oneknightsteed wrote:Mona wrote:I absolutely believe that definitely was supposed to be the case. Unfortunately, the only terrible editing in the whole series had to occur right there!I tend to suspect, having looked at the screenshots, that we were supposed to think that Steed had sacrificed Emma right up until we see her lying there with her coat off, at which point I think they meant for us to realise he'd used the mannequin, but if that's true it's so badly staged it's no surprise there's confusion.
Mona[/quote
I know I will probably be burned at the stake for pursuing this, but when you look at 'Two's A Crowd', you see that Steed is totally capable of putting Emma in harms way, as well as showing little regard for her feelings! He let her be taken hostage and allowed her to believe he'd been killed! These episodes were still early days in their partnership/relationship. Steed was still a bit of a scamp. Therefore I say it was Emma not a mannequin. But I truely respect your opinion and can see there is cause for confusion.
Of course this is my most humble opinion. Don't hurt me!
well...Steed's character was basically a works in progress, as the show motored on..the Steed from the Keel-or-gale era, was much different than the Steed of Peel-King.....
Oh - it's not. It's just a bit of sillyness to pass the time. Simply my brief attempt to assimilate a heap of "Avengers" trivia in a very daft format.Mona wrote:My only last statement is that I fail to see why Andrew Pixley's invented timeline is any official way I have to view the history of characters.
I remember talking to Dennis Spooner about Philip Levene back in the 1980s and he confirmed that Philip had sadly died in 1975.Sam wrote:Man-Eater was written by Philip Levene who penned the majority of the sci-fi type stories. The IMDb does not say he's passed on, but he has no writing credits after 1975 so I'm not sure.
Daft? Maybe. But for all that, it's still a timeline that works well over all for which we thank you Andrew.Andrew Pixley wrote:Hi Mona
Oh - it's not. It's just a bit of sillyness to pass the time. Simply my brief attempt to assimilate a heap of "Avengers" trivia in a very daft format.Mona wrote:My only last statement is that I fail to see why Andrew Pixley's invented timeline is any official way I have to view the history of characters.
All the best
Andrew
Oh, Andrew, Hello!Oh - it's not. It's just a bit of sillyness to pass the time. Simply my brief attempt to assimilate a heap of "Avengers" trivia in a very daft format.
All the best
Andrew
Hello Mona! Some fascinating stuff you've put forward here!Mona wrote:Oh, Andrew, Hello!
Hey - no problem. To quote Alan Plater, "Viva la difference!" I always find it fascinating to see how other people select and assemble information - a fresh perspective is always of interest, and such work with new view and new information and new analysis must go on, or fandom just stagnates.Please be aware that although I may differ at times with your timeline of Steed's life, I always enjoy that so many people put so much time and effort into discussing and analyzing The Avengers, and trying to fill in so many blanks.
Yeah - go for it! All this kind of reasoned, polite discussion is brilliant, and one of the things which shows me the positive uses of the Internet!For that, thanks so much for your efforts!! Even if I disagree here and there, it sure gave me much thought and fostered my own creation of a timeline which worked for me. In that way, it was inordinately a benefit to me.
