So, in conclusion, I don’t think the order really matters. Do you?
“Oh, she’s still got the dog in this one”. “Ah, but this must come later as he’s part of the team now.” “Where’s the bloke on the screen gone?” “Oh – he’s got the old car back!” All sentences of the sort uttered when my wife and I are watching a series and playing a game of ‘What Order Do We Think These Shows Were Made In.’
And Virtual Murder’s not alone in switching series title for episode title. Another ATV film series Man in a Suitcase (1967-1968) concerns McGill, a discredited American Intelligence agent working in Europe as an unlicensed inquiry agent. His most prized possession is his suitcase – packed and ready to go wherever a client needs him across the world (or the Pinewood backlot). He is the man in a suitcase. But – no! The show was initially called McGill, and the first episode which established McGill’s situation and why he had been set up by his own people was originally entitled Man in a Suitcase – referring to his former colleague who had been presumed dead and whose photograph McGill now carried in his suitcase.
Fig 2: This probably isn’t even the right caption
Man in a Suitcase became Man from the Dead and McGill became Man in a Suitcase. But then Man from the Dead didn’t even begin Man in a Suitcase in most ITV regions. The action-packed psychedelia of the episode Brainwash pitched viewers directly into the imprisonment of McGill… even although they didn’t know who McGill was yet. Man from the Dead would follow a few weeks later…
But it’s even more fun when a show starts off as one thing and ends up as something else. The Baron (1966-1967) is an interesting one. It was an ATV film series which entered production in July 1965 and was derived from the literary adventures of former jewel thief turned antiques dealer John Mannering who had featured in numerous novels written by John Creasey (under his nom-de-plume Anthony Morton). The style of the TV version was solid adventure hokum produced by the same team that had made The Saint (1962-1969). The two characters were Mannering and his sidekick, David Marlowe – the assistant at Mannering’s London store.
However, a few episodes in, the format underwent a revamp. In the fourth episode to be made, Diplomatic Immunity, Mannering was co-opted on an overseas mission by John Alexander Templeton-Green of Special Branch Diplomatic Intelligence and assigned a contact in the form of Cordelia Winfield. Then after four more episodes, production came to a temporary halt. When it resumed, David Marlowe had gone… and in the ninth episode – Something for a Rainy Day – Cordelia returned to work regularly alongside Mannering, with intermittent appearances from Templeton-Green. In other words – James Bond was very big and we’d rather have espionage-style narratives as opposed to an old Simon Templar script with a vase inserted.
Fig 3: This is the right caption, but the wrong image
When it came to transmission of The Baron, the series kicked off on ATV Midlands with Diplomatic Immunity, immediately establishing its credentials in the global security arena. Something for a Rainy Day ran third to establish Cordelia, whereafter the remaining Marlowe episodes were hidden in slots four, eight, ten, thirteen, fifteen and thirty (the final one), buried amongst the revised format favoured by the production company.
Format changes are fascinating to study – they’re often knee-jerk reactions to audience fads. Look at Wonder Woman (1976-77) and its revamp The New Adventures of Wonder Woman (1977-1979). Utterly enthralling mutations every few weeks. Try a sidekick. Dump the sidekick! Change the time period. Add a boss and mission scene. Add a robot! Put Steve behind a desk. Get rid of the mission scene. Add some more robots! Move her to LA. Add a streetwise kid! It’s a lot of frustrating fun watching Diana Prince and other characters in search of a format and hence ratings.
The other example that sticks in my mind is Virtual Murder (1992). Never heard of it? No, you probably wouldn’t have done. BBC1 did their very best to make sure that nobody ever did. It was a wonderful, slightly surreal, brilliantly colourful attempt to evoke the comic-strip caper feel of The Avengers (1961-1969) for the 1990s, but by the time it came to transmission, the schedulers had developed cold feet. Bumped across the months, it was finally dumped at 9.30pm on a Friday evening during July and August when all right-minded citizens are out enjoying the nocturnal summer delights on offer at the start of the weekend.
