(*Dies laughing*)

Seriously though, I like it I believe though that the first Star Trek series aired right around this era. And that was fairly techy for its day. Sure the sets aren't like todays shows, but there's still just something about them, same with this lost episode, there's just some charm in it that I didn't get from the BBC series.

Sure.... just like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 means low production values because it's not in 3D.....

That's different!

3D is a completely different and much more difficult revolution in the film industry than color. That's why there have been 3D films for decades and 3D still isn't anywhere close to being an industry standard.

The overwhelmingly positive transition from black and white to color is undeniable. There are no real disadvantages to having a film be in color. With 3D, you have to wear these special tinted glasses that darken the image, the background is blurred to simulate focus, and some people get headaches. 3D has many negative aspects to it, while color has none.

And how was this one discovered? Was it on one of the original film reels, or was it a home movie someone made, or what?

The film reel was used in 1988 when BBC made LWW as a 6-part TV serial, as they also did a 30 minute documentary to introduce the serial. This included coverage of how they made it, but also some historical bits of earlier productions, including a piece of studio film of a radio version being recorded (!), Trevor Preston and the director talking about the BBC 1967 one, and some extracts from this reel.
It was very reminiscent of stage plays where people represented animals but weren't trying to convince the audience they WERE that animal.

It annoys me that people automatically think B&W = low production values.

Yeah, low production values might have been the wrong way to say it. I wasn't trying to say the two were equal, I was just saying that these were made in a time when televisions weren't even equipped with color, so a mere tv series obviously wouldn't be very advanced from a technical standpoint.

TVs WERE equipped with color in 1967 Britain. But mostly it was used for newscasts and popular television shows. TVs back then were able to watch both color and black and white shows. So the 1967 LWW didn't have a good enough budget to afford color cameras.

Yes, that was in 1967 Britain. We didn't get it until 1975. Even then it was more likely the commercial stations that had access the best equipment, ie colour cameras. Outfits like BBC and ABC (the Australian version) often only got what budget a miserly government was prepared to spend on them. I thought that the ABC which made the LWW snippet was the American one.

Yes, America got colour TV long before the UK and Australia but we Aussies received better quality colour TV because the wait allowed for great advances in technology. Yay!

The overwhelmingly positive transition from black and white to color is undeniable. There are no real disadvantages to having a film be in color.

*snort*

We are talking TV, here, I recognize that ... but speaking as a film buff, color was introduced into theaters back in the 30s, and films were still being made in B&W well into the 60s. Sometimes, especially in smaller studios, this was because of budgetary considerations, but other times it was an artistic choice. I'm sure a similar thing happened in TV.

So ... obviously there are some advantages, for certain types of movies/television programs, to black and white. It's just that today, when everything is in color, we are too willing to look over our noses at B&W as bad technology.

^To play off of the artistic choice thing, that's why part of the Wizard of Oz is in color and part is in Black and White, but this is a bit off topic...

I really hope episode one appears somewhere...