DRW50

Phil, Peggy, Ian, Pauline, Pat, but she didn't interact a lot with Pat in her return, I don't think. One of my favorite EE posters at Digital Spy, who is a big fan of the Watts family, said that a lot of more recent viewers don't realize just how scant a relationship Pauline and Sharon had in Sharon's 85-95 run on the show. That was something which Yorke built up with Sharon's return, and it was very important to do so. They did a brilliant job with Sharon's return. She felt like she'd never been away and she immediately brought back years of history. I still wonder what might have been if Vicki had been cast with a better actress and given better writing and if Den's return had been better. I don't believe Den's return was the problem, it was what followed. I remember those scenes when he first returned where he had reunions with Pauline, Dot, Pat, Ian, and they talked about what he'd missed and what had become of Walford. A lot of that was down to the whole "let's get Phil" plot but I still loved those scenes; they represented what Den could have been, not the dirty old man he turned out to be. Thanks. This was from Louise: http://www.walfordweb.co.uk/item.php?id=2284

I would think they might have to at least bring in Little Mo for a while, or Belinda, or some of Mo's relatives. Kat and Alfie have few ties to the Square and they're not as fresh as they were back at the start of this decade so they won't be able to pull off the cheeky stuff as well. I guess they can be sort of like Pat and Frank, but they'll need more ties. I know Louise Berridge said she was the one who suggested they put Lacey in as a Slater, so I guess it was Louise and Tony Jordan. They need to try to get Tony back for a while to help them work out where the Slaters should go. He said he'd return for an Alfie/Kat wedding, but he loved that family so much I think he would try to help with story plans if he could. badboy, the Slaters did dominate a lot of airtime but at the time it was a relief for me because the rest was dominated by Phil, whom I loathed.

I started watching those episodes when I first got BBC America. That was not long after the Slaters arrived. I think I saw their second or third episode and then watched the omnibus to see their debut. I took to most of them very quickly. I still think that was one of the best introductions to a large family ever. I had watched the 1997-era episodes on PBS and was disappointed that most of my favorite characters were gone, so it helped that I liked the Slaters and how they fit into Walford. The other stories around that time were also generally strong, although Mel Healy got on my nerves. I liked Steve Owen quite a bit. And then Dot euthanizing Ethel, Dot's romance with Jim, Billy falling in love with Mo, liked that too. I forgot Jamie was with Zoe. He was also with Belinda. I guess he was the first man to swap Slaters? Those few years had a lot of heart, which is something EE hasn't had since somewhere around 2005 or so, from what I've seen. My favorite time on the show was 85-88.

And this ended in her climbing into Phil's bed... I had a soft spot for the Brannings/Jacksons, it was nice to see them all again, or most of them, when Bianca and Ricky got married again. I keep forgetting Carol's still on the show. One Sonia moment I liked was when she put her hand on the bus window to say goodbye to her Italian boyfriend. This was right before she slept with Martin. I was watching some of the late 2003 episodes (is it wrong to say I didn't think most of the Ferrieras were that bad) and Sonia's hair at that time was so awful. This was also when they had the kiss between Zoe and her friend Kelly. Was that ever supposed to go anywhere? That's a beautiful use of Julia's Theme. I thought they might have gotten rid of that style forever but thankfully it was back when Amira left.

Sonia's a great example of a character who outstayed her welcome. I think they just kept her because they didn't want to completely give up on the Brannings/Jacksons, but most of her material from after the time Jamie died was poor. She was also way too judgmental and pushy. I know some think the show might have been sick of her as well, and that's why they gave her some of the stories near the end, like the lesbian-for-a-minute story, but who knows.

What I thought was interesting with Sid's death was they wrote it where his refusal to live in a wheelchair was what killed him. That he had a choice, and he basically chose to die.

Were there ever any Eastenders characters you knew you were supposed to like, but never really did? That's how I felt about Arthur.

I think that a long term building up of quality and consistency, socially relevant stories, breakout characters, and some "wow" moments to create a buzz will be the key for ratings. I think there have been so many soap stunts over the past few years viewers may have lost interest in them. If I were them I'd consider doing a Live Week of episodes, like OLTL did in 2002.

Perhaps they meant if you count repeats and E4. That might be closer. I think at that time E4 did much better, around or above 1 million, whereas now it's lucky to get 300-400K.

I wonder what they were using to count the ratings because I remember the ratings from around 2007 being around 1.5-2.5 million, not 4. I think the show may have gotten up to 4 or 5 in the late 90s or early 00s but that was a different era for the soaps.

Apparently this was the highest rated Friday Hollyoaks since early April, although they still didn't clear 900K. With the poor reviews the show gets and the beautiful weather they supposedly had yesterday I guess that's good, by their current standards.

Eastenders seemed down by a lot more than usual to me, they haven't hit the low 7s in a long time on nights when they aren't clashing or dealing with something big on another channel, but I might have forgotten some figures. The ITV soaps never repeat well, for some reason. Some said it's because the BBC repeats are at a fixed time while ITV is all over the place. I think the earlier a show is in the night the lower the ratings may get. Emmerdale comes on when there's still more opportunity to enjoy the day. I guess it could have been something related to story but I don't know what it would be. Supposedly it was great weather there yesterday.

The same reason Corrie and Eastenders had poor ratings (those ratings were actually closer than EE and Emmerdale usually are). There were less people watching TV. The share for Emmerdale was about the same as it usually is, or slightly better.

