Mislabelled film cans

[Ben]

Over the past few years, I have read both officially and unofficially that the BBC's film archive has been checked and there can be no possibility of mislabelling or missing episodes turning up this way. However, 2003 proved that this was not true with the return of D for Destruction (Adam Adamant Lives!). Basically, how was it possible for this episode to be mislabelled (or more likely stored in the wrong can) if the archives have supposedly been checked thoroughly?

Also, have the archives of other missing episodes, such as Thames, been checked for mislabelled cans?

(Note: I'm not suggesting that the organisation searches their archives, but wondering if they have.)

[Ben]

Guest-Ben said:

(Note: I'm not suggesting that the organisation searches their archives, but wondering if they have.)

That should read: "I'm not suggesting that the organisations seach their archives...".

[hm]

Bit silly, correcting someone only to make another mistake. Let's get back on topic.

[Lance C]

There was one incident of a four part Dr Who series being found at the BBC. The excitement soon turned to disappointment, when they opened the cans. Episode 1 contained a withered cheese and onion sandwich. Episode 2 can contained rolling tobacco,skunk and rizlas Episode 3 contained a brandy hip flask and Episode 4
contained aftershave,pills and condoms.
Apparently some no good security guard that use to work nights at the BBC chucked out the films so that he could have his own stash for his own personal parties.

[andrew martin]

Well, a few quite strange things have turned up in film cans over the years, in fact...

However - no-one has systematically checked every single can of film in the BBC archive, because there are something like half a million of them, and it would take forever. The "Adam Adamant" find came about because two 16mm film components were logged under one episode ("League of Uncharitable Ladies", if I remember correctly), which seemed odd in this particular case for technical reasons which would take too long to explain... On viewing the two components, one was from the episode it was supposed to be, the other was "D for Destruction". The mis-labelling was found to be because the original can label, when the component was received from BBC Enterprises in the 1980s, was incorrect. And yes, the rest of "Adam Adamant" was checked to make sure there weren't any other missing episodes lurking. While a full scale check of every can is impracticable in the forseeable future, quite a lot of cans are incidentally checked in the normal course of work, and a very few other programmes have been found this way...

[Ben]

Guest-hm said:

Bit silly, correcting someone only to make another mistake. Let's get back on topic.

That was me correcting myself because I couldn't edit my original post. I do have an account (not "Ben"), but I can't stay signed in using the computer I've been using recently, so I use this random name instead.

By the way, what mistake did I make in my correction?

[Ben]

Guest-andrew said:

Well, a few quite strange things have turned up in film cans over the years, in fact...

However - no-one has systematically checked every single can of film in the BBC archive, because there are something like half a million of them, and it would take forever. The "Adam Adamant" find came about because two 16mm film components were logged under one episode ("League of Uncharitable Ladies", if I remember correctly), which seemed odd in this particular case for technical reasons which would take too long to explain... On viewing the two components, one was from the episode it was supposed to be, the other was "D for Destruction". The mis-labelling was found to be because the original can label, when the component was received from BBC Enterprises in the 1980s, was incorrect. And yes, the rest of "Adam Adamant" was checked to make sure there weren't any other missing episodes lurking. While a full scale check of every can is impracticable in the forseeable future, quite a lot of cans are incidentally checked in the normal course of work, and a very few other programmes have been found this way...

Thanks Andrew. I did think that it was quite outrageous to believe that every film can had been checked, but I can clearly remember being told by someone from the BBC in an e-mail many years ago that the idea of mislabelled film cans, whilst interesting, was impossible as every can had been checked. Perhaps they meant every Doctor Who can?

I hope one day that the BBC doesn't find in the only existing film can of a certain episode [of any series] that the contents doesn't match the label and thus more material is missing than believed.

[Brian D not logged in]

Guest-Ben said:

That should read: "I'm not suggesting that the organisations seach their archives...".

I'm impressed, anyway. Not often that the use of the subjunctive rather than the indicative becomes a subject on this board.......