Hey there!
Welcome to the Digital Spy forums. If you’d like to join in, please sign in or register.
Sign In Register
Quick Links
- Categories
- Recent Discussions
- Best Of...
«1…178179180181182183184»
CollisBrown Posts: 595
Forum Member
✭✭
24/08/24 - 18:29 #4477
Dave.Matthews wrote: »
Rinsewind wrote: »
Regarding Damon becoming self-employed as a painter and decorator, the biggest problem would be the fact he would need to be able to drive, as it would be utterly impractical to walk to any job.
True but he was clearly aiming to get a driving licence as he was asking Annabelle to give him lessons.
Brekkie wrote:
What happened to Sheila learning to drive? Thought they might revisit that now.
That seems to have been a plotline that was dropped for some reason, after she crashed into Alan Partridge's car (while enthusiastically waving at one of the neighbours!). I don't recall her driving a car in subsequent episodes. Maybe the idea was that the collision shattered her confidence to get behind the wheel again?
There was scene in 1983 I think where Annabelle took Sheila for a driving lesson. I always think it was a bit of a lost opportunity that the show didn’t explore the relationship of those two characters a bit further.
4
CollisBrown Posts: 595
Forum Member
✭✭
24/08/24 - 18:39 #4478
For me the second half of 1986 is where the show really kicked up a gear. Don’t get me wrong I love the previous years too.
But I recall watching this era first time round and the Heather Nick storyline was genuinely gripping and shocking with some fantastic acting.
It’s easy to miss the suspense of twice weekly episodes and waiting for the next instalment when you can now stream 5 episodes at once.
2
James2001 Posts: 75,725
Forum Member
✭✭✭
24/08/24 - 19:55 #4479
Only one more episode for Nick
Well, alive anyway
1
Brekkie Posts: 25,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
24/08/24 - 20:13 edited 24/08/24 - 20:20 #4480
That was an unnecessary spoiler just a few days from it playing out on the next batch of episodes.
6
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
24/08/24 - 21:14 edited 24/08/24 - 21:38 #4481
I wish they had the character of Barry move out of the Grant house & either have got a place of his own away from the close or better still, if he had started to make it big & earn enough money to have rented either Heather's house or Harry Cross's one.
That would have really struck in the craw of Bobby & him acting the Big I Am over & over again "THAT THIS IS MY HOUSE" towards Barry especially but he also used that line with both Karen & Damon too.
Bobby was well out of order with his snidey sides, it was like none of his kids had any rights whatsoever & that they were only as good as unwanted guests in "his house"! GIT!
I think....
they should have written the character of Bobby out much earlier than they did.
Apparently he leaves around May 1988 & while that might come around fairly quickly on STV pace, I think there will still be far too much offish & worse sides of him to come up until he does leave.
Bobby seemed to change for the worse around the time when Barry was stupid enough to keep on getting involved with McArdle the first few times & that time Bobby really roughed Barry up as a result.
Since then, Bobby never really changed back to any decent side, not on a consistent enough basis anyhow.
1
80sGirl Posts: 3,172
Forum Member
✭✭✭
24/08/24 - 21:38 #4482
A good week of episodes this week again, I had to chuckle at @losbarcos description of Pat and Terry being on a Wham! style holiday, it was like a Club Tropicana video with them by the pool in Barbados. The only thing that surprised me was Pat's choice of swimwear - whilst his swimming trunks were short, I would have put money on him wearing a pair of budgie smugglers 😁
I had also forgotten about Tommy McCardle's "mum" not being his mum. And him trying (and failing) to chat up Gill.
Whilst I have on the whole enjoyed watching the Nick and Heather storyline unfold, I have to admit I will be glad when it is over. It just seems like they are repeating themselves at the moment - Heather tries to stop Nick having any cash to buy drugs, Nick finds a way around it and then they argue when Heather finds out. I noticed that Nick did what I said about last week in that he took one of Heather's necklaces and pawned it to get some money (although he did buy it back later). Also, the bit when Nick offered his drugs to Heather was truly horrifying as well.
As an aside, when Nick and Heather were arguing and Billy and Doreen could hear them through the walls, it did bring back memories of when I was a teenager living at home and our next door neighbours, who were always arguing could be heard like that. My dad's response when it happened was to just turn the volume on the TV up to drown them out!
Ralph's comment about Paul's video camera that sat on his shoulder being "compact" was funny too. It reminded me of the boss I had in the mid 90s who went on a family holiday and instead of buying a new camcorder which you just held in your hand, decided to keep using the video camera like Paul had, but soon regretted it as when they were on holiday filming, people thought he was a news reporter as the camera was so big and somebody even asked him if he worked for the BBC!
