Which makes you the youngest known commenter. Congratulations! (Though I suspect there's at least one other who is younger still.) Also: you're a
teenager!
Lizzie_Harrison said:
I know I've only commented once or twice but it's not my generation or country so often have little to add except "Intriguing, hilarious and lovely" to every update which I assume is boring and unhelpful but consider it said for every update since at least Archie Bunker.
Thank you very much, Lizzie! I'm glad you're still reading, and I do appreciate your comments. I promise we'll be returning to British telly later on in the 1970s; in fact I have very important reasons to do so which I will not divulge at this juncture. One thing I'm curious about, though; did you ever manage to watch the original
Star Trek?
Lizzie_Harrison said:
One hired to increase popularity among growing American fans, one to increase popularity among nerds/geeks. Was she as unpopular with the target demographic as everyone else (like Adric was)? And was she redeemed?
The bread-and-butter demographics dislike her just as much as fans across the Pond (it doesn't help that, appearance-wise, she's no Connie Booth), but the counter-culture (hippies, bohemians, and fans of prog, glam, and proto-punk, among others) really embraced her, not
just because David Bowie is her husband. She also has some appeal in the gay community (as an androgynous bisexual), and (in later eras) among contrarians and hipsters (the same kinds of people who defend Wesley and Scrappy IOTL). So the "cool" people were taking her presence quite well, but (as is always the case) the hardcore eventually shouted them down. And no, she was never redeemed as Adric was.
Replying on this, as a fan of both series I think the difference is that with ST you have dramatically extended its duration, for the original series and also improved the quality. Even the 5th season TTL seems to be substantially better than the turd season of OTL.
I agree, though I
am pleasantly surprised how well people are taking my butterflying away of the movies (I also killed TWOK over on
Eyes Turned Skywards as well, and I honestly do love that movie to pieces), not to mention the spinoff series (okay, I'll admit, I definitely don't lament
that decision nearly as much).
Sounds more like a scene her husband would write than reality (even alt-reality.)
I based the event on the real-life example of Elizabeth Taylor, who was offered the starring role in
Cleopatra and jokingly asked for $1 million (unheard-of in 1959, when the offer was made), and was shocked when her asking price was accepted. (It was the first of a great many questionable budgetary decisions in the making of that film.)
Lizzie_Harrison said:
Maybe gives him some inspiration... which reminds me we are well past 1971 and you are yet to tell us if the Gleneagles Hotel, Torquay even received its most famous visitors. Booth's companion dates shouldn't cause too many butterflies. They visited in May 1971, which could overlap with early filming but Cleese had enough company to bounce off; he works better in a writing duo with Fawlty Towers originally airing in 1975 after its second submission to the BBC.
We'll hear about what Cleese and Booth have planned after they complete the
Monty Python film, I can promise you that much.
Lizzie_Harrison said:
"Publicity" among teenage boys, I assume?
Among the cutting edge, as I implied earlier
Lizzie_Harrison said:
Lovely choices, Brainbin. It would be nice to hear from Baker and Sladen if only in passing. Does Linda Johnson take the place of feisty, feminist Sarah Jane in the public consciousness or is she closer to Jo Grant who she is the alternative of?
Thank you! Linda Johnson is more "spunky" like Sarah Jane, whereas Alice Evans is more classically effeminate, largely because she follows such a tomboyish and androgynous companion and there's a need to "cleanse the pallet". Linda is without question the top companion among American "Whovians", whereas British
Doctor Who fans, though they would rank Linda very high overall, would probably consider Alice the greater companion. (Everyone would rather forget Claire.)
Lizzie_Harrison said:
Has Doctor Who maintained its strong links with Blue Peter? Is Blue Peter the anchor of BBC children's shows? There must be British butterflies...
Obviously a very popular question. It will require some research and consultation on my part before I can provide a satisfactory answer.
Stumble? Can I ask about your selection process? In general terms, as opposed to this case, if you'd rather.
You're more than welcome to
ask, but I'm not going to
tell you. A magician never reveals his secrets
phx1138 said:
(BTW, "no money" doesn't have to mean "no measure of value": you measure it in energy consumption. Which, when, if, we ever establish habitats in space, is the sensible way: the amount of sunlight required to do anything will be the measure of cost. David Gerrold called them "caseys": kilocalories.)
For the record, ITTL, there
is fiat currency in the
Star Trek universe (the Federation credit), which the OTL series made perfectly clear: their occasional direct mention (including, most prominently, in the Gerrold-written "Tribbles"); Kirk noting to alien civilizations that he is authorized to "compensate" them for the use of resources; Spock indicating that Starfleet has "invested" in him; Kirk informing Scotty that he's "just earned his pay for the week"; etc., etc. As far as I can tell, Roddenberry only became ideologically fixated on the cashless society concept well after the show ended, and he had time to crystallize his "philosophy"; he was
very hands-off in the later years of
Star Trek's production ITTL, allowing Coon, Fontana, and Gerrold (all of whom seem to understand basic economics) to establish the concept of money in the Federation; it can even provide another opportunity for the show to "invent the future" by establishing the widespread use of what are effectively debit cards.
