Discuss The Archers  permalink

Mary Cultler's post on the Jan 2 epi

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 251 - 300 of 381
  • Message 251

    , in reply to message 248.

    Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    Of course you're allowed to criticise it!

    I just think that suggesting Mary Cutler wrote the article under duress and that she was being used as a human shield was just a teensy bit over the top.

    And yes I do think that people deserve respect, unless they have done something that causes me to lose respect for them - which doesn't include writing a radio drama episode I happen not to like.

    Report message1

  • Message 252

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    Sid (who'd been very grumpy in his last years) was given a post-death character transplant!  

    That, at least, is very true to life!

    VH

    Report message2

  • Message 253

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Saturday, 8th January 2011


    utterly unbelievable that David would have risked going up on the roof that particular night or persuaded Nigel to do it either.
     


    Probably right... BUT.. this is David who

    - shot a badger
    - conspired with Kenton to tip a load of manure into the drive of a builder who had dumped stuff at Brookfield
    - too a chainsaw to his children's treehouse

    So not /always/ level headed and sensible. And he had no doubt been drinking.

    VH

    Report message3

  • Message 254

    , in reply to message 253.

    Posted by Our_Freda (U4239986) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    No, VH -

    the badger - really, have you ever seen a family try to cope with herd destruction due to TB?

    - the manure - hardly in the same league

    - the treehouse - the ultimate in provocation.

    He's hot headed when provoked, but not stupid, and as a farmer, he's not going to take such a stupid risk.

    and his 'are you a man or amouse' was KENTON's line.
    it was like hearing shula saying 'ooooh nooooh'

    plain silly.

    Report message4

  • Message 255

    , in reply to message 254.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    He'd been drinking OF. He'd started as soon as he got there - that was made very clear by WR who was asked who was driving. And he's shot 2 badgers.

    I didn't think he was acting out of character at all but then I don't have a very high opinion of him however pompous he is. I just wish it was he who had fallen off the roof because he's right, it was his fault.

    Report message5

  • Message 256

    , in reply to message 251.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    suggesting Mary Cutler wrote the article under duress and that she was being used as a human shield was just a teensy bit over the top. 
    Really?

    Ms Cutler is a scriptwriter and as such - however senior she may be - is subordinate to the editor and producers. The development of the overall story arc is *their* responsibility, not an individual writer's. Listeners have responded to this article simply because it is the nearest thing to an official response we have been given.

    I don't think anyone blames Ms Cutler for the anniversary fiasco - but it seems she is being placed firmly in the firing line by the powers that be. The silence from those who *are* responsible is deafening - particularly after weeks of being unable to turn on the radio or open a newspaper without having SATTC rammed down our throats.

    Report message6

  • Message 257

    , in reply to message 256.

    Posted by Post hoc ergo propter hoc (U14653867) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    Well said, joe.

    Report message7

  • Message 258

    , in reply to message 255.

    Posted by Our_Freda (U4239986) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    He'd had a couple of glasses of wine! Ruth wasn't even sure who was driving until she (or someone else) said 'Oh he's started already!'

    OK, I do have a high opinion of him, but it's not his fault - Nigel was a grown man!

    However, I do think they have done that thing someone referred to - dramatic term, can't remember it, but it means you suspend suspending disbelief - fifth wall or something -and I can only keep thinking it was actually Vanessa Whitburn's fault.

    Report message8

  • Message 259

    , in reply to message 250.

    Posted by killary (U6847689) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    TA will become the radio equivalent of Crossroads and kill itself off. 

    If you are right about that then there are some strange echoes of this from twenty five years ago.

    William Smethurst was editor of the Archers from 1978-86 and is responsible for the character of Nigel Pargetter and the casting of Graham Seed.

    In 1986 he was headhunted to take over Crossroads and the one actor he took from The Archers was Graham Seed who was cast as the head waiter. Sadly Smethurst was a disaster at Crossroads and the soap closed two years later.

    Nigel Pargetter was played by Nigel Caliburn until Graham Seed returned to Ambridge from his exile in Kings Oak

    Report message9

  • Message 260

    , in reply to message 258.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    > Ruth wasn't even sure who was driving until she (or someone else) said 'Oh he's started already!'<

    Yes at the beginning of the epi. Some hours (glasses of wine, an emergency dash to the hospital and a Caesarian) later.....

