Phil Redmond says BBC should axe Grange Hill!

It would be a shame to mess with the history of Grange Hill to change it beyond recognition!!!

The Early series only started with 11/12 year old as that is the perfect starting point!!!

The Grange Hill cycle is to follow the same set of pupils from 1st year all they way through to 5th year and then follow some of them beyond on to 6th sixth whilst re-starting the cycle for the main cast (although one series was mainly 6th formers and it did spoil the run - but this was rectified the following series!!)

To do what the BBC want is basically a brand new show - a kind of mix of Grange Hill and Byker Grove and if they want that then so be it BUT do not call it Grange Hill and do not associate it with Grange Hill.

If anything if BBC want GH to continue then why not put it in the teen strand where the grittier storylines and older viewer can watch it properly - and even maybe turn it into a new teen soap!!!!

So essentially, Grange Hill will now be set in an ostentatious brightly-coloured lime green room with the walls lined with iMacs and ICT posters, and the floor littered with children's drawings and beanbags.

Lovely. Very gritty and real-life.

It does sound more Byker Grove than Grange Hill doesn't it. I agree though taking out of CBBC and giving the teen strand some decent original content would be better than what they've opted for.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this just now. The "creative learning centre" referred to in the Observer and Mail articles has been part of the show for several years now and is nothing more than the school's IT block (which also contains a state-of-the-art TV studio with green screen). If the whole idea is to evolve what is now Grange Hill into a new show, The Grange, would it really be the same CLC?

(And doesn't this sound awfully like what they were trying to do with Crossroads, move it out of the hotel/motel, into the village, and rename it King's Oak? )


But the green light from this would have to come from Phil Redmond, as owner of the format. It would be the right thing to do but CBBC don't want to let it go because it's seen as one of their flagship "brands".

Its just a shame that CBBC has devolved whilst GH has stayed with its key audience age. It's about time CBBC let it go and grow naturally where it belongs - in the teen strand!!

If it did turn into a teen soap could it be a cheap replacement for Neighbours??????

Being set in a school, it would struggle to be full-time soap - there'd be at least ten weeks a year where it would have to be off air.

I'm intrigued as to why it isn't moving to BBC Switch. Phil Redmond complains about what CBBC is doing to his baby yet only he can do something about that.

I think it could be a full time soap with extending its scope to include families, teachers private lives etc... Make it more like a younger version of Hollyoaks with basically Hollyoaks being the older version - in other words GH would be 11 to 17/18 Hollyoaks being 18 and 24 (as it is now!!) - as both are produced by Lime Pictures (formerly Mersey TV)

BUT MAINTAINING THE SHOOL AS THE MAIN FOCAL POINT FOR MAJORITY OF STORIES

anyway Christmas and Easter holiday are perfect for taking the show off air for holidays whilst the summer 6 weeks could include the idea of The Grange or Byker Grove style youth centre set at Grange Hill - whilst the half-terms are where the stories would continue but set outside the school!!!!!

If you still had Ray's cafe that would solve the problem of the summer holidays.

But in its current form, Hollyoaks has seized on a lot of what Grange Hill used to do - there are more school-age characters in Hollyoaks than ever, so there would perhaps be a conflict of interest for Lime Pictures to produce two soaps which in many ways would be the same.

It would never work as a full blown soap - and that's not even considering the problems restrictions on young actors cause.


They could probably up the episode quota slightly from the 20 or so a year, but not desperately so. I think though basically each series split into three segments of 8-10 episodes to air in the Autumn, Winter and Summer term could work.

I think it should have been axed when it moved to Liverpool. Essentially a different show really. Although what do I know, having not really been a fan of the show since the McClusky/Munroe/Robson days.

It would appear that the BBC's present notion of what is appropriate for 12 year olds is the main problem, but, as you highlight, decisions about the show have been poor in recent years. Phil Redmond should fight for the continuation of the show, but step aside from the production process.

Child employment laws aside, making Grange Hill into a full blown soap would damage it. Having a limited run of 20 episodes per year allows storylines to be kept to-the-point and self-contained within each series. Any expansion in the number of episodes would lead to storylines becoming dragged out and cliched, as has happened with Casualty etc. moving to year-round production; and there are more crap episodes of soap these days because they are on too often.


So why is he not saying "move it to BBC Switch" if he doesn't like what CBBC is doing? It's the perfect solution for him and the show.