|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 10, 2023 10:03:34 GMT
That suggests that “snipping and binning” could well explain the fate of the prints - possibly also TP4. If that was the accepted practice, then why was the Film Library chasing up Blue Peter about the return of their print? It wouldn't have been difficult for the editor to resplice the extract back into the main reel so that it could be returned to source. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 10, 2023 10:17:45 GMT
That suggests that “snipping and binning” could well explain the fate of the prints - possibly also TP4. If that was the accepted practice, then why was the Film Library chasing up Blue Peter about the return of their print? It wouldn't have been difficult for the editor to resplice the extract back into the main reel so that it could be returned to source. We don’t know. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 10, 2023 10:36:26 GMT
If that was the accepted practice, then why was the Film Library chasing up Blue Peter about the return of their print? It wouldn't have been difficult for the editor to resplice the extract back into the main reel so that it could be returned to source. We don’t know. Do we know that it was actually returned to the film library? |
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie McDevitt on Jul 10, 2023 11:30:37 GMT
On a slightly different but similar note I recall from many years back - probably late 1980s - it was reported that one of the few Blue Peters from the late 1960s which was missing was the edition which featured the winners of the Design A Monster/Beat the Daleks competition form 1967.
There was a suggestion it had mysteriously vanished but it has clearly turned up since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 10, 2023 12:27:48 GMT
Do we know that it was actually returned to the film library? Presumably not, given that they enquired about it's return and it wasn't there five years later in 1977 when Ian Levine looked at the record cards in the Film Library. Given that the print would have originated at Enterprises (even if it ended up in the Film Library for some reason), it no doubt had a BBC Enterprises Telerecording label on the can. With The Tenth Planet #4 going back to Enterprises after use, I think it's highly likely that Film Despatch sent both cans back to Villiers House by mistake. When Enterprises received a second film can back from Blue Peter adorned with their label, they probably thought no more of it. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 10, 2023 12:41:47 GMT
Do we know that it was actually returned to the film library? Presumably not, given that they enquired about it's return and it wasn't there five years later in 1977 when Ian Levine looked at the record cards in the Film Library. Given that the print would have originated at Enterprises (even if it ended up in the Film Library for some reason), it no doubt had a BBC Enterprises Telerecording label on the can. With The Tenth Planet #4 going back to Enterprises after use, I think it's highly likely that Film Dispatch sent both cans back to Villiers House by mistake. When Enterprises received a second film can back from Blue Peter adorned with their label, they probably thought no more of it. Cock up rather than conspiracy….. It’s also possible that BP had snipped and binned it and ignored the request. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 10, 2023 14:14:44 GMT
It’s also possible that BP had snipped and binned it and ignored the request. It's possible, but why do it? Why create unnecessary ructions with the Film Library whose services they would have frequently used? It wouldn't be any skin off Blue Peter's nose to return the print via the internal film movement system along with all the other film material they were using. |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph Rose on Jul 10, 2023 17:44:04 GMT
It’s also possible that BP had snipped and binned it and ignored the request. It's possible, but why do it? Why create unnecessary ructions with the Film Library whose services they would have frequently used? It wouldn't be any skin off Blue Peter's nose to return the print via the internal film movement system along with all the other film material they were using. Could they have snipped and binned it before the request? A lot of what ifs ... |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 10, 2023 17:57:51 GMT
It's possible, but why do it? Why create unnecessary ructions with the Film Library whose services they would have frequently used? It wouldn't be any skin off Blue Peter's nose to return the print via the internal film movement system along with all the other film material they were using. Could they have snipped and binned it before the request? A lot of what ifs ... They wouldn't need to make a request. They'd take it as a given that whoever borrowed it was going to return it. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 10, 2023 18:30:01 GMT
Could they have snipped and binned it before the request? A lot of what ifs ... They wouldn't need to make a request. They'd take it as a given that whoever borrowed it was going to return it. For some reason they chased it and it wasn’t around a few years later. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 10, 2023 19:09:12 GMT
They wouldn't need to make a request. They'd take it as a given that whoever borrowed it was going to return it. For some reason they chased it and it wasn’t around a few years later. The reason the Film Library chased it is that they were expecting to get it back. I think in all likelihood, as far as Blue Peter was concerned, they couldn't help as they had sent it back. It just hadn't gone back to where it had come from. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 10, 2023 20:19:00 GMT
For some reason they chased it and it wasn’t around a few years later. The reason the Film Library chased it is that they were expecting to get it back. I think in all likelihood, as far as Blue Peter was concerned, they couldn't help as they had sent it back. It just hadn't gone back to where it had come from. In that case why didn’t they say where they’d sent it? It could then have been retrieved. After so long it’s unlikely that a definitive answer will be forthcoming but let’s consider another cock up scenario. BP were sent the print. It seems likely that the DW clip was edited into a reel with the other filmed pieces. Perhaps BP should, as has been suggested, have put the whole DW print on a telecine but someone wasn’t aware it was wanted back so they chopped it up and binned the unwanted sections. I’m unsure what happened to the reels made for each programme, they may well have been binned too. Because of Biddy Baxter a lot of BP survives so there would have been little justification for keeping such reels and with two programmes per week they would have soon mounted up. The print wasn’t returned so it was chased. BP looked and couldn’t find it, they may have ‘phoned to say they didn’t have it. Someone assumed that someone else had returned it and it had gone astray in the post. Whatever happened I think it’s unlikely to turn up 👎 |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Jul 10, 2023 20:25:06 GMT
The reason the Film Library chased it is that they were expecting to get it back. I think in all likelihood, as far as Blue Peter was concerned, they couldn't help as they had sent it back. It just hadn't gone back to where it had come from. In that case why didn’t they say where they’d sent it? It could then have been retrieved. In this scenario, as far as Blue Peter was concerned, they sent it back from where it came. They'd done their job. It would have been Film Despatch, who were handling and transporting hundreds of cans a day to and from BBC sites, who accidentally routed BOTH episodes back to Villiers House as both cans would have had Enterprises labels on them. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jul 10, 2023 20:27:55 GMT
In that case why didn’t they say where they’d sent it? It could then have been retrieved. In this scenario, as far as Blue Peter was concerned, they sent it back from where it came. They'd done their job. It would have been Film Despatch, who were handling and transporting hundreds of cans a day to and from BBC sites, who accidentally routed BOTH episodes back to Villiers House as both cans would have had Enterprises labels on them. So what happened there? |
|
|
|
Post by Jon Preddle on Jul 10, 2023 20:34:12 GMT
If the films were held at (owned by?) the Film Library, would they still have Enterprises labels on them? Would they not have FL labels on them instead / as well?
|
|
