Seymour
- Thread starter minxie
- Start date
We been round that buoy, Minxie, and no one came up with a coherent answer. Call it dramatic license.
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
I have to say that I've never watched First of the Summer Wine. A few family members who were LOTSW fans who did watch it didn't think much of it. It didn't last long and ran from 1988 to 89, Michael Aldridge as Seymour joined in 1986 up to 1990. Perhaps Roy Clarke thought that he could just get away with it as Seymour was in the regular series at that time and it might seem odd that he wouldn't be in "First"? Chances are that when Seymour first appeared, Clarke had no idea he would be doing "First" as a spin off just a few years later, so he changed that bit of Seymour's past.
I always put these things down to poetic licence too. To start with they didn't know Wesley either then all of a sudden they had been t school with him.
I thought First Of The Summer Wine was really good, I enjoyed Compo in it and wish Sherbets had been found a place in the original.
I thought First Of The Summer Wine was really good, I enjoyed Compo in it and wish Sherbets had been found a place in the original.
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
That's true, but there has to be a degree of consistency about characters and their history for them to be believable. In most series that may only go on for several years this is not usually a problem, LOTSW however did go on for over 30 years so it is perhaps inevitable that some artistic license will creep in as time goes by. The important thing is to not read too much into it. Most of the time the vast majority of the audience will never notice or remember, let alone care.
I agree with Philosopher Clegg that there has to be a degree of consistency with regards character's backgrounds (although a few mistakes are understandable given the amount of characters in it and the number of years it has been on TV). The only major problem I can see is with Seymour's appearance in the First Of The Summer Wine series: that was clearly a sloppy blunder on behalf of the production team. However, as I don't count the prequel as canon, I simply get round it by pretending it never happened. Lol
His knowledge of them in the main series is easily explained by the fact that, although he never went to the same secondary as them, he did go to the same primary school. When Wesley re-introduced them he would, naturally, have had no idea who they were after such a long period of time. The memories, however, would have soon flooded back as he got to know them more.
Remember, also, that Seymour is presented to us as a former headmaster of his own private school and a person who believed himself to belong to a higher social circle. Dissociating himself from his earlier - perhaps lower - life and friends would have been a natural part of his own personal evolution.
His knowledge of them in the main series is easily explained by the fact that, although he never went to the same secondary as them, he did go to the same primary school. When Wesley re-introduced them he would, naturally, have had no idea who they were after such a long period of time. The memories, however, would have soon flooded back as he got to know them more.
Remember, also, that Seymour is presented to us as a former headmaster of his own private school and a person who believed himself to belong to a higher social circle. Dissociating himself from his earlier - perhaps lower - life and friends would have been a natural part of his own personal evolution.
Edie showed the same trait as Seymour did when putting on airs and graces but soon reverted to normal when speaking to Wesley ,and don't forget that their mum was on the education board and got Seymour into grammar school.Anyway Seymour was "the brains of the family"so he would not have had much to do with the oiks!
It would have made perfect sense for Blamire to have been in FOTSW instead of Seymour.
I think the problem here was that the BBC were desperately trying to get the public to accept Seymour in LOTSW after the big impact made by Foggy.
Also a lot of people wouldn't have known who Blamire was, as I don't think Series One and Two got repeated in the 80s.
Similarly, in The Man from Oswestry, Clegg can hardly remember who Foggy was, yet knows him extremely well in FOTSW.
Best forget the minor lapses in continuity I say - LOTSW has got quite good continuity compared to some shows.
I think the problem here was that the BBC were desperately trying to get the public to accept Seymour in LOTSW after the big impact made by Foggy.
Also a lot of people wouldn't have known who Blamire was, as I don't think Series One and Two got repeated in the 80s.
Similarly, in The Man from Oswestry, Clegg can hardly remember who Foggy was, yet knows him extremely well in FOTSW.
Best forget the minor lapses in continuity I say - LOTSW has got quite good continuity compared to some shows.
ickysna2
Dedicated Member
I liked Sherbets too.
I think that Roy picked out characters that he liked best and felt that we would overlook the inconsistencies.
I enjoy each story line for what it is.
Philosopher Clegg
Dedicated Member
As FOTSW ran from 1988-89, I would assume that this Sherbets character was a later creation by the writer that he hadn't thought of for the first 10 years of LOTSW? The thing is LOTSW was set by the time First appeared so introducing a new major character to the that series was never likely to be on the agenda as back then it was essentially all about the trio. Maybe Sherbets could have been brought in much later, perhaps post Compo had Roy Clarke really wanted to do it? Perhaps he just forgot or thought he belonged in FOTSW and that's it? I can't really comment about this character as I've never seen FOTSW so don't know why others like him or what he would have been like as an older Sherbets in LOTSW.
cciaffone
Dedicated Member
Believe his name was Sherbet
I meant Sherbet. No sure why I put the S on the end.
Sarkus
Dedicated Member
Sherbet may also have been someone who was killed during the war. Its one explanantion and FOTSW may have portrayed that had it gone longer and into the war years, presumably mostly focusing on the ladies left at home.
What I always wondered about FOTSW is why Clegg's future wife Edith wasn't a character in it. Its not really easy to reconcile her not being around at all in FOTSW. Unless I missed her somewhere as I have not watched all the episodes, but the summary of the series on Wikipedia has no mention of her.
What I always wondered about FOTSW is why Clegg's future wife Edith wasn't a character in it. Its not really easy to reconcile her not being around at all in FOTSW. Unless I missed her somewhere as I have not watched all the episodes, but the summary of the series on Wikipedia has no mention of her.
Clegg probably married early in the war as many couples did,he never discussed his war but always seemed to say that Mrs C was in charge as most women seem to be!He had a brother inlaw who was involved in a chapel his cousin sold kitchens and tried to to take over Cleggs life.
codfanglers
Dedicated Member
Cousin Aubrey was in FOSW? That sounds like your description of Clegg's Cousin but I only recall him in one of the final series of LOTSW (I believe it was series 28 without looking).