Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
Are we wrong to blame the SWs?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by triffid (U2389672) on Friday, 25th January 2008
Reading through the various threads on the main message boards it is clear to me that most posters are blaming the scriptwriters for poorly thought out plots, unlikely scenarios, changes of character, inaccurate information and so on. I wonder whether this is entirely fair? Surely the SWs merely write the scripts based on lines set out for them by the Production Team. The current saga involving Kathy is a good example of what I mean. Keri has told us that the Team have taken expert advice (in this case, from two barristers) and Owen's change of character was obviously necessary in order for the story to unfold in the way it has.
I accept that we may get the odd bit of poor scriptwriting (although I don't think it happens that often) but silly storylines and unlikely plot developments etc must I feel be down to the Production Team.
Just a thought. -
Message 2
Posted by Dusty Substances (U1474929) on Friday, 25th January 2008
Not sure this is a Ns and Qs topic, but I don't actually think the SWs are at fault for storylines. The odd crap scene definitely, but the storylines are planned by the whole team headed by Vanessa Whitburn. I'd love a Q and A session with her, but I wouldn't blame any individual SW for storylining.
Dx -
Message 3
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Friday, 25th January 2008
Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:13 GMT, in reply to triffid in message 1
See (storylines are determined at joint meetings of the production team and writers). -
Message 4
Posted by triffid (U2389672) on Friday, 25th January 2008
Thanks for that, Mike. I'd love to know how much influence the SWs actually have at the meetings. I imagine the real planning (the longer term issues in particular) is outside their remit although they might suggest refinements and twists and turns of plots.
-
Message 5
Posted by smarttedebear (U3614285) on Friday, 25th January 2008
Do the actors have any input into storylines or, indeed, individual lines? I am particularly interested to know if they can correct what they see as a factual error. For instance, one would expect the actress playing Jennifer to know after all this time, that Shula is her cousin and not her niece. There have been several errors of this type over the years. Substituting the word 'cousin' for 'niece' would not, it seems to me, offend any SW.
-
Message 6
Posted by Elnora Cornstalk (U5646495) on Friday, 25th January 2008
In reply to triffid in message 4
Triffid. Try to see a copy of the 'Arena' programme, first screened around last January 2006, if I recall aright. I was staggered by just how much influence VW had, talking down other suggestions in the meetings. I now see the 'grace notes' in the scripts as writers striking back for a bit of autonomy, even in SLs they perhaps don't entirely enjoy having to write. -
Message 7
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:53 GMT, in reply to smarttedebear in message 5
Interviews with various actors have revealed that they can (and do) improve some lines. The "niece" mistake was made by Keri on the website, not broadcast in the programme, iirc. It's clear that the memory of many listeners can sometimes be superior to the collective memory of the production team and/or their use of the archive (e.g. not remembering the first meeting of Ruth and Sophie). -
Message 8
Posted by Elnora Cornstalk (U5646495) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
In reply to mike .... in message 7
However, not all. Last year was 2006. Iirc was Wrong.
Sorry,
Elnora x -
Message 9
Posted by Flora Poste (U10018463) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
As I understand it, TA is a collaborative, team effort ---script writing conferences etc. And sometimes an actor does have imput---Timothy Bentinck chose to say, 'the cowman' and the actor playing Jim suggested 'Meaning?' said in a querulous voice.
I often find story lines gripping and the script spot-on, witty etc. I think the team deserve bouquets AND brickbats---we all have had things we've hated I, for example, didn't like the gay surrogacy plot or Uncle Rupert's gazebo!) but overall, I think the team are doing a good job right now.
What I'd love to know is if the team ever think about the listeners' views. I know the gay surrogacy plot was unpopular from other message boards, and I have wondered if that's why Madds 'changed her mind'! -
Message 10
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:59 GMT, in reply to Flora Poste in message 9
I think it was clear from the timescale that the Madds baby storyline was not rewritten to take account of some listeners' objections (i.e. the storyline was always going to end like that). I'm pretty sure that Keri confirmed that this was the case on the MB, too.
He has indicated that listeners' reactions were important/ confirmed the teams's feelings in some cases (e.g. what happened to the Greg/Helen storyline). -
Message 11
Posted by Flora Poste (U10018463) on Saturday, 26th January 2008
Hmmmm....but it did seem to me that the Madds story ended very abruptly---and before the full dramatic potential had been explored.
Of course, if the SWs DID realise they'd made a mistake with Maddy and ended it earlier than planned for PR reasons/not alienating their audience they wouldn't necessarily admit it. It might be more diplomatic to gloss over the whole thing......I understand VW had already taken quite a lot of stick!! -
Message 12
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Monday, 28th January 2008
>Of course, if the SWs DID realise they'd made a mistake with Maddy and ended it earlier than planned for PR reasons/not alienating their audience they wouldn't necessarily admit it.
Yes we would. I have never and will never told a lie on this board. As i prevously posted, that story ran exactly as initially planned. -
Message 13
Posted by Flora Poste (U10018463) on Tuesday, 29th January 2008
Keri----I was talking about diplomacy---not 'lies', the former being a positive thing in my view. (And I also said 'the SWs', not the host/moderator of the board.)
Personally---as one of the posters on this board who defends the SWs rather more than some of the others (i.e over the Kathy story, for example), if they HAD had brought the planned ending of the Madds story forward in order to prevent further alienation of the audience--I switched off for months to avoid it, for example---I'd have great respect for them. I thought the whole SL was tacky, personally, and I particularly disliked the publicity seeking photo of the actors that appeared in the Daily Telegraph.
Just my view.... -
Message 14
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) on Tuesday, 29th January 2008
Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:31 GMT, in reply to Elnora Cornstalk in message 8
Last year was 2006.Â
Last year was 2007. -
Message 15
Posted by Elnora Cornstalk (U5646495) on Wednesday, 30th January 2008
In reply to Peet (the Pedantic Punctuation Policeman, Muse of Lateral Programming Ideas, Spoonwinner, Cheese Namer & Zaphodista) in message 14
Twice wrong. Thanks Peet. Of course, last year was 1905. Going in for treatment now. Elnora Cornstick.. er stork... Cornstock.. Comstalk.. ah, Cornsnork.. byee...
About this Board
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
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
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.