I hope it's the Fourth Doctor.

Well Pertwee might decide to stay in the role longer than OTL, especially if Roger Delgado's death is butterflied away ITTL.

As for who might be the fourth doctor - well the casting of Tom Baker could easily be butterflied away. Other actors who were considered OTL were Bernard Cribbins, Jim Dale, Michael Bentine, Fulton MacKay, Graeme Crowden and Richard Hearne. Bentine wanted script approval OTL, and that is likely to be the case ITTL as well. It seems that Crowden only wanted the role for one season - maybe that would be different ITTL. If Porridge is made at the same time with the same cast ITTL then MacKay wouldn't be available to play the Doctor (assuming that the casting takes place a year later than OTL).

Personally, I'd like to see how Cribbins handled the role. He actually has some experience of working with Dr Who. He appeared in the second Peter Cushing film.

Cheers,
Nigel
 
Hi

This timeline was one of the first that I read in the forum and it is an amazing one!

Would the Oil Crisis push towards Solar Space Power???

I wonder how "Connections", "Cosmos" (Please, don't buttfly these two, and James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed"!!!:)), "Macgyver" and "Knight Rider" will happen in this timeline...

I really wonder how the events of this ITTL would affect movies like "Back to the Future", "Wargames" and "TRON"... (would Kubrick - while still alive - produce "A.I.-Artificial Intelligence" with Spielberg directing? Would we have less "Frankenstein Complexed"-movies??)

Can't wait for more! :D
 
Well, we've finally made it to the four-figure mark... 1,000 replies! :eek: By all means, please keep them coming, and I'll do my best to keep responding to them!

If TTL has butterflied away Bohemian Rhapsody then it could delay the development of the music video and that will affect the evolution of MTV.
True, "Bohemian Rhapsody" produced one of the very first true "music videos". Whether or not it will exist ITTL is not a question I will answer at this time - I might devote a paragraph to the "hotly-anticipated follow-up" to Sheer Heart Attack - and that album, it should be noted, will contain "In The Lap of the Gods", or something very similar, as IOTL... which has been described by Mercury as a direct forerunner to "Bohemian Rhapsody". Food for thought.

Is This what you're after? No sign of Nimoy, though. ;)
Alas, no - that's a sketch from one of the myriad revival attempts (dating from about 1990, which is after even "Star Trekkin'"!) and not the original series.

:cool::cool: Bravo, il maestro.:)
Grazie mille :cool:

phx1138 said:
That wouldn't foreshadow DPP being involved in the creation of a certain mechanical shark, would it?;)
That's not exactly what I would call lateral thinking, as we're talking about a film whose existence I've gone out of my way to avoid confirming or denying ITTL ;)

phx1138 said:
Y'know, it's a bit sad he's remembered for the gremlins, 'cause I thought the other one was one of the best they did.
I also prefer "Nick of Time" (his other episode), because Shatner gives a genuinely good performance, he has excellent chemistry with the actress playing his wife (Matheson apparently wanted her back in "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", but it couldn't be arranged), and there's a happy ending (at least for the central characters).

phx1138 said:
Or "Tough Guys": escapist without getting stupid. OTOH, I found "BTTF" pushed the limits of silliness too far for my liking. There were nice touches, & MJF & Rev Jim had a certain panache, but... Didn't make them bad films, just less good than I thought they could've been.
I would just like it to be known, for the record, that you find Tough Guys Don't Dance (you remember, the film that brought this brilliant piece of dialogue into the pop cultural landscape?) a more enjoyable film than one of the most beloved and iconic films of all time. And one of my personal favourites, too. :mad:

A very good joke, though. Take it from someone who didn't see it until many years after its release.;)
Don't worry about him, LordInsane; it has been well-established throughout the history of this thread that he enjoys being the contrarian. And it's funny that this discussion emerged right as I was writing a post in which I awarded Harvey Korman with the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (and I assure you, I was planning that all along).

Regarding your Moonraker movie. I want to see it. Any one know a video store that carry AU movie?
If you ever find one, be sure to pick up the Complete Series of Star Trek and ship it to me! :D

I look forward to your next update.
Well, thank you, Glen, but I am curious as to your thoughts on the update I had posted not two minutes before :)

Great update, Brainbin! Happy anniversary! (Time flies when you're having fun!)
Thank you very much, and it most certainly does! It still feels very surreal to me, which is why I try not to think about it. I just plan it, and write it!

vultan said:
Harvey Korman winning the Oscar? Yes please.:p
I couldn't resist. Besides, it means taking an Oscar away from somebody who now becomes "due", which continues the vicious circle of Oscar entitlement.

vultan said:
As far a pop culture goes, Stanley Kubrick tackling Napoleon has always been a source of considerable discussion on this site, but I believe this is the first high-profile project to actually do it, and do it well. Kudos!
Is it really? Well, I guess that's one of the advantages of writing a pop culture-centric timeline! :)

vultan said:
How does the rest of the cast of The Exorcist look? I always felt Jason Miller could have been a more prominent actor if given the right opportunities. And with the success of the a different version of the film, the question is how it affects horror as a whole in film. The 1970's was of course a pivotal decade for horror...
Very good question. The problem with Merrin and Karras is that there are far fewer known possibilities about who might have played them, and some of the names that come up are rather frightening... for altogether different reasons. (Marlon Brando for Merrin? Jack Nicholson for Karras? :eek:) So assume that the rest of the cast is largely similar. The only one I'll definitely make a call for is Chris MacNeil, who will be played by Ellen Burstyn as IOTL.

vultan said:
Nice George Lucas foreshadowing.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about ;)

Yeesh, man. It's up for two minutes and you're demanding another?
I think that when I mentioned going across the pond, he temporarily took leave of his senses :p

You had Kubrick make Napoleon. Thank you. A lot of people say it's the greatest film never made. I assume Kubrick will make A Clockwork Orange in 1975 instead of Barry Lyndon, as his next film. I'm disappointed that you gave Best Picture to Cabaret, instead of The Godfather which definitely deserves it, no matter what TL. But, I'm glad that you gave Nino Rota the Oscar for Best Original Score, and you had Peter Bogdanovich do well ITTL. Good for you. But, can you please change things so that Robert DeNiro wins Best Supporting Actor in 1974 instead of Harvey Korman? Pretty Please?
I had a feeling this might happen, but I'm afraid I can't help you. It's all or nothing. You can either have these results, or the OTL results. I believe it was the English poet Sir Michael Jagger who famously remarked "You can't always get what you want" ;) Or: You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have: the Oscars that were handed out ITTL! And something else that might disappoint you: A Clockwork Orange is not going to come to be ITTL, at least not as directed by Kubrick. He's moved on, and is looking at other projects. Though you are right in that he's also not making Barry Lyndon, either. But I'm glad you like Napoleon :)

My thoughts exactly :D
I'm glad you liked it! :D

To avoid overly going from the subject of the TL, suffice to say that my experience differs from yours in regards to Blazing Saddles (as to Young Frankenstein, I have not yet had that second time).
You're more than welcome to discuss your appreciation of specific movies on this thread, LordInsane, by all means. I draw the line at sensitive political topics, but I enjoy hearing about the tastes of my readers, because it helps me to decide what deserves greater focus and attention when I'm writing.

