Ben

Was the Family Affairs story better?

Sort of... I say that apprehensively, b/c not everyone liked Sami; he was flamboyant, kinda OTT, but in a grounded sense. If you've ever seen clips of Yasmin, then you'll understand how these two became BFF's. But this was all balanced out by the straight Brett, who really made you root for these two - they had chemistry, too, unlike Chryed.

Sami's mother, Aamina was introduced, and we got to know her, and see their relationship (his other family members weren't IIRC). Every time she'd visit, he used to hide all of his personal "gay" items, like photos of himself and his then separated married boyfriend, Max Lawson. That guy broke his heart when he ultimately chose his family over Sami (they did try the whole thing where his kids visited, but they never took to Sami). Aamina arranged him a bride, and a wedding, and was prepared to go through with it, even though the bride knew his secret. Brett gave him an ultimatum, and Sami decided to tell the truth, but his bride (who was in love with another man, and wanted their shame marriage to keep up her pretence) blackmailed him into going through with the wedding. Ultimately, Sami backed out of the wedding at the last minute, and Aamina found out her son was gay. She disowned him. Sami and Brett reunited. Then his father had a heart attack and died, which triggered a huge confrontation between Sami and Aamina, where she stabbed him with a knife. He survived, and left for Australia with Brett, whose visa had expired. Aamina went to prison.

Family Affairs had a lot of gay characters, of all varieties; some worked, and some didn't. I think Sami worked, for the most part. Sami drove the story, and you understood his plight. The religious angle was dealt with, and there were moments of drama, sadness, and comedy. He has qualities that Syed is missing. I do wonder if Sami and Brett would've stayed, had the show not been cancelled.

Fatboy and his people - Wow. Is this what "cool" guys are like in London? I don't really have too much of an issue with him, though, he's kinda funny.

Lets extinguish that flame before it grows - no way is Fatboy a representation of a cool Londoner. There are some guys that are deemed cool, as that slang usually accompanies some kind of bad boy persona; but generally, never. It's also mostly teens that talk like that, or street kids (I.e Billie's crew), and Fatboy is neither.

But Masood's scenes at the mosque were fantastic.

Doesn't it seem like we have seen much more tension and anxiety over Syed's sexuality from Masood than we have EVER seen from Syed?

I loved the Mosque scenes, too. I thought they were really well written, and addressed the issue perfectly. I like how Masood's beliefs are quite polarising compared to Zainab, especially in how they're dealing with it.

Syed is annoying. For a story that was supposed to be about him being torn between being a good Muslim boy, and being gay, they sure have glossed over a lot of his religious anguish. Zainab has addressed that angle more so than Syed has, much like how Masood, is more tormented by the gay angle more than Syed himself. But Syed is pathetic anyway, as is Christian, and for the story to have any meaning, they'll have to be together in the end, chemistry or not. Plus, Syed is not the first gay Muslim; Family Affairs already told this story in 2005, with Sami Shafiq and his Australian lover, Brett.

I do wish the reveal had of happened a couple of months ago, instead of shelving it for that time. It just feels as if they waited until Preeya's contract was up, for them to write the reveal, and not play out the aftermath in any great detail for Amira. It all happens in on episode, and that feels to quick.

one of the episodes i remember watching was Josie & Jesse`s wedding in 2005. I don`t know if H&A was good or bad at the time but i did enjoy that particular episode.

I was a huge JJ fan. 2005 was when Dan Bennett took over, and began the OTT years. Things went downhill from this point onwards, especially the character assassination of Jesse. How Dan Bennett had the nerve to bring back Chloe Richards, a beloved character, only to kill her off in a dumb storyline, is beyond me. He had the opportunity to reunite Jesse and Chloe, and have them ride off into the sunset, but instead chose the senseless option.

Why have these big stories you publicize about Lucas and about Syed/Christian and then leave them to wither on the vine for thrilling stories like 30 year old looking gangs and stolen mail and Roxy shouting at random people.

Pacing only seemed to really become an issue, when actors vacation time was coupled with the introduction of episode quotas (as a money saving device). I don't remember 2007 having these issues, and even though the ep quotas came into effect in 2009, 2008 didn't seem as bad, either (albeit pacing started to be a problem then, too, but never as much as 2009). Or maybe I have selective amnesia?

