h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Ultimate Carry On Film Guide: 1958 - 1964 - A87899774
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

A look at the longest-running comedy film series, which will be celebrating its 60th Anniversary in September this year!

<BB<

Sorry I somehow missed this appearing in Peer Review 5 weeks ago... A useful roundup of the films The plot summaries are particularly apt and amusing! I had a few questions as I read through:

"Rank's rivals, Anglo Amalgamated films" - what is Rank? Ah, I see you mention it in the next sentence.

In Carry On Nurse why don't Jane Bishop and Jill Thompson have their own bullet points?

The mention of the daffodil is very tantalising - I'm not sure I can guess why you mention it...

"He impersonates a nurse played by Marita Stanton, however he looks surprisingly similar to Student Nurse Nightingale, who was seen in a scene set the day before." I'm not sure what the significance of this is...

"was also an unprecedented success in America, where it became by far the most successful of the Carry On series" - as there had only been two at that point, most successful seems strong, or is it saying that out of all the Carry Ons that came to be, Nurse was the most successful?

You mention details of Twice Round the Daffodils twice - could that be condensed?

I like the name Betty Box - perhaps sounds more natural than 'Rogers' wife'?

Oh dear, another Twice Round the Daffodils - you have already mentioned that in connection with Lance Percival, so perhaps don't need to mention it again...

" The taxis were hired from the London General Cab Company for £5 per day, play 7/6d per hour for each driver." - does this mean actual taxi drivers appeared and they were each paid 7/6 per hour?

"causing the first officer and bosun to plot to get rid of them" - who are 'they'? The captain and Albert?

"This allowed the production to hire the HMS Defiant set " - what is 'this'?

Ah, here is Carry On Spying. 'Asexual' isn't the right word to describe Dr Crow's sex (not sexuality), but I'm not quite sure what is... Is the doctor described as such in the film?

Why is the machine in reverse the weakest point? Just because it is a 'macguffin', if that's the right word?

" a line in the film was voted the best film one-liner of all time" - more tantalising!

Fascinating that you highlight in the film tables those actors who appeared at least 4 times, yet include a table with those appearing more than once... The whole 'summary so far' section is perhaps not helpful... Also the last section - you include that to good effect in your sexism Entry but it perhaps isn't helpful here as the Entry is long...

Phew - that was epic but interesting

Thanks for the read through – I've made some tweaks.

In 'Carry On Nurse' some characters shared bullet points as originally I thought the cast list looked too long so I thought I'd shorten it by matching patients to their visitors. I've separated the list out and added 'Visited By', but I'm still wondering if it is too long.

In 'Carry On Nurse', from what I can tell from the television, Student Nurse Nightingale (Rosalind Knight) is about the same height at Charles Hawtrey and about the same build. They both have short, dark hair, fairly identical facial features and both wear similar glasses. Dress them both in muumuus and put the two of them in an identity parade a few feet away and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. So when Charles Hawtrey's character needs to impersonate a nurse, he disguises himself as... a completely different nurse who appears in one scene only. Why? Wouldn't it have made more sense to disguise him as the nurse he looks exactly like?

The name 'Betty' always reminds me of Frank Spencer

I've tweaked the taxi section – the actual taxi drivers don't do anything other than drive their taxis, they don't have any lines or are seen outside their cabs.

The machine going in reverse is the weakest point because the 2-minute clip of them going through the machine the right way is then reversed so you get the same 2-minute clip of them, but all the actions are backwards. The joke wears off after a couple of seconds but the clip drags on.

With the summary section – I started writing this over two months before I'd had the idea of the sexism entry. So assuming the sexism entry works, you're right that it doesn't need to be in two places and makes more sense in context in the sexism one.

The last table is to emphasise that by the mid 1960s, the core 'Carry On' team looked quite different. No Bernard Bresslaw, Jack Douglas or Patsy Rowland at all, Terry Scott and Barbara Windsor had only appeared once each so you'd be forgiven for expecting the gang to continue filming with Bill Owen, Eric Barker, Esma Cannon, Liz Fraser and Shirley Eaton.

<BB<

Thanks <BB<

Ah, visitors - I see! The table looks fine to me. What order are the characters in? Seems a bit strange with patients and nurses mixed up...

I wonder if the unusual nurse impersonation was similar to the other film's scene with the men's toilets was, where it seems odd now, but was possibly a deliberately contrived joke setup at the time...

"The joke wears off after a couple of seconds but the clip drags on. " - Ah, I see...

You've managed to reduce the Entry to 7,500 words from 8,000, but I still fear it is too long (I could defend your 5,000 word Entries as you do include the curious detail h2g2 needs, but beyond that, the risk is that the curiosities get lost as people lose interest...)

