That Wacky Redhead

[Brainbin]

Thanks to everyone for your responses to my latest update, back on the previous page! I realize that there's a lot of information there, and I want to thank you all for slogging through it and mustering your replies. I would still love to hear from the rest of you about your thoughts as well, so by all means please feel free to contribute! Even if it's just a generic compliment - I'm not opposed to those or anything, you know As always, my responses to those posts from prior to my most recent update first...

Yes, the revised version does sound a lot more plausible.

Thank you! I appreciate your constructive advice.

Although the hereditary members are elected...by the other hereditary peers. (Ironically this is the only election involving the British government that uses AV as the voting system).

Yes, I was referring to this technicality... which really does speak for itself, doesn't it?

And back in the 70s, who the heck would have thought he would live the longest? Or that Captain Peacock would outlive Miss Brahms and Mr Lucas?

To be honest, I was actually pulling for Thornton to outlive Smith, if only because he was so much older. Still, 92 years young is absolutely nothing to sneer at.

Well, getting my answer on the prolife movement has kept me interested. I think this might keep the movement somewhat less partisanly Republican (I know there are lots of prolifers in the Dems, but they always seem to be sidelined) - we might see the continuance of phenomenon such as the stances of Roberti, the father of California gun control. At the same time, lack of evangelical backing might make it a weaker movement, still largely a Catholic phenomenon (IIRC the SBC was still pro-choice around this time).

You're welcome to speculate, but please bear in mind that you're never going to be reading about those topics in any detail in the timeline proper.

The election of Pope Innocent seems to have major implications for the media role of the Papacy. Agree or disagree with him, JPII had a lot of charisma about him, and to a large extent defined the modern public perception of the Papacy. I see Innocent as being not like that.

Well, Innocent XIV was described in his days as a cardinal as "affable and smiling". Perhaps he won't be shrewd like JPII, but I wouldn't write him off entirely.

All on account of that wacky redhead!

You can say that again

Well some post inflation possibly but the quality still remains very high so that's the main thing and definitely makes it worth reading through.

Thank you, Steve

Love the idea of a LOTR series as animation that early, especially since it sounds like it sticks pretty close to the books.

It does - though obviously there's a good deal of compression there, as each film is only about two hours long. (The OTL film clocked in at 132 minutes.)

Fascinating run of events and the development of a subtly different set of films and more drastically different set of Oscar awards. Along with a small hint of a major storm to come. I get the feeling that whoever wins TTL there's not going to be a Star Wars trilogy as the subject will be too poisonous, even if anyone secure clear control of the rights.

Intriguing analysis, Steve, though it remains to be seen how right you are, of course

A tour de force, Brainbin.

You flatter me, Falkenburg

Finely crafted and soundly internally consistent. An outstanding job.
So many intriguing and poignant (in the case of Achebe and McQueen) little details.

Well, thank you, I do try. At the end of the day, timelines are really about people, both great and small.

Remarkable. And all on account of That Wacky Redhead.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love it when people quote my catchphrases back at me?

Yet Another Interesting Post.

Thank you, Nigel

It's obviously not a Beatles production, but it would be fun to have some of the Fab Four lend their vocal talents to the film. I'd particularly like to hear John Lennon as Gollum.

A cute idea, but I'm afraid that won't be happening ITTL.

That's interesting. I'd heard that Robin Hood reused animation from previous Disney films, but I've never seen it presented like that.

The smoking pen, as it were - and note that The Jungle Book and The Aristocats (the two films from which Robin Hood cribbed the most heavily) were Disney's two immediately preceding releases. To be honest, it's almost as if the animators wanted to be caught. And it's no wonder why Don Bluth left later on, IOTL.

On the subject of re-using material - does the Wilhelm Scream get revived ITTL ? The original sound effect dates from the 1950s, but its inclusion in Star Wars and the Indiana Jones films encouraged its use in other films so that it has now appeared in over 200 films.

No, I think I'm going to spare the good people of TTL the Wilhelm Scream (well, beyond its original appearances in 1950s B-movies, anyway).

Good update.

