Hello, newbie here - forgive me but wasn't Scarlett caught up in rioting not fitted up? I am not sure about the details.

I don’t mind downbeat endings at all, but only if they make sense and Jeff going to jail because of such dodgy bloke versus kitchen knife rubbish, not so much. I get this is not event TV and at times unintentionally hilarious, but isn’t that giving up and admitting that it’s the TV equivalent of a Richard Clayderman album?

I’ve read quite a bit of this thread, it feels like those of us who care enough to hop on the internet to comment on it are probably not the target audience and thus I do wonder whether TPTB care what we think. Undoubtedly the BBC Big Bosses have given TPTB very clear instructions and they are delivering what is required of them – very narrow parameters with a narrow definition of quality. This strategy probably suits the majority of the core audience – who I suspect are 40-70 years old, female with modest interests and to fill a spot on the weekly schedule they’d have to find something else for probably factors in as well. It’s intended as what it is. The sheer number of episodes they must deliver a year means they have not the time to focus on quality; the result is something iffy and why Casualty was specifically cited in the BBC Trust’s concerns about BBC One, but nothing will change until the management get hip to the idea that TV itself has substantively changed since 2000 and that the viewership, even those who never miss an episode, now require something much more impressive from this flagship drama because she has become accustomed to watching excellence in other places.

A few small things may help though; absolutely none of which they will do.

1. Less episodes – an order of about 25 episodes a year would free up a lot of time to run something else with the same money and keep everybody fresh, engaged and passionate.

2. A stable and permanent writing staff totally focused on this show and who frequently meet in-person to develop storylines and critique each other’s work. The era of getting away with lots of freelancers in the era of Netflix is over.

3. ‘Logic-bomb’ every single episode and story-arc; does point A naturally lead to point B to point C to point D without any unnecessary effort or wildly unrealistic twists. Characterisation is from episode to episode and do TPTB have a really clear route to get where they want to go as well as have a Plan B if it goes wrong?

4. Hire somebody who will speak truth to power and keep TPTB on their toes. Honey the Tea-lady is bound to be a complete disaster – I suspect they’ll rely on gags about Connie having a ‘dark’ aura or some such crap. The risks here are immense and there’s nobody with any check-and-balance capacity about.

5. Broaden the search for cast-members in-general. They seem to have recognised this when they hired a ballet-dancer and a musical theatre star, but they could do to really look at this again. Michelle Collins is a case in-point, anybody could play that role and anybody can play the Tea-lady but they picked Chelsee Healey. The reliance on soap-people is a cliché and is probably the fault of Mal Young – under whom the rot began and its not as if there aren’t the actors out there.

6. Less Sex – I do not want to know. I get that Zoe and Max are supposed to be going at it like rabbits, okay, established that part, let’s move on. God help us for what they have planned for Cal and Connie, a little brat who seems lightweight for her and a woman who, if my math is right was approximately 15 or 16 when he was born (based on their real ages and the fact that it is difficult to believe any hospital that would hire somebody very much younger than 40 as Medical Director and Director of Surgery, allowing for a Consultancy at c.30 which is the youngest you could possibly be at the time – this assumes she is the same age as the woman herself, that puts her at 47.) It’s totally unbelievable that somebody who has expended such energy acquiring power then wants to risk her credibility just as she may need that power and credibility and he’s enough of a little prick that she can’t control him after he’s got what he wants. My only hope is that she keeps her knickers on. Perhaps a re-run of Will Curtis, all flirting and no actual action? Not only is it insane but it misses the point. Sex and intimacy have nothing to do with each other to her, why is that? It must be substantial whatever it is, given her track-record. It's also just wrong to turn her into the pantomime villain and risk her becoming defined by sex (again) and then be as cavalier about it as they clearly are – but that is any entirely different business.

7. Ideology – they don’t believe in anything at all. I am not calling for a return to the strident politics of the first years, that just wouldn't work now-a-days, but a little more ‘heart’ would be helpful. I do realise that they have to be wary – it is the BBC, and after-all, we get the NHS we are prepared to pay for. I want them to at least acknowledge that there are challenges that don't affect everybody the same way Consultants v Juniors; Doctors v Nurses. I don’t want strikes, but some way of bringing up legitimate differences of opinion, say on working conditions which means they have drama and can allow all the characters to feel like they all have some kind of stake in it and allow the Queen B do the politics thing. There’s an obvious rock-and-hard-place thing to explore and she does the Machiavellian quite well, let her get on with it rather than wasting screen-time on a pouting man-child.