I also found it funny when Gordon had a strop when Paul refused to lend him the money to buy a motorbike and stomped up the stairs like a moody teenager, yet seeing as he looks like he is in his mid 20s, it just didn't work and seemed bizarre to me.
And Harry being "thoughtful" to Gill by taking the stereo instead of the TV in lieu of his rent made me smile. I don't know if Harry can evict Pat and Terry for non payment of rent (presumably it would be in the lease), but he keeps on saying he wants the house for his son and grandchild to live there, yet I don't think he has even asked Kevin if he wants to live next door to his dad!
5
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
24/08/24 - 21:47 edited 24/08/24 - 22:14 #4483
Re posters finding it funny about the size of Paul's video camera, it wasn't a bad size for 1986 I thought.
Bear in mind it was, what at least 20 years before video phones started to become a bit common place, if not 25 years?
Talking of technology back then, that reminds me of a point I forgot to make earlier, that "Hanco*ck & Sullivan (which mighthave been a good name for their removals business, really should have bought an answering machine & surely they were around by 1986?
They probably would have cost a lot less than the £100 Vicki wanted for answering the phones while they were away too.
Gill could have told Harry that they were on a job in Barbados too rather than letting him think they had funded their trip t=by not paying the rent.
If she did tell him in the end, I don't think she revealed enough like but even if she had, I think he might have seen right through it all too.
Then again, he might not have cared as long as he got his money.
p.s. Heather had an answering machine too actually so they should have got one.
Brekkie Posts: 25,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
24/08/24 - 22:07 #4484
Considering they were claiming the dole surely advertising your home phone number as a business line wasn't wise either.
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
24/08/24 - 22:07 #4485
It was so obvious & typical of Barry to try it on with Vicki too.
I was glad she didn't fall for his stupid crappy "moves" & hints to get with him where he wanted & that she kicked him instead!
I'm kinda hoping she tells Terry too (
) but knowing how thick as thieves they are for much longer,I suspect she probably won't but should. If she did tell him, then "TEH", should have been much more aware of Barry & his antics once Terry gets with his wife to be, Sue.
kitkat1971 Posts: 39,803
Forum Member
✭
24/08/24 - 22:18 edited 24/08/24 - 22:26 #4486
Dave.Matthews wrote: »
I mentioned earlier that I had a question about episodes 9 and 10, Unlike all other eps, strangely they don't have a director credited - at least not on-screen. In Phil Redmond's autobiography he mentions that one "veteran" BBC director had been recommended to him as a kind of "mentor" to the other Brookie directors who were fairly young and only had a small amount of previous experience. Throughout the book, Phil simply refers to the older man as "The Shepherd"...
Despite his credentials, some of the actors and crew on the Brookie set soon started complaining about him. He would struggle to direct seemingly straightforward scenes, particularly those shot after dark. At other times he would simply disappear when it came time to shoot a scene. Often he would be found asleep in one of the houses!... and sometimes he would nod off during the actual filming of a scene he was supposed to be directing!!...
Ultimately Phil had to sit in on scenes to "direct the Director" as it were. In essence, though, this really meant that Phil was performing the job (which ended up in another row with the unions.) Inevitably the "Shepherd" was sacked. I suspect it was episodes 9 and 10 that he was supposed to direct, hence the lack of credits.
The "Shepherd" got some measure of "revenge" a few weeks later, though. He was interviewed by the press to claim that, rather than being fired, he had quit because of the show's strong language.
(A quick bit of Googling suggests that the name of the "Shepherd" was George Spenton-Foster.)
On the subject of the show's directors, one of them was called Keith Washington (he helmed a couple of dozen early eps, I seem to recall). I wondered if this was the same chap who was also an actor, and, in 1982, would have been most recently seen playing an assassin in an episode of "The Professionals". Well at the end of episode 23, a bunch of flowers arrives for Heather and the delivery man, uncredited, was indeed the same Mr Washington. Director cameo! (I wonder if he stood in at the last minute because the actor who was supposed to play the delivery man failed to show up for some reason.)
Really interesting - never knew all that.
I will say though, that George Spenton-Foster had form as he caused at least one actor on Blake's 7 to have a very difficult experience on set.
The actor has spoken about it, but I'm not sure if it was on or off the record, so won't name them just in case.2
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
24/08/24 - 22:21 #4487
Brekkie wrote: »
Considering they were claiming the dole surely advertising your home phone number as a business line wasn't wise either.
