|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Aug 16, 2007 19:31:08 GMT -5
... or sometimes a fan is just there in the background to circulate air.  What is this obsession need to take every single moment, line, object, angle, and expression in Bad Girls and convert it to this amazingly deep meaning? Everything from the colour of the clothes being worn to a circulating FAN in the background have been given magnificant importance bordering on biblical proportions. (And that's not an exaggeration- the fan is famous for its Angelic Helen implication!) I get how the show has touched people beyond the standard hour-long drama. For its time, it dealt with issues that had normally been ignored by mainstream media, and even now, is still as relevant as it ever was, particularly the Helen/Nikki storyline (which is all most people deconstruct anyway). We each see ourselves in either of the characters, identifying with traits or history, or dealing with our own issues vicariously through these characters. That being said, I think there's a very thick bold line between parsing issues and subject matter, and looking/finding/creating something that just isn't there. What is it about this show that compels people to not only take it to heart, but to- in many, MANY cases- completely invent/reinvent it to suit our personal wishes and desires? |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Aug 16, 2007 22:21:19 GMT -5
I am not surprised by the goofy theories expressed on the Blue site. I suspected that once my fellow Americans were exposed to the show they would analyze it to death. The thing is those new to the show think the Shed writers are brilliant when the truth is they were not. It was a fun show to watch and the first and even second season were surprisingly good but the shameless manipulations that started at the end of season 2 and carried through to the end of the series destroyed whatever had been good about the show. I think Shed Productions just lost interest in BGs for whatever reason and concentrated their efforts on their new 'baby' Footballer's Wives. You are definitely right....a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. I burst out laughing reading about the halo effect fan...you are definitely obsessed when you dig that deeply for meaning. The thought that the people at Shed came up with something so far fetched is very funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by wadewannabee on Aug 17, 2007 1:03:40 GMT -5
I'm so glad you bought this up coolbyrne. There are a few people on the "other" site who are just overanalizing every bit about Bad Girls. They read too much into scene's, character's, Helens office, props, etc. I don't even bother reading even half of the Debate posters anymore, coz it's repetitive & dull dull dull.  |
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Aug 17, 2007 2:09:38 GMT -5
This is so spooky because I was thinking of starting a thread on this very subject! I cannot believe some of the recent analysis that has taken place over a series that descended into a complete pantomime. Yes, series one was excellent. Series two was very good. Series three started the rapid decline into soap land. A lot of the analysis revolves around things that weren't even in the show, like Helen having some sort of repressed religious upbringing. The only reference to that was in a book that Shed bought out towards the end of series 3 to get their pound of flesh before MJ and SL left! The extreme analysis seems to always involve Helen. How come nobody ever analyzes Nikki based on the book info that her dad was in the Navy and he mum was a gin and bridge wife??? They have Helen down as this deeply mysterious being. She only became a mystery when aliens took over her personality in series 3 (ie Shed couldn't be bothered to write the character with the same depth as the previous series). Before that, we as viewers, were given big clues as to what was going on with her via scenes alone and scenes at home etc. It had nothing to do with Shed basing every character on a character from Shakespeare nor an office fan being a halo  I think there is also a tendency for some to almost impose their own lives onto the actions of Helen/Nikki, if that makes sense. Some seem to almost see themselves as those characters and justify behaviour based on something in their life, not what was actually shown in the programme. I even saw one poster who, in response to a comment on the character of Helen by a Shed writer, said 'I disagree and give Helen more credit than that' as if a)they knew more about the character than her creator and more scarily b)that Helen is a real person. I can't understand why Shed are held in such regard either. They treated the fans with contempt. A justified rant at the demise of the show during series 3 was met with a Q & A that ridiculed fan opinion and also belittled the contribution of Mandana and Simone to the show's success . They were far keener to say how nice Claire King was for buying them champagne. I now see that one of the Shed people has been interviewed about the forthcoming musical. They say that, in preview workshops, fans complained that Nikki should have short, dark hair and it was the one main objection to the piece. They, then, basically say that, because of that, they have deliberately cast blonde actresses since to prove a point! Now, whilst I agree that the character is not all about how she looks (though Helen looks like a Simone clone) but the character is SO important to the majority of people who will probably spend time and money going, surely it was a small concession to make to fans? Personally, I don't care either way because I don't have any interest in seeing other actresses playing those roles anyway but it's almost as if Shed like to thumb their nose. I've often wondered if they would cast either actress in future work. They have re used many other actors from their pieces in other things and yet not the two that would probably have a major ratings boost for them. Is it purely that the right role hasn't come along, the actresses are otherwise engaged or that Shed couldn't bear the idea that the actresses popularity is bigger than they are? Interestingly, one of their other BG leads - Debra Stephenson (Shell) - is interviewed today saying that she has always wanted to be in a musical and has just auditioned for a role on the West End!!! Again, was she just not interested in resurrecting Shell for the stage or did she think the musical idea was pants or did Shed just want to prove their original actors don't own those parts? |