Time sure does fly by :eek:
It most certainly does. Here's to when we reach the one-year mark!

The Professor said:
I too would like to see a Kubrick Napoleon :cool:
If anyone could pull such a venture off and achieve a creative success, it would probably be Kubrick.

The Professor said:
Looking forward to the jaunt to our shores :)
I only hope that I can live up to the expectations of my quite massive - and hopefully not too vindictive - British and Anglophile readership :eek:

Long live Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon, which exists at long least on this discussion board!
Thank you, MaskedPickle! I'm really surprised that nobody else has done it (I understand that your own POD is far too late, of course; but there are plenty of other timelines with pop culture elements that could have turned the trick). But it is an honour and a privilege to be the first :)

We'll have to see what happens Tomorrow, People.
(GROAN) :p

I hope it's the Fourth Doctor.
Patience, grasshopper.

As for who might be the fourth doctor
Thank you for those suggestions, Nigel. I might well return to them in the future :cool:

This timeline was one of the first that I read in the forum and it is an amazing one!
Thank you very much! Welcome aboard, to this thread and to the forum at large!

Richter10 said:
Would the Oil Crisis push towards Solar Space Power???
It would indeed! "Microwave", as it's known ITTL, is briefly discussed in this post.

Richter10 said:
I wonder how "Connections", "Cosmos" (Please, don't buttfly these two, and James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed"!!!:)), "Macgyver" and "Knight Rider" will happen in this timeline...

I really wonder how the events of this ITTL would affect movies like "Back to the Future", "Wargames" and "TRON"... (would Kubrick - while still alive - produce "A.I.-Artificial Intelligence" with Spielberg directing? Would we have less "Frankenstein Complexed"-movies??)
One thing worth remembering is the Butterfly Effect. Many of those movies and television shows were made long after the POD in 1966, and as you can see, the world is already changing a great deal from OTL by this point. So bear in mind that many of the projects you're discussed might never even be conceived, let alone produced.

Richter10 said:
Can't wait for more! :D
Thank you very much! I can't promise that the next update will be ready as quickly as the last one was, but I hope to have it finished as soon as possible :)
 
Greetings,

I have only read only a little bit of the timeline so far and I am enjoying it thoroughly so far, but one thought popped into my mind. Will there be butterflies when it comes to animation, and animation companies like Disney, Hanna-Barbera, Filmation, etc.? With the TL getting close to the eighties I wonder if Saturday mornings will be any different. Part of me wonders if there is a possibility that there might be an earlier Transformers if Hasbro or some other toy company decides to bring the Diaclone line to American shores closer to its inception 1980-81.
 

Glen

Moderator
Nice to see MGM do a bit better.

I concur that Kubrick's Napoleon is a nice addition to your TL's list of achievements. Don't know anything about Barry Lyndon. Clockwork Orange would be a loss, however.

David Hemmings is an interesting choice - I can only really remember him from Airwolf. He sounds like he could do a decent Napoleon, though.

I like that they are filming in Eastern Europe - nice addition.

I actually like Harvey Korman getting an Oscar, but not real happy about perpetuating the 'due an Oscar' phenomenon.

I like Jamie Lee Curtis in The Exorcist, and personally, I think that you could have Jack Nicholson as Karras - not so much Brando.

Chinatown sounds really different....
 
Brainbin said:
A Clockwork Orange is not going to come to be ITTL, at least not as directed by Kubrick.
So long as it gets made, I can live with no Kubrick. In fact, I prefer no Kubrick.;) Does somebody else do it? Or nobody?:eek::( This is one of those SF classics that deserves a really good film. Along with one of my top 5, if not the top, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

I'm also, I confess, disappointed to see Hackman denied. (Give it to him for "Night Moves", you're forgiven. Give Melanie one, too, you're a hero.;))
Brainbin said:
earning over $100 million
That would seem a pretty astounding number for 1971, wouldn't it? Since the standard, as I understand it, wasn't to put a film in national release immediately. Wouldn't that impact the boxoffice? (I know, "Fiddler" made $80 mil, so not impossible...)
Brainbin said:
Linda Blair, replaced by Jamie Lee Curtis, who obviously will not be remembered as the “Scream Queen” ITTL.
I do hope that doesn't mean Jamie Lee ends up in "Savage Streets" & is then never heard from again.:eek::eek: (Tho it could put Linda in "Prom Night" or "Terror Train"...) It could also, IIRC, mean Linda doesn't do a topless layout,:(:( & JLC does.:cool:

