Jump to content

TVChoice Awards


DRW50

Recommended Posts

  • Members

You are too American in your British soap watching, Shadows. Things work differently here. You have brought your unhealthy attitude Oh, she has no connections! over the Pond. :P Like I said — and Ben fired on all cylinders when I said it — one of the great things about British soaps, unlike their American counterparts, is that everyone is killable. We can shoot them all. And the shooting will be EPIC (epic epic or an epic failure, irrelevant). I can't explaaaaaaaaain how much I looooooooove that attitude.

All the great ones are completely disposable. British soaps also have a remarkable regenerative powers, their writers can cook up immense amounts of fabulous characters (and an even more immense quantity of utter horrors).

Whereas Corrie is a retired person, EastEnders is a 50 year old person. 50s are the new 30s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm not sure about the identities at the moment. I think they had strong identities in the past, but in more recent years, Corrie has lost some of its individuality, trying to be more like Eastenders, and Eastenders has also moved away from what it was (a tough show, a show which took chances, a show that built up to major storylines) to become some sort of desperate attempt at a primetime soap of 25 years ago, mixed with some parody here and there of what Eastenders used to be.

The press tends not to care about identities now so much as laziness that makes their work easier. That's probably why EE's anniversary coverage ended up being so fill in the blank, complete with the "gritty" lines (nothing on Eastenders has been "gritty" in years and years), and very bizarre moments like claiming Roxy Mitchell is one of the best EE characters of all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Probably not in recent years, but overall, EastEnders and Corrie have not had the rapid and contrasting revamps and identity changes over the years that Emmerdale has had.

Emmerdale bares almost no resemblance from the show it started off as, whereas, EastEnders and Corrie at least have some of that legacy in tact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Emmerdale still has a tight farming family, but otherwise it's changed a lot, yes.

Corrie still has Ken Barlow and still has its unique humor...if they can stop with the stunt stories they can move further back to what they once were.

Eastenders I don't think goes back to it's original identity; all that is left of that is Ian and Dot. But it does still cling on to the Mitchell era, which is as far back as a lot of the current viewers seem to go anyway, so that's not a bad thing in terms of public perception. The question is what happens when Peggy is gone, as Phil is depleted and Roxy and Ronnie have petered out. Eastenders has the chance to find some way of going back to what they used to be. Kirkwood's interviews seem to suggest they might. I hope they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, no, noooo. I think you got me all wrong. I'm the last person to go with the "So-and-so needs connections to be on the show" thing. I don't think it's necessary, but in the month or so that I've been watching 'Enders, Pat's only appearances have been with Peggy, and they've been in the vein that I described, the forced scenes of her and Peggy fighting then making up and saying that they are BFFs, only to start fighting again. As someone who hasn't seen Pat with anyone else doing anything else, I have to wonder what they'll have her do once Peggy's gone.

I like the "No one's safe" mindset too. I wish US soaps would start thinking like that. In real life, no one is immune from death simply because they are a "legacy" member of their family or one-half of a "supercouple." They're not invincible.

But I don't think you got exactly what I meant, though. I really went off on a tangent with Pat/Peggy when I really meant to talk about Phil. Here's a characters, no doubt one of the show's biggest and one of the most popular, who is famous for being a "thug" type of character with a hard shell, blah blah blah, and his current story deals with him coming to terms with the fact that he's ashamed of his effeminate son. Which I'm perfectly fine with, but it seems like, through interviews and stuff that I've read and watched, they still want to sell Phil as this "gritty thug" character even when he just isn't so anymore. It's like what yall were talking about how the show still sells itself as "gritty" and blah blah blah when it just isn't.

It's like saying that any of today's US soaps are nationwide phenomenons. Once, yes. Now, no.

ETA: Oh, and when I say that Corrie still feels a lot like it did years ago, I don't necessarily mean because it has a lot of the same characters or anything like that. I mean more like, even though they jump through scenes so much faster now, you still get random scenes in the Rovers or in the Kabin (Alf's shop in the past) with characters just having conversation about whatever. There's still a mundane atmosphere to Corrie that I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

+1

That is exactly how I feel about both shows, except, I think you've been too kind on Corrie.

