1967: exit of J. Bryce, entry of B. Clemens and A. Fennell

[Frankymole]

Roger did some amazing scripts - and I always think that some of his very best material is for the shows that he originated himself; "Public Eye", "Travelling Man", etc.

I've just bought Travelling Man on DVD, I missed it on transmission so I look forward to discovering the stories. Did Roger Marshall novelise any of it into book form? I wish he'd done a Public Eye book, though Anthony Marriot's is quite fun (an original story not a novelisation) and there is also a novelisation of the Brighton season (not by a writer from the TV series, but using Roger's scripts). Roger did write a short story of "what Frank did next" for a couple of the DVD releases.

As such, I always find it fascinating to look at "Invasion of the Earthmen" and what's left of "Invitation to a Killing" and "The Great, Great Britain Crime" and try to understand the feel that John Bryce was going for... but it's a very nebulous thing. Certainly a bit straighter in tone than what had been filmed since the sale to the USA - and, of course, closer to the late VT shows that John had helmed.

It makes me wonder whether most of the reason Bryce was sacked was that the high-ups deemed his episodes to be returning too much to the pre-film feel and that they would not go down well in the USA. Which is ironic, because it was waning US interest that killed off the series at the end of the season, anyway!

[Elle]

I know it would never have happened, of course, but I'd have been happy for the show to go back to the videotaped style again (or at very least a return to the realistic level of series 4). It had clearly run it's course by 1969 in the form it had evolved into. The show had burned all it's bridges though by going down the all-film / international money route and the powers-that-be were probably reluctant to be seen to be taking a backwards step with it. Added to that, the show found itself in a situation whereby the style it was being made in was only working with Clemens at the helm. It's a bit like the situation with Doctor Who back in 2010: Regardless of whether we liked it or not ourselves, Russell.T.Davies clearly loved and understood how to make DW universally popular. But once he moved on, it started to gradually slip in popularity. Now he's taken it back on again, there is seemingly nobody else waiting in the wings to sustain it in the same way after him and I fully expect the same thing to eventually happen again when he leaves for a second time - unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat somehow (Davies may well be trying to mitigate against that this time - with spin-offs and a multi-verse scenario etc - but it still remains to be seen if he can pull it off)! Some programmes eventually become the victim of their own enormous success (The Avengers and Dr.Who included).

[mousemeat]

Bryce getting sacked due to the specter of returning to Video Tape era, could be possible...but it's hard to say..

It was probably due to his shooting schedules, and the amount of time....and time is money..

and yeah, U.S. ABC was footing the majority of the bills, and made sure their agendas were being met...the series was getting fairly decent ratings, despite going up against Rowan & Martin's Laugh In (NBC) which was the number # 1 show on American TV.....and ABC could have easily moved it
to another day and time slot..and it might have gotten much better Nielsen ratings...

Hard to believe that the withdrawal of American capital, helped sink it..as the show was broadcasted in many other world regions each paying a broadcast fee..which was probably a tiny sum..

[Andrew Pixley]

I've just bought Travelling Man on DVD, I missed it on transmission so I look forward to discovering the stories.[/quote]

Oh... how I envy you. I think you're in for a treat! Hope you enjoy it. Amazing soundtrack score as well! :)

Did Roger Marshall novelise any of it into book form?

There's a paperback which, as I recall, covers the first series. It's credited to Peter James and published by Star Books.

It makes me wonder whether most of the reason Bryce was sacked was that the high-ups deemed his episodes to be returning too much to the pre-film feel and that they would not go down well in the USA.

It's interesting to look at what was happening on the networks at that juncture; possibly John Bryce was reading the room quite well since the colorful, comic-strip, zany approach was on its way out by autumn 1967; "The Man from UNCLE" was toughening up while "The Girl from UNCLE" hadn't been renewed, and "Batman" which had been hyper-popular 18 months earlier was now out of vogue. Possibly, John did understand what ABC in the US were after...

Which is ironic, because it was waning US interest that killed off the series at the end of the season, anyway!

Oh yes! I think by mid-1967 it was the US network sale that was the primary reason for the continuation of "The Avengers". Scheduling of the first batch of colour episodes in the UK was poor and highly fragmented, so - yes - by that point I think you're bang on. It's effectively a show made in the UK for the US market,

All the best

Andrew

[Andrew Pixley]

I know it would never have happened, of course, but I'd have been happy for the show to go back to the videotaped style again (or at very least a return to the realistic level of series 4).

