Impact of changing the third man.

[Pearl]

The other day I had to do an essay, just a short one, I did it on the impact of changing the third man on several occasions on Summer Wine.

I was wondering how everyone else viewed this.

Do you think it had a positive impact?
Do you think it harmed the show?
Or do you think it helped?

 

[Philosopher Clegg]

LOTSW got lucky in that the first four, Blamire, Foggy, Seymour, Foggy again and then Truly, all seemed to fit seamlessly into the role. We will never know what direction things might have gone had Michael Bates lived or Michael Aldridge not decided to leave after 3 series. I recently watched the Seymour years again and thought that Aldridge was exceptional in the role. I could quite easily have watched 25 years of him in the role. There again, I could easily watch 25 years of Brian Wilde doing it as well.

It wasn't quite the same at the end when there was a totally new trio and Hobbo was the final third man. Just a personal view but the character was too flawed for me and I think bringing in Russ Abbott was a final attempt to perhaps save the series with a big name from the 80's that the older audience might recognise and accept. To that extent it probably harmed the series in the end, as the character was arguably the worst third man by a long way and Alvin and Entwistle in the supporting roles didn't have the same clout as Compo and Clegg.

 

[chris]

We were lucky that the third man through up some very good people but I do agree about Hobo he was totally unbelievable and also he was a lousily acted.I always felt that the show rose above stars it was always three old boys having fun the fact that all the actors were excellent and jelled ,but Hobo did not.I liked Seymour and Truly as they were third men in the mould of Foggy and Blamire guiding the other two towards acts of idiocy.Up to Truly the idiocies were quite believable but Hobo ,no way and I think he contributed to the shows demise .The strength of the show was that the supporting cast was a very strong one and truly complemented the main cast members.

 

[Sheree]

I tend to agree with Philosopher Clegg . Changing the third man kept it interesting.
It's my personal belief that the show may not have lasted as long with the character
of Blamire.

 

[Cyndy]

You have to consider there were years or months, the writing was better too. Balmire had lines that made him tough and not as apt to sidekick goofy that made the show shine. There were times all the third man got tedious with the same old lines, Truely especially with the "former Mrs. Truely" line. Foggy's war stories got tiresome, but at lest they weren't almost the exact former Mrs. Truely lines. Then, along would come some more brilliant writing and the third man's worth rose again. IMHO, Foggy was the best. Maybe he had more of the golden years. IMHO, Truey had more impersonal lines, - of the off subject lines like works for Clegg but not Truely so much You have to feel the trio really had some bonding and love for each other, and mostly Truely's lines failed on that.

In those early years Compton and Clegg were the pair mocking the leader. Somewhere along the line that changed some, even with Clegg's lines. That was the best of best years.

 

[Sarkus]

I think the changes to the "third man" helped keep the show fresh and probably contributed to how long it lasted. But its not as simple as the differences in the actual character, its also about how the other characters evolved and interacted with the different "third" men. Clegg, in particular, is not the same character in the Blamire and even early Foggy years as he was later. Even Compo changes a bit as well. In many ways I consider Foggy the most shallow of the "third" men in that he is pretty much always the bossy idiot. Blamire wasn't anywhere near as bossy or even an idiot, while Seymour is bossy but more polite about it and not really an idiot - more naive about his ideas then anything else. Truly isn't really bossy or idiotic at all. So in that way Clarke kept the show fresh by changing the dynamic between the three men.

It wasn't intentional but I think they got lucky in finding a formula that basically consisted of Clegg and Compo being generally lovable characters and the rotating third men giving them new directions to go every several years.

 

[Ron-po]

I really only liked Seymore best in his first two series, because the show had him building his inventions himself. After, he always had Wesley do all the work. I think it would have been more interesting and fun to have had Wesley and Seymore always building their own wild ideas themselves. There could have been several good episodes in which they built their own versions of some contraption and then had a contest for a winner.

 

[brendalovescompo]

I don't think it hurt the show in the first 24 years. That is all I have seen. The 3rd man was a leader in his own profession, and I think that helped the character blend in very well. Seymour with the school, Foggy and his karate chops etc. I seen a few with Hobo, I could not make opinion because I haven't seen them so I can not be honest about effects. They needed the 3rd man, I believe Clegg summed it up in Spring Fever, when he and Blamire were in the Cafe, Their conversations were so left and right sided they needed the 3rd to help mold the friendship, and I believe it made the show.

I have to say :'(I watched the Trilogy today and I cried more than I have before. :'( I think when watching from beginning to end I will by-pass. I missed Compo :-\ :-\.

