UFO on Family Room HD

Hi all,

I just checked, and UFO is still being shown in high definition
on a daily basis in the USA, on the channel 'Family Room HD'
on Dish Network. To give you an idea about the frequency
of showings and episode order, here is the upcoming schedule:

All times Pacific Standard Times:

THE PSYCHOBOMBS - 11/20 @ 8:30pm, 11/21 @ 3am, 9:30am, 4pm
REFLECTIONS IN THE WATER - 11/22 @ 8:30pm, 11/23 @ 2:30am, 8:30am,
2:30pm
TIMELASH - 11/24 @ 8am, 3:30pm, 11pm, 11/25 @ 3:30am
MINDBENDER - 11/26 @ 8:30pm, 11/27 @ 3am, 9:30am, 4pm
THE LONG SLEEP - 11/28 @ 8:30pm, 11/29 @ 3:30am, 10:30am
IDENTIFIED - 11/30 @ 8:30pm, 12/1 @ 3am
COMPUTER AFFAIR - 12/2 @ 8:30am, 3:30pm, 10:30pm, 12/3 @ 5:30am, 12:30pm

So it looks like they are following the production order.

Marc

> I just checked, and UFO is still being shown in high definition
> on a daily basis in the USA, on the channel 'Family Room HD'
> on Dish Network.

Oh, by the way, a list member has had a recent breakthrough --
he's been able to extract the MPEG-2 stream off of his Dish
Network DVR, resulting in a perfect copy of the UFO episodes
being shown on Family Room HD!

As expected, this channel is not broadcasting in full HDTV
(1920 x 1080 interlaced), but instead is only 66% of the
resolution of full HDTV -- 1280 x 1080i. The resulting
MPEG-2 files are 4 to 5 GB.

While not full HDTV, that's still quite a bit better than
the UFO DVD's, which are 720 x 576 (PAL) or 720 x 480 (NTSC),
and typically are about 2 GB per episode.

So hopefully in the near future I will be updating my
UFO HDTV page with some actual frame captures (and
perhaps a very brief clip), which should be an improvement
over the current photographs of a HDTV screen!

http://www.ufoseries.com/hdtv

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:

 
> So hopefully in the near future I will be updating my
> UFO HDTV page with some actual frame captures (and
> perhaps a very brief clip), which should be an improvement
> over the current photographs of a HDTV screen!



Thanks Marc, I'll be interested to see these :-)


A while back you said the HDTV was sourced from the original film -
obviously the highest definition possible. I have two questions to
ask about this: firstly, has this HD version produced an exact
copy of the original film quality? Or is it not possible to replicate
the original and there's always a downgrade of sorts? Secondly, are
there plans to transfer this HD version onto DVD for home viewing?


You mentioned compression and how this reduces picture quality.
Forgive my total ignorance of all things digital, but I just don't
get the point of this. If the 'raison d'etre' of HD is to provide a
better quality picture, but some of that improved definition is then
lost through compression, what's the point in bothering in the first
place? Assuming UFO were released on HD DVD, would it be similarly
compressed, and if so, how much of a loss in quality from the
original HD would there be?

 

Assuming there would still be a considerable improvement over SD the
only real advantage I can see for HD is to provide a better quality
picture on those huge flatscreen TVs that are becoming the "norm"
nowadays. If I were to watch the SD DVDs on both a 28" screen side-
by-side with a 50" screen, then the smaller picture is going to look
much better, isn't it? An HD version would look considerably better
on the 50" screen compared to the SD on that same screen, but
wouldn't necessarily look better than the SD on the 28" screen. Or
am I completely wrong?


