Ben

Diane is currently MIA. Months ago she had a random scene where she said Bernice needed her, and off she went. Months have gone by and no-one ever mentions her at all. I've quit this show, now, as I just couldn't take any more of its predictable, boring, miserable, character-destroying direction. I can't tune in for David and Nikhil alone, as they don't feature much. I will watch the Live episode, and whenever Nikhil & Gennie get married/give birth. Each new storyline destroys another character. Zak, Lisa, Marlon, Laurel, Ashley, Victoria, Moira, Cain, Jai, Chas, Cameron, Val... all ruined/being ruined. Rachel gets more annoying by the second, while the Maceys are an awful family, along with the Spencers, and Amy is an abomination.

I can't be bothered to type out a reply right now, but just had to post that I LOL'd when you said that. I don't care whether you gush about guys, gals or aliens.

Thanks Carl for sharing. I have a couple of those already. It's a shame Nick Kiriazis hasn't popped up in many things. Sydney Penny was a much better acting Meg than Susan Ward was; she brought much more variation to the role.

I don't know why I called Brian Park, Paul Marquess?! Doh! Guess I was mixing up sensational producers that this show had. This is why I don't remember him in Corrie, as it was way before my time. Do you have a few of these articles from Inside Soap? Have you spent time in the UK, as I've always thought you are American, Carl?

Well, looking at BARB, the ratings for the show always seemed to be inconsistent during 1998-2000. The show could easily rate 1.15-1.60 in a week, but it looks like in late '99 the show did gain a small increase and was hitting 1.85 for some episodes, but for others it would fall back to 1.40 and thereabouts. I guess the show was inconsistent. However, the first half of 2000 saw the ratings slip to lows of 1.10 and not really reaching passed 1.30. So, Paul Marquess' sensational revamp was a failure as he couldn't sustain the viewers for not even a year. The show did pick up again in the latter half of 2000 to 1.40-160, so they must have revamped the show - again. Judging from BARB, the ratings pre-PM were not bad, and didn't really need to be revamped, as the audience was increasing the more Channel 5 became available. I never saw him on FA as I wasn't watching then. I was kind of an inconsistent viewer during this period. IA, I wasn't a fan of Tom King on Emmerdale. When was he in Corrie?

