Carry On London

[David Brent]

Originally posted by samkydd@Apr 19 2005, 11:48 AM Former Eastenders employees are called "actors" now are they? I would have thought the Eastenders soap could be renamed Carry on London instead of going to all that trouble to make a film. Or rather should it be called "Carry on a Perceived and Naive View of How Working Class Londoners Are Portrayed By the BBC in the 21st Century"? With all the poor people being stupid and all rich people being involved with the shady underworld criminal fraternity, all jobs within walking distance of The Queen Vic, a market which is on every day of the week where stallholders don't even have transport to collect their wares, the fruit and veg appears in the morning and disappears at night as if by a miracle. The stall holder never has to re-stock, The Queen Vic has more parties than Tupperware and they're all free of charge of course, and not a Kiwi or Aussie in sight working behind the bar, and some characters mysteriously disappear for weeks to look after sick relatives during the Panto Season.

Couldn't agree more Sam
It must get very hot over there too judging by all the deep tans the character's in Eastender's have.
Why is it that all the character's who leave the series always leave late at night in a black cab?
We've often had a laugh over here about how depressing the storylines are and what a bunch of tosser's the scriptwriter's are.
Also have you ever noticed in time how both Eastender's and Coronation Street seem to copy each other's plotlines?
God help us if the new Carry On film has scriptwriter's the calibre of the soaps

Dave.

[samkydd]

Originally posted by David Brent@Apr 21 2005, 04:46 AM Couldn't agree more Sam It must get very hot over there too judging by all the deep tans the character's in Eastender's have. Why is it that all the character's who leave the series always leave late at night in a black cab? We've often had a laugh over here about how depressing the storylines are and what a bunch of tosser's the scriptwriter's are. Also have you ever noticed in time how both Eastender's and Coronation Street seem to copy each other's plotlines? God help us if the new Carry On film has scriptwriter's the calibre of the soaps* Dave.

That's the problem though Dave, television scriptwriters (usually some producer's offspring called Demilsa or Tarquin) get high profile work in soaps and eventually they start believing that they can write, and that nepotism had nothing to do with them getting the job! Next thing you know they get invited by Daddy to work on a film, and they continue with the blatant plagiarism, rubbish plot and crap dialogue, and that's why the industry turns out such garbage these days! Let's face it, if anyone got there on creative merit they might eventually wield enough power to oust the talentless tossers who are running the show at the moment!

[David Brent]

Originally posted by samkydd@Apr 21 2005, 07:00 PM That's the problem though Dave, television scriptwriters (usually some producer's offspring called Demilsa or Tarquin) get high profile work in soaps and eventually they start believing that they can write, and that nepotism had nothing to do with them getting the job! Next thing you know they get invited by Daddy to work on a film, and they continue with the blatant plagiarism, rubbish plot and crap dialogue, and that's why the industry turns out such garbage these days! Let's face it, if anyone got there on creative merit they might eventually wield enough power to oust the talentless tossers who are running the show at the moment!

Your right again mate, but wouldn't you just think that someone in charge of production with any ounce of common sense would doctor these awful scripts before they go to air?
Or are they running at such a tight schedule in their endeavor to keep episode's coming off the conveyor belt that they've forgotten the quality aspect? In other words they've thrown the baby out and kept the bilgewater.
Surely even the actor's themselves (if they have any dignity) would also question the merit of producing episode's with such unbelievably bad scripts.

Dave.

[samkydd]

Originally posted by David Brent@Apr 22 2005, 07:47 AM Your right again mate, but wouldn't you just think that someone in charge of production with any ounce of common sense would doctor these awful scripts before they go to air? Or are they running at such a tight schedule in their endeavor to keep episode's coming off the conveyor belt that they've forgotten the quality aspect? In other words they've thrown the baby out and kept the bilgewater. Surely even the actor's themselves (if they have any dignity) would also question the merit of producing episode's with such unbelievably bad scripts. Dave.