Thank you, Thande

I personally enjoyed the rotoscoping in the Bakshi film as it grants an otherworldly sense to the whole affairs, although I agree it was overused.

I'm glad that you were able to suspend your disbelief; personally, I found the rotoscoping to be horribly jarring.

I'm kind of a sucker for mixing styles of animation though, I also enjoyed the somewhat strange use of mixing live action with hand-drawn animation in the BBC version of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

You mean, along the lines of Song of the South, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Or using some other method?

Tolkien of course wouldn't like it but then he was a perfectionist who was never satisfied with his own work, never mind anyone else's interpretation of it I recall him writing a critique of a proposed film script by Zimmerman that was practically longer than the script itself Well worth a read if you can find a copy of The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, especially because it inadvertently rebuts all those idiots who think the Eagles are a deus ex machina (Zimmerman wanted to cut out the journey from Rivendell to Moria by having the Fellowship ride on Eagles, to which Tolkien acidly replied that they were not 'Middle-earth's taxi service')

I would have loved to see Tolkien's reaction to the OTL Lord of the Rings film, had he lived. That man had a gift for put-downs, no doubt about it.

I see a failure to understand the character's extremely important relevance to the thematic structure is common to adaptation attempts in all TLs then Honestly, one might as well cut Caliban out of The Tempest or something...

Sorry, Thande, I had to go with the creative consensus on this one, not being an enthusiast of the Legendarium myself.

I will say that while I have many issues with the Peter Jackson films, I am always acutely aware that they are far more faithful than pretty much any other proposed film adaptation of LOTR I've ever heard of, and depressingly they may represent the best possible adaptation we can realistically get in the medium of film! (Which of course raises the question, as Brainbin himself has done with Harry Potter, of whether a TV series would do it better justice, despite the lack of such a grand scale).

The Lord of the Rings would have made a very good TV series in the style of Game of Thrones. But sadly both Ralph Bakshi and Peter Jackson were faster.
While Bakshi's version was in most cases much closer to the novels, Jackson's version had the better music and design.

I'm very much in agreement, gentlemen (unsurprisingly). But would the BBC have been able to handle the sheer scale of a lavish and epic Lord of the Rings series by about 1970? It couldn't be any later, given that Tolkien sold the movie rights in 1969, IOTL (and ITTL, for that matter).

Yeah, yeah...Robin Hood borrowed a lot of animation...doesn't matter, it's still one of Disney's best. It's one of the few movies I loved as a kid, that I still love without reservation.

Well, we've seen over and over again in popular culture that derivative can be good; it just can't be original. Then again, this is Disney we're talking about.

And wooo!! sounds like there's a good LOTR cartoon in this TL. And take that Annie Hall, Journey for the Force (I'm sure) is awesome. So while American crumbles under Reagan, at least entertainment culture flourishes.

Well, I told you I wasn't writing a utopia

I love the Best Picture list of TTL. Think Bludhorn's in deep s**t.

I'm glad you love it! Being an advocate for television, I had ideological reservations about giving Network the Oscar, but even I can't always have it my way.

And as for Bluhdorn? Well, that little misadventure has only just begun...

---

There's just one more update in the 1978-79 cycle, which I hope to have ready - along with the interlude written by e of pi - before the end of the month, as is my custom. Now I make no promises, of course, and I will serve no update before its time; but I will say that encouraging words probably wouldn't hurt

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Think Bludhorn is f**ked. His supposed violations with taxes IOTL is about to be exposed big ITTL.

 

[Thande]

Yeah, yeah...Robin Hood borrowed a lot of animation...doesn't matter, it's still one of Disney's best. It's one of the few movies I loved as a kid, that I still love without reservation.

I forgot to comment on this earlier--I have the same sentiment, it was one of my favourites as a kid. I didn't realise they reused animation from the Jungle Book: I was aware they had reused the look of some characters, but I was also of the generation that grew up watching TaleSpin! which involves the Jungle Book character designs being put into a different setting, so I just thought it was another example of that. (I've mentioned before that growing up on a mixture of cartoons from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s all mixed together can be slightly confusing because you don't actually know which is which at first; it took me a while before I knew Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet had been made in the 1960s rather than being contemporary programmes).

