|
|
Post by George D on Aug 28, 2013 2:23:18 GMT
If that person is in negotiations, they shouldn't reveal this fact until it's all done and dusted! Any claims without evidence are meaningless, which is why we don't want them mentioned here. This has all been covered at length before. I agree with you 100%. I personally am a believer that negotiations/lead research should not be reported until fully investigated, but the question I wonder about is, "What's the benefit of not revealing information after it's been fully investigated?" For example, in the Airlock/UM2 situation, the episodes were kept back a couple of months before being revealed for an announcement at MBW. When one weighs the short period of time compared to the potential publicity for missing episodes that could lead to further recoveries, then the answer makes sense. However, when we look at the recently recovered Hartnell interview footage, after its recovery, I didnt see anything posted until the release of the dvd. So in this case, Im not seeing the benefit of keeping it secret. Also, regarding SL, that is apparently a dead end, yet the data that caused that has not been revealed either. It's not my place to say how things should be run, but I sometimes wonder if the release of information after its been recovered or fully dead might dissuade rumors. What I find surprising is over half the people here believe the rumors. It doesn't make it so, just means that the rumor mill has done its job well. |
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Aug 28, 2013 2:40:17 GMT
This is all becoming quite farcical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 4:10:48 GMT
This is all becoming quite farcical. (Comment deleted by Laurence). Keep it civil! |
|
|
|
Post by davidstead on Aug 28, 2013 4:36:29 GMT
Such things as non-disclosure agreements can leave anyone involved in anything, stuck between a rock and a hard place!
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew shutt on Aug 28, 2013 6:29:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Green on Aug 28, 2013 7:25:41 GMT
Ultimately the process of film recovery typically involves secrecy, which frustrates all of us who are here to think of new avenues to help. I understand we can't be told if rumours are true or not (with certainty).
I think what would help all of us would be some kind of defcon level for likelihood of missing episodes being recovered. Just knowing that some kind to recovery is going on would put my mind at rest. Also this chart of likelihood would not affect the recoveries as the people who have the material would have no way of knowing the high chance of material actually related to their material.
Sent from my HTC One using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeberke on Aug 28, 2013 7:59:16 GMT
If anything was recovered, there would be no point in announcing it in November. The powers that be wouldn't want to take attention away from the big budget 50th special. If anything was recovered, they would have announced it already to create more hype for what's to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Aug 28, 2013 8:29:14 GMT
The announcement would not take attention away from the 50th anniversary special in the eyes of 99.9% of the audience. Besides, I reckon we'll see something from a recovered story in Mark Gatiss' An Adventure in Space and Time. Remember what he said about something they were able to include due to a "coincidence"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Aug 28, 2013 8:59:49 GMT
I've removed a trolling post and a number of posts that quoted it. The member in question has been contacted.
"Be nice to other forum members" isn't actually in the forum rules because we generally assume that people are clever enough to take that as read. If that's not the case, maybe we'll look at changing it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon Preddle on Aug 28, 2013 9:51:44 GMT
The announcement would not take attention away from the 50th anniversary special in the eyes of 99.9% of the audience. Besides, I reckon we'll see something from a recovered story in Mark Gatiss' An Adventure in Space and Time. Remember what he said about something they were able to include due to a "coincidence"? Wasn't that in relation to the William Hartnell interview that David Bradley was allowed to view as part of his character study? |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Aug 28, 2013 10:33:59 GMT
That's possible, of course, Jon. I've not heard what the coincidence was explained openly, but that's not to say I haven't missed such an explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason G on Aug 28, 2013 10:37:46 GMT
It would be interesting if that interview is somehow recreated in the docudrama. That could be where it starts for example - it sounds like Hartnell wasn't enjoying his career at this stage and could have been bitter to have "left" Doctor Who. He then goes on to remember the glory days so to speak?!?
Wild conjecture. But possible perhaps...
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Ibrahim on Aug 28, 2013 13:48:48 GMT
Just wanted to say that I completely support the mods' decision regarding people posting information they've heard "from a source". As if using this phrase somehow lends the information any more credibility or gravitas than saying "a mate told me". Too many people claiming to be in the know, and I'm glad there won't be any proliferation of it here - if you believe some of the stuff on GB then every man and his dog knows someone who's apparently seen a missing episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Hornby on Aug 28, 2013 13:54:27 GMT
Just wanted to say that I completely support the mods' decision regarding people posting information they've heard "from a source". As if using this phrase somehow lends the information any more credibility or gravitas than saying "a mate told me". Too many people claiming to be in the know, and I'm glad there won't be any proliferation of it here - if you believe some of the stuff on GB then every man and his dog knows someone who's apparently seen a missing episode. Your post has added so much to this forum. Please continue. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Aug 28, 2013 15:16:49 GMT
Just wanted to say that I completely support the mods' decision regarding people posting information they've heard "from a source". As if using this phrase somehow lends the information any more credibility or gravitas than saying "a mate told me". Too many people claiming to be in the know, and I'm glad there won't be any proliferation of it here - if you believe some of the stuff on GB then every man and his dog knows someone who's apparently seen a missing episode. Your post has added so much to this forum. Please continue. Yours has added nothing. Pack it in. |
|