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Aug 19, 2007 19:21:15 GMT -5
We'll have to start harassing RomanMachine to get to work - she playfully started a "thesis" that compared Bad Girls to the legend of King Arthur that she never finished. (Sneak preview- Nikki is Sir Percival and Yvonne is Gawain.)  |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkhele on Aug 23, 2007 10:54:25 GMT -5
I agree about the overanalysis of the show. It gets to the point where they compare it to certain classic archetypes and then fit Nikki&Helen into those roles whether we actually see that on screen on not. I tend to see some of the archetypes but I don't justify certain behaviours so that I can cram it into the archetype. That just doesn't work for me. They are loose archetypes, not exact blueprints. And when they go on and on about certain symbols and colours etc, it dissolves into the ridiculous. They might "see" these things and interpret it in certain ways, but it might not necessarily be what the producers had in mind. They might have picked a certain prop because it was available at that moment and they were rushed to filming, not because it had some deep psychological meaning explaining Helen's behaviour. For example, Helen hiding Nikki's nurse coat in her office is a perfect example of stupid and lazy writing that had absolutely nothing to do with Helen's frame of mind. Regarding Shed: I read the Q&A in response to the rant but I've never read the original rant. Can it be found somewhere on the Net? Also, in general, I'd love to read the original reactions to the episodes when they first aired. I haven't been able to find anything like that. The archived forums I've been able to find only go back to 2001/2. Are there any around? Wayback machine has been useless. Can someone point me in the right direction? Anyway, being that I already knew the ending before I started watching the show, I was able to relax a lot more in S3 than people who watched it the first time. I wasn't particularly bothered by Thomas although if I had watched it when it aired, I think I would have been pissed off not knowing if N&H end up together. However, I do think they did a piss poor job of giving enough hints (and hope) that N&H would end up together. There simply wasn't enough build up. It's almost as if they weren't going to end up together but then at the last minute they wrote the final scene. As it happens, I'm going to be meeting up with some friends and family in Spain 2nd week Sept and on my way home, I'll be stopping in London for a week. BG will be opening that week, sooooo.... I have to go (and yes, this is sheer coincidence, we've been planning this trip for over a year!) And what is this bullshit about Nikki and the blonde hair? They can make a Helen clone but not a Nikki clone? I don't get it. I think it's an insult to Mandana if you ask me. Anyway, I'm not going to take it too seriously and just have fun with it. Besides, this will probably be my only chance to go to a West End theatre, so there ya go! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Aug 24, 2007 12:29:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkhele on Aug 28, 2007 9:15:23 GMT -5
Thanks, tc, for the links. Quite a bit of reading I have to catch up on! ;D It will be interesting to read the 12 pages and then go back and re-read the Q&A to see how Shed responded. Oy. Thanks again |
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Aug 28, 2007 11:43:34 GMT -5
I had a quick flick through and I think a couple of pages don't load but most do.
Yes it is an interesting read. Shame that the rant stopped before the series ended. Basically, Shed pulled the message board as a result of the rant! Thing is, everyone ended up being pleased that Simone and Mandana were leaving because they didn't want them to be in such a second rate show any more. I still think they left at the right time.
|
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Sept 8, 2007 4:07:37 GMT -5
Not really about deconstruting but I couldn't see the point in starting a new thread.
I've been interested to read some of the BG discussion over on TV without pity. Interested because many on there are new 'unspoiled' viewers. Reading their posts is almost like reliving 2000 when it was first aired on British TV. They've got to series 3 ep 2 and it's fascinating seeing the rumblings of disappointment in an episode. People starting to question the writing, question character behaviour, question actor performance. I can almost predict the way posts are going to go over the next few months.
One understandable difference is the opinion of Shell and the actress who played her - Debra Stephenson. I think we can all say that Shell, for the first 2 seasons, was a brilliantly written and portrayed character. Things started to go very wrong from this very point - series 3 ep 2. However, I'm not getting those vibes over on TWP. Posters are raving about the whole 'Shell performs for Mad Tessa' sequence. I can remember being completely horrified and cringing at those scenes and feeling that BG was sliding into pantomime.
I wonder whether the reason it is being viewed differently by the new viewers is because they have no knowledge of the background of Debra Stephenson, unlike British viewers. New viewers are probably unaware that Ms Stephenson's first career was as an impersonator, nor realise that her 'big' impression was of the queen of British TV Cilla Black. She won various TV programmes and was a regular contributor to the iconic series 'Spitting Image'.