For me, Emmerdale has always worked best when it has a rich and glamorous (optional) family/group of characters living it up in Home Farm; when the rich and the poor collide. There's a reason why the Tates, Oakwells, and to a lesser extent, the Sinclairs worked so well, and why those eras were a huge success (OK, maybe not Rosemary, Grayson and Perdy Sinclair). The Dingles were always the polar opposite, and that worked. The Dingles don't work as much, when they're only opposition is the middle classes. I no longer watch, so I have no idea if the Wylds fill that void. Are they as good as past rich families? Do they have that same level of charisma?

I always find this kind of statement ironic, considering that Pat is related to half the cast! Granted, she rarely has family scenes, but she definitely won't be alone when Peggy leaves.

And when it's a big mistake, what then? Killing Kathy off screen was a huge mistake; one that should have been rectified under Santa, but he had some aversion to bringing characters back from the dead. :rolleyes: It's not that implausible that Kathy didn't die, considering the next-to-nothing detail that went in to explaining her off screen death. There's so much more scope in her character, yet they randomly killed her off. Madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a very good question. And one to which is difficult to give a proper answer to.

I'd say that:

1. Do not kill characters without a hell of a reason or urgent need. That also means: no off-screen kill-offs. What's a great reason? There are plenty, and the need arises when the actor or the actress wants to pursue other acting "venues". You should always leave the window open, though.

2. After all these years, I am all for bringing people back from the dead but again with one hell of a killer reason. No random [!@#$%^&*] à la Passanante/Carlivati & co. Just properly executed, well-planned resurrections of great characters. Or those who you think you can develop into amazing creations and can see their future for at least one year in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the Wyldes have worked better than the last few rich families. I think the Kings had some miscast roles (Patsy Kensit could barely move her face), and the family dynamics seemed to become stale after only about a year or a year and a half. It became all about which family member killed or tried to kill the other. Carl and Jimmy have been much better served now that their money is gone. The DaSouzas were barely ever even given a chance and what they did have wasn't exactly great material.

The Wyldes aren't quite the same family on the hill as the Tates once were, but I think that kind of works for them. The main problem with the family was Maxwell Caulfield being cast as the patriarch. The stuff with his secret family also wasn't as interesting as it could have been. Since he's been killed, and his wife Natasha had had to cover up his murder, struggle with financial ruin, bring in a new partner who is constantly in a pissing contest with her oldest son, it's been great drama. Nathan, her son, is a great love-to-hate character. He grew up rich, unlike his parents, so he still expects everything his way, and he's also kind of crazy, which they hint at from time to time. He blackmailed his mother out of the family money when she confided in him that she'd killed his father. He's returned to try to show his support, but he keeps clashing with her new partner, Declan, who is a great character, he's a bad-ass without being too unpleasant. Then there's Maisie, Natasha's daughter, who is a princess but works at the Woolpack. She had a mental breakdown after she fell in love with the guy she later found out was her half-brother, Ryan. The actors had amazing chemistry together. I'm sorry that story had to end.

What I like about Emmerdale's rich families is the show always makes sure that some of them have some friendships with the poorer people in the village.

I think in some way this is an example that Emmerdale hasn't changed THAT much from its roots. One of the founding elements of the show was Henry Wilks, a rich man moving to Beckindale, and his initial hostility, followed by friendship, with the Sugdens.

I think they just see in Pat an older woman and to them older woman means do nothing unless you have a "comedy" plotline, or some five minute drama which goes nowhere. The woman had a major heart attack and two weeks later, Bianca is shrieking at "Nana Pat" to fix this and do that and go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

The Shortlist:

Shortlist for Best Actress

Kat Kelly

Lacey Turner

Charlotte Bellamy

Nina Wadia

Shortlist for Best Actor

Simon Gregson

Scott Maslen

Jake Wood

Danny Miller

Best Newcomer

Emer Kenny

Ricky Norwood

Ben Price

Adam Thomas

Best Soap Storyline

Aaron's gay self loathing

Who killed Archie?

Tony's Reign of Terror

Christian and Syed's relationship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Great, it looks like the same old winners (Lacey, Scott, the awful Who Killed Archie? stuff which the show dropped for five or six months).

And Emer Kenny will probably get Best Newcomer for hobbling around like a middle-aged giant dressed in her daughter's clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

I'm surprised. Happy though, Danny and Adam both deserved awards (I hope this might help Adam get a storyline!!). I don't think the story will be winning any awards based on anything in recent months so I'm glad Danny won this one now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy