Go Back   Fanderson Forum > Public Forum > Harlington Straker Studios

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 3rd April 2016, 09:21 PM
SPC1's Avatar
SPC1 SPC1 is offline
Jason Smith
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Default are anderson's series 'american' shows?

although all of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's series for ITC were shot in England,gerry said on 'the brains behind thunderbirds' documentary that 'thunderbirds' is a American show & according to a 'times' TV critic in 1968 stated that 'captain scarlet and the mysterons' was a puppet show made in America.they may look like they were American that was why it was shot on 35mm film.i don't think it has the US feel more british to me,anyone agree?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 3rd April 2016, 11:33 PM
phelings phelings is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPC1 View Post
although all of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's series for ITC were shot in England,gerry said on 'the brains behind thunderbirds' documentary that 'thunderbirds' is a American show & according to a 'times' TV critic in 1968 stated that 'captain scarlet and the mysterons' was a puppet show made in America.they may look like they were American that was why it was shot on 35mm film.i don't think it has the US feel more british to me,anyone agree?
They're not US shows at all. They were produced in England by an English company and by English people.
However, it was shot for what was once called a transatlantic audience - and many of the ITC shows, not just Anderson ones would have dialogue adjusted or other things changed to make them more suitable for US audiences. Expensive shooting on 35mm was done by Lew Grade for one reason - to make the shows look good for US audiences which is why many of the shows would include US voice actors and the live action shows would usually feature someone known to the US audience.
So while , at the time of production, I would say the producers probably worried more about what the US audience might think the shows were British through and through.

Few of the 35mm Lew Grade series would make a profit with just a UK screening. The whole notion of 35mm high quality visuals , and colour many years before it arrived in the UK was for the US audience.
Lew always wanted a network sale but few of the ITC shows ever managed that but that's where the big money was. The Persuaders for example was a massive success everywhere except the US and because the budget was large it's failure in the US meant no more were made because they needed the US money.

The TV Times critic ( which issue was this comment in?) was clearly talking rubbish.

Last edited by phelings; 3rd April 2016 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 4th June 2016, 04:16 PM
WillPS WillPS is offline
General Strond
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 161
Default

To elaborate slightly on the importance of the American market - when the BBC finally managed to sell Doctor Who in to the USA in the late 70s - each sale to each local station made them broadly the same in terms of revenue as a sale to a national broadcaster elsewhere normally would.

When you then consider that there are hundreds of individual local stations...!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 4th June 2016, 07:38 PM
phelings phelings is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillPS View Post
To elaborate slightly on the importance of the American market - when the BBC finally managed to sell Doctor Who in to the USA in the late 70s - each sale to each local station made them broadly the same in terms of revenue as a sale to a national broadcaster elsewhere normally would.

When you then consider that there are hundreds of individual local stations...!
Which is what happened to 1999.
Although promised a network sale if Landau and Bain were cast that fell through and the time consuming process of selling to the individual local stations was done instead but like Dr Who the number of stations that did buy it meant it did make enough money to satisfy ITC USA.
Although not enough to let them have the same budget for season 2.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14th June 2016, 09:13 PM
phelings phelings is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,601
Default

Willps. Tried sending a reply to your PM but it says you cannot accept them.
I'm guessing your box might be full. Let me know when you've made the adjustments
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21st June 2016, 07:05 PM
Thunderbird 2's Avatar
Thunderbird 2 Thunderbird 2 is offline
Supreme Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Newport, South Wales.
Posts: 508
Default

Long story short - British series, with British Humour and style, and often as not American characters, written from a British perspective.

ONly the second season of Space 1999 (what little I have seen of it) has a more Americanized feel due to Producer Fred Freehandburger. - He made a mess of Star Trek's final year too.
__________________
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I assist?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21st June 2016, 08:55 PM
phelings phelings is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird 2 View Post
Long story short - British series, with British Humour and style, and often as not American characters, written from a British perspective.

ONly the second season of Space 1999 (what little I have seen of it) has a more Americanized feel due to Producer Fred Freehandburger. - He made a mess of Star Trek's final year too.
Definitely British shows but the frequent appearances of American actors and voices shows they were trying to make them appealing to US audiences and words were often changed to suit them and not us.