I think after the very same-y run of episodes made from late 1965 after the US to mid-1967, it was good to have a change. But I can see why they took that approach; many US shows on the networks at that time were extremely consistent from week to week in tone and content. And I can see how there was a change from late 1967 onwards; if anything, it gets quite experimental... and some of it works and some of it doesn't.

It had clearly run it's course by 1969 in the form it had evolved into. The show had burned all it's bridges though by going down the all-film / international money route and the powers-that-be were probably reluctant to be seen to be taking a backwards step with it.

I'm always wary about series that try to much to good "backwards". I've a feeling that David and Maddie explicitly state this sentiment at some point towards the end of "Moonlighting" - a wonderful series where I love the early straight-forward crime capers as much as I love the bizarre post-modern character plays that came later.

Added to that, the show found itself in a situation whereby the style it was being made in was only working with Clemens at the helm. It's a bit like the situation with Doctor Who back in 2010: Regardless of whether we liked it or not ourselves, Russell.T.Davies clearly loved and understood how to make DW universally popular. But once he moved on, it started to gradually slip in popularity.

The big shift - as I recall - was in late 2013/early 2014 after the 50th anniversary. I remember by late 2014 there were colleagues in the office who'd watched it avidly in 2012 not even being aware that there was a new season.

Russel's 2005 reboot really was smart. We've been rewatching it again of late and it is so bang on in its approach to capturing a family audience and being accessible on a wide scale. We've just started on the 2010 series and we're massively enjoying that as well - partly because we wanted something new in terms of approach and style, but also because we like this sort of "dark fairy tale" narrative style that's clearly got more appeal for the original audience of youngsters who are now Young Adults (and also more attractive for the BBC America audience which was now an important secondary market).

Now he's taken it back on again, there is seemingly nobody else waiting in the wings to sustain it in the same way after him and I fully expect the same thing to eventually happen again when he leaves for a second time - unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat somehow

I think that within the next few years, there should be experienced TV professionals who grew up on "Doctor Who" in 2005 and have just the same passion to move it forwards and reinvent it as Russell did back then. Can't wait for that! So exciting!

Some programmes eventually become the victim of their own enormous success (The Avengers and Dr.Who included).

Quite - with 'dramatic' series of this sort there is a danger of being buried by their own history. But I still think that a lot of the most fascinating series are those that do move forwards now and again rather than staying the same. The only problem is whether the audience is prepared to move along with them. That third season is often so tricky. So odd - we went back and watched the whole of "Between the Lines" the other year and dreaded getting to the third and final run when the format changed significantly... but as it turned out we loved the whole run and indeed some of the best scripts were in that last batch.

All the best

Andrew

[Andrew Pixley]

Bryce getting sacked due to the specter of returning to Video Tape era, could be possible...but it's hard to say..

It was probably due to his shooting schedules, and the amount of time....and time is money..

Looking at the schedules, John Bryce actually seems to be bringing episodes in quicker than Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell did. Quick glance at some notes shows "The Superlative Seven" clocking up 18 days and 19 days spent on "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Station" (both massively lavish when the turnaround for a one-hour ITC series at the time was 9 or 10 days, and generally 6 or 7 days for a US network series). By comparison, "Invasion of the Earthmen" has 10 days and a few pick-ups, "Invasion of the Earthmen" has 12 and "The Great Great Britain Crime" runs to 13.

and yeah, U.S. ABC was footing the majority of the bills, and made sure their agendas were being met...the series was getting fairly decent ratings, despite going up against Rowan & Martin's Laugh In (NBC) which was the number # 1 show on American TV.....and ABC could have easily moved it
to another day and time slot..and it might have gotten much better Nielsen ratings...

Absolutely right! :)

Hard to believe that the withdrawal of American capital, helped sink it..as the show was broadcasted in many other world regions each paying a broadcast fee..which was probably a tiny sum..

It never ceases to amaze me how very important the US market - either network or syndication - was in the 1960s for makers of film series in Britain. And it became even more critical in 1969/1970 after the taxation laws changed in the UK. But one of the reasons that most ITC series don't continue beyond a single run is because they're simply not getting renewed on the US networks or decent syndication deals; some are actually commissioned by the US networks and then sit on the shelf for a year or two, meaning they're cancelled after their minimum order is completed. So, yes, I think for expensive 35mm film series at that point, a major US sale became pretty important - and "The Avengers" had really moved to 35mm to get that sale in the first place.

