well as i said they moved waterloo road whenever they liked even though it shouldve been shown within the school year. if they can move that they can move altantis
It is different because Waterloo road has less episodes in each run (usually 10) to shows like Atlantis which have 13. That doesn't leave them much. Wriggle room to fit into a television 'season' as the Autumn schedule starts in September and generally finishes 1 or 2 weeks before Christmas.
Saturdays also tend to be a little harder to shift round in the Autumn because SCD is quite a long programme (usually more than an hour) and you have the National Lottery rubbish that can't be shifted as well as the News.
to sarah - i was trying to prove it was all a misunderstanding. i wasnt doing anything for pure badness. cant send you this obviously because you blocked me before letting me explain..
to sarah - i was trying to prove it was all a misunderstanding. i wasnt doing anything for pure badness. cant send you this obviously because you blocked me before letting me explain..
So the other week i was speculating that Max was flirting with Jamie, but i think the more likely answer is he's just a generally flirty guy. I enjoyed his scenes with Zoe and it'll be interesting to see where that goes. I like his character
Good episode this week, nice to see Lilly asking for Ash's advice for a change, liking the new Porter and at least hes a bit different to big mac. also nice to see a continuity of the police storyline from the other week.
Good episode this week, nice to see Lilly asking for Ash's advice for a change, liking the new Porter and at least hes a bit different to big mac. also nice to see a continuity of the police storyline from the other week.
Gotta be honest i really can't stand this new character Max, he's a lazy freeloader. Hopefully he improves cause his scenes are already starting to irritate me.
No Tess in the episode, well she's definitely underused.
I think she might have been in the episode briefly... I can't remember her being in it, but she was in the credits. Part of a team treating a patient, perhaps?
Also, I was reading the discussions about the schedule from last week. I don't mind them taking a week off occasionally, but I do wish that it was generally on at the same time each week, instead of varying. Why is it that the Saturday night schedule on BBC One changes week by week? Is it because of the sport?
So the other week i was speculating that Max was flirting with Jamie, but i think the more likely answer is he's just a generally flirty guy. I enjoyed his scenes with Zoe and it'll be interesting to see where that goes. I like his character
Let's hope they just remain friends and colleagues.
Hopefully he will learn that women can be respected and are human and not just people to play "games" with and she will be able to recapture what it was like just starting out and be able to offer advice when he needs it as well as listening to the non-management staffs point of view.
Not every man woman encounter has to be about sex afterall
Is Ash leaving? There is no press suggesting he is, but I don't understand how he has time to rehearse for Strictly if he's still filming. The dance rehearsals are pretty intensive, and I think most of the Casualty and Holby City people who have done it in the past have left around the same time - Patsy Kensit, Tom Chambers, Georgina Bouzova etc.
Is Ash leaving? There is no press suggesting he is, but I don't understand how he has time to rehearse for Strictly if he's still filming. The dance rehearsals are pretty intensive, and I think most of the Casualty and Holby City people who have done it in the past have left around the same time - Patsy Kensit, Tom Chambers, Georgina Bouzova etc.
They showed him still filming the show the other week on Strictly. But the producer did say characters were leaving?
I've been thinking recently about Casualty's origins. It started out in the 1980s to show how integral the NHS was in our society, when it was under threat from Thatcher's Government. It was a huge success and eventually became the household programme that it is today.
Now the NHS is obviously under threat again, with huge parts of it being sold off to private companies. Do you think it's too much to hope for that this will be addressed in the programme? If Oliver Kent decided to take the premise of the show back to its roots in the current political climate, I would take back anything negative that I ever said about him.
I've been thinking recently about Casualty's origins. It started out in the 1980s to show how integral the NHS was in our society, when it was under threat from Thatcher's Government. It was a huge success and eventually became the household programme that it is today.
Now the NHS is obviously under threat again, with huge parts of it being sold off to private companies. Do you think it's too much to hope for that this will be addressed in the programme? If Oliver Kent decided to take the premise of the show back to its roots in the current political climate, I would take back anything negative that I ever said about him.
Thing is, it's a different political/social/cultural climate today than it was back then, and I'm not sure that what worked back in the 80s would necessarily work in 2013/14. I mean, 'different' in several senses:
1. Not as many people are as politically active as they were back in the 1980s. Today, they are pretty apathetic until of course the problem lands on their own doorstep. What may be obvious to you (i.e."Now the NHS is obviously under threat again, with huge parts of it being sold off to private companies") may not be as obvious to other people. That's a political view/belief you hold that may not resonant with others.
2. The political & social landscape has shifted so much. For one thing, the politics is not so clearly drawn as they were during Thatcher's time. The Thatcher era broke a political consenus that had existed since the end of WW2 - i.e. high public spending, full employment. We just don't have that today, at least not as "in your face obvious" as it was in the 80s.