 

[Adanor]

I think that everyone expected Frank Thornton to do a variation of Capt. Peacock and I think that everyone was pleasantly surprised when he came up with a different character and fleshed out Truly of the Yard, especially after Bill Owen passed.

 

[Philosopher Clegg]

The third man has always been an authoritarian, bossy figure, although some more than others. They brought a degree of discipline and at times entrepreneurial get up and go spirit to the trio. Blamire had been in the army and then held a management positon, either with the Water or Gas Board, can't remember which. Foggy was a career military man, probably low level but a dreamer. Seymour a Head Teacher and Truly a Police Officer/Detective. All authority type figures. I think for Foggy, Clegg and Compo were like the foot soldiers he never commanded and now had the chance to do so and live out his dreams back on civvy street. For Seymour, they were like the naughty boys at his school, there to be kept in check. Truly was very matter of fact detective like in his dealings with them. It was clear that Clegg and Compo preferred the quite life and that is why they often rebelled at first, but more often than not gave in.

Hobbo was also an authority figure of sorts, he would often refer to "my men" when talking about Alvin and Entwistle. Of all the third men though, Hobbo didn't have that supporting history in his past as he was presented as a milkman. For some reason he believed he had been a spy although he seems to suggest at times it might have been a dream or false, possibly planted, memory. It was strange story line and only added to a lack of credibility for the character, something that wasn't the case with the other four.

 

[Compo]

Can you imagine Hobo being a spy? What a state the country would be in. HA!

 

[chris]

Dunno look at what goes on in Uk its possible!

 

[Philosopher Clegg]

It's my personal belief that the show may not have lasted as long with the character
of Blamire.

I'm not so sure. Michael Bates was fairly well known back then and was in It Ain't Half Hot Mum at the same time as LOTSW. He did a couple of years of IAHHM after leaving LOTSW and it was very popular at the time, so he was a recognised face on tv.

The question is if Bates had continued, had he lived on and done say 9 or 10 series and then left, who would have come in at that point? Who knows, but Roy Clarke might simply have decided to stop writing it at that point and do something else.

LOTSW was certainly different in those first two years, the characters were more earthy and gritty. At that time it wasn't a gentle comedy, but wasn't too hard either. I quite like the character of Blamire, but he has to be looked at in the context of the time. That first trio certainly had their adventures, so in that respect it was no different from what was to come later. The characters probably would have changed slowly over the years had Blamire still been in it, just as they did after Foggy came in. I think it would have maintained its success as a series, but the question of transition to another third man might have been less likely had Michael Bates been in it for 10 years rather than 2.

 

[barmpot]

I'm not so sure. Michael Bates was fairly well known back then and was in It Ain't Half Hot Mum at the same time as LOTSW. He did a couple of years of IAHHM after leaving LOTSW and it was very popular at the time, so he was a recognised face on tv.

The question is if Bates had continued, had he lived on and done say 9 or 10 series and then left, who would have come in at that point? Who knows, but Roy Clarke might simply have decided to stop writing it at that point and do something else.

LOTSW was certainly different in those first two years, the characters were more earthy and gritty. At that time it wasn't a gentle comedy, but wasn't too hard either. I quite like the character of Blamire, but he has to be looked at in the context of the time. That first trio certainly had their adventures, so in that respect it was no different from what was to come later. The characters probably would have changed slowly over the years had Blamire still been in it, just as they did after Foggy came in. I think it would have maintained its success as a series, but the question of transition to another third man might have been less likely had Michael Bates been in it for 10 years rather than 2.

Yes certainly grittier, although was shown later on in the evening after what is known as the watershed. I also think it reflected the early 1970s more, they all smoked they occasionally swore as was seen on many programmes of that time.

I think if there had been, say, ten series, all with Blamire then a new third man would have been less likely.

What was different was that Blamire had less idiosyncrasies than the later third men. He was much more typical of the ex military person of that era than Foggy. Seymour was a real barmpot and Truly was more in line with Blamire: quite typical of former police officers.

 

[Philosopher Clegg]

Yes certainly grittier, although was shown later on in the evening after what is known as the watershed. I also think it reflected the early 1970s more, they all smoked they occasionally swore as was seen on many programmes of that time.

The swearing stopped, but interestingly for years after Compo would occasionally stick two fingers up to anyone that he might be annoyed with, quite often Foggy.

I think if there had been, say, ten series, all with Blamire then a new third man would have been less likely.

Again this is the unknown. Bates leaving early gave the opportunity to Wilde as at that stage the series was still in its infancy, they decided to go on. There might have been a reluctance to introduce a new third man had it gone on for years with the original trio, because by then it may well have been a difficult act to follow. I suppose there is also the possibility that LOTSW might not have been as successful as it became after Wilde joined, and thus it might have ended like most comedies after several series. In this instance change by chance worked.