But what I don't get, is when they've put all that effort into the murder story, and the build up to the Live ep, why they fell short of the aftermath? It's like they didn't properly plan out other storylines to take over from the whodunit? and instead we've had months of filler involving characters that no-one cares about. An inflated teen scene, with Billie and his crew; the pointless introduction of Leon, Fatboy, Zsa Zsa, and the soon-to-arrive Mercy; why did they saddle Masood and Zainab with a baby? Where's the story about Heather developing as a character through motherhood? What's the point of Adam, and his uber rushed pairing with Libby, who, along with Darren, are trapped in the dullest triangle ever? Serial killer Lucas is an anticlimax waiting to happen, where everything in between is convoluted filler (unless this garden make-over story leads to his reveal). And then there's the introduction of Louise, Phil's daughter - why? And Jack & Chelsea? Pat's sever heart attack?

Moving on to this weeks eps: I was a bit disappointed in Lucy having a termination. I just really wanted her to have the baby and give it to Jane. I am glad Ian didn't coerce Lucy into it, but I wonder if he had properly talked to her, easing her fears, would she have still gone through with it? And I get why Ian lied to Jane, but when the truth comes out, it'll break her in two. Such a tragic story, and probably the only compelling one right now (IMO). Also loved the scene with Peter and Lucy - I think that was the first time they felt like proper twins. More of this would be good.

Eastenders was my first British soap so I will always have some fondness for it. I like most of the British soaps, at the moment I think Emmerdale is the best and then I'd tie Corrie and Eastenders and Hollyoaks in last. Obviously ratings don't agree though.

But ratings don't really represent the actual number of people watching, just the number of households who have it tuned on. And this only really seems to work for Corrie and EE, sometimes E'dale, where no matter how terrible the show is, they still seem to pull in similar ratings. And I don't believe 10 million people can sit through every ep of Corrie, in its current guise.

Instead of giving her this motivation at a time when she needed it they tack it on in the live episode where it will not be properly dealt with and when they need people to have more reason to believe Archie raped Stacey. That's why I seriously wonder whether or not they planned for Archie to have raped Ronnie. With the weird pacing on this show who knows.

I agree. B/c of those introductory scenes, I do think it was intended, but the plotting probably pushed it to the backburner, or it was simply forgotten about, until recently, and tacked on to the Live show. It should never have been mentioned, really, seeing as the time had past. What really is the long term point?

If she had gone to the police then Bradley wouldn't have been a suspect. Stacey let Bradley take the blame all while he had no idea she was the killer. All this time Bradley was falling apart and she was having fun with Becca, planning this wedding. There was never any real moment where I saw her as hiding this secret. That's one of the reasons I think not having the actor find out until the night of the live episode was not a great idea.

If you were Stacey, would you have gone to the cops? You're pregnant, and you've just murdered someone in cold blood. The charge could probably be brought down to manslaughter, but you'd still be facing jail time. You'd keep quiet. And when Bradley did become a suspect (due to his own actions), what would have been the point in telling Bradley that she's the killer? Everyone knew Bradley didn't do it; the cops had evidence, and if she had told him, he would've covered for her. So the outcome would still have been the same. I just don't see how the outcome could've been changed, if Stacey had told the truth.

And I guess you can put the rest down to Stacey's bipolar meds, as they would numb her emotional responses to situations, so she wouldn't have a "normal" reaction to killing Archie; hence no moment of hiding her secret. The last time they mentioned this side effect of the meds, was with Jean, a couple of years ago.

I like Ryan more these days but I don't know if there's a lot of story there with the baby. He's sort of a forgettable character. I guess it depends on the writing.

I like Ryan, too. But like a lot of the other new male characters, he has yet to be fully developed. He does have promise with Janine, so I can see Stacey and their baby being an obstacle for Ryan & Janine.

I'm really going to miss Bradley. Over and over, any man on a soap who does not act like a jackass is labeled "boring," or "weak," but Bradley was such a great character, and kind and supportive men are something that are few and far between on soaps.

