50TH Anniversary Book

DiVicenzo · Post by **DiVicenzo** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:15 pm

And, a little mention of the book here in The Express:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/206 ... rcus-Hearn

MRotten · Post by **MRotten** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:48 pm

PaulGreaves wrote:
MRotten wrote:This book, from what I've seen and heard, is FABULOUS the way it is! What is the point of dissing it, saying it isn't this or isn't that? It's a hardcover book devoted to the incomparable TV classic The Avengers. What's not to love? I was admiring the cover today and just stared at it for some time. I got very emotional while looking at that wonderful cover photo of our beloved stars, Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg, which I believe had never been published before. Perfection.
I take your point, however I would argue that skipping The New Avengers is just as strange as a 50th anniversary book about Doctor Who missing out the new series revival!

Niggles aside, it IS a beautiful book and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. It's hard not to be dazzled by such a gorgeous collection of images

http://goldfishparacetamol.blogspot.com ... enged.html

P

If it had included The New Avengers, then it also should have included the movie too, which really would have spoiled it. One glance at a photo of Fiennes as Steed and Thurman as Mrs. Peel makes me nauseous. The title would have had to accomodate them. A cumbersome "The Avengers; A Celebration; 50 Years of a Television Classic. Also Including The New Avengers and The Avengers Movie" or something like that. Not good promotion-wise. The book is streamlined to focus on the '60s heyday of the series, as it should be. The New Avengers, a worthwhile reboot to some and something of a misfire to others, is not as well known to the public all these years later. Hardcore fans may disagree, but ask the average person and they probably don't even know about the '70s series, here in the US anyway. The book is aimed at the general public, not just us rabid fans, something the publishers of the book were mindful of. The idea is to present a product with the most appeal, and they have done just that.

Dandy Forsdyke · Post by **Dandy Forsdyke** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:37 pm

The New Avengers is part of The Avengers whereas the film was not. It was just a quick buck remake that went horribly wrong. Very expensively wrong.

It pretended to justify it's existance by having Patrick Macnee in it, but it was like they were ashamed of him because he is invisible in the film. Literally. What was the point? In order to suggest it's authenticity? It failed.

It's like being given a five pound note and realising the Spice Girls are on the reverse instead of Elizabeth Fry.

It contradicts the series completely from Steed's personality to his meeting with Emma Peel. It's almost The Anti-Avengers - it does everything The Avengers didn't do and nothing The Avengers did brilliantly.

In a nutshell, The New Avengers continued the story of John Steed, played by the same actor, written and directed by much the same people.

We need - all of us - to get over the fact that the book does not include The New Avengers and wait until one day the author can tell us why.

However, I look forward to reading the book, it looks great.

Brendan Jones · Post by **Brendan Jones** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 am

The New Avengers is to The Avengers as Star Trek: The Next Generation is to Star Trek.

TNA is a continuation of the world of The Avengers- but it is not part of the same series. It did not have the same audience and cultural impact as The Avengers, and is very much a separate animal in terms of production and execution.

What we should really be asking for is a 35th anniversary book for TNA. Its road to production is a great story of the struggle to update cultural icons, and succeeding due to (and in spite of) international support. It's a very different story which deserves a book of its own: any coverage of TNA in an Avengers reference book tends to be nasty, brutish and short!

Dandy Forsdyke · Post by **Dandy Forsdyke** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:31 am

As this thread is about the book, I've answered the above post here

http://avengersfanforum.s2.bizhat.com/v ... orum#28353

The Gaslight Ghoul · Post by **The Gaslight Ghoul** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:47 pm

Got it yesterday, it's a beautifully produced and lavishly illustrated coffee table book really.

It didn't take long to read, did that in one evening, but for a pictorial history of the original series it is a lovely book with some very unusual shots from the series history never published before.

MRotten · Post by **MRotten** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:55 am

Dandy Forsdyke wrote:The New Avengers is part of The Avengers whereas the film was not. It was just a quick buck remake that went horribly wrong. Very expensively wrong.

It pretended to justify it's existance by having Patrick Macnee in it, but it was like they were ashamed of him because he is invisible in the film. Literally. What was the point? In order to suggest it's authenticity? It failed.

It's like being given a five pound note and realising the Spice Girls are on the reverse instead of Elizabeth Fry.

It contradicts the series completely from Steed's personality to his meeting with Emma Peel. It's almost The Anti-Avengers - it does everything The Avengers didn't do and nothing The Avengers did brilliantly.

In a nutshell, The New Avengers continued the story of John Steed, played by the same actor, written and directed by much the same people.

We need - all of us - to get over the fact that the book does not include The New Avengers and wait until one day the author can tell us why.

However, I look forward to reading the book, it looks great.

The movie was and still is an embarrassment. To think there are people who actually want a DVD with a Director's cut.

Even more to be cringe over!

I've been over the fact that the book doesn't include The New Avengers; in fact, I'm happy about it.

MRotten · Post by **MRotten** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:00 am

Brendan Jones wrote:The New Avengers is to The Avengers as Star Trek: The Next Generation is to Star Trek.

TNA is a continuation of the world of The Avengers- but it is not part of the same series. It did not have the same audience and cultural impact as The Avengers, and is very much a separate animal in terms of production and execution.

What we should really be asking for is a 35th anniversary book for TNA. Its road to production is a great story of the struggle to update cultural icons, and succeeding due to (and in spite of) international support. It's a very different story which deserves a book of its own: any coverage of TNA in an Avengers reference book tends to be nasty, brutish and short!

Exactly. The New Avengers did not have the same cultural impact, and therefore is better left as a separate entity. It was also made at a different time; the '60s was a significantly different decade than the '70s, which made for a different ambiance.

Dandy Forsdyke · Post by **Dandy Forsdyke** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:25 am

I'm happy with the book too.

Andrew Pixley · Post by **Andrew Pixley** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:55 pm

Picked this up in Waterstones in Sheffield today and it looks beautiful. Smashing printing, some very striking photos, and all assembled and designed in an extremely attractive package. Very much looking forward to reading the text later on tonight after "Colditz"!

All the best

Andrew