Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spells &amp; Karma" data-source="post: 410955" data-attributes="member: 23">Oh yes. It was the same experience for me. Brookie does a nice job of having characters off-screen for quite some time in a way that they still feel part of it, so their absence doesn't really register. Barry coming and going is another example.While this does soften the blow of more permanent departures, the payoff is that there's less closure. Karen's permanent exit didn't feel that different to me from when she moved in with Guy, so there's a feeling that she could still reappear at any time. And I suppose that's how it really does often feel when a loved one moves away like this.Because my knowledge of Brookie isn't brilliant, I was really bad at keeping track of all the "lasts" in cases like this. Often it's hard to know this will be X and Y's final scene together until some time later when it's clear there won't be another. I think this can make  it more meaningful, especially in a case like the one you're saying where looking back with the benefit of hindsight can change the way it's viewed.Now something inside me wants to analyse why this would be. I'm sure there's a paper in there somewhere.Ha. Yes. Oh yes. I've just picked up watching again and the two first episodes had these low-key endings. The latest one ended with a lighthearted moment where Paul locked Annabelle outside to give her a taste of what she had in mind for Lucky the dog  (it did make me chuckle. Jim Wiggins is really on impish form at the moment. And I found myself imitating the way he rolled his "r" sounds when saying February).Meanwhile, more dramatic material such as Bobby's visit to the worker with asbestosis, or Madge pushing Ralph into telling Harry of their change of relationship status is reserved for the End Of Part One point. Refreshing does sum up this creative choice.Same here. It really sold to the audience why the trip has become so important to Sheila, which also helps sell some of the otherwise more eyebrow-raising choices such as deciding to go alone and raise the funds by becoming a barmaid.Oh, that's a shame. I like to think he'd have been impressed since I'm sure there are very few who would be able to pick him out for this role.That's interesting, and very much in step with me thinking the (characters') friendship felt very established. Since he appeared early on, it's entirely possible as well.Oh yes. That makes complete sense.I like that. On the subject of the Grants and Collinses, there seems to be some friction again, which kind of echoes their early days together.  It's mainly come out of the device of Lucky leaving deposits on the Grants' path. It's friendly enough, but also enjoyably awkward.Even though I know this story has to be short-lived [ISPOILER]much like poor Lucky herself[/ISPOILER], it's good to be reminded that they're ultimately neighbours whose capacity for tolerance of one another is not bottomless. I thought the conversation between Bobby and Sheila discussing the Collinses new pet really fascinating. Their minds went to the old estate where dogs ran loose and left mess everywhere. At that point, social background and their shared histories  didn't come into it for them: the Collinses had simply become dog-owners with all its potential for anti-social behaviour. Sheila and Bobby were looking down on their neighbours from the posh house on the Wirral.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played JR Ewing?

Poison your name this Hallowe'en

There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username

Click here for more details

Reply to thread