Discuss The Archers  permalink

A travesty

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 12 of 12
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Bibi (U13629128) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Who is the new scriptwriter? I find their work unimaginative and lacking in reality. The poor actors sound like they are struggling with it. Last night's ridiculous spoof on "Brief Encounter" was AWFUL because it made me feel like it was just actors and a script. The previous scriptwriter, who had an Asian name, was excellent - she made me feel it was all REAL. Shame on you BBC - boot this new woman out !!! Get her a job writing scripts for the Beano

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    No idea who you mean, Bibi.

    Last night's writer was Nawal Gadalla, poor soul to have been cursed with bringing to the microphone Vanessa's 'bright spark' of an idea. But Gadalla has been writing for TA for about 14 years, now.

    The previous scriptie - if you mean last week - was Tim Stimpson.

    The only other scriptie with an 'Asian name' is Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, and while she is indeed new to the team, her last week of episodes was broadcast towards the end of September last year, and she has had none since.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Bibi (U13629128) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Must be getting confused then...well, if it was not an Asian name it was the scriptwriter who wrote the storyline about the old couple who Matt conspired against et al...whoever wrote last night's episode needs the boot - how could they bring "Brief Encounter" into it ???? It was just like a spoof - who could believe it was true ??? Good fiction has to be credible to work !!!!

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    If you can tell me which particular bits of the Arthur & Joyce SLs you especially liked, I can probably find when they were broadcast & in which case who was the writer - but truth be known, most of the writing team featured them at some point last year!

    If you read the blog in Tayler's pinned post you will see that the BE pastiche was Vanessa's inspiration and that it fell upon Nawal G to bring it to life. I'm not sure it was right for her to proclaim such pleasure in having done so, because critical acclaim - if this place is anything to go by - has been in short supply.

    While not to everyone's taste, the last SL of this series of AmEx concluded yesterday - only the last 2 episodes are now available on iPlayer, but, written by Caroline Harrington, there are /some/ of us who think these last 6 or so episodes were extremely well written and acted, much more intense than TA, imaginative and interesting.

    And yet I imagine Harrington has at one time or another been pilloried in here for the perceived quality of her writing!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Pat Shed (U4664057) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Gadalla has been writing for TA for about 14 years, now 

    A newcomer then, just beginning to settle in. 14 years? Pah, that's nothing. Where are the scriptwriters from the 60s and 70s, when the dialogue was impeccable, the continuity unimpeachable and the research unfailing? 14 years would have been like an apprenticeship for them.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Aye, 'appen as you'll be spot on there, our Pat. Nawal'll not be accepted as an old-stager in the team until she's got six grandparents buried in t'cemetry out back of recording studio. Ecky thump as like and fetch me a whippet to go with my flat cap, would you, pet?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    I can't agree that the dialogue in the 1960s and 70s was impeccable. When I listen to some of those back episodes it sounds as dire as the current offerings and some of the storylines equally appalling. I find other aspects of TA more worrying -personality transplants and the dropping of storylines come to mind. I wonder if with the huge amount of cuts that BBC Radio is having to bear whether we just aren't getting the calibre of writers and production staff that we should enjoy.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Skyebird (U14198692) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Uhh, cherrytree, I think there was just an itzzy bittzy bit of irony there.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by cherrytree (U9175528) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Probably.I went to our local wine society's anniversary dinner last evening and I'm not at my sparkling best today. Sorry.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Bert The Bard (U14090956) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Bibi,

    As Mustafa has pointed out, the whole BE idea was VW's baby and she handed the SW a poisoned chalice... she was defeated before a single word splashed onto the page. In the blog she sounded terribly chuffed with her offering, pointing out all the clever BE references and how she moved them around and squeezed them in... unfortunately the majority were not exactly silent in their condemnation (myself included) because it had no place in TA.

    Take the episode away from TA and view it as a one-off pastiche and the condemnation, like condensation can drip down the writer's neck... but spare the noose please.

    it ended up as a heavy handed, heavy humoured nod to Brief Encounter... or Briefcase Encounter, which would be more fitting. File it under failed and move on quickly... the SW's and the prod team owe us a few really good episodes now... starting with the removal of this tawdry and very unpleasant affair.

    bert.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    File it under failed and move on quickly... 
    Alongside it in the Failed Folder you should find:

    - Nigel's Flying Lesson for the 60th anniversary
    - Ruth *not* disappearing forever into the sunset with Sam on the 15,000th episode
    - 'That' hen night

    I am sure others will be nominated.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by maggiesaes (U2771771) on Friday, 8th February 2013

    Bibi,

    As Mustafa has pointed out, the whole BE idea was VW's baby and she handed the SW a poisoned chalice... she was defeated before a single word splashed onto the page. In the blog she sounded terribly chuffed with her offering, pointing out all the clever BE references and how she moved them around and squeezed them in... unfortunately the majority were not exactly silent in their condemnation (myself included) because it had no place in TA.

    Take the episode away from TA and view it as a one-off pastiche and the condemnation, like condensation can drip down the writer's neck... but spare the noose please.

    it ended up as a heavy handed, heavy humoured nod to Brief Encounter... or Briefcase Encounter, which would be more fitting. File it under failed and move on quickly... the SW's and the prod team owe us a few really good episodes now... starting with the removal of this tawdry and very unpleasant affair.

    bert. 
    I second that too and the sooner we're rid of it the better.

    Report message12

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

BBC © 2014 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.