|
Post by Rob Moss on Jan 17, 2012 12:50:20 GMT
I think maybe The Quatermass Experiment could work set in the 50s. Sadly, I think the BBC Four reworking of this has probably ruled out any further Quatermass remakes for a while. Shame - I think remaking missing tv for a new audience certainly has legs. I'd love to see them remake The Road - it's a great concept, and done sympathetically, it could be great again.
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Jan 17, 2012 15:08:12 GMT
I think maybe The Quatermass Experiment could work set in the 50s. Sadly, I think the BBC Four reworking of this has probably ruled out any further Quatermass remakes for a while. Shame - I think remaking missing tv for a new audience certainly has legs. I'd love to see them remake The Road - it's a great concept, and done sympathetically, it could be great again. Call me a pessimist but I would be floored in amazement if a remake of 'the road' was anywhere near the standard of what survives of Kneale's work from this era. They would probably have to make it in a pantomime style with lots of soap opera elements to make it accessible to the masses I would still watch such a remake, I just wouldn't hold out much hope for it!
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Jan 17, 2012 16:10:06 GMT
Sadly, I think the BBC Four reworking of this has probably ruled out any further Quatermass remakes for a while. Shame - I think remaking missing tv for a new audience certainly has legs. I'd love to see them remake The Road - it's a great concept, and done sympathetically, it could be great again. Call me a pessimist but I would be floored in amazement if a remake of 'the road' was anywhere near the standard of what survives of Kneale's work from this era. They would probably have to make it in a pantomime style with lots of soap opera elements to make it accessible to the masses I would still watch such a remake, I just wouldn't hold out much hope for it! You're almost certainly right, but in the absence of any kind of recording of the original, this is the best we can hope for.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Jan 17, 2012 21:05:26 GMT
I wonder if this will ever change so there's a demand for the kind of intelligent TV of 40-50 years ago? It comes down to parenting and education I think and having politicians who really care about people rather than profits for a small minority.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 17, 2012 21:16:18 GMT
But weren't people saying the same thing 40-50 years ago about TV supplanting reading,or at least radio "where you have to use your imagination" (bit like the missing-episode audios! I think there's a strong case for the BBC selling-off its archive,or at least leasing the lot.What connection exactly is there between producing this week's whatever's-on-the-BBC and exploiting old episodes of Are You Being Served? It's obvious the BBC's heart's not in nostalgia/heritage,and the chances of our seeing classic drama on the telly,in quantity are low. Gad,how I envy the U.S. for Nick at Night and a proper TCM channel that has weekends of rare films.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Jan 18, 2012 15:37:10 GMT
Don't know about selling it off - that way lies disaster - but certainly they could be a bit less restrictive about companies such as Network. If Network were allowed to exploit BBC material in the same way as they have done with ITV material, we'd all run out of shelf space and money in no time!
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 18, 2012 16:35:06 GMT
There's an old saying that what belongs to everyone belongs to no-one.It looks as though private-enterprise in the U.S. has taken better care of TV heritage than has the BBC. That's the theory.Why didn't it work in the UK?Perhaps because the government/BBC controlled the airways,with the BBC in competition? Yep,if there's a profit in Networking the archive-and I bet a case can be made either way-more should be released on DVD. Meanwhile,unless the pay-per-view scheme comes in-we're pretty much in the days of chained bibles as far as access is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Jan 18, 2012 19:01:53 GMT
It's a great shame that British TV and particularly the BBC didn't use 35mm film more often. From the 1950's the technology existed to shoot programmes multi-camera style using film cameras and a minimum of filmstock (the film in each camera only ran when that camera was "on"). Imagine if some BBC sitcoms had been shot the way that Bilko and I Love Lucy were in the US!
This is the big difference between the UK and US. Over there, many drama series and comedies sit in the archives on 35mm.
Looking at the cost of a one hour quad tape in the 1960's you have to ask whether black and white 35mm film stock would have cost much more!
The companies that own The Avengers and the ITC series are now reaping the rewards. Whereas, being realistic, the market for old TV made on video will probably diminish somewhat in the future as the majority of the public expect HD quality and don't understand why the picture "looks bad".
In terms of resolution even 625 line video is little better that Super 8 film and 405 line probably below. Compare to Bilko from the 1950's, on 35mm with about 15x the resolution of something on 625 line video!
Even those series that were made on Super 16mm, with a greater film area, from the 1980's onwards: Miss Marple, Granada's Sherlock Holmes, have more visible grain than is ideal for the digital era and (much as I love film) a rather "murky" look sometimes. Not such an issue with 35mm due to the larger frame.
I know they used 100ASA filmstock on Sherlock Holmes. But I wonder if on some British series they used faster/more grainy film? We can't rely on the sun in the way they can in Hollywood ;D
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Jan 18, 2012 20:20:19 GMT
The cost of 35mm stock & a limited amount of cameras seemed to be the main factor.
The BBC seemed to save 35mm for effects shots & some prestige programming. All the location shots for Quatermass & The Pit were on 35mm, as was telerecording of the programmes.
I've got an HD Ready TV with an upscaling DVD recorder connected via a HDMI cable.
Almost everything I've got on DVD looks fine when upscaled, including a fair amount of old TV shows shot on 2" 625 line VT & 16mm film.
