Paulinehill29
Dedicated Member
to be fair though the critics and the press are never going to paint anything favourably - even if it wins 25 awards. spoils their fun
Still Open All Hours has started filming today!
- Thread starter lotswfan72
- Start date
to be fair though the critics and the press are never going to paint anything favourably - even if it wins 25 awards. spoils their fun
I have been ruminating on this thread and one or two others recently. Those have generally been those on the subject of actors. This might turn into a bit of a ramble but as usual, I could be lying.
I do not recall seeing anything on here covering the excellent documentary 'Open All Hours - a Celebration' which was broadcast a day or so after 'Still Open All Hours'. I recorded that and only got around to watching it a day or so ago. Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Still Open all Hours' which, as far as I was concerned, was just what it said on the tin and I certainly do not anticipate anything other than a one off.
What I most enjoyed about the documentary was the interviews with Roy Clarke - sadly a wee bit on the short side - and his explanation of the constraints on a writer in the situation given that Ronnie Barker is sadly no longer with us.
And it did prompt to remind me that the real genius of Last of the Summer Wine is Roy Clarke. And after that it is Alan JW Bell who coordinated the whole thing, translating Roy Clarke's writing into all those great episodes. I do wonder sometimes if we get too hung up on actors.
If we go back to the beginning we had a pilot by Roy Clarke in which I suggest he had no conception as to who would play the parts. That is how it should be. The then director, James Gilbert, decided on the cast and obviously got it right. After the successful pilot it was obviously expedient to stick to the same cast.
An aside on show title over which there has been recent discussion. As I recall, the title 'The Library Mob' was BBC working title on account of fact that some BBC high hiedyin did not like 'The Last of the Summer Wine'. But in the end all that happened is that the initial 'The' got dropped from the title.
I want to move on to the point in time when Michael Bates was no longer able to play Blamire. And I really do wonder if it was necessary to change the character simply because another actor was needed. There are some precedents. Sheila Brennan played Nurse Gladys Emmanuel in the pilot of 'Open All Hours'. Lynda Baron took over. Shirley Stelfox played sister Rose in the first series of 'Keeping Up Appearances'. Mary Millar took over. But maybe the most significant in terms of the most central role, in 'May to December', after the first two series Eve Matheson gave way to Lesley Dunlop as the female lead, wife Zoë. It can be done.
I suppose my point is that we can be too hooked on actors. As a good enough actor, Brian Wilde should have been up to taking the role of Blamire. I can say without hesitation that later on a consummate actor like Michael Aldridge was more than capable of playing Foggy. It certainly would not have been any weirder than the inspired casting of Robin Bailey as Uncle Mort in 'I Didn't Know You Cared' (which provides yet another example of actor substitution, Keith Drinkel taking over from Stephen Rea in the central role of Carter Brandon after two series). In a way, the character Blamire could have been the third man throughout.
Now I am not contending that any other actor could have taken over the role of Compo - we must remember that Bill Owen had more than twenty series in the role. Likewise there could have been no substitution for Clegg. It is just the third man role where there was a semi-regular turnover. And I do recognise that the total replacement of character here could well have helped the show's longevity.
But, getting back to Roy Clarke and the original show, I reiterate that it is the writer who is critical to the show. He should write the story line and the characters as he sees them. He should be little influenced by the actors playing the roles. I do feel that is where things went wrong at the end. The cart started leading the horse. Rather than Roy Clarke writing the show post Clegg and Truly being central characters and then Alan JW Bell finding the cast to fit the roles Roy Clarke had created, Alan JW Bell found Russ Abbot and the show got fitted around him. And it ceased to be a trio. And it was just not the same.
In case of doubt - the man with whom I would most like to dine - ROY CLARKE - so I could get his input to all my wild theories.
I do not recall seeing anything on here covering the excellent documentary 'Open All Hours - a Celebration' which was broadcast a day or so after 'Still Open All Hours'. I recorded that and only got around to watching it a day or so ago. Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Still Open all Hours' which, as far as I was concerned, was just what it said on the tin and I certainly do not anticipate anything other than a one off.