I think there is potential for easy tweaks, eg the paragraph:

"Carry On Sergeant had begun as an unwanted script titled The Bull Boys by RF Delderfield, in which a couple of ballet dancers are conscripted into the army. It had promise, but wasn't suitable to be filmed as it was. After Peter Rogers acquired the script he approached writers including Eric Sykes and Spike Milligan to see if they would be interested in adapting it. Some progress was made when the script was given to John Antrobus, one of the writers of popular sitcom The Army Game (1957-1961), to develop. Although he created several comic scenes that survive in the film, his plot as a whole did not fit together. So the script was given to Norman Hudis, a publicist who Rogers knew wanted a break as a writer. He had the idea for it to be about a bunch of incompetent National Service recruits, including a man who is called up on his wedding day before being able to enjoy his honeymoon."

could be tightened up, eg:

"Carry On Sergeant had begun as a promising but unsuitable script titled The Bull Boys by RF Delderfield, in which a couple of ballet dancers are conscripted into the army. John Antrobus, one of the writers of popular sitcom The Army Game (1957-1961) developed it. Although Antrobus created several comic scenes that survive in the film, his plot as a whole did not fit together. So the script was given to Norman Hudis, a publicist who Rogers knew wanted a break as a writer. Hudis had the idea for it to be about a bunch of incompetent National Service recruits, including a man who is called up on his wedding day before being able to enjoy his honeymoon."

and the other paragraphs could be similarly polished. In particular the non-Carry On film paragraphs need to be concise so as not to distract from the focus of the Entry.

I've changed the order of the table so that there is a nurse & staff / patients & visitors divide (the cast order was all mixed up). I've also made a few tweaks to make the entry shorter.

As for the non-Carry On films, they do have to be mentioned. After all, two of the 'Carry On' films were originally intended not to be 'Carry Ons', two were originally released without the 'Carry On' title and the non-Carry On films mentioned here have the same producer, director, writer, cast and, in one case, source inspiration as the official 'Carry On' films – they can't be seen as anything other than 'Carry On' films in all but name.

<BB<

On reflection I've deleted the summary table at the end.

<BB<

Again I wonder if you can tighten up some of the sections for films where there is already an Entry in the Guide... Galaxy Babe's Entry on Carry on Cleo is really good, and I see that the Carry On Entry A2601181 also covers a lot of the detail (including Peter Rogers' non-Carry On films) in a good breezy style so you could trim your Entry to focus on the Film Guide aspect more...

"Kenneth Williams receiving only £800" - was he the star of Carry On Sergeant, or the most famous cast member at the time?

If you can't tell us anything about "the daffodil scene" then you're better off not mentioning it at all...

"Shirley Eaton discovered she was pregnant during filming." - a non sequitur. Similarly it seems to be a bit too much information about where the equipment came from (something along the lines of "actual hospitals" might suffice), and you've already said filming took place at Pinewood (I like the bit in the introduction about no travel ). Mention of Eric Barker seemed like a non sequitur too, but I now see (using CTRL+F) that he is in the table for Carry On Sergeant and you include a good description of him later on that could be moved up.

"they can't be seen as anything other than 'Carry On' films in all but name. "

Would there be merit in splitting this Entry in two, then, and doing like your Disney Classic Entries to include a brief section at the end about non-Carry On Carry Ons?

The mention of Brock Williams is not necessary under the table, as the information is in the table and the mention of John Antrobus doesn't seem to help.

Mention of "the chimps" doesn't mean anything to me as someone not familiar with this film...

I think it would also help if you could focus on the films in the Guide and then have a brief section later about eg "Carry On Connections" - the "Following Carry On Regardless" paragraph is quite interesting but a bit much...

I don't think you need to mention Carry On Jack in the Cabby section - better to say something like Rogers received a script and challenged Rothwell to write another one and then include the details in the Carry On Jack section.

Too much information about people who weren't cast?

This "the automated machine sequence in which he is dangling from a girder. This sequence is sadly the film's weakest point as, in order to escape from being dunked in acid, the machine is switched into reverse. The previous two minutes of the cast making their way through the macine, falling down, being pummelled by dirty rocks and getting soaked in a car wash is then shown in reverse, so they go through the car wash backwards, starting off wet and ending up dry, get undirtied by ascending rocks and then falling upwards." is an example of itself

How about? "a sequence in which he is dangling from a girder. This is sadly the film's weakest point. In order for the characters to escape from being dunked in acid by an automated machine, the machine is switched into reverse. Two whole minutes of the cast making their way through the machine, falling down, being pummelled by dirty rocks and getting soaked in a car wash is then shown in reverse. The joke wears off after a couple of seconds but the clip drags on."

