Jump to content

Hollyoaks: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I wonder how much longer Anita has on the show. Sheree Murphy made it sound like she was hired just before Marquess came in and they were sending out feelers to her since last fall. I think Marquess inherited her contract and had no choice but to carry out this upcoming story with Anita and her long lost mother.

I've never read the books, but I usually bad books based on TV shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I hope Malachy being included means Marquess has big plans for the character and that this isn't just his exit. Malachy was one of my favorites during the time I watched consistently and he and Jennifer Metcalfe had fab chemistry until the Calvin disaster.

I'm looking forward to this. The Sarah stuff in the last one was the highlight for 2009 on HO and probably in soap overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

'Oaks boss plans "outrageous" Cindy plot

Hollyoaks boss Paul Marquess has revealed that he has a shocking storyline in store for schemer Cindy Cunningham.

Cindy will leave the Channel 4 soap temporarily later this year because Stephanie Waring, who plays the character, is expecting her second child.

In an interview with Inside Soap, Marquess confirmed that Cindy will depart with a bang and also promised that interesting times are ahead for her husband Tony (Nick Pickard).

Marquess commented: "We've got big plans for Tony, especially as Cindy will be bowing out when Steph Waring goes on maternity leave in the summer."

Asked how Cindy leaves, he replied: "All I can say is that it's really outrageous. When I told Steph, her jaw hit the floor - and then bounced back up again!"

Waring announced her pregnancy last month. She is already mother to a young daughter named Mia, who she welcomed in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You can read parts of Paul Marquess' new interview with Inside Soap here via this slideshow from Digital Spy:

http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/i258998/who-has-been-axed.html

Some interesting things he said that I'm looking forward to:

- He loves Darren and we will see a 'whole new side' to him

- He loves The McQueens and there will be yet another new one.

- Jacqui, in particular, will embark on a new direction. He LOVES Claire Cooper.

- He has big plans for Tony and Cindy

- Lee Hunter will enroll at HCC as a drama student, and one of his first big things is putting on a play. Marquess says it will be hysterical.

- The Costellos arrive in August

- The second new family will arrive later in the year, they're still under "development."

- The show will be a little brighter than it was at the end of last year, but there will still be serious storylines.

- The Costellos will be the new owners of The Dog

The only bad thing he said is that he loves Cheryl. :angry:

Edited by Y&RWorldTurner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oaks to introduce third new family

Hollyoaks boss Paul Marquess has revealed that he plans to introduce another new family to the soap later this year.

The show's new series producer last week announced a string of new signings who will be part of two new clans - the Costellos and the Sharpes.

Speaking to Inside Soap about what else he has in store, Marquess confirmed: "Later in the year, there'll be another family but they're still very much in development.

"They'll arrive with a story about how kids react when their mother is becoming more and more selfish in what she wants, and sort of screwing up the lives of her children in the process."

Meanwhile, on what viewers can expect from the Sharpes, he said: "They're going to utterly change one of the existing character's lives - in a Sliding Doors kind of way. If this character had chosen to go right instead of left, things would have turned out very differently for them."

Marquess joined Hollyoaks in January and is currently steering a period of reinvention at the teen serial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

- Cheryl will get a new man who is "Very Nasty".

reckon its another womaniser who wants to control her or something

With these 3 new families heading into the show, i am getting more exc-CRAP.Its on now.Just caught Laura in the bunny costume-ited for Marquess debuting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think Hotel would have the similar demos as Dynasty W 19-49 would have been strong. St Elsewhere survived b/c it attracted wealthier/urban viewers and The Equalizer was probably stronger with men and younger viewers. So each had their own niche-good counter-programming. As for Aaron Spelling's influence over ABC in terms of scheduling, I don't know if he would have been happy with Charlie's Angels moving to Sunday, The Colbys scheduled on Thursdays or Matt Houston moved to Fridays. I think he just had to roll with the punches.
    • Thank you @Broderick. That information was so helpful. I watched the first episode of the "Mansion of the Damned" storyline. I was extremely confused by Margaret Colin's Paige and her relationship to other characters. Your post helps me understand what's happening. The rest of the show was easy to understand and I'm enjoying it. Hunter's Nola is a good character for me since I know Kim Hunter from other work.  I must have seen clips of Edge of Night before because I remember seeing April. 
    • How is it back tracking when it was in fact the word I originally used? It's not.
    • You know what is a great way to stop these unclear "rumors"?  Just stop posting them and then back tracking with words like "apparently".   Anyhow, I didn't find the Tracy/Lois scenes as good as I hoped.    
    • Jason, in thinking this over, I realize that we look at this space, differently. To me it is a potentially collaborative space. Now that I've realized this, what I should have said, "I'm having a problem because what I'm seeing is not matching up with your descriptions. Maybe these files I just got are misdated. Maybe it's something else. I will keep you posted. Meanwhile this episode, its edit, is ready, even though I might have to issue a corrected date later. But, people can enjoy the performances now. 
    • Thank you for the constructive suggestion. 
    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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