Wiped Episode Discoveries

[diankra]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

The thing is, this rumour has been around since at least November. In some ways the surprising thing is that it's not gone this mainstream before now.
For what it's worth, in addition to the reasons Allyn suggested, one of the many run-downs of the possible 'problems' involved in recovering any episodes that I'd heard was that a fan had followed the leads, got there first and got the prints, and was refusing to hand them over until the super-fans (Levine, etc etc) gave up the other episodes he was convinced they were hoarding (so the negotiations were about convincing him that they really, really, didn't have any). Which shows how wild some of the rumours already were even before last week.
IMHO: I think there was a promising lead, but it's not led anywhere, and BleedingCool reported one of the garbled versions of whatever basic truth there was originally was.

 

[Candlelight]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

one of the many run-downs of the possible 'problems' involved in recovering any episodes that I'd heard was that a fan had followed the leads, got there first and got the prints, and was refusing to hand them over until the super-fans (Levine, etc etc) gave up the other episodes he was convinced they were hoarding (so the negotiations were about convincing him that they really, really, didn't have any).

This is a major problem even without a missing episode rumour. Some are so convinced there are more out there but not in the public domain yet they won't believe it even if they are told from the horse's mouth.

This really stems from the fact that it's already happened on three occasions;

1983 - Ian Levine returns Invasion of the Dinosaurs 1 after holding onto it for a year as 'bargaining material' should other eps show up.

1991 - Ian Levine returns unedited copies of The Time Meddler 1 & 3; as the prints weren't his he didn't feel comfortable returning them beforehand.

2011 - The often repeated (by me) story of Galaxy 4 3 and The Underwater Menace 2 being kept secret for six months until the BFI screening.

You can see why some think the BBC / Levine / Vanezis / Roberts / the Beverley Sisters are keeping them secret...

 

[diankra]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

one of the many run-downs of the possible 'problems' involved in recovering any episodes that I'd heard was that a fan had followed the leads, got there first and got the prints, and was refusing to hand them over until the super-fans (Levine, etc etc) gave up the other episodes he was convinced they were hoarding (so the negotiations were about convincing him that they really, really, didn't have any).

This is a major problem even without a missing episode rumour. Some are so convinced there are more out there but not in the public domain yet they won't believe it even if they are told from the horse's mouth.

This really stems from the fact that it's already happened on three occasions;

1983 - Ian Levine returns Invasion of the Dinosaurs 1 after holding onto it for a year as 'bargaining material' should other eps show up.

1991 - Ian Levine returns unedited copies of The Time Meddler 1 & 3; as the prints weren't his he didn't feel comfortable returning them beforehand.

2011 - The often repeated (by me) story of Galaxy 4 3 and The Underwater Menace 2 being kept secret for six months until the BFI screening.

You can see why some think the BBC / Levine / Vanezis / Roberts / the Beverley Sisters are keeping them secret...

Indeed. But, as an example of why the 'hoarding' conspiracy theory falls apart, the Time Meddler was widely available on the VHS fan circuit in 1985/86, as soon as the Nigerian copies made it back to the BBC.
What a lot of people watching them, including myself, didn't realise was that the Nigerian copies were edited, whereas the versions running round the local groups weren't - they came from Levine's copies. So the existence of the complete copies was common knowledge to anyone paying attention six years before they were officially returned.

 

[Candlelight]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

I think... and this is just me being me... If I had found a missing story or multiple missing stories I'd go public with the news I'd found... one episode.

Distract everyone with your left hand holding one episode so they can't see you quietly giving another twelve to Paul Vanezis with the right hand.

When the official announcement comes through... BOOM.

 

[Relayer1]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

...condition, just because a film can contains an episode doesn't mean it will be recoverable.

It would have to be devastatingly damaged to not be recoverable with modern technology. No soundtrack is required and picture-wise they only need to be able to lie the film flat(ish) to scan it. Scratches/cracks/dirt etc. can be erased, black and white recoloured and missing frames recreated from those before and after it. The film could break up and be nearly opaque and still be salvageable given enough time and money.