You didn't piss me off, even though my opening line may sound like I'm on the attack. That's just me. It would kinda boring if we all thought the same. I could list an entire rap sheet of all the things Kate has done wrong - and that's just from this year! With that homophobia story, when is it the right time to stand up and say something or just let things go? If Chris hadn't of done anything, and that guy had returned and said the same things again, or other customers displayed homophobic ideals, when would the right time be for Chris to expect Lucas to stand up for him as an employee? Without Lucas voicing his opinion, it also looks like he was condoning it, much the same way he ignored a customer who was sexist towards Steph. Steph called Lucas out for being gutless, and she stood up for herself, and no-one said she was being naive, or that the business needs to come first, so what's the difference? Does Lucas want his business to be associated with this type of customer? How is that good for business if word got out that he excepts homophobic customers? I was very much on Chris' side when this went down, as it is the principle of the matter, and it is important for Chris to know his boss has his back. Chris shouldn't have been expected to just brush it under the carpet. If it had been racial slurs or anti-Semitism would you feel Chris was being naive and overacting and that business should always come first? I really feel people shouldn't have to take any kind of offensive crap, no matter what. Otherwise, the world will never learn. And I assume with your stance that you wouldn't have been offended by the homophobic comments? I don't think my analogy was the best, but what I was trying to say is that I don't think you have to identify with every gay character just b/c they're gay. Granted, you may share similar experiences, but everyone reacts to / and deals with them differently, so I wouldn't expect everyone to relate to every gay story. That's like saying every black person should be able to relate to every black character, or all Muslims to identify with all Muslim characters, just b/c they share similar experiences. The colour of one's skin is very much identity affirming and a big part of life, and so is religion, and the same for sexuality; it doesn't mean you should be able to identify with every portrayal. The writing for Chris/Aidan was a bust, and went against everything Bower said it would be (but I'm not surprised, after all, Bower was always spinning everything into a positive bubble that veered into delusion). Aidan didn't do that much for me; he worked well with Chris/Tash, but outside of that... nothing major. I'd say he's coming back b/c he was popular, and or his relationship with Chris was popular, which may have been more to do with the fact it was the shows first gay relationship which was popular. And there's nothing wrong with that, it just means there's room to build. But, Aidan had no chemistry with Chris - there was a spark in their last episode - and bringing in someone new would work better, someone who has chemistry with James Mason. Again, this was a Bower thing, where she didn't want to upset racists, much like how she didn't want to upset homophobes, so has introduced the Kapoors slowly, b/c apparently, this will help white people adjust to seeing Asian characters on screen. Sheila's introduction has been like this b/c Collett Mann had already pre-booked a theatre gig, I think. Besides, there's nothing worse than new characters being rushed and thrown at us, and while this excruciating slow pace is not much better, I'd take it over the former any day, as at least we are ready for this characters to come to the forefront, instead of wishing they'd go away. I like Rani, and Ajay's great, and I've liked Priya even during her "unlikeable" start. Not that fussed about Toadie getting another cousin. I would father have more airtime for Rhys and Elaine's relationship, or more Pappas scenes or bringing back an established relation of Toadie's, like Tad or Janae, or beef up the Robinsons. Giving my feelings on Kate, you probably can guess my feelings on the whole Kate/Kyle kiss; love Zoe and wish she was staying around; no too sure about the Lucas/Vanessa/Rhys triangle, and Vanessa is nice and all, but she's no Emilia... Vanessa's introduction was a bit of a mess, and didn't do the character any favours. Wow, Ben is your second fave soap character of all time! I knew you loved him, but didn't realize quite how much. There are no words.

But can you identify with every other gay character to have ever been created in TV land? Do you identify with EE's Christian, Syed, and Ben? Corrie's Sean, Marcus, Sophie? (OK, she's a chick, but still...). Or Ste, Doug, Brendan and whomever else in HO? My point is, I don't see how you possibly can, as everyone is different. I don't think every straight guy identifies with every straight male character, so why should you with every gay character? That POV doesn't make sense to me. I don't think people like Chris just b/c he's a gay character. When people talk about him, they generally refer to how likeable he is, and how "everyone should have a Chris in there life" is the types of comments I've read. People do like Chris for who he is, and a lot of people do relate to him. That whiny-ness can be annoying at times, but it's a character trait, just like how Tash, Summer, Andrew, Susan, Sonya, Toadie, Sophie, etc can all be annoying at times... but I get the feeling you don't like Chris, and nothing will change that, and that's fair enough. Saint Kate is more universally hated, and she grates on me 90% of the time; she has way more annoying qualities, like being a big fat selfish, hypocrite for starters. Oh, I don't know, fires seemed to be the in thing for a while. Now, *that* got tedious. Every show was staging a fire at one point. At least this car crash has a socially relevant message behind it. I love the Kapoors. I just pray that the rumour of Paul & Priya having an affair NEVER comes to fusion.

He's consistent - always popping up in one show or another. It's just a shame that most of the shows he appears in never last long enough to make him a bigger name, or his character never lasts long in the show. Shame The Playboy Club (I think that was its name), wasn't a better show for NBC.