8. Characters – they have 16 and little obvious plan for them all. What’s Lofty for except bumbling? What’s Robyn for except gossip and being judgmental? I hadn’t seen this in ages and randomly watched ‘Valves to Vagrants’ (without having seen the trailers – I was all “what’s she doing here?”) and Robyn performed well there, I assumed she was going to earnestly try to impress her new boss. She is a waste of airtime. Rita is so forceful and committed but doesn’t possess the tact for management, I hope she’d go down a Nurse Practitioner-route but if they give her a drink-problem, I’ll scream. And will we ever get any real explanation whatsoever about why a Cardiothoracic surgeon joined an ED mid-career when she’ll have been a 1st or 2nd-year plebeian the last time she actually did this work and the working methods are very different? My money’s on a mid-life crisis.

Basically, I’d cut the cast down a bit – there are a number of long-term characters who have gotten too comfy and look at ways of building in proper dramatic tensions. Actually, they need a leader strong enough to tell it like it is to Connie, keep her on her toes and help her off-set her tactlessness and they won’t get that from Zoe, Ash, Charlie or Tess – the people who should be kicking her up the arse from time to time.

Of course all of this is a complete waste of time because they’ll never bother. But it’s what I’d do if I were in-charge.

Forgive me if this seems irrelevant, but I just wondered what other people thought....

I think I want you to take over Casualty!!!!!!

Brilliant first post, NMdum1. I found myself agreeing with nearly everything you said. What really gets to me is what I perceive to be the near total lack of a vision for the show at present. It feels like there's no desire to be challenging or daring, or to ask questions about society. It just seems to exist, going from one week to the next with bland interchangeable characters replacing other bland interchangeable characters every so often. I'm reconciled to the idea that the show's best years are behind it, but I really struggle to believe that this is as good as it can be.

The less sex comment cracks me up. Casualty is already near sex-less. If Casualty had any less sex it would stop being a hospital and become a nunnery. LOL!

Newbie here myself, re the BIB in the past as a freelancer i have been contracted to submit scripts for Casualty and Holby City but those were the days before new age producers and their dippy soapy scenarios and i feel its fair to say that a few of the current writers not up to scratch, but blame the EP Kent for that as the buck stops with him.

A few years ago i was informed of a position on EE which a few established writers were keen to land but sadly Kris Green was employed but not on the basis of a credible writing talent but because of friendship with Kirkwood same thing is still happening at the BBC as Kent prefers his yes men/friends. I really enjoyed working with the last EP Young but would hesitate if asked by Kent to provide a script for either production.

NMdum1 you seem a little down on the whole of Casualty.
Whilst it isn't perfect, of course, and much could be improved, it really isn't bad at all. I can't remember the last time I watched an episode and thought oh, that was rubbish. Cutting back to 25 episodes a year would be a bad move.

Welcome Nmdum1 and for your first post that was impressive.
The ethos needs questioning is it a medical drama or a soap opera?

I want to comment on your ideology point. I would not call it that but the environment or the nature of the NHS. Amanda's recent interview said there was 2 parts: patients and staff. I would argue there are 3 if you include the environment which keeps changing due to the effects of government policy from Whitehall and the pressures which the NHS faces at the moment. I hope the show acknowledges this

It was obviously not the Holby City office, and I'm not sure if they were even trying to pretend it was.

Presumably Eliot would do an off Darwin clinic anyway (seeing people for checkups etc) so it's not that much of a stretch to have him in a different room.

There were several people waiting outside the office in regular chairs so it definitely had more of a day clinic type feel to it.

Firstly, thank you for your responses; it is gratifying that I didn’t step on too many toes. I took a little effort drafting my introductory post so as not to come across too blunt or indelicate. I also didn’t mean to imply that I hated it in any way; I just think this lacks a certain je nais se quoi.


BTW – which recent interview would this be out of curiosity?