What I most enjoyed about the documentary was the interviews with Roy Clarke - sadly a wee bit on the short side - and his explanation of the constraints on a writer in the situation given that Ronnie Barker is sadly no longer with us.
And it did prompt to remind me that the real genius of Last of the Summer Wine is Roy Clarke. And after that it is Alan JW Bell who coordinated the whole thing, translating Roy Clarke's writing into all those great episodes. I do wonder sometimes if we get too hung up on actors.
If we go back to the beginning we had a pilot by Roy Clarke in which I suggest he had no conception as to who would play the parts. That is how it should be. The then director, James Gilbert, decided on the cast and obviously got it right. After the successful pilot it was obviously expedient to stick to the same cast.
An aside on show title over which there has been recent discussion. As I recall, the title 'The Library Mob' was BBC working title on account of fact that some BBC high hiedyin did not like 'The Last of the Summer Wine'. But in the end all that happened is that the initial 'The' got dropped from the title.
I want to move on to the point in time when Michael Bates was no longer able to play Blamire. And I really do wonder if it was necessary to change the character simply because another actor was needed. There are some precedents. Sheila Brennan played Nurse Gladys Emmanuel in the pilot of 'Open All Hours'. Lynda Baron took over. Shirley Stelfox played sister Rose in the first series of 'Keeping Up Appearances'. Mary Millar took over. But maybe the most significant in terms of the most central role, in 'May to December', after the first two series Eve Matheson gave way to Lesley Dunlop as the female lead, wife Zoë. It can be done.
I suppose my point is that we can be too hooked on actors. As a good enough actor, Brian Wilde should have been up to taking the role of Blamire. I can say without hesitation that later on a consummate actor like Michael Aldridge was more than capable of playing Foggy. It certainly would not have been any weirder than the inspired casting of Robin Bailey as Uncle Mort in 'I Didn't Know You Cared' (which provides yet another example of actor substitution, Keith Drinkel taking over from Stephen Rea in the central role of Carter Brandon after two series). In a way, the character Blamire could have been the third man throughout.
Now I am not contending that any other actor could have taken over the role of Compo - we must remember that Bill Owen had more than twenty series in the role. Likewise there could have been no substitution for Clegg. It is just the third man role where there was a semi-regular turnover. And I do recognise that the total replacement of character here could well have helped the show's longevity.
But, getting back to Roy Clarke and the original show, I reiterate that it is the writer who is critical to the show. He should write the story line and the characters as he sees them. He should be little influenced by the actors playing the roles. I do feel that is where things went wrong at the end. The cart started leading the horse. Rather than Roy Clarke writing the show post Clegg and Truly being central characters and then Alan JW Bell finding the cast to fit the roles Roy Clarke had created, Alan JW Bell found Russ Abbot and the show got fitted around him. And it ceased to be a trio. And it was just not the same.
In case of doubt - the man with whom I would most like to dine - ROY CLARKE - so I could get his input to all my wild theories.
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
The thing is though some actors make a series what it is. Get the mixture of writing and actors right and you can have a winner. Bad or wrongly cast acting and it doesn't matter how good the writing is. I'm sure Brian Wilde could have become Blamire, but part of the audience will always be thinking that Bates was better. With some comedies it is just easier to bring in another character.
This happened in other series like Only Fools and Horses when Grandad died, Buster Merryfield could probably have easily slipped into the role, but instead played Uncle Albert and it worked. On OFAH it should also be remembered that David Jason wasn't the original choice for Del Boy, it was Jim Broadbent. Broadbent later appeared as the bent copper who was the ex-husband of Raquel, a part he was well suited for. Can anyone imagine him as Del Boy? I suspect he could have done it, but Broadbent does have the slightly hard nosed look to him which came out well in the character that he did play. His Del Boy might have been ideal for something that was a darker comedy, but David Jason had that loveable rogue look about him.
In the Good Life, Peter Bowels was originally offered the part of Jerry, turned it down because of work commitments although he later said he could have done it. Had he taken it the chances are he never would have done To The Manor Born, because would they have made that with him as he'd be opposite Penelope Keith again. Chances are no.
To look at this another way, with LOTSW would Hobbo have been better if played by Brian Wilde, Aldridge or Thornton with the same script? I think probably so.