Even the VHS tapes look fine, with a SCART connection.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Jan 18, 2012 21:21:44 GMT
But if they'd made a commitment to 35mm that wouldn't have been an issue. One Quad video recorder cost as much as half a street of houses and they were able to buy several of those. TV cameras were also hugely expensive. So they could easily have bought some 35mm cameras, had them specially made or even built them inhouse. With the multi-camera sitcom setup they probably would only have used 45 minutes of 35mm stock for a 30 minute show. Then an editor would just join up all the takes from the three or four cameras as a workprint, get the neg-cut and a print made. They were telerecording some shows onto 35mm so the cost of the stock was clearly not too much of an issue. When you think about the costs and issues surrounding video at the time: short life of video heads and the need for set up and alignment and so on I'm amazed they didn't do more multi-camera with film. But maybe due to union issues and the feeling that video was the medium of the future? On documentaries or single-camera dramas it would be a different story because those shoot many hours of footage. Imagine if MGM had made The Wizard of Oz using the TV technology of the time and managed to record it as a telerecording? Who would watch that now? Instead of which, more than 70 years later we have it in HD! The cost of 35mm stock & a limited amount of cameras seemed to be the main factor.
|
|
George D
Member
Posts: 1,794
Member is Online
|
Post by George D on Jan 18, 2012 22:22:43 GMT
They claimed they thought tv was ephemerial. (meaning meant to be thrown out like a newspaper). Past generations never were this entertainment focused.
One interesting obeservation is that in the early days of radio in the usa, they believed shows should be live and pre recorded material was not desired. This is why it was years after the fact that the classic audio reporting of the hindenberg was actually broadcast.
Now, everything has to be big fancy special effects with things done perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Jan 18, 2012 23:05:30 GMT
But if you think about the 1930's, lots of people went to the cinema three times a week, there were still loads of theatres and music halls, they bought records and listened to the radio. Vast amounts of entertainment were being consumed. I wonder if there are any vintage figures for the number of hours of radio listened to per person in the 1930's? They were onto something with the idea that broadcasting should be live. That's one reason why radio and TV are more boring now. I agree on the problem of things being perfect. It was a mistake to move away from the "more theatrical" multi-camera productions to single camera. They have made a rod for their own backs because viewers today won't accept anything that doesn't look totally "realistic". In fact there's no reason why there must be this level of realism in a TV drama. Any more than you expect a real tree or stream on stage in a theatre. They claimed they thought tv was ephemerial. (meaning meant to be thrown out like a newspaper). Past generations never were this entertainment focused. One interesting obeservation is that in the early days of radio in the usa, they believed shows should be live and pre recorded material was not desired. This is why it was years after the fact that the classic audio reporting of the hindenberg was actually broadcast. Now, everything has to be big fancy special effects with things done perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 18, 2012 23:36:09 GMT
Of course,most people don't go to the theater-I haven't in years.In fact I suspect that a lot of people would be suppressing titters that a piece of painted cloth is meant to represent a rock. When I see a film adapted from a play and acted out four-square in front of the camera,I just think how nice it is that I don't have to go into town,but can watch it at home. Isn't the great difference that in theory at least folk culture was home-made,with individuals playing the piano or penny-whistle for the entertainment of family and friends? Mass culture,including TV and radio was seen as fodder for the masses who were only consumers. Despite this,there's a tradition of sensible commentary by Orwell on story-papers,by Graham Greene on film,etc. which hasn't been negative.Trouble is,there's often been a bit of a time-lag.Music hall got attention when it was over and most of the stars retired or dead.Doctor Who fans got organised just those few years too late to stop the mass destruction of episodes.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Jan 18, 2012 23:55:20 GMT
When you look at how few of the 60m people in the UK write blogs or make original videos for YouTube, you can see that home-made culture and creativity isn't as strong as it was. Facebook is something completely different as it's more like sitting in the pub chatting.
When I was a kid in the late 1960's we put on shows, made puppets, did magic acts, produced our own comics and magazines and so on and we played games as a family. Then I got into animation and film-making when I got an evening job.
But the marketing people don't want families doing this. They want them buying things and consuming. These days politicians seem to be more concerned with what businesses want rather than what's best for the public. Ironically that applies to the destruction of ITV too, where the needs of a small number of shareholders were prioritised over the best interests (including the education) of the entire population.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2012 10:26:53 GMT
There's an old saying that what belongs to everyone belongs to no-one.It looks as though private-enterprise in the U.S. has taken better care of TV heritage than has the BBC. That's the theory.Why didn't it work in the UK?Perhaps because the government/BBC controlled the airways,with the BBC in competition? Yep,if there's a profit in Networking the archive-and I bet a case can be made either way-more should be released on DVD. Meanwhile,unless the pay-per-view scheme comes in-we're pretty much in the days of chained bibles as far as access is concerned. I know what you're saying there because - as it has turned out - U.S. TV has far less gaps than the U.K. does (at least for the primetime shows). However, if we'd have had a privatised system here in the '60s, we would not have had the outstanding TV we did at the time (even though some of said outstanding stuff is now missing!). Yes, ITV (a commercial concern) were also responsible for some of this quality work but that was because they were playing to the BBC's already existing high standards (unlike now where the BBC are following ITV downwards in quality, albeit slowly). Selling off or privatising the BBC archive now would be a bad move though. It might mean that certain types of programming would be utilised or made accessible more effectively (and would probably please those interested in certain niche or cult series) but - as with all business where it's all down to profit - what would happen to the less "commercial" (but historically / culturally just as important) areas of programming such as Late Night Line-Up, party political coverage, Masterclass or The Money Programme? The richness of the archive is partly down to it's diversity but I can't see a purely commercial company respecting or preserving that aspect. This is why i'm against privatisation or selling off of the BBC archive, even though the method of making it more widely accessible that is now being proposed (via low quality / de-interlaced / internet downloads) falls far short of being the ideal way forward as far as i'm concerned.
|
|