All the best

Andrew

[Frankymole]

Looking at the schedules, John Bryce actually seems to be bringing episodes in quicker than Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell did. Quick glance at some notes shows "The Superlative Seven" clocking up 18 days and 19 days spent on "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Station" (both massively lavish when the turnaround for a one-hour ITC series at the time was 9 or 10 days, and generally 6 or 7 days for a US network series). By comparison, "Invasion of the Earthmen" has 10 days and a few pick-ups, "Invasion of the Earthmen" has 12 and "The Great Great Britain Crime" runs to 13.

Another myth busted, then! It does look increasingly like the Thames bosses getting cold feet over the new approach, and not liking the look of the new episodes, unless there's some personality clash we don't know about.

On an unrelated note, I was reading about the 1965 Sherlock Holmes film A Study in Terror last night. American producer Herman Cohen said he had to direct the fire sequence because director James Hill went missing. "Hill had a habit of disappearing," said the producer. "He was a nice guy, but strange. Nobody could get close to him. And he was always fidgety and very nervous." Given his work on eight episodes of The Avengers, and later The New Avengers and stuff like Worzel Gummidge, I do wonder what went on. Maybe some directors are highly-strung arty types, or have trouble with the demands of big movies, and he was replaced during the troubled production of The Golden Head in 1964, but so were lots of actors!

Quite - with 'dramatic' series of this sort there is a danger of being buried by their own history. But I still think that a lot of the most fascinating series are those that do move forwards now and again rather than staying the same. The only problem is whether the audience is prepared to move along with them. That third season is often so tricky. So odd - we went back and watched the whole of "Between the Lines" the other year and dreaded getting to the third and final run when the format changed significantly... but as it turned out we loved the whole run and indeed some of the best scripts were in that last batch.

That's how I feel about the much-hated final series of Blakes 7. It's too much change for many viewers - including those that stayed on board for the big character shake-up in the third series, the cosmetic "sameness" of them having the same "home" (spaceship) apparently stopped people noticing two of the central characters had been replaced and the major plot-driving enemy force had been neutered in favour of random story of the week... but when the fourth series came along, with just one character being replaced and the background conflict from the first two years returning, everyone lost their mind because the spaceship and guns changed. Yet we had a renewed vigour in the stories and settings.

It never ceases to amaze me how very important the US market - either network or syndication - was in the 1960s for makers of film series in Britain. And it became even more critical in 1969/1970 after the taxation laws changed in the UK. But one of the reasons that most ITC series don't continue beyond a single run is because they're simply not getting renewed on the US networks or decent syndication deals; some are actually commissioned by the US networks and then sit on the shelf for a year or two, meaning they're cancelled after their minimum order is completed. So, yes, I think for expensive 35mm film series at that point, a major US sale became pretty important - and "The Avengers" had really moved to 35mm to get that sale in the first place.

By far the strangest example of that is the delayed feedback on the Andersons' UFO. Huge popularity in the states apparently led to a second season being all but certain, development and design work of which was quite far advanced when suddenly the US audience figures deteriorate and it gets put on hold, sort of, only to re-emerge several years later as Space 1999. Which itself had a second season albeit a very different one with lots of new producer's changes to supposedly make it more appealing (which it didn't, and was not renewed further).

[Elle]

And I can see how there was a change from late 1967 onwards; if anything, it gets quite experimental... and some of it works and some of it doesn't.

I'm always wary about series that try to much to good "backwards". I've a feeling that David and Maddie explicitly state this sentiment at some point towards the end of "Moonlighting" - a wonderful series where I love the early straight-forward crime capers as much as I love the bizarre post-modern character plays that came later.

The big shift - as I recall - was in late 2013/early 2014 after the 50th anniversary. I remember by late 2014 there were colleagues in the office who'd watched it avidly in 2012 not even being aware that there was a new season.

Russel's 2005 reboot really was smart. We've been rewatching it again of late and it is so bang on in its approach to capturing a family audience and being accessible on a wide scale. We've just started on the 2010 series and we're massively enjoying that as well - partly because we wanted something new in terms of approach and style, but also because we like this sort of "dark fairy tale" narrative style that's clearly got more appeal for the original audience of youngsters who are now Young Adults (and also more attractive for the BBC America audience which was now an important secondary market).

I think that within the next few years, there should be experienced TV professionals who grew up on "Doctor Who" in 2005 and have just the same passion to move it forwards and reinvent it as Russell did back then. Can't wait for that! So exciting!

