One tries not to blaspheme, on the whole

…but God Almighty. Have they got the interns writing this? Even so, youth does not excuse everything. Hogwhimperingly poor, and embarrassing to listen to. I don’t embarrass easily, btw.
And it would appear that the Cretinous Tendency is lapping it up.

4 Likes

It’s a writer whose name I’ve never heard before - Naylah Ahmed. The Susan/Clarrie dialogue was not bad though someone pointed out elsewhere that Clarrie wouldn’t have had to wit to mock Susan’s ‘not as unpleasant as the first time’ remark and I have to agree with that. Other than that, I was cringing along with you over the Lily/Phoebe/Roy scene. Wooden, not Wodehouse, I’d say.

3 Likes

Clarrie is getting as bad as Jill in terms of overacting. OK, she’s the original Clarrie, yadda yadda yadda, but she sounds horribly fake or “stock comic yokel female no. 2”. They SWs don’t give her much to work with, but she works with it badly. imo. False Clarrie might just about have made the label jibe at Susan believable. Maybe when one gets consistently shite scripts one just turns up for a laugh and to see what one can get away with.
Susan is now being written as utterly shameless and lacking all guile in her quest for information that is none of her business. She used not to be quite so obvious, did she? Or am I too imagining a golden age of TA which never existed?

4 Likes

I don’t feel that the Clarrie actor has found her voice since her return. There are so many people who sound weird I really believe the directors are to blame.

5 Likes

A post was split to a new topic: Condomgatr

Useders, I moved your post to a topic in spoilers. And then I hit the wrong thing while trying to send you a private message telling you what I had done and I seem to have vanished it completely. Apologies for that. Do please repost in spoilers.

I am now going to sit down and give myself a good talking to.

Edited to add - I have devanished it, Useders. Who’s a clever Gus, then?

4 Likes

Thanks, Gus. Don’t worry about it. :slight_smile:

The only reason I didn’t put it in Spoilers, was because I don’t think it qualifies.
The story is in most of today’s papers and has even been on the radio locally…

4 Likes

Gawds, it really is the Silly Season, isn’t it? Are we supposed to applaud the drive for a pox-free Archers Audience, now that Coercive Control has been eliminated, or what?

4 Likes

And by this time next year, the character will have had the bell and UNCLEAN notice removed from around the neck and the whole story will never be heard of again.

4 Likes

Inevitably, Ahmed twits, but at least doesn’t do so about her TA writing:

https://twitter.com/naylah_ahmed

Been a script editor before, on a soap:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newtalent/drama/advice_naylah.shtml

3 Likes

Oh dear. I am not at all keen on Causes being given an airing in TA.

3 Likes

I quite enjoyed her writing for Soosan’s atrocious rumour generation, and Neil’s futile attempts to rebut her theories. That’s not because it was good Archers. You could hear the cogs whirring in the machine. But I thought they were being turned gleefully and deliberately. In fact it sounded like a satire on TA. I suppose I am now so fed up that I think it asks for it. Perhaps John Finnemore will provide more.

4 Likes

[quote=“Fromthecradle, post:12, topic:570”] … it sounded like a satire on TA[/quote]Absolutely. Amusing enough if you view it as such. Archer’s by numbers, and played for laughs and exaggeration.

5 Likes

It all felt as if it were flowing from plot rather than from the people involved. The whole episode did, even the Susan-gossips bit.

I do not know a single person who lives their life or makes their every utterance for the furtherance of Plot; do you? Not knowing the plot in advance, as we don’t, makes it very unlikely.

That may be what is now wrong: the writers know the plots in advance (and have no choice about doing as they are told with them) and therefore write to them, where in The Old Days they were given a very rough outline and wrote from it instead of to it. Hence the fun when one author who disliked writing Shula sent her to the Far East and another brought her back almost immediately…

5 Likes

It was the only time I’ve heard it this week.

Perhaps painting by numbers is a better description than satire. Although it did provoke an odd amusement, it wasn’t the sort of amusement that will encourage me to listen more. I don’t really want the workings of the (now very rusty) machine pushed to the front of my attention all the time.

3 Likes

Lately almost EVERY scene has sounded life those taking part, were in fact reading the words straight from the script. Sometimes they haven’t even left time between reading their lines, before the other character(s) replies. It sounds very unnatural.
Jill and A.N.Other are the worst.

If they can’t be bothered to learn their lines. Why should we bother to listen to them?

3 Likes

I think they’re trying (unsuccessfully) to be clever in a postmodern, self-referential way. The Brief Encounter episode was a particularly egregious example, but it’s becoming pervasive with the attempts at in-jokes like references to “being force-fed lemon drizzle” and the like. That can work very well in Brecht, Stoppard or Fo, but I really don’t think TA’s format can carry it. Nor can the SWs.

6 Likes

‘Strongly agree’

Keep ‘arch’ out of The Archers.

6 Likes

…which, means, I have just realised, that I will be listening at 7:03pm to The Ers.

4 Likes

David: Er?

Anisha: Eaoeur!

Feebles: Eeeeuur!

4 Likes