Thinking of that, can you boost Judy Norton-Taylor's career? (Without butterflying out the OTL post-Walnuts Playboy shoot...?:p)
Brainbin said:
Jane Fonda...the femme fatale
I get why. Personally, I'd sooner have a Deuce coupe run her over during the shoot.:rolleyes:
Brainbin said:
Bogdanovich fought hard for allowing the picture to be filmed in black-and-white
Nice touch...:cool: Personally, I don't normally think about directors wanting to use B&W, when they have color. This is one where it could only help. Also, can I put in a vote for an immediate (or at least prompt) sequel? Normally, I'm not a fan of them, but I liked "Chinatown", & J.J., a lot (even tho I felt like I'd missed something every time I've watched it...:rolleyes:).
Brainbin said:
ITTL, on the other hand, he defeats Robert De Niro.
That would take some serious doing. DeNiro's Vito was quite exceptional IMO.
Brainbin said:
we're talking about a film whose existence I've gone out of my way to avoid confirming or denying ITTL ;)
I'm only speculating on the nature of the future operations. If you prefer to say "Bite me",:p so be it.:)
Brainbin said:
I also prefer "Nick of Time" (his other episode), because Shatner gives a genuinely good performance, he has excellent chemistry with the actress playing his wife (Matheson apparently wanted her back in "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", but it couldn't be arranged), and there's a happy ending (at least for the central characters).
I entirely agree. :)eek::eek::p) And also because the idea of it was compelling. I have a hunch I'd have stayed:eek: (or, at least, would have at the time I first saw it).
Brainbin said:
you find Tough Guys Don't Dance
I'm afraid you have me mistaken for someone else.;) I mean this film, with a delightful pairing of Lancaster & Douglas. (Not on a par with "Seven Days in May", perhaps, but funnier.:p) That said...
Brainbin said:
more enjoyable film than one of the most beloved and iconic films of all time. And one of my personal favourites, too. :mad:
I'm afraid I do.;) "BTTF" isn't a bad film. It could, IMO, have been a better film if it hadn't been so cute, & had been less a vehicle for Michael J. I happen to think he's actor enough to have carried a (slightly) more serious approach to it (without turning it into "The Final Countdown", or something).
Brainbin said:
enjoys being the contrarian
It's in my nature, I fear.;)
Brainbin said:
I couldn't resist. Besides, it means taking an Oscar away from somebody who now becomes "due", which continues the vicious circle of Oscar entitlement.
If you find a chance, can I put in a vote for Michael Caine getting one? And Peter O'Toole (if he hasn't already, & I missed it...:eek:)?
Brainbin said:
Is it really?
Talking about over-rated, there's a guy who's reputation really exceeds his talents IMO. I have yet to see anything he's done that's worth a damn. (And I've seen "2001" five or six times, & still can't make a lick of sense of it.:rolleyes:) The one redeeming feature of "Eyes Wide Shut" was Nicole's butt.:p:cool: (They could've rolled the credits right there, it wasn't going to get any better.:p)
Brainbin said:
Very good question. The problem with Merrin and Karras is that there are far fewer known possibilities about who might have played them
I'm wondering, if a "more adult" horror success has (or can have) an impact on the glut of slasherpics & the plague of sequels.:eek::mad: And I do include the likes of Brian DePalma; he may've paid homage to Hitch, but he didn't have the chops: "Body Double" was very obviously trying for tension at places (& failing...). (It also effectively told two {unrelated...} stories, which didn't help it. I felt the same way about "L.A. Confidential", an otherwise excellent film.)
Brainbin said:
It would indeed! "Microwave", as it's known ITTL, is briefly discussed in this post.
Yay, again.;)
Glen said:
I like that they are filming in Eastern Europe - nice addition.
Just in time for "the first made for Yugoslavia movie"?:p Please tell me you've butterflied "Force 10". Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw, & Edward Fox will all thank you. And I will thank you.;)



(BTW, BB, you may find this site useful. Its coverage of '70s films appears much better than Boxofficemojo's...)
 
Last edited:
One thing worth remembering is the Butterfly Effect. Many of those movies and television shows were made long after the POD in 1966, and as you can see, the world is already changing a great deal from OTL by this point. So bear in mind that many of the projects you're discussed might never even be conceived, let alone produced.

I think it's possible to see some of the butterflies that are flapping their wings around James Burke's career. He was the BBC's Chief Reporter for the Apollo Moon Landings. Since those have gone on for longer ITTL, he is likely to keep that role for longer as well, which could delay or even prevent the creation of The Burke Special (which he presented 1972 to 1976 IOTL).

Another butterfly is The Final Frontier, which we've discussed previously will be broadcast on ITV in the UK. If the BBC decide to do something similar, then Burke is a prime candidate to be the presenter. The show will probably be broader-based than The Final Frontier. For example, I could see it doing a piece on aviation, including the development of Concorde. It might cover some of the same ground as Connections, but would probably look more to the future.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Two more bits:
First, M.A.S.H.. I sadly am not as familiar with it as I should be. However, I recently saw a rerun of the 20th anniversary reunion special- and I was amazed at the various things they tried in the show- dream sequences, an "ad-lib" episode, an episode from a patient's POV. My question is- will any show in this TL do as well or have as much of an impact?

Second, speaking of Horror, is Sam Raimi still planning to make his films? How will they do?
 
>>Thank you very much! Welcome aboard, to this thread and to the forum at large!

> It would indeed! "Microwave", as it's known ITTL, is briefly discussed in this post.

Great! :D

>> One thing worth remembering is the Butterfly Effect. Many of those
movies and television shows were made long after the POD in 1966, and as you can see, the world is already changing a great deal from OTL by this point. So bear in mind that many of the projects you're discussed might never even be conceived, let alone produced.

Fair enough, although I hope that at last "Connections" survives :p
 
Thought about something: if the Cold War is warmer ITTL, maybe Warren Beatty could get the nod earlier for directing Reds?
It's certainly possible. Thank you for the insightful suggestion; I'll have to see what I can make of it.

I have only read only a little bit of the timeline so far and I am enjoying it thoroughly so far, but one thought popped into my mind. Will there be butterflies when it comes to animation, and animation companies like Disney, Hanna-Barbera, Filmation, etc.? With the TL getting close to the eighties I wonder if Saturday mornings will be any different. Part of me wonders if there is a possibility that there might be an earlier Transformers if Hasbro or some other toy company decides to bring the Diaclone line to American shores closer to its inception 1980-81.
Welcome aboard, Pyro! Most of the animation standards of the time (frankly, I think "limited" is putting it too charitably) will be broadly similar ITTL. There may be variations in programming, but one of the few major changes is a show I see as being more successful ITTL: Wait Till Your Father Gets Home. For those of you worried about Tom Bosley, he starred as (the voice of) the titular character, and presumably would become at least as well known for that as Alan Reed, a decade before. Obviously inspired by All in the Family IOTL, here it would stand even more deliberately in contrast to Those Were the Days. What's interesting is that the central character, Harry Boyle, is portrayed as the Only Sane Man, and has an opponent to his right (neighbour Ralph - IOTL, a transparent Nixon clone, though ITTL he would obviously borrow more from George Wallace).

Nice to see MGM do a bit better.
Consider that my nod to the Golden Age (as they are my favourite studio).

Glen said:
I concur that Kubrick's Napoleon is a nice addition to your TL's list of achievements. Don't know anything about Barry Lyndon. Clockwork Orange would be a loss, however.
The time wasn't really right for A Clockwork Orange ITTL anyway. Remember art from adversity?