Soap actors are happy as long as they get their fake-tanned faces (and other parts) in Hello and a few other celeb mags on a regular basis, picking up the cheques and earning a few quid extra during the panto season and doing Celebrity Stars in Their Eyes! And who can blame them? I would do exactly the same in their position, but a part of me would want to prove to everyone that I wasn't just shit, which is where an integrity gene helps!

[Hackett]

TV soaps seem to me like the old local reps from years ago. A place to learn your trade. They may play the same person but with the ridiculous plots get plenty of ham in. I don't watch any soaps on TV but I never miss The Archers. There is something about most drama on the Radio that surpasses all TV soaps. The Writting is far superior as well.

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by HACKETT@Apr 23 2005, 09:43 AM TV soaps seem to me like the old local reps from years ago. A place to learn your trade.

Absolutely - and they can be a lifeline for struggling actors, the vast majority of whom will be unemployed at any given moment in time. I suspect this is particularly true for older actresses, and I don't think it's any coincidence that they often give the best performances in soaps like EastEnders, Corrie, etc.

The impression I get is that it's the producers who are more likely to be blameworthy than the scriptwriters, whose job generally involves fleshing out pre-calculated plot lines and who often do a terrific job with very unpromising narrative material. A few years ago, Pauline Fowler's granddaughter revealed that she was pregnant, and her purse-lipped response was "Right, I'll get the biscuits" - a perfectly-judged line that managed to convey her annoyance while still being funny.

The storylines, though, are a different matter entirely!

[samkydd]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@Apr 23 2005, 12:52 PM Absolutely - and they can be a lifeline for struggling actors, the vast majority of whom will be unemployed at any given moment in time.* I suspect this is particularly true for older actresses, and I don't think it's any coincidence that they often give the best performances in soaps like EastEnders, Corrie, etc.* The impression I get is that it's the producers who are more likely to be blameworthy than the scriptwriters, whose job generally involves fleshing out pre-calculated plot lines and who often do a terrific job with very unpromising narrative material.* A few years ago, Pauline Fowler's granddaughter revealed that she was pregnant, and her purse-lipped response was "Right, I'll get the biscuits" - a perfectly-judged line that managed to convey her annoyance while still being funny. The storylines, though, are a different matter entirely!

I would disagree entirely with the similarity with rep. In rep you can do several plays a year and obviously several different types of character, sometimes more than one character in a single play therefore honing your craft in front of live audiences around the country over many years.

Most modern soap people play themselves, using their own natural regional dialects and personal mannerisms, and so they don't learn their trade in anything like the same complete way as a rep actor. You only have to see the television programmes created especially for certain ex-soap stars to see that their range is very limited indeed. Ross Kemp invariably turns up playing a gruff, shaven headed Cockney type as he did in Eastenders. Amanda Burton is the same character in Silent Witness and all the other stuff she's been in as she was in Brookside, a cold professional independent yuppie woman.

Any Northern drama these days seems to attract ex Coronation Street and Emmerdale people in their droves to play the same sorts of characters they have done for all of their careers; "Hi yah!" or "Right lady, I wanna word wi' you!"!
It seems as though the cast is assembled first then a script is written around them. It's like an annuity scheme for ex-soap people in limbo, to keep them going until the panto season starts!

If you go back to things like Hancock, Steptoe, Morse, Frost etc most of the supporting cast were actors originally from rep and if they played a lawyer, an estate agent, a judge or whatever, you really believed in their characters. You didn't see an actor playing a role you saw a lawyer, estate agent or judge!

When I see Robson Green playing a senior detective, doctor or that strange character in Wire in the Blood I just see Tucker from Soldier Soldier! When I see Tamsin Outhwaite in Redcap I see a barmaid from Eastenders dressed up in army uniform!

It's not that I associate them with their earlier programmes, it's simply because they play the same person whatever they're in, and that person isn't particularly interesting as a character. If they were good actors they would stand a better chance of making the character work, but with limited experience in the profession they do struggle! To their credit some go on and do rep after they've done soaps, a retrospective apprenticeship if you like, but not many because by then it's too late, The Ego Has Landed!