Specifics – first point, absolutely. I am not a soap watcher; most of my female relations are and watch this show as well – mother, grandmothers, several aunts and cousins. I have tried to work out what about it appeals to them as well as quite how this show keeps churning out story after story. It’s a bit like a more sedate version of Chicago Hope in an ED. The BBC seems to think this is a soap opera and have cast it and plot it accordingly; we already have a lot of soaps, we don’t need more, it does not bode well. Basically they need a US-style show-runner with independence who does not answer to the BBC Serials department. Its fine most weeks, but they have a good team, use ‘em. I picked 25 as a random number (consistent with US production norms), 35 probably would be your absolute top.

Second point, perhaps 'environment' or even 'ethos' might have been a better word here. Addressing the morale issue – the state of the department, hospital and the group as a whole – is a delicate circle to square. I wonder whether TPTB are simply nervous about taking on a proper political plot-line because they fear being accused of political bias and suggesting that throwing money at the problem will fix it. Blaming the Tories is a very easy out for issues which have existed sometimes for decades (sometimes from the beginning i.e. prescription charges) and are often as much about the argument of what the NHS is really intended to do as anything else and what can we as a country afford to have it do. Long-term political themes to look at would (though carefully and in a nuanced fashion) include working conditions, the absence of accessible GPs or Dentists and Walk-in services – all of which are hangovers from pay and conditions-negotiations years ago and the de-nationalisation of dental services c. twenty years ago. Care of mentally ill, vulnerable people, dementia patients and the larger issue of DNR/Palliative Care/Liverpool Care Pathway are other obvious examples of very political themes that lend themselves to obvious two or three-episode little arcs, but TPTB can be a little cautious in how or what they want to say. Or as in the ‘The Dying Game’ about the dodgy care-home, spank us over the head with the point in the form of the 'villainous' Nursing Manager - Mr McKenna I believe - which was exactly the kind of ‘state of nation’ theme that Casualty used to do so ably and just missed by inches for me, whereas the next episode ‘Unhinged’ about the night-shift from hell was a different kettle of fish completely, complete with a Dante's Inferno reference and Connie as human (although you'd have to be a Holby City watcher to get the continuity there. Dementia’s gonna be a berserker button for her given her father, she's probably also been on the receiving end of her father loosing it a bit after he got to the point where he wasn't sure who she was anymore, hence why she could calm the patient down and responded to the inexperienced carer the way she did). It was a bloody good episode, it felt manic and unsafe and that’s hard to do on telly, it used sound and extras intelligently and even had a non-speaking local journalist (it was probably inevitable that somebody would be snooping around and reporting without context, I suspect.) It’s a hard line to walk, but it seems a couple of good crusading themes a year a la FGM earlier this year would get you there. It also can be argued that the Hospital itself is a character as well. It’s hard to be up-to-date given they are shooting three to four months ahead, but this is what the advisers are for and if The Archers can manage it with Foot and Mouth, Bovine TB etc….

I think the weakness is the main patients they concentrate on in the one-off stories. If they want to do something with an unusual patient, they go for something weird like the vampire guy from two weeks ago (no matter how sweet he was with that kooky girl) or they get issue-orientated obese guy from ‘Only the Lonely’ a while back and don’t go in for the kill. There’s a whole story there about our attitudes to food, consumerism and how we pay for services to address the consequences of our own poor lifestyles. And as somebody who actually has Asperger’s I was like “oh no” when the autistic teenager showed up a few weeks back, like parents who’d been dealing with a severely autistic child for years would not know that structured sound, usually music but television, talk radio and audio-books help create a ‘sonic bubble’ for the afflicted to focus them in order to organise them better – e.g. I struggle in open-plan offices because there too many environmental distractions and so work alone with Radio 4 blasting all-day. My parents worked the music/sound thing out when I was young and I didn’t find out I had it until adulthood. It’s becoming a cliché in the way that bipolar people were before. A doctor with Asperger’s; that would be far better (and possible, Einstein, Isaac Newton and Bill Gates are all suspected of having it). It’s all about creating structures and routines – something you might struggle with in an ED. Legally you are classified as disabled with the employment rights that come with that and managing somebody with the condition would be a more interesting way of deploying somebody like Zoe who does have good people-skills and is a strong clinical-leader. In the way of one-off themes, transplants seem an obvious vein to tap, after-all Connie had done dozens of these operations herself and then you get a day-off the Connie as pantomime villain shtick….

