|
Post by andyparting on Jun 3, 2023 21:41:28 GMT
He's delivered lots - 9 eps - and said nothing verbally about what else he's got. 9 eps is enough of a calling card for more to come. "Expect the unexpected". There's also a photo on his website of a film can of the Aztecs - as yet unaccounted for. Where did this come from? It’s a photo of a can of film sitting in the BBC Film & VT Archive! What's the barcode sticker that's on it?
|
|
|
Post by andyparting on Jun 3, 2023 21:42:22 GMT
I would have thought 13 years isn't enough time to conduct a thorough search, follow up leads, do any in-house restoration. I'm not expected the unexpected any time soon. Happy to wait for as long as it takes - just to have something back at least. You maybe happy to wait that long. I am getting older and my health is not that good at the moment. I want to see a few more returned episodes. Hang in there...
|
|
|
Post by andyparting on Jun 3, 2023 21:44:20 GMT
I did speculate - albeit without any evidence - on another thread that there might be something for the sixtieth anniversary. The 60th anniversary doesn't fit with Phil's promise of, "When you least expect it." Also he did say it would be non-Who material next - unless we had that with Scaffold?
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Neve on Jun 3, 2023 22:01:51 GMT
You maybe happy to wait that long. I am getting older and my health is not that good at the moment. I want to see a few more returned episodes. Hang in there... Do you know something about Phil Morris that i don't.
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jun 3, 2023 22:05:33 GMT
Logically if something really has been recovered the BBC would’ve slapped NDA’s on everyone involved. That's not actually a thing; silence is voluntary. And what motivation would anyone have to sign an NDA - is it worth the BBC's money? Define ‘that’s not actually a thing’ in this bespoke context because NDA’s certainly are ‘a thing’ and are used widely. It also seems unlikely that the BBC would make no provision for preserving confidentiality in matters of importance/sensitivity and instead optimistically rely on relevant parties just keeping quiet. Indeed, they’d surely be unique amongst major corporations by operating in such an antiquated, naively trusting fashion. Now whether such precautionary measures apply to missing episode recoveries is another matter of course and admittedly speculation on my part. Nevertheless if not an ‘NDA’ in the literal sense then certainly something broadly equitable seems probable in the circumstances… As for ‘motivation’, I can only draw from personal experience: what was my motivation for signing documents that legally bound me to maintaining confidentiality with the various companies I’ve worked for? Well they wouldn’t have let me much past the front door if I hadn’t!
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Neve on Jun 3, 2023 22:06:57 GMT
I did speculate - albeit without any evidence - on another thread that there might be something for the sixtieth anniversary. The 60th anniversary doesn't fit with Phil's promise of, "When you least expect it." Also he did say it would be non-Who material next - unless we had that with Scaffold? Like I said, any 60th Anniversary finds wont be from Morris. Besides the BBC will decide when to announce anything, not Phil.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Neve on Jun 3, 2023 22:10:31 GMT
That's not actually a thing; silence is voluntary. And what motivation would anyone have to sign an NDA - is it worth the BBC's money? Define ‘that’s not actually a thing’ in this bespoke context because NDA’s certainly are ‘a thing’ and are used widely. It also seems unlikely that the BBC would make no provision for preserving confidentiality in matters of importance/sensitivity and instead optimistically rely on relevant parties just keeping quiet. Indeed, they’d surely be unique amongst major corporations by operating in such an antiquated, naively trusting fashion. Now whether such precautionary measures apply to missing episode recoveries is another matter of course and admittedly speculation on my part. Nevertheless if not an ‘NDA’ in the literal sense then certainly something broadly equitable seems probable in the circumstances… As for ‘motivation’, I can only draw from personal experience: what was my motivation for signing documents that legally bound me to maintaining confidentiality with the various companies I’ve worked for? Well they wouldn’t have let me much past the front door if I hadn’t! An NDA would prevent Phil from saying what the episodes are, where they were found and date of annoucement. Making a vague comment like he did would not an NDA breach.
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jun 3, 2023 22:24:05 GMT
I did speculate - albeit without any evidence - on another thread that there might be something for the sixtieth anniversary. The 60th anniversary doesn't fit with Phil's promise of, "When you least expect it." Each to their own but this cynical fan long gave up on the many encouraging yet cryptic comments Phil Morris made nearly a decade ago! Phil certainly said/teased a lot of things back in those heady, post-2013 days of unreasonably high expectations and zero further announcements...