    > Nigel was a grown man!<

    Yes but he was easily influenced and knew that Deadwood was doing him a favour so he did what Dw wanted. Perhaps he didn't realise that Dopey Dave had already killed Jethro. Hopefully Dw will be having nightmares and night sweats.

    Report message10

  • Message 261

    , in reply to message 258.

    Posted by PaulHammond (U5000908) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    However, I do think they have done that thing someone referred to - dramatic term, can't remember it, but it means you suspend suspending disbelief - fifth wall or something -and I can only keep thinking it was actually Vanessa Whitburn's fault. 

    "Breaking the fourth wall" is when you do things that admit that you're watching a fiction - so Shakespearean asides to the audience, where we basically hear what the character is thinking, but other people on the stage cannot hear them are an example.

    Not necessarily a bad thing to do - because, see Shakespeare again, a large proportion of his most memorable lines come from such character monologues - "To be or not to be" is NOT Hamlet talking to his mum, is it.

    Miranda's looks to the camera (inspired by Eric Morecombe, so it seems) are a more low-rent example.

    "suspension of disbelief" is a slightly different concept - and I think never something you want to be doing on purpose - so when you absolutely find it impossible not to think of the actor reading the script rather than the character doing or saying something, I should say that always is a bad thing.

    Report message11

  • Message 262

    , in reply to message 260.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    Hmm - I tjhought at the time that Lizzie telling them not to would make both Dave and Kenton up for it ... However Ild forgotten they'ld just heard about the successful delivery of baby Henry. Thinking it over Nigel would have said `No - let's get started on the Shampoo!!' as in the old days ...

    Oh dear! Makes me quite nostalgic for the 80s Archers .. a colleague (a Labour party member then) used to say `Nigel is the acceptable face of Toryism'

    JPBS

    Report message12

  • Message 263

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by flameofthewest (U14483084) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    Mary, thank you for your interesting article, and for your many great years as an Archers scriptwriter. I attended your very informative talk at the Bath Literature Festival in 1999 and still occasionally refer to the notes I took at the time. I also still have the nice letter I received from you a few weeks later.

    I'm afraid I was disappointed with Sunday's episode for several reasons.

    I have no problem with the fact of Nigel's death. Although I liked the character, I feel he and his stately home had become a bit of an anachronism, and I can see that his death opens up a number of interesting plot possibilities. However, a death seems a very strange way to *celebrate* an anniversary. I've looked at the summary of the 50th anniversary at lowfield.co.uk to remind myself what happened. While the episode began dramatically with David trapped under a heifer, it ended on a positive note with Roy and Hayley's engagement and the resolution of the Brookfield inheritance row. In my humble opinion something more along these lines would have been better for the anniversary episode. Nigel's death could then have come out of the blue a couple of weeks later. Which brings me to my next point.

    It is natural that everyone involved in The Archers wants to promote the programme, but in this case I think they overdid it. There was far too much hype beforehand, raising expectations to a point where the anniversary episode was more or less bound to be a disappointment. However, I do appreciate that the Archers production team are not entirely to blame for this. Nigel's death, and the manner of it, were too heavily signposted, in complete contrast to John Archer's death, which was a complete surprise and therefore more moving. The manner of Nigel's death also seems rather contrived.

    I also think it was a mistake, as part of the promotion, to make the episode 30 minutes long (did the decision come from the Archers production team, or higher up in the BBC?). This also raised expectations, as well as putting more pressure on you - I bet you weren't given any extra time to write it! The result was that, I'm afraid, the episode didn't feel up to your usual high writing standards, with seemingly 15 minutes of material stretched out to 30 minutes. I will be interested to hear the cut version in the Omnibus tomorrow. However, the writing and acting in the rest of this week has been outstanding and very moving.

    Finally, I have been enjoying the Helen storyline (despite the implausible timescale), but if she is magically transformed into a nice person and a perfect mother I will be very disappointed!

    I've been listening to TA on and off for nearly 20 years and I'm not planning to give up again at the moment, and I don't think anyone should resign. However, I think mistakes were made with regard to the 60th anniversary and I hope lessons will be learned for the 70th!







    Report message13

  • Message 264

    , in reply to message 263.