I am dreading his funeral, especially since

that awful Becca is supposed to get her hooks into Max

I've not been a big fan of Bradley for ages. He became a bit of a non entity for a while, and most recently has been shown to be really selfish and rude. The way he treated Syd and Noah, in that cold, detached way; the way he treated Becca for no apparent reason (there's no excuse for rudeness). And I really don't get why Charlie quit due to public attention - surely if he gets another role that becomes popular, or is on a big show/film, then won't he get the attention all over again?

And I like Becca; she's a lonely, damaged soul. She needs Stacey, b/c she's all Becca's got, and her infatuation with Max, is interesting and slightly creepy, depending on her motive. Plus, we don't know what went on in her past that made her self harm; there's lots of potential, and she seems like a competent actor.

So, did anyone else guess it was Stacey?

For a live episode, that was really good. And the behind-the-scenes show was good, too.

I hate what they did to Archie. They have, in the space of a few months, made him into a rapist, and now someone who raped his own daughter. I don't believe that this was something which was initially built into his character, and they have not really explored any of the consequences of rape. It's just a plot device. When Kathy Beale was raped it was a huge and long-term impact on her life.

I agree, but then I don't. See, I think it was always ever so subtly insinuated during Archie's first scenes, in his mansion with Ronnie. This is what made them so creepy. I thought a sick love storyline was gonna follow, but it never did, only to appear now. Of course, it's all too late, and pointless. Instead of being a decent plot twist, where we could've seen it delve into Archie's psychology, it has simply been used to explain away Ronnie detesting her dad, even though it didn't need any more explaining. What Archie had all ready done to her, was all plausible in her hating him.

But I didn't buy into Archie raping Stacey, as it just didn't feel like it fit into his character. Sexually abusing his daughter, for whatever reason, is one thing, but Stacey is another. Archie thrived off of psychological warfare, not violence; he was controlling, but not violently controlling - everything was about mind games. Plus, he viewed Stacey has dirty, someone he wouldn't touch, unless it was very necessary - he never slept with Suzy, and only gave into Janine when he really had to.

I wonder if they will write Stacey out. All they do with her is pile on the misery, but now, she has caused Bradley's death, in that she knew all along she had killed Archie yet she let him become a prime suspect, she was out clubbing and laughing while he was having a breakdown, she let him panic for months, leading to his death.

She didn't let Bradley become a suspect; that was out of her hands. He decked Archie, leaving his DNA, which the police finally managed to extract, after months of getting nowhere. And it was Becca who dobbed him into the cops. I really believe, had Stacey 'fessed up to Bradley, that things would still have ended the way they did. He would've still been the prime suspect, eventually.

And I can't see them writing out Stacey, not unless Lacey decides to leave. She still has potential with being a mother to Ryan's baby, and making an enemy of Janine in the process. And lets face it: Lacey is one of their best actors.

So all this time, Stacey knew not only that she killed Archie, but that her baby wasn't his? (Who is the father, btw?)

She only foind out in Thursday's ep that Archie is not the father of her baby. Ronnie told her that cancer treatment had made Archie sterile. She soon figured that Ryan Malloy is the baby daddy.

Male character, that is. I know, I missed out the most important word from that sentence.

Alf (1988); Morag (1988 recurring); Colleen (1988 recurring until 1999); Irene (1992); Leah (2000); Tony (2005); Miles (2008); Nicole (2008).

They've had a pretty big turnover, especially in the last decade. It speaks volumes when the most recent are the longest serving characters.

I think it depends on how you feel about certain characters and what they're doing. For instance, I have heard that Santer's run was a golden period, but I thought 2008 was a huge waste of a year, in part because most of the characters I had interest in were damaged or given boring stories, and also because that was when Santer's inability to plot a story beyond shock value flared up the most.

I think it's seen as a golden period, b/c he managed to turn the show around, when it was at death's door. EE was damaged, some of which will never be repaired (apparently), and that took a lot for him to do. ITA on 2008 - it was a real let down. I actually think a lot of those stories had potential (bar Jack & Tanya), but due to their execution/pacing/direction that potential was squandered. Such a shame.

I've heard that 2006 was EE's worst year. I haven't seen any of that year, beyond Dennis's funeral. From what I've seen of the awful Kevin Wicks, if he was a major part of 2006, I'm not missing a lot.

