|
||||||||
Archers listeners- what was your opinion on O'Connors archers era? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 789
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 953
|
As far as I'm aware he wasn't popular with Archers fans.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,425
|
Thanks for starting this thread! I'm curious as well. I hope that he doesn't ruin EastEnders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,630
|
He'll be remembered as the guy who did the Rob and Helen never-ending abuse story. I guess it's his Who Killed Lucy - so maybe you'll get more of that kind of thing.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
|
So is he the best the Archers had ?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,630
|
Quote:
So is he the best the Archers had ?.
Same goes for all soaps. Plus, there's only one storyline, which gets mindblowingly annoying. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,209
|
I've never listened to the Archers but I read that at first SOC got a lot of hate but then it calmed down. He is 'now being lamented by many of the very listeners who had previously bombarded online forums demanding he be sacked'.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North of England
Posts: 14,124
|
Quote:
I've never listened to the Archers but I read that at first SOC got a lot of hate but then it calmed down. He is 'now being lamented by many of the very listeners who had previously bombarded online forums demanding he be sacked'.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
Quote:
I've never listened to the Archers but I read that at first SOC got a lot of hate but then it calmed down. He is 'now being lamented by many of the very listeners who had previously bombarded online forums demanding he be sacked'.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Birmingham - 1000 trades
Posts: 2,727
|
I thought he was Editor not producer or is Editor the equivalent on the Archers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,070
|
Quote:
I thought he was Editor not producer or is Editor the equivalent on the Archers.
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 Quote:
I think there was an issue with the younger actors, who have been recruited not from drama school but from local community drama groups. What I have been doing is bringing in slightly older actors to play younger characters, because they have been trained and know what they are doing.” Sean O'Connor
"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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
Quote:
I thought he was Editor not producer or is Editor the equivalent on the Archers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,336
|
It was the Rob and Helen story which made me decide to have a listen to The Archers and I was soon hooked. It's a well written drama, like RedRock and River City. It feels as if EastEnders, Corrie and Emmerdale are now just over the top dramas with storylines and characters that aren't real. I think the ratings wars have really damaged the main soaps whilst shows like RedRock, River City and The Archers don't have to compete in the same way and the difference in quality soon becomes apparent. The main soaps are dumbed down and sensationalised now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
|
Quote:
So is he the best the Archers had ?.
Quote:
He'll be remembered as the guy who did the Rob and Helen never-ending abuse story. I guess it's his Who Killed Lucy - so maybe you'll get more of that kind of thing.
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
|
Quote:
It was the Rob and Helen story which made me decide to have a listen to The Archers and I was soon hooked. It's a well written drama, like RedRock and River City. It feels as if EastEnders, Corrie and Emmerdale are now just over the top dramas with storylines and characters that aren't real. I think the ratings wars have really damaged the main soaps whilst shows like RedRock, River City and The Archers don't have to compete in the same way and the difference in quality soon becomes apparent. The main soaps are dumbed down and sensationalised now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
|
Quote:
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. 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,630
|
Quote:
Sounds like he has an ego.
Quote:
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. 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. Quote:
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. Thanks for that image of David with his hand up a cow's arse, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,351
|
An interesting point made about when the listener preferred the days of not knowing the Producer.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,336
|
Quote:
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.
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,156
|
Quote:
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? 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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
Thanks for starting this thread! I'm curious as well. I hope that he doesn't ruin EastEnders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,209
|
I also read that SOC is known for wanting characters to be punished for their actions.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Quote:
An interesting point made about when the listener preferred the days of not knowing the Producer.
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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19.