    Posted by Rose Sal Volatile Parade (U4705648) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    flameofthewest that is a very thoughtful, well-put, balanced assessment of the situation with which I fully agree.

    Report message14

  • Message 265

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by A Bowman (U3636469) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    I lost the will to live half way through Mary Cutler's blog. I have to say, however, that I am having great fun spotting the self-congratulatory posts from The Archers production and editorial teams.

    How much longer before Feedback returns?

    Report message15

  • Message 266

    , in reply to message 265.

    Posted by Schez (U2212013) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    Joe has said what I am sure I said earlier, that Mary Cutler herself is unlikely to have invented the SL and decided exactly what should happen, I would imagine the scriptwriters do just that, write a script, i.e. dialogue, which includes the events that have been planned many months before, probably in committee unless VW likes to do it all by herself.

    No problem with the acting on the whole, although I do think it's time that Ruth's accent was modified a little, she's been in Ambridge a long time now. It was the storyline itself, and the whole planning, hyping, etc. etc. that was problematic.

    "Oh yes sunny that's hilarious......now imagining VW with the tea-towel bandana and the Uzi and poor Mary Cutler bashing away on the keyboard.

    Can we just calm down a little bit? Mary Cutler has a long & distinguished career as a writer and deserves slightly more respect for her views than this."

    I'm afraid I feel fairly sure that anything said to us by SWs or the like, has been vetted if not planned, by the Powers That Be, just like all the producers who come to answer complaints on Feedback, and end up telling us that we are all wrong and they did whatever they did for all the right reasons.

    Report message16

  • Message 267

    , in reply to message 254.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Saturday, 8th January 2011



    He's hot headed when provoked, but not stupid, and as a farmer, he's not going to take such a stupid risk.

     


    I do tend to agree OF, as I said, but it's just that I keep seeing people say David is level headed and sensible, just thought I would point out that there is a slightly different side to him sometimes...

    There is though a very good point someone made a few days ago that David was only coming over on Monday because Kenton couldn't do it then, but of course Kenton was around that night - so if anyone was going to accompany Nigel up onto the roof, there was no reason it couldn't have been Kenton!

    It doesn't quite make sense. But there you go.

    Report message17

  • Message 268

    , in reply to message 263.

    Posted by KT (U1158731) on Saturday, 8th January 2011

    I also think it was a mistake, as part of the promotion, to make the episode 30 minutes long (did the decision come from the Archers production team, or higher up in the BBC?). This also raised expectations, as well as putting more pressure on you - I bet you weren't given any extra time to write it!  

    That's a good point and I would also point out that Mary C has written the coming week's episodes too. I wonder if any SW in modern times has been tasked with the equivalent of 13 consecutive episodes? That would be pressure under normal circumstances but given the anniversary and the hype I would say it was an invitation for standards to slip.

    Report message18

  • Message 269

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by Eliskastata (U14567614) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Well put Killary...though not entirely in agreement, I think you make a good argument. Nigel I think was long overdue for the chop. There was nothing real about him so a farcical death suited very well. A could have been put an end to in so many ways but the same complaints would have been made. Blowing his head off while cleaning a gun sounds real enough but too close to Greg's fate..drowning in the lake while trying to rescue favourite hound? Happens so often in real life i's almost mundane. Falling down steps to wine cellar? Not dramatic enough. He needed to go - the how scarcely matters because whatever happened the ladies that like skinny toffs that smell of wet tweed and have far too many teeth would scream anyway. I'm just distressed that there are so many admirers of such a sorry little minnow.

    Report message19

  • Message 270

    , in reply to message 267.

    Posted by Katy Tulip (U2239809) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    The whole Roof scenario doesn't work for me because of the personalities of the *3* characters involved:

    * Lizzie.

    To say she was not best pleased when she first saw Kenton & Nigel putting up the banner during the week prior to the accident is an understatement.
    This was reinforced by her telling David & Nigel in no uncertain terms at the party not to go out on the roof because of the danger etc.
    How likely is it, given her not infrequently expressed exasperation with her hubbie for being somewhat of a clot, that she would have even asked him to take the damn thing down again?
    I'd consider it more in character for her to have told Nigel rather pointedly that she didn't want him to set a bad example to the children by dangerous rooftop frolics, besides he had more than enough work to do, and that she had asked Titcombe/other LL employees to see to it instead.