Ah the Doctor Who update I have been waiting for and dreading. Very well handled Brainbin, as usual. I find the way you depict the Yank Years here fairly likely. The Angela Bowie casting while not ideal seems reasonable - and we get David Bowie Who cameos, huzzah! Maybe he will return to the serial some day as a mysterious all powerful leader of a shadowy criminal organization hiding an ancient secret....
Well, thank you very much for your compliments, Glen. I'm glad you liked my take on the Yank Years
Glen said:
Nice that Delgado lives and gets to do his exit with Pertwee. I do hope we get glimpses of their careers in future. I personally would have preferred NBC still helping to foot the bill for the Third Doctor send off but it happens. Like that Troughton's Doctor gets a boost from the Three Doctors 10th Anniversary special.
You may note that NBC cancelled a number of programs at the end of the 1974-75 season as part of a shakeup;
Doctor Who just so happened to be one of them.
Glen said:
I of course feel bad for the loss of Baker and Sladen from the serial, but your alternate Doctor is intriguing (the wife is a big fan of Pushing Up Daisies - and Jim Dale was the narrator for that show). The Carry On - Doctor Who link continues! And if I can't have Lis Sladen....Jane Seymour is QUITE the consolation! In fact, I can see Seymour growing into the quintessential companion of TTL much as Lis was for ours! It must be done!!!
I'm very pleasantly surprised that you're taking my alternate casting choices so well! And yes, Alice Evans will be considered
the companion - at least in the UK (and perhaps the wider Commonwealth as well - though I'm not
quite sure where Canada would fall). Young *Glen, on the other hand, would likely consider Linda Johnson to be
his companion, because Anglophilia and
Doctor Who fandom aren't nearly as strongly associated with each other ITTL, given the success of the Yank Years.
Glen said:
So do the Yank Years make week long story arcs more palatable in the US for syndication in other shows in the US? Does the previous higher budgets and great post production shame the BBC into at least somwhat stronger financial support of the serial? And does Doctor Who completely conquer Canada and Australia?
There's only one way to find out!
Would "Leela" still get in the show, either as a concept, or a name? (She was named for Lelia Khaled, the Palestinian Terrorist, BTW...)
Perhaps Tom Baker plays The Master? He did play Rasputin and an evil Sorceror before his role...
Good questions, but I'm afraid you'll have to wait quite some time for the answers.
Orville_third said:
As for my age, I was born in 1979, saw Doctor Who on reruns in the 1980's on PBS (Not as often as I liked- SCETV dropped it and UNCTV was hard to get on our set), along with Star Trek on our local independent station.
Thank you for sharing! Generation Y continues to be more prominent on this thread than I had originally thought! So much the better
I'll fess-up - 1964, which means that I'm almost as old as Doctor Who !
But
not the oldest regular - so at least you have that
And we now have a fourth mode year! 1964, 1969, 1971, and 1990. Who wants to break the tie?
NCW8 said:
I've just found this description of how Pertwee's
last episode would have been if Delgado hadn't died:
That sounds fine by me. You can consider that canon. (Except that it happens at the end of the
twelfth season, not the
eleventh.)
NCW8 said:
But did the Daleks themselves return to Dr Who ? They do have quite a fandom of their own and are very much a cultural icon. It wouldn't be Who without them.
Yes, of course the Daleks came back
I will also point out this, regardless of my personal feeling on the subject of an alternate Blake's 7 (or indeed, any science fiction TV series coming out for the rest of the 1970's- really, any large-scale scripted series), one affect that will almost certainly come as a result of your alternate Star Trek is some serious budget inflation on TV shows during the decade.
This is very likely - the bar has been set higher, on
both sides of the Pond. It also echoes what's happening in the movies at the same time - "New Hollywood" directors are being given massive budgets to realize their
auteur visions. Then again, we all know how
that ended...
After all, you had the budget-per-episode on an average episode of Star Trek to be $500,000 by the final season. If I'm correct, adjusted for inflation that's around $1,400,000 in 1987 dollars (the reason I use that year for comparison is to point out that, adjusted for inflation, that it's more than was the average budget per episode in the early seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation). And Trek was not only more popular here than in our timeline, but wildly so. Studios are going to feel a lot more comfortable dolling out huge budgets than here than in our timeline.
One correction: it was
$300,000 per episode, and that's if you include the crossover and the finale (which, by themselves,
did average $500,000 per episode). Without them, it's $275,000 per episode - still enough to be the most expensive show on the air in 1970-71. We'll split the difference and say that inflates to $800,000 per episode in 1987 dollars, which I believe is above-average for that era (
Miami Vice had reached the seven-figure mark in 1984-85), but certainly
not setting the bar.
vultan said:
Come the late 1970's, we may see some truly massively-budgeted shows (perhaps even one or two that regularly break the million-dollar mark). Of course, there may be one massive flop of a series that brings the trend back down to Earth, but the precedent is set. The only comparison in real life I can think of is this trend we've been having as of late with huge-budgeted shows (Terra Nova, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, etc).