So can anyone tell me what some of the biggest changes were in the Flashforward episode and now? Wasn't there a scene in the flashforward episode where Calvin talked to Rhys about secrets you can't keep? I don't remember that being in this week's episodes. There seemed to be much less emphasis on Rhys. There was also no emphasis on Leo being the killer, which was there in the December episode. They also had Suzanne in the new scenes, where she was not in the December scenes with Darren and Rhys sitting at the table.

I think the main problem in her tenure was big ideas without knowing how to follow them through. Tony's insanity, the Steve/Becky stuff, "Molvin", Joe's addiction and debts, Gail's imprisonment, Eileen's father impregnating her best friend. She also overused certain characters. A lot of this stuff was just awful and/or empty. Her new characters have been hit and miss but the main problem is they just haven't had anything to do. The Windasses are OK. Natasha was great when they gave her a chance. Most of the other new characters she created were so small time, they were barely used beyond filler or comedy stories. The only bad new character I'd say she created was Joe. Oh, and Jesse the cowboy. Her best new character was probably Mary, who is a classic Corrie character. The high point of her tenure has probably been the Barlows. I know some have said Blanche didn't really become iconic until the past few years when she started getting more and more brilliant scenes. I don't think that's entirely true but I do think they have a point. And the return of Peter, along with his relationship with Leanne (Leanne was stuck in AWFUL stories for ages before Peter's arrival), that was a good idea.

I just cannot get into this Tracy/Gail/Becky/Steve stuff. On paper it might be a good idea, but: - Tracy is just so bitter and unpleasant and fake. - The Steve/Becky marriage is pretty much dead, they have had the same scenes, line for line, for months now, and only seem to be together because of children...this couple is not even two years old and they are already at that point. - Gail is a damn fool. I like Gail but I like Gail when she's wryly reacting to crazy people around her, not when she is whimpering and being manipulated. And this is so stupid about the rolling pin and how the rolling pin proves Gail's guilt. What is this, Andy Capp?? The only part of this story I was interested in on Friday was David yelling at the Barlows and almost putting a brick through their window. For the most part, David is one of the only characters Kim Crowther really got right through her tenure. Oh, and I like Gail's cellmate. I wish they could keep her around. Graeme and Jackie Dobbs started on the show as cellmates to popular characters, why can't this woman have the same chance? The Hayley/Roy tension is so...bleak, and makes Hayley look petty, which surely wasn't the point? Rosie is too good for Graeme. All the stuff with Izzy getting a job at the factory because of her spunk was kind of silly but was probably the most watchable moment in Friday's episodes. I'm glad that Kirk didn't pout or try to play the victim and was instead happy for her. What an odd time when Kirk is involved in my favorite story.

I just thought Debbie might fit in with Marquess's more glamorous view of Hollyoaks. So what did you think of the Calvin murder episodes?

Since they're bringing Lee back that should mean they're willing to bring others in for nostalgia, and for future stories. I think they should bring in someone who was in the early days of the show; they could also interact with Tony (wasn't he involved with a lot of women back then). I also wonder if they could recast Cindy's sister Jude. She was a big bitch on the show in her era. There's also Steph's sister Debbie.

I think Edna is a good character, I'd rather she stay around. Most of the older characters on the show at the moment seem stalled for storylines but they have some value. I think if I were going to write out any older characters for story potential it would be Sandy.

That was Abby Davies. Zara was the little sister of the Morgan family, she was a very shrill, liberal girl. She and Lee had a love/hate bond for a long time. I mostly remember her for the hilarious episode at St. Patrick's Day 2005 where they had her dress up as a Kylie impersonator when the Kylie impersonator they hired didn't show up. The girl finally did show up and she and Zara got into a catfight.

The only other one that comes close is the Barlows on Coronation Street. In the long run it was just very poor writing over a process of many years. They killed off one Sugden after another (Peggy, her kids), then they stopped for about 15 years, started again (with Jack's son Jackie), stopped again briefly, started up again (Joe's stepson, Joe, Joe's stepdaughter). They basically let the entire family rest on Jack's shoulders, not ever realizing that Jack might not be around forever. They could still bring in some new Sugdens, I think it would be worth it, but I guess they decided to just usher in a new family instead. I can't blame them.

I wish they'd bring Zara back.

If you're counting Andy and Daz, then there are one or two other Sugdens by adoption or semi-adoption. Sandie Merrick, half-sister to Jack's son Jackie and to Robert, is still alive, she left town in 1988 when the show started dumping longtime characters to bring in the Tates. Eric Pollard's first stories were about clashing with her. Matt Skilbeck, a Sugden by marriage, is still alive, and he has a son, Sam, by his second wife Dolly who is still alive. They made a big mistake killing off so many Sugdens. If it were me I would reveal that Matt and Peggy's twins weren't actually killed (their deaths weren't shown oncamera, it was all in some other town), and just say that Matt's relatives hid them or something. Have them return to stake a claim on the farm, what they see as theirs.

Corrie and Emmerdale shared a character once -- Reg Holdsworth interacted with the Dingles in one of their video releases, the one about Venice.

They don't mention Steph's epilepsy very often. I haven't seen the show much the past few years but after Max died, when Steph wanted to become a weather girl, she was doing some report for Zoe and she was shocked by a light or something and had a seizure. In summer 2007 she also had a seizure when she was very stressed. Max took care of her. That was one of the reasons they began to fall in love. The guy who raped Luke was a villain at the time but not a long-running villain. There was also Macki, a racist thug who caused huge problems for Justin and his family, a story which dominated the show in 2005 and is probably one of the reasons people stayed interested... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Hollyoaks_characters_%282005%29#Stephen_.22Macki.22_Mackintosh