´óÏó´«Ã½

Ambridge Extra  permalink

One - nil to the scripties

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Lars Post (U2291030) on Saturday, 8th October 2011

  I hated TAX 1 but wanted to give the second series a chance.
  
  I thought the characteriation of Clive was very good, a believable combination of control freakery and denial of responsibility.
  
  But the thought voices...
  
  Good Grief they were done to death. This is supposed to be a new creative triumph for The Archers? Get real.
  
  Another stupidly ill-judged editorial decision.
  
  I score it....
  
  Dialogue 1
  
  Editor 0.

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Saturday, 8th October 2011

  I quite like the inward thoughts. I'm reserving judgement on if they are too intrusive. There have only been two episodes so far, after all.

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Dora Pandle (U14741938) on Sunday, 9th October 2011

  I agree about Clive but I think we only know that because we heard his thoughts.

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Pat_Clifton (U14447939) on Sunday, 9th October 2011

  I thought the thought bubbles worked better in the second epi than the first. A lot will depend on how cleverly/sparingly they're used. They could easily be over-done, but so far they have added something to the programme:
  
  We saw the scene in the pub from Clive's perspective. How else do you depict someone brooding over a pint? Either we'd have had to have interaction between Clive and Mike (and the whole point was that Mike didn't want any interaction) or we'd have had to have it observed by a third party - Jim and Joe propping up the bar, maybe. Either way it wouldn't have been as evocative. As Dora says above, some of our image of Clive comes from his thoughts.
  
  The scenes with Daniel and Erin were great comedy. It wouldn't have been as effective with just their conversation.

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by BG59 (U13873951) on Sunday, 9th October 2011

  As with the OP, I didn't stick with Amex1, but decided to give Amex2 the chance of a fair hearing. I rather like what I've heard so far.
  The 'inner voice' device can work well in radio drama - I remember a R4 play a few years ago, about a Victorian group photo, that consisted largely of the subjects' inner voices during the long photographic exposure - but this is the first time I've come across its use in a soap.
  Part of my problem with Amex1 was that it seemed to struggle with the 'extra' bit - the Southampton plot seemed a legitimate extension, for example - but in the end, we got plot developments in TA that made little or no sense to the main-show-only audience. There may be room for further 'beyond Borchester' escapades (Phoebe in Jo'burg would be an obvious choice); for the time being, I think Amex2 with its inner-voice feature could work well as a truly optional 'extra', giving a different slant on events in the main prog. I listen to TA as it goes out on the 1900 slot, and can catch Amex in its Sunday omnibus form; if it continues as week 1, I think I might be able to stick with it, as neither show acts as a 'spoiler' to the other.

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by JoLean (U2258866) on Tuesday, 11th October 2011

  I like the inner monologue too, but I do think there is a danger of overdoing it.
  
  It helps that the Clive H story is interesting and based on characters and plots we know and have listened to for years, I think.
  
  

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by JustJanie - Fairweather Strider (U10822512) on Tuesday, 11th October 2011

  << I like the inner monologue too, but I do think there is a danger of overdoing it. >>
  
  I agree, JoLean with both those statements. If they keep telling us what the characters are thinking, what will we find to argue about?

  Link to this forum: One - nil to the scripties

  Report message7

Back to top