Three Men And A Mangle.

I think the Seymour years are the most interesting, story wise and visually. While I enjoy Foggy's first run more, Seymour's years are some the best episodes, and are certainly much better the than Foggy's second run.

Yes, I very much agree. However, Foggy's very first season back was strong, but then things went down hill for a little. I personally consider series 8-12 the "Golden Era" of the shows. Although, that is highly debatable because there are soooo many classics from Foggy's first run.
 
I think the Seymour years are the most interesting, story wise and visually. While I enjoy Foggy's first run more, Seymour's years are some the best episodes, and are certainly much better the than Foggy's second run.
I'm a confirmed "SEYMOUR " fan and would have welcomed more.:16:
 
Yes, I very much agree. However, Foggy's very first season back was strong, but then things went down hill for a little. I personally consider series 8-12 the "Golden Era" of the shows. Although, that is highly debatable because there are soooo many classics from Foggy's first run.

Definately that first Series back Foggy is in fine form (Series 12). Series 13, the one shot completely on videotape is pretty good too, but I found Series 14 and 15 a bit of a struggle, especially the repetition of Foggy's war stories and being kicked out the library in almost every episode.
 
I've just finished watching them, and now started on Foggy's return. Although if you ask me who I like best I'll always say Foggy but there are some crackers in the Seymour years and I do have a soft spot for him.
 
I have recently rewatched the Seymour DVDs and there are some really great scenes, lines and stories that tended not to be repeated. Possibly the effect of there only being about 30 or 31 episodes with Seymour in total.

I also think that he was less authoritative, even when he tried he was easier to ignore or make fun - I'm in detention again Norm.

Of course it contains my best Christmas episode - CRUMS (I see there is a facebook group for that as well!) and some superb ones.

The earlier Foggy ones have some very good stuff though - there was a time for about series 14 or so when it went a little flat. I have written before about appearing to be formulaic - certain items appearing every week and I often think the episodes which show different angles or omit a person or two can e a lot stronger than always including the whole ensemble. This is especially true when the cast became quite large.
 
I like the Seymour episode when he ends up hanging upside down form scaffolding when he is trying to impress some very well to do women,as usual he introduces the lads as my people.Also when he sends the painter on his scaffold tower running down the road and into a river the look on his face was priceless as the poor chap passed the bus.
 
I like the Seymour episode when he ends up hanging upside down form scaffolding when he is trying to impress some very well to do women,as usual he introduces the lads as my people.Also when he sends the painter on his scaffold tower running down the road and into a river the look on his face was priceless as the poor chap passed the bus.

His attempt to impress reminded me slightly of Hyacinth Bucket, and his sister Edie was not dis-similar!
 
I've just finished watching them, and now started on Foggy's return. Although if you ask me who I like best I'll always say Foggy but there are some crackers in the Seymour years and I do have a soft spot for him.

Both are great but it is hard to fairly compare the two when Seymour was in three seasons and Foggy was in so many more.
 
Michael Aldridge had to leave the show due to his wife's health issues. There were probably more episodes written that were never done due to his departure.

On another note, when did that railroad line that used that railroad bridge cease to operate?
 
I have recently rewatched the Seymour DVDs and there are some really great scenes, lines and stories that tended not to be repeated. Possibly the effect of there only being about 30 or 31 episodes with Seymour in total.

I also think that he was less authoritative, even when he tried he was easier to ignore or make fun - I'm in detention again Norm.

Of course it contains my best Christmas episode - CRUMS (I see there is a facebook group for that as well!) and some superb ones.

The earlier Foggy ones have some very good stuff though - there was a time for about series 14 or so when it went a little flat. I have written before about appearing to be formulaic - certain items appearing every week and I often think the episodes which show different angles or omit a person or two can e a lot stronger than always including the whole ensemble. This is especially true when the cast became quite large.

I think that`s a fair comment. I watched several episodes from series 14 again recently and there are too many repeated jokes and ideas. I do like many of the characters that they added such as Auntie Wainwright and Smiler but including them in every episode was too much.

The one positive of this era though was that there was still an attempt to tie the A and B plots together. For example, in The Self Propelled Salad Strainer the two ideas of Norah going AWOL and Wesley having a new invention are tied together well at the end of the episode. In the later series they often lost this and the show was much the weaker for it.
 
Michael Aldridge had to leave the show due to his wife's health issues. There were probably more episodes written that were never done due to his departure.

I suspect any episodes written for Michael Aldridge were re-written to suit Brian Wilde.

I certainly agree how the show went into decline from 1992 with the ever growing cast and repetitive situations.
 
Michael Aldridge had to leave the show due to his wife's health issues. There were probably more episodes written that were never done due to his departure.

On another note, when did that railroad line that used that railroad bridge cease to operate?

The railway line was on the Keighley-Bradford route via Queensbury - Thornton viaduct. Closed to passengers in 1955, most of the stations were miles (literally) from the places they purported to serve. Queensbury, one of the few triangular stations (the other notable one was Ambergate), was about 100 feet below and a mile away from Queensbury The line was lifted in stages as goods traffic continued, the Thornton - Denholme section went in 1963, the Thornton - Queensbury section in 1965: the last remnants lingered on to the 1970s.