    * David.

    Sure he's been impetuous at times - but only when blisteringly angry, which he was not at the party, why on earth would he be?
    Incidentally, I'm not sure what the Jethro incident was all about because I wasn't listening then, but if David indeed caused a death, you'd have thought that would have made him even more safety-consious and risk-averse, not less.
    And even when on other occasions his anger has led him to making a complete prat of himself (a view I agree with, fond of him though I am), at no time did he then endanger his own life or that of another.
    If he was so short of time, why didn't he just say so to Nigel? I've heard him refuse requests for his help on other occasions before because he was too busy at the time to oblige. And if he was so pushed for time, why then did he offer to help Tony with his hissy-fitting tractor later on at the party?

    * Nigel

    Assuming that the above character deviations had happened, I simply cannot believe that Nigel would have gone along with it. Easy-going he may well have been, but at times he was more than prepared to stick to his guns if he thought the matter warrented it enough.
    Nigel simply oozed fine manners and good breeding, and was as a person first and formost, even if a bit of a nit, essentially a kind and thoughtful person.
    So how likely is it that he, as a host to a party which had come to an abrupt end because one of his guests had been rushed to hospital with a potentially life-threatening condition, would then abandon his remaining guests in order to faff around with a banner in treacherous conditions? Especially when, to the relief of all, the news came that mother & baby were safe, and supplying everyone with a more than welcome drink to toast the happy outcome was of prime importance?
    Not only that. He knew full well that David had been drinking, and moreover, while he had been used to clambering about the rooftops of LL since a child with Dear Daddy, David to the best of his knowledge had never been up there before. How likely is it that he would have allowed him to risk his life in such a daft escapade, especially as the conditions were so risky?

    Nope, I will never be convinced it was in tune with any of the characters for all this to happen, and that's why, though I think the LL/Brookfield scenes this past week have been very moving, the whole scenario and its aftermath feels too unreal for me to engage in it properly.

    And imo the Helen story is plain ridiculous.

    Katy

    Report message20

  • Message 271

    , in reply to message 270.

    Posted by Eliskastata (U14567614) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Unreal?

    Silly accidents happen. What doesn't happen are many of the other things that we are expected to believe in on TA

    That people fall over themselves to take part in Am-Dram pantos every year.
    That people by the score fall over themselves to work up at the posh rich blokes house for nothing.
    That Ambridge has the only C of E church in Britain rammed full every Sunday.
    That Matt hasn't emptied dim annoying Lillians coffers and hoofed it to the Cayman Islands years ago.
    That Alice is an "Engineer".
    That Brenda has a Brain.
    That Willyum is a "nice lad" despite revealing himself as a vicious thug over and over.
    That Syd s a "Saintly corpse" despite revealing himself as a vicious thug over and over.

    and so on.

    Report message21

  • Message 272

    , in reply to message 271.

    Posted by Katy Tulip (U2239809) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    That people fall over themselves to take part in Am-Dram pantos every year. 

    Do they? All of them? In various episodes I've heard quite a bit of hefty persuasion by La Snell has been needed. David was more or less coerced into joining in as he was picking up one of his kids anyway. And Jazzer was more or less blackmailed into joining in by Harry.

    That people by the score fall over themselves to work up at the posh rich blokes house for nothing. 

    By the score? Really? Who are they all then? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Bert Fry. I thought all the vine-pickers got rewarded in kind with cases of best LL vintage.

    That Ambridge has the only C of E church in Britain rammed full every Sunday. 

    I haven't heard church scenes every Sunday, never mind ones that make it clear the church is rammed full.

    As for all the other points: perhaps Matt really is fond of Pusscat (stranger things happen IRL), and why shouldn't Alice be an engineer? If Brenda didn't have a brain she'd be dead. I for one just wish she'd have a bit more get-and-go (preferably away from Tom). Admittedly, Will creeps me out too, but then I do think it's hardly surprising given the way he's been treated by his ex, his brother, and the rest of his family. I like Jolene a lot, and could never figure why she was so besotted by Syd either.

    Despite all the above, I still don't like the present storylines.

    Katy

    Report message22

  • Message 273

    , in reply to message 270.

    Posted by payshentnemesis (U9774375) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Splendid post Katy.

    Report message23

  • Message 274

    , in reply to message 271.

    Posted by PaulHammond (U5000908) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Unreal?

    Silly accidents happen. What doesn't happen are many of the other things that we are expected to believe in on TA
     


    I take it you didn't bother to actually READ Katy Tulip's thoughtful post which explains at length, in a character-related way why she believes these three characters would not have behaved that way, but instead have latched on to one word of the post and used it as a jumping off point for another attempt to wind other posters up?

    That's the only possible explanation I can come up with for what seems to me to be the total disconnect between Katy's post and your attempt at an answer "Silly accidents happen" which has nothing to do with anything Katy said.

    Report message24

  • Message 275

    , in reply to message 273.

    Posted by Katy Tulip (U2239809) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    HI pashentnemesis, and thanks. You too, Paul.

    Oh dear. I'm so bunged up wid a cowd in by dose I can't sleep, hence my yaddering on here at this unearthly hour (2.30 Belgian time).

    I must say, as I've been pottering around IRL this past week, I've thought an awful lot of events in Ambridge this week, much more than I usually do. Shame it's largely for the wrong reasons smiley - sadface

    I'll be listening to the minibus tomorrow, mainly out of sheer curiosity to see which scenes are slashed from the fateful eppy to make it fit the usual time slot.

    I must need my head examining....

    Katy

    Report message25

  • Message 276

    , in reply to message 274.

    Posted by Eliskastata (U14567614) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Sensible people do stupid things ALL the time. Me Included - not once but twice Have I failed to secure my ladders to my van to see them fly off at the first junction...I have climbed trees in crappy weather. I did once find myself holding a carbon fibre fishing rod in a thunderstorm (really bad Idea.) I once almost drowned in reeds stalking chub alone on a stream when my waders filled with water. A friend of mine needed eye operations TWICE in a month after doing the same stupid thing with an angle grinder. I could go go on..

    David is a farmer I'm certain he's taken risks many times because of time pressures or having to...livestock in flooded ditches, crawling under tractors in the dark or rain,or handling large animals alone, he asked to get this chore out of the way because he had other things to do, he's a farmer and he would always have demands on his time.. Kentun and Nigel of course would go up on that roof to be a pair of silly naughty boys and because matron Lizzy wouldn't want them to..they were completely in character.

    Report message26

  • Message 277

    , in reply to message 276.

    Posted by Katy Tulip (U2239809) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Still puzzling why David, if he was so pushed for time, would then volunteer to help Tony with his tractor, no? Ime (ref OH's ancient motorbike he's rebuilding) if there's one thing that eats up the hours (about from playing on the computer), it's tinkering with a stroppy bit of machinery.

    Of course it was in character for Nigel & Kenton to go up on the roof to fix the banner - in broad daylight, the week before. I'm talking about the night of the party, when it was dark, freezing cold, and blowing a howling gale. It wasn't Kenton going up again, but David. And David had been drinking.

    Anyway, it's really stupid o'clock now, so I'm off to bed with a Lemsip to try and get some kip.

    Night night,

    Katy

    Report message27

  • Message 278

    , in reply to message 277.

    Posted by Eliskastata (U14567614) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    I've rebuilt lot's of Scooters, there are four in the garage right now. Before christmas I spent 3 weeks building my daughter a dolls in the same freezing cold garage- I got so cold and tired one night when I really should have come in. That I shot a tack from an electric tack gun right through the wood into my thumb. Luckily it was only 10mm had it been 25mmit would have gone right though my thumb.

    I'm not stupid all the time.. Nigel and David aren't stupid all the time. Once is all it takes sometimes.

    Report message28

  • Message 279

    , in reply to message 278.

    Posted by Eliskastata (U14567614) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Some people are stupid ALL the time of course - go to Waitrose and watch the silly rich ladies trying to Park their Massive stoopid Porshe Cayenne 4x4 or their X3 or their Range Rover doing a 27 point turn.

    Dumbness on a Nigel scale that you can witness everyday, outside every upmarket supermarket and private school in Surrey.

    Report message29

  • Message 280

    , in reply to message 172.

    Posted by shell-like (U2729210) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    I believe (now Dame) Judi Dench played Pru Forrest as a one off.  

    And I believe Bob Holness played the saxophone solo on "Baker Street".

    Report message30

  • Message 281

    , in reply to message 279.

    Posted by Orla_Same (U14528002) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Now that's just plain silly.

    Report message31

  • Message 282

    , in reply to message 280.

    Posted by shell-like (U2729210) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Did you know the Finns have 14 different words for "depressed"?

    Report message32

  • Message 283

    , in reply to message 256.

    Posted by shell-like (U2729210) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    I don't think anyone blames Ms Cutler for the anniversary fiasco - but it seems she is being placed firmly in the firing line by the powers that be.  

    From the tone of her writing she seems quite comfortable there. But then, she is an experienced writer of fiction

    Report message33

  • Message 284

    , in reply to message 270.

    Posted by dean volecape (U1477030) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    All those Katy, and also the combination of high wind and hard frost. One or the other, in the English midlands, but not both at the same time.

    Report message34

  • Message 285

    , in reply to message 254.

    Posted by evie (U7013500) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    his 'are you a man or amouse' was KENTON's line. 

    This is very true. I was unable to listen at the time of broadcast so I heard all the Today spoilers the next morning before hearing the episode itself (thank you for that BBC). Every time they referred to David being up on the roof I was thinking "Kenton, surely...", because it seemed like a more natural progression of what had gone before and a more Kenton-like thing to have done. I was surprised when I listened to the episode and found that it actually was David up there.

    That was the only surprise of the episode though, given that the rest of it played out in such a predictably tired way. I'm another disappointed person with all of this. I can cope with characters being killed off and all that, but this was just done so badly and was so unnecessary. As others have said, I really don't think it was a fitting way to celebrate an anniversary and I am sad that a such a cynical ratings grab was considered appropriate (I'm sorry Mary but given all the ridiculous hype beforehand, I simply don't believe you when you say "this is not just a headline grabbing two week wonder"). And for what it's worth, I did like dear old Nigel and think the show will be poorer without him.

    As for Mary's response, I'm afraid it doesn't really cut it for me either and it certainly doesn't address many of the problems with the episode. Besides, given that prior to the episode VW was all over the media hyping both it and herself up, I really do think she should be the one out here now addressing the concerns that have been raised, rather than leaving the rest of the team to face the criticisms and clear up the mess. For someone so willing to put herself out there when there is glory to be had, her current silence seems rather cowardly.

    Report message35

  • Message 286

    , in reply to message 285.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Every time they referred to David being up on the roof I was thinking "Kenton, surely...",  

    Presumably done so they can concoct a feud SL with Elizabeth (it would hardly make a difference with Kenton) and, who knows, between Freddie and Lily and Pip, Josh and Ben (eg on New Year's Even 2010 Freddie and Ben come to blows: "Your father killed mine!".

    An example of how the stupid, stupid, stupid idea of Nigel's death /doesn't/ naturally give rise to the rich field of new plots that Mary Cutler suggests, but has to be tweaked, prodded and poked into doing so by attaching unlikely circumstances to the event itself.

    VH

    Report message36

  • Message 287

    , in reply to message 280.

    Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    "I believe (now Dame) Judi Dench played Pru Forrest as a one off. "

    And I believe Bob Holness played the saxophone solo on "Baker Street". 


    Former true, latter probably not.

    Report message37

  • Message 288

    , in reply to message 286.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    eg on New Year's Even 2010 Freddie and Ben come to blows: "Your father killed mine!".  

    I meant 2020. or 2030. Or as long this stupid mistake is allowed to infect the plotlines.

    VH

    Report message38

  • Message 289

    , in reply to message 246.

    Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    "I think the Helen storyline is pants. The actress is great, imo, but how the character achieved such speedy insemination,"

    We already know the answer to this one. It was said on this forum that the timeline on Helen's pregnancy was artificially tampered with - I think the actual phrase used at the time was "to fit in with other storylines". We now know for a fact it was to make a successful birth during the Jan 2 episode a feasible possibility.

    Personally, I WOULD have bought an eventual successful Helen birth storyline, if it had come AFTER she had paid attention to Tony's concerns, been forced to slow down by the six month waiting list that was mentioned in February before she got fast-tracked - if she still felt as strongly that it was the right thing to do after that six month wait and chance for second thoughts, then maybe Tony would have been less worried that she was rushing in to something without thinking it through first - and maybe she wouldn't have had to treat him like the enemy because of that - etc.

