Which Famous Five TV Series?

[RDMorrell]

My dream Five would also be Marcus, Gary, Jemima, Jennifer and Toddy. The "Timmy" in the 1990s series was totally wrong.

My overall preference is for the 1970s series, not least because of the nostalgia value (it was part of my childhood, whereas the 1990s series came out when I was in my 20s). It also has by far the better theme tune. The 1990s series was more "authentic" in terms of period costumes, cars and so on, and have others have said, had better production values. But with the exception of Jemima Rooper, the casting wasn't really as good (especially for Timmy) and for me it just kind of lacked the magic of the earlier '70s version.

[Moonraker]

Oh, that irritating theme tune, the mis-spelt Kirren, Quentin's German accent, a gardener who never existed.....As for Timmy, I have yet to see a realistic Timmy that comes anywhere near to Eileen Soper's vision of him.

[Timmylover]

I find the 70s series totally irritating. Yes, the awful theme tune, ugly 70s clothes, the cars, oh everything. Although Toddy was a lovely dog he was nothing like the original Soper Timmy (as Nigel says).

I much preferred the 90s series - at least it looked right. However, the 90s Timmy was really miscast - far too small and devoid of any real Timmy charisma.

[Dick Kirrin]

Just the other way round with me. I find the 1990s version irritating to say the least.
For one thing, the details such as cars, attire and stuff may have looked right (I will not argue if a certain type of car did actually come out two years later, may well be but even so it would be period), but the acting was way off the mark.
I'm not saying the children aren't good actors, but I think they were too eager to avoid any mistakes. Somewhere I read that the makers had a small labelled flag for each child which indicated where they were to stand. I suppose they had to know their texts by heart, too. Bottom line: I'm always getting the impression the children felt uneasy in their roles whenever I'm watching the 1990s TV series. The clothes may have been another thing. The 1970s used clothes then worn by children, so they hardly had to adapt there, whereas in the 1990s shirts, shorts and school sandals were a bit out of fashion with 12-15-year olds. No idea why... .

If you own the script of 1978s version of "Fall into adventure" and watch the film, you'll see that the actors didn't always keep to the text word by word. But as they said something "along these lines" (pardon the pun), they got away with it. A much more relaxed way to act.

The most different thing for me is the camerawork, however. In the 1970s version, the camera is on the children's eye level or even below it, so you can - with a bit of fantasy - see yourself as the sixth child. In the 1990s version, which has many good episodes with the one big mistake that they are too short, the camera is used differently, you rather feel like someone watching actors on stage than like a participant.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

[Anita Bensoussane]

I agree, Dick. With the exception of Jemima Rooper, who is marvellous as George, the 1990s children come across as a little artificial, not quite comfortable in their roles as "1950s children". The 1970s cast are far more natural and convincing and, because of that, seem warmer in personality and more likeable (again, Jemima Rooper succeeds in that too).

The most different thing for me is the camerawork, however. In the 1970s version, the camera is on the children's eye level or even below it, so you can - with a bit of fantasy - see yourself as the sixth child. In the 1990s version, which has many good episodes with the one big mistake that they are too short, the camera is used differently, you rather feel like someone watching actors on stage than like a participant.

I hadn't paid much attention to the camerawork but I'll look out for that in future viewings.

[Petermax]

My preference is of course for the 1970's Southern TV series. I just love the whole feel of it, perhaps it is because it resembles some of the later Childrens Film Foundation productions. Best of all were the cast who seemed to be made for their roles. The fact that the series was shot entirely on 16mm film gave it a nice consistant feel. Many TV series during the 1970's era were shot on film for the exterior scenes and video tape for interior shots. The mismatch was most noticeable, believe me!

The 1990's series was far more visually accurate but had no soul whatsoever. Also, I felt that unnecessary liberties were taken with the script on occasions in order perhaps to suit a politically correct agenda? Jemina Rooper was superb as George, the other actors played their roles well, but not memorably so.

As for Timmy, I have yet to see a realistic Timmy that comes anywhere near to Eileen Soper's vision of him.

Sadly, no screen adaptation of the Famous Five has ever come up with a half decent Timmy. Toddy Woodgate in the Southern TV series came close but was still far too small. As for that Chihuahua type creature in the 90's series, words fail me!

[Dick Kirrin]

Sadly, no screen adaptation of the Famous Five has ever come up with a half decent Timmy. Toddy Woodgate in the Southern TV series came close but was still far too small. As for that Chihuahua type creature in the 90's series, words fail me!

