I did wonder when this would happen…
9 Likes
Hopefully this is only temporary and they just do a re edit with him removed/redubbed
10 Likes
some ideas I’ve had/seen for replacement voiceovers:
- David Tennant, but in his own accent. The man does voiceovers constantly, he’s inescapable!
- Andrew Cotter and Hazel Irvine, the BBC Olympics Opening Ceremony dream team
- RTD himself (apparently he has done this for Torchwood before)
- My dad suggested Michael Sheen to keep it Welsh
- I’ve also seen someone suggest the girl from the episode who presumably will sound quite different now that she is grown up
- Sue Barker, because she’s excellent and I wish she hadn’t retired
14 Likes
How about Frances McDormand?
6 Likes
I volunteer as tribute!
That is to say, I can do the new voice-over!
And better yet, I can do it for free! Because I’m a decent fella!
(Just put me in the credits, please).
Please call me BBC! I’m guaranteed to be your cheapest option!
12 Likes
I strongly disagree with ever re-editing episodes for any reason (unless it is presented as an alternative version and the original remains available) - what happens in real life should have absolutely zero relevance to the content of a fictional work - but unfortunately these are the Orwellian times we live in. I just hope they get it done in time for TV Club.
12 Likes
I have a huge amount of respect for the BBC editing ‘Fear Her’ to remove that disgraceful man. A lot of people would likely be uncomfortable watching the episode in its current state - myself being among that number.
Actually reminds me of something similar that happened with one of Kate Bush’s more recent albums from 2005
‘Aerial’ was split into two halves;
A Sea of Honey being just regular tracks.
A Sky of Honey being a mini-concept album.
The latter featured a now disgraced Australian painter - I’m sure you can all guess who I’m referring to - so his vocals were replaced for the 2018 re-release of the album by Bertie McIntosh (Bush’s son).
9 Likes
Tes that’s another example of the same thing. I think in this particular case the lesson learned should be not to include real-life cameos in case the person disgraces themself later.
But there is no such thing as a “right not to be offended” - the purpose of trigger warnings is to help people avoid content that might make them uncomfortable. The actual content itself should remain intact.
(BTW I’d be perfectly fine with “This episode has been edited to redub certain scenes to replace content that some viewers may find distasteful. However if you would prefer to view the episode as it was originally broadcast, then please click “here”.”
The only problem with that would be if he would continue to be paid royalties, which would complicate the matter somewhat.
10 Likes
I don’t mind this being edited to remove him as it’s a very small cameo, and he has admitted to one of the worst possible crimes.
Had it been a major character, then no of course they can’t edit them out. But it’s so easily replaced that I think removing him from the Whoniverse is a good move. Also maybe he gets paid royalties? (Although doubt that).
Anyone who wants to see the original can get the DVD or something.
13 Likes
9 Likes
Guess they are going after all footage of him, not just Fear Her…
8 Likes
Which is awkward as he was the face on national events including the Queen’s funeral 
9 Likes
This is totally ridiculous! They employed and promoted this person, they should own it. not try & sweep it under the carpet. Every single second of every news report he ever made should remain fully intact & unaltered.
6 Likes
It really isn’t as simple as that though. If the BBC, an organisation already under attack for various political reasons, did nothing about his presence across their archive they would be strongly criticised. There are echoes of the Saville situation here and for the BBC to do nothing isn’t even an option.
This isn’t for the BBC to ‘own’. These were his actions not theirs.
10 Likes
Own what exactly?
Nothing is being swept under any carpets.
6 Likes
Removing him from beloved shows is the right thing to do, doing nothing at all would be sweeping it under the carpet.
9 Likes
What Saville did was way worse than downloading videos, however obscene they were. And “archive” means exactly that - the preservation of historic material in its original form. “History must never be rewritten - not one line”.
At the time the news broadcasts were made, it was not known what kind of a person he was. They should therefore stand in that context. (My post was referring to the newscasts)
5 Likes
I think those will still stand, as in they won’t completely disappear from the BBC archives. But I don’t think the British public will ever see them again in their entirety.
There’s a quote in that Deadline article from a historian who says that the BBC “likely can’t or won’t” delete those broadcasts from the archive. Which make sense; they won’t want to delete their coverage of the Queen’s funeral, for example, just because of one person’s actions. There may even be a requirement for them to keep them for historical significance.
If we see do footage from those broadcasts in the future I imagine they’ll be without his commentary. Which, for the time being at least, I think is the right thing to do.
7 Likes
Let’s hope you’re right. Otherwise it’s a very dangerous road to start to go down.
4 Likes