The only reason they would keep it secret is for bargaining purposes. If it's public knowledge, then the guy with the film would see the public excitement for it and use that as leverage against the BBC.

This could all come down to the BBC not having enough money to buy the film.

They don't need any money. Give the 'finder' a percentage of the net profit.

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

But I think I have the right to report on rumours when they are being discussed and debated at the highest levels - as long as that's how I present them, and don't try and pretend that they are facts. On every stage I've tried to show my working out, as it were.

The problem with that attitude, though, is that just reporting them at all gives them an air of credibility. There was a time when one of the basic standards of good journalism was that you didn't report anything until you had at least two reliable sources for it, that rumors and hearsay were not news and thus didn't deserve to be treated as news. The problem with the 24-hour news cycle and the Internet is that it creates incessant pressure to report something even when you don't have anything solid to report at all.

I agree with this, with one major caveat.

Rich Johnston takes pains to say that he's not a reporter and that what he does isn't journalism. A lot of what he does looks like journalism, but by journalistic standards it's poorly sourced rumor mongering or reporting from off-the-record sources.

In this particular case, I was curious when anyone was going to pay attention to the rumors surrounding an episode find. While I have some issues with Johnston, particularly some of the methods he uses, in this case I feel that his initial report was appropriate and the blowback he's received from some corners of Who fandom is absurd and says more about the insecurity and insularity of some segments of fandom than it does about him.

I liked Rich Johnston better when he had a weekly column, and not his own website. And he rated the truth-value of the rumors he dealt with.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

The problem with that attitude, though, is that just reporting them at all gives them an air of credibility. There was a time when one of the basic standards of good journalism was that you didn't report anything until you had at least two reliable sources for it, that rumors and hearsay were not news and thus didn't deserve to be treated as news. The problem with the 24-hour news cycle and the Internet is that it creates incessant pressure to report something even when you don't have anything solid to report at all.

I agree with this, with one major caveat.

Rich Johnston takes pains to say that he's not a reporter and that what he does isn't journalism. A lot of what he does looks like journalism, but by journalistic standards it's poorly sourced rumor mongering or reporting from off-the-record sources.

In this particular case, I was curious when anyone was going to pay attention to the rumors surrounding an episode find. While I have some issues with Johnston, particularly some of the methods he uses, in this case I feel that his initial report was appropriate and the blowback he's received from some corners of Who fandom is absurd and says more about the insecurity and insularity of some segments of fandom than it does about him.

I liked Rich Johnston better when he had a weekly column, and not his own website. And he rated the truth-value of the rumors he dealt with.

See, that's the thing I don't understand about the backlash. He quite clearly stated in the article, it was rumors, and he held off on reporting them, but, the whispers just starting getting too loud to continue not mentioning it, however, remember this is still uncoroborated rumors. How much clearer could it be, why is there so much backlash about the probable falseness of the rumor? (Not referring to just you, I mean the "Internet-wide" backlash)

 

[Christopher]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

^Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who don't seem to understand the distinction between rumor and fact, who jump to the conclusion that any claim they hear is true even if it's explicitly labeled a rumor. And then when it turns out they were wrong to jump to that conclusion, they blame the person who reported the rumor.

 

[Mike Farley]

Bleeding Cool is now reporting that this was likely a hoax.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/17/more-on-those-missing-doctor-who-episodes-or-less/

 

[Mr Awe]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

^ Those people pretty much deserve the dissillusionment that they're bound to experience . . . over and over!

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

I agree with this, with one major caveat.

Rich Johnston takes pains to say that he's not a reporter and that what he does isn't journalism. A lot of what he does looks like journalism, but by journalistic standards it's poorly sourced rumor mongering or reporting from off-the-record sources.

In this particular case, I was curious when anyone was going to pay attention to the rumors surrounding an episode find. While I have some issues with Johnston, particularly some of the methods he uses, in this case I feel that his initial report was appropriate and the blowback he's received from some corners of Who fandom is absurd and says more about the insecurity and insularity of some segments of fandom than it does about him.

