Transitions

[codfanglers]

This topic has stemmed from the "Babs" topic but instead of getting too far off track from Babs, I thought I would start a new topic. The change in the show after Compo has been discussed before but here is a new angle of looking at and questioning it.

The show had changed Trio leaders numerous times; from Blamire to Foggy to Seymour to Foggy again and then to Truly. The show did change a little with these character changes. However, the show drastically changed after Compo's passing.

Why was this transition so much larger than the other changes?

Perhaps Bill Owen and his wilder character was simply harder to replace.
Perhaps Tom Owen was meant to be his direct replacement but many thought that didn't work.
Perhaps it was because Bill Owen's actual passing forced more planning and drastic changes (however. Clarke and Bell, etc. knew of his illness).
Perhaps it was because after twenty-six years or so, Clarke felt the need to change the cast more in order to be able create more storylines easier.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[George]

I might be wrong but I have some vague memories of Roy Clarke announcing there would be no more episodes and then a change would happen,such as Seymour's arrival and then Foggy's return,which would sharpen his enthusiasm again and give the show a fresh impetus.
As I said I could be wrong and my memory could be playing tricks.

 

[wstol]

This topic has stemmed from the "Babs" topic but instead of getting too far off track from Babs, I thought I would start a new topic. The change in the show after Compo has been discussed before but here is a new angle of looking at and questioning it.

The show had changed Trio leaders numerous times; from Blamire to Foggy to Seymour to Foggy again and then to Truly. The show did change a little with these character changes. However, the show drastically changed after Compo's passing.

Why was this transition so much larger than the other changes?

Perhaps Bill Owen and his wilder character was simply harder to replace.
Perhaps Tom Owen was meant to be his direct replacement but many thought that didn't work.
Perhaps it was because Bill Owen's actual passing forced more planning and drastic changes (however. Clarke and Bell, etc. knew of his illness).
Perhaps it was because after twenty-six years or so, Clarke felt the need to change the cast more in order to be able create more storylines easier.

Thoughts anyone?

Quite simply, they kept experimenting with new characters, and didn't stick to just one.

 

[codfanglers]

I might be wrong but I have some vague memories of Roy Clarke announcing there would be no more episodes and then a change would happen,such as Seymour's arrival and then Foggy's return,which would sharpen his enthusiasm again and give the show a fresh impetus.
As I said I could be wrong and my memory could be playing tricks.

Quite simply, they kept experimenting with new characters, and didn't stick to just one.

Thanks for the input on my big question George and WSTOL

George, your answer is very intriguing, to think that many times Clarke considered ending the show but it kept going. I wonder if they considered cancelling the show after Michael bates left. Perhaps the biggest difference between British and american comedies is that , in my opinion, the shows tragically last for only a couple of years (Fawlty Towers, Young Ones, Old Guys, etc.), whereas the American shows last as long as humanly possibly (usually too long). Case in point....look at the British "Office" which was great bt only lasted two seasons where the American office never stops.

It is intriguing that Summer Wine broke the mold for this trend and if it only lasted a few years I probably would have never discovered it.

Then again, WSTOL's answer is pretty straight-forward and likely very true.

 

[barmpot]

..... I wonder if they considered cancelling the show after Michael bates left. ......


It is intriguing that Summer Wine broke the mold for this trend and if it only lasted a few years I probably would have never discovered it.

Then again, WSTOL's answer is pretty straight-forward and likely very true.

I believe that cancellign the show was considered when Michael Bates was not available. Even if he had madea third series there would have been an end anyway as he died not that long afterwards.

 

[manfromoswestry]

I think it's probably due to the fact that Compo was such an important and pivotal character, and no other character carried as much weight as he did. So naturally, a big deal had to be made when Compo passed on. Not to diminish the other characters and their vital input to the show, but when people think of LOTSW, what inevitably comes to mind first is that scruffy man in ratty clothes and wellies. Give this, perhaps Roy Clarke had no other choice than to divide the show into more subplots than to continue focusing solely on the main trio. For what it's worth, he did a spectacular job during the post-Compo years.