They should have stopped their claim & just gone for it on their business as well as maybe registered for temping work as and when work might have been quiet.
Maybe they & the likes of Matty should have become cabbies too? I don't know how much they might have earnt as a cabbie back then but Liverpool being a city, they probably would have done ok if not alright even during hard economic times.
One of my relatives moved from the south of England around 1986, bought a really nice house in Greater Manchester for around 17-19 thousand & that house would easily be worth around 750k in the south in today's money & he then became a Black Cab driver in that area too & seems to have done well out of it even though their fares were low for a very long time & might still be.
He went onto buy other houses that were probably going cheap & became a buy to let landlord as well.
Dulablan Posts: 1
Forum Member
25/08/24 - 19:35 #4488
CollisBrown wrote: »
For me the second half of 1986 is where the show really kicked up a gear. Don’t get me wrong I love the previous years too.
But I recall watching this era first time round and the Heather Nick storyline was genuinely gripping and shocking with some fantastic acting.
It’s easy to miss the suspense of twice weekly episodes and waiting for the next instalment when you can now stream 5 episodes at once.It’s good seeing five episodes each week but I kind of wish there were only three a week so we kept the same timeline as the show intended which would help to appreciate the storylines.
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
25/08/24 - 19:47 #4489
On Gill, I'm kind of wondering why they brought her in if she really is only going to be a short term character, what was the point of that?
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
25/08/24 - 22:55 edited 25/08/24 - 23:09 #4490
Dulablan wrote: »
CollisBrown wrote: »
For me the second half of 1986 is where the show really kicked up a gear. Don’t get me wrong I love the previous years too.
But I recall watching this era first time round and the Heather Nick storyline was genuinely gripping and shocking with some fantastic acting.
It’s easy to miss the suspense of twice weekly episodes and waiting for the next instalment when you can now stream 5 episodes at once.It’s good seeing five episodes each week but I kind of wish there were only three a week so we kept the same timeline as the show intended which would help to appreciate the storylines.
I have the opposite view & would prefer more & did from the start of Brookside finally being repeated after soooo long.
When Brookside started in 1982, it was on just 1 of 4 TV channels on British television & despite that, the general choice & quality of programmes was good, quality & enough like & if one had a VCR, it was kinda easier to keep up with them all too.
10 years on or so from when Channel 4 started, Sky were not only around by then, as was cable TV in some parts of the country before Sky too, but they went into multi channel mode, so these days I think more people prefer to have the option of binge watching series if they can as otherwise they won't have enough of a chance of trying to keep up with the ones that appeal the most & even then, its not possible to watch them all anymore.
I think most of the big networks not only recognise this but know they kind of have to make the binge watching option available to have a chance of competing still & moreover not "do their money" lol.
It tends to be the smaller networks/stations that want to try & milk things out & make them last & while I get it to some extent, IF they have the chance of offering more but choose not to, its a bit risky.
I suppose with they know which of the old classics, people are likely to keep on coming back for & they know they can make them wait & maybe milk the viewing figures to try & lure in more advertisers in general for other programmes they show.
If it was newer programmes that might not have such a fan base or they are building them up, is another reason why they have them available for binge watching.
I do remember remember quite a lot of the episodes we have seen since the 1985 ones but as they were so long ago, most were not fresh in my mind but I do remember a fair bit & they are not unfamiliar when I see them.
Judio Posts: 12,151
Forum Member
✭✭
26/08/24 - 07:23 #4491
Styker wrote: »
On Gill, I'm kind of wondering why they brought her in if she really is only going to be a short term character, what was the point of that?
Because they needed to do the storyline of Harry evicting tenants for Sally and Kevin to move in
With Pat and Terry away they needed a 3rd person
Also they used her in the McArdle story as well as she works for Prison Service
Brekkie Posts: 25,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
26/08/24 - 08:54 #4492
Styker wrote: »
Dulablan wrote: »
CollisBrown wrote: »
For me the second half of 1986 is where the show really kicked up a gear. Don’t get me wrong I love the previous years too.
But I recall watching this era first time round and the Heather Nick storyline was genuinely gripping and shocking with some fantastic acting.
It’s easy to miss the suspense of twice weekly episodes and waiting for the next instalment when you can now stream 5 episodes at once.It’s good seeing five episodes each week but I kind of wish there were only three a week so we kept the same timeline as the show intended which would help to appreciate the storylines.
I have the opposite view & would prefer more & did from the start of Brookside finally being repeated after soooo long.