Instead of the Summary So Far table, you could just say something along the lines of "by the mid 1960s, the core 'Carry On' team had not yet been established"

Phew - you could enter Mastermind with Carry On as your specialist subject with all this



PS I know a joke about a lightbulb that is really funny but there's no nudity - it's only told by the power of suggestion.

This is now much shorter than before and the summary has been summarised so much it has vanished.

I've also made the non-Carry On Carry Ons more visually separate than before. Unlike the Disney entries in which the section at the end lists all the non-Disney Classics animations, which were made by separate studios such as DisneyToon Studios and Pixar, as these films were made by the same producer, director, writers, musicians and cast they are more integrated into the story. For example, you can trace Jim Dale's career from 39th credited actor to main lead by integrating the two.

<BB<

PS, what is the joke?

I find the Carried Off subsections much easier on the eye - thank you.

It's still very long, so I've not re-read everything yet, but Carry On Cleo attracted my attention again. "Talbot Rothwell, except one line" - a bold claim! Did no other Carry On include lines that could have been found in other places?

Galaxy Babe treats "This particular line" much more effectively in her Entry - again, by only half mentioning it, it's about as good as not mentioning it at all...

"PS, what is the joke?" -

I've tweaked that section again.

This isn't a bending over to pull up a dress lightbulb joke, is it?

<BB<

See - if you simply tell people there's a joke or a funny line without providing the humour, they either get annoyed at having wasted their time reading something highly unamusing instead of laughing like you promised, or make up their own inappropriate joke...

"PS I know a joke about a lightbulb that is really funny but there's no nudity - it's only told by the power of suggestion."

I just made it up to make that point...

However, my favourite lightbulb joke just about fits in with it!

How many Psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
One, but the lightbulb has really got to *want* to change...

The facts are these:
1. I am trying to promote the 'Carry On' films, not shamelessly steal their jokes to make this entry funnier at the films' expense.
2. 'Carry On Cleo' contains what in 2007 was voted the best film one-liner of all time.
3. Reading this joke out of context in an article is not in any way equal to the delivery by Kenneth Williams, one of Britain's best-loved actors in this genre, during the film. Otherwise they wouldn't bother making films with actors, they'd just film the lines from the script, which would be an awful lot cheaper.
4. Reading the joke out of context and then seeing the film, however, severely detracts from its impact.
5. It is therefore morally indefensible for me to quote the line knowing that this detracts from the experience of watching the film.
6. Pointing out that the film has won an independent accolade of this nature, however, does not detract from the film but instead provides a reason why others should see it.
7. If someone reading this entry is intrigued and wants to know the joke, I have actually made it quite clear that they can hear it for themselves by watching the film. If they think 'I've heard there's a funny film with a great line, I've decided I'm going to be angry about this for no apparent reason', that is their decision.
8. Comedy works when you do not know what is happening next. There is no difference between spoiling a joke or, say, telling someone that a drama is a deeply-moving emotional experience particularly when the hero unexpectedly dies or other plot spoiler.

At no point did I promise to tell the joke. That is not something I am prepared to do. I have done what I can to ensure that should anyone see 'Carry On Cleo' for the first time, the jokes will still be fresh.

I want to ensure that this entry achieves its intended aims, and I would much rather this entry is Right than Rushed to be finished in time for the 80th anniversary. If it has to be in Peer Review for a few years more, or never make it into the Guide, so be it.

(The answer to the question 'Do I want to change?' is of course 'Only when I am wrong', and I know I am not in the wrong now.)

<BB<

Just to keep things simple >BB>
Well done having seen all the films this entry brings them all back to life.
An excellent contribution to the Edited Guide

PS this is cinematic history at its best, whats next? Are there any film series left?

Thank you for putting your cards on the table now I've put my cards on the table.

Unfortunately I have not been able to read these Carry On Entries in the way you intended based on your stated aims... I find myself reading them as if they are a w*k*pedia article, where it isn't for reading, but rather is keyword-searchable for specific facts, so I get anxious trying to read from start to finish.

You present me with that fact and my brain says, 'so what?' whereas after reading Galaxy Babe's Entry I was intrigued to see how Kenneth Williams delivered the line. Sorry I misread it as promising something you hadn't promised indeed.

I'm really sorry...

Nothing to be sorry for - you're not going to be able to enjoy reading every entry based on stated aims, that's life. I've never been able to read a recipe entry that says things like 'cook until golden brown' or 'make sure the inside is not pink' based on its stated aims because I am colour blind. That doesn't mean the recipe entry is at fault, just that you can't always appeal to everyone. C'est la vie. Sometimes my opinion doesn't matter, sometimes your opinion doesn't matter. Life's imperfect and full of contradictions to keep things interesting and everyone on their toes.

<BB<