But could it be right post-Oil Crisis? Maybe, but the window of opportunity might have already closed. You win some, you lose some.

Glen said:
David Hemmings is an interesting choice - I can only really remember him from Airwolf. He sounds like he could do a decent Napoleon, though.
Kubrick liked him for the part. And Hepburn for Josephine, as well - she lived in Rome at the time, so obviously it wouldn't be too difficult getting her to join the cast. Sellers was in a pretty desperate place in his career at that point, IOTL and ITTL, resulting in him taking this rather serious role, by his standards (though there will be plenty of dark comedy to his portrayal of Fouche). This works to revitalize his career a few years ahead of schedule ITTL - which I'm sure will please a great many of you.

Glen said:
I like that they are filming in Eastern Europe - nice addition.
Kubrick had no choice in the matter - extras in Western Europe were too expensive ($5 per man daily in Yugoslavia - even Francoist Spain charged three times as much; France charged five times as much). Fun fact: the paper uniforms these soldier-extras wore were almost expensive as their daily wage ($4 per uniform). The relatively varied geography in Yugoslavia also helps (the Battle of Waterloo, shot over nearly three weeks, was filmed near Zadar in Dalmatia, for example).

Glen said:
I actually like Harvey Korman getting an Oscar, but not real happy about perpetuating the 'due an Oscar' phenomenon.
That started long before the POD - it goes all the way back to the Golden Age. (One of the earliest major examples is Jimmy Stewart winning Best Actor for The Philadelphia Story, the year after he had lost for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington - even Stewart himself considered it "a gold-plated apology"). The vicious cycle begins anew.

Glen said:
I like Jamie Lee Curtis in The Exorcist, and personally, I think that you could have Jack Nicholson as Karras - not so much Brando.
Thanks! I'm glad to have hit on Jamie Lee Curtis as a potential replacement for Blair (whom I never would have cast - too young at the POD, and it apparently took some doing for her to secure an audition in any event). But apparently she did try out for the part IOTL. And all due respect to Blair, but we know from OTL that Curtis turned out to be a much better actress. With regards to Nicholson, he kept himself plenty busy in the 1970s, IOTL and ITTL. He can afford to miss out on The Exorcist.

Glen said:
Chinatown sounds really different....
Good! That was the intention. Chinatown is a much nicer movie to look at ITTL, thanks to the sterling, highly deliberate black-and-white cinematography (it also becomes the most recent black-and-white film to win Best Picture after The Apartment, from 1960; IOTL, another would not win until Schindler's List in 1993).

Could be wrong (as I demonstrably often am :eek:) but I thought the reference was to This.
I'm afraid you have me mistaken for someone else.;) I mean this film, with a delightful pairing of Lancaster & Douglas. (Not on a par with "Seven Days in May", perhaps, but funnier.:p)
I stand corrected, then (not to mention somewhat relieved ;)). My apologies.

So long as it gets made, I can live with no Kubrick. In fact, I prefer no Kubrick.;) Does somebody else do it? Or nobody?:eek::( This is one of those SF classics that deserves a really good film. Along with one of my top 5, if not the top, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Again, it looks unlikely. I am crafting a more optimistic timeline, after all! :p

phx1138 said:
I'm also, I confess, disappointed to see Hackman denied. (Give it to him for "Night Moves", you're forgiven. Give Melanie one, too, you're a hero.;))
Gene Hackman will probably win an Oscar ITTL (he won another one IOTL, after all). But as for Melanie Griffith?! Not on your life :eek:

phx1138 said:
That would seem a pretty astounding number for 1971, wouldn't it? Since the standard, as I understand it, wasn't to put a film in national release immediately. Wouldn't that impact the boxoffice? (I know, "Fiddler" made $80 mil, so not impossible...)
War movies obviously would do much better in the early 1970s ITTL. In addition, Napoleon is one of those historical figures who has always captivated the general public, so I have no doubt that a movie with the right marketing (MGM) and pedigree (Kubrick) would be a big success.

phx1138 said:
I do hope that doesn't mean Jamie Lee ends up in "Savage Streets" & is then never heard from again.:eek::eek:
Like I said, since Curtis is a proven talent IOTL, she can be counted on to make a successful transition to an adult career, in the vein of Jodie Foster.

phx1138 said:
Thinking of that, can you boost Judy Norton-Taylor's career? (Without butterflying out the OTL post-Walnuts Playboy shoot...?:p)
First of all, the show is called Spencer's Mountain ITTL. And second of all, you can't have your cake and eat it too :rolleyes:

phx1138 said:
I get why. Personally, I'd sooner have a Deuce coupe run her over during the shoot.:rolleyes:
I wouldn't go that far (you're really quite morbid, aren't you?) but I don't "get" Jane Fonda either. She's been thoroughly mediocre in everything I've ever seen her perform (except for that overblown spectacle of her in the audience when the Blue Jays defeated the Braves and won the 1992 World Series, that is :D).

phx1138 said:
Nice touch...:cool: Personally, I don't normally think about directors wanting to use B&W, when they have color. This is one where it could only help.
Thank you. The great thing about black-and-white is that it's much easier to play with light levels and shadows, in order to create a distinct onscreen "atmosphere", which was critical to the success of the entire genre of film noir. A Welles groupie like Bogdanovich would definitely take advantage of that.

phx1138 said:
Also, can I put in a vote for an immediate (or at least prompt) sequel? Normally, I'm not a fan of them, but I liked "Chinatown", & J.J., a lot (even tho I felt like I'd missed something every time I've watched it...:rolleyes:).
Nicholson is a very busy man in the 1970s, as I've said before. We'll have to see.

phx1138 said:
That would take some serious doing. DeNiro's Vito was quite exceptional IMO.
As was, arguably, Al Pacino in the first Godfather film. He still lost to Joel Grey, because Caan and Duvall were as well. De Niro has the same problem ITTL.

phx1138 said:
I'm afraid I do.;) "BTTF" isn't a bad film. It could, IMO, have been a better film if it hadn't been so cute, & had been less a vehicle for Michael J. I happen to think he's actor enough to have carried a (slightly) more serious approach to it (without turning it into "The Final Countdown", or something).
We'll never agree about this. I find Back to the Future to be one of those films where everything went just right. At least, everything worth caring about ;)

phx1138 said:
If you find a chance, can I put in a vote for Michael Caine getting one? And Peter O'Toole (if he hasn't already, & I missed it...:eek:)?
We'll have to see how things proceed from here before I'll commit to any more Oscar wins.

