Julian Wadham as John Steed

[dissolute]

Have any of us here actually listened to a television episode without the pictures?

I did that - for the first time ever - when I was writing my chapter on "A Touch of Brimstone". I had noticed aspects of the soundscape while watching but found myself constantly distracted from it by the visuals (as ought to be the case). Listening to it proved how good the score and effects actually were.

[Spaceship Dispatcher]

when I was writing my chapter on "A Touch of Brimstone" I... found myself constantly distracted from it by the visuals (as ought to be the case)

I wonder which visuals they might have been

[dissolute]

Entirely based on 1) the scripts I've read from Alan's book and 2) the still existent episodes (including The Frighteners), yes, Steed has more humor. PATRICK has more humor, just as an actor.

Well, The Frighteners is the only extant episode fron series 1 with Steed in it - his scenes from Hot Snow are lost. And, The Frighteners is late in the series so there was room for much development, especially with the anecdotal evidence that Macnee was told his character wasn't working and he had to recharacterise him.
Now, early Steed is definitely harder, but he develops within series 1 (although sometimes regresses, as in his having no qualms about endangering Bunty in Toy Trap).
Having said that, Steed in The Frighteners often shows glimpses of outright comedy, but was that an aberration compared to the rest of the series or the establishing norm? He's certainly funny in the Martin & Venus episodes, so it would appear that the character is established as warmer by the end of series 1 but there is an undercurrent of the end justifies the means all the way through to the end of series 3, if not beyond.
Cathy leaves, after all, because of his callousness.

[Lhbizness]

Wait...so the episode in which we can see Steed's humor should be marked off as an aberration and therefore not pertinent to this conversation? Nor was I saying humor as in "making jokes." I mean humor as in warmth, likability, etc. etc. Patrick is a likable screen presence. Maybe he wasn't in the earlier episodes - there is literally no way of establishing that. Maybe what I dislike in Wadham I would dislike in Patrick. However, Wadham is the Steed that we have for those episode and he IS one-note, he is unlikable, and he is one-dimensional. He brings nothing to the part except a posh accent. You can't argue that that's all that Patrick brings because we don't have Patrick's performance except in the one episode in which he brings a lot more than that. That is my opinion. I think the scripts provide Steed with more humor and warmth than what Wadham places in the character.

I don't see that "the ends justify the means" as counteracting anything to do with humor, likability, or warmth. Steed's a complex character and he does things that are not always moral. That does not mean he's not likable. (I think the Toy Trap thing is actually an example of Keel's utter inflexibility and self-righteousness, not Steed's meanness. Keel, for me, is the far less interesting character across the board).

I was trying to get away from arguing the difference between Patrick and Wadham because of conversations like this. Wadham's Steed does not have charm - that likewise has nothing to do with the morality of his behavior. Even his supposed harshness is not believable. He's not hard-boiled, he's not an anti-hero. I don't BELIEVE in his Steed.

[Spaceship Dispatcher]

...he is unlikable...

This statement in relation to Julian's interpretation is one I find both harsh and inaccurate; to be unlikable means that, by accepted social normailty, it's not possible to like someone or something. Since three people in this conversation alone do like him, and enough people are placing repeat orders to prompt the new Emma audios, I would dispute the claim that it's not possible to like him at all and suggest qualifying the statement as some fans individually find it impossible to like him; which is a totally different thing to being unlikable per se.

I was trying to get away from arguing the difference between Patrick and Wadham because of conversations like this.

Excluding the quoted paragraph, you mention Patrick by name 12 times in only 5 posts. Is that trying to get away from making comparisons?

[Spaceship Dispatcher]

Wadham's Steed does not have charm - that likewise has nothing to do with the morality of his behavior. Even his supposed harshness is not believable. He's not hard-boiled, he's not an anti-hero. I don't BELIEVE in his Steed.

I can see your points, but if JW's interpretation of Steed is not a charming one then surely that's simply a new creative direction? Personally, I do find it easy to believe in Steed as an agent precisely because he is neither too hard or too much of a hero. He comes across to me as a game player.

[Lhbizness]

...he is unlikable...

This statement in relation to Julian's interpretation is one I find both harsh and inaccurate; to be unlikable means that, by accepted social normailty, it's not possible to like someone or something. Since three people in this conversation alone do like him, and enough people are placing repeat orders to prompt the new Emma audios, I would dispute the claim that it's not possible to like him at all and suggest qualifying the statement as some fans individually find it impossible to like him; which is a totally different thing to being unlikable per se.

This seems to be an argument of semantics now. I find Wadham's Steed unlikable. I thought that was implied that it's my opinion, not an objective fact - I don't really want to have to qualify every statement I make as "this is my opinion." I don't find that the argument that other people like him to in any way negate my own opinion or my experience.