Well, bear in mind that the networks will need to avail themselves of alternate revenue sources in order to secure the kind of funding you're talking about.
vultan said:
Just thought it'd be interesting to note.
So noted
And I'll be sure to bear that mind if I have to choose between them - so long as you're willing to take the blame!
I'm from 1984 (insert Orwell joke here). However, it was 1984 in the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire, which is more like the 70s anywhere else. You know you come from an economically depressed region when you work with a chap a few years older than you who grew up in Romania under Communism, and you can reminisce about owning the same computers and VCRs etc
Well, they
did once call Bucharest the "Paris of Eastern Europe", if that helps any
(And I did already have your year of birth in my file, thanks to your profile, but I always appreciate your stories
)
Thande said:
I can remember back in the 90s when companies started introducing this newfangled thing where you could download patches and expansions to games and other software rather than having to send off for the disc to be posted to you. At the time, we all thought it was just a clever scheme on their part to charge you the same while not having to pay for packaging, and to be honest I'm not totally certain we weren't wrong.
And
now we know that it's
also useful for allowing developers to sell unfinished games and essentially force customers to pay in order to do the beta testing
Are they still in Montreal, and will the city still be paying for them well into the 31st century?
You don't expect me to let
that out of the bag early, do you?
Indeed. Which makes me wonder, will they be spending it on effects, as they did OTL on "BG", or on flash, as they did on "Miami Vice", or will it go to better writing, directing, & casting? Yes, some is bound to go to production values, which would help the likes of OTL's
"Starlost" (tho it's evidently not getting made TTL, & I won't miss it
). The pernicious effects could be bad, but the improved quality could mean better TV generally.
Where the money goes depends entirely on who is controlling the purse-strings! That's half the fun of watching these Hollywood train-wrecks.
phx1138 said:
Or do they devise reality TV (much
) earlier than OTL
Hey, I may not be writing a
utopia, but I'm certainly not writing a
dystopia, either. What do you think this is,
A World of Laughter,
A World of Tears?
I do like your method of putting a list of links to updates on the wiki page, it neatly sidesteps the issue of finding the updates in the midst of all our acerbically witty and extremely helpful
p) comments.
Thank you, Thande! That was another fine suggestion by e of pi.
Love the American Year Segment
Thank you!
Edit: but somehow I don't think it will be. However it would be good to butterfly away the South African tour by the New Zealand Rugby team, so that 26 African countries don't boycott the Olympics in protest.
We'll have to see about this...
Can't wait for the updates on technology (like computers) and video games in TTL, when they come.
Thank you, Unknown! I'm looking forward to writing about it, myself. The late-1970s were the dawn of an era (well, technically the
second generation, but the first was more like a dry-run
anyway). But I definitely look forward to getting in on the ground floor with this one, as opposed to having to start
in medias res with television and film...
Intriguing ...
But seriously, well done; I can't really comment on the specifics, having no real interest (positive or negative) in Doctor Who.
Thank you very much, TB-EI! I appreciate your kind words in any event.
Doctor Who seems to split my readership right down the middle - hot and cold.
The Blue-Eyed Infidel said:
Obviously Laverne & Shirley is probably butterflied away.
Indeed so. It was created as a star vehicle for Garry Marshall's sister Penny, who is presently appearing in
Those Were the Days.
The Blue-Eyed Infidel said:
We have Movin' On Up and Captain Miller, but is there an ITTL Welcome Back, Kotter; Starsky & Hutch; One Day at a Time; Wonder Woman?
There's only one way to find out!
The Blue-Eyed Infidel said:
Also, given a cursory glance of Wikipedia, Rich Man, Poor Man kicked the mini-series into high gear at about this time.
Hold that thought...
The Blue-Eyed Infidel said:
Anyways, looking forward to the next update.
Thank you! I'm hoping that it'll be one of my banner updates. There should be something for everyone!
The Blue-Eyed Infidel said:
P.S. For your demograhpics: born in '73.
Noted and logged. Thank you for sharing! I now have 27 data points - with the mean and the median both holding at 1975 and 1974, respectively.
Without Laverne & Shirley, maybe some-one decides to make a US version of The Liver Birds. That could end up being similar to L&S, but set in the (then) present day.
That might come in handy - thanks for the suggestion!
What would be the US analogue to Liverpool in this context as a setting? It's sometimes compared to New York, but The Liver Birds looks at the less glamorous side. Maybe somewhere like Atlantic City?
One of the main features of Liverpool referenced by The Liver Birds is its Catholic community - both Beryl and Carol were Catholics. I think that the US equivalent would be Polish-American, so how about Chicago ?
Maybe Boston? More resonant of Liverpool to my mind.
I like Boston best - it's probably most analogous to Liverpool among large American cities (on the sea, working-class, largely Irish Catholic population with a long-standing and prominent minority presence, funny accents, and a certain boisterousness in its population). Also, Boston is the setting of one of the greatest sitcoms IOTL.