phx1138 said:
Talking about over-rated, there's a guy who's reputation really exceeds his talents IMO.
I tend to agree; however, he is indisputably good at particular aspects of filmmaking, and I believe that Napoleon would be largely comprised of those aspects. Say what you will about Kubrick, but he absolutely knew his strengths and limitations, which is why he wanted to make Napoleon, and likewise believed that it would be his finest film.

phx1138 said:
I'm wondering, if a "more adult" horror success has (or can have) an impact on the glut of slasherpics & the plague of sequels.:eek::mad:
That's a question the answer to which won't become clear for quite some time, if we look at when slasher sequels began to predominate.

phx1138 said:
Please tell me you've butterflied "Force 10". Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw, & Edward Fox will all thank you. And I will thank you.;)
Well, it's a WWII movie, so less subject to butterflies due to the overseas quagmire, and based on a 1968 novel (itself a sequel to a novel written before the POD).

phx1138 said:
(BTW, BB, you may find this site useful. Its coverage of '70s films appears much better than Boxofficemojo's...)
Thank you very much for the link :)

I think it's possible to see some of the butterflies that are flapping their wings around James Burke's career. He was the BBC's Chief Reporter for the Apollo Moon Landings. Since those have gone on for longer ITTL, he is likely to keep that role for longer as well, which could delay or even prevent the creation of The Burke Special (which he presented 1972 to 1976 IOTL).

Another butterfly is The Final Frontier, which we've discussed previously will be broadcast on ITV in the UK. If the BBC decide to do something similar, then Burke is a prime candidate to be the presenter. The show will probably be broader-based than The Final Frontier. For example, I could see it doing a piece on aviation, including the development of Concorde. It might cover some of the same ground as Connections, but would probably look more to the future.
Fair enough, although I hope that at last "Connections" survives :p
Well, in response to your appeal, Richter, I just have to say that it looks like Nigel is very much on to something! :)

Two more bits:
First, M.A.S.H.. I sadly am not as familiar with it as I should be. However, I recently saw a rerun of the 20th anniversary reunion special- and I was amazed at the various things they tried in the show- dream sequences, an "ad-lib" episode, an episode from a patient's POV. My question is- will any show in this TL do as well or have as much of an impact?

Second, speaking of Horror, is Sam Raimi still planning to make his films? How will they do?
Excellent questions, the both of them. All I can say in response is that there's only one way to find out! :D
 
Brainbin said:
But could it be right post-Oil Crisis? Maybe, but the window of opportunity might have already closed.
As said, it need not be Kubrick, right?
Brainbin said:
Sellers was in a pretty desperate place in his career at that point, IOTL and ITTL, resulting in him taking this rather serious role
I applaud you for this, because Sellers is a much underrated actor IMO.
Brainbin said:
And all due respect to Blair, but we know from OTL that Curtis turned out to be a much better actress.
No argument with that.
Brainbin said:
My apologies.
None necessary.:) (I do wonder how you made the mistake, tho.:p)
Brainbin said:
Again, it looks unlikely. I am crafting a more optimistic timeline, after all! :p
Ah, but that's the wonder of SF: it can show how bad things could get, if we don't watch out.;) And (allowing I haven't read the book) I took the film as a cautionary tale, which means filming it still makes sense. You might argue, more sense, if things are better. Mistress, maybe not, with less tension in the Cold War, which does sadden me.
Brainbin said:
Melanie Griffith?! Not on your life :eek:
I acknowledge its an extreme long shot.:p OTOH, have you seen "Night Moves"?:cool::cool:
Brainbin said:
War movies obviously would do much better in the early 1970s ITTL. In addition, Napoleon is one of those historical figures who has always captivated the general public, so I have no doubt that a movie with the right marketing (MGM) and pedigree (Kubrick) would be a big success.
I can live with it. Just wondering.
Brainbin said:
Like I said, since Curtis is a proven talent IOTL, she can be counted on to make a successful transition to an adult career, in the vein of Jodie Foster.
Again, no argument.
Brainbin said:
First of all, the show is called Spencer's Mountain ITTL. And second of all, you can't have your cake and eat it too :rolleyes:
I most certainly can.:p It's just a matter of timing.;)
Brainbin said:
I wouldn't go that far (you're really quite morbid, aren't you?) but I don't "get" Jane Fonda either. She's been thoroughly mediocre in everything I've ever seen her perform
I did like her in "The Morning After" (if it seemed a bit autobiographical:rolleyes:). And morbid? I will never, ever forgive Hanoi Jane. Any bad result would please me. I also have a strong tendency to want to kill them off to avoid their careers reviving.;)
Brainbin said:
Thank you. The great thing about black-and-white is that it's much easier to play with light levels and shadows, in order to create a distinct onscreen "atmosphere", which was critical to the success of the entire genre of film noir. A Welles groupie like Bogdanovich would definitely take advantage of that.
Oh, I agree. This is a story that really works in B&W, a real noir classic, up there with "The Third Man" &, more recently, "Momento". (If you've never seen it, you've missed one of the best films ever made IMO.:cool::cool::cool:)
Brainbin said:
Nicholson is a very busy man in the 1970s, as I've said before. We'll have to see.
Some brief reading says Towne had a trilogy in mind, so a bit of time in between wouldn't be out of bounds; I thought waiting 20yr for a sequel was dumb, since by then, you've lost the "in-built" audience for a sequel. I would imagine Nicholson could find time in his schedule for another really good script...;) (Presuming they don't sign him to do all 3 to begin with...:rolleyes: which might be the sensible thing. Or even just go ahead & shoot all 3 at once,:rolleyes: & wait a couple of years to release them.;))
Brainbin said:
As was, arguably, Al Pacino in the first Godfather film. He still lost to Joel Grey, because Caan and Duvall were as well. De Niro has the same problem ITTL.
Noted, & as good an explanation as I've heard for some of the seemingly odd winners OTL.
Brainbin said:
We'll never agree about this.
You'll realize that comes as not the slightest surprise to either of us.;) I'll make you a deal, tho. Should I ever do my own TL & mention it, I'll give it a good (if brief) review, a couple extra mil at the box office, & a Hugo nomination, just for you.;) (OTL, it beat "Enemy Mine", which I thought a better film; if it wins will depend on what year, & that can change...)
Brainbin said:
We'll have to see how things proceed from here before I'll commit to any more Oscar wins.
So be it.
Brainbin said:
I tend to agree; however, he is indisputably good at particular aspects of filmmaking, and I believe that Napoleon would be largely comprised of those aspects. Say what you will about Kubrick, but he absolutely knew his strengths and limitations, which is why he wanted to make Napoleon, and likewise believed that it would be his finest film.
I don't know enough about him, but as Harry Callahan once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." If Kubruck did, more power to him.;)
Brainbin said:
That's a question the answer to which won't become clear for quite some time, if we look at when slasher sequels began to predominate.
Just suggesting, & hoping you can manage it.;)
Brainbin said:
Well, it's a WWII movie, so less subject to butterflies due to the overseas quagmire, and based on a 1968 novel (itself a sequel to a novel written before the POD).
Perhaps. I would argue, without said quagmire, the demand for war pix might be lessened. Especially bad ones.:p
Brainbin said:
Thank you very much for the link :)
Any help I can offer.:) (I can't resist a good source, even I'm never going to use it for anything.;))
 