I liked Rich Johnston better when he had a weekly column, and not his own website. And he rated the truth-value of the rumors he dealt with.

See, that's the thing I don't understand about the backlash. He quite clearly stated in the article, it was rumors, and he held off on reporting them, but, the whispers just starting getting too loud to continue not mentioning it, however, remember this is still uncoroborated rumors. How much clearer could it be, why is there so much backlash about the probable falseness of the rumor? (Not referring to just you, I mean the "Internet-wide" backlash)

I don't really have an opinion on this specific instance of Rich's reporting; I just think he was more judicious and less sensational in the old days when he didn't have to worry about a constant stream of hits to his website.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

I liked Rich Johnston better when he had a weekly column, and not his own website. And he rated the truth-value of the rumors he dealt with.

See, that's the thing I don't understand about the backlash. He quite clearly stated in the article, it was rumors, and he held off on reporting them, but, the whispers just starting getting too loud to continue not mentioning it, however, remember this is still uncoroborated rumors. How much clearer could it be, why is there so much backlash about the probable falseness of the rumor? (Not referring to just you, I mean the "Internet-wide" backlash)

I don't really have an opinion on this specific instance of Rich's reporting; I just think he was more judicious and less sensational in the old days when he didn't have to worry about a constant stream of hits to his website.

Ah, but, in this specific case, it seems he was right, there was an actual negotiation going on (or at least pre-negotiation). Where this one fell apart (if it did, which now seems likely) is that those who were negotiating apparently were conned.

 

[Candlelight]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

Why is there so much backlash about the probable falseness of the rumor?

Doctor Who is treated like a religion, and missing episodes are the second coming. Tamper with that and it's blasphemous...

People just get their hopes up and want to believe this is happening. Rich should've stayed quiet. Yes it hard not to but at the end of the day just let the BBC handle it. They're not doing any favours by jumping the gun and reporting anything that isn't 100% confirmed.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

People just get their hopes up and want to believe this is happening.

Right. I disbelieve rumors as a rule, but I really, really wished this could be true somehow and I feel disappointed to hear that it's probably untrue, even though that's what I assumed all along.

 

[Candlelight]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

People just get their hopes up and want to believe this is happening.

Right. I disbelieve rumors as a rule, but I really, really wished this could be true somehow and I feel disappointed to hear that it's probably untrue, even though that's what I assumed all along.

The whole thing sounded dodgy from the start. How could an African engineer get hold of film prints that never made it to Africa??

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

In an about-face from the weekend, Ian Levine now believes the rumors are true. Apparently.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

I think this is a clear case of no one knows exactly what's going on. Or rather, those who do, aren't saying anything, and those who don't, are just saying stuff to stay relevant. Or something.

I've been following the thread over at GallifreyBase both out off morbid interest and clinging to hope that these rumors are true. One thing of note is that people are claiming that Paul Vanezis, a member of the Restoration Team, stated the following in a thread (although I'm not sure in what forum of what board, but I don't think it's at GallifreyBase):

"And let this be the final, sensible remark on the matter. The only way this will be resolved is if the BBC decide to make a statement. They won't be doing that here, so if anyone wants to speculate about this ridiculous situation, you can do it elsewhere."

Naturally, most people at GallifreyBase are taking note that he doesn't outright deny the rumors.

Honestly, I don't know what to believe anymore. I just know I want to believe it all.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

Honestly, I don't know what to believe anymore. I just know I want to believe it all.

Levine's follow-up tweet. And another.

I'm honestly getting excited. I know I shouldn't. But I am.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

I am not going to get excited and count on this, until BBC actually makes a statement, I will just take it in stride, and hope for some confirmation of at least an episode or two by the Anniversary

Oh, WTF, ((((((((((SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEE))))))))))

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Re: Rumors of a Special Surprise for the Anniversary

I saw one of those already, but not the other.

I, too, am getting excited. For all of his eccentricities, I've never considered Ian a liar, so I really want to believe him here. I'm not sure what to make of the "I was lied to, yes barefaced lied to" bit. If he was lied to before, who is telling him/showing him evidence now?