Talking of comparisons, Branko and Rob both commented about watching
the SD DVDs on giant sized TV screens and in one case the picture
quality was judged to be excellent, but not in the other! There
will always be quite a subjective element in making such judgements,
never mind all the variables involved with using different makes of
equipment and so on that affect picture quality. I know someone who
watches the SD DVDs via a projector where the viewing image is life-
size and it's very watchable! So without comparing "like-with-like"
AND "side-by-side" it would be impossible to tell which was the best
quality and even then it's down to personal opinion :-)


After all this rambling, my point is - just what advantage would HD
DVDs actually have over the excellent SD versions, should they ever
became available? Would it really be worth all that extra expense?
Or is HD as a technology upgrade a bad case of diminishing returns
and is really only a load of hype to get everyone to spend lots more
money?


I hope this makes some sense!!! :-}


Sarah
 

> A while back you said the HDTV was sourced from the original film -
> obviously the highest definition possible. I have two questions to
> ask about this: firstly, has this HD version produced an exact
> copy of the original film quality? Or is it not possible to replicate
> the original and there's always a downgrade of sorts?

I'm not sure what the resolution of the original film stock
is -- it is certainly possible that it exceeds 1080 x 1920.
However, when you go to see a 35mm in a movie theater, what
you see does NOT have this much resolution, because it is
several generations removed from the original.

I would consider the HDTV version a downgrade for reasons
other than resolution -- because they've reformattted it
for widescreen, and they've processed the sound to make
it sound like it's in surround sound. However, if you're
trying to make out some fine details in the image, it
should be better than watching film projected in a theater.

> Secondly, are
> there plans to transfer this HD version onto DVD for home viewing?

I know of no plans for this to be released on disc.

> You mentioned compression and how this reduces picture quality.
> Forgive my total ignorance of all things digital, but I just don't
> get the point of this.

Well, these days, all things released on disc and broadcast
on digital television are compressed. There is always some
quality loss through this process. Even our beloved UFO DVDs
look worse than the original uncompressed versions created
at BBC Resources. This is simply because it would require too
much bandwidth (data rate/file size) to use an uncompressed
version. However, sometimes the cable and satellite
companies compress things so much that this destroys
any advantage that a digital / HDTV picture might have
had.

Home video releases on disc are also compressed, but
usually not as much as cable / satellite, so a disc
release should look better (assuming that they don't
try to squeeze too many episodes onto one disc). But
someone with a sharp eye would still be able to spot the
differences between this and an uncompressed version,
although many probably wouldn't notice any difference.

> An HD version would look considerably better
> on the 50" screen compared to the SD on that same screen, but
> wouldn't necessarily look better than the SD on the 28" screen.

Yes, if someone is watching a 30" screen from 10 feet away,
they probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference
between standard TV and high definition TV. It's when
you get larger screen sizes or watch from a closer
distance that you can see the difference.

> Talking of comparisons, Branko and Rob both commented about watching
> the SD DVDs on giant sized TV screens and in one case the picture
> quality was judged to be excellent, but not in the other!

Yes, some TV's (or DVD players) do a poor job of scaling DVDs
to HDTV resolution, while others do an excellent job. Scaling
technology has become an important factor in picture quality
on modern day televisions, because the source resolution
is often different than the TV resolution.

> After all this rambling, my point is - just what advantage would HD
> DVDs actually have over the excellent SD versions, should they ever
> became available? Would it really be worth all that extra expense?
> Or is HD as a technology upgrade a bad case of diminishing returns
> and is really only a load of hype to get everyone to spend lots more
> money?

Heh, heh, well there is no single "right" answer to that question...
the advantage is that the picture quality should be better,
especially on larger sized sets. However, as we all know, the
picture quality on the current DVDs are already pretty good,
and perhaps "good enough" for many.

Marc

As I mentioned in a previous posting, UFO was no different to most
British TV shows of that period, in that the film stock used was
pretty cheap and cheerful, and certainly not of the same standard as
feature film material of the same era, such as EastmanColor or
Technicolor. For one, the grain was much more prominent, as it was
less light sensitive, and the general colour saturation was poorer.
That said, any 35mm film has considerably more resolution than
compressed HDTV, and if was remastered and processed properly from the
original positives, I suspect the screen quality would be excellent.