This happened in other series like Only Fools and Horses when Grandad died, Buster Merryfield could probably have easily slipped into the role, but instead played Uncle Albert and it worked. On OFAH it should also be remembered that David Jason wasn't the original choice for Del Boy, it was Jim Broadbent. Broadbent later appeared as the bent copper who was the ex-husband of Raquel, a part he was well suited for. Can anyone imagine him as Del Boy? I suspect he could have done it, but Broadbent does have the slightly hard nosed look to him which came out well in the character that he did play. His Del Boy might have been ideal for something that was a darker comedy, but David Jason had that loveable rogue look about him.
In the Good Life, Peter Bowels was originally offered the part of Jerry, turned it down because of work commitments although he later said he could have done it. Had he taken it the chances are he never would have done To The Manor Born, because would they have made that with him as he'd be opposite Penelope Keith again. Chances are no.
To look at this another way, with LOTSW would Hobbo have been better if played by Brian Wilde, Aldridge or Thornton with the same script? I think probably so.
Personally, I don't like to see another actor playing an already established character.
For me it would be very unsettling to see another actor playing Blamire so soon after Michael Bates' departure.
I also would have hated to see another actor playing Grandad in Only Fools and Horses.
The replacement characters created to replace Blamire and Grandad happened to be equally if not more as successful as the previous characters. Blamire and Grandad were and still are fondly remembered. And now so are Foggy, Seymour, Truly and Uncle Albert.
Just think if Frank Thornton had been asked to play Blamire back in 1972. He could have been in every show.
Instances where a new actor has played an old character can nearly ruin a show. They found another actor to replace Peter Vaughan in Citizen Smith. He did his best, but it just wasn't the same.
I Didn't Know You Cared became almost unwatchable during Series 3 and 4 where different actors were used.
Robin Bailey took over the role of Arthur Lowe in Roy Clarke's Potter. When Arthur Lowe died, plans for the third series were so advanced it was felt the series had to be with a new actor. Robin Bailey was much taller and thinner than Arthur Lowe, and played the part differently - he had to, he couldn't possibly imitate Arthur Lowe. Though he was very different, he did play the part quite well. The scripts were very good as well, so maybe there is something in re-casting established characters after all...
Ocasionally they do find a replacement actor for a minor role where it does work, and the change is not too obvious - though I'm struggling to name one of any real significance.
I think cast changes for the same characters can work in the theatre, but not on television or film - as it's recorded and people will always compare.
For me it would be very unsettling to see another actor playing Blamire so soon after Michael Bates' departure.
I also would have hated to see another actor playing Grandad in Only Fools and Horses.
The replacement characters created to replace Blamire and Grandad happened to be equally if not more as successful as the previous characters. Blamire and Grandad were and still are fondly remembered. And now so are Foggy, Seymour, Truly and Uncle Albert.
Just think if Frank Thornton had been asked to play Blamire back in 1972. He could have been in every show.
Instances where a new actor has played an old character can nearly ruin a show. They found another actor to replace Peter Vaughan in Citizen Smith. He did his best, but it just wasn't the same.
I Didn't Know You Cared became almost unwatchable during Series 3 and 4 where different actors were used.
Robin Bailey took over the role of Arthur Lowe in Roy Clarke's Potter. When Arthur Lowe died, plans for the third series were so advanced it was felt the series had to be with a new actor. Robin Bailey was much taller and thinner than Arthur Lowe, and played the part differently - he had to, he couldn't possibly imitate Arthur Lowe. Though he was very different, he did play the part quite well. The scripts were very good as well, so maybe there is something in re-casting established characters after all...
Ocasionally they do find a replacement actor for a minor role where it does work, and the change is not too obvious - though I'm struggling to name one of any real significance.
I think cast changes for the same characters can work in the theatre, but not on television or film - as it's recorded and people will always compare.
codfanglers
Dedicated Member
Alright, pardon my lack of expertise on British sitcoms, but I will put my two cents into this topic.
