Talk:Steptoe and Son

Removal of anecdote about Harold Wilson

I removed an anecdote claiming Harold Wilson had pushed for a change to the programme transmission time on the night of the 1964 General Election. Wilson was not PM in 1964 - so that could not have taken place as described. This anecdote should be checked against the transmission dates to see if it could apply to the 1966 General Election. Davidpatrick 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just trawled NewsBank and found repeated references to the story. According to various papers, it happened in 1964 ... 1966 ... 1970 ...! Tearlach 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

I seem to remember reading, ages ago when one of them died(?) or maybe the play started?, there was a lot about them in the news and that one of them was a "closet" homosexual and the other hated them for it. (being about six-eleven? at the time I really cant remember much. I can't seem to find any references. Wolfmankurd 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Covered at Wilfrid Brambell. Apparently the tension between them wasn't just about that: Corbett came to resent the partnership, as he had theatrical aspirations that had wrecked by being typecast, plus Brambell's alcoholism made him seriously difficult to work with. Tearlach 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The main article calls for a citation.. apparently to the comment that homesexuality was illegal at the point referenced. Whilst homesexuality, in itself, was not illegal, conducting such sexual practices was. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 changed that. Is this actually being asked? Or is it a citation as to Brambell's sexuality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterM88 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is unquestionably parent of Sanford and Son

This article definitely has a need for greater references. The one thing that doesn't need to be cited, however, is its status as the basis for Sanford and Son. This fact is in the credits on each episode of Sanford, so if you wanna start citing obvious facts like this, then you're, logically, gonna have to cite references to the creators of this series, cast member's names, and other extremely basic, incontrovertible truths about the series which can be obtained simply by watching an episode. CzechOut 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really - creators and cast and everything are obviously going to crop up a lot in any sources we cite, and they're all right there in the Guardian link. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and we should to give other readers an easy way to verify the Sanford and Son link (easier than "just go and find an episode of Sanford and watch the credits"). I'll dig something out. --McGeddon 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian adaptions

Galton & Simpson are frequently translated and adapted by Scandinavian television. Steptoe and Son were the basis of the popular Swedish TV series Albert & Herbert (1974–82), situated in Gothenburg, Sten-Åke Cederhök and Thomas von Brömsen (Lennart Lundh in the first 6 episodes) playing the father and son. The series were directed by Bo Hermansson. He also directed the Norwegian film Skraphandlerne (1975), starring Leif Juster and Tom Tellefsen – based on his own adaption of G & S's material. Hermansson also directed the Norwegian TV series Fleksnes (1972–88), based on G & S's Hancock's Half Hour (for the 2002 anniversary shows G & S wrote new original scripts). -- Linkomfod 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Love or Hate?

The article has this passage of text - Galton and Simpson toyed with the concept of killing Albert off. .... The character would have been replaced with Harold's illegitimate son, ... . This idea was detested by Corbett, who thought it ridiculous.

But a scene in The Curse of Steptoe shows Corbett reacting to the idea by saying "brilliant, this is what it needs, character progression" I know it was a drama but it is a clear contradiction of the text in the article and one of them is wrong. - X201 (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tense

This edit by McGeddon made me jump a bit because against what I believe to be our general consensus on writing about fictional works he seemed to be changing the tense to past (Jason Isaacs played Harry H. Corbett and Phil Davis portrayed Wilfrid Brambell, and the work was part of a series). Then I looked at the rest of the article and I noticed that it's nearly all written in the past tense. I confess that I wouldn't know where to go to find out these things, but it does seem odd to write in the past tense about a finished rendition of a work of art or popular entertainment which is extant. Homer tells me about the fall of Ilium and the peregrinations of the king of Ithaca and the trials of his faithful wife. Jason Isaacs portrays the Steptoe actor and will always do so as long as the information representing the portrayal is available, perhaps in forms as yet unimagined, somewhere. I think present tense may be the most appropriate form here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and changed tense where appropriate. I also rearranged some content into sections, but it could still possibly do with one or two tweaks. Chris 42 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was present tense for plot and past tense for production details (of anything that wasn't an ongoing series), but I may have been misremembering the style guide. The present tense seems fine as written. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We can revisit this later if necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Age Difference

Wilfred Brambell was in fact only 8 years or so older than Harry H Corbit. He was once interviewed in a Bar and asked what he thought of the character of Albert. in between sips of Gin he said, with his finest Thespian voice; "Absolutely horrible old man, absolutely horrible".Johnwrd (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

==Archive clarification

"All the episodes of the original 1962-1965 series survive on 16 mm black and white telerecordings, film transfers of the original 2" Quad Videotapes, which were wiped in the late 1960s."