You mean, along the lines of Song of the South, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Or using some other method?

Kind of, but a bit different: first because it was done by a Japanese animator so had a different style, and secondly because those examples explicitly have the hand-drawn bits supposed to be a different class of 'thing' to the live action bits (except perhaps Song of the South) whereas in Narnia the two are mixed together. I would try and find a clip of it for you but I can't view Youtube at work; maybe later.

Sorry, Thande, I had to go with the creative consensus on this one, not being an enthusiast of the Legendarium myself.

Bah, you of all people know that the 'creative consensus' is made up of the same kind of people who would say "Great show concept, Gene, but can we lose the whole journeying through space angle?"

 

[stevep]

I'm very much in agreement, gentlemen (unsurprisingly). But would the BBC have been able to handle the sheer scale of a lavish and epic Lord of the Rings series by about 1970? It couldn't be any later, given that Tolkien sold the movie rights in 1969, IOTL (and ITTL, for that matter).

Brainbin

It tends to be rather starved of funds but occasionally does magnificent epics. Currently their re-doing the I Claudius series I dimly remember from the 1st time around. [Amazing how many big names you suddenly recognise. When Augustus opened his mouth I did a double take and after a close examination concluded yes that is a young and rather lightly built, for him anyway, Brian Blessed].

Hence, while some things might be a little cheap looking and they might emphasis the character interactions rather than the big battles, which would probably go down well with Tolkien himself, I think they could have done a good series. Probably, between their own tastes and Tolkien still being about getting very close to the books.

Obviously would have to leave a lot of the smaller details out. I was introduced to LOTR via the 1980's radio series which covered 13 hours but still had to cut out a number of the 2ndary characters. However given the advantages of radio when it comes to big images [the listener makes his own] and that they didn't have the assorted side-adventures away from the original story of Jackson's films, they gave much more of the story. I was still blown away by the books when I rapidly consumed them afterwards.

Steve

 

[Thande]

Obviously would have to leave a lot of the smaller details out. I was introduced to LOTR via the 1980's radio series which covered 13 hours but still had to cut out a number of the 2ndary characters. However given the advantages of radio when it comes to big images [the listener makes his own] and that they didn't have the assorted side-adventures away from the original story of Jackson's films, they gave much more of the story. I was still blown away by the books when I rapidly consumed them afterwards.

The 1981 radio series is excellent, I bought it for my dad recently on umpteen tapes. The best part is the completely unexpected casting: Bill Nighy as Sam Gamgee? Oz Clarke the wine critic singing all the songs? But it works! And it's also why Ian Holm plays Bilbo Baggins in the Jackson films, as a homage to the fact that he played Frodo in the radio series.

 

[Falkenburg]

The 1981 radio series is excellent,

Heartily seconded.
That box set is one of many reasons I cling to my collection of old cassettes. Much to my wife's chagrin.

Falkenburg

 

[stevep]

Heartily seconded.
That box set is one of many reasons I cling to my collection of old cassettes. Much to my wife's chagrin.

Falkenburg

Fully agree guys. Bought the boxed set simply because of memories of listening to it on the radio and must locate where it is. The one I remember was the late Robert Stevens as Aragon, that voice seemed to sum him up perfectly.

Steve

 

[Falkenburg]

As the badges said at the time, Radio is Hobbit 4-ming.

Falkenburg

 

[Thande]

Kind of, but a bit different: first because it was done by a Japanese animator so had a different style, and secondly because those examples explicitly have the hand-drawn bits supposed to be a different class of 'thing' to the live action bits (except perhaps Song of the South) whereas in Narnia the two are mixed together. I would try and find a clip of it for you but I can't view Youtube at work; maybe later.

OK, at the start of this clip you can see a sequence with live action characters and animated Pegasi. It was also used in other sections and I recall a bit where Peter fights an animated flying something-or-other.