I do see Big Unc's point and agree with him for the most part. Correct me if I am wrong, but Summer Wine was was played by fabulous actors, but they weren't the absolute biggest names (John Cleese, Judith Dench, etc.) The actors contributed so much to Summer Wine but the real key to success in this show was the great writing, the unique plot, and the scenery. Wesley became such a great character and he came from an unknown actor with little experience. So I see that the show could would have been great even if lesser known actors took over the roles of the big trio.
I have now viewed Summer Wine from beginning to end about four times (missing an episode here and there). Each time I view it I come up with greater insight on the show. Last time viewing this from beginning to end, I came to this conclusion. Other than the passing of Bill Owen, the single biggest change in Summer Wine was when it went from Lotterby to Bell. This was more significant than any other character change. Only the passing of Bill Owen was bigger because Compo was around for so many years and he ended up being replaced by numerous people, greatly increasing the cast.
So in the case of Summer Wine, I ultimately agree it could have been strong as well with the right casting of unknown actors. However, I see Philosopher Clegg's viewpoint as well. For example- I don't think Fawlty Towers would have been near as good if it wasn't for John Cleese perfecting Basil Fawlty.
Perhaps some shows are really driven by striking characters, like Ronnie Barker, Patricia Routledge as Hyacinth, and John Cleese. Whereas other shows, such as Summer Wine and the Young Ones, were more driven by the theme, style of comedy, and the writing.
You will have to excuse me if my being an ignorant Yank shows, but I just couldn't help but to chip into this conversation. I do realize that I know less factually than the rest of you!
I do see Big Unc's point and agree with him for the most part. Correct me if I am wrong, but Summer Wine was was played by fabulous actors, but they weren't the absolute biggest names (John Cleese, Judith Dench, etc.) The actors contributed so much to Summer Wine but the real key to success in this show was the great writing, the unique plot, and the scenery. Wesley became such a great character and he came from an unknown actor with little experience. So I see that the show could would have been great even if lesser known actors took over the roles of the big trio.
I have now viewed Summer Wine from beginning to end about four times (missing an episode here and there). Each time I view it I come up with greater insight on the show. Last time viewing this from beginning to end, I came to this conclusion. Other than the passing of Bill Owen, the single biggest change in Summer Wine was when it went from Lotterby to Bell. This was more significant than any other character change. Only the passing of Bill Owen was bigger because Compo was around for so many years and he ended up being replaced by numerous people, greatly increasing the cast.
So in the case of Summer Wine, I ultimately agree it could have been strong as well with the right casting of unknown actors. However, I see Philosopher Clegg's viewpoint as well. For example- I don't think Fawlty Towers would have been near as good if it wasn't for John Cleese perfecting Basil Fawlty.
Perhaps some shows are really driven by striking characters, like Ronnie Barker, Patricia Routledge as Hyacinth, and John Cleese. Whereas other shows, such as Summer Wine and the Young Ones, were more driven by the theme, style of comedy, and the writing.
You will have to excuse me if my being an ignorant Yank shows, but I just couldn't help but to chip into this conversation. I do realize that I know less factually than the rest of you!
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
I would still have to say that to some degree it isn't just about the writing, even with LOTSW. In the early days one could argue they got lucky in that three comedy actors and the supporting actors that were not really big names, but very well known in acting circles, came together to form a perfect cast that was just right. To some degree it is about getting lucky, after all, during that first episode Michael Bates and Bill Owen were at each others throats because of their political differences. They were taken to one side and told to cool it otherwise they would be off the show. They did and the rest is history, but had they continued to argue the chances are that neither would have been in any series. How long would it have lasted with a different Compo? Hard to imagine anyone else playing the role now because Bill Owen made it his own.
You don't necessarily need famous faces and I'm tempted to think that one of the weaknesses in LOTSW towards the end was that they were always bringing in well known faces from the 70's and 80's sitcom land rather than take a chance on someone not as well known. I would say that in terms of a major role, Billy Hardcastle played by Keith Clifford was the last chance they took and the series wasn't really the same once he left.
