New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 383021" data-attributes="member: 23">And then there were five.Series Seven is underway and Arthur has gone. According to the script he ran off with some other woman a year or so earlier. Given the nature of sitcoms - where things invariably stay as static as possible, with characters frequently frozen in time - this lengthy period feels more surprising to me than the divorce - which itself feels as though it breaks a key sitcom rule.Both are certainly feasible, though. Indeed, Arthur legging it seems almost inevitable given how unhappy he was not only with Olive but living with her family. In a genre where characters usually stay entrenched in their dysfunctional suffering for the duration of a series' run, Arthur's decision seems like a refreshing dose of sanity. Among Arthur's last episodes was the one mentioned above where we saw how Mabel forced him into marrying Olive for her own gain, presumably costing Arthur a promising medical career. And increasingly he'd been threatening to wallop Olive or whatever (I confess some enjoyment at the thought of horrified Millennials and Boomers watching these scenes). Really, his exit is a happy ending for his character, and perhaps in time for those who remain as well. Acknowledging his absence is also something I applaud. It's certainly preferable to a recast or the arrival of a new character who shares all of Arthur's traits.As for the acknowledgement of the time jump, it's worth noting that the gap between Series Six and Seven was longer than that between any two previous series. Yes, there was Mutiny On The Buses to fill the void, but it seems that big screen OTB  exists in a different canon/timeline/continuity to its small screen sibling.On this note, I find it fascinating that two thirds of the cinematic On The Buses took place this late. Mutiny and Holiday were released either side of the final series, and both appear to have performed well at the box office, suggesting ongoing public interest in these characters. This makes me wonder if the decision to end the series came from within.While I feel the series lost its purity once episodes were penned by anyone besides The Other Two Ronnies, there have still been episodes that worked fine. As Series Seven gets underway, the series has lost one main character, with another due to depart mid-series. Losing two-thirds of the cast within seven episodes seems to be a blow from which very few series could recover, and I'm very curious to know just what went on behind the scenes. The official line seems to be that Michael Robbins wanted to return to the theatre, while Reg Varney wanted to do film (though only made two... one of which was Holiday On The Buses). It's probably too soon to judge how well the series works without Stan. The first episode of this series felt as though it was setting the stage and filling in gaps, so I haven't yet seen the "new look" series beyond the ugly, busy new opening titles. With the billing suggesting Varney is the series' star and many scenes being built around him, I'm already interested to see what a Stan-less On The Buses looks like. While he's far from the main draw for me, I fear his departure means a whole lot more gurning and mugging from Blakey and Jack.</blockquote>

Verification: 6 + 4 =