The Enid Blyton Society

Found this just now, most of the stuff we already know but I was very interested to see a recent photo of Laura (Anne)!

http://showbizgeek.com/what-ever-happen ... mous-five/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She also has a LinkedIn page

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/laura-petela/23/b37/624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link, Carlotta. It's great to see an up-to-date picture of Laura Petela - I'd never have recognised her with her hair so different!

Isn't that Gail Renard (wearing yellow) with Gary Russell and Marcus Harris?

How lovely to look back on the faces now grown. Yes, that is Gail, Anita. I recognised her from the Enid Blyton Day.

I think it's so sad that so much secrecy surrounds, Michelle's death (George in the 70's series) I think if people knew the circumstances they'd be less inclined to ask questions and keep bringing the subject up.

Hmmm, not really the most accurate of online articles, it seems to have been hastily cobbled together. However, an interesting read nevertheless.

There is an interesting claim in the article that the 1970's Famous Five series was one of the most expensive children's TV series ever made owing to the fact that it was shot on film and not videotape. Up to now I had always been led to believe that the Worzel Gummidge (also shot on film)series had this distinction. Certainly film productions were more expensive owing to the film-stock, processing and editing costs, but look at the results, a far more pleasing image compared to the harsh videotape of the day.

I agree - it's not the most well-written or accurate article, and I didn't like the title paragraph stating 'casual racism and sexism', I only really posted it because of Laura - she has been a bit of a mystery since the filming, and I thought everyone would like to see a recent photo.

Petermax wrote: but look at the results, a far more pleasing image compared to the harsh videotape of the day.

Definitely. I love to watch old TV programmes that are shot on film. A bit like vinyl - vastly 'superior' to CDs and downloads.

Cathy wrote:I only really posted it because of Laura - she has been a bit of a mystery since the filming

That's one mystery I'd like to solve! Jemima, we might have a problem.....

Laura Petela is on Twitter under her own name. If I remember right she works for an events organising business and likes to party a lot! She follows the blog on Twitter and we've spoken to her once or twice.

That's really nice that you've spoken to her and that she follows the blog, I always assumed that since she left acting she wasn't bothered about anything Famous Five-ish, but obviously she is!

Not the best article (very hastily put together) but thanks for posting, Cathy. The author doesn't appear to be the biggest fan of the Famous Five with the comments on casual racism, sexism and the children being interfering snobs. I don't see the need to swear when describing the 1996 intro in comparison to the 1970s series either. Sad to read about Michelle but on the up side Jemima Rooper is looking great.

I hadn't noticed that bit about the 90s theme!! Yeah that's very unnecessary. I like the 90s theme - nothing wrong with it at all!
There also wasn't any need for the author to class them as interfering snobs - it's obviously someone who has got a chip on their shoulder!

Oh well at least there were some nice photos!

Yeah some great photos. Thanks for posting them, Cathy

Petermax wrote: There is an interesting claim in the article that the 1970's Famous Five series was one of the most expensive children's TV series ever made owing to the fact that it was shot on film and not videotape. Up to now I had always been led to believe that the Worzel Gummidge (also shot on film)series had this distinction. Certainly film productions were more expensive owing to the film-stock, processing and editing costs, but look at the results, a far more pleasing image compared to the harsh videotape of the day.

It was certainly the most expensive at he time we made it - Worzel came 18 months later, remember. But we were just over a million per series, which was pretty unheard of for kids TV in the austere 70s.

Gary Russell wrote:It was certainly the most expensive at he time we made it - Worzel came 18 months later, remember. But we were just over a million per series, which was pretty unheard of for kids TV in the austere 70s.

Astonishing. One million equates to about four million, eight hundred thousand in today's money. Nevertheless, it was money very well spent.

I'd agree that the '90s intro lacks excitement, bounce and verve compared to the '70s (which I loved singing along with at a very young age!!), but you're right, Deej, it doesn't warrant a swear word. "Drab", "restrained" or "understated" would have been enough.

On a side topic that I wonder about, but it doesn't really warrant a separate thread: does anyone else reckon the dog playing Timmy in the '90s series is too small to be right for the part? There have been plenty of different portrayals of Timmy (and I don't think the '70s Border Collie was quite the right choice either), but both the books and the illustrations, from Eileen Soper onwards, make pretty clear he's quite a big, strong dog.

Other than that, Cathy, thanks for the "where are they now"!