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...
Options
Roy Cropper Posts: 412 Forum Member ✭
29/03/07 - 14:43 in Soaps #1
how come it isnt in the show anymore?
«12»
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 436
Forum Member
✭
29/03/07 - 15:43 #2
got drenched in aviation fuel.
Options
Roy Cropper Posts: 412
Forum Member
✭
29/03/07 - 15:45 #3
:DYou mean it was destroyed in the plane crash?
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 3,088
Forum Member
✭✭✭
29/03/07 - 16:21 #4
They had to switch the original one 'cos a new owner didnt want the filming. Not sure if the change was mentioned in the show though. It was still in a few years ago though. The whole barn fire thing.
Options
Roy Cropper Posts: 412
Forum Member
✭
29/03/07 - 16:21 #5
the one which Victorias mum died in?
Options
SULLA Posts: 149,789
Forum Member
✭✭✭✭
29/03/07 - 16:23 #6
Jack sold the farm when it was no longer viable. Butlers farm was not viable either even though it now appears that it is :rolleyes:
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
RosamundStreet wrote: »
They had to switch the original one 'cos a new owner didnt want the filming. Not sure if the change was mentioned in the show though. It was still in a few years ago though. The whole barn fire thing.
The original Emmerdale farmhouse which was used in the show from the beginning was written out of the series in February 1993 (due to the retirement of the real life farmer Arthur Peel). The story was that the farmhouse began suffering from subsidence and was unsafe to live in. The Sugdens then moved to the nearby Hawthorn Cottage (which had featured in the series in the early 70s) until 1997 when they moved to the third location in Harewood, where they stayed until 2002.
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 4,255
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 13:04 #8
Andy's farm should be renamed Emmerdale Farm and run as a family business with Jack involved, as a link to the show's past.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 13:08 #9
GH Online wrote: »
Andy's farm should be renamed Emmerdale Farm and run as a family business with Jack involved, as a link to the show's past.
Great idea. They could use the sign that Andy made for Jack & Sarah back in Christmas 1996.
Options
pablopicasso Posts: 32,042
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 13:13 #10
If it didn't get burnt.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 13:29 #11
pablopicasso wrote: »
If it didn't get burnt.
It was only the barn that blew up in 2000. The sign was on the side of the house next to the door.
Options
Adam14 Posts: 2,607
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 14:27 #12
I agree, it should be called Emmerdale Farm. Butler's Farm doesn't mean anything.
It is strange that Jack now lives actually in the village. I still think of him living on the farm.
I can't remember the Sugden's actually moving into the village. Did we actually see them leave the farm for the last time?
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 14:43 #13
Adam14 wrote: »
I agree, it should be called Emmerdale Farm. Butler's Farm doesn't mean anything.
It is strange that Jack now lives actually in the village. I still think of him living on the farm.
I can't remember the Sugden's actually moving into the village. Did we actually see them leave the farm for the last time?
They left the 3rd incarnation of Emmerdale Farm in 2002. The story was the farm was facing financial ruin and the Sugdens were forced to sell up. Luckily they had the cottage in the village which Annie left behind when she moved to Spain.
Butler's Farm is so called as it's named after the previous tenant farmer (Wilf Butler, who was played by Peter Armitage). I think it should be renamed Emmerdale Farm though.
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 373
Forum Member
✭
04/09/07 - 15:02 #14
Emmerdale lost a lot of older viewers due to it not being about emmerdale farm.So when they gained new younger viewers they lost older viewers.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 15:11 #15
manchunian86 wrote: »
Emmerdale lost a lot of older viewers due to it not being about emmerdale farm.So when they gained new younger viewers they lost older viewers.
I wouldn't say that was entirely the case. It's always managed to maintain a healthy number of viewers both young and old, but from around 1988/89 they put more emphasis on the younger characters in order to attract more younger viewers and also to compete with the newer, more modern soaps at the time, Brookside and Eastenders. The producer at the time, Stuart Doughty, said he didn't want to change Emmerdale Farm so it resembled Brookside or Eastenders, but to make sure the storylines and characters develop within the changing times, in the case of Emmerdale Farm they happen to live in Yorkshire so it had to remain faithful to the Yorkshire background.
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 373
Forum Member
✭
04/09/07 - 15:19 #16
bhvictory wrote: »
I wouldn't say that was entirely the case. It's always managed to maintain a healthy number of viewers both young and old, but from around 1988/89 they put more emphasis on the younger characters in order to attract more younger viewers and also to compete with the newer, more modern soaps at the time, Brookside and Eastenders. The producer at the time, Stuart Doughty, said he didn't want to change Emmerdale Farm so it resembled Brookside or Eastenders, but to make sure the storylines and characters develop within the changing times, in the case of Emmerdale Farm they happen to live in Yorkshire so it had to remain faithful to the Yorkshire background.