You are perfectly right about Connal, the 1990s Timmy. A cute and likeable dog, but hardly a Timmy.
Toddy, on the other hand, was quite a good choice as far as I'm concerned. He is big enough to scare villains into submission and yet small enough to be carried.
I would be hard pressed to suggest another race or mixed breed that would suit better than a big Border Collie. Clever and powerful as well as loyal family dogs, they make an ideal Timmy. As for intelligence, the only dogs that might be a match for Timmy nearly extraordinary powers are those used for hunting, Setters for example. I have yet to meet a stupid Setter, but they are too small to be cast as Timmy. If you are not so much obsessed with size an ENGLISH Setter would be perfect, first of all for patriotic reasons, then they are great runners and wonderful companions and finally once they get busy (which takes a very long time) they make sure you find out that their teeth hurt. As with all dogs meant for hunting purposes, it's extremely unlikely that you just "find" a puppy on the moors. Way too precious! Collies are sheep dogs by breed, so that's more likely, especially if, say an Alsatian or some other big dog was involved somewhere... .

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

[Wolfgang]

The Danish-German co-production had an Alsation/Alsatians for Timmy - so the size is right about it, but they were not mongrels/it was not a mongrel. But naturally it's hard to decide if Enid Blyton had a real dog she had seen in mind when she described Timmy, unless there's a letter or entry in some book in which she explained it. And Soper's illustration might also be different from what Enid had in mind.

[Anita Bensoussane]

In her autobiography, The Story of My Life, Enid Blyton says that she had a particular girl and dog in mind when creating George and Timmy: "George is real, but she is grown-up now. She had a dog, of course, and though he was like Timmy (the dog in the book) in character, the artist has not drawn him quite as he looked - but then, she had never seen him, so how could she?" As for George, "The real George was short-haired, freckled, sturdy, and snub-nosed. She was bold and daring, hot-tempered and loyal. She was sulky, as George is, too, but she isn't now. We grow out of these failings - or we should! Do you like George? I do."

[Moonraker]

Many TV series during the 1970's era were shot on film for the exterior scenes and video tape for interior shots. The mismatch was most noticeable, believe me!

How I agree! If my memory serves me right, The Sweeney and All Creatures Great and Small used this technique. Film, for me, has always had a greater charm than video.

Speaking of technology (and dragging this thread even more off-topic), I notice that HD sound is billed as being superior to DAB radio quality. However, it is said that the difference between HD sound and FM reception in neglible, and probably won't be noticed.

Progress, eh?

[Cameraman]

It's a no brainer for me. The 1970's series wins hands down. Production quality, timing, pace, sound, music (superb) and lighting (I know poor at times, but atmospheric), adaptation and suspense. The adaptation was particularly good in that it adjusted Blyton's books for a more mature and street wise 1970's generation of pre teens than the more innocent pre teen generation of the 1950's.

Most of all the 1970's show was "radical" and innovative as it was a modern up to date take for the late 1970's rather than the tank top and ginger beer version of the 1990's.

Believe me having worked in the TV industry, the 1970's version would have had a far greater comparable budget than the 1990's version which was knock it out TV. For that reason the 1990's series deserves some credit for what it achieved.

[Cameraman]

..........Toddy Woodgate in the Southern TV series came close but was still far too small. As for that Chihuahua type creature in the 90's series, words fail me!

I nearly choked on my Coffee with laughter when I read this one...classic

[Anita Bensoussane]

The 1970's series wins hands down. Production quality, timing, pace, sound, music (superb) and lighting (I know poor at times, but atmospheric), adaptation and suspense... Believe me having worked in the TV industry, the 1970's version would have had a far greater comparable budget than the 1990's version which was knock it out TV. For that reason the 1990's series deserves some credit for what it achieved.

I too prefer the 1970s series because of things like timing, pace and music - and because of the quality of the acting (though there is some excellent acting in the 1990s series as well). However, I thought it was the 1990s version that had the greater budget. The 1990s team were able to film on location in different parts of the UK, whereas most of the 1970s episodes were shot on the Exbury estate or in the surrounding area.

[GailRenard]

Natch I'm going to stand up for the 1970s series (!) But wait till you see the newly digitalised version, which so far is out on DVD in Germany: http://goo.gl/HPqYP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

The quality of the series & its productive values look totally different there, as nature intended and how it looked originally. Remember we've been used to seeing old videos of the 70s series as well as bad copies probably made from other bad copies. And don't get me started on the clips illegally pirated on YouTube and other sites!

It's been many years since any of us viewed the master tape and I was really bowled over by the new digitalised version... and delighted! I hope you'll see what I mean.

[Moonraker]

Have they spelled Kirrin correctly, though?