04:03 GMT
This may well be a stupid question, but its only a stupid question if you dont know, right? Can they actually accurately tell what people are watching on digital TV? I know that the old analogue stuff was compiled via market research wasnt it, which is a deeply flawed science. Are the modern methods actually any better? Nope. It's still calculated using a sample of a few thousand who have a special set-top box. Richard |
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Mar 22, 2006 18:59:47 GMT
Thats so annoying! that means that the statistics for the nations viewing habits are as askew as they ever were. I dont know why I expect any better of the beeb et al. I dont know if I have a conclusively better method, but im sure they could develop one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 22, 2006 19:12:28 GMT
Thats so annoying! that means that the statistics for the nations viewing habits are as askew as they ever were. I dont know why I expect any better of the beeb et al. I'm not sure why you're particularly mentioning the BBC here. Statistics for all the channels are calculated in the same way. Richard |
|
|
|
Post by andrew martin on Mar 22, 2006 19:34:55 GMT
Thats so annoying! that means that the statistics for the nations viewing habits are as askew as they ever were. I dont know why I expect any better of the beeb et al. I dont know if I have a conclusively better method, but im sure they could develop one. It's no different from any other market research though (they also have people with clipboards asking the public in the street...). |
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Mar 22, 2006 22:12:53 GMT
@ Richard Bignell You are right that its not just the BBC who use this method I guess. I still maintain that its a pretty flawed method though. The reason I mentioned the beeb specifically is because the previous comments mentioned specificaly the BBC and the viewing figures for the remake of A for Andromeda on BBC4. I did say 'the beeb et al', by which I meant the beeb and everyone else. I wasnt trying to be nasty about the BBC in particular.  @ Andrew Martin The clipboard / trad market research thing is usually performed by bored students who will tick any old box and couldnt care less about accurate statistics Trust me I worked at one of these places when I was in university, and also have seen how management cooks the data first hand. A bit off topic. Its good to hear about the possibility of more remakes of lost classics ultimately. Would be good to see more go ahead. Pity I wont be watching the A for andromeda remake straight away. |
|
|
|
Post by B Thomas on Mar 23, 2006 0:12:38 GMT
Thats so annoying! that means that the statistics for the nations viewing habits are as askew as they ever were. I dont know why I expect any better of the beeb et al. I'm not sure why you're particularly mentioning the BBC here. Statistics for all the channels are calculated in the same way. Richard Yes... Ratings in New Zealand are still recorded by "People-meter". There are roughly about 400 people-meters in NZ to represent a populations of 4 million. How that can ever be accurate I have no idea... |
|