For those who haven't experienced quality HDTV (and I am talking 1080p
with 40"+ screens), I suggest you visit a decent TV supplier and see
for yourself - I personally recommend Sony or Phillips. Like many
emerging technologies there is a lot of rot and marketing piffle
bandied about regarding the subject by both retailers and
manufacturers, so be warned.

Just for peoples interest, yet another new technology emerging is
HDR-TV, (High Dynamic Range) - The concept being that most TV blacks
are actually dark grey, and the whites are not that bright. LCD
televisions basically use a bunch of fluorescent tubes to backlight
the display. This new concept uses arrays of super-bright, white LEDs
that adjust accordingly, so if one corner of the screen is black, they
are off, if it's a white wall, they are at maybe 50%, but if you shoot
into headlights or the sun, you get the full 100%, *only in the places
required*, so you get really intense images.

I predict having to watch Holiday TV shows with sunglasses and filter
block on soon ;o)

Unfortunately, I think this technology would require special cameras,
so it wouldnt work on old material. ho-hum.

Hi Marc,

Thanks for the reply :-) Forgive me, but I've a few more comments/
questions to ask:


> I'm not sure what the resolution of the original film stock
> is -- it is certainly possible that it exceeds 1080 x 1920.
> However, when you go to see a 35mm in a movie theater, what
> you see does NOT have this much resolution, because it is
> several generations removed from the original.


I believe you; what I meant to establish was whether HD would be able
to replicate the original film resolution to the point where we could
watch at this quality on our own TVs - if this makes sense :-}

 
> I would consider the HDTV version a downgrade for reasons
> other than resolution -- because they've reformattted it
> for widescreen, and they've processed the sound to make
> it sound like it's in surround sound. However, if you're
> trying to make out some fine details in the image, it
> should be better than watching film projected in a theater.


Isn't film a different size ratio to either 4:3 or 16:9, so wouldn't
some cropping of the original image be necessary in both cases to
make it fit onto television screens? Sorry if this has been
explained before!

I'd be interested to hear the pseudo-surround though! Why do you
think this is worse? Have they added extra sound effects or
something? :-/


> Well, these days, all things released on disc and broadcast
> on digital television are compressed. There is always some
> quality loss through this process. Even our beloved UFO DVDs
> look worse than the original uncompressed versions created
> at BBC Resources.  


If this is so, then why can't they release an HD DVD version using
the uncompressed SD remaster as the source, to be able to see the
higher quality resolution? Or are the two disc formats totally
incompatible or something?  

I'm sorry - I did say I was completely ignorant about digital
technology! As a consumer though I'm interested to understand how
HD is meant to be an improvement over SD. Seeing what you've just
said - that we can't even see the SD version at it's best - makes
me wonder even more what the point of HD is... :-/



> This is simply because it would require too
> much bandwidth (data rate/file size) to use an uncompressed
> version. However, sometimes the cable and satellite
> companies compress things so much that this destroys
> any advantage that a digital / HDTV picture might have
> had.



Okay - so with reference to UFO on ITV 4, although they are an SD
digital channel they are somehow broadcasting the old analogue prints
converted into digital - they can't be showing the DVDs because the
picture is so rubbish!! If they are then compressing this digital
signal even more, doesn't this mean what we are watching now is worse
in quality than these same prints when they were broadcast over
thirty years ago?  

If the quality of current SD broadcasts is being deliberately reduced
through compression to fit more channels in, resulting in a picture
quality worse than analogue, then surely this means by the time we've
all bought new HD equipment and are saying "WOW!" at the
apparent "improvement", all that's happened is the HD picture quality
is really not much better than the old days of analogue and CRT -
just bigger?



> Home video releases on disc are also compressed, but
> usually not as much as cable / satellite, so a disc
> release should look better (assuming that they don't
> try to squeeze too many episodes onto one disc). But
> someone with a sharp eye would still be able to spot the
> differences between this and an uncompressed version,
> although many probably wouldn't notice any difference.