That whole sequence with Mad Tessa was basically Debra Stephenson's stage act and, thus, took the character away from Shell Dockley into slapstick. The writers/directors crossed a terrible line IMO and the programme went steadily downhill from that moment on.
|
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Sept 8, 2007 5:12:46 GMT -5
What I really find interesting is the fact that fans who have seen the full three seasons (many, many times) are telling the new ones about how deep and layered these S3 eps are; the new viewers just can't see it yet because they don't have the full picture. What it really says to me is that the diehards have "edited" these episodes in their own minds to fit their adoration of the series- they've forgotten what it was like to first see these episodes and think, "You know, that was crap!" Now, it's all about how one scene parallels another scene (either between the same characters from another season, or different characters in the same episode), how one line really means a whole other complete backstory for a character, etc., etc. But the kicker is, most new fans aren't falling for it. A newbie said she didn't need things spelled out for her, but she did wish SHED didn't write things so obtusely that viewers had to analyze and dissect everything in order to give the scene the (apparent) meaning it was meant to have. (I paraphrased her comment, but to me, that was the gist of it.) I look back now and think that SHED needed to end the season the way it did, not just because SL and MJ were leaving, but because without that happy ending, would anyone remember the season at all? |
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Sept 11, 2007 18:40:37 GMT -5
Is double-posting three days apart still considered bad form? Re: TWoP- I think it's also interesting to note the dichotomy between posters who have seen season 1-3 many times over, and posters who are seeing these episodes for the first time. Again, it goes back to the feeling that "veteran" fans have edited things out (subconsciously or not) to fit an overall acceptance of the show and the N/H relationship, whereas new fans are basing their judgment solely on an episode-by-episode basis. I find those interpretations much closer to the "truth", because they have little or no bias to skewer their opinions. Also interesting that the newer fans have less excuses for Helen, and are more likely to call her out on her often cruel behaviour towards Nikki. (And yet they all seem to be Helen fans, so it's not like it's all Nikki fans saying, "Stop being mean to our girl!") You can imagine how that's going over with some of the veterans! |
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Sept 13, 2007 9:53:30 GMT -5
Again, it goes back to the feeling that "veteran" fans have edited things out (subconsciously or not) to fit an overall acceptance of the show and the N/H relationship, whereas new fans are basing their judgment solely on an episode-by-episode basis. What is even more interesting is that it seems to be non-British veteran fans that are doing all the editing. Very, very few original Brit fans defended the show during and post series 3 and I don't see it now on TWP. Series 3 and beyond developed a different fan club when aired in the UK. Original viewers left in their droves - hence the Rant at Shed - and were replaced by youngsters who found the Carry On style antics hilarious and didn't care that the tone of the show had gone from 'drama that makes you think' to slapstick. Many never saw the first 3 series. It's been intruiging to see dominant North American posters sticking steadfastly with the show beyond series 3 and finding deep meaning in what essentially became a pathetic comedy and a rehash of the same storylines and dialogue. As you say, CB, new viewers over on TWP are really having to fight their corner to justify not being enamoured with the series 3 story arc's. Can't wait to see the reaction to 'Denny and Shell go mad at Bodybags' episode!! Not to mention Helen having a complete character transplant. Someone described Simone as 'walking through her part as if bored to death'. To be honest, I felt that too in series 3. The spark between the two actresses definately went out or dimmed in series 3 IMO and most of that was because I just couldn't see any emotion coming from Helen. Was it the writing, the acting or the direction? It wasn't until the final episode that I saw that spark return. |
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Sept 13, 2007 22:17:01 GMT -5
"It's been intruiging to see dominant North American posters sticking steadfastly with the show beyond series 3 and finding deep meaning in what essentially became a pathetic comedy and a rehash of the same storylines and dialogue." Not this North American fan. I made the mistake of purchasing Series 4 when it was released. All I can say is that I watched in horror as the series became almost unrecognizable. Everything about it was AWFUL.
"Someone described Simone as 'walking through her part as if bored to death'. To be honest, I felt that too in series 3. The spark between the two actresses definately went out or dimmed in series 3 IMO and most of that was because I just couldn't see any emotion coming from Helen. Was it the writing, the acting or the direction? It wasn't until the final episode that I saw that spark return." Helen simply wasn't the same character. In the final scene in Series 3, episode 1 when she'd finished with Nikki, I thought to myself "WHAT?" Yes, there was a personality transplant. Poor Nikki. Poor fans. I also never forgave the 'brilliant' writing team for not letting fans in even the tiniest way know what and how Helen and Nikki were doing after Nikki's release...they could have simply had one or the other send a postcard to another prisoner...they could have thrown some crumb out to the loyal fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by wadewannabee on Sept 14, 2007 0:04:21 GMT -5
I agree post Series 3 is pathetic. I have 1 - 5 on DVD. I don't really regret purchasing 4 because it has the footage of M&S at the Mi II premier, but I really do regret purchasing 5.
The character of Jim Fenner was becoming a farce. The last ep where Jim puts on that blonde
wig in the car and runs over the pedestrian is unbelievable ridiculous farcial crap. No more
purchasing of BG's DVD's thankyou.
|
|