5 is just about perfect- makes it a once a week commitment and easy to keep on top of and means we're moving through it at a reasonable pace. I wouldn't mind it going to 6 once they hid the 3 times a week cycle but beyond that I think it becomes too much of a chore.
5
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
26/08/24 - 11:33 #4493
Brekkie wrote: »
Styker wrote: »
Dulablan wrote: »
CollisBrown wrote: »
For me the second half of 1986 is where the show really kicked up a gear. Don’t get me wrong I love the previous years too.
But I recall watching this era first time round and the Heather Nick storyline was genuinely gripping and shocking with some fantastic acting.
It’s easy to miss the suspense of twice weekly episodes and waiting for the next instalment when you can now stream 5 episodes at once.It’s good seeing five episodes each week but I kind of wish there were only three a week so we kept the same timeline as the show intended which would help to appreciate the storylines.
I have the opposite view & would prefer more & did from the start of Brookside finally being repeated after soooo long.
5 is just about perfect- makes it a once a week commitment and easy to keep on top of and means we're moving through it at a reasonable pace. I wouldn't mind it going to 6 once they hid the 3 times a week cycle but beyond that I think it becomes too much of a chore.
As I touched upon before, that the programme was only repeated once before & around 20 years ago & that it ended more than 20 years ago & started nearly 42 years ago, is why I would prefer the option of seeing much more.
If Brookside's repeat rights has been acquired by a bigger network then I think more episodes if not entire years would have been uploaded up front.
Having said all of this, I wonder if Phil Redmond has anything to do with it being restricted to 5 uploads a week?
I ponder that as I read somewhere when these repeats were about to start being shown, that it seemed to be down to Redmond himself as to why more repeats had not been shown.
There was some q & a's put to him & he seemed to be of the previous view that it was best left unrepeated for some reason.
What changed his mind was when friends of Brookside actors who have died said to him, "we just want the chance to see them alive again" is when he said something like "I hadn't thought of that" & as he agreed, is why he allowed the repeats to go ahead.
He didn't put such a block on Grange Hill though did he, so I wonder why he did on Brookside for such a long time before these repeats started getting shown?
2
Nesta Robbins Posts: 32,124
Forum Member
✭✭✭
26/08/24 - 12:46 edited 26/08/24 - 12:55 #4494
Brekkie wrote: »
That was an unnecessary spoiler just a few days from it playing out on the next batch of episodes.
Really irritating. Please just wait until the episode has aired - then it's fair enough. I, and I think most on here, avoid the thread until they've watched.
I knew from an earlier spoiler about Nick - but wasn't aware of the timeline. I assumed Heather had a much longer rockier road ahead of her. Some are watching for the first time. 5
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
26/08/24 - 13:35 edited 26/08/24 - 13:38 #4495
Nesta Robbins wrote: »
Brekkie wrote: »
That was an unnecessary spoiler just a few days from it playing out on the next batch of episodes.
Really irritating. Please just wait until the episode has aired - then it's fair enough. I, and I think most on here, avoid the thread until they've watched.
I knew from an earlier spoiler about Nick - but wasn't aware of the timeline. I assumed Heather had a much longer rockier road ahead of her. Some are watching for the first time.I really don't get this mega standard/demand in no "spoilers" whatsoever & despite what the thread title says, I think its high time to respond with some key points & facts.
I have mentioned before, DS's standards are don't post open spoilers, use a spoiler bracket instead.
Before you might say a partial "spoiler" was revealed before the spoiler bracket, how is it a spoiler?
The entire programme ended in 2003 so none of the characters are around nor is the programme & apart from....
Barry maybe, all the original characters were gone by 2003 too I think, so what is the actual massive spoiler?
Dave.Matthews Posts: 52
Forum Member
✭
26/08/24 - 15:04 edited 26/08/24 - 15:14 #4496
Styker wrote: »
As I touched upon before, that the programme was only repeated once before & around 20 years ago & that it ended more than 20 years ago & started nearly 42 years ago, is why I would prefer the option of seeing much more.
The first repeats - at least in the UK - were from the now-defunct "UK Living" channel, starting around 1995. They began from the first episode onwards but I think they stopped at some point in the eps from the early 1990's.
Styker wrote: »
I ponder that as I read somewhere when these repeats were about to start being shown, that it seemed to be down to Redmond himself as to why more repeats had not been shown.
There was some q & a's put to him & he seemed to be of the previous view that it was best left unrepeated for some reason.
That's very interesting and curious, given that he had worked so hard and, debatably, against the odds to not only launch the show but keep it on air after its first three months. During its first ten years he really championed the show, just as he did again in 2012 via his autobiography. Maybe at the time of the Q&A he had seen some of the post-1994 episodes and realised how terrible the show had got by that point and felt guilty that he had "taken his eye off the ball" while he had gone on to do other projects. (I'm saying 1994 as that's when I gave up on Brookie).