Last edited:
And Now For Something Completely Different
And Now For Something Completely Different

BBC.png
Coat of Arms of the British Broadcasting Corporation, in use since March, 1927.

It’s…

The “It’s” Man (played by Michael Palin), Monty Pythons Flying Circus

British television and American television had much in common,
given the shared language and cultural heritage between the two nations; but there were many finer points of distinction between their uses of the medium, as might be expected given the physical separation of the Atlantic Ocean, along with 200 years of separate jurisprudence. American television, for example, was largely produced by three privately-owned networks (four until 1956) who, though they were closely regulated by their government, were given broad latitude to determine the content and presentation of their programming. The publicly-owned network, PBS, was marginal by comparison, and its cash inflows were entirely dependent on the whims of successive governments. Under the Great Society, they had been doing very well indeed, but that might not always be so.

By contrast, though the United Kingdom had been the first power to produce regular television broadcasts, doing so in 1936 (though they were suspended for the duration of World War II), it was in other ways rather less developed than the American industry. Britain was served by only one network (the venerable, state-owned British Broadcasting Corporation, or BBC) until 1955. At that time, after considerable deliberation, legislation was enacted that created ITV, understood to mean
Independent Television; it was the first commercial network in the UK, organized in a similar manner as to the American networks (that is, a cooperative collective of smaller, regional affiliates). However, due to American private broadcasting of the time being seen as incredibly vulgar by standard-bearers, the government maintained significant control over its content. A third channel, BBC2, was launched in 1964, also under the auspices of the British Broadcasting Corporation; the original channel was thus redesignated as BBC1. (Plans for a second commercial network – which, in an odd coincidence, would become the fourth channel in the UK – went nowhere, just as plans for a fourth network in the US so often did). BBC1, BBC2, and ITV were found on Channels 1, 2, and 3 on the VHF band respectively, though these channels were found at different frequencies than in the US and Canada. Both BBC channels were free of advertising, and funded by a licence fee paid by all television viewers, which covered the overwhelming majority of their expenses; a common source of funding for public broadcasters in Europe, such a levy would likely be found unconstitutional in the United States. Among technological differences, British television used Phase Alternating Line (PAL) systems for colour encoding (alongside much of Western Europe, with the notable exception of France), in contrast to the system devised by the National Television System Committee (NTSC) in the Americas. [1] Though PAL was judged superior to NTSC at the time of its implementation, this did not stop Britain from being several years behind the United States in terms of adopting all-colour programming. Black-and-white shows could still be seen first-run, even into the 1970s.

In the United States, British television was known from the late 1960s onward for its action-adventure and science-fiction programming, along with historical and period dramas, because these comprised the vast majority of its successful exports. However, within the United Kingdom itself, the most popular genre of programming was “light entertainment”: comedies, musicals, and variety shows. However, there was a commonality with American programming, and that was an increasing tendency toward sophistication. As was the case with television, British comedy and American comedy had much in common, but there were many finer points of distinction, which was naturally to be expected with a genre so subjective and context-sensitive. Granted, in the last few decades, American and British culture seemed to be coming together rather than growing apart, as part of the broader Anglosphere. All forms of media – broadcast, along with cinema and literature and the shared cultural experiences of World War II and the Cold War did much to help this along, as did the greater phenomenon of globalization, prominent during this era of détente.

One of the hallmarks of British comedy was the dramatization of class conflict. This was far less prominent in the US, given the popular historical notion of all men being created equal, along with the perception of social status as impermanent and meritocratic. In the UK, on the other hand, social strata were far more rigid, and indeed were often seen as inherited, as if they were formal titles: working-class and middle-class (along with the ancient upper classes: the aristocracy and the landed gentry below them, who had been decimated by the World Wars and the Great Depression, among many other factors). A number of popular sitcoms of the era would focus on class conflict: Behind the Green Baize Door, for example, told the story of two housemaids working in a country house of the Victorian Era. [2] Somewhat more ambitious was Are You Being Served, which was equal parts farce and satire, set in a London department store in the present day. Key themes were the formalized, archaic relationships of the sales staff; their respective ranks within the rigid workplace hierarchy; and their interactions (as part of the middle-class) with the stores ancient and eccentric owner, along with their more affluent clientele (upper-class), and the “dead common” maintenance staff (lower-class, but better paid than the sales staff due to their trade union).

Another hallmark of British comedy was inter-generational conflict, which was far more universal, and indeed struck a chord with American audiences; to the point that two of the most popular programs of the 1960s, Till Death Us Do Part and Steptoe and Son, were both remade into two of the most popular American series of the early 1970s: Those Were the Days [3] and Sanford and Son (both produced by Norman Lear’s company, Tandem Productions) respectively; all were known for their grittiness, their realism, and their unflinching look at modern society, to contrast with the escapism and the artificial wholesomeness of years past. And, indeed, both parent programs were brought back for new runs in the early 1970s, each after a hiatus of several years. Though the success of their offspring stateside does not appear to have been a major factor in their return, it certainly could not have hurt matters. Till Death Us Do Part, like Those Were the Days, was forced to brighten its tone somewhat given the more optimistic society of the early 1970s (though, unsurprisingly, this attitude was somewhat more muted under the grey skies of Albion). Mike and Rita had a son, also named Michael, and it is believed that this may have inspired Richard and Gloria to have a son on Those Were the Days the following year. [4] Despite a general sympathy with the viewpoints of the younger generation, at least one very popular show with older protagonists premiered in this era: The Library Mob, which starred three middle-aged Yorkshiremen, though they maintained a curiously youthful (some might say childish) attitude and perspective about the world around them. [5]