Hang on - are you now saying that compression doesn't make much
difference in picture quality? Or only in ways that the average
punter wouldn't notice? Or that there are acceptable levels of
compression? Help, I'm even more confused!!


 
> Yes, some TV's (or DVD players) do a poor job of scaling DVDs
> to HDTV resolution, while others do an excellent job. Scaling
> technology has become an important factor in picture quality
> on modern day televisions, because the source resolution
> is often different than the TV resolution.


Oh dear, yet *another* factor to have to consider when buying new
equipment ;-O Could you clarify what you mean about a difference
between the source and TV in terms of resolution and why it matters?


 
> Heh, heh, well there is no single "right" answer to that question...
> the advantage is that the picture quality should be better,
> especially on larger sized sets. However, as we all know, the
> picture quality on the current DVDs are already pretty good,
> and perhaps "good enough" for many.


So it really is all down to size?

Well, for the time being I'm very happy watching the SD DVDs on an
outdated relatively small screen CRT, they are such an improvement on
the old videos! Still, I'd very much like to be able to see UFO on
HDTV for myself - does anybody know if these versions of UFO will
ever be screened on an HD channel that can be seen here in the UK?


Thanks again, Marc :-) I sincerely hope I'm not testing your
patience too much!


Best wishes,


Sarah

--- In [hidden email], "Rob Neal" <tryptych@...> wrote:

> That said, any 35mm film has considerably more resolution than
> compressed HDTV, and if was remastered and processed properly from
> the original positives, I suspect the screen quality would be
>excellent.

So you think if a top notch remastering in HD were done, it would be
as good as it is possible to be? Or do we still not have the
technology?

 
> Just for peoples interest, yet another new technology emerging is
> HDR-TV, (High Dynamic Range) - The concept being that most TV blacks
> are actually dark grey, and the whites are not that bright. LCD
> televisions basically use a bunch of fluorescent tubes to backlight
> the display. This new concept uses arrays of super-bright, white
LEDs

<snip>


Sounds interesting :-) Personally I think the picture on an LCD is
very disappointing, even with HD :-( But they're large, flat, you
can hang them on the wall and everybody's buying them.

What happened to plasmas then?
 

Apologies for being off-topic ;-}


Sarah

> I believe you; what I meant to establish was whether HD would be able
> to replicate the original film resolution to the point where we could
> watch at this quality on our own TVs - if this makes sense :-}

I don't know what the resolution of the original film
negatives are. Best case with modern-day film is apparently
around 4000 x 3000 pixels, but as has been said before, UFO used
film from 1970 and was not necessarily the best grade of
film available, nor did they probably bother to focus
so accurately to take full advantage of the film resolution.
The frame captures I have from the 1080 x 1920 broadcast of
Space:1999 look a bit blurry at that resolution, so I assume
that the high definition version exceeds the resolution of
the original film.

> Isn't film a different size ratio to either 4:3 or 16:9, so wouldn't
> some cropping of the original image be necessary in both cases to
> make it fit onto television screens?

Well, I think film is 1.37, which is very close to 1.33 (4:3).

> I'd be interested to hear the pseudo-surround though! Why do you
> think this is worse? Have they added extra sound effects or
> something? :-/

No, they've added echo, and essentially to get a "stereo"
effect it sounds like someone has turned the balance control
from left to right. It's quite annoying, and can be found
on the English track of the Japanese UFO DVD releases.

> If this is so, then why can't they release an HD DVD version using
> the uncompressed SD remaster as the source, to be able to see the
> higher quality resolution?

They could indeed release an HD DVD using the old SD masters,
and utilize less compression to give a higher quality picture.
However, I doubt that they'd bother, as they'd probably only
see a market for a release that is truly mastered in HDTV.

