'

Im_a_Teapot : ' Actually what I really REALLY want to know about the Goodies is what on earth the BBC has against them.  Something must have happened for the BBC to be so reluctant as to never airing a really clever and popular comdey show - one of the BBCs best. It's one of life's mysteries that I fear may go unsolved, but it's very puzzling.  It just seems too odd.

One of the main problems in the early 1980s was finding appropriate slots for repeats on the BBC. John Howard Davies - the show's original producer - was Head of Comedy by this time and although he was the person who had taken the decision not to eagerly pursue a new series for 1981 (since by then the show had been on air for 11 years and he was focussing on new shows for the BBC2 9pm slot - notably "Not the Nine O'Clock News") he was in fact keen to find places where repeats could be transmitted.

Even after the July 1980 announcement that the Goodies were headed for LWT, BBC1 still repeated Series Eight that autumn, and indeed also included three classic shows from Series Five as well as yuletide screening of "Beanstalk" which attracted solid - if not spectacular - ratings.

And even after the broadcast of the LWT shows, BBC1 tried "The Goodies" out on Sunday afternoons in January 1984 for three weeks, but the ratings were - for the time - substantially lower (although not as bad as the ratings for the LWT repeats in a similar slot months later). And John Howard Davies felt that there just wasn't a suitable slot available that he felt he could a) justify on repeats and b) would attract a strong audience. A great shame.

All the best

Andrew

'

jodievdw : ' Would going to LWT have really gotten so far up the Beeb's noses?  It sounds like whatever happened, had already happened by then.

I think it sounded like the BBC were almost ready to shelve them anyway (why I do not know?!)

But surely after all these years they cannot seriously be holding it against the guys?!  I think I remember hearing Jane Root (BBC Bighead Controller) had said soemthing like she'd never show the Goodies while she was in charge... or something like that.  Tim made a comment about getting "to the Root of the problem" somewhere, I can't remember where.

It would certainly make interesting reading.

'

Im_a_Teapot : ' Something must have happened for the BBC to be so reluctant as to never airing a really clever and popular comdey show - one of the BBCs best.

Yes!!!  Not only is it very good - the ABC repeated them until the tapes wore out, so it must stand up to repeat broadcasts - it must have cost a packet to make.  You'd think they'd want a decent return on that investment, by either showing it or releasing it on DVD.

Would going to LWT have really gotten so far up the Beeb's noses?  It sounds like whatever happened, had already happened by then.

Actually what I really REALLY want to know about the Goodies is what on earth the BBC has against them. 

Something must have happened for the BBC to be so reluctant as to never airing a really clever and popular comdey show - one of the BBCs best.

It's one of life's mysteries that I fear may go unsolved, but it's very puzzling.  It just seems too odd. 

It's not like the subjects dealt with in the show are out of date or anything... the sets maybe show the guys age but what does that matter when the programme is so engaging?  My little cousins (who *love* the Goodies and are 'cool' 13 and 14 year olds) don't care about things like that they love the show for what it is - an intelligent, silly comedy show that makes you think.  A comedy show with a point. 

I shall stop there.  It's actually a very bizarre part of the Goodies past, present and future.

'

Im_a_Teapot : 'I'm just confused about the amount of time they all spent at Cambridge; how Bill got into the Footlights (who introduced him etc.) and when they (or Tim) first went to Edinburgh with a revue.

I think Roger Wilmut's book From Fringe to Flying Circus covers this quite well. I can't remember all the details off the top of my head, bit I think they all did 3 years at Cambridge. And Tim was in the 1962 revue, Double Take (also with Graham Chapman and John Cleese) which went to Edinburgh (the 1963 one with Bill, which became Cambridge Circus never actually got to Edinburgh)

Sometimes one of the first things I like to do is to look in the index and see who is mentioned.

Speaking of contracts the only bit of a contract that I was interested in was the ITV one which said the guys couldn't appear on TV together again (I think).  Sorry I'm too lazy to go down and see what Ross has to say about it.

I love the biographical details - my mum got the Robert Ross book and said how she was more interested in how the guys got together and was sad that there wasn't more on this in Roberts book.  I'm just confused about the amount of time they all spent at Cambridge; how Bill got into the Footlights (who introduced him etc.) and when they (or Tim) first went to Edinburgh with a revue.

Whoops I didn't relise there is a third thread to this, sorry. There'll be a forth now. 

Oh yeah, I find non-fic with-out indexes annoying too. I know it must be a big pain to do but it's essential

Hi Jodie
'

jodievdw : 'Bingo - If it had been a dispute that led to the lads leaving the BBC for commercial telly, or never speaking to each other again or something, there would have been a valid reason to hook into it.

That's right. I like the observations to have some reason or to tell a story - or at the very least maybe to juxtapose with what's happening on screen or elsewhere.

Queenie, I was the same with a lot of ISIRTA references until I caved in and acquired some material.  Maybe that comes into the casual fan/hardcore fan divide, too - maybe it's easy to forget some people DON'T know the Pet Shop Sketch, or the Hyperactive Hospital Visitor Thing sketch, or know what Clue is, or whatever.

The more you learn, the more you get out of it. That's for definite. Most of my research into the pre-"Goodies" shows was last year and I was discovering fascinating things and understanding the context of items I don't think I'd really appreciated before. But I'm also away that I *mustn't* expect my readership to have the same accessibility to the material. If I refer to a sketch notably, I must explain in some capacity what the sketch is about and its significance or content.

All the best

Andrew

I've thought of another thing Robert Ross's book needs - an index! It's annoying trying to find where these things are that people keep mentioning.

'

Andrew_Pixley : ' there didn’t seem to be a reason. The story didn’t go anywhere or have any consequences.

Bingo - If it had been a dispute that led to the lads leaving the BBC for commercial telly, or never speaking to each other again or something, there would have been a valid reason to hook into it.

Queenie, I was the same with a lot of ISIRTA references until I caved in and acquired some material.  Maybe that comes into the casual fan/hardcore fan divide, too - maybe it's easy to forget some people DON'T know the Pet Shop Sketch, or the Hyperactive Hospital Visitor Thing sketch, or know what Clue is, or whatever.

Edited to add: Mum's a part-time Goodies fan... she went leafing through the new book, and the first passage she read was Bill's four-letter explanation as to why he gave up Clue. 

Oh well, she always did prefer Tim...