As popular as situation comedy was in Britain, sketch comedy was perhaps even more so. The late 1960s saw one of the most influential such programs ever to have aired, the product of six comedy writers and performers: Monty Pythons Flying Circus, as the show was eventually called (with its repertory players – Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, and Michael Palin accordingly becoming known as “the Pythons”), had a highly peculiar and idiosyncratic comedic style. Though it did have clear antecedents (The Goon Show and Q5, along with previous projects involving various Pythons), it integrated these influences in a novel, anarchic yet also bizarrely cohesive, fashion. Surrealistic and absurdist, the program was thoroughly intellectual, but at the same time, deeply silly. Highbrow satire shared space with lowbrow sexual and scatological humour. Perhaps the overriding intention of its creators was to critique traditional comedic devices; an entire sketch parodied the concept of a punchline, and indeed the very notion of “sketches”, with clear beginnings and endings, was rarely in evidence. In an attempt to lure an American audience, a compilation film of their best sketches (re-recorded on film, without an audience) was released in August, 1972. Connie Booth, John Cleese’s wife (who had made a name for herself stateside, in Doctor Who) featured in several sketches, and the film (given the title And Now For Something Completely Different, ironic as it was comprised entirely of reused material) was a minor success there, grossing $10 million and finishing at #20 at the box-office that year. Though none of the three major networks chose to carry Flying Circus, PBS did, and it became one of the most popular shows on the network. [6] The run of the original program ended in early 1973, after three seasons; Cleese wished to spend more personal time with Booth, who had ended her involvement with Doctor Who after two seasons. Among their plans were starting a family (their daughter, Cynthia, was born in 1973) and, at Cleese’s urging, working together on new story ideas. Thus, in lieu of a fourth season, the BBC agreed to support the production of a motion picture; in this endeavour, the Pythons were assisted by American investors who had become Monty Python fans. Both Cleese and Booth did agree to appear in the film. [7]

Monty Python was certainly the most critically-acclaimed and avant-garde of the sketch comedy and variety series during this era, though it was far from the only one, and it was far from the most popular, either. The Goodies, which debuted the year after Python, had a much firmer slapstick orientation, allowing for far greater universality and comprehensibility. This same broad appeal, especially with younger viewers, provoked the inevitable criticism of the show being “childish”; an unfortunate criticism, as the Goodies had almost as diverse a set of influences, and almost as eclectic an overall comedic style, as the Pythons. The Benny Hill Show, a long-running program entirely reliant on slapstick and double entendres, also faced harsh criticism from moral guardians and the intelligentsia alike, despite being hugely popular, at home and abroad; with its iconic sped-up chase sequences, set to the tune of “Yakety Sax”, proving instantly memorable and often imitated. But perhaps the most popular – and certainly the most beloved – sketch comedy was produced by the team of Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise, who had worked together since 1941. The most recent incarnation of their television career, simply titled The Morecambe & Wise Show, had aired on the BBC since 1968. Morecambe unfortunately suffered a heart attack in November of that year, but he was able to prove the old adage true when that which did not kill him ultimately made him (creatively) stronger, especially after he and Wise were teamed with writer Eddie Braben, who refined their comic personae for more modern sensibilities. From that point forward, they were appointment television, attracting ever-growing audiences throughout the 1970s.

Another sketch comedy series was The Two Ronnies, which
featured one of the earliest Star Trek parodies on British television, as part of its first season of episodes in 1971. It played on said two Ronnies – Corbett and Barker, who naturally played Kirk and Spock, respectively – looking nothing like William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, which became a plot point: the cause was a mysterious machine on an alien planet; hijinks ensued. [8] This initial parody, the first of many television parodies on the program, would directly lead into their second Star Trek parody, also part of the first season. A typical parody of Till Death Us Do Part, starring the two Ronnies as Alf and Mike, was suddenly interrupted by the crew of the Enterprise (in which the two Ronnies reprised their roles as Kirk and Spock, through the use of split-screening and body doubles – as added meta-humour, the body doubles for Kirk and Spock were deliberately made to resemble Shatner and Nimoy instead of Corbett and Barker) beaming down and explaining that they had followed a “silly moo” (Alf’s famous term for his wife, Else) all the way from outer space. An obvious reference to the Star Trek-Doctor Who crossover, which had aired just a few months earlier in the UK [9], it became so popular that many other sketch comedies of the era aired their own such parodies – a phenomenon which reached its zenith in the Royal Variety Performance of 1972, in which Barker and Corbett made an unannounced appearance interrupting a sketch performed by the actual cast of Till Death Us Do Part – though in this version, they are swiftly shooed away by Alf Garnett, and the original sketch continues as “planned”, after an enthusiastic audience response. [10]

One of the commonalities to most forms of “light entertainment” in the UK was that their production runs were much shorter than those in the US, with six to eight episodes per season being the British standard (in contrast to 26 episodes per season for American series). There were palpable risks and rewards with this rate of output, primarily of the eggs-to-basket variety, but the fact remained that British audiences tended to prefer this method on their homegrown programming – after all, if they ever wanted to watch shows with lots of episodes, all they had to do was watch an American import. Star Trek was just one example of their popularity. For as much as the British loved comedy, so too did they appreciate action-adventure and science-fiction programming, which, for that matter, included their own such shows

---

[1] Today, NTSC and PAL are better known for their importance in video game localization, as many games have historically been chosen for export from Japan (which uses a modified version of NTSC) in only one of these two markets (North America and Europe, respectively), which have mutually incompatible technology.

[2] Behind the Green Baize Door was a working title (and concept) for what eventually became Upstairs, Downstairs
– the epic story of an upper-class family in Belgravia through the early 20th century IOTL. This also explains its absence from Emmy eligibility in the Outstanding Drama Series category ITTL.

[3] Recall that, IOTL, this series was instead produced as All in the Family. The development of Those Were the Days is detailed here and here.

[4] Actually, it was the aforementioned
“Mini-Boom” that inspired the (premature, relative to Joey Stivic IOTL) birth of Mikey Higgins ITTL.

[5] The Library Mob, so named because said library is a frequent haunt of the central characters, was a working title for Last of the Summer Wine IOTL.

