codfanglers
Dedicated Member
It's a funny thing, that, I suppose. Bill Owen always thought he was the star, probably he was the most recognisable. Brian Wilde seemed to think he was the star, and I read somewhere he was paid more than the rest, but to my mind it was only ever Mr Sallis who actually was the star. Don't get me wrong, I loved them all, but Mr Sallis seemed to hold it all together.
I am with you there, young Rhi. Bill Owen's contention was based on his having been in cinema film more than the others. There was some cachet to it back then. But to me the real actor has had to show a real ability on stage and that is where Peter Sallis and Michael Aldridge had the edge. And yes, reports were that Brian Wilde was paid almost twice as much as the other two which certainly caused some friction and to my mind could not be justified.
But then, particularly now I find very little the BBC does in paying out ridiculous sums to nonentities and the talentless can be justified, not no how.
The trio having different salaries; now there is a touchy topic that never dawned on me! I could only imagine they would be equal, but I am quite naive some times!
In posts, I often compare Summer Wine to the classic comedy duos and trios, such at Marx Brothers, Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, and the Three Stooges. This is because I often think of Clegg and Blamire (and a little Foggy and Seymour) as the straight men, whereas as Compo was more of the role of the outrageous, slapstick-style comedian. Back then (1920s-40s), the straight men were alweays paid more because for some reason a good straight man to compliment the silliness of the other was a rare find. There was always considered an abundance of the outrageous, slapstick types, therefor they were paid less. I am not saying that is fair, but it does sound like Summer Wine!