Sashaying nicely to another thought – I want to know why the Queen B is actually there. The woman is marmite in human form – but half the fun is waiting for her next move on the chess-board and the small kinks of humanity you get to see underneath the façade. The Connie-Zoe thing probably hurt Connie with the staff; they probably don’t feel they can trust her to have their backs, Charlie certainly won’t if coming Saturday’s trailer is anything to go by – although I sort of get the underlying logic behind it if you consider finances. I can’t imagine that it is just a casting-stunt a la Joan Collins complete with ‘Enter Alexis’-style introduction straight-out of the Dynasty playbook. Is it possible this place might be genuinely important to her – her daughter was born there after-all, and she did seem determined to get back from London in 2010, is there another reason as well, maybe she did some of her training there back in halcyon days of youth or something? It would add a different dimension to the ‘this was my hospital’ voice-over on her return trailer. I thought they over-did the villainy with Zoe, it was lacking Constance’s usual finesse – an alternate theory is that she stress-tested Zoe, piling on the pressure to satisfy herself as to whether Zoe could cope with what she knows/suspects is coming from the Board (if she can’t cope with me then she certainly can’t cope with them) and pushed her out when she knew Zoe had failed her test. After-all, s**t does tend to run downhill and Zoe decided to be all suspicious of her from the start…. I would suggest that a little better communication right at the start would have made things much better for both, given that there was something almost school play-ground about it at times. They should be mutually beneficial, Connie does the politics/budget thing well, Zoe does the intuitive/ people-stuff well, in-combination, that could, should be a winning combination.

A question is thus posed - is Connie Guy’s sidekick or does she suspect he’s a disaster waiting to happen and is biding her time to oppose him? Wouldn’t that last possibility be completely delicious…. Selfie thinks he has an ally but he’s actually empowered an opponent? That’d be a good twist worthy of Lady Macbeth wouldn’t it? Nevertheless, whatever it is that they are doing, I suspect it would have to be some plan to convince the actor to come back (and move to Wales) when she thought she’d finished with the Queen.

Anyway, just a few little thoughts….

Does anyone think there setting Jeff up to die... were slowly beginning to see more of him ect I think he wil die tragically trying to save someone with dixie by his side

NMdum1, welcome to the forums! It has been a pleasure to read your posts (and thanks for reminding me about Scarlett, I had forgotten about her. I don't think we were told whether or not she went to prison - she may have got off with a caution, seeing as it was apparently her first offence and it was a very high-pressurised situation - but she did give herself up, and naturally she wouldn't be able to work as a nurse again).

I agreed with most of the things that you wrote, but I would just say that I don't think that the politics of the early years would be too bad an idea these days - in fact, I'd welcome it, if it was done well. The NHS was under threat at that time under Thatcher's Government, and that was one of the main reasons that Casualty started, to give an impression of the amazing work that A&E staff do and the immense pressure that they were being put under. For all we know, it may have helped save the NHS at that time. Now, the NHS is under threat once again, and I think that Casualty is suggesting that the NHS is pretty useless, if anything. I'd love it to return to the way that it was in the old days, even if it meant fewer episodes.

Here is the interview: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-o...mas-tv-7683443

I have said this before and I will say it again, the NHS is in the midst of changes and faces enormous pressures financial ones and an aging population. There is talk of merging health and social care.

I have AS too and with that episode I said that people with ASD's are not like that

On air -

Sex with the physio lmao talk about unethical.

What on earth does Tamsin see in Jeff?!

I know right, and what did she see in that fiancé of hers?

That's it Rita, have a go at the patient in front of the public. It's not like you've been skating on thin ice recently.

Moral of the story always in casualty is that lying about stuff always results in more injuries/death. Like this wheelchair chick story.

Why are Tess and Ash being horrible to Charlie?

I'd just like to point out that today marks 28 years to the day since the first broadcast of Casualty.

Wasn't the storyline about Gas cylinders if I remember rightly

I think NMdum1 has made several excellent points. While 25 episodes is a tad short, and 48 too much, I'd say 36 would be perfect (not too short, not too long), and it's what the BBC would be most likely to agree to.

Other things that need changing with the show are:

Series openers - make them special events again with big stunts. The current series openers we've had have been pretty unremarkable, and even if they've done a stunt, it's been poorly executed. And there should be a long break between series so the show comes back, refreshed.