[6] And Now For Something Completely Different was a flop in the US IOTL, but it becomes a sleeper hit thanks primarily to the presence of Booth (who, due to her role as Linda Johnson, appeared very little within Flying Circus proper ITTL), and generates excellent word-of-mouth. PBS, for their part, has a wide-open timeslot that, IOTL, went to Doctor Who, which allows Monty Python to fit right in, ahead of schedule.

[7] Python received a truncated fourth season IOTL, with limited involvement from Cleese. He wants nothing to do with it ITTL, for the already-mentioned reasons along with those of OTL; in concert with added momentum for a more lavish and elaborate film version, this results in the near thing becoming a near-miss instead.

[8] This sketch on which this one is based actually aired in 1973, during the third season, IOTL. It can be found online right here, though the version that aired ITTL would have minor differences from the OTL version. Worth noting, as observed by Thande, is how many classical parody elements are strangely absent from this sketch.

[9] The four-part arc aired on Doctor Who throughout the month of January, 1971 (and the Star Trek version, a two-parter, in September, 1970), as detailed here.

[10] The cast of Till Death Us Do Part did indeed appear on the Royal Variety Performance of 1972 IOTL, though obviously they were not interrupted by the Two Ronnies as they were performing their sketch. This synergistic appearance (as both programs appeared on BBC1) is the culmination of the “Captain Kirk Interruption” sketch, which goes on to become a cliché (the most obvious subversion – someone from a British series interrupting a Star Trek parody – is exploited by 1973).

---

Special thanks to Thande for his suggestions and advice in the writing of this update! I could not have painted a picture of British television in the early 1970s ITTL without having been briefed on what it was like IOTL, after all! And I can only hope that those of you non-Brits (and non-Anglophiles) who are reading now have further insight!

Actually, that
s not true. I can also hope that you all appreciated the numerous call-backs to previous updates. And as is so often the case, I have more information than I can comfortably fit into a single post, so well be back exploring “the telly” at a later date. One good thing to come out of all this planning that, rather than a drought of topics for the late 1970s, as I initially feared, a flood is becoming much likelier, instead! Someday we will reach the 1980s, though, I can promise you that!

Special note: All uses of the word
“series” in this update refer to the entire production run of a television program; “season” refers to the production period(s) therein.


BBC.png
 
Last edited:
Brainbin said:
three privately-owned networks (four until 1956)
For curiosity's sake, care to offer an opinion on the chances for Mutual or DuMont surviving longer?
Brainbin said:
American private broadcasting of the time being seen as incredibly vulgar
Aren't you glad things have changed?:p
Brainbin said:
such a levy would likely be found unconstitutional in the United States.
Because of it "restricting free speech"? AFAIK, a licence to own a radio or TV has never been tried or challenged. (I also wonder if a receiver tax wouldn't have the same effect, with no prospect of challenge.)
Brainbin said:
production runs were much shorter than those in the US, with six to eight episodes per season being the British standard
This really, really is a mystery to me. I wouldn't have thought Brit culture was so deeply different, but it really is, if this is any clue. (Leave off the Benny Hill thing.)
 

Glen

Moderator
A solid update, Brainbin. Some subtle shifts here, as would be expected given the events thus far.

I did note that our 'American' companion will only be on Doctor Who for two years...that certainly clears a path for a possible Lis Sladen companion - Just Do It!:D;)
 
Plans for a second commercial network – which, in an odd coincidence, would become the fourth channel in the UK – went nowhere, just as plans for a fourth network in the US so often did

So no Channel 4 at all ITTL ?

Both BBC channels were free of advertising, and funded by a licence fee paid by all television viewers, which covered the overwhelming majority of their expenses; a common source of funding for public broadcasters in Europe, such a levy would likely be found unconstitutional in the United States. Among technological differences, British television used Phase Alternating Line (PAL) systems for colour encoding (alongside much of Western Europe, with the notable exception of France), in contrast to the system devised by the National Television System Committee (NTSC) in the Americas. [1] Though PAL was judged superior to NTSC at the time of its implementation, this did not stop Britain from being several years behind the United States in terms of adopting all-colour programming. Black-and-white shows could still be seen first-run, even into the 1970s.

The Licence fee might have had something to do with the slow take-up of Colour TV. There were seperate fees depending upon whether you had a colour tv or not, with the colour tv licence being significantly higher than the black-and-white one. There was also a Radio Licence fee (for those with radios but no tv), but I think that was discontinued in the early seventies. It was probably costing more to collect than it was bringing in.

One of the hallmarks of British comedy was the dramatization of class conflict.

There's a classic sketch by Cleese and the Two Ronnies that explains class relationships.


Despite a general sympathy with the viewpoints of the younger generation, at least one very popular show with older protagonists premiered in this era: The Library Mob, which starred three middle-aged Yorkshiremen, though they maintained a curiously youthful (some might say childish) attitude and perspective about the world around them. [4]

Presumably that's more or less the same cast as IOTL ?

In an attempt to lure an American audience, a compilation film of their best sketches (re-recorded on film, without an audience) was released in August, 1972. Connie Booth, John Cleese’s wife (who had made a name for herself stateside, in Doctor Who) featured in several sketches, and the film (given the title And Now For Something Completely Different, ironic as it was comprised entirely of reused material) was a minor success there, grossing $10 million and finishing at #20 at the box-office that year. Though none of the three major networks chose to carry Flying Circus, PBS did, and it became one of the most popular shows on the network. [5] The run of the original program ended in early 1973, after three seasons; Cleese wished to spend more personal time with Booth, who had ended her involvement with Doctor Who after two seasons. Among their plans were starting a family (their daughter, Cynthia, was born in 1973) and, at Cleese’s urging, working together on new story ideas. Thus, in lieu of a fourth season, the BBC agreed to support the production of a motion picture; in this endeavour, the Pythons were assisted by American investors who had become Monty Python fans. Both Cleese and Booth did agree to appear in the film. [6]

Somehow I get the feeling that this second film isn't going to be Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Maybe the greater success of the first film will lead to the second also being a compilation of sketches - something like The Meaning of Life, perhaps.

One of the commonalities to most forms of “light entertainment” in the UK was that their production runs were much shorter than those in the US, with six to eight episodes per season being the British standard (in contrast to 26 episodes per season for American series).

Dr Who is, of course, an exception to that - it normally had 26 half-hour episodes in a season.

I'm glad to see that (so far), yoou haven't butterflied away I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. If you do, then the ghost of Humph might appear and force you to sing the words of Faith of the Heart to the tune of Scooby Doo, Where Are You ? :D

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Last edited:
Top