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jun 3, 2023 22:28:38 GMT
That's not actually a thing; silence is voluntary. And what motivation would anyone have to sign an NDA - is it worth the BBC's money? Define ‘that’s not actually a thing’ in this bespoke context because NDA’s certainly are ‘a thing’ and are used widely. Well, here’s a thing. The subject of NDAs crops up with some frequency whenever people talk about the subject of missing episodes, often to try and validate why their own particular weird and wonderful ideas should be seen as having some air of reasonableness. Ten years ago, we were absolutely deluged with suggestions that anyone vaguely associated with Doctor Who or the DVDs was working under an NDA and as a result, no one was saying anything… The truth. I’ve worked on the DVD and Blu-ray range for over 20 years and no one has ever asked me to sign an NDA or anything remotely close to it, despite me having some fairly reasonable knowledge as to the various things people are working on. In fact, in all that time, I’ve only been aware of two people who have - and that was for a very specific reason. They simply aren’t needed. So, honestly, kick out all ideas of NDAs.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Neve on Jun 3, 2023 22:47:51 GMT
That's not actually a thing; silence is voluntary. And what motivation would anyone have to sign an NDA - is it worth the BBC's money? Define ‘that’s not actually a thing’ in this bespoke context because NDA’s certainly are ‘a thing’ and are used widely. It also seems unlikely that the BBC would make no provision for preserving confidentiality in matters of importance/sensitivity and instead optimistically rely on relevant parties just keeping quiet. Indeed, they’d surely be unique amongst major corporations by operating in such an antiquated, naively trusting fashion. Now whether such precautionary measures apply to missing episode recoveries is another matter of course and admittedly speculation on my part. Nevertheless if not an ‘NDA’ in the literal sense then certainly something broadly equitable seems probable in the circumstances… As for ‘motivation’, I can only draw from personal experience: what was my motivation for signing documents that legally bound me to maintaining confidentiality with the various companies I’ve worked for? Well they wouldn’t have let me much past the front door if I hadn’t! NDA is usually nonsense spouted by those in the know to silence those speculating about missing episode returns and to discredit their information and sources.
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Jun 4, 2023 4:45:02 GMT
Define ‘that’s not actually a thing’ in this bespoke context because NDA’s certainly are ‘a thing’ and are used widely. Well, here’s a thing. The subject of NDAs crops up with some frequency whenever people talk about the subject of missing episodes, often to try and validate why their own particular weird and wonderful ideas should be seen as having some air of reasonableness. Ten years ago, we were absolutely deluged with suggestions that anyone vaguely associated with Doctor Who or the DVDs was working under an NDA and as a result, no one was saying anything… The truth. I’ve worked on the DVD and Blu-ray range for over 20 years and no one has ever asked me to sign an NDA or anything remotely close to it, despite me having some fairly reasonable knowledge as to the various things people are working on. In fact, in all that time, I’ve only been aware of two people who have - and that was for a very specific reason. They simply aren’t needed. So, honestly, kick out all ideas of NDAs. Just as well I also conceded that I was ultimately indulging in speculation/presumption in lieu of personal insight on this topic then! On a more constructive note I have at least learned something about BBC policy regarding confidentiality and commercial releases and stand happily corrected. The sarcasm wasn’t necessary though.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jun 4, 2023 6:48:42 GMT
What sarcasm?
|
|
|
Post by andyparting on Jun 4, 2023 7:25:14 GMT
Do you know something about Phil Morris that i don't. I know no more about Phil Morris than the man who walks his dog each morning in the park outside, just that "the number of episodes will go soon" is information enough for now. I meant more for you hang in there with your health; I hope there is improvement and that you get to witness an announcement sometime in the future.
|
|
|
Post by andyparting on Jun 4, 2023 7:27:18 GMT
Well, here’s a thing. The subject of NDAs crops up with some frequency whenever people talk about the subject of missing episodes, often to try and validate why their own particular weird and wonderful ideas should be seen as having some air of reasonableness. Ten years ago, we were absolutely deluged with suggestions that anyone vaguely associated with Doctor Who or the DVDs was working under an NDA and as a result, no one was saying anything… The truth. I’ve worked on the DVD and Blu-ray range for over 20 years and no one has ever asked me to sign an NDA or anything remotely close to it, despite me having some fairly reasonable knowledge as to the various things people are working on. In fact, in all that time, I’ve only been aware of two people who have - and that was for a very specific reason. They simply aren’t needed. So, honestly, kick out all ideas of NDAs. Just as well I also conceded that I was ultimately indulging in speculation/presumption in lieu of personal insight on this topic then! On a more constructive note I have at least learned something about BBC policy regarding confidentiality and commercial releases and stand happily corrected. The sarcasm wasn’t necessary though. I can't find any hint of sarcasm in the reply, Matt?
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas Fitzpatrick on Jun 4, 2023 20:21:15 GMT
That's not actually a thing; silence is voluntary. And what motivation would anyone have to sign an NDA - is it worth the BBC's money? Define ‘that’s not actually a thing’ in this bespoke context because NDA’s certainly are ‘a thing’ and are used widely. They are used - but I wouldn't say they are widely used. You can't make someone sign one. And if you want someone to sign one, there'd be a benefit to them (like getting a job, money, or severance). Somewhere on all of this low-signal noise on the forums, someone who was involved in the 2013 return commented that they hadn't been asked sign an NDA. By "that's not a thing" I mean that your statement that "if something really has been recovered the BBC would’ve slapped NDA’s on everyone involved." Simply slapping NDAs on everyone is not a thing.
|
|