Styker wrote: »
What changed his mind was when friends of Brookside actors who have died said to him, "we just want the chance to see them alive again" is when he said something like "I hadn't thought of that" & as he agreed, is why he allowed the repeats to go ahead.
Hmmm... he's still not exactly giving it a ringing endorsem*nt, though!
Styker wrote: »
He didn't put such a block on Grange Hill though did he, so I wonder why he did on Brookside for such a long time before these repeats started getting shown?
Grange Hill ran through to 2008 - has it been repeated since then? Either way, he did allow the early seasons of that show to be issued on DVD but sales flopped - I think mainly because either he or the BBC had mucked around with "filmising" them and they looked visually weird. (That was the reason *I* didn't buy them.)
Brekkie Posts: 25,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
26/08/24 - 15:16 #4497
23 of the 31 series of Grange Hill are on ITVX Premium.
Nesta Robbins Posts: 32,124
Forum Member
✭✭✭
26/08/24 - 15:18 edited 26/08/24 - 15:29 #4498
@Styker I've really appreciated you putting things in spoilers lately.
I didn't think there were many advantages to having a shoddy memory, but I'm just really relishing watching it again with "fresh" eyes - surprised by how much detail I'd forgotten - and fascinated by how differently I view things, 40 years on. I just want to experience the same drama all over again as I watch. Not be told what's going to happen in the next episode, that's all. Afterwards, I enjoy reading everyone's unique take on the latest batch of episodes. 5
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
26/08/24 - 15:27 #4499
Nesta Robbins wrote: »
@Styker
I've really appreciated you putting things in spoilers lately, thanks. I didn't think there were many advantages to have a shoddy memory, but I'm just really relishing watching it again with "fresh" eyes - surprised by how much detail I'd forgotten - and fascinated by how differently I view things, 40 years on. I just want to experience the same drama all over again as I watch. Not be told what's going to happen in the next episode, that's all. Afterwards, I enjoy reading everyone's unique take on the latest batch of episodes.I do get your position & I advocate & keep on reminding people in the Classic EastEnders thread to use spoiler brackets for unshown episodes & scenes as there is many viewers who are watching them for the first time. I watched EE from the begining though & started with Brookside around 1985 too but despite my efforts, there is often posters who seem to openly defy mine & others calls, mention things that haven't been shown & the furthest DS go is to remind posters to use spoiler brackets.
Again while understanding your stance, I would emphasise that with Brookside starting 42 years ago & ending 21 years ago, that at some point all the characters left or were forced to so I personally don't think its a big give away if a poster mentions a character's departure date per se but I would advocate to use spoiler brackets all the same.
1
Styker Posts: 51,498
Forum Member
✭
26/08/24 - 15:35 edited 26/08/24 - 15:36 #4500
@Dave.Matthews
I've found some links to where Phil Redmond was quoted on his positions & reluctance to have Brookside repeated.
In order to read the links, they seem to put up different "obstacles" to read the links in full.
Its a recent thing I've noticed, most media seem to demand we either agree they can have full access to our browsing details or we pay to read or otherwise we only see a sentence or so.
I find these obstacles quite annoying.
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/brookside/a42837062/brookside-phil-redmond-against-streaming-repeats/
1
Brekkie Posts: 25,188
Forum Member
✭✭✭
26/08/24 - 15:47 #4501
It's "current" spoilers which frustrate, even if hidden under spoiler tags which are basically a red rag to a bull, so I was more pissed off with myself for reading that. I think had the spoiler related to something happening in a few months rather than next week I'd have been less annoyed.
Part of the joy of following a thread like this when watching a classic show should be the reaction of others seeing stories play out with fresh eyes.
Back to what we have seen and find it odd how Nick's kids have just vanished since his overdose.
1
I knew from an earlier spoiler about Nick - but wasn't aware of the timeline. I assumed Heather had a much longer rockier road ahead of her. Some are watching for the first time. 
I didn't think there were many advantages to having a shoddy memory, 
but I'm just really relishing watching it again with "fresh" eyes - surprised by how much detail I'd forgotten - and fascinated by how differently I view things, 40 years on. I just want to experience the same drama all over again as I watch. Not be told what's going to happen in the next episode, that's all. Afterwards, I enjoy reading everyone's unique take on the latest batch of episodes. «1…178179180181182183184»
Sign In or Register to comment.