Quite - with 'dramatic' series of this sort there is a danger of being buried by their own history. But I still think that a lot of the most fascinating series are those that do move forwards now and again rather than staying the same. The only problem is whether the audience is prepared to move along with them. That third season is often so tricky. So odd - we went back and watched the whole of "Between the Lines" the other year and dreaded getting to the third and final run when the format changed significantly... but as it turned out we loved the whole run and indeed some of the best scripts were in that last batch.

Yes, absolutely. The Thorson episodes tend to go all over the place trying new ideas and ways to approach the old style. Experimental is how I'd describe it too. It can be a double edged sword though; when a risk works, it's great. When it doesn't though, people say "why couldn't they stick to the old style?" So it's a no-win situation. The best Thorson episodes are very strong but it does seem that many suffer from Clemens' dislike of the fact that he was stuck with her as a lead and his lack of confidence in her (which was not Linda's fault) shows on screen by way of using contrivances to underplay or under-use her.

I've always been a fan of VT drama though and see nothing wrong with them going back to that style again. If there were good ideas at the writing stage to do things that way, it would have worked. But producers are so in awe of cinematic values that I don't think they would have felt confident in taking what they saw as "a backwards step".

Dr.Who took a while to slip in public popularity after Davies left but there is a clear trajectory downwards, which happened slowly. Unless the makers can find a way of future-proofing Dr.Who against the departure of Davies again though, it will face the same problems once more. You'd think there would be enough people out there to take it on and be as popular but (as good as he is as a writer) Moffatt's and particularly Chibnall's tenures on the show have seen the law of diminishing returns for Dr.Who as far as audiences are concerned (and that isn't to say there isn't good stuff in there as I loved Capaldi's era of the show, which tried new ideas - even though they didn't fire as much with the general public).

I do think The Avengers faced the same sort of problems though and also they affected the Avengers movie (i.e. of other hands taking over and not really understanding what made it generally popular). I would have been very keen to see how that 1964 Avengers film turned out though - the Blackman era in colour seems almost too good to be true! Similarly, I'd have liked to see Bryce get a fair crack of the whip with the Thorson era. It may be that he's been unfairly criticised on the strength of just a few half-completed episodes.

[Frankymole]

The best Thorson episodes are very strong but it does seem that many suffer from Clemens' dislike of the fact that he was stuck with her as a lead and his lack of confidence in her (which was not Linda's fault) shows on screen by way of using contrivances to underplay or under-use her.

Some of that is unavoidable circumstance though due to having to separate Linda and Patrick and double-bank episodes to complete enough to meet the urgent USA air dates. It does mean we get episodes where Steed is under-used and Tara has most of the screen time (which I enjoy).

It's interesting to look at what was happening on the networks at that juncture; possibly John Bryce was reading the room quite well since the colorful, comic-strip, zany approach was on its way out by autumn 1967; "The Man from UNCLE" was toughening up while "The Girl from UNCLE" hadn't been renewed, and "Batman" which had been hyper-popular 18 months earlier was now out of vogue. Possibly, John did understand what ABC in the US were after...

So was The Prisoner, contrary to popular opinion, actually behind the times? (At least in terms of visual/design style, though not editing, cinematography or ideas.) It owes a lot to comic book stylings as well as the way-out bizareness of stuff like The Avengers and Batman, as well as pop art, Op Art and futurism.

[Frankymole]

Dr.Who took a while to slip in public popularity after Davies left but there is a clear trajectory downwards, which happened slowly. Unless the makers can find a way of future-proofing Dr.Who against the departure of Davies again though, it will face the same problems once more. You'd think there would be enough people out there to take it on and be as popular but (as good as he is as a writer) Moffatt's and particularly Chibnall's tenures on the show have seen the law of diminishing returns for Dr.Who as far as audiences are concerned (and that isn't to say there isn't good stuff in there as I loved Capaldi's era of the show, which tried new ideas - even though they didn't fire as much with the general public).

Hmm, for loads of the Moffat and early Chibnall eras it was in the Top Twenty programmes of the week though. Which the classic series never managed apart form mid-Hartnell for a story or two (just after Dalek Invasion of Earth at the peak of Dalekmania) and very early Tom Baker (we have to exclude the late 1970s ITV strike skewed audience choice). As TV audiences have recently vanished across the board, thanks to streaming and everyone doing their own thing for entertainment (on-demand games, music, movies etc) the chart position is the only reliable indicator of relative popularity, not audience figures. As such, Who is doing as well as it ever did except at rare, flukey peaks. And the BBC are very happy with its enormous overseas sales.