DRW50

Emmerdale is such a mixed bag. Some of the stuff is just not good, other can be surprisingly real and on the mark. More than any other soap I watch it reminds me of what the American soaps used to be like, with a UK flavor. Hollyoaks is like no other soap, and I really liked a lot of the stuff from even some of the not good periods, but now the show can be so dark and empty and the heart (OB and Max) is gone. They also suffer from a lack of any strong couples.

The show is a bit inconsistent now, all over the place, mostly focused on young people. They are starting a hugely controversial new story soon. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/soaps/2744480/Hollyoaks-plot-storyline-similar-to-James-Bulger-case.html I'm enjoying Emmerdale, although it's far from flawless. Hollyoaks still has some good moments too, it can just be hard to find them. Eastenders is very plot-driven and baby-obsessed now, so I have mixed feelings on that. Corrie still has some good points but overall is also too plot-driven and a bit too thin, as it's hard for them to transition from what they used to be to today's soap world.

The main difference here for me is that the Mitchells have just been so played out as characters, or I don't care about their relationships enough to where I need to see her return. Phil has been married four or five times, and all of those relationships have ended badly. His last wife abused his son and committed suicide on their wedding day! If Peggy skipped the next wedding, I'd understand. Since Sam is gone, Peggy's only other relatives are Roxy, who is not worth bringing anyone back for, and Ronnie, who has such mental problems I can't see her settling down anytime soon. And Billy, but Peggy has never seen him as one of the family. Eastenders hasn't had a problem keeping some characters away in the past (we see nothing of Sharon now, even though Tish Dean has said she wouldn't mind a return). I don't see a point for Peggy, or most of the Mitchell family, now. Keep Ronnie, dump the rest.

I liked those, but I don't see those types of relationships with Peggy and the dead end Mitchells. I guess there's still Pat.

She certainly has a lot of power over her character. I don't see the point of special stories or appearances once she's gone. I guess she could show up for weddings or whatever but none of the Mitchells who are left on the show seem likely to have interesting relationships or weddings.

I'll miss him, he was a very underrated actor (and quite attractive - I like redheads). He was great during the Stax reveal. They never gave him much of a chance.

saynotoursoap put up an episode where Winter Austen stalked Nicole through the TV studio. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gl2TjV92H0

Here are two promos, one where Molly shoots Raven, or thinks she shot her, and another where she's trying to kill April. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqJUpVttoUo

I think it's shock value. The show is willing to sacrifice characters for a ratings boost, or more press attention. Lucas could have been a long-term character, especially with his conflicts between religion and his more violent impulses, but instead they just make him a knockoff of Richard Hillman. The woman who played Yolande Trueman complained about her firing, and how they dumped her as soon as they brought in several other black cast members, like they felt they'd filled their quota. Given the shoddy way they've treated Lucas, and the even worse way that his ex, Trina, and Bradley's girlfriend, Syd, were treated, I can see her point.

This type of thing is why I'm glad for the producer change, although I know this may be that Collins guy, not Santer, and Kirkwood may do the same stuff when he arrives. Anyway, it's just a cheat.

He's brought in a ton of new characters, although most of them are working out, at least so far. There's a big shift away from many of the characters who had story with Anita Turner. For now the ratings are stable, I'm not sure if gains were expected, or they just didn't want to see more losses.

Most of his time at Corrie wasn't exactly known for comedy. There were very very dramatic, hard-hitting storylines. But if this means the level of comedy will go above "Look at how fat Heather is," yay.

I think it depends on the handling. The first 3-4 years were quite dark and the ratings were great. They hit a rough patch when they started to become more lighthearted. I think the problem with darkness now is it does not feel organic, it's just there for the sake of it.

That's always been a part of EE. Even now they do dark stories, they just end up skirting the surface, which I think leaves an empty feeling. If they're going to do them I think they should get the most possible mileage out of them. It doesn't have to be like what Kirkwood did at Hollyoaks, with the long, depressing Niall storyline, or the Osborne debt story, but there's a way to make people feel moved, instead of just hoping they'll forget.

That's a good point. Eastenders is gritty in the sense that characters are often miserable but it's more where you can see it's just for drama. Everything is very safe, very cozy. The Jackson kids always look like stage actors who are told to pout on cue -- you'd never believe they're struggling for money, or from lack of a father. You know the Mitchells will never seriously be affected by their problems, you know Stacey will come in and out of sanity depending on the plot. The bad characters tend to be more sleek now, like an Archie, or even an Owen or a Lucas. The days of characters like Donna, slowly sinking into the depths, you wouldn't have that now, because of complaints. You'd certainly NEVER have a story like they had on Hollyoaks with Jack Osborne being so overcome by debt that he faked his death, ending in him being sent to prison. That was unremittent darkness and it destroyed the character. I do think there is more room for some darkness. The way it is now, the show is so obvious in wanting it both ways. Bury Max alive? That's OK, just send him away so we can't see his devastating psychological damage. Kill off Ronnie's daughter? That's OK, edit out any talk of her suicidal thoughts and just focus on her being a crazy baby-obsessed lady. Probably the one who reminds me most of the old days of EE is Jean Slater. That ugly rant she threw at Charlie after he told her he was sick of hearing about her and Stacey was magnificent. The change will be a big adjustment and I'm not sure if Kirkwood's up to it but I think a lot of the stuff he did at Hollyoaks in terms of montages and music was already part of Hollyoaks before he arrived.