I guess I assumed the last time you may have watched was when the show was on Channel 5, and from that point in time, the show is not the same. Sami is not quite the same. This year, Sami has been written the most in character she has been for years. But the show has a very different feel and look now, to 2000; the underscore music sucks, really, it's awful, the worst music I've heard in a show. Th show has a minuscule budget, so everything looks cheap. I don't want to put you off, just warn you that it may not be how you once remembered it. Anyway, Marilyn seems to be treated the way Irene is always treated. Isn't Marilyn getting it on with Papa Braxton? I saw a photo of them, and they look like an odd couple, and not in the Marilyn/Fisher kinda way. Characters can easily work well on their own, but suck with love interests, and that's usually down to the actors not having chemistry. RM who plays Sid, seems to be the kind of actor who is difficult to pair up, he's not someone you can throw into a romance easily, as he doesn't romantically bounce off love interests well. They need to cast someone who can bring that out of RM and gel with him on every level. Maybe they need a character who is similar to Sid, instead of someone who is the opposite, which Marilyn and Roo have been? I loved Sophie Simpson. Love seeing her on these reruns on 5*. If she returned, I'd watch again for sure. John & Gina have never worked for me - just get rid of them, they have zero family now. This show could be so interesting again, but TPTB are just plain useless at mining the shows history. I've never understood how Irene's biological children have been over looked for so many years, and she never mentions them by name, ever. Your comment about psychologists is quite a common trait, but not to the extent she does it though. I think I've seen a couple of episodes with her in, and I thought no psychologist in real life would meddle and pressure someone like that - so unprofessional.

Wow, I very rarely read any negative criticisms of Chris! That scene that you mention plays next week, I think at UK pace. I think Chris is a good character, and I love his relationships with Lucas, Tash and George, and really he's been a decent character for over a year, so I can over look it if he veers into judgemental mode, as really, we wouldn't have any body left if we got rid of every character who displayed negative traits for several weeks. I.e: Susan, Summer, Andrew, Paul, Toadie, Rhys... they've all seriously pissed me off at one point or another over the last few years, and they've all come through it. Chris will be no different. The Chris & Aidan romance was a bust due to the writing. I think they've spent way too much time developing Chris to just throw him away now, and if they did and kept Aidan, they'd basically be back to the drawing board, as Aidan's only real connection to RS is Chris. You may not like how Chris is acting now, but that doesn't take away from the fact he is an asset to the show, and a good character at heart. Look at Vanessa: she's a good character, but boy do they write her with a very hypocritical edge who seems to forget she's pregnant from a ONS, yet takes offence whenever Lucas dares questions her sex life. I think an issue with the teens is that they are no longer teens, but young adults, and that transition hasn't been adopted with the writing. Sophie/Callum/Rani are teens now, but they're not written as such. I don't think the dialogue is that bad for them, per se. You say they need lighter material, but I think they've had quite a bit of light material over the last few months. Compared to H&A, the teens on that show are immersed in adult issues: marriage, divorce, pregnancy, "miscarriage", job hunting, debt, domestic violence, murder charges, psychotic sister, etc. and all in the space of a few months. As for Karl/Tash: IA that Karl shouldn't be living with too young girls, but he is, and I except the situation and appreciate some of the golden scenes that come from that. Karl and Tash work well, as does Paul/Susan, no matter how forced their relationship is. I'm looking forward to the upcoming crash; that looks like it will have serious repercussions for a lot of people. I hope the stunt doesn't look cheap or filmed off screen.

I'm glad you like. I've got quite a few articles from a lot of the soaps, so it's good that someone can get some use out of them, as I was going to chuck them out for recycling! And quite a few build on the storylines, so you can get a broader picture of how some of them panned out.

Days didn't get much (if any) ad space in UK magazines (AFAIK), but here's a rare full page from Inside Soap.

These must be from 98-99-ish. I don't remember ever seeing the first story, but the second article is from when I first tuned in.

I do, and when I read Matt's comments about Marilyn, I was like, this isn't who she is! She's so much more than that clueless comedy spare part. She's supposed to be ditzy, but with a heart of gold; someone who has depth and is a real character with real flaws. Yes, her ditzy elements do give way to comedy moments, but she's never been a caricature of herself, or someone who flits about endlessly clueless. Matt, I ask you to watch some old scenes of her's, so you can get a proper picture of who Marilyn is supposed to be. I watched the feature length pilot episode the other day, and it just compounded all of my issues with current H&A. I would reiterate what Matt said about Days: watch from 27/07 or that whole week to get you started with the show for the new (old) writers' material. I would not advice you to watch before that, b/c the show will put you into a coma! The Days of Sami Brady that you know, are over. Will's story had some great scenes with him and Marlena and him and Kate, so if you check those out on YT (I'm pretty sure the whole story is up on there), but the overall plot has been a bit of mess story wise. But I can't complain too much, as no-one thought Days would ever do a gay story.

