|
Post by topcat on May 18, 2011 5:02:05 GMT -5
Blimey, is it really 3 years since we posted in this thread?? I decided, for some weird reason, to pay a visit to a blue place where BG debate used to take place (yes, I must have been bored...). Anyway, after more than ten years, the place is not exactly brimming with activity. However, a thread has been resurrected where a 'new' poster is basically giving a character assassination of Nikki. The poster started by doing an analysis of series one. It was quite a good read. It attracted responses. No sign of a Nikki issue. Then POW! The tone of responses to quite reasonable debate by this 'new' poster is quite astounding. Why would you register on a site, go to a lot of time and effort writing a long analysis of a show that is quite beloved and then turn on every poster who responds in a very agressive manner and, basically, pull one character and every poster apart? Each to their own and all that but I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 18, 2011 20:45:33 GMT -5
Blimey, is it really 3 years since we posted in this thread?? I decided, for some weird reason, to pay a visit to a blue place where BG debate used to take place (yes, I must have been bored...). Anyway, after more than ten years, the place is not exactly brimming with activity. However, a thread has been resurrected where a 'new' poster is basically giving a character assassination of Nikki. The poster started by doing an analysis of series one. It was quite a good read. It attracted responses. No sign of a Nikki issue. Then POW! The tone of responses to quite reasonable debate by this 'new' poster is quite astounding. Why would you register on a site, go to a lot of time and effort writing a long analysis of a show that is quite beloved and then turn on every poster who responds in a very agressive manner and, basically, pull one character and every poster apart? Each to their own and all that but I just don't get it. There was an odd feeling of veiled hostility even from the start; I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop from the very first post. Too bad, because I thought this comment was quite interesting- What a thought-provoking idea, both about Nikki and about prison (and the corner the writers put themselves in).
|
|
|
Post by topcat on May 19, 2011 3:57:28 GMT -5
You are right. A veiled hostility is a good way of describing it and it has descended into full blown hostility and dismissal of anyone who dares to post an opinion, even if the opinion is similar to their own It's a great shame because a lot of the analysis is very good and quite different to stuff posted previously. The quote you have picked up on is a classic example. I think the main problem with series 3 was the writers knowledge that at least 2 of their leads were wanting out (Debra Stephenson and Simone). We can only guess about Nikki from things we have read in interviews with Mandana and the writers. Mandana stated that they wanted her to commit to 2 series and she wasn't keen to do that without seeing the writing. The writers have said that they wanted a happy ending and that would require Nikki to leave with Helen. Mandana was quoted at an event (when fans already knew Simone was going) as saying that she was 'fighting for an happy ending'. My gut feeling is that Mandana fell on her sword to get that ending. The story arc of series 3 felt unplanned, unlike series 1 and 2. It was as if it was being re written as they were going along. They had already filmed the 'riot' when Mandana was being quoted about the ending (the event was actually the day before MJ appeared with Bodybag on that Gloria Hunniford interview where she looked mortified at revealing the riot). This may go some way as to explain why everything seemed so unsatisfying and rushed. I'm inclined to think that the plan, originally, was to have Nikki's appeal as the big series 3 cliff hanger - would she or wouldn't she get out. This was compromised by Simone both stalling until the 11th hour on even signing for series 3 and then declaring it would be her last series.
|
|
|
Post by gingercat on May 19, 2011 16:54:04 GMT -5
Has it been deleted because I cant see it
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 19, 2011 19:25:50 GMT -5
Has it been deleted because I cant see it No, it's the thread "on flirting". If you can get past the hostility, there are quite a few really interesting points brought out by the poster. I don't necessarily agree with all of them- her argument in regards to Nikki purposely being a martyr is a little too all-or-nothing for me- but there are some points that actually go over new ground, if you can believe it! Also, the poster very pointedly dismissed any talk about halos.
|
|
|
Post by topcat on May 20, 2011 7:55:23 GMT -5
Also, the poster very pointedly dismissed any talk about halos. Yes but they are rather taken with the colours of shirts - shades of red and blue. I smiled when someone posted 'but sometimes a shirt is just a shirt'. That is what reminded me of this thread! Given that 50% of the BG wardrobe ended up on the cast of Footballers Wives I just cannot accept that there was some kind of deliberate colour coding going off. Having said that, was Nikki predominantly in green in series 2 to portray the green eyed monster or just so she could blend in with the endless barrows of plants she walked around with??
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 23, 2011 12:18:52 GMT -5
The one thing that never wants to be said by these BG revisionists is that the Shed writers really just weren't that good! First, there is such a dearth of time writers have on a tv series, that unless you have plots written out well in advance, there's no chance of writing on the fly. We only have to look at the writing in series 3 to see they didn't think beyond series 2. So when Simone dropped the bomb about not coming back after 3, they clearly scrambled to figure out how to deal with it. You have to be extremely talented as a writer to write on the go and we already had evidence the talent was limited. So this idea of premeditated intent regarding clothing or props is laughable considering there didn't seem to be much thought put into the plots!
|
|
|
Post by topcat on May 24, 2011 8:09:55 GMT -5
Actually, on reflection, I am going to take back the 'character bashing' comment because I don't think that is the point. What I think the poster is trying to do is challenge the rose coloured glasses brigade. They have written: Now, that is exactly what we have discussed in this thread - the idea that some 'big name fans' have tried to tell those who were less than enamoured about the progress of BG that they weren't interpreting it correctly. This is spot on. It's just a shame that the poster has chosen the tone they have in making their point because, by doing so, it is making them no better than the very people they are targetting. Just edited to say that you may no longer see these quotes as the poster has deleted them
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on May 27, 2011 21:11:30 GMT -5
With the poster leaving, it looks like that particular thread will either grind to a halt or the same two people will tread over the same ground again and again. Too bad, because large parts of it were quite refreshing.
|
|