I liked Kevin with Denise (she made him likeable). 2006 featured the horrendous Naomi/Sonia lesbian romance; Martin's boring psycho stalker Sarah; the ruined pairing of Joe & Pauline, which resulted in her lacklustre death and him stupidly trying to kill Dot!

I've heard 2004 wasn't good either but I've never seen that year.

2004 was bad, b/c it had the change over from Louise Berridge to Kathleen Hutchinson, a decision which cost the show dearly. But, IMO, the bad was all ready settling in during the latter months of 2003, particularly when Little Mo was raped a second time (a plot that felt very unnecessary - to put it mildly). In 2004, The Ferreira family was centre stage, with their ridiculous kidney transplant story. I actually thought Tariq revealing he was their half brother, was inevitable, yet a lot people didn't buy it. Then there was Adi/Sasha; the gangster war between Phil and Andy; Kate being an undercover cop; Julie Smith and his gun drama; the Real Walford football team; the icky Den/Zoe relationship, which was part of the tedious Sharon/Dennis/Zoe triangle; Vicki Fowler's ever changeable accent, and her boring plots involving cheating uni lecturers that nobody cared about; the go-nowhere lesbian kiss between Zoe and Kelly; the horrendous fairground disaster; the equally horrendous Alfie/Little Mo affair (reminiscent of Jack/Tanya). It was around the time of Kat discovering the affair, and the ever changeable character actions, that made me tune out. You could literally see from episode to episode how the characters/storylines changed direction; it was frustrating, as you'd see Kat react/say something one ep, then forget she did/said that the next.

2005 was just as bad, yet did manage to recover in the latter months. The show was so bad, that the BBC didn't even bother to celebrate the shows 21st birthday, yet did celebrate Neighbours' a month later. 2005 also saw the lowest ratings ever. But there was one particular storyline that was handled well, and probably the only bright spark: Nana Moon revisiting Normandy. Well written, and well acted.

I know this is a couple of weeks late, but thought it was still interesting.

Ramsay Street shake-up! James is out...

It's been a sad week for James Sorensen fans, with the actor announcing he's quitting Neighbours for new pastures. We catch up with James to learn why he's bidding Ramsay Street farewell, and how he feels about someone else stepping into the role of Declan.

Why are you leaving Neighbours?

There are some other interests aside from acting that I want to persue and, after three years on the show, I feel that now is the right time for me to leave.

So are you quitting acting altogether?

I'm not planning to walk away from acting forever, because it's a real passion of mine. I know I'll return to it at some point down the track.

How difficult was it to leave?

Very; I love Neighbours. I love acting and I've had an absolute ball working with everyone on the show - it's been like a second family for me.

Who do you think you'll miss the most?

The baby girls who play India. I'll also miss Jane Hall, who's like my second mum in real life, and Ashleigh Brewer, because we work together a lot and she's one of my best friends. I will miss all of the cast!

How do you feel about the role of Declan being recast?

I'm really happy the character's going to continue because the producers and writers have given Declan some fantastic storylines. I'm really proud he's become as popular as he has.

... But look who's in!

Taking over the role of Declan is newcomer Erin Mullally, who's sure to find many admirers with Ramsay Street's female residents and the show's viewers. This will be the 20-year-old Cronulla resident's first role after he quit business school to persue his love of acting. "He's really excited to be given the opportunity," reveals a show insider. "He doesn't seem to be too daunted about filling James's shoes."

For those of you still watching: how are you finding the teen-overload? And for a woman who started out doing so much good, how has Susan Bower veered so far off course? Seriously, she seems to think the show is the best its ever been, despite the Oz ratings taking a major dive.

Two more to leave 'Home and Away'

Monday, February 15 2010, 11:23 GMT

By Daniel Kilkelly, Entertainment Reporter

Home and Away stars Amy Mathews and Jon Sivewright are to leave the soap later this year, it has been reported.

The pair, who play Summer Bay couple Rachel Armstrong and Tony Holden, are expected to bow out on screen in the middle of the year.

A show source told Australian magazine TV Week: "Amy Mathews is definitely going in a few months' time. Then, with Amy's character Rachel out of the picture, it was decided Tony should go with her, so Jon Sivewright is leaving too."