I was trying to get away from arguing the difference between Patrick and Wadham because of conversations like this.

Excluding the quoted paragraph, you mention Patrick by name 12 times in only 5 posts. Is that trying to get away from making comparisons?

In my first post I was attempting to move away from the argument of comparison and explain my issues with Wadham's performance in itself. The conversation has since veered in the direction of comparison - however, yes. It is true that we have no performances from Patrick from Season 1 except for The Frighteners. So as such we can't really draw a comparison between the two. I will say that from the reading of the scripts of themselves (again, those bits that have been made publicly available), I am more interested in the written Steed than in the Steed that Wadham interprets him as.

Again: Wadham's interpretation to me comes off as no interpretation at all. I will repeat: I find it hard to believe in his Steed. He doesn't convince me, not as a secret agent and not as a "man-about-town." He does not convince me that he's a character, but rather a superficial cut-out of a character. He has not elevated Steed to the level of being a human being, but rather kept him as something papery, thin, on a page. I hear no complexity, no intrinsic love of the character, no desire to make Steed into anything more than a superficial construct.

That is my opinion.

[Lhbizness]

Wadham's Steed does not have charm - that likewise has nothing to do with the morality of his behavior. Even his supposed harshness is not believable. He's not hard-boiled, he's not an anti-hero. I don't BELIEVE in his Steed.

I can see your points, but if JW's interpretation of Steed is not a charming one then surely that's simply a new creative direction? Personally, I do find it easy to believe in Steed as an agent precisely because he is neither too hard or too much of a hero. He comes across to me as a game player.

Granted, but that does not make it a particularly attractive creative direction. I would prefer to actually enjoy listening to a character, even one that I don't love, rather than feeling my eyes roll into the back of my head every time he opens his mouth. I don't know what is served, narratively, by having half of a series occupied by a character with no charisma. I don't want to listen to him, I don't care what happens to him. I don't understand why anyone would want to help him. Keel's continued desire to assist him makes no narrative sense. In reading the scripts, I do care.

As I mentioned earlier, however, I am slightly tempted to try the second volume just to see if anything improves or my opinion of Wadham is tempered by later scripts. I love the scripts of Ashes to Roses and Toy Trap, so I wouldn't mind actually hearing those episodes.

[Spaceship Dispatcher]

...he is unlikable...

This statement in relation to Julian's interpretation is one I find both harsh and inaccurate; to be unlikable means that, by accepted social normailty, it's not possible to like someone or something. Since three people in this conversation alone do like him, and enough people are placing repeat orders to prompt the new Emma audios, I would dispute the claim that it's not possible to like him at all and suggest qualifying the statement as some fans individually find it impossible to like him; which is a totally different thing to being unlikable per se.

This seems to be an argument of semantics now. I find Wadham's Steed unlikable. I thought that was implied that it's my opinion, not an objective fact - I don't really want to have to qualify every statement I make as "this is my opinion."

Semantics being the construction of sentences that convey the meaning intended by the writer, yes I do believe that saying what you mean is important on a forum where what you write and how you write it is the only means of people understanding what you wish to express.

I find Wadham's Steed unlikable and Wadham's Steed is unlikable are two completely different statements; one of opinion, one of fact.

Why make unkind statements about people or their work - ie someone is so bad that it's not possible to like them - and then say it's implied that you didn't mean it? It leads to other members being unclear about your intentions.

[Lhbizness]

This statement in relation to Julian's interpretation is one I find both harsh and inaccurate; to be unlikable means that, by accepted social normailty, it's not possible to like someone or something. Since three people in this conversation alone do like him, and enough people are placing repeat orders to prompt the new Emma audios, I would dispute the claim that it's not possible to like him at all and suggest qualifying the statement as some fans individually find it impossible to like him; which is a totally different thing to being unlikable per se.

This seems to be an argument of semantics now. I find Wadham's Steed unlikable. I thought that was implied that it's my opinion, not an objective fact - I don't really want to have to qualify every statement I make as "this is my opinion."

Semantics being the construction of sentences that convey the meaning intended by the writer, yes I do believe that saying what you mean is important on a forum where what you write and how you write it is the only means of people understanding what you wish to express.

I find Wadham's Steed unlikable and Wadham's Steed is unlikable are two completely different statements; one of opinion, one of fact.

Why make unkind statements about people or their work - ie someone is so bad that it's not possible to like them - and then say it's implied that you didn't mean it? It leads to other members being unclear about your intentions.

I never said I didn't mean it. I said it's my opinion. No opinion is objective fact. Quite honestly, I don't see how anyone enjoys his performance, but that is of course filtered through my own experience (as it is with everyone). Obviously people do enjoy his performance. It's a subjective experience - one is not more right than the other.