> I'm sorry - I did say I was completely ignorant about digital
> technology! As a consumer though I'm interested to understand how
> HD is meant to be an improvement over SD. Seeing what you've just
> said - that we can't even see the SD version at it's best - makes
> me wonder even more what the point of HD is... :-/

Well, today everything is compressed -- if you listen to an MP3
file, it has been compressed. If you view a JPEG file, it has
been compressed. It just makes sense from a quality-to-file-size
ratio. All things being equal, a compressed HDTV picture will
look better than a compressed SD picture.

> Okay - so with reference to UFO on ITV 4, although they are an SD
> digital channel they are somehow broadcasting the old analogue prints
> converted into digital - they can't be showing the DVDs because the
> picture is so rubbish!! If they are then compressing this digital
> signal even more, doesn't this mean what we are watching now is worse
> in quality than these same prints when they were broadcast over
> thirty years ago?

It could be -- the digital compression does degrade the picture, but
30 years ago you had ghosting images or noisy cable feeds.
You're just trading one set of degradation for another. On my
cable system, I've compared the analog versions of channels
with the digital conversions of those same channels, and there
are certainly reasons to prefer to the analog versions. However,
the HDTV versions of these channels are better than both the
analog and digital SD versions.

> Hang on - are you now saying that compression doesn't make much
> difference in picture quality? Or only in ways that the average
> punter wouldn't notice? Or that there are acceptable levels of
> compression? Help, I'm even more confused!!

I think compression is ALWAYS acceptable, it's just how MUCH
compression is used is the issue. There is too much tendency
to cram too many episodes onto a DVD, or too many channels
onto a cable/satellite system. With a reasonable amount
of compression, the nobody is going to complain about it.

> Oh dear, yet *another* factor to have to consider when buying new
> equipment ;-O Could you clarify what you mean about a difference
> between the source and TV in terms of resolution and why it matters?

Well, in the good old days of analog CRT systems, your broadcast
channels and video systems assumed that you had a certain number
of lines of vertical resolution (576 lines for PAL, 480 lines for
NTSC). And the TV's you have were designed for that, too. Now,
we have cable systems and video discs that put out 480/576 lines,
or it might put out 720 lines or 1080 lines. And you have TV
sets which might have yet another resolution -- I own an HDTV
which has 786 lines! In order to fill the screen, the TV or cable box
or DVD player must now scale the signal to fit the TV, which
can cause further degradation. Just try running your LCD
computer monitor at something other than its native resolution,
and you'll see the same kind of degradation. Certainly
the best quality is going to happen when viewing the
source material at its native resolution, and if not,
higher quality scaling will produce better results.

> So it really is all down to size?

Size and distance. For every size of television screen,
there will be a distance where one cannot tell the
difference between SD and HDTV. So if you've
got a large screen or are watching from a close
distance, you're more likely to notice the
improvement.

Marc

> Sounds interesting :-) Personally I think the picture on an LCD is
> very disappointing, even with HD :-( But they're large, flat, you
> can hang them on the wall and everybody's buying them.
>
> What happened to plasmas then?

I agree with this -- LCD TV's don't look as good as CRT's,
especially when you consider that people will be viewing
the picture from various angles. I think plasma TVs
are much better in all aspects of picture quality, and
you can certainly find plasma TV's where I live (although
the smallest size plasma I can find is 37", where LCD's
go down to 20"). Another concern with plasma has
been image burn-in and power consumption, although
each year these problems become less of an issue.

Marc

> I think compression is ALWAYS acceptable

Sorry, the above statement might be confusing -- what
I meant is that there is nothing wrong with compression
in general. With minimal compression, the average
person cannot tell the difference between the original,
even though the file size is much smaller. The problems
occur when you use too much compression.

Marc

I think one must also appreciate that DVD's are now pretty old
technology, and still use MPEG1 or 2 compression codecs.
(A codec is the coder/decoder software algorithm that actually
crunches and restores the data)

Nowadays, most people can view such codecs such as Divx, Xvid and
H263, which are far superior, and allow high compression with minimal
quality loss; these are not only viewable on computers, but many DVD
players can also read them. Now with HD/BluRay discs that hold far
more than a DVDs, and use better codecs, the quality will be far
improved, even before considering the picture size.

