Why a new Helen
-
wimsattm — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 03:10 PM)
Lesley Vickerage was such an awful actress that I was actually glad to see her leave the series. The only worse actor in the series is Nathaniel Parker, whom a reviewer in a British newspaper calls 'Television's most turgid detective.'
-
trpdean — 17 years ago(May 18, 2008 04:33 AM)
I don't want to be unkind about the actress, but I disagree, angelofvic, quite honestly I find the old Helen truly ugly. I'm watching the series now - from start to finish (by renting the DVDs) and am just amazed at this Helen. No, I haven't read the books which may explain why Lynley chose someone who so dislikes him, is so neurotic, and is so ugly - but from the television programs, it doesn't make sense.
-
wireshock — 18 years ago(September 30, 2007 01:41 PM)
Why they changed actresses is unknown (to us) and there is no "official" word that I know of. It APPEARED that they had simply written the character out of the series. A number of episodes followed Vickerage's last appearance in which "Tommy" was distraught about the state of his marriage, but given his other problems (like practically being thrown out of the force) it largely seemed the plots had moved on. When she returned in "Natural Causes" they pretty much glossed over her selfish disappearance, and Tommy greets her back as if he hadn't suffered at all.
My guess is that Vickerage decided not to continue and was thus "written out" of subsequent episodes. This would explain why it was never announced she had leftthey may have hoped they would eventually be able to get her back after a season or so. Having the couple continue to be estranged was therefore a workable solutionuntil Elizabeth George gave Helen a more significant "fate" in one of her novels.
That is why I think they brought the character back, so they could sync it back up with the books. That is what they essentially have done, for those who've seen more recent episodes which have yet to air in the U.S. But doing that only meant, without giving everything away, that THIS new Helen is destined to disappear from the series anyways. So why bother? Perhaps because the BBC get another dramatic episode ending (which EVERY episode seems to demand these days!) out of the character
As for the Vickerage characterization, it is true that Elizabeth George found it appalling, but the relationship between Helen and Tommy in the BBC series was the BEST thingapart from the Havers/Lynley tensions, of courseabout it. Both Vickerage and Parker played deeply flawed characters; watching them eat away at each other was the MAIN plotline of the series. That's why most viewers find the new Helen, who lacks the edgy angst of the old one, so lackluster and disappointing.
At least the boring replacement isn't the MAIN character, which is how I feel about Martin Shaw as the "new" Dalgliesh. Sheesh! What a boring Dalgliesh! Losing Roy Marsden was like losing Connery as Bond. He had DEFINED the role. -
nastyrambova123 — 18 years ago(October 02, 2007 02:47 PM)
I personally did NOT like the "old" Helen, as played by Leslie Vickerage. She really was NOT like the "Helen" in the novels, and there was something about her portrayal of "Helen" that was really unlikable, and personally, I did not care for Helen and Tommy's relationship I believe that here in the states the programs are behind as shown in the UK, so I do not know the fate of the new storyline. All the problems aside, and with that said, this "new Helen" is even more strange because she seems to have come back into Tommy's life with a "happy-go-lucky" attitude and is very open to re-kindling her marriage. That was part of the problems within their relationship, thoughthe inability to commit; the disappointmentsthis "new" Helen seems like a totally different person and she doesn't seem suitable for Tommy, either. The "Helen" storyline should be written outfrankly, I would like to see Linley and Havers have a go! I'm interested to see where the storyline is going, anywayI like Havers and would like to see her have a life.
And as for Martin Shaw in the "Dalgliesh" roleI could not agree more with the previous postRoy Marsden IS Dalgliesh and Shaw's portrayal is almost like a totally different character. Anyway, I thought P.D. James was going to get Cordelia Gray and Adam Dalgliesh "together"!!! What a pair those two would make! I mean, even my kids liked the original Dalgliesh, Marsdenwhen your kids like something or someone, that usually says it all!
Kat Ramone -
ebhead — 18 years ago(October 08, 2007 07:33 PM)
They've finally just begun showing the newest series (last night here in Tucson, AZ, USA). I was so thrilled that it was back on. I watch it for Nathaniel as he's so amazingly gorgeous. They have him looking even "hipper" now. they showed two here last night, but out of order, so instead of picking up where the last season left off, they began with him already being friends with Helen again. they spoke of it before showing her, so I was shocked to see that new lady, who neither looks, sounds, nor acts like Helen. As disappointed as I am that it's not the old Helen, I could accept her potentially IF:
- she were as pretty as Helen. I'm glad if Lynley can look beyond looks, but part of why he was attracted to Helen, was presumably her looks. This new one is so unattractive, that I don't see him going for her. Even her voice is annoying, as Helen. But even still I could probably accept her if
- she acted like the old Helen. At least on May to December the new Zoe acted like the old one, well mostly anyway. as you all have pointed out this new Helen acts nothing like the old one.
I have not read the novels. I do believe those of you who have though. so, the idea that the writers are trying to match up the novels with the show makes sense, but why start now? How can they expect us to accept that Helen would act the way on the show that the new Helen does? It's just too unbelievable and that's the nail in the new helen's coffin, in my opinion.
I still love him though and I like his relationship with Havers, so I'll keep watching for as long as it's still on.