And to make doubly sure that Virtual Murder wouldn’t get an audience, the introductory episode was placed at the end of the six week run. In fact, the title of the series made no sense. The series was originally made under the title Nimrod and its opening instalment was entitled Virtual Murder because it concerned murders committed in a virtual reality landscape. However, this was later adopted as the nomenclature for the run as a whole… despite the other cases spanning maniacal destroyers of artwork, judicial slaughters connected with a model railway club, an ageing Spanish whoremonger turned arsonist, a decidedly dodgy plastic surgeon and a series of vampire attacks. Not a whiff of virtuality.
Fig 1: But it doesn’t really matter does it? You still get the gist
Trimmed of all the dialogue in which some of the characters clearly meet each other for the first time and form working relationships to span the five subsequent tales, Virtual Murder (the episode) was retitled Dreams Imagic and shunted to the back of the queue for Virtual Murder (the series). As such, when viewers tuned in for the debut instalment – Meltdown to Murder – they were given no real background to criminal psychologist John Cornelius and even less to his partner Samantha Valentine as Mr Dada began his scheme to convert priceless paintings into vertical oil slicks.
Going back to Virtual Murder, regardless of order – I still loved it. I was hooked. And I was still there at the end when Dreams Imagic finally went out. So, maybe the order doesn’t matter?
So, let’s start at the beginning by attempting to define my argument for the following article. Although a series of programmes may be made in one specific order which shows strands of development and format change, having the episodes screened in a different order does not necessarily preclude enjoyment of the series itself.
30 a about almost and And Andrew anything by data developer. do For has he he’s him hopes if into is last lives minutes nobody occasionally of particularly pay people Pixley pointless rearranging retired television that the their these they this to vital wasted when will with won’t. words written years
Footnotes
[o] There are no footnotes. Therefore, there’s no way that you’ll ever be able access this bit.
Hello again, Andrew! Very interesting reading, as usual…I have a question that may seem obvious to a native resident of the UK, but to an American – even an Anglophile such as myself, who knows just enough to be dangerous – the various ITV regions continue to be a challenge to understand clearly. In your post above, you refer to MAN IN A SUITCASE and THE BARON (two series I’m very fond of, by the way) as ATV series, by which I assume you mean the channel or franchise network / carrier of said programs. I always think of these shows primarily as ITC series, as the ones that did air in the US aired in syndication generally, and all began with ITC’s signature production credit / logo. I suppose this must be simply a distinction between production company and network channel, and so it makes complete sense to refer to a series by the network it aired on rather than the company that produced it. I guess my question would be, are (were) ITC and ATV considered synonymous? In other words, did ITC programs only air on ATV networks in the UK? Or did they air on different (i.e. non-ATV) networks in different regions?
One reason for my confusion is that, when I read up on miscellaneous British cult television series, they are often directly affiliated with their network (i.e., CHILDREN OF THE STONES with YTV, DANGEROUS KNOWLEDGE with Southern, etc.), often with no production company cited. Perhaps this is similar to the US system, where some programs are produced “in house” by the network/studio, while others are produced independently and then sold to a network. At any rate, the myriad of ITV networks and their various permutations, if one hasn’t grown up with them, is enough to make one’s head swim. I suppose what the above questions boil down to is, which is the correct way to refer to these series – by network, or production company? I’m guessing you have already answered this question, by referring to them as ATV series, but any elaboration or additional detail you’d care to provide – or, to save you the difficulty, a link to a website that explains things more fully – would be most welcome. Thanks again for all the entertaining and thought-provoking posts.
Hello Jeff 🙂
As you can see, this reply is already a bit narrower than your original, so rather than feel all squeezed, I’ll do an overall reply down the bottom, okay. So, scroll down… bit further, bit further… go on, a wee bit more… found it? There! Okay – I’ll meet you down there…
All the best
Andrew
If I may offer a further comment, Andrew, and one more clearly directed at your central thesis above…your thoughts on the various series referenced above brings to mind how the US channel FOX treated the short-lived but much-missed sci-fi program FIREFLY, the brainchild of BUFFY creator, Joss Whedon. As you are likely aware, FOX spent a large chunk of money on a two-hour pilot for the series, entitled “Serenity,” which detailed the coming together of assorted crew members on the titular spaceship. Apparently the studio then got cold feet at the narrative density and dark tone of the pilot film, and subsequently requested a more streamlined, simplified pilot to kick off the series’ run. Joss Whedon and Tim Minear spent one long weekend furiously hammering out a new script that established the main characters, “The Train Job,” which was aired as the actual premiere. That this hurriedly bashed-out script worked as well as it did as a series introduction is a testament to the skill of the writers. FOX, in their infinite wisdom, eventually aired the “Serenity” pilot as the 11th episode (!) and unceremoniously cancelled the series, with three remaining episodes never aired. One might be inclined to view this strategy as counter-productive to gaining audience retention and popularity.
It’s funny, but the whole concept of production order versus airdate order never really hit home for me until the above FIREFLY debacle. Of course, as an avid TV watcher from childhood, I noticed mid-series or season to season format changes like the writing out of characters (Pernell Roberts’ Adam Cartwright leaving the Ponderosa after BONANZA season 6) or changes of location (the curmudgeonly Harry Orwell moving from the less-trammeled location of San Diego to the overly familiar environs of Los Angeles in HARRY-O), but the role the studios played in choosing episode order just wasn’t something I much considered before the dawn of the DVD era. Now, thanks to the archival detective work of scholars such as yourself, viewers can access the proper production order details online or in DVD/Blu-Ray booklets, and choose which way they want to watch a given series themselves. I’m generally inclined to agree with your conclusion above, that in most cases, it probably doesn’t matter overmuch in which order one watches a (non-linear) series, at least when it comes to simply enjoying a piece of entertainment…but it IS an interesting area of study.
Hello Jeff 🙂
Ah! You made it! Nice one!
Okay – first of all, thanks for some kind comments. And you raise some superb points as well which makes me very happy.
Understanding ITV regionalisation of the 20th century is a tricky subject – I’m still finding out new stuff about it even now… and I lived through it. But it is something that a lot of writing on the subject doesn’t really take into account and it can be very, very complex.
Now, some of what I’m about to say is done while painting in very broad brush strokes and is a simplification of what is a vastly more complex subject which I’m still actually researching. And a considerable simplication, I’ll admit.
In the UK, when commercial television got going in 1955, the Independent Television Authorities allocated franchises to companies in different parts of the country. The companies would broadcast and make programmes. They would also “sell” programmes to each other – some of which would be broadcast at the same time and “networked” – and buy in programmes from different regions, as well as importing film series (mainly from the USA – the subject of my abandoned MRes studies).
Associated TeleVision – ATV – started operating first of all in London which was a split region; one contractor, Associated-Rediffusion, operated the service from Monday to Friday, while Saturday and Sunday saw transmission controlled by ATV (and to confuse things further, they weren’t even called ATV originally but ABC). Shortly after, television kicked off in the Midlands with another split region – this time the weekdays were ATV operated while the weekends were handled by a third company called ABC (and this really is ABC, not the ABC which became ATV).
ATV was also part of a group originally known as Incorporated Television Programme Company – ITP – which had been through various mergers. From the outset, ATV invested in a number of filmed adventure series such as “The Adventures of Robin Hood” and these were made by independent sub-contractors for ITP which meant that they were screened by ATV at the weekends in London and weekdays in the Midlands… and at any other times by other ITV companies who had purchased them. ITP then also sold these shows overseas, often working in North America with TPA (Television Programmes of America).
Also distributing programmes in the USA was ITC – the Independent Television Corp – which was revamped in 1958, and one of the companies taking an interest in ITC was ATV. By 1959, ATV had acquired ITP as a wholly owned subsidiary and by 1960 took full control of ITC. As such, ITC was a subsidiary to ATV – a distribution company for both British-made film series and also for other product acquired by the company which was believed would have international appeal.
