|
|
Post by elkawho on Aug 24, 2020 11:33:53 GMT
I can't be the only one who has seen this, but it's exciting if something comes of it. It seems they may have found some more missing episodes. It's a shame that the people who have them have to worry about being attacked or sued or whatever if they release them. I don't understand some people. |
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Aug 24, 2020 11:41:16 GMT
Unfortunately, some people are just idiots. It’s something I’ve learnt as I’ve gotten older.
|
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Aug 24, 2020 11:43:08 GMT
Unfortunately, some people are just idiots. It’s something I’ve learnt as I’ve gotten older. Something I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older - it’s not just “some” people... |
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Aug 24, 2020 11:45:33 GMT
Unfortunately, some people are just idiots. It’s something I’ve learnt as I’ve gotten older. Something I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older - it’s not just “some” people... Fair enough. 😅 |
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Aug 24, 2020 12:01:39 GMT
I sympathise with the anonymity and I think I'd prefer that myself if I was in the position of handing missing episodes across. I'm not quite sure why the process would be so delicate or time consuming, though. Phil Morris knows who the people are and he has the contact with the relevant team at the BBC. He either becomes the middle man and takes the episodes from those that made the discovery and passes them on to the BBC, or he puts them in contact with each other, they make the exchange and then they're restored and announced, with digital releases coinciding with that.
Providing the names of those that have made the recovery doesn't seem compulsory or essential to me, which is why I am struggling to understand why it would cause a delay. You can get the background of the recovery, which I'm sure would be included in an announcement, without giving away the details of the individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Aug 24, 2020 13:02:13 GMT
I sympathise with the anonymity and I think I'd prefer that myself if I was in the position of handing missing episodes across. I'm not quite sure why the process would be so delicate or time consuming, though. Phil Morris knows who the people are and he has the contact with the relevant team at the BBC. He either becomes the middle man and takes the episodes from those that made the discovery and passes them on to the BBC, or he puts them in contact with each other, they make the exchange and then they're restored and announced, with digital releases coinciding with that. Providing the names of those that have made the recovery doesn't seem compulsory or essential to me, which is why I am struggling to understand why it would cause a delay. You can get the background of the recovery, which I'm sure would be included in an announcement, without giving away the details of the individuals. Only thing I can think of is if the BBC has to pay these people for the episodes, being a public service they may legally have a public financial disclosure requirement. I don't know that that's the case, but it seems like a possibility that might need to be considered. |
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Aug 24, 2020 13:17:53 GMT
I sympathise with the anonymity and I think I'd prefer that myself if I was in the position of handing missing episodes across. I'm not quite sure why the process would be so delicate or time consuming, though. Phil Morris knows who the people are and he has the contact with the relevant team at the BBC. He either becomes the middle man and takes the episodes from those that made the discovery and passes them on to the BBC, or he puts them in contact with each other, they make the exchange and then they're restored and announced, with digital releases coinciding with that. Providing the names of those that have made the recovery doesn't seem compulsory or essential to me, which is why I am struggling to understand why it would cause a delay. You can get the background of the recovery, which I'm sure would be included in an announcement, without giving away the details of the individuals. Only thing I can think of is if the BBC has to pay these people for the episodes, being a public service they may legally have a public financial disclosure requirement. I don't know that that's the case, but it seems like a possibility that might need to be considered. I did consider that, but the article says it wasn’t about money, so I didn’t think it applied. It’s a fair point, though; it could not be about overdemanding but wanting enough to cover costs, etc. but the way the Beeb is funded could make that difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Aug 24, 2020 13:29:45 GMT
Only thing I can think of is if the BBC has to pay these people for the episodes, being a public service they may legally have a public financial disclosure requirement. I don't know that that's the case, but it seems like a possibility that might need to be considered. I did consider that, but the article says it wasn’t about money, so I didn’t think it applied. It’s a fair point, though; it could not be about overdemanding but wanting enough to cover costs, etc. but the way the Beeb is funded could make that difficult. Oh sure yeah there's that, but I meant it more in the sense that if anonymity is a concern for some of the people holding onto the missing episodes, I wondered whether a BBC financial disclosure requirement might mean that the BBC is required to publicly report that 'We paid £1000 to John Smith on 24 August 2020 in order to acquire Doctor Who episode 123' or something like that, when John Smith doesn't want to be publicly named. Again I don't know if there actually is a requirement like that, but there often is for publicly-owned entities. |