3. A lot people, though believing in a free NHS, think that the NHS wastes a lot money. If there are any reforms to improve the service, I'm sure they will welcome it. All most people care about (those not politically atuned to the NHS/privatisation debate) is a 'free' health service at the point of need. If they can see a doctor/nurse when and as they need them, be treated when and as they need it, get the level of after care as and when they require it and all this "'free' at the point of use/need", then most people will be happy. It's only when they start to feel that this isn't so - i.e. that they have pay for something they normally got for free (e.g. paying for a doctor/GP consultation) - that they will wake up to what's happening to their formerly free NHS. And only then you may need vast sways of people to get caught up in that net anyway before the political landscape changed. At least, that's the mental culture of Brits I find (see point 1 above).
4. The danger in going back to Casualty's roots is that may feel like a party political broadcast in dramatic form. The BBC has already got enough on its plate without being labelled as the mouthpiece for the Labour party or oozing a hint of political bias (even though some would argue it was New Labour that introduced the slow creep of privatisation into the NHS and education services).
5. As a result of the above, it may lose even more viewers than it has at the moment. There's nothing worse when watching a show than the feeling of being preached at or being told what to think and how to think it. Casualty as it was in the 80's was of its time, for its time. Right now, we are a different zeigest plagued by huge public debt and a political atmosphere that's all for the lowering of this debt whichever the political party. People want their services to improve as long as things remain free at the point of use/need. If privatisation offers that package, they'll be happy. It's only when they've to pay for services - whether by ever increasing taxes or service charges - that the landscape will change. If the showrunners want to go down that road though, they will have to be subtle about it, and that will take some creativity.
Those are my views, for the little that they are worth...
1. Not as many people are as politically active as they were back in the 1980s. Today, they are pretty apathetic until of course the problem lands on their own doorstep.
Well, I wasn't born in the 1980s so I haven't experienced the comparisons, but a lot of the people that I know are very politically active. I'm an independent political activist and blogger, and I have done a lot of work on political campaigns with many of my friends. I agree with you that there are also a lot of people who don't really know very much about it, but I think that a TV show like this could spread awareness.
2. The political & social landscape has shifted so much. For one thing, the politics is not so clearly drawn as they were during Thatcher's time. The Thatcher era broke a political consenus that had existed since the end of WW2 - i.e. high public spending, full employment. We just don't have that today, at least not as "in your face obvious" as it was in the 80s.
Yes, it wouldn't work for all political storylines to be through one viewpoint. It would have to be fair enough to be reasonably free of bias, and show things from both sides. Though I would expect it to swing towards pro-NHS - that is natural, as it is a drama about the NHS.
3. A lot people, though believing in a free NHS, think that the NHS wastes a lot money. If there are any reforms to improve the service, I'm sure they will welcome it. All most people care about (those not politically atuned to the NHS/privatisation debate) is a 'free' health service at the point of need. If they can see a doctor/nurse when and as they need them, be treated when and as they need it, get the level of after care as and when they require it and all this "'free' at the point of use/need", then most people will be happy. It's only when they start to feel that this isn't so - i.e. that they have pay for something they normally got for free (e.g. paying for a doctor/GP consultation) - that they will wake up to what's happening to their formerly free NHS. And only then you may need vast sways of people to get caught up in that net anyway before the political landscape changed. At least, that's the mental culture of Brits I find (see point 1 above).
Well again, surely having a focus on that on Casualty again would do a good job of raising awareness of the situation? After all, what is the point of drama other than to see problems and situations that other people might be facing and to consider how you would handle such things? The suggestion that many people don't really see the NHS as doing good work to me only reinforces the notion that we need programmes like Casualty to be on the top of their game in broadcasting the work that the NHS does. And for the record, I'd welcome reforms that I felt would improve the NHS; as it happens, I don't feel that these reforms will.
4. The danger in going back to Casualty's roots is that may feel like a party political broadcast in dramatic form. The BBC has already got enough on its plate without being labelled as the mouthpiece for the Labour party or oozing a hint of political bias (even though many would argue it was New Labour that introduced the slow creep of privatisation into public services).
Why would it feel like a political party broadcast? As you said, the politics are more complex now. Surely it would have felt more like a political party broadcast back in the day, when it was plainly and simply going against what was being talked about? Now, there are so many more situations that can be made into storylines about how they affect real people in the country, and how the hospital deals with that. And in any case, back in the days of Series 25, the BBC treated the NHS like a joke - there were portrayals of a paramedic beating up two patients (one of whom later died); some disturbingly graphic scenes of a character bleeding to death in a hospital basement; doctors, nurses and paramedics repeatedly losing their tempers with patients and judging them; a doctor almost cutting open a patient's skull and being dragged off to a psychiatric unit, before being miraculously reinstated in the ED less than six months later; and a poor representation of Islam in a Muslim nurse. If the BBC are prepared to represent an institution that we have loved for nearly 70 years in this way, why would they worry about being involved in the political side of things? I think that the latter shows more courage.
5. As a result of the above, it may lose even more viewers than it has at the moment. There's nothing worse when watching a show than the feeling of being preached at or being told what to think and how to think it. Casualty as it was in the 80's was of its time, for its time. Right now, we are a different zeigest plagued by huge public debt and a political atmosphere that's all for the lowering of this debt whichever the political party. People want their services to improve as long as things remain free at the point of use/need. If privatisation offers that package, they'll be happy. It's only when they've to pay for services - whether by ever increasing taxes or service charges - that the landscape will change. If the showrunners want to go down that road though, they will have to be subtle about it, and that will take some creativity.
It certainly will take creativity and subtlety, but I believe that television writers should be capable of both of these things, and if they aren't then they shouldn't be television writers. And I disagree with you that it's likely to lose viewers - a lot of complaints about it seem to suggest that the reason that it has lost viewers is that it has become too soapy and too focussed on the personal lives of the staff. This is what I think as well. I continue to watch it for two reasons. 1) Because I am a loyal viewer - I have been watching since early 2007, and in that time I have missed only one episode (and that was only because it was unusually broadcast on a Wednesday, and I didn't realise until it was already gone from iPlayer) and 2) Because every now and again we get a really good episode, and when we see decent members of staff doing their jobs properly (in the current generation of characters, it is usually Charlie, Tess, Zoe, Sam, Rita, Lily and Jamie) it is still offering me what I want.
I still watch Casualty every week, but currently I don't actively look forward to it the way that I have at other points in the show's history. I actually prefer it when there is some politics involved with it - the FGM storyline, for example, was fantastic; a really current issue, one that many people aren't aware of and it took guts to broadcast something like that. Sometimes I wonder if I just expect something different from Casualty that other viewers do, but then again episodes that I like often turn out to be the most popular ones - again, such as the FGM storyline. I find things like that exciting and riveting, and I think there should be more focus on political and social issues faced by Britain today than drama about Tom and Sam, or Big Mac and Noel's answer to the Chuckle Brothers.
Comments
It is different because Waterloo road has less episodes in each run (usually 10) to shows like Atlantis which have 13. That doesn't leave them much. Wriggle room to fit into a television 'season' as the Autumn schedule starts in September and generally finishes 1 or 2 weeks before Christmas.
Saturdays also tend to be a little harder to shift round in the Autumn because SCD is quite a long programme (usually more than an hour) and you have the National Lottery rubbish that can't be shifted as well as the News.
Huh? I've not blocked anyone?
Not you. Theres another sarah ive just had a misunderstanding with
Was wondering what you were going on about
I found it dull....
"I was wondering where he was"
"Er...Cubicles"
"Do you know where that is?"
"No"
I think she might have been in the episode briefly... I can't remember her being in it, but she was in the credits. Part of a team treating a patient, perhaps?
Also, I was reading the discussions about the schedule from last week. I don't mind them taking a week off occasionally, but I do wish that it was generally on at the same time each week, instead of varying. Why is it that the Saturday night schedule on BBC One changes week by week? Is it because of the sport?
Hopefully he will learn that women can be respected and are human and not just people to play "games" with and she will be able to recapture what it was like just starting out and be able to offer advice when he needs it as well as listening to the non-management staffs point of view.
Not every man woman encounter has to be about sex afterall
They showed him still filming the show the other week on Strictly. But the producer did say characters were leaving?
Now the NHS is obviously under threat again, with huge parts of it being sold off to private companies. Do you think it's too much to hope for that this will be addressed in the programme? If Oliver Kent decided to take the premise of the show back to its roots in the current political climate, I would take back anything negative that I ever said about him.
Thing is, it's a different political/social/cultural climate today than it was back then, and I'm not sure that what worked back in the 80s would necessarily work in 2013/14. I mean, 'different' in several senses:
1. Not as many people are as politically active as they were back in the 1980s. Today, they are pretty apathetic until of course the problem lands on their own doorstep. What may be obvious to you (i.e."Now the NHS is obviously under threat again, with huge parts of it being sold off to private companies") may not be as obvious to other people. That's a political view/belief you hold that may not resonant with others.
2. The political & social landscape has shifted so much. For one thing, the politics is not so clearly drawn as they were during Thatcher's time. The Thatcher era broke a political consenus that had existed since the end of WW2 - i.e. high public spending, full employment. We just don't have that today, at least not as "in your face obvious" as it was in the 80s.
3. A lot people, though believing in a free NHS, think that the NHS wastes a lot money. If there are any reforms to improve the service, I'm sure they will welcome it. All most people care about (those not politically atuned to the NHS/privatisation debate) is a 'free' health service at the point of need. If they can see a doctor/nurse when and as they need them, be treated when and as they need it, get the level of after care as and when they require it and all this "'free' at the point of use/need", then most people will be happy. It's only when they start to feel that this isn't so - i.e. that they have pay for something they normally got for free (e.g. paying for a doctor/GP consultation) - that they will wake up to what's happening to their formerly free NHS. And only then you may need vast sways of people to get caught up in that net anyway before the political landscape changed. At least, that's the mental culture of Brits I find (see point 1 above).
4. The danger in going back to Casualty's roots is that may feel like a party political broadcast in dramatic form. The BBC has already got enough on its plate without being labelled as the mouthpiece for the Labour party or oozing a hint of political bias (even though some would argue it was New Labour that introduced the slow creep of privatisation into the NHS and education services).
5. As a result of the above, it may lose even more viewers than it has at the moment. There's nothing worse when watching a show than the feeling of being preached at or being told what to think and how to think it. Casualty as it was in the 80's was of its time, for its time. Right now, we are a different zeigest plagued by huge public debt and a political atmosphere that's all for the lowering of this debt whichever the political party. People want their services to improve as long as things remain free at the point of use/need. If privatisation offers that package, they'll be happy. It's only when they've to pay for services - whether by ever increasing taxes or service charges - that the landscape will change. If the showrunners want to go down that road though, they will have to be subtle about it, and that will take some creativity.
Those are my views, for the little that they are worth...
Well, I wasn't born in the 1980s so I haven't experienced the comparisons, but a lot of the people that I know are very politically active. I'm an independent political activist and blogger, and I have done a lot of work on political campaigns with many of my friends. I agree with you that there are also a lot of people who don't really know very much about it, but I think that a TV show like this could spread awareness.
Yes, it wouldn't work for all political storylines to be through one viewpoint. It would have to be fair enough to be reasonably free of bias, and show things from both sides. Though I would expect it to swing towards pro-NHS - that is natural, as it is a drama about the NHS.
Well again, surely having a focus on that on Casualty again would do a good job of raising awareness of the situation? After all, what is the point of drama other than to see problems and situations that other people might be facing and to consider how you would handle such things? The suggestion that many people don't really see the NHS as doing good work to me only reinforces the notion that we need programmes like Casualty to be on the top of their game in broadcasting the work that the NHS does. And for the record, I'd welcome reforms that I felt would improve the NHS; as it happens, I don't feel that these reforms will.
Why would it feel like a political party broadcast? As you said, the politics are more complex now. Surely it would have felt more like a political party broadcast back in the day, when it was plainly and simply going against what was being talked about? Now, there are so many more situations that can be made into storylines about how they affect real people in the country, and how the hospital deals with that. And in any case, back in the days of Series 25, the BBC treated the NHS like a joke - there were portrayals of a paramedic beating up two patients (one of whom later died); some disturbingly graphic scenes of a character bleeding to death in a hospital basement; doctors, nurses and paramedics repeatedly losing their tempers with patients and judging them; a doctor almost cutting open a patient's skull and being dragged off to a psychiatric unit, before being miraculously reinstated in the ED less than six months later; and a poor representation of Islam in a Muslim nurse. If the BBC are prepared to represent an institution that we have loved for nearly 70 years in this way, why would they worry about being involved in the political side of things? I think that the latter shows more courage.
It certainly will take creativity and subtlety, but I believe that television writers should be capable of both of these things, and if they aren't then they shouldn't be television writers. And I disagree with you that it's likely to lose viewers - a lot of complaints about it seem to suggest that the reason that it has lost viewers is that it has become too soapy and too focussed on the personal lives of the staff. This is what I think as well. I continue to watch it for two reasons. 1) Because I am a loyal viewer - I have been watching since early 2007, and in that time I have missed only one episode (and that was only because it was unusually broadcast on a Wednesday, and I didn't realise until it was already gone from iPlayer) and 2) Because every now and again we get a really good episode, and when we see decent members of staff doing their jobs properly (in the current generation of characters, it is usually Charlie, Tess, Zoe, Sam, Rita, Lily and Jamie) it is still offering me what I want.
I still watch Casualty every week, but currently I don't actively look forward to it the way that I have at other points in the show's history. I actually prefer it when there is some politics involved with it - the FGM storyline, for example, was fantastic; a really current issue, one that many people aren't aware of and it took guts to broadcast something like that. Sometimes I wonder if I just expect something different from Casualty that other viewers do, but then again episodes that I like often turn out to be the most popular ones - again, such as the FGM storyline. I find things like that exciting and riveting, and I think there should be more focus on political and social issues faced by Britain today than drama about Tom and Sam, or Big Mac and Noel's answer to the Chuckle Brothers.