The Avengers International Fan Forum

Timeless A-Peel wrote:I'm pretty sure it was down to the implications about the John Bryce/Linda relationship that Linda objected to, and led to the pulping. I have both copies of the book (pulped and reprint), though I haven't actually gone looking for the libellous statement.

It's probably Brian Clemens that she should do for libel, as he's the source of the untrue story that Bryce simply appointed his girlfriend without auditions.

I was transferring a hard drive recorder last night and listened again to that Matthew Sweet radio programme from a few years back. Although Clemens was quite restrained, he did reiterate how Linda was "forced" on him and the rest of the panel laid into the post-Rigg eras (including TNA) - he didn't demur or say his usual "pound for pound, the scripts were the best" about the Tara era.

Yeah, that 'Brian Clemes'. String 'im up.

I thought it was Cathy on the cover - who also had a flick up (be careful how you type that) hairdo - and also wore flat-heeled boots as opposed to Emma's little pointed heels. Also she seems a bit shorter on the cover. But I won't argue about it.

Dandy Forsdyke wrote:Yeah, that 'Brian Clemes'. String 'im up.

I thought it was Cathy on the cover - who also had a flick up (be careful how you type that) hairdo - and also wore flat-heeled boots as opposed to Emma's little pointed heels. Also she seems a bit shorter on the cover. But I won't argue about it.

I've seen it used pretty interchangeably, so it's arguable it's supposed to be Emma and Cathy. Other sources have taken the exact same picture, tweaked the hairdo, and passed her off as Tara. So clearly they weren't really hung up on accuracy when they did it.

My two cents:

While I loved the Doctor Who Discontinuity Guide to the point of having jokes from it enter my everyday life, I hated the team's Avenger's Guide.

- While the Doctor Who guide had funny asides, the love of the program was evident. With the Avengers, it seemed more like "The Doctor Who Guide was successful, what other program could we do a similar guide for?". Thus, the catagories for each episode, and the thoughts behind them, are weak and as far as text it's like barely 30% of the length of the Doctor Who guide, and the lack of genuine insight is obvious. They seem to be more often laughing at the show than with it, in a sub-Mystery Science 3000 way that equates snark with wit.
- They don't seem to actually like the program very much. They like some Honor, a decent amount of Emma, very little Tara, and not much New Avengers. In fact, it reminded me of a book written on the fantasy television of Irwin Allen that talked about Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Lost in Space, the Time Tunnel, and Land of the Giants. The largest section was on the Time Tunnel, which the author obviously loved and lavished a huge page count on that series alone... the other three shows got short shrift, and showed the author never really liked them at all (as is obvious as he rips each of them episode by episode). In fact, I strongly suspect the author really only wanted to do a Time Tunnel book but could only get a publishing deal by doing it on all the Irwin Allen shows. That same lack of heart is in evidence in their Avengers book, and I can't help think that they realised their mistake early on but couldn't get out of their contract with the publisher.
- While they did the Doctor Who guide as fans, the Avengers Guide seemed like it was done more as journalists, including 3 essays in the back so the writers can cotextualize and problemitize the Avengers for today's readers, which I don't like in most modern fan or academic writing.
- There is no draw to return to this guide for me. No humor that matches mine, no interesting observations, no facts that I can easily glean from a casual glance at IMDB.

Borgus Weems wrote: - While the Doctor Who guide had funny asides, the love of the program was evident. With the Avengers, it seemed more like "The Doctor Who Guide was successful, what other program could we do a similar guide for?". Thus, the catagories for each episode, and the thoughts behind them, are weak and as far as text it's like barely 30% of the length of the Doctor Who guide, and the lack of genuine insight is obvious. They seem to be more often laughing at the show than with it, in a sub-Mystery Science 3000 way that equates snark with wit.

- They don't seem to actually like the program very much. They like some Honor, a decent amount of Emma, very little Tara, and not much New Avengers. In fact, it reminded me of a book written on the fantasy television of Irwin Allen that talked about Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Lost in Space, the Time Tunnel, and Land of the Giants. The largest section was on the Time Tunnel, which the author obviously loved and lavished a huge page count on that series alone... the other three shows got short shrift, and showed the author never really liked them at all (as is obvious as he rips each of them episode by episode). In fact, I strongly suspect the author really only wanted to do a Time Tunnel book but could only get a publishing deal by doing it on all the Irwin Allen shows. That same lack of heart is in evidence in their Avengers book, and I can't help think that they realised their mistake early on but couldn't get out of their contract with the publisher.

You've perfectly encapsulated my thoughts on the book. There's a nasty edge to many of the entries where it feels like they're gratuitously trashing things. I quite enjoy it when writers poke fun at shows and point out legitimate flaws in the process (SFX does this every time they bring up the show, and it's hilarious), but I don't feel the same goodnatured vibe in the book.

Paul Cornell, one of the authors (and a Dr Who writer), insists on having a Steed-style brolly and bowler hanging on a hatstand behind him on the new Dr Who DVD (The Visitation) where he's interviewed about the Who CDs. Either an Avengers fan to this day, or just keen on bowlers and brollies...

Frankymole wrote:Paul Cornell, one of the authors (and a Dr Who writer), insists on having a Steed-style brolly and bowler hanging on a hatstand behind him on the new Dr Who DVD (The Visitation) where he's interviewed about the Who CDs. Either an Avengers fan to this day, or just keen on bowlers and brollies...

I wonder.... outside of the Avengers, would the bowler and umbrella be a general symbol of British culture, but not neccesarily of Steed? That's what I would take it as...

yes and yes Borgus. Bowler and Brollie definitely beautiful and British all the way.

The most popular style of hat worn in the Wild West was the bowler hat, so not as English as you think...

Well I learned something new. I thought it was the cowboy hat in the wild west but bowler. interesting.