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Aug 24, 2020 13:34:51 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819 
|
Post by lidar2 on Aug 24, 2020 14:06:40 GMT
I did consider that, but the article says it wasn’t about money, so I didn’t think it applied. It’s a fair point, though; it could not be about overdemanding but wanting enough to cover costs, etc. but the way the Beeb is funded could make that difficult. Oh sure yeah there's that, but I meant it more in the sense that if anonymity is a concern for some of the people holding onto the missing episodes, I wondered whether a BBC financial disclosure requirement might mean that the BBC is required to publicly report that 'We paid £1000 to John Smith on 24 August 2020 in order to acquire Doctor Who episode 123' or something like that, when John Smith doesn't want to be publicly named. Again I don't know if there actually is a requirement like that, but there often is for publicly-owned entities. There's usually some sort of get-out clause with a lot of disclosure / freedom of information requirements. Eg The BBC is not naming the seller because the seller fears identifying them would lead to online harassment and intimidation, plus naming the seller may hamper the BBC's ability to serve the public interest by acquiring other missing episodes from private collectors in the future |
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Aug 24, 2020 14:07:23 GMT
Well, that puts paid to that then. |
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Aug 24, 2020 14:38:51 GMT
Well, that puts paid to that then. I thought the Phillip Morris quotes in it sounded to reasonable. Regards mark687 |
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Aug 24, 2020 14:44:10 GMT
I am a little confused by Phil's tweet. I saw the original video where he categorically stated that something like half a dozen episodes missing from the archives are known to be in private collections. He said those words himself. Knowing this, he may be picking on the exact wording here - the article says that negotiations are under way. It's possible that no negotiations are happening, and it's possible that they're already concluded and he's secured the episodes. To say it's all fake though would mean that he himself has very obviously lied during his own interview, and that reflects more poorly on him than this article.
|
|
|
|
Post by idle453 on Aug 24, 2020 15:04:11 GMT
I took the "completely false" comment to mean he is not in negotiations (or indeed even confirmed their location) for seven episodes and not that every word in the article is false. (In that case, he didn't find The Web of Fear and The Enemy of the World.) I would imagine that he wanted to curtail the excitement of the headline.
IDLE
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Aug 24, 2020 16:07:43 GMT
I am a little confused by Phil's tweet. I saw the original video where he categorically stated that something like half a dozen episodes missing from the archives are known to be in private collections. He said those words himself. Knowing this, he may be picking on the exact wording here - the article says that negotiations are under way. It's possible that no negotiations are happening, and it's possible that they're already concluded and he's secured the episodes. To say it's all fake though would mean that he himself has very obviously lied during his own interview, and that reflects more poorly on him than this article. Alas, I would not be surprised by the latter - his Twitter behaviour is appalling and it's sad to see him fall more and more down the NotmyDoctor rabbit hole and be a misinformation spreader. It's saying something when Levine is starting to get some small reappraisal from me. Some. |
|
|
|
Post by polly on Aug 24, 2020 17:56:02 GMT
Well, this thread is a blast from the past. I used to avidly lurk various forums during the Omnirumour days leading up to Enemy and Web's return, and then slightly after. So Phil Morris and his Twitter behavior is certainly familiar to me. Or at least it was, before I decided it wasn't worth it.
It's fun to speculate, and even if this article is false, it does seem cobbled together from things Phil actually said or at least implied. On the other hand, I remember well his Facebook rant that THEY ARE NOT MISSING BUT DESTROYED THE END right before the 2013 returns.
Either way, the fact is, if the BBC has acquired missing episodes, they will surely be released in some fashion. Until that happens, it doesn't matter if they're all buried in the sands of time or if Phil secretly has all 97 locked up in his garden shed, I can't watch them either way.
At least, that's what I tell myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2020 18:12:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Aug 24, 2020 20:11:41 GMT
Yup, this is the article I posted a couple days ago from a local Aussie news site.
|
|
|
|
Post by stcoop on Aug 25, 2020 10:54:00 GMT
Heh, this takes me back to late 2013 when "people in the know" kept insisting that 'Marco Polo' was going to be announced any day now.
|
|
