I read an article recently about the 1949 BBC teleplay The Time Machine, based on the H.G. Wells novel. Needless to say it's... unavailable but I wonder if calling it lost is a proper designation. The BBC at the time lacked the technical ability to broadcast and document simultaneously (I'm not sure any TV station at the time did) so they knew when they made it that it was going to be a one time thing, never to be seen again.
So please give your thoughts on whether "lost media" is appropriate in such cases.
Attachments:
Last Edit: Oct 22, 2022 1:20:34 GMT by serpentnight
i don't see why it wouldn't be. it's media, a product meant for entertainment, and because of what you said it's unavailable to the public fits the definition of lost media pretty well, the fact that it was meant to be seen for a limited amount of time shouldn't have any influence on its status.
Last Edit: May 6, 2022 10:45:31 GMT by quitethedork
Post by stintergalactic on May 6, 2022 14:33:43 GMT
This does raise a bit of a philosophical question. A live, unrecorded television broadcast is much akin to a live stage play. I guess television is a medium, so anything it shows can be considered part of the "media" as a whole, and any television we don't have a copy of would be considered "lost media". But if it was never recorded or intended to be seen again, it does seem to lose some LM cred.
i don't see why it wouldn't be. it's media, a product meant for entertainment, and because of what you said it's unavailable to the public fits the definition of lost media pretty well, the fact that it was meant to be seen for a limited amount of time shouldn't have any influence on its status.
Fair point, but they kind of stand apart as they're lost media with little point in looking for.
Last Edit: May 7, 2022 1:00:18 GMT by serpentnight