 

[Maltaran]

Brainbin
When Augustus opened his mouth I did a double take and after a close examination concluded yes that is a young and rather lightly built, for him anyway, Brian Blessed].

The reason people don't recognise him is not because he's young, it's because he's clean-shaven

 

[stevep]

The reason people don't recognise him is not because he's young, it's because he's clean-shaven

Maltaran

Partly true but also he looks a good bit smaller than the older Blessed I'm used to. Stocky perhaps but not the bear of a man he normally is. However the voice is the give-away.

Steve

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

[3] Of course, A Clockwork Orange and then Barry Lyndon were Kubrick’s two films released after 2001 IOTL. Given that the director was extremely fickle about which projects he would bring to the screen, I’m going to posit that the window of opportunity for A Clockwork Orange has well and truly closed, allowing for it to be brought to screen later in the decade under the auspices of some lesser filmmaker, and obviously failing to achieve anything close to its OTL notoriety.

First of all, great update -- it's helpful to see how cinema evolved in TTL at a glance. While I absolutely love anything that brings about Kubrick's Napoleon, I'm not sure I'd agree with these two films happening as OTL -- certainly not Barry Lyndon, which pretty much only exists because Kubrick didn't want all his preliminary work on Napoleon to go to waste.

 

[stevep]

First of all, great update -- it's helpful to see how cinema evolved in TTL at a glance. While I absolutely love anything that brings about Kubrick's Napoleon, I'm not sure I'd agree with these two films happening as OTL -- certainly not Barry Lyndon, which pretty much only exists because Kubrick didn't want all his preliminary work on Napoleon to go to waste.

JFP

I think you're misread the thread. That's what's happened OTL but not TTL and I think the section you quote points to this. Brainbin said:

Given that the director was extremely fickle about which projects he would bring to the screen, I’m going to posit that the window of opportunity for A Clockwork Orange has well and truly closed, allowing for it to be brought to screen later in the decade under the auspices of some lesser filmmaker

i.e. that Kubrick doesn't make Clockwork Orange but possibly someone else does later.

Steve

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

I know, Brainbin...

 

[Brainbin]

Think Bludhorn is f**ked. His supposed violations with taxes IOTL is about to be exposed big ITTL.

It shall remain to be seen just how right (or wrong) you are! The Trial Of The Century will be the subject of its own update, I can tell you that much.

I forgot to comment on this earlier--I have the same sentiment, it was one of my favourites as a kid. I didn't realise they reused animation from the Jungle Book: I was aware they had reused the look of some characters, but I was also of the generation that grew up watching TaleSpin! which involves the Jungle Book character designs being put into a different setting, so I just thought it was another example of that. (I've mentioned before that growing up on a mixture of cartoons from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s all mixed together can be slightly confusing because you don't actually know which is which at first; it took me a while before I knew Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet had been made in the 1960s rather than being contemporary programmes).

I'll agree with you there - when you're a kid, especially, you can't contextualize animation styles and how they changed through history. Now, with even my cursory knowledge of artistic trends in the medium, it's very easy for me to look at, say, Snow White, and tell you that it was made in the 1930s. Back then? Absolutely not. In fact, thanks to the "Disney Vault", Snow White wasn't released on VHS until late 1994, by which time I'd accumulated virtually all of the Disney Animated Features Canon up to that point.

Bah, you of all people know that the 'creative consensus' is made up of the same kind of people who would say "Great show concept, Gene, but can we lose the whole journeying through space angle?"

On the flip side of that same coin, though, I think we all remember what havoc Gene wrecked, when left to his own devices

It tends to be rather starved of funds but occasionally does magnificent epics. Currently their re-doing the I Claudius series I dimly remember from the 1st time around. [Amazing how many big names you suddenly recognise. When Augustus opened his mouth I did a double take and after a close examination concluded yes that is a young and rather lightly built, for him anyway, Brian Blessed].

Hence, while some things might be a little cheap looking and they might emphasis the character interactions rather than the big battles, which would probably go down well with Tolkien himself, I think they could have done a good series. Probably, between their own tastes and Tolkien still being about getting very close to the books.

