The Avengers International Fan Forum

Hi

I've been thinking about this for a while, as I lament the lack of Avengers on our current screens and the failure of the movie to rekindle the franchise...

It's easy to get used to a new James Bond, or a new Doctor Who, because there have been several people playing the role over the years, and even though people have their favourites, newcomers are usually accepted. It's also easy then to reboot a series with a new actor, as there are precedents for the change and it doesn't jar. However, what about John Steed? It's often been said (especially on this forum) that if it doesn't have Patrick Macnee as Steed, it's not the Avengers. Hence the failure of the play, and the failure of the movie (as far as casting is concerned). Admittedly Macnee was a wonderful Steed, in the same way Sean Connery was a wonderful Bond, but with Patrick staying on as Steed with Honor, Diana, Linda, Joanna et al, perhaps his entrenchment made it impossible for the series to survive without him. Connery left Bond, and it's still going strong. Hartnell left Who and it's still going strong...

Had Patrick left when Honor did, we would have had Diana with a different Steed, then Linda with a third Steed, Joanna with yet another, each bringing a different fresh approach. We wouldn't have had the pairing of Patrick and Diana, admittedly, but then we might be looking back now on the brilliance of the Roger Moore/Diana Rigg seasons... We also wouldn't have needed the intrusive Gambit, as we could have had a younger actor to play opposite Joanna. Think how good that could have been. There wouldn't have been the age gap between Steed and Tara, too, changing the dynamic.

And having got used to different Steeds, always a gentleman, but different types of gentlemen, perhaps the movie version of Steed wouldn't have been such a shock, and it would have had a better chance of success. And maybe, just maybe, the series could have been rebooted for a modern audience, and would still be on our screens today, fresh and new.

John Steed: Patrick Macnee, Roger Moore, David Niven, Terry Thomas, Gerald Harper, Stephen Fry... Splendid chap, all of them.

TDM

Short answer: No!

the_demolished_man wrote: Had Patrick left when Honor did, we would have had Diana with a different Steed, then Linda with a third Steed, Joanna with yet another, each bringing a different fresh approach.

And a worse approach. Roger Moore as Steed? Pur-leeze!

Bond is a literary character and Dr Who is a character in a strong literary tradition (mainly Verne and Conan Doyle) - recasting a totally televisual character like Steed would be as doomed as "CI5: The New Professionals"

Frankymole wrote:

And a worse approach. Roger Moore as Steed? Pur-leeze![/quote]

Hi

But that's exactly what people said when he was cast as Bond. It was a different approach to Connery's and one that many people didn't like, but millions did (especially younger fans) and he ensured the continuation of the franchise. The same with Patrick Troughton - initial fan reaction was negative, but he is now regarded as one of the best Doctors. And setting the precedent for recasting the lead meant that both franchises are still with us and still enjoyed by millions, not dismissed as cult memories.

I'm not saying that Patrick Macnee needed replacing because his Steed wasn't good - it was excellent - but in remaining in the role throughout the entirity of the series, it was then incredibly difficult to recast when it was needed. There was no precedent - Macnee WAS Steed. And frankly it needed recasting - first with Tara and especially with Purdey.

And I think you're being a bit unfair to Roger Moore. I personally would have loved to see Roger as Steed. Handsome, charming, witty, upper class, looks the part - what more do you want from a Steed?

TDM

Ooh you're playing with fire there! However, taking the "Replace Pat Macnee! How dare you, sir!" flame out of the debate, your idea is interesting and I like 'What If's ...

However, the suggestion of Roger Moore as Steed is a bit of a nonstarter as he was tied up with The Saint by then. But I do think that, if they were casting from the start, he would have made a great Steed, as he can do humour with underlining menace as good as Pat. I think Rog became a fan of the show and would often turn up on the set - evidenced by the pics of him with Patrick and Linda Thorson.

The other problem with your theory is replacing an actor in the role of John Steed. Had Pat decided to leave I believe, if they'd have wanted to continue, they'd have created a new character for the new actor - as they did with the girls.

Interesting list of suggested actors. David Niven might have been a bit too old by the 1960s though.

I'm sure they would've created a new character. After all, Diana, Linda, and Joanna were not Cathy Gale 2, 3, and 4!

Patrick Macnee - irreplaceable! Let me whisper two words to prove my point - *Ralph Fiennes* Actually, it's been years since I've seen the film - may get it out on rental and see if my opinion has changed.......

I can't imagine The Avengers without Steed, but that's not to say it couldn't happen. I'm sure the producers thought that David Keel was the main character at first and it survived his demise. But Steed leaving after the Gale episodes would have made it pretty difficult to keep the series going. They could well have come up with a new character and casting, but they could never have recast Steed. That would have been a disaster. I'm glad Patrick stayed. The women are very, very important, but not nearly as important as Steed was to the show's success!

Well, as has been said, there have already been a few other, non-Patrick iterations of Steed, and one of them turned out brilliantly--Donald Monat in the radio series. So it is possible to recast the character, in a sense. That said, radio Steed is not quite the same character as the TV version, nor is radio Emma, and their relationship is an alternate take on the Rigg/Macnee relationship.

I think much of the problem in recasting anyone in the Avengers, not just Steed, is that there tended to be a greater blurring between the actor and the character. Patrick made Steed out of whole cloth, and as a result there's a lot of Patrick in Steed and a lot of Steed in Patrick. Likewise, his relationships with his co-stars tended to reflect what was going on onscreen. Patrick and Diana clicked instantly and were very, very fond of each other. Ian Hendry and Honor Blackman gave him a slightly harder time (not to suggest any real conflict, just a different dynamic), and that's reflected in the way Steed relates to Keel or Cathy. So it's much more difficult to separate Patrick from Steed as opposed to other characters for that reason. Then, as has been said, characters like Bond exist independently of any of the movies. No matter who they cast, there's still an original, book Bond everyone can go back to, one which none of the actors who've played him truly reflect--they all just put their spin on the role, but Bond is never "theirs" the way Steed was/is Patrick's.

I guess my point is that to lose Patrick would be to lose much of what makes Steed inherently Steed. Why even bother calling him "Steed," then? Why not start afresh with a new character, with a new identity? The Avengers was all about moving forward--they didn't find an Honor Blackman clone, call her Cathy, and pretend nothing had changed, after all--and I think recasting Steed would have gone against that. Anyway, I think there's something rather nice about watching the character and actor evolve over the years. I don't think there was another series at that time that provided an actor with that opportunity.

Oh, and then we wouldn't have wonderfully intrusive Gambit, either.