Talk:Sherlock Holmes (1965 TV series)

Two separate series

I don't understand why the two separate series are being treated as one. The only connection between the Wilmer and the Cushing series is having Stock as Watson in both. Separated by more than three years, they have different producers, different script editors, and different writers. Apart from Stock and being on the BBC, what exactly is the connection? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Cushing series is series two. It is a continuation of the Wilmer series. Often times producers and show runners change over time but that doesn't mean the series loses its continuity. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Says who? There is no connection between the two series other than Stock playing Watson. The BBC never described the Cushing series as anything other than a new and distinctly different series, and certainly no reputable episode guide labels Wilmer as "series 1" and Cushing as "series 2." A follow-up or a continuation of Holmes adaptations - or even ACD adaptations, considering the series based on his non-Holmes stories that appeared in 1967 - maybe, but not the same series. Different title, different theme music, different Holmes, different Mrs Hudson, different Lestrade, different producers, different script editors, different writers. The Radio Times for the week of the first episode of the 1968 series certainly states:

"Andrew Osborn, Head of Series, has a new Sherlock Holmes to offer. An exciting new production heads the list of the Series Department's autumn offerings..."

There is not a single mention or allusion to the 1965 series. Similarly, two weeks later, an article accompanying episode 3 about the making of the 1968 series makes no mention of the 1965 one. Even the profile it contains of Cushing, which name-checks some previous Holmes actors, and his own appearance in the 1959 feature film, makes no reference to Wilmer.

It's not even like the 1968 series picked up any of the eight unused scripts from the 1965 series, and in fact two of them - The Blue Carbuncle and The Boscombe Valley Mystery - were instead adapted afresh by different writers, which is hardly surprising given the stylistic differences between the two series. Pretending that they are the same series is just ridiculous, and makes about as much sense as it would to insist that the German remakes of the Wilmer episodes should be included here, and no on their own separate page (which they obviously are). Quite frankly, this silly conceit that the two series are somehow the same has gone on for far too long here. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is referenced and those references maintain the 1968 series is a continuation of the 1965 series. Producers change all the time but that doesn't mean the series is suddenly not the same series. Even your quote says "a new Sherlock Holmes" which is does in Peter Cushing not "a new Sherlock Holmes series". You are taking things out of context to prove something you want to be true. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither Haining nor Barnes define them as the same series. Neither does the Kaleidoscope BBC Drama guide, which is pretty much the most authoritative source for British TV episode listings. Certainly no reputable source describes 1965 as "series 1" and 1968 as "series 2. That just seems to be something that you personally got the wrong end of the stick about when you created the page, if not previously. Describing them on this page as "Season 1" and "Season 2" has no basis in fact whatsoever, but then there's a lot on the page that is highly misleading, to say the least.

The reality is that, while the BBC wanted to do a second series with Wilmer, he was not available, after which the impetus for an immediate follow-up dissipated. By the time the 1968 series appeared, it was a distinctly separate entity. That you ignore the part of the Radio Times quote that describes the 1968 series as, "An exciting new production" whilst studiously avoiding any mention whatsoever of the 1965 series, suggests that it's you who is clutching at straws.

There is far more evidence that the two are separate series, and they should be treated as such. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Barnes literally begins the entry for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes with "With Peter Cushing replacing Douglas Wilmer in the title role, this troubled follow-on to the BBC's 1965 Sherlock Holmes has the distinction of being the most-watched Holmes series of all time, gaining some 15,5 million viewers at its British peak." (page 244) It is not a "distinctly separate entity" as the references clearly show. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A follow-on three years later at the hands of completely different production staff, with a different title and not acknowledged in any way, shape, or form as "series/season/whatever 2" by the BBC, Haining, Barnes, Kaleidoscope, or anyone other than you, it seems. Haining, in assessing Holmes on television in chronological order, still draws a clear line between the 1965 and 1968 series. Barnes certainly treats them as two different series by virtue of very obviously detailing the 1965 series on pages 185-190, and the 1968 series on pages 242-251. It seems you're prepared to ride roughshod over reality to suit your own pet theory. It probably explains the multiple inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and distortions on the page. You're also inappropriately projecting modern attitudes to television back to a time when sensibilities were very different. The 1965 was repeated just one, in late 1966, and thereafter might as well not have existed. There was no syndication or re-runs on British TV to enable series to remain in the public eye. By the time the 1968 series appeared, absolutely nobody would have regarded is as a direct continuation of the 1965 series.

There are, of course, multiple precedents of series that are far more closely linked that are still dealt with separately (e.g. Police Surgeon/The Avengers, The Wednesday Play/Play for Today, Strangers/Bulman, etc.).

It actually does both series a great disservice to mash them up together in this muddled and misleading manner, especially considering the mass of pertinent information to both that is missing. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You have claimed that nobody considers them the same series and I even quoted the source you referred to to show otherwise. Now you are just being abusive so I will not continue this until you learn to be civil and attempt to make cogent arguments without resorting to personal attacks. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you cited Barnes, who deals with the 1965 series on pages 185-190, and the 1968 series on pages 242-251. That is literally treating them as two separate series under the two separate titles. At the time, the 1968 series was rightly described by the BBC - via the Radio Times - as, "An exciting new production." You can't get more unequivocal than that, especially in the absence of any mention of the 1965 series whatsoever. Literally no reliable source labels the 1965 series as "Season 1" and the 1968 series "Season 2," so neither should this page, even if we accept the fallacy that they are the same series, which we shouldn't, because they aren't. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)