 

[brendalovescompo]

I loved the grittiness of the first 2 years. Do you in Britain think it changed because of the characters and Clarke decided to changed them or was it the sign of the times change in the country to where it had to be cleaned up? I was just 10 years old at the time here in US. Your thoughts.

 

[FatherJack]

I think the progression toward the more active show it would become was already clearly visible in Series 2. The first series was very much dialogue based, but in the second series they were already starting to have more funny stunt based scenes. Like the one where Clegg tries to buy the car, and the one with the canoe trip, or where they get the motorcycle. I think the addition of Foggy helped with this progression, because Blamire tried to maintain the illusion of being somewhat a proper gentleman, where Foggy was just always seeking some kind of adventure for the trio to become involved in. I think the more action based storylines with the silly stunts and all are what ultimately led to the large level of popularity that the show ended up achieving.

And I feel that the addition of Foggy was a great thing for the show. It was good during the Blamire series', but I think it became truly great with the first Foggy run and stayed that way up until final series with Clegg, Truly, and Alvin as the featured characters. I'm still not sure what to think about the two Hobbo series'. I've watched the first but not the second, and I though it was still good but something just seemed kind of off to me.

 

[Sarkus]

Its just so hard to know how things would have gone had Bates been around longer. My understanding is that he left after the scripts for Series 3 had been written and sent to the actors because it was his notification to them that he didn't think he could do all the active scenes that lead to his departure. So to some degree that series is just quick re-writes with Foggy put in for Blamire. Its not really until Series 4 that you see scripts written from the begginning with Foggy in mind.

But the real unknown has to do with the show's sudden rise in popularity, which was a largely unpredictable and random event. The first few series did ok and the BBC kept renewing the show, but it wasn't until the ITV strike in 1979 took that network off the air for 2 1/2 months that Summer Wine took off as TV viewers had no choice but to watch BBC programming, which included Series 5 of Summer Wine. Thats what made it a big hit. Whether Blamire would have clicked as well as Foggy did at that point is something we will never know.

 

[Philosopher Clegg]

I loved the grittiness of the first 2 years. Do you in Britain think it changed because of the characters and Clarke decided to changed them or was it the sign of the times change in the country to where it had to be cleaned up? I was just 10 years old at the time here in US. Your thoughts.

I think we would probably need to ask Roy Clarke! The early series were shown at a later after the "watershed" time here in the UK which was from 9.00pm in the evening, when it was deemed to be adult viewing. Of course, in reality it wasn't, I was at school at the time and can vaguely remember having watched them as we used to talk about them at school the next day.

A lot of comedy in the 70's was more down to earth and gritty, but perhaps in an innocent way as not much consideration was given to whether something would offend or not. Fact is there was a lot of sexist and racist comedy that would never be made today. More often than not it was done in a saucy postcard humour type way, but it actually probably reflected a part of Britain that did exist. Even in those first two series, LOTSW was actually quite mild compared to many.

Also, back then there was only the three TV channels in the UK, BBC1 and 2, and ITV, so once you made it to an evening slot chances are you would get a big audience by default. The really big viewing figures were to be had in prime time, between 7 and 9pm. Who knows, perhaps the move to a gentler comedy was simply a practical move to get that prime time slot? For some reason I mostly remember LOTSW being a BBC1 Sunday evening series. Not sure if that was entirely the case for every series, but eventually Sunday became its home.

 

[wstol]

One has to remember that Michael Bates did carry on with a further two series of It Ain't Half Hot Mum, in 1976 and 1977.

Though very ill at the time, he decided he could manage to work on one show.

Both shows meant the world to him, but he felt IAHHM was less demanding, probably with a large cast to compensate, and possibly less location work.

Maybe, Michael could have appeared in the first episode of the third series of LOTSW, a bit like the way the much later Return of the Warrior episode was constructed.

But who knows after all this time? The show was in it's infancy, and it had to continue.

We all know how well Peter Sallis read that letter that explained Blamire's absence, and we also know how Compo missed him - it's reported Michael Bates had tears in his eyes when he viewed the episode.

Back to the main topic, it was always sad when a 'third man' was replaced. But we were so lucky to get such good actors/characters to replace them.

Fortunately, each replacement did seem to get a fairly lengthy time on the show, so the show did at least get refreshed - which could be one reason why the show was allowed to run for so long.

However, the loss of Bill Owen and the demotion of Peter Sallis did not help the show at all.