This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Grizelda Pugh (U4068474) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Many Mustardlanders have complained about the over use of David and Ruth in episodes when it would be nice to hear from other characters such as Pat and Tony, Clarrie and Eddie, Usha and the Vic, Adam and Ian etc..
Is there any chance of David and Ruth becoming 'just another couple' given their unpopularity? Or would it be too difficult or expensive from a writers point of view?
I know it's all relative, but shouldn't that read '/some/ Mustardlanders'? One could say that 'most MLers don't give a toss' .
Also, I'd mentioned elsewhere, that - much as I enjoy reading the statistics - it isn't the number of times that a character appears that counts, it is the amount of air-time (which, as far as I am aware, hasn't been quantified).
Given that the programme is called the Archers and that it has always been centred on the family occupying Brookfield it is inevitable that Ruth and david are the most frequently appearing characters.
Apart, presumably, having a budget which dictates how many characters can be used in any given period I don't think there are any other constraints on usage of actors since there are no longer any permenently contracted members of the cast.
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by U8081600 - Banned alt ID 2 (U8081600) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
<>
You do not speak in my name!
I didn't say I did.
Grizzly, I don't think it would be difficult to give other characters more to say because most of what Ruth and David talk about is drivel. I, for one, do not have the remotest interest in their domestic, childcare, school run arrangements.They seem to me to be the most self centred, self absorbed couple in the village, (and there is a fair amount of competition in that particular league). PS. How is Anthony Aloysius St. John these days?
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by U8081600 - Banned alt ID 2 (U8081600) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
<>
Still living at Number 3, thank you.
He's in the Hand and Racquet with Bill and Sid.
I was beginning to think I'd suggested something shameful by wondering if we could have a bit less of Dave and WR.
He's in the Hand and Racquet with Bill and Sid.Â
Probably trying to avoid your gravy.
That's the goodness in it - no remarks about flour if you please.
, in reply to message 10.
Posted by U8081600 - Banned alt ID 2 (U8081600) on Friday, 1st June 2007
My late mother's gravy was really special: she served it cut into neat cubes.
We used to say that her 'kneidlach' (Jewish dumplings) were army surplus ammunition from the Peninsular War.
Just bumping this thread because I really would like to know if it would be possible to have more equal use of characters OTHER than Ruth and Dave.
I'm not suggesting dumping them altogether (though that would be nice), just could we have less of them and more of other characters?
Is there any chance of this being read by someone who could explain?
Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:50 GMT, in reply to Grizelda Pugh in message 12
Grizelda, N&Q is really for (factual) questions about TA/the MB. What you're doing is expressing an opinion about certain characters and the place for that is really "Discuss the Archers" where you will find some support for your views. The views expressed in DTA are passed on to the production team by the board host, Keri Davies.
Dear Grizelda
No one really ever answers this one. The problem of the dopeys (particularly Ruth) has been expressed so often, ad nauseum, to no avial.
In spite of the various ploys to make them/her more popular, nothing has worked, nor ever will, but still the SWs persist. Short of changing the actress (which must be meeting severe resistance in 'the oval office') we appear to be stuck with being force-fed their dreary lives.
Mouse xx
Thanks, Mike and School Mouse.
I'll just have to live in hope.
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 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.