Is the smaller part of the house as viewed from the balcony the patio where Magnum and company have lunch in Novel Connection, or is it Higgins' study?
This is entirely from memory, but I don't think either. I recall them having lunch in a space off the living room set. A pair of double glazed doors open from the end of the living room opposite the fireplace. Both rooms were sets, I believe, as neither one could physically exist in the actual structure. They would be in the courtyard area of the real home! I think this was discussed in another thread?
This is a good question, though. Did any Magnum episodes use this patio area of the one-story wing of the main house? I recall the series finale of Hawaii Five-O having a scene in this area, but not Magnum.
Last edited by Pahonu on Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks Sam. The second, Hawaii Five-0, picture is obviously from the patio location in the one-story wing. The first, I think, is a set. One clue is its small size compared to the large patio in the actual house. Another clue is the pair of doors on the left swing in. The estate has pocket doors in this location. Last, at the top of the column in the second picture is an arch, but this area of the main house is flat above the columns.
If it is a set as I think, it is a rarely used one. Does anyone recall another episode using this "dining patio" set? Birdman of Budapest pops to mind, but I'm not certain.
Faith and Begorrah,Birdman of Budapest and The Aunt Who Came to Dinner.
I don't have a cap for Dinner.
It most certainly is. You can see the living room set behind it in the second picture. Three episodes was more than I could remember, Sam. Good job! Still a rarely used set, I would say. It was Garwood who was wondering if it was the actual estate patio.
Pahonu wrote: The first, I think, is a set. One clue is its small size compared to the large patio in the actual house. Another clue is the pair of doors on the left swing in. The estate has pocket doors in this location. Last, at the top of the column in the second picture is an arch, but this area of the main house is flat above the columns.
If it is a set as I think, it is a rarely used one. Does anyone recall another episode using this "dining patio" set?
I was sure it was a set, but was trying to determine--in the wacky world of continuity--the locale in terms of the scarce clues given in various episodes. Thanks for all the great responses!
I caught part of the original Hawaii Five-O today on TV and the episode Cloth of Gold. As was mentioned earlier in this thread about 3/4 of the episode takes palce at The Estate, inside and out. It's interesting how The Dowager Lady Anderson allowed the HFO crew access to the inside in so many episodes. There was one good shot of the tidal pool where the water is so far out that the front part of the poop stoop (my term for the concrete square) is on the beach and there looks to be only about twenty feet from the beach/water line to the breakwater.............
Steve, your comment on the sea level relative to the concrete square is interesting. It's been nearly forty years since Cloth of Gold aired! Geologists have estimated that sea level has risen from 40 to 100 mm in that span, which could translate to a one to two meter narrowing of the beach. This doesn't even consider sand movement from storms and other causes.
I appears winter storms can pull away huge amounts of sand and then redeposit them cyclically. This might explain some of the drastic changes we've seen to the estate beach over the years.
Pahonu wrote:This might explain some of the drastic changes we've seen to the estate beach over the years.
Possibly. But I would expect that the turtle wall would block any major surges from ripping away a significant amount of sand.
Good point, but with rising sea level the wall is completely submerged at high tide now, as someone else reported. This would slow, but not stop, sand erosion and I can't imagine the wall would have been designed to be submerged. How would that keep turtles in? I do understand, though, it's not original and has been rebuilt.
I am still not convinced the area was dredged as so many have argued. The biggest reason is the exposed rocks remaining after the sand was eroded. I have watched the big dredging machines at the marinas here in Long Beach several times, and they pick up everything, mud, eel grass, trash and rocks when they sweep through. The bottom looks smooth when they're finished. Very unlike the exposed rocks at the estate. I am also swayed by the fact that the area leading into the gated beach entrance is a series of concrete steps that becomes covered and exposed by sand depending on the sand level that season. The designer expected some significant shift in sand and beach width to have placed those concrete steps there. It's also important to remember we have no idea what that beach looked like for the first 35 years the estate was there. We saw it in Magnum for a brief 8-year window of its near 80-year existence. I think we consider what we saw then the norm, but it almost certainly is not. The beach could have been significantly wider in 1933. The concrete square might not have even been in the water most or all of the time.
I am still not convinced the area was dredged as so many have argued. The biggest reason is the exposed rocks remaining after the sand was eroded. I have watched the big dredging machines at the marinas here in Long Beach several times, and they pick up everything, mud, eel grass, trash and rocks when they sweep through. The bottom looks smooth when they're finished.
Good point. Plus does anyone more familiar with Hawaii state dept's know the answer to this: whilst I know they perform dredging and sand placement on popular public beaches, I doubt the Anderson Estate's small beach would qualify for publicly funded dredging? And since Mrs Anderson (no disrespect intended) has let the estate fall into such a state of disrepair, I doubt she's going to fork out how many tens of thousands for the equipment and man power needed to have the beach dredged just on a whim when it wouldn't have been necessary?
I suppose you could argue they dredged the sand there because they needed to go dump it in Waikiki, but I'd say there would be plenty more easily accessible and larger beaches throughout the island for the purpose of sand collection.