Obviously would have to leave a lot of the smaller details out. I was introduced to LOTR via the 1980's radio series which covered 13 hours but still had to cut out a number of the 2ndary characters. However given the advantages of radio when it comes to big images [the listener makes his own] and that they didn't have the assorted side-adventures away from the original story of Jackson's films, they gave much more of the story. I was still blown away by the books when I rapidly consumed them afterwards.

What's interesting about adapting The Lord of the Rings to radio is that a version was done within Tolkien's lifetime - in fact, just a few years after the books were released - which he did not hold in very high regard. Of course, the BBC's wiping practices did not only cover television, but radio as well, and therefore those broadcasts have not survived for us to appraise them for ourselves. Apparently, Tolkien thought the BBC too cavalier in adapting the finer details (sound familiar?).

As the badges said at the time, Radio is Hobbit 4-ming.

That was absolutely terrible, Falkenburg, and you should be ashamed of yourself

OK, at the start of this clip you can see a sequence with live action characters and animated Pegasi. It was also used in other sections and I recall a bit where Peter fights an animated flying something-or-other.

Thanks for sharing! I definitely think they're trying to evoke that same Disney feel on a budget (and note that 1988 was the same year that Roger Rabbit came out).

The reason people don't recognise him is not because he's young, it's because he's clean-shaven

Glad you're still reading, Maltaran

First of all, great update -- it's helpful to see how cinema evolved in TTL at a glance. While I absolutely love anything that brings about Kubrick's Napoleon, I'm not sure I'd agree with these two films happening as OTL -- certainly not Barry Lyndon, which pretty much only exists because Kubrick didn't want all his preliminary work on Napoleon to go to waste.

Thanks for your compliment, JFP But Steve was correct with his interpretation - A Clockwork Orange was a popular and culturally significant novel, released relatively recently at the time of Kubrick's OTL adaptation, and I absolutely see someone adapting it, especially in the era of exploitative filmmaking that was the 1970s. As for The Luck of Barry Lyndon, it was a period novel written by an author of some renown (who also wrote Vanity Fair, which had been adapted for the screen half-a-dozen times as early as 1935).

I know, Brainbin...

I just wanted to make sure. I appreciate your understanding

I still hope to have my next update, which is the last of the 1978-79 cycle, ready sometime early this weekend. Our special guest author e of pi is currently rather... preoccupied with his own real-life affairs, so I haven't been in as constant a contact with him as is typically the case, but he informs me that he should be ready before the end of this month. Maybe it's just the bean counter in me, but I always like to have an update ready before we close the books on a given period

 

[Falkenburg]

That was absolutely terrible, Falkenburg, and you should be ashamed of yourself

There are many reasons I should be ashamed of myself, Brainbin.
Alas that particular pun isn't one of them as, IIRC, (BBC) Radio 4 is responsible, if that's the right word.

Falkenburg

 

[NCW8]

Partly true but also he looks a good bit smaller than the older Blessed I'm used to. Stocky perhaps but not the bear of a man he normally is. However the voice is the give-away.

For reference, here he is as PC "Fancy" Smith in Z-Cars:

At this time, he was definitely more Brian Blessed than BRIAN BLESSED !

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I think you're misread the thread. That's what's happened OTL but not TTL and I think the section you quote points to this. Brainbin said... that Kubrick doesn't make Clockwork Orange but possibly someone else does later.

Ah gotcha Yeah, I can see the novels being adopted by someone TTL (just not by Kubrick).

 

[stevep]

For reference, here he is as PC "Fancy" Smith in Z-Cars:

At this time, he was definitely more Brian Blessed than BRIAN BLESSED !

Cheers,
Nigel.

Nigel

Damn you! I just sat through the entire series of him as Henry VIII. Fantastic.

Had forgotten about him as Fancy. Can dimly remember the early Z cars and his character.

Steve

 

[Unknown]

About Winthrop Rockefeller, Brainbin:

It'd be hard for him to run in 1976, with him having died from pancreatic cancer in 1973 (which I doubt would be butterflied away, but have it be caught early and he might survive).

Can't wait for the next update.