Wherever there's adventure to be found.....

[Jamie]

Yup, this thread's title does of course refer to the '77/'78 Famous Five TV series. Or specifically, the third season of it that was never commissioned because the Blyton estate refused permission for original adventures to be composed. (Although it didn't affect the French versions that emerged about three years later for some reason?)

If I'd been one of the actors, I'd have been desperate for it, but had the seam been mined of all its valuable deposits? Would it have undervalued the series to have gone on and on and reinvented the wheel? OR was it a daft decision that stifled what could have lead to a seriously popular series being double the length it actually was?

[Lucky Star]

As a traditionalist I am glad they did not carry on with new specially written adventures. I tend to believe that the only "real" Famous Five adventures are the ones written by Enid Blyton herself. I would however have like to see them do the few books that they missed out for various reasons. As those wouldn't have been enough for a whole series the only other acceptable option would have been to do the short stories which were collected in the book Five have a Puzzling Time.

[Jamie]

And to think, EB intended to stop at number six....

[Dick Kirrin]

Considering the high quality of acting and the liberties the producers took by setting the stories into the then modern days ie the 1970s, I suppose they would have produced good television.
They had some very capable script writers working for them who surely would have done better at writing stories in EB style than many of the people who had a go in France or in my home country - and maybe some writers of fanfic, too .
But the stories would have been exactly that - stories in EB fashion or style instead of stories by Enid Blyton. That might have raised questions of how a certain episode would have looked like if it had been based on an original Blyton book.
Another thing is the fact that the Famous FIve setting is pretty well used and well-worn and that was the case after the original 21 books, too. It gets harder and harder to have the familiar parts reappear while at the same time adding new and thrilling bits and pieces. A mere warming up of a plot already used would either have been boring or have looked like parody.
All in all, I'm happy it didn't happen as much as I like the crew of the 1978 series.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

[Jamie]

Another thing is the fact that the Famous FIve setting is pretty well used and well-worn and that was the case after the original 21 books, too. It gets harder and harder to have the familiar parts reappear while at the same time adding new and thrilling bits and pieces. A mere warming up of a plot already used would either have been boring or have looked like parody.
All in all, I'm happy it didn't happen as much as I like the crew of the 1978 series.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

I think EB pretty much thought so after Five on Kirrin Island Again, hence the "Goodbye Famous Five!" salutation in the last sentence of that book. I'm assuming the commercial success lit up the lsd signs in her eyes and she continued for another fifteen though?

[Dick Kirrin]

I'm assuming the commercial success lit up the lsd signs in her eyes and she continued for another fifteen though?

Presumably. And all the letters from children wanting to read more of the Famous Five.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

[pete9012S]

the only other acceptable option would have been to do the short stories which were collected in the book Five have a Puzzling Time.

What a great suggestion!

I would love to see these shorter adventures in a Famous Five cartoon style adventure series ,using Eileen Sopers beautiful artwork as the basis for the Five,set in the original time period with no 'artistic changes' whatsoever...

[Moonraker]

Yes, a good suggestion. The beauty of adapting short stories for television is that they wouldn't have to be abridged to fill a 22 minute time-slot. The same thing applied to the Poirot short stories, if anything, some of them had to be padded out!

I'm assuming the commercial success lit up the £sd signs in her eyes and she continued for another fifteen though?

Cynic! We all know it was because of the thousands of letters that Enid received! If it was a question of money, wouldn't she have written 21 or so Adventure Series novels?

Considering the high quality of acting...

And there lies the treasure in the chest. The acting was, in the main, superb, and the series' saving grace. Restricted by the meagre budget, the actors (the Four Kirrins anyway, some of the supporting actors left much to be desired) played their parts magnificently. All were, imo, superior to the actors in the 90s series - with the exception of Jemima Rooper (and Laura Petela was almost equal to Jenny) - although this series is still my favourite, for reasons stated elsewhere.
As for making 'continuation' episodes, I'm not so sure. Look how they ruined Five Run Away Together, when they had a free hand, and strayed unforgivably from Enid's plot.

[Jamie]

Am I the only one on this site who thinks the acting was ropier than the secret entrance to the cave?

I think the best was far and away Gary Russell, with Marcus Harris being above ordinary and Jenny Thanisch about average. Michelle Gallagher I can't make my mind up about. I always thought she couldn't act at all, but I don't know how much of it was due to her hayfever.

[Dick Kirrin]

Though it may be unfair to do so, I'm always tempted to compare the 1978 and the 1996 series. And the cast of 78 is simply better at acting in my humble opinion. They somehow manage to act like cousins, brothers and sisters. There may be some small flaws, but all in all I think they are outstanding by comparison to many other crews from other series.
The cast of 1996 was possibly hindered by too many regulations and may have found it difficult to act like 1940/50s children, so it isn't fair to compare too much.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

[Jamie]

I remember when the '96 series came out. Filled with Blytonesque excitement I sat down to watch and lasted exactly one episode. I thought it was smeg-awful, not least because it contained the 1990's script revisions but was clearly set in the 50's. (Not even the right decade, as it should have been the 40's.)

[Petermax]

not least because it contained the 1990's script revisions but was clearly set in the 50's. (Not even the right decade, as it should have been the 40's.)

Don't forget that the Famous Five books were written betwen 1942 and 1963. For the most part, people probably associate the Famous Five with the early part of the 1950's, and it is with this in mind that the 1990's series scriptwriters took certain liberties with the time period. Unfortunately, they took other liberties as well but let's not go there!

[Moonraker]

I thought it was smeg-awful, not least because it contained the 1990's script revisions but was clearly set in the 50's. (Not even the right decade, as it should have been the 40's.)

Nine titles were published in the 50s, so not sure why you consider it not to be the "right decade"!

[pete9012S]

If I remember rightly,they decided to set it in one year from the period -off the top of my head I think it was 1953, for continuity throughout the series.Someone here may remember the details better than me??

I think they did the same thing with Poirot (David Suchet) and Miss Marple-again I think they picked a date in the 1950's for period continuity.(again 1953 seems to come to mind again!)
I'm sure there are some here who may remember more about that?

regards

Pete

ah yes heres the quote I read;

In 1978, the action was set in the 70's, whereas in the 1996… the action was set in 1953. It means to say, the decade when the original books have been written.

http://www.tv.com/shows/the-famous-five/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Zar Quon]

I thought it was smeg-awful, not least because it contained the 1990's script revisions but was clearly set in the 50's. (Not even the right decade, as it should have been the 40's.)

Nine titles were published in the 50s, so not sure why you consider it not to be the "right decade"!

& then there's the last 4 published in the early '60s