As such, in recent years I’ve changed a lot of my text to describe such shows as ATV series rather than ITC series; the sense of what I get from the trade press of the day is that ATV would commission and finance a series, broadcast it domestically and then market it globally via ITC. The ITC branding as we tend to know it was first used – I believe – on “The Four Just Men” which entered production at the start of 1959 (“Cannonball”, made with TPA, carries a different ITC logo).
So, let’s backtrack to some of your specific questions in the sake of clarity:
‘are (were) ITC and ATV considered synonymous?’: ATV effectively owned ITC as their distribution company.
‘did ITC programs only air on ATV networks in the UK?’ No – Granada, Southern, Scottish, whoever could all purchase ATV programmes to air in their schedules. Some series sold widely – some didn’t. For example… In 1969, “The Secret Service” was only picked up by Southern and Granada in addition to ATV – the rest of the ITV regions never broadcast it.
‘Or did they air on different (i.e. non-ATV) networks in different regions?’ Each region had its own broadcaster(s). Let’s take “Man in a Suitcase” as an example. ATV made the show, so, naturally, they would schedule it themselves in the two regions where they operated – London and the Midlands. With the weekdays to play with in the Midlands, ATV places it at 8pm on Wednesdays, while in London where it operated at weekends, it would schedule it at 9.10pm on Saturdays. (This meant that ABC would not take the series in the Midlands where they operated at weekends because Midlanders had seen it on Wednesdays, nor would Rediffusion take it during the weeks in London).
The Wednesday broadcast on ATV Midlands was also relayed to Southern, Anglia (the east) and Tyne Tees (the north east) who had purchased the show from ATV. Granada (the weekday franchise for the north west) went for 10.30pm on Mondays. Border (the English/Scottish border) placed it at 8pm on Fridays, as did Westward (the south west), Channel (the Channel Islands which took a feed from Westward) and Ulster (in Northern Ireland).
So… if you lived in an area of the north east that could receive both Border and Tyne Tees, then you could watch “The Sitting Pigeon” on Tyne Tees on Wednesday 4 October, and then see “Brainwash” again from Broder on Friday 6 October.
Three regions didn’t take the show immediately in September/October 1967. Scottish (central Scotland) waited until January 1968 before placing it at 8pm on Wednesday, Grampian (northern Scotland) went for 8.20pm on Saturdays from April and Harlech (west and Wales) opted for 9.05pm on Saturdays when they took over the franchise from the defunct TWW.
Ah – yes, “Firefly”. I’ve read about that and it sounds brilliant. Sadly, at the moment, it’s on my “to watch list” and I’ve long since come to terms that my “to watch list” will probably still be around long as I will simply because it’s now far bigger than I am. Yes – there it is, look, in between “Barney Miller” and all those必殺シリーズseries. But that sounds like a brilliant and fascinating example!
And – again – you hit on so many good examples of what makes television interesting to study in terms of behind-the-scenes impact on narrative. Watching series in production order can often be quite an eye-opener as a bit of “added value”. It’s been fascinating and entertaining me for years, and I see no signs of it stopping in the near future…
All the best
Andrew
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply in such detail, Andrew – most appreciated! The ATV / ITC situation is now very clear, and I have a better understanding of the different British regional franchises…and my, what a complex web of interrelated companies and scheduling involved therein! I have read in various forums on British television how some programs (apologies for the Americanized spelling of the word 😉 ) never aired in certain regions, which seems rather strange to a Yank such as myself. As you know, at least concerning “prime time” scheduling (8pm to 11pm) , the main networks and their affiliate channels across the U.S. all tended to carry the exact same programming line-up on a day-to-day basis, with the only difference being one of time zone. The ITA franchise system in the U.K. seems awfully complicated to an outsider, but must have worked well enough, and have made sound business and logistical sense at the time. At any rate, all very interesting stuff, and I must again thank you for your kindness and patience in explaining things to me.
And I very much sympathize with you regarding the “Must Watch” list that never seems to grow any smaller. I find myself in the exact same boat. The more I watch, the more I learn about other enticing, new-to-me programs, and the more I add to the list. At least, this “embarrassment of riches” situation is far better than the alternative.
All the best,
Jeff
No problem Jeff – it’s info that I have to hand already. ATV film series (indeed film series in general) were usually scheduled in a particularly random fashion whereas VT drama would stand a better chance of being networked (i.e. taken in all areas at the same time). We do cover a lot of the quirks for different shows in the DVD and Blu-ray viewing notes from Network – the one on “Man in a Suitcase” will go into far more details about what happened to it, and how one newly created ITV region didn’t screen the show until the 1970s, etc.
Delighted by your interest and kindness!
All the best
Andrew
To misquote the fourth Doctor, now you’ve gone and spoiled it all, Andrew. I like making my own “episode guides” for some TV series that I enjoy. However, for some I’ve tried to put them in “order” in an effort to make the narrative make more sense. Take for example, “The Muppet Show”. What’s the best order to watch the episodes in? Let’s try the official Henson order – the pilot episodes feature Juliet Prowse and Connie Stevens. If you have the DVDs you might be slightly confused as the episodes feel more like regular episodes and less like pilots. Of course the reason is that these two episodes were originally recorded in January/February 1976, but were heavily reworked later that year. The third episode is Joel Grey, the fourth Ruth Buzzi, the fifth Rita Moreno (so far, so good) but episode six is Jim Nabors. That episode introduces the character of Scooter, who’s been in it since the first episode. Even worse, when we get to Episode 10 featuring Harvey Korman, we’re told that the next topic in the panel sketch will be “Is Conversation a Dying Art?” which was the topic in Epsode 5. The main reason for all of this is that the episodes weren’t recorded in the official order; some were recorded out of order owing to the availability of the guest stars.
So if you don’t like that order, how about the official ATV order? Episode 1 is Joel Grey, Episode 2 is Rita Moreno, but Episode 3 is Sandy Duncan and Episode 4 is Jim Nabors. It seems that ATV decided not to follow the official Henson order and showed the episodes in a random order. For the most part they get it “right”, except that Bruce Forsyth’s episode is one of the last to air (instead of being in the middle of the run) and Ben Vereen’s episode airs in the middle of the run, as opposed to nearer the end.
My rule of thumb is “recording order/production code order” is the right order, although that doesn’t always work as some episodes have to be moved around otherwise the narrative doesn’t work. Or am I just taking all this a tad too seriously?
BTW – does anyone who was alive in the US back in 1976 know whether or not the original edits of the Juliet Prowse and Connie Stevens episodes aired in that country? There’s a clip on YouTube of a promo for the series that aired on Omaha’s WOWT, and it features clips from the original edit of the Juliet Prowse pilot.
… absolutely David, and the beauty of digital screening and electronic guides is that we can now consume and catalogue series in whatever order we fancy to fit our purpose. It’s brilliant isn’t it? Production order, production code order, post-production order, planned transmission order, domestic broadcast order, revised repeat order, USA network order, press book order, London Weekend Television order, Border Television order … it’s terrific to have so much data and so much flexibility to understand the production or the narrative or the attempts of a scheduler to create a balance. Few people would start “The Champions” with “The Dark Island” (although some prints of “The Beginning” featured a framing sequence to allow it to be placed anywhere in the run and not necessarily at the start) or “Blake’s 7” with “Space Fall”… or want to end “M*A*S*H” on “As Time Goes By”. Watching “Survival” before “Exposed” in “UFO” makes little sense… but we still tend to place “Amos Green Must Live” between “Breakout” and “That’ll Be The Day” for “Callan” despite the fact that it’s screamingly out of sequence. And “Night of the Dead Living” for “Homicide: Life on the Street” is an interesting one too. In some respects, I think because of the non-linear access to television, some of this matters less and less… and having the flexibility to enjoy and/or study the shows in this manner is a freedom which I’d never dreamed would be possible when I started to look into all this stuff 41 years ago.