This sentence is ambiguous and confusing. They survive but were wiped? What survives and what was wiped is not clear. Should it be,

"All the episodes of the original 1962-1965 series survive on 16 mm black and white telerecordings. Film transfers of the original 2" Quad Videotapes were wiped in the late 1960s"?

I have no idea! Can someone who knows about this please correct it to be accurate and informative. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified the statemet to read:

"The original 2" Quad videotapes of all the episodes of the original 1962-1965 series were wiped in the late 1960s. However, these episode survive on film transfers of the original videotapes as 16 mm black and white telerecordings."

Hope that helps! Etron81 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Another twist?

I can remember the original broadcasts and deciding at an early stage that it wasn't my brand of humour so I'm no fan.

Towards the end of one of the later series there were persistant rumours that the two men cordially hated each other and a newspaper story that Wilfrid Brambell had been charged with "importuning for an immoral purpose".

I was later living in the Southampton area and which is where the final twist begins.

Brambell finally retired to a nursing home (near Brighton?) but was briefly brought out of retirement for a Southern ITV interview, of which footage may still exist. He was clearly approaching his final curtain call but seemingly still in reasonable possession of his faculties

During the broadcast he was asked about the relationship between himself and Harry H. Corbett. He positively, and clearly, denied that there had been any bad feeling between them.

Which perhaps may call the popular story into some question.

AT Kunene (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

a newspaper story - it must be true then - LOL! - seriously, it was probably thought up by some journalist who'd never even met them. I can remember back in the 1990s when so many of the older, much-loved stars started to die-off, the number of so-called 'revelations' about them, and people such as Benny Hill, Kenny Everett, etc. it was just character assassination for a cheap read. The thing you need to remember is that people like Brambell and Hill and Everett provided more pleasure and fun in their fields of entertainment than any so-called journalist ever will, most of whom will not even be remembered in a few years time. Who remembers the shit-stirring journalists and media 'luvvies' who tried successfully to get the Benny Hill Show and similar programmes taken off TV - the only result of things like that in the long run was to dilute British television to the point where (at least for me) it's no longer watchable. So I don't watch it. And after the last ten years of almost wall-to-wall crap on the terrestrial stations, I don't even miss it - you can always find something better on YouTube.

The point I was trying to make was that once a star was dead then the libel laws don't apply and so any journalist can make up anything they want about the person. This was very noticeable in the 1990s as programmes appeared that seemed to attempt to vilify recently-dead performers, especially the ones I mentioned above. But just by listening to the tone of the broadcast one could tell that the programme makers had an agenda. These programmes may well have been the 'advanced guard' of the trashy tabloid TV that had become prevalent when I last watched broadcast TV.

Oh, and BTW, both Corbett and Brambell were seriously good (i.e., 'proper') actors who could easily get work on both stage and screen, so why would either have starred in a sitcom both on TV and on radio for so long if he could not stand the site of the other. Very unlikely. In my experience, the UK acting profession contains some of the nicest people anyone could wish to meet. Unpleasant or 'difficult' people tend not to get work because no-one wants to work with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Listing of radio episodes

I think the related article - that lists all the episodes - would greatly benefit by a listing of the radio episodes broken down by series. With indication whether the radio shows were edited versions of the audio from the TV shows - or specially re-recorded for radio. Is there an editor who could undertake such a task? Davidpatrick (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Royal Variety Performance Date

Checked the date for this and found correct dates are 4th November 1963 recorded and 10th November 1963 broadcast, this was the same show that featured The Beatles so it was easy to find the right dates at various Beatles websites including wikipedia's own The Beatles Antholgy page. Where the previous editor got the 8th November 1964 from I dunno? Anyway changed to correct date on this page and episode list page, Okay?81.111.126.82 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Steptoe And Son Horses

Although I can't claim to be an expert on the programmes, the article as it stands only mentions one of the horses used in the tv series and films. However, while "Hercules" is correct, there were at least two others, as one horse they had was called "Delilah", and I recall one episode where a foal was born to this horse called "Samson". There may well have been others? Does someone have 100% accurate information on this as it's a glaring omission from an otherwise excellent article

Many Thanks

Dave VMM

Dave Van MusicMaster (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There were only two main horses Hercules and Delilah, Hercules dies at the start of "A Death in the Family" (1970) and Harold buys the new Horse unawre that it is a mare that is in foal. Delilah gives birth to the foal named Samaon at the end of the episode and is never seen again, Delilah continues for the rest of the 70s, except for the Film versions were Hercules does not die and is retired instead and is replaced by a greyhound would ya believe?81.111.126.82 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)