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

[Andrew Pixley]

Another myth busted, then!

Gosh! Was that a myth of some sort? Don't think I knew about that. Or, if I did, I've forgotten it.

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.

Actually, that's something to think about. Somewhere in the second half of late 1967, "The Avengers" shifts ownership to the television film subsidiary of ABPC so that it's not part of the merger with Rediffusion to form Thames. With Thames in the same group as ABPC, they're the obvious ITV station to take it from 1968 onwards... but I'm not sure that Thames had any control over "The Avengers" at this point... certainly not by the end.

On an unrelated note, I was reading about the 1965 Sherlock Holmes film A Study in Terror last night.

Oooohh... very fond of that film! :)

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.

Excellent example! At the time, I remember that I didn't enjoy Series D as much as Series A to C... but I do now wonder if by Series D I was now that little bit too old to be in the target audience (especially now that I was watching more post-watershed drama like "Quatermass"). Looking back on it now, I think that Series D actually has some of the best scripts. "Animals", "Sand", "Gold", "Orbit"... all cracking stories.

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).

Oooohhh... "UFO"'s a weird one. The two batches of episodes do feel so different in the first place. The original batch of 17 was in fact the last gasp for the 35mm film series for ITC at one stage; by the end of 1969, everything had been shut down and it was only the pre-sale of "The Friendly Persuaders" to ABC in America with a 'named actor' that turned things around. The last 9 were an afterthought in order to make a package of 26 - ITC's last gasp attempt to sell into syndication after the US networks had passed in 1969.

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.

Quite... the audience just wanting the same without change is fine if a format's happy to continue without any effective change. I think, personally, we like shows that take more chances and move on. But, then again, many of our favourite shows are the ones that are short-lived and quickly-cancelled, or, at the least, no renewed. "The Corridor People", "Virtual Murder", "Probe", "Virgin of the Secret Service", etc. etc.

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".

Presumably at the time, making a series on film was seen as a means of delivering a product with pace, quick editing, action sequences, location filming, etc. etc.... with less of the emphasis on character and dialogue that one associates with taped shows. "The Human Jungle" is a bit of an exception there; some rather good little melodramas that do work very nicely on film... but it could have easily been a VT series. And back in the 1960s, success was often measure by exports and the US market in particular... and to do that you needed to be on film. The BBC's strategy when they launched "Maigret" in 1960 was to play ATV's game and sell a "film series" (which strictly speaking "Maigret" wasn't) to the networks. Didn't work... mainly due to the subject matter being unsuitable for primetime audiences.

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).

There's a shift in the audience from 2010 onwards - it was aimed less at the kids and families, and more at the Young Adults with a greater complexity of storyline. But it was still, comparatively, very popular; lots of events, lots of merchandise, lots of media coverage... 2010 to 2013 is pretty busy all in all. You then get the 'soft' reboots in 2017 and 2018 which attempt to get new viewers... but, then again, "Doctor Who" is tricky because the core target audience quickly turn over within about six years or so. Looking back at the 20th century incarnation, you have periods where it's very popular around 1964/5 and 1975/6 and a wee bit again around 1982... but after that it's a smaller, more intense appreciation as it falls under the banner of "cult television". By comparison, the post-2005 shows have generally always had a higher profile.

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).

Excellent point. And there's some cracking ones in there... "Wish You Were Here", "All Done With Mirrors"... lovely shows! :)

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.

I think "The Prisoner" was a bit of a unique case in that it was a project really built around a single 'name' that was likely to attract a sale to CBS. Certainly, it's more akin to some of the quirky Granada VT series of the time than other product from the ITC stable of film series. But, looking at the dates, it's actually developed and enters production in mid-1966 at the height of the camp craziness... Due to one thing and another, it wasn't ever going to be renewed beyond the minimum network order (and that was clearly a struggle), after which it's stuck on the shelf until the summer. But I think that when it was being developed in 1966, it would have been bang on... :)

All the best

Andrew

[ethanbaskin]