No it isnt entirely the case but i know alot of people like my grandparents who turned of because of it. why did they feel they needed to change it so much. It would o been great if the farm was still on today. I can only remember emmerdale from about 1992 and people still considered it emmerdale farm even though farm was dropped in 1989. I would love to have those days back. The history of emmerdale is in such a mess now its so confusing.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 15:30 #17
manchunian86 wrote: »
No it isnt entirely the case but i know alot of people like my grandparents who turned of because of it. why did they feel they needed to change it so much. It would o been great if the farm was still on today. I can only remember emmerdale from about 1992 and people still considered it emmerdale farm even though farm was dropped in 1989. I would love to have those days back. The history of emmerdale is in such a mess now its so confusing.
I'm sure that Emmerdale's history and past characters are not forgotten by the producers, we just don't hear about them as much now. Probably because they have little or no relevance to current storylines.
We do occasionally hear references to storylines/characters from years gone by. There was a lot of references to the past when Alan Turner's son Terence turned up. Alan referred to when he was a heavy drinker and how his son came to leave the village in 1986. More recently the fire at the barn, in which Sarah Sugden died in 2000, has come up quite a bit in the dialogue. There will always be these little references to storylines/characters from the 70s/80s/90s but they have to be put in in a way that doesn't seem like they've been put there just for the sake of it.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 15:33 #18
manchunian86 wrote: »
I can only remember emmerdale from about 1992 and people still considered it emmerdale farm even though farm was dropped in 1989.
I think the reason for that was because at that time, the original farmhouse which had been in the series since 1972 was still featured regularly.
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 373
Forum Member
✭
04/09/07 - 15:35 #19
They could of at least made the harewood village look like the old village so we could remember when old characters lived etc.
Options
pablopicasso Posts: 32,042
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 15:38 #20
The layout is the same as maps from the 70s. The village is smaller now but the basic layout is the same.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 15:40 #21
manchunian86 wrote: »
They could of at least made the harewood village look like the old village so we could remember when old characters lived etc.
Well in the Harewood village, they based the design on the Esholt village, but obviously didn't include any of the buildings, which in the story, were destroyed in the plane crash in 1993.
Demdyke Row for instance was laid waste after the crash and was located just behind the vet's surgery (Smithy Cottage).
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 373
Forum Member
✭
04/09/07 - 16:02 #22
Only a minority were totally destroyed, but that does not matter because the harewood village came about in 97 not 93. So it should of looked like the old one.
Options
bhvictory Posts: 3,410
Forum Member
✭✭✭
04/09/07 - 16:11 #23
manchunian86 wrote: »
Only a minority were totally destroyed, but that does not matter because the harewood village came about in 97 not 93. So it should of looked like the old one.
As I recall the new village had been planned for quite a while before they actually built it. In Esholt because some properties were destroyed in the storyline, they had to be careful not to show them on camera, so most of the shots of the village were close-up. With the village in Harewood, they have the freedom to show more wider shots and don't have to worry about showing the buildings which no longer exist in the story.
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 373
Forum Member
✭
04/09/07 - 16:22 #24
bhvictory wrote: »
As I recall the new village had been planned for quite a while before they actually built it. In Esholt because some properties were destroyed in the storyline, they had to be careful not to show them on camera, so most of the shots of the village were close-up. With the village in Harewood, they have the freedom to show more wider shots and don't have to worry about showing the buildings which no longer exist in the story.
Oh i see. Does anyone know why in corrie the factory side of the street from 1960-90 was not shown very much in shots and when they did the camera moved on really quickley. It seemed that the camara was very rarely not facing the terrace also its not easy finding alot of pictures of the the factory side. Now the camara facing all angles.
Options
[Deleted User] Posts: 373
Forum Member
✭
04/09/07 - 18:22 #25
It should of kept the main families as the sugdens and tates.
Options
skp20040 Posts: 66,874
Forum Member
✭✭
04/09/07 - 18:48 #26
manchunian86 wrote: »
It should of kept the main families as the sugdens and tates.
When the rumours of Jacks charcters departure (which have since been said to be untrue ) were in the press one insider apparently said "Perhaps it's time to move on and end a very long era with part of the Sugden family."
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/soaps/emmerdale/news/1623
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/a69972/jack-sugden-not-quitting-emmerdale.html
As much as Emmerdale has evolved , I think it should keep a certain amount to its roots, such villages do have families that are always around and pass on from generation to generation, we all know its a soap but a touch of continuity is nice.
«12»
Sign In or Register to comment.