The news follows a number of recent high-profile Home and Away exits, including those of Lincoln Lewis (Geoff Campbell), Todd Lasance (Aden Jefferies) and Jodi Gordon (Martha MacKenzie).

However, a representative for Australia's Seven Network, which broadcasts Home and Away, insisted that viewers should not be concerned about the large number of recent cast departures.

Seven's Bevan Lee told fan site Back To The Bay: "There have indeed been a larger than usual number of characters being written out in the last few years, but the vast majority of those departures were brought about by the choices of the actors playing the roles.

"The fans can rest assured that no character is ever written out without the greatest of thought and consideration being given to the decision. They simply have to trust the creators of the show, trust their love for the show and accept that we would not make any choice we did not feel was for the best for Home and Away in the long run."

I'll miss Tony & Rachel (more so Rachel). It's a shame, as Tony is the second longest serving character, after Alf. Now it'll be Miles(?), meaning, only Alf will represent pre-2008!

I know taste is subjective, but I wasn't arguing against that. You made a statement, and I thought it would be interesting if you explained it in more detail. I don't have an encyclopaedic mind that remembers every episode, every stotyline, from every soap throughout the years; you might be able to remind me of some of those dreary magic moments that I might've forgotten.

I put dreary in inverted commas, b/c I thought it was an understatement of what that period truly was. IMO, if that period had been dreary, it would've been a welcome.

But even at its absolute worst, I love this show. Some of the episodes in those dreary periods are just pure magic.

Name those episodes!

Seriously, those "dreary" periods were horrific; for the first time, I actually tuned out for several months, things were that bad. So it would be nice to know which episodes were "pure magic," as I seriously can't remember any at all. The behind the scenes haemorrhaging during this time, nearly killed the show, literally.

I remember he did have some sort of out burst, but not sure if it tied into him leaving, as he did have several exits. I hated Steven - he really bugged me, with his smug attitude. It didn't help when the show started to prop the Steven/Selina pairing, as I was a fan of Jesse & Selina.

ETA: I found this clip of Steven's 1996 exit - Pippa and Alisa talk about Steven's out burst. Those were the days, when H&A was good; pity it can't be like that now. They just don't make characters like they used to.

Either you have a good memory for minute details that happened years ago, or you've been reading ep summaries.

I don't remember any of that. But it does sound vaguely like it happened.

I don't remember Dylan being a maths prodigy. In fact, I don't remember him doing all that much. When Angel arrived, she was a street kid, and Dylan wasn't with her. I guess he could've been a maths genius, and I've simply forgotten...

There was a Steven Matheson, but Angel wasn't involved with him. His storylines were mostly with: Selina/Jesse/Travis/Kelly/Marilyn + he was an original character, too.

There was a Simon - an English guy, who fell for Angel. They left together. He was very annoying, for some reason.

Did anyone here watch the show when she was on? Did you like the character? Was Melissa good there as well?

Shane & Angel were awesome; they were immensely popular, and if they hadn't of brought in Selina/Shannon/Chloe, I think the show would have suffered from their loss. And yes, Melissa was good then, too. What I've never liked, though, is her refusal to talk about the show that launched her career - it's like she's embarrassed by her soap past. On the rare occasions that she will utter a sentence or two, she's very coy, and claims that she can't remember much about her time on H&A. Whatever.

I thought the Masoods were Pakistani.

They are, but Amira is Indian. And technically, it was a Muslim wedding, with an Indian feel (seeing as Amira was the bride).

Yep, go with the wedding. It's awesome. Really.

Generally, the story isn't that good, b/c as Carl has stated, there was no build up, and the actors lack decent chemistry; plus, they've missed a valuable opportunity to let Christian's character develop, and organically allow the story to take on a more ambiguous nature.

I don't feel I can root for Christian/Syed, any more than Syed/Amira, as both couples are disastrous. What would have worked so much better (IMO) is if Christian had done the one selfless thing and let Syed go (at the last minute of course), thus allowing him to grow as a character, and pass the responsibility onto Syed (where it should be anyway, as after all, this should be his story, and not a Christian *&* Syed story).