Comedy writers and producers that have a successful series will always be faced with the dilemma of how to handle change as time goes on. An actor leaves or passes on, what do you do? The easier option is to bring in a new character or none at all, because trying to replace a much loved character will always lead to part of the audience making the inevitable comparison with who played the part originally. LOTSW had a marvelous run of luck with the new characters they brought in, while at the same time they could fall back on an ever present old guard for the first 20 years or so. Of course, by the end that was impossible as many who had made the series what it was were no longer there.
Anyway, as this thread was about Still Open All Hours, it goes without saying that Ronnie Barker would cast an enormous shadow over it. How could he not?
You don't necessarily need famous faces and I'm tempted to think that one of the weaknesses in LOTSW towards the end was that they were always bringing in well known faces from the 70's and 80's sitcom land rather than take a chance on someone not as well known. I would say that in terms of a major role, Billy Hardcastle played by Keith Clifford was the last chance they took and the series wasn't really the same once he left.
Comedy writers and producers that have a successful series will always be faced with the dilemma of how to handle change as time goes on. An actor leaves or passes on, what do you do? The easier option is to bring in a new character or none at all, because trying to replace a much loved character will always lead to part of the audience making the inevitable comparison with who played the part originally. LOTSW had a marvelous run of luck with the new characters they brought in, while at the same time they could fall back on an ever present old guard for the first 20 years or so. Of course, by the end that was impossible as many who had made the series what it was were no longer there.
Anyway, as this thread was about Still Open All Hours, it goes without saying that Ronnie Barker would cast an enormous shadow over it. How could he not?
C
Compo
Guest
I personally do not like actors being replaced by others. In my opinion a character should be gone with if the actor/tress quits or dies. It just won't be the same with a replacement. We have seen this happen many times. Bill Owen was the best as they gave him a good send off. You could never replace him. I think that "Still Open All Hours" would work. I enjoyed watching the special.
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
Well, well, well.... so much for Daily Mirror "insiders".
"Granville's corner shop will be open for business once again after the BBC confirmed it was commissioning a full series of Still Open All Hours with David Jason.
The sequel to Ronnie Barker sitcom Open All Hours, which ran on BBC1 for 12 years until 1985, returned for a one-off special at Christmas and was watched by a consolidated audience of 12.2 million viewers, the most popular comedy since The Vicar of Dibley in 2007.
Written by its original creator Roy Clarke, it will now come back for a full six-part series.
"I am so delighted that we are doing a series of Still Open All Hours as the feedback from our Christmas special has been so rewarding and encouraging," said Jason, who starred in the original series alongside Barker."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/30/bbc-still-open-all-hours-david-jason
"Granville's corner shop will be open for business once again after the BBC confirmed it was commissioning a full series of Still Open All Hours with David Jason.
The sequel to Ronnie Barker sitcom Open All Hours, which ran on BBC1 for 12 years until 1985, returned for a one-off special at Christmas and was watched by a consolidated audience of 12.2 million viewers, the most popular comedy since The Vicar of Dibley in 2007.
Written by its original creator Roy Clarke, it will now come back for a full six-part series.
"I am so delighted that we are doing a series of Still Open All Hours as the feedback from our Christmas special has been so rewarding and encouraging," said Jason, who starred in the original series alongside Barker."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/30/bbc-still-open-all-hours-david-jason
You will notice I mentioned another series was going ahead yesterday,I too had insider info
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
But not the Daily Mirror I assume!
Still Open All Hours is to close down – despite the Christmas special proving a ratings winner.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/open-hours-series-sitcom-closed-3048174
Oh how the red tops love to spread a bit of misery.
That's why I have not bought any newspapers for years
Paulinehill29
Dedicated Member
just as I thought - doom and gloom press -handy if you run out of loo roll or kitchen roll but as for news.........forget it
dick
LOTSW Fanatic
Trouble with using it as loo-roll, you could finish up with newsprint on your bxx :-[ :-[ :me: :me:
amos hames
Dedicated Member
Really think a new series of Open all Hours will work. The special was good so there is no reason that a series will fail to attract veiwers.
C
Compo
Guest
I hope it never fails and last as long as the original series. Comedies like this are a treasure. I would also like to see a remake of Steptoe and Son. These comedies never die.............. unlike the ones of today...................
Not sure about this one. But at least we would not have that ghastly man, Wilfred Brambell.