Well, I wasn't that big a fan of Connor to begin with, so not overly joyed that he's (possibly) returning. However, Toadie has become way too serious, and he needs more lighter material for a few months (not days), and if Connor can bring that, then so be it. It's not that I disliked Connor throughout, b/c I loved him with Carmella, and I did love the dynamic of Connor/Toadie/Stu, but I grew tired of him quite quickly, and his pairing with Serena was the worst. I was so glad when he left. LOL. While you're here, what is it about the teens you don't like? Does the show slow down after the Troy drama? From what I'm seeing now, I love the dynamic of the teens right now - they feel a lot better, and I'm actually liking Summer and Andrew now that they're apart. Tash is awesome, and she works so well with Karl, much better than Summer does. I also love Tash and Ed, and I like the idea of the Odds On app, as it's something new and original for the show and genre - no-one else has done a story about an app - it's very socially relevant, without being forced like Susan Bower's stuff was.

Actually, I can see why you may have that view about CR, but honestly, if you watch him playing Derek while playing Ben, too, you'll see just how good he can be, especially Derek's return in '99 - he was a lot darker the second go around.

He was the worst. If the show had continued for many years, I bet he we would've been stuck with him. I'd add Eddie Cibrian and Joyce Guy to your list of awesome actors under appreciated. JG brought Mrs. Moreau to life, and she gelled with all of the handful of actors she crossed paths with. Especially SB. She had chemistry with everyone. They did, but I think they missed the boat with Annie and Tim. They sizzled together. Again, SB had chemistry with everyone. It also wouldn't have locked Tim in that constant merry-go-round with Meg. I wasn't a fan of Ricardo's revenge plot. I think that was a bit of lazy direction to take the story/characters.