    I still think Helen is a fascinating character - and her baby is an interesting storyline - but without the unbelievable fast-tracking to get it to all happen on Jan 2, and now the unbelievable re-writing of history to get Tony to admit that all of his worries were always unfounded, and now apparently, Helen's character turning on a sixpence in the bliss of new motherhood, rather than her maturing over that six months waiting period so that we could believe that it WASN'T just a decision made in the immediate rebound of Leon and losing the chance to coo over Annette's baby, it could have been a much better storyline. 


    Spot on, Paul. That plus getting the pre-eclampsia story so badly wrong (needlessly).

    Report message39

  • Message 290

    , in reply to message 286.

    Posted by mike (U14258103) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    >Nigel's death doesn't naturally give rise to the rich field of new plots that Mary Cutler suggests<

    Lizzie blames David: Archer family split seems rich enough to me.

    Report message40

  • Message 291

    , in reply to message 288.

    Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    VH, I doubt it, if only because Clarrie and her family seem to harbour no grudge against David, who was certainly at least partially responsible for the accident in which Clarrie's dad died. No one seems to remember it at all, in fact.

    Report message41

  • Message 292

    , in reply to message 290.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Lizzie blames David: Archer family split seems rich enough to me.  

    mike

    My point was that this only works if it was David who was on the roof. So the plot is bent to get David up there, though on past form it looks a much more Kentonish thing to do. The Archers feud only arises because of that - so it's not the death itself that caused it.

    VH

    Report message42

  • Message 293

    , in reply to message 292.

    Posted by mike (U14258103) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Some of us think it was quite in character for David to be up on that roof given his record of hot-headed, impulsive behaviour (badger killing, muck dumping) and lack of attention to Health and Safety matters (e.g. Jethro's death).

    Report message43

  • Message 294

    , in reply to message 286.

    Posted by Country Squire (U2267298) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Mary Cutler suggests, but has to be tweaked, prodded and poked into doing so by attaching unlikely circumstances to the event itself.


    Good point VH,

    Keri Davies has been very quiet on proceedings. My take is that he don't think much of it all.

    Cutler's comments are just PR spin, nothing more. VW is too self important to poke her head above the parapet now so gives the job to a minion.

    Report message44

  • Message 295

    , in reply to message 259.

    Posted by NotsoTinyTim (U2256329) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    " In 1986 he was headhunted to take over Crossroads and the one actor he took from The Archers was Graham Seed who was cast as the head waiter. "

    So Graham S left TA because he had a better paid offer at the time. If one wanted to be really silly, one could say that he "deserted" TA then. Just as silly to accuse VW of Victorian Gradgrind behaviour in "sacking" him now.

    My point is that in a free market Graham S took what looked like a better offer of employment in 1986. You win some, you lose some.

    Report message45

  • Message 296

    , in reply to message 293.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Some of us think it was quite in character for David to be up on that roof given his record of hot-headed, impulsive behaviour (badger killing, muck dumping) and lack of attention to Health and Safety matters (e.g. Jethro's death).  

    mike

    Playing Devil's advocate, I raised that point myself a few posts up. I've been playing this back and forth in my own mind and it's certainly a consideration. However, on balance I think you're more likely to find Kenton on the roof than David.

    VH

    Report message46

  • Message 297

    , in reply to message 294.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Country Squire

    Keri Davies has been very quiet on proceedings. My take is that he don't think much of it all.  

    I've been away from the MBs for a bit - more or less since Keri handed over to Tayler - and only came back a few weeks ago, so I'm not sure how much we should expect to see of Keri these days, beyond the occasional bloggy bit on the front page. Has he been more absent than usual?

    VH

    Report message47

  • Message 298

    , in reply to message 296.

    Posted by mike (U14258103) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Yes, I agree, but I think David is plausible, too (given his history).

    Report message48

  • Message 299

    , in reply to message 297.

    Posted by Country Squire (U2267298) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    Hi Tweets following the writing out of Graham Seed have been quite interesting.


    he did an excellent hatcher job on the reviews though.

    Report message49

  • Message 300

    , in reply to message 299.

    Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Sunday, 9th January 2011

    I haven't really got to grips with tweets yet. Wilful dereliction, I suppose, not keeping up with the times.

    VH

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.