Switching days - I'm thinking that perhaps a new timeslot might benefit Casualty. Either start the series close to Xmas (after X Factor finishes) with a fixed timeslot of Saturdays at 8.10pm, or start it in September but move the show to Wednesday at 9pm (meaning it would benefit from a GBBO lead-in).

Grit - there are issues with the NHS at the moment which haven't been tackled properly in the show. Holby A&E looks seemingly immune to this. There should be storylines to show how the overstretched nature of the NHS is affecting their staff and their patients. How are the nurses dealing with wage freezes? Could it impact negatively on one nurse for example e.g. not being able to pay the rent or fix a dodgy boiler, which might lead to her death? Something along those lines would be good.

The soapy bits to be better executed - less lovey-dovey stuff please. Casualty can execute soapy stuff well at times, so long as it's not related to romances or affairs. Ruth's suicide and breakdown were examples of this, and were excellently written as well.

More interesting, quirky patients - half the time, the problem is actually caring for boring patients. No effort goes into the patient stories - they need to be interesting. They should make use of current events as well, whether it be a patient who's struck down by severe food poisoning after eating dodgy hospital food or even Ebola (although Ebola would be tricky to do since Ebola patients are treated on specialist wards).

Make the show gory again - make the injuries graphic. I recently re-watched the Series 22 opener and some of the injuries from the bomb blast were utterly horrific and graphic. That's the sort of thing Casualty could take advantage of in a new, consistent post-watershed slot.

Cliffhanger season endings - have the series end in April and leave it on a cliffhanger to encourage viewers to tune into the next series. Even something like a paedophile taken into A&E, admitting he'd killed a child to a nurse, as a season finale, would pack a punch.

More night shifts - Casualty's always best when they do night shift episodes. They're incredibly atmospheric and heighten the sense of trepidation many staff may feel when they don't know what will come through those doors, whether it'll be a binge drinker, a drug addict choking on his vomit, an elderly lady drowning in her own fluids, etc.

And last but not least, new titles - with the original theme tune to boot. A title sequence should reflect all aspects of the show, but most importantly, the simple idea that A&E staff do a difficult, emotional and sometimes dangerous job to save lives. One of the old end credit sequences had an ambulance driving into the night on the dark Holby roads, another with flying glass which came together to form the Casualty logo. All of these sequences captured the essence of Casualty which sadly the most recent title sequence does not.

It was, I have it on DVD.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtc...01-gas_animals

This is the episode if anyone would like to see it. It's actually amazing how much better it is than the Casualty of today - although I quite enjoyed tonight's episode. Also, something that always strikes me about that episode is how good a singer Brenda Fricker is. It's obviously not what she's known for, but she sings briefly in a staff room scene at the end - just a 'You know, I'm so tired I can hear my bed singing to me' thing, and then she demonstrates - and I never fail to notice what a nice singing voice she has.

What does Rita have to do to get sacked? She turns up late, is rude to Tess when she questions it, pressures a patient to lay rape charges without bothering to check she's actually been raped, yells at a patient, winds up her husband so he assaults and possibly paralyses an innocent man and gets arrested, and drinks at work. She's one of the worst nurses ever, yet I bet there's still people who think she's kind and caring. Ash writes his oldest friend off as belonging in the knacker's yard but covers for her.

Yeah, the way Ash wouldn't let Charlie talk to him was way out of line. So Charlie seems to be considering his options, possibly as a way of reducing his number of episodes. It's a shame, because we see what an asset he is in the way he dealt with the lad. Ethan seemed oddly unwilling to go after the boy he was defending a few moments earlier, although he did have a patient in greater need in front of him. Cal gets to show a softer side.

Max going all hero-worshippy on a washed-out rocker was great, as was Mac being the only person who knew what he was talking about. Why is it Max's responsibility when Lily loses a patient?

I'm glad Tamzin ended her engagement before anything happened with Jeff. I rather like them, but I do feel sorry for Dixie, losing her chance of parenthood as someone remembers they've been dropping hints for ages. Jeff, torn between two women he loves in different ways, was perhaps a bit hard on Dixie but I can't begrudge him a bit of happiness. Would Tamzin really be okay with his No Children stance though?