IA. It's an awesome promo, but it doesn't feel like Sharon at all. Since when has she been a hurricane type character? They're also airing 10 sec promos of the Queen Vic sign blowing in the wind, with a storm raging in the b/g, and it gives the impression the show is about to stage its first natural disaster. On the plus, this is probably the only time we'll get to see what EE looks like if it did a natural disaster storyline. LOL. I felt like that about Lola until a few weeks ago. Then they gave her some depth, and now I can see her potential. Her fears of becoming a mother, and being scared of the future, and how she dealt with that by getting into trouble, really rounded the character out; she had some great scenes with Billy and Shirley, and really showed what a great little family Lola and Billy make. I've always loved Jay - I think he's been developed really well. But I hate how they forget Jay and Billy's history. I think you make a good point about the show being structurally uneven. They have a lot of randoms, and fractured family units, and then one large family that is eating the show. I'm not sure why people put so much emphasis on Peggy, b/c if she was around, the Mitchells would still be fractured and lost. Their problem is that they've never been developed outside of their allocated roles. Peggy's and Ronnie's exits should have allowed for Phil/Roxy/Billy to come together more with Jay/Ben/Lola/Amy and form a new dynamic to the Mitchell dynasty, but the writing kept them all in limbo, and they just don't gel. Ben isolating Phil has only compounded the problem. Or, highlighted the issue. The Masoods work when there are more of them, and Syed's presence shows that, and the recent arrival of AJ really gave them a much needed comedic boost. Currently, Syed & Christian have no story. Zainab wants to take over the Argee Bhargee permanently, as Tam wants to go back to uni, but Masood wants to be a teacher, but they don't have enough money to support all of these ventures, as the AB (like every other business in Walford it seems) is having money woes (I hate this over used plot device so much!). Syed knows about Mas being excepted to be a teacher's assistant, but Mas is too scared to tell Zee, b/c it would mean Tam cannot go to uni, and we all know who Zee will support. The Brannings are too big, and this forced dynamic about them being this pseudo Mafia family is ridiculous. Derek has been the worst thing to happen to them, IMO. They are written without any balance at all. I find Joey/Derek to be a cliché. It would have been better had Joey accepted he has similar traits to Derek, and used that to show Derek that while he's a bit of a schemer and a game player, he's also a better person than him, and used that to wind him up. Instead, we get Derek squawking: "You're just like me". Joey: "I'm nothin' like you", ten times per episode. Then there is everyone else. The Beales have been dismantled to nothingness; not bringing back Peter when Ian went missing was a mistake. The Moons/Slaters don't interact well, and don't belong in the pub any more; Tyler and Anthony are pointless, and so is Mo; Kat has been ruined. Then there's Fat Boy, Poppy, Whitney, Andrew, that float about. And now we have Ray and his random daughter, Sasha. Not forgetting Michael, who really is a lone character, who will be even more alone when Janine leaves. IA about the characters you say have become parodies. Shirley can still have really great scenes, b/c she works with a lot of characters, but I'm not emotionally invested in her. The majority of the characters have become predictable and are stuck in rerun mode. Phil hasn't been doing much of anything lately, as the Ben story was on the backburner for a while; Kat is having an affair with a mystery man (how can you not know this?). The official suspects are: Ray, Derek, Max, Jack and Michael. It's a horrible story. Literally. I liked Cora when she first arrived. A friend and I thought she reminded us of B&B's Sally Spectre - big hair, bold, loud, and kinda campy, who had presence in every scene she was in. Then they just started writing her as an annoying old woman, who popped up in random scenarios; all that was great has been lost. She doesn't work any more. How can you not be enjoying Neighbours? Are you watching at Oz or UK pace. I think the show is awesome at the moment. The Troy stuff with him trapping Jade and Sonya, and the aftermath have been brilliant; Gemma Pranita has taken this material and run with it, she's been incredible. I'm loving Tash & Ed, too (AKA Beauty and the Geek). Also, Zoe is a really strong character, and I wish she was sticking around. H&A - that show is unrecognisable.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but there are sparks of goodness within the mess recently. I was like you, Ed, a month ago, but underneath the messy big plots, there have been some wonderful scenes. Like, Shirley/Jean up on the scaffolding; Zainab/Denise continue to be funny; AJ was a great character, and I hope he returns (loved he parting line: "If Shabnam returns and is a lesbian, I want to know." Or something like that); Jay/Lola (she's actually surprised me recently, and I'm warming to her a lot); Janine being humanised without losing her bitchy edge; Lucy has been awesome, I just love her, and Hettie Baywater has stepped into the role seamlessly, IMO. But none of these are main stories, or characters in main stories (apart from Janine (minus Michael), Lola's pregnancy), and maybe that's why I like them. What/who they push to the forefront are tired and just don't work. I don't care about Kat's affair, or Max's big secret (again), or dastardly Derek's family woes with doe-eyed Alice in Walfordland, or the randomness of Poppy, or psychotic Ben and the never-ending, lost-its-momentum Heather's murder story. I used to like Cora, but they've ruined her character by having her do odd things, and they've ruined Kim/Ray with some slack writing, which is a shame.

Me to. But, I think they could have kept the integrity of the story and still had Gabi choose to leave town, sacrificing her love for Antonio to save the brothers' relationship. There was no need to simplify it.

They did. I wasn't a fan of their ending, as they basically retconed the whole Antonio/Gabi love angle, and said they were just good friends in the end. WTF?! That's not what they had been building for a whole year. On the plus, they were able to give Gabi some integrity, by having her make the selfless act to decide to leave SB to allow Ricardo and Antonio to rebuild their relationship.

I saw that, and thought it was strange. To go from Billy Felder to Cole St. John... and Ricardo Escrobar! Could you imagine Maria Escrobar-Evans? Just doesn't have the same ring to it. So glad they changed both, especially Cole's character name. I've got a few scans from Inside Soap magazine that I'll post here for those that are interested.

Pretty funny article from the Guardian about Neighbours in general. http://www.guardian....silly-addictive