The clutter seen on the viaduct was specially placed there by the BBC props people.
 
I was watching "Three Men and a Mangle" on youtube this morning. Somehow, I must have missed that episode when my mom would watch reruns because that scene with Howard and Marina surprised me. Howard got pretty handsy for a minute there. I was thinking, "At least say hi before you walk up and grab someone like that!" LOL
 
Have been sitting for over a week now on a significant milestone and wondering when to plunge in. Actually, first weekend I was away walking around Glasgow in massive crowds and on crowded underground getting to and from Ibrox for Commonwealth Games Rugby Sevens. Great crack.

Anyway I was keeping track of this thread and disagreeing with much that has been said so I thought to plunge in here and stir things up a wee bit – desist from haudin ma wheesht, as 'twere.

I do consider it a great pity that after Michael Aldridge sadly had to leave they brought back Brian Wilde. I always found the Foggy character irritating – met too many of them in real life – and felt he had shot his bolt in his first spell. And Brian Wilde tended to be disruptive. First there was his resistance to Alan J W Bell. As a matter of principle, no actor should be able to dictate as to who should be director. And then there was the matter of, at some time, Bill Owen and Peter Sallis became aware that Brian Wilde was being paid almost twice as much as them. In no way, shape or form could that be justified. But then we all know how profligate the BBC can be in paying the wrong people well over their worth – witness that decrepit nonentity who recently stood down from ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ – just as well before he fell down.

I do wonder if there would be any interest in conjecturing who might have done well as the third man after Michael Aldridge had to leave. It was a matter of regret to my mind that Fulton MacKay who had been considered earlier never got taken on. But sadly he died in 1987 so was no longer with us at the applicable time.

It is also maybe a pity that Frank Thornton was not considered earlier. I do think that after a period in the doldrums, Foggy’s second spell, when there was a lot of repetitive situations, the show picked up considerably when Roy Clarke had a completely new character with which to work. And, of course things improved even more when Billy Hardcastle came on the scene.

I never had any problem with a big cast situation. I suggest it would only have been problematical had things become confusing and to my mind they never did. There was another thread recently looking for episodes which lived up to the early days. I am of the school which felt that almost to the end there was very little deterioration in the entertainment once Truly came on the scene until sadly Clegg’s input diminished so much and in a way the show became, not ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ but the ‘Russ Abbot Show’ by Roy Clarke.

But two episodes which really stand out for me in that era were two with Bobby Ball – ‘Who's That Talking to Lenny?’ and ‘The Swan Man of Ilkley’. Not so keen on ‘Get Out of That, Then’ but, of course, by then Clegg had faded.

And one other brilliant and very different episode, ‘A Short Introduction To Cooper's Rules’.

I’m back but can be sure there will be those who wished I had stayed away. And now I can get back to the quick, sneaky, in and quickly out again attacks.
 
OK here goes.

Have been sitting for over a week now on a significant milestone and wondering when to plunge in.

Wondered what was keeping you!!

And Brian Wilde tended to be disruptive. First there was his resistance to Alan J W Bell. As a matter of principle, no actor should be able to dictate as to who should be director. ‘Russ Abbot Show’ by Roy Clarke.

Couldn't agree more.

It was a matter of regret to my mind that Fulton MacKay who had been considered earlier never got taken on. But sadly he died in 1987 so was no longer with us at the applicable time.

Spot on, I think he would have been great.


I’m back but can be sure there will be those who wished I had stayed away.

Not by me.


And now I can get back to the quick, sneaky, in and quickly out again attacks.

Bull in a china shop springs to mind :22:
 
I never had any problem with a big cast situation.

Well I DID!!

The more and more the cast grew, the less and less we
got to see (and love!!) the trio. Early on, Clegg, Compo, and Cyril
were about 20-24 minutes of the half hour. And they were great.
They were wonderful. They were what I watched for.

As the cast grew, and we added a bazillion characters, each
with his or her own 3 minutes of fame, the trio was down to
more like 10-12 minutes. Such a shame!! What a waste
of talent.
 
Well I DID!!

The more and more the cast grew, the less and less we
got to see (and love!!) the trio. Early on, Clegg, Compo, and Cyril
were about 20-24 minutes of the half hour. And they were great.
They were wonderful. They were what I watched for.

As the cast grew, and we added a bazillion characters, each
with his or her own 3 minutes of fame, the trio was down to
more like 10-12 minutes. Such a shame!! What a waste
of talent.


I don't think the show would have lasted so long had there not been an addition to the cast list. To write for the same three characters for 37 years would have been a great strain on Roy Clarke and I think the show would have suffered because of it. It needed to adapt and grow and I think it went in the right direction. I know there will be people that disagree with that but thats just my opinion.
 
I don't think the show would have lasted so long had there not been an addition to the cast list. To write for the same three characters for 37 years would have been a great strain on Roy Clarke and I think the show would have suffered because of it. It needed to adapt and grow and I think it went in the right direction. I know there will be people that disagree with that but thats just my opinion.

I basically go along with that. But, in addition, I am a writer/director man and to me actors are the tools they use. Virtually all Roy Clarke's characters were brilliant so I was at peace with most of them. The critical aspect was the script and how Alan JW Bell implemented it.
 
Back
Top