One other point, Marc, is I think you will find now that LCDs versus
Plasmas is really 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, and there is very
little to choose between them. I know Sony have ceased manufacture of
all their plasma TVs, and many others are due to follow, simply
because LCDs are generally cheaper to make and have a lower failure
rate, along with all the environmental issues of power consumption etc.


Rob


--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:

Rob wrote:
".....UFO was no different to most
British TV shows of that period, in that the film stock used was
pretty cheap and cheerful, and certainly not of the same standard as
feature film material of the same era, such as EastmanColor or
Technicolor. For one, the grain was much more prominent, as it was
less light sensitive, and the general colour saturation was poorer...."


Sorry, but I can't agree with the above post...

In the UK in the late 1960s there were various colour film stocks
generally available from Eastman Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji (Ilford made B/W
only). All the 35mm stocks were made to the highest standard. There were
NO "cheap and cheerful" 35mm stocks made for TV use. Feature films were
made on the same range of stocks as the (relatively few) UK series shot
on 35mm. While the odd Eastern European stock, like Orwo, was available
to a certain extent it wasn't used on major professional productions.

No one would want to use a cheap stock which was less sensitive to
light, especially on a show which had more interior shots than most
films. The extra cost of lighting and electricity would more than
outweigh any savings on the stock - apart from making the set hellishly
hot to work in.

Less sensitive (slower) stocks are and always were LESS grainy than more
sensitive (faster) stocks - it is the usual trade-off, speed vs. grain.

The grainier but more sensitive stock would normally be MORE expensive
than the slower stock.

Don't forget that UFO had a far higher proportion of interior shots than
most films. UFO would therefore have been mainly shot on one of the
more sensitive (and hence grainier) stocks from the major manufacturors
BUT this was standard practice on feature film interiors (and model
shots where the faster stock helps to gain much-needed Depth of Field) -
using exactly the same stock.
This was entirely consistent with the feature film norms of the time.

Certainly no corners were cut with the processing and printing of UFO as
it was carried out at Rank Film Labs, easily one of the top three labs
in the country at the time and used by many major feature films.

Re: "EastmanColor or Technicolor" and the implication that anything else
was sub-standard...

I think Rob is a little confused over these labels. "EastmanColor" was
simply a marketing label applied to films shot on stocks made by Easman
Kodak and processed and printed in an entirely standard way by any
normal film lab. Films shot on Fuji or Agfa stock were processed in
exactly the same way and the stocks themselves (apart from producing
slight aesthetic differences) were much the same technically.
Eastman had an extra kudos (Coke vs Pepsi if you like) but it would have
been perfectly acceptable professionally to use any of these three
stocks and any marginal differences could be difficult to detect even by
a professional. There might have been slight price differences but a
deal could usually be struck for a better price given the amount of
stock that a TV series would use.

The "Technicolor" has meant several very different things over the years.
Long story short-ish...
Nowadays, the label Technicolor simply means that the film was shot on
Eastman or Fuji film and processed and/or printed in a Technicolor-owned
laboratory in exactly the same way as it would be at any other lab.
It began however as a unique system which used first 2 and then 3 strips
of b/w film in a specially adapted camera to record different primary
colours. After processing, each colour was dyed onto the final print
producing a vibrant print. At this point it was a system with a distinct
look and quality.
By the 1950s the first part of this process was dead in mainstream
filming. The post-shooting dye process survived a little longer but the
matrices which printed the dye were produced from standard film shot
with a standard camera. Only the biggest feature films used this process
for a limited number of prestige prints as it was very expensive.
This was the state of play when UFO was made. The average feature film
wouldn't be printed using the dye process - it would be absurd for a TV
series (where the viewers aren't seeing a print projected anyway) to use it.