What's worse is the treatment of Amira, who really seems to be a second thought in the writers minds, as no-one has given a rats ass about her throughout any of this. One by one, more people have found out (Lucy, Jane, Zainab, the Imam...) and not one of them have considered Amira's feelings at all. It's all about Christian and his love story with Syed. And once again, the woman is the loser.

Having said all that, the wedding episodes go some way into making up for the bad writing, b/c, they really are awesome. The acting is spot on fantastic, to the point where I can almost forgive them for playing Christian as a bitter, vengeful ex, and Zainab's reaction is very real.

Very. Strangely, I don't find Neighbours as confusing, probably b/c Susan Bower has stated that all final decisions go through her, and I can easily blame her for all the crap that's given the green light.

But with H&A, and especially when Bevan was there, he made all the decisions, even though Cameron Welsh is EP... actually it's SP. What's the difference between a Series/Executive Producer? And it was Bevan who took over from Sarah Walker in 2008, but who took over from him? Faith McKinnon and Phil Lloyd, that's who.

Taken from yesterday's end credits:

Series Producer: Cameron Welsh

Script Producers: Faith McKinnon & James Walker

Executive Producer: John Holmes

Network Executive Producer: Bevan Lee

Script Editor: Stephen Vagg

Associate Story Producer: Sandy Webster

Story Consultant: Sarah Walker & Fiona Bozig

I'll research that (unless someone beats me to it) and get back to you, as I'm a little confused. See, Cameron Welsh is the EP, yet he's always the one who seems to be responsible for storylines, yet when Bevan left in 2008, I'm sure he said he was handing the reins over to someone called Sarah. Basically, I'm confused as to who does what.

He was supposed to write the 5000th episode, but had to cancel due to other commitments - I.e: Packed to the Rafters. Shame, as he's best damn writer they've ever had (or had in recent years).

No!

Ditto.

First time I think I've stopped watching the show for such a long time. It's been a really bad year, which hasn't been helped by this year-long bloody mystery. I don't want a soap version of L&O, I want kitchen sink drama!

ETA: Major storyline spoiler for Lucas/Denise/Owen.

'EastEnders' Lucas Johnson to kill again

EastEnders holier-than-thou priest Lucas Johnson is to commit murder at the end of the month when he kills his fiancée's ex-husband Owen Turner.

In a one-hour episode, Lucas - played by Babyfather actor Don Gilet - reaches boiling point with Owen (Lee Ross) on his wedding day to Denise (Diane Parish) as Owen continues to push for the truth about Trina's (Sharon Duncan-Brewster) death.

On the eve of Lucas's nuptials, Owen realises the true extent of Lucas's involvement in his ex-wife's demise and confronts Walford's man of the cloth with his beliefs. However, concerned that his web of lies is about to untangle, Lucas tries to force Owen out of Walford.

Despite his attempts to remain calm, Lucas snaps and ends Owen's life to ensure his sins remain a secret.

In an ironic twist to the tale, Lucas then decides to bury Owen's body under Trina's memorial tree in the Square.

A show source told DS: "Lucas realises that his game's nearly up and panic-stricken, he lunges at Owen and takes his life so he can't tell anyone else that he covered what actually happened when Trina died."

So much for all that potential...

Ben, were you thinking of Kate Harwood maybe?

I realize I got confused between the three. It's been a while since I've read that blog (even though I posted it the other day).

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.

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.

Owen's awesome - he has a lot of potential. I think it helps that he's played by a good actor, too. He'll probably need a love interest at some point, and hopefully it won't be Denise, b/c that would wrong, and hopefully Ronnie doesn't bring him down. Lucas Vs. Owen and the aspect of Denise jumping from the frying pan and into the fire, make them one of the more interesting dynamics in the show.

That's old. Everyone knows about that "rule".

So what?

Of course it's old, but I've still come across people who don't realize it.

It would go against my point, that's what. Which is, that fans and critics are too different kinds of critic; at times, what is critically acclaimed, isn't necessarily fan acclaimed.

I've seen both fans and critics criticise, so this is all new to me that the soaps have been better!

You're just learning that it doesn't really take much for soaps to have 'never been better.'

And, have you see fans and critics criticise at the same time? I bet you'll say, yes. I've read several that continued to praise Corrie, this year, even though the fans were crucifying it.