I like Year 2 of 1999 in a different way to Year One. I treat them as 2 different shows.
I agree he was clueless about Star Trek and spoilt that shows final series so its ironic it was his role as Trek producer that got him the job on 1999.
He killed off several series including Six Million Dollar Man and Wild Wild West in addition to Star Trek and Space 1999
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 22nd June 2016, 08:57 PM
ScottyM1967 ScottyM1967 is offline
Lazoon
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 10
Default

Definitely British shows, absolutely. As, speaking as a US audience member, I prefer them that way. There is a totally different style to the storytelling which I liked very much. The ITC catalog contains some of my favorite shows. Having American leads is all well and good, but I was fine even when there wasn't an American in sight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phelings View Post
[Fred Freiberger] killed off several series including Six Million Dollar Man and Wild Wild West in addition to Star Trek and Space 1999
To be fair for Freiberger, he didn't kill off Wild Wild West in the slightest. He actually saved it. He was brought in to replace producer Collier Young who, in the three episodes following the pilot, managed to take the "James Bond in the West" concept and turn it into a standard western. Freiberger immediately returned the series to its roots and introduced many of the things fans loved about it (Dr. Loveless was created on his watch). He was ousted because creator Michael Garrison was considered by CBS to have too much power over the series. The network stepped in and removed Freiberger and replaced him with John Mantley (Gunsmoke). By the time Garrison got power back, Frieberger had moved on and Gene Coon (later of Star Trek) came in.

As for The Six Million Dollar Man, he co-produced with Allan Balter for that final year, alternating episodes. At this point, Lee Majors had clearly lost interest and was cajoled into returning. The series had run its course and would have died with or without Frieberger. Even so, he was hardly alone in shaping that season, which actually brough a return of some interesting science fiction concepts to the series; Steve Austin returned to his NASA roots, and there were some interesting stories involved, but the energy and the audience just weren't there.

Star Trek and 1999? Absolutely, he had less of an idea how to handle both shows. With Trek, I feel he did the best he could under those circumstances: a network that had no faith in the series and wanted it gone; a total lack of budget and a creator who stepped back so far as to be nearly totally uninvolved. By the time the series was winding down, nobody who was part of the series during the best years was on the show. It was practically run by Freiberger and his story editor Arthur Singer. Some great episodes came out of that year.

For 1999, I enjoy the second year just as much as the first, only on a different level. I don't feel it needed to be changed to drastically and I with Gerry Anderson kept tighter control over the show, but it's all water under the bridge. Like Trek's third year, many good stories and concepts came out of Freiberger's tenure.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 22nd June 2016, 09:37 PM
DukeDexter DukeDexter is offline
R.A.T.
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyM1967 View Post
Star Trek and 1999? Absolutely, he had less of an idea how to handle both shows. With Trek, I feel he did the best he could under those circumstances: a network that had no faith in the series and wanted it gone; a total lack of budget and a creator who stepped back so far as to be nearly totally uninvolved. By the time the series was winding down, nobody who was part of the series during the best years was on the show. It was practically run by Freiberger and his story editor Arthur Singer. Some great episodes came out of that year.
That's very true Received (fan) wisdom tells us that Freiberger destroyed Star Trek - but that's not quite what happened. There's a series of books on Trek, 'These Are The Voyages', and they're very interesting and illuminating regarding what went on during production. The network seemed to want to bury Star Trek as they had a poor relationship with Roddenberry. But Freiberger comes out of it with some credit - he may not have been much of a writer but he kept the 3rd season on schedule and on budget, which hadn't been the case before his tenure and was a stipulation of his employers. Good producer, perhaps less so regarding his writing.
__________________
http://www.andersonic.co.uk/ Andersonic - the Century 21 fanzine. Issue 24 out now
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 22nd June 2016, 10:08 PM
phelings phelings is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyM1967 View Post
To be fair for Freiberger, he didn't kill off Wild Wild West in the slightest. He actually saved it.
I only mentioned these shows as he was producing in the final season.
I'm not familiar with WWW so I don't know whether the quality suffered.

But I am familiar with what happened to Star Trek in season 3 and I do recall that SMDM was getting quite poor even before Freiberger stepped in.

I'm not of the view that he killed 1999 as I enjoyed his revamp. It was so different to Year One. I don't think a second year similar to Year One would have worked too well either but I guess that the direction he took Year Two down was going to polarise opinions and it was so different that there just wouldn't be enough positivity to make Year 3 a reality although didn't we hear from some sources that Year 3 was on the cards but ITC couldn't afford it because of Lew Grades moves into films?

Last edited by phelings; 22nd June 2016 at 10:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:12 PM.


Fanderson - The Official Gerry Anderson Appreciation Society is a non-profit making organisation endorsed by Anderson
Entertainment Ltd., The Indestructible Production Company Ltd., ITV Global Entertainment and ITC Entertainment Group Ltd.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.