I'm sorry, but to suggest that 35mm TV series in general, or UFO in
particular, were using substandard film stock or that they were remiss
in not using "EastmanColor or Technicolor" simply makes no sense. They
were using the normal film industry standards of the time

Regards
John.

> I'm sorry, but to suggest that 35mm TV series in general, or UFO in
> particular, were using substandard film stock or that they were remiss
> in not using "EastmanColor or Technicolor" simply makes no sense. They
> were using the normal film industry standards of the time

Thanks for that, John -- I was thinking that the quality of the UFO
DVD's is so good that the film stock COULDN'T be THAT bad!

MArc

I don't know if you've discussed this topic before on
this forum, but it has been suggested in future
scripts that went unshot due to the cancellation of
the series, that Foster and Straker were at odds at
times due to the strain of a gay relationship between
the two.

This allegedly contributed to the breakup of Straker's
marriage and accounted for the fact that
Foster)himself was unmarried, and in real life Michael
Billington was gay and the cancer that killed him
relatively young and fast was related to a deficient
immune system caused by the AIDS retrovirus.

Again, since these are bona fide but unshot scripts it
may be irrelevant to this forum BUT in looking back
with hindsight I do see this tension there.

If this has been discussed, I apologize as I am new
here- could someone point me in the direction of the
topics if previously posted?

Sue




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Sue,
Better fasten your chinstrap.

On Nov 28, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Susan Smith wrote:



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Susan Smith wrote:
> I don't know if you've discussed this topic before on
> this forum, but it has been suggested in future
> scripts that went unshot due to the cancellation of
> the series, that Foster and Straker were at odds at
> times due to the strain of a gay relationship between
> the two.

"it has been suggested" by who? Anyone other than
yourself? There was no gay relationship between
the two characters mentioned by anyone involved
in the production, and there were no unshot scripts
due to the cancellation of the series.

> This allegedly contributed to the breakup of Straker's
> marriage and accounted for the fact that
> Foster)himself was unmarried, and in real life Michael
> Billington was gay and the cancer that killed him
> relatively young and fast was related to a deficient
> immune system caused by the AIDS retrovirus.

Again, I believe that everything you have written
is incorrect. You must have some bad sources of
information (or like to make things up).

Marc

I would love to have you point me in the direction of
these "unfilmed" scripts.

I think the breakup of Straker's marriage was dealt with pretty
conclusively in the series. It has nothing to do with the character
being "gay" and everything to do with Straker being a driven person
who put everything he had into his job, even sacraficing his family.

Bottom line, it's a lot of rubbish

Dear gentlefolk: well, usually I don't have much to say on UFO issues in this forum but this crap about Ed Bishop and Mike Billington either being gay in real life or in the series is a unbelievably unrealistic. First of all, the issue of gayness was not one even broached in TV shows in the 1960's. Due to censorship, it just wouldn't have been approached let alone suggested. Also, it is none of OUR business if either actor WAS gay in real life or not. Being gay does not make anyone LESS of a person. However, that being said, I have not come across anything that postulated either actor or character was gay, and I did ask Mike in our e-mailed correspondence about such things (due to the dumb and poorly written slash stories which were posted on the SHADO Library at the time), and he stated to me that the only reason he didn't sue the writers or make trouble for them was because they were NOT worth it to his peace of mind! I'd also like to remind people that both Ed and Mike were parents and one should consider their families before rattling off with such unsubstantiated excrement.

Disgustedly, Pam the Canuck

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In addition, didn't Straker's marriage end before Foster was even a part of SHADO?

Jeff

James Durdan <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would love to have you point me in the direction of
these "unfilmed" scripts.

I think the breakup of Straker's marriage was dealt with pretty
conclusively in the series. It has nothing to do with the character
being "gay" and everything to do with Straker being a driven person
who put everything he had into his job, even sacraficing his family.

Bottom line, it's a lot of rubbish






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've seen this in Fan Fiction. In Real Life, this is NO ONE"S
BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!\

Wendy



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]