But that's just my opinion of course and I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by samkydd@Apr 24 2005, 06:13 PM I would disagree entirely with the similarity with rep. In rep you can do several plays a year and obviously several different types of character, sometimes more than one character in a single play therefore honing your craft in front of live audiences around the country over many years.

This is a very fair point, and one I missed entirely, so I can only apologise!

That said, I think there's a danger in assuming that years in theatrical rep necessarily provides the best training for actors intending to specialise in film and TV, as it's a quite different discipline in a great many respects.

Many great screen stars had next to no theatrical experience - and many great stage stars came across as horribly hammy when they performed for the cameras without realising that good screen acting involves much less projection and much more precision.

[samkydd]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@Apr 26 2005, 06:28 AM This is a very fair point, and one I missed entirely, so I can only apologise! That said, I think there's a danger in assuming that years in theatrical rep necessarily provides the best training for actors intending to specialise in film and TV, as it's a quite different discipline in a great many respects. Many great screen stars had next to no theatrical experience - and many great stage stars came across as horribly hammy when they performed for the cameras without realising that good screen acting involves much less projection and much more precision.

You are perfectly correct in what you say, you don't need to tread the boards to be a good actor. From a personal point of view though I'd want to learn as much as possible because the film and TV industry in this country is small compared with the States, so you'd only get a limited number of opportunities to prove your worth. I would imagine that your chances of success would increase if you have a broader experience to draw from, and the number of parts available to you would also increase. I'm only assuming all this, because it is probably the same as in any other line of work! But anyone who makes it on TV or the stage is to be congratulated because it is a difficult nut to crack, and everyone and his dog thinks they can be a superstar (you only have to watch what is laughably described as "reality" TV to see this)!

[CaptainWaggett]

From the BBC website

"The long-awaited 32nd Carry On film is one step closer to being filmed and could be in cinemas by the end of the year, the BBC has learned.

A final script with a "fun storyline" has been signed off, a spokeswoman for the production company has confirmed.

With the working title Carry On London, the film centres on a limousine company ferrying celebrities to an awards show.

The news comes ahead of a party this weekend at Pinewood Studios to celebrate 50 years of Carry On films.

Casting details for the new film are expected to be announced later in the year.

Stars including Vinnie Jones, Shane Ritchie and Daniella Westbrook have previously been linked with the project. Plans to resurrect the camp comedy series began in 2003 but the production has had a troubled gestation.

EastEnders and Extras star Shaun Williamson was originally due to play chauffeur Dickie Ticker, but he pulled out in 2004 after producer James Black was replaced, delaying the film's production schedule.

"It was such a shame it didn't go ahead as planned because the script was absolutely marvellous - very funny and clever," said Williamson's agent at the time. Carry On London will follow the mayhem behind the scenes as a fleet of limo drivers deliver celebrity clients to the Herberts - a British take on the Oscars.

"We will be having some cameo appearances in the film," a spokeswoman for the film told BBC News. She also confirmed that sets for the movie were made last year, including a car yard for the limousine company.

It is hoped the film will be released by the end of 2008 to coincide with the 50th anniversary celebrations but, depending on when production begins, it may not hit cinemas until 2009.

The last attempt to revive the franchise was 16 years ago with Carry On Columbus, which starred Julian Clary, Jim Dale, Maureen Lipman and Carry On veteran June Whitfield.

But it was slated by critics - Empire magazine called it "a cheaper alternative to pantomime" - and the film failed to make an impact at the box office. "

Long awaited by whom?

[DB7]

Jeez, this has been off and on more times than I care to remember. If that's the cast, then I hope it remains in limbo.

[orpheum]

The synopsis seems so unfunny that one can but dread what the final film,if ever it gets made will look like.

[Rob Compton]

Whatever are they thinking of?

Couldn't be ££££'s could it?

[Captain Casper]

Leave it. Just leave it.

Columbus and Emmanuelle were dire so why try again? There are no comparable characters who can fill the shoes of Williams, James, Hawtrey, Jacques, Sims, Douglas, Connor and Butterworth.

[Windthrop]

Peter Rogers, according to his bio, is still determined to restart the series despite acknowledging the fact that the central actors were central to the series success.