-
Atomica00 — 18 years ago(October 14, 2007 08:26 PM)
Wow, you are an arse and VERY superficial. I was really enjoying reading this thread because of everyones mature analysis of the 2 Helens in terms of how the actress' have portrayed them, but you had to ruin that.
- "she were as pretty as Helen. I'm glad if Lynley can look beyond looks, but part of why he was attracted to Helen, was presumably her looks. This new one is so unattractive, that I don't see him going for her. Even her voice is annoying, as Helen. But even still I could probably accept her if"
What the hell does the new Helen's look and voice have to do with the actual character? That is a stupid and childish point. I personally didn't like the 1st Helen because of how she behaved during the baby arc. She didn't give the man a chance and I really doubted (and hoped) they would get back together. The 2nd Helen is a much happier person and I like how she's actually made me give a fig if they get back together. Their chemistry isn't as strong as compared to the 1st Helen, but apples and oranges. - "she acted like the old Helen. At least on May to December the new Zoe acted like the old one, well mostly anyway. as you all have pointed out this new Helen acts nothing like the old one."
Has it occured to you that if she acted like the old Helen, people would complain that she's unoriginal and copying the original actress? Or that maybe the producers told her to portray Helen that way? If it's true what another poster said about George (author) not liking the original portrayal of Helen, that could be a sway for the producers to change her up.
Hoenstly? If you really find her unattractive and annoying, stop watching.
- "she were as pretty as Helen. I'm glad if Lynley can look beyond looks, but part of why he was attracted to Helen, was presumably her looks. This new one is so unattractive, that I don't see him going for her. Even her voice is annoying, as Helen. But even still I could probably accept her if"
-
angelofvic — 18 years ago(October 15, 2007 02:22 AM)
Well, in fact the old Helen was quite beautiful and slim and feminine, the "glamour/fashion" profile, as they say in the business, and could have been a runway model; whereas the new Helen has a very boxy face, mannish mannerisms, and is fairly matronly. No need to get up in arms about the poster above stating the obvious. I'm sure she or he is not the only person who missed the beauty and femininity of the old Helen.
. . . . . . . . -
Brennan-8 — 18 years ago(October 15, 2007 08:18 AM)
The new Helen is much more beautiful and warm, and seemed to actually like Lynley, whereas the old Helen I thought was just a total shrew. It was sad & puzzling to watch Lynley grovel to such a cold and bitchy woman who couldn't have cared less for him, IMO.
-
hereinthedark — 18 years ago(October 16, 2007 02:13 PM)
The actress who plays the new Helen, Catherine Russell, is in real life the daughter of "Mr. Rumbold" on "Are You Being Served" (Nicholas Smith) - no joke, check it out. Under the circumstances, I think she really lucked out in the genes department!
-
wimsattm — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 02:59 PM)
I completely agree with you and other people who have said that Lesley Vickerage was a near disaster as Helen. Her replacement was not much better. You are correct in saying that the character of Helen should be written out of the series. For what it's worth, I DETEST Martin Shaw as Adam Dalgliesh, but Roy Marsden has aged a great deal, as anyone who saw him in a 2007 episode of 'Foyle's War' can attest, so perhaps a newer, younger actor was needed for the part. That said, however, I still dislike Martin Shaw.
-
angelofvic — 18 years ago(November 21, 2007 04:46 AM)
the relationship between Helen and Tommy in the BBC series was the BEST thingapart from the Havers/Lynley tensions, of courseabout it. Both Vickerage and Parker played deeply flawed characters; watching them eat away at each other was the MAIN plotline of the series. That's why most viewers find the new Helen, who lacks the edgy angst of the old one, so lackluster and disappointing.
Yes, couldn't agree more. Although, when Vicarage did leave, they did manage to find new interest and new plotlines with just Havers and Lynley (mostly work plotlines). But yes, you characterized our initial disappointment over the new Helen well. That is, until "In the Blink of an Eye," in which she came across as very sympathetic.
. . . . . . . . -
halavana — 18 years ago(December 15, 2007 09:04 AM)
Must agree with you here. Emma Felding was, IMO, the best of the lot. Too bad she was only in one episode. She had the wit and kindness of the book Helen, though she also was a CID profiler instead of Simon St. James's assistant. She was also the most attractive of the 3, again IMO. I could see Lynley falling for her more so than for either of the others.
-
greenegg — 9 years ago(July 31, 2016 01:15 PM)
Thanks for finally mentioning Emma Fielding. She was my favorite of all the Helens. Why would they choose three actresses who looked so different; they might at least have tried to get a similar hair color or style. To go from long, curly red hair to short, dark straight hair to someone who was blonde seems absurd.
Vickerage seemed pretty lifeless after Fielding's witty, lively Helen. She also seems older.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops! -
papyrus beetle — 17 years ago(October 31, 2008 03:41 PM)
Bless her heart, this actress is HORRIBLY cast, and just about ruined this last season for me. She looks, dresses, talks, a generation OLDER than Lynley!
The orginal Helen (Leslie Vickerage) was a perfect match in every way for him.
"Do what they say,Shirlthey've got guns!"-VIOLENT YEARS