I don't think he will have as much power at EE as he did at Hollyoaks. As Sylph has said, they need to get rid of this Collins person. Enough of these "shocking" stories. Hollyoaks also had a few too many of those, but generally they worked a little better. I wonder if Syed/Christian will still be going on by the time he gets there.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that Hollyoaks had those montages before he arrived. The show is a half-hour, edgy show. That was a way to get viewers hooked early and want to see what happened next. Obviously that won't work on Eastenders. Frankly the teens on EE are in need of help. When they get major stories the limitations show. Most of them are wooden and dull, and Jay, who does have some personality, is written like a dirty old man. Abi does seem to be getting better, and Lucy has her moments.

I agree about the Connors, especially Michelle. She is supposed to be the new Bet Lynch, but she isn't anywhere near as complex, or vulnerable, or entertaining.

danni, I'd heard about the reason for the lack of intimacy, but I think it hurts the story, especially because they didn't show us Syed and Christian falling in love. If they had paced it more slowly then I wouldn't mind the lack of intimacy. Kirkwood? Really? He loves gay characters but he may not get to do that on EE. He also loves darkness, and loud women, so that will be a good fit for EE. He was a mixed bad at Hollyoaks, but his first two years were solid.

The thing with a gay relationship is as long as you give a little something, and the actors have chemistry, then they will get a lot of fans, at least at first. So the show may not care. If they were interested in keeping gay fans then they wouldn't have episodes where three straight couples kiss and pull clothing off, and the gay couple don't. I can't see Syed/Christian as a couple, there really aren't any stories for them beyond disapproval from Zainab and Tamwar, so either they will break up and spend all their time moping and being supporting characters, Syed will be bi (which is probably what he should have been all along), or Syed will be written out. I don't know if the show worries too much about fanbases; they've kept Stacey/Bradley apart, mostly, for about two years now. Poor Charlie Clements, I think he's a better actor than they give him credit for. I think lack of strong couples hurts the show -- a strong couple is what got EE put on the map in the first place (Angie/Den). I think that's why viewers respond to Zainab and Masood. Right now I'm interested in the dueling psycho story with Owen and Lucas. I hope they will keep Owen around long term, and not make him too psycho. I also wish Chelsea would stop yelling her lines.

Corrie in particular has been heavily criticized in the past few years. I don't see how moving characters into heavy story, then having them disappear, is an ensemble. It's a way to save money, as others have said. EE at its best was a character-driven show. Now, like most soaps, it's generally plot, and shock value, with some character moments. Some works, obviously enough to get ratings up. Syed/Christian is the tamest "illicit" love affair I've ever seen. They barely show each other any affection at all. Syed spends most of his time pouting and looking like he's about to cry. Beyond the press hype (gay Muslim! controversy!) there's nothing there. Syed doesn't fit into most of the show at all, even his family -- I won't be surprised if he's gone when this story is done. Ben, the article you posted about EE's downfall was a a great read. Berridge doesn't sound that bad. I do think killing Kathy off was a major mistake, and since Santer has gone on about never bringing back someone who is dead, I doubt he will bring her back. It's too bad that are so rigid after bringing Den back. The problem with Den's return was writing issues and Grantham's personal baggage, moreso than Den himself. In better worlds, Den's return could have finally freed the show once and for all from the Mitchell chokehold.

I've seen a bit. I think Rachel and her poor schlub husband Russ were at a wedding...Lenore and Walter? And Steve had recently arrived, and Rachel and Alice were both falling in love with him. I wish more of that were out there. I'd love to see Rue Machlanan as the crazy nanny who slowly poisoned Pat. I remember Rue said she got nothing but positive response from fans, including one letter which said, "You aren't doing this right. Here's how I did it!"

I just wish more of that era were available. I would especially love to see some of the era with Strasser's Rachel. And Lahoma. And John Randolph's daughter.

I agree with you about the women, and the intelligence of the show. There's such a crispness and confidence in everything they do. And this was four or five years after they moved to ABC, when a lot of soap producers might have given up. It just shows you what a great writer Henry Slesar was. I wish more of the CBS era were available.

Yes, he was very sexy, the whole goofy hot guy thing is always nice. I read that they planned to kill him off in that story but changed their minds. He was let go near the end of the show's run when they had to free up budget. Supposedly if the show had stayed on they would have brought him back. It's too bad the actor hasn't worked a lot since. The EON page says Emily was Molly's "surrogate" daughter. This is a transcript of the day Molly confesses all to Raven. http://lavender.fortunecity.com//casino/403/t181.html More on Molly's motivations: http://lavender.fortunecity.com//casino/403/female.html#molly Raven's such a fascinating character, especially with men. Around the time of the murder she has a flirtatious relationship with married Draper (I think she gave him a big kiss on the lips when she walked into his house one time), she still knows how to get to her dull ex, Logan, she had a thing with Elliot Dorn, and then she had a no-strings sexual relationship with Derek Mallory. Don't you love a show where the biggest vixen/conniver in town can have a f*ck buddy relationship with the chief of police? I guess stuff like that is why they replaced poor Bill Marceau. And yet even with all those men you never feel like she's being degraded, you don't see any misogyny in the writing.