Options
Archers listeners- what was your opinion on O'Connors archers era?
Now I don't listen to the archers but as you do, I was wondering if you could tell us EE viewers what kind of show he made the archers? Was it good or bad overall? What kind of storylines has he done? Are the characters he's introduced good? Does he prefer character driven or story driven storylines? I just thought what better idea is there to find out what we can expect than ask the people who listen to the show he was previously in charge of. I'd be grateful for your answers.
0
Comments
I don't think the same logic applies to EastEnders though. Sean worked as a storyliner on EE from 1998 to 2001 so maybe its best to look at that in regards to what 'his' EastEnders could be.
I haven't liked what he's done to the ole Archers much at all. Cast walking off after disagreements, characters (really important, long term ones, like the Tuckers) being axed or just suddenly disappearing for no reason, really crap bland new characters that I don't give a toss about and can't tell one from another (the Fairbore brothers, anyone? please take them), a weird whiff of misogyny (laughing at Lilian's plastic surgery, etc), a group of young people who never talk about anything but work and making money and are frankly the most boring/irritating people on the planet (Lord, I hate Pip, Josh, and every last one of the buggers) and stories that go nowhere (flaming stupid Route A/B/Z - by the time it was decided, who cares?).
Having said that, at least they've still got Jazzurrrrr.
EE viewers are welcome to Mr OC though.
No! Not for me, anyway. I preferred it when I didn't know who the producer was, when they weren't "making their mark" so desperately all the time. I couldn't name you a single producer on The Archers before, but with this guy, it was constantly, oh, this is an SOC thing, and yeah, this is an SOC thing, and this. I preferred it when the soap was more important than the producer, and the producer was just there, in the background, keeping the show on the road. Not pissing all over it.
Same goes for all soaps.
Plus, there's only one storyline, which gets mindblowingly annoying.
He had a storyline which was 'painstakingly over 900 episodes' where a victim of domestic abuse ended up killing her husband (which some complained wasn't realistic). He was also accused of 'sexing it up' and making it seem like 'EastEnders in a field'.
However I did read that he wants to bring back more soap secrecy and doesn't like spoilers that much.
BIB - Probably a good thing. DTC's biggest weakness was his closeness to social media. SOC not being on Twitter adds a bit more mystery and intrigue. Plus a number of DTC's midnight announcements turned out to be really dull.
Sounds like he has an ego.
except she never killed him. it was a cliffhanger
that was mostly die to people making normal storyline releases "midnight announcements" blame over eager fm's for that!
Yes on radio the editor is the person who runs the show basically.
He was ok but I wouldn't say brilliant and more than a little arrogant. I lost a lot of respect for him early doors for the way he handled cast changes. Long term, more than capable members of the cast who had been there for years unceremoniously dismissed and replaced with what SOC termed "trained actors" and what most fans would call bland, generic voices all indistinguishable from one another. This is what Sean had to say about the firings
"because they have been trained and know what they are doing" and good day to you too Sean >:(
good riddance and good luck Eastenders, we are well rid.
yeah its the equivalent
Absolutely not.
This mostly.
I consider SOC something of a butcher as far as the Archer's is concerned. He has shown little respect to the heritage and the nature of the show. He has replaced long standing actors with distinctive voices with bland drama school clones, He has ignored the intrinsic personalities of the character and treated them like puppets acting out story lines; for example Pat Archer who for 40 years was a militant, ardent feminist leftie inexplicably became a simpering Stepford wife virtually overnight.
He has focussed too much on big plot lines at the expense of the gentler putter of village life which is what many of us who have listened to the Archers all our lives like about it. The grandiose story lines have been unbelieveable and unfeasible. For example the Archers selling up and leaving Ambridge was never going to happen so why go through the convoluted arc only to end up with a feeble return to the status quo - although I am grateful for that return to status quo.
I am glad to see the back of him. But that doesn't necesarily mean he wil be a bad thing for EE. I don't watch EE because I find it too sensational and too dark. I suspect EE viewers like action and drama so he may fit in happily there.
But I like the Archer's best when it is about nothing in particular. The gentle and light handed burble of jam making, growing prize marrows and victora sponge competitions with odd peaks of excitement when a calf lies awkwardly and the cow gets David's hand up its arse in the middle of the night, is enough for me most of the time.
I do agree that the Rob and Helen story has been superbly written, well paced and brilliantly executed and I have very much enjoyed it. But I wouldn't want anyone to run away with the idea that the Archers have never had slow burning or long running, human condition story lines in the past. This story really isn't that out of the ordinary for the Archers. I don't give O'Conner particular credit for it.
Exactly
BIB. They may have been trained but certainly didn't know what they were doing. Tom Graham, who played Tom Archer from the first day the the teenage child of Pat And Tony became a speaking character, was Tom Archer to all intents and purposes. Everything Tom Archer was and every aspect of the character the listeners knew of the youngest Archer, were those that Tom Graham had given him.
This new 'trained' actor not only has a voice that sounds so similar to others that we can't tell him apart but also sounds like someone playing Tom Graham playing Tom Archer. From a young untrained man who just was the character, we now can hear the bones of the performance from William Troughton. ( I suspect jobs for the boys here BTW)
I haven't met him, and know little about him other than what he puts on air, but probably, yes.
Oh yes, forgot about all the recastings. They were handled really badly. Specially the one with Tom, and casting the Troughton lad, which was fairly outrageously nepotistic.
Also, everyone he casts has a posh RP accent. Almost no one on the show had a whisper of a regional accent now, or any character.
Yep, that's been specially irritating. But why show women as being in control of their lives when you can resort to that tired old soap cliche - the endlessly suffering victim diva? Give me Real Pat over Helen any day.
Thanks for that image of David with his hand up a cow's arse, by the way.
I'm not familiar with the Archers, but I do agree the days when we didn't "know" the Producers for the soaps was a simpler time. From my recollection, with EastEnders it began in mid to late 90s when Matthew Robinson came in and axed a number of characters like the DiMarco's. I saw a few people today comparing Sean O'Connor's recent spate of axings to the days of Matthew Robinson.
The thing is I can only comment on The Archers under O'Conner because I didn't listen to until a few months back. I have to say I really do enjoy it.
One thing that interests me is the character of Lillian, I understand she was originally played by another actress. Was the original character as much of an old lush as the Lillian of today?
Lillian disappeared for years and years. I don't remember her from the first time around. According to my Mum (I have picked her brains to answer the question) she got married for the second time , her first husband having died, to the seriously wealthy Ralph Bellamy. He owned the Bellamy Estate and they lived at the Dower House where she lives now. He sold the estate and they left the village years ago when Lillian was a youngish woman.
She was therefore a character in absentia for decades and although referred to, never had an actor playing the part. Mum said she wasn't a lush back then and she thinks in those days the characters weren't really created like that. Although her father Jack Archer, the publican was an alcoholic. She came back about a decade ago and was by then "a game old bird" with a fondness for gin!
He can't really ruin it anymore than Kirkwood and DTC did, so I wouldn't worry.
He may bring back the Lucy storyline with Max to punish the Beales. Ronnie got away with killing Carl (with reason) and accidentally Fatboy and didn't face any punishment. Babe's also gotten away with everything so far.
That's a good point, I couldn't tell you who the producers was after EE creators left so say 88-98.