Hollyoaks: Discussion Thread

[DRW50]

The main difference is that generally the core of those shows remained the same, although that's more true for Corrie and Eastenders.

There is no core left in Hollyoaks. So these new families truly are make or break.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I don't think Hollyoaks has ever particularly had a strong identity other than being "the soap for young people." Its never really had the strong identity that Corrie and EastEnders have. Hollyoaks, even though it's only existed for 15 years, has had so many different identity changes and so many massive cast culls over the years. This really isn't the first time.

I think more than the other soaps, its the most adaptable soap. Though, of course, the writing has to be there.

I don't think there's been a "core" per se for years on the show. Part of that has to do with how youth-oriented this show skews.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner

[DRW50]

I think that the show did have a certain thoroughline of Max and OB. They were there through everything, and through them were the memories of those they loved who had once been major parts of the show, like Max's father. Mandy was also a big part of that for a long time.

Now they're all gone and I think that with the generally failed attempts at bringing in or maintaining new characters and new families, there's very little left.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Max and OB were going to leave sooner or later though, as Matt and Darren wanted to move on.

I wonder how much longer Carly Stenson will linger on.

But Hollyoaks is a such a youth-centered show, I don't think it really matters to have a core, especially one that would probably be written out or sidelined once it got "too old" anyway. The show needs to concentrate on building better characters and telling more interesting stories.

It should be interesting to see what Marquess does with the show and how well-received his new additions are and the stories that involve them.

[DRW50]

They were always going to leave sooner or later but there was very little built up to help bridge the gap. They brought Mandy back but most fans hated her storyline. They brought Cindy back and she's fine but she's not the same type of character. They were the heart of the show.

I think that finding actors who will stay and who will be important to viewers is important because that keeps viewers going through the dead spots when so many actors leave and you have to give them an exit.

I think that was one of the biggest failings of the past few years, they did their best to isolate and diminish those characters who have stayed. They destroyed the Osborne/Dean family with that endless year of weeping, yelling, death, and faked death. They have never been the same since then. Before 2008 and 2009 this family provided a great service of being good at comedy as well as drama and giving a sense of stability and fun along with heartache. Now they're just these broken or aimless characters. Meanwhile, Tony was drained of most of his personality, spent what must seemed like years weeping over babies, and has no real purpose at this point.

Nancy could have been an interesting presence but they have had no idea what to do with her.

The McQueens have generally stuck around far longer than I had expected, yet generally the show has been giving them crap stories since mid-2007. Niall's story was very well acted but the actual pacing and plotting didn't quite work for me. It got big ratings but the fallout of the story left a lot of very weak characters and relationships. I get sad when I remember how beautifully these characters and their relationships as a family were written up to mid-2007.

It's been a problem that so many of the new characters brought in under Lucy Allan have flopped but if the foundation were better maintained then the show would not seem so completely gutted. Kirkwood did save HO back in 2006, but he did so with the great characters he had to work with. I don't think Marquess has the same luxury.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I think Home and Away is the closest parallel I can draw to Hollyoaks. That show is very different from what it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, and yes 20 years ago. Kind of like Hollyoaks in a sense. There's no real core to it and "older" actors don't have much of a presence on that show. Home and Away, for most of its existence, has always been about the youth demographic, and once characters reached a certain age, they were downgraded to supporting or written out completely. The show became more about the stories it was telling than about characters that had been there for years.

If the new characters were interesting and the stories were good, it made the show better. I guess that would be better for some to watch than to watch once interesting characters being fed crap story after crap story for years or be rendered useless.

Familiar actors and characters are nice, but with a show that's never had a solid identity like Hollyoaks and generally looks down on older characters, there's only so far they can take things.

If the show were better at creating new characters and writing better for existing characters, I think it would be enough to get things back on track.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner

[DRW50]

I think that with a lot of shows there's the element which is widely known by the press and public and the element which is known by a lot of longtime viewers. For instance, Mr. C, Max's and Cindy's father, was never a huge character but he was a continual presence for HO's first 8 years and he meant a lot to many viewers. The show was already having problems before he was killed off but that's the type of lack of stability which helped drive the ratings down and nearly got the show canned before Kirkwood took over.

When Kirkwood left, there were a lot of dead spaces, which meant that even with moments which should have been spectacular, like Clare's return and Warren's death, it fizzled out, because the characters who had been built up over the previous few years, like Sasha or Calvin, were so worthless.

You definitely need to bring in new characters and create good new stories but it takes a miracle to be able to churn out strong new characters and strong new actors every few years. If you don't have something else to back that up then you're in trouble. One of the reasons Clare worked so brilliantly as a character was because viewers were invested in her coming between Max and OB and wanting to see her comeuppance. When she was moved out of that story, Gemma was still great and Clare still had some big moments, but it was never quite the same, because Louise, Warren, Calvin, etc. were such shallow characters.

Home & Away is a show that seems to be able to survive by constant upheaval, but I thought that show and Neighbours almost had to stay on the air, regardless of ratings, because of some Australian law.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I don't think so, Neighbours, though it isn't as highly rated as it was during its peak in the late 80's, was canceled during its first year and then brought back after it got renewed interest from viewers with, I think, repeats.

Though, I believe, Home and Away continues to be one of the, if not the, highest rated show in Australia.

It's funny, though she was a nasty piece of work, I never wanted to see Clare get her comeuppance.

She was too fun to watch, and I especially loved it when she told that brainless twit Louise, "The only meaningful relationship you've ever developed was between yourself and your makeup bag. Any more concealer and you would have wiped away whatever personality you've got left!" :lol:

Edited April 13, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner

[DRW50]

It's odd because I did love Clare (it helped that she was so rude to Tom -- he got on my nerves), but I also wanted to see her pay. I think that shows how well-written the story was because I cared about everyone involved. That scene where OB punches her and saves Max from drowning is probably one of my favorite soap moments ever (made even better because BBC America replaced the original music for rights reasons and put in something that sounded like Max and OB were lovers).

When they moved her to the other story, I just wanted to see her mow down Louise, Warren, Katy, Justin. They were all stupid and smug and deluded about their own goodness.

I wonder if that scene where she tells everyone off when they take the Loft from her is still on Youtube.

I still liked that story, especially the trial when she faked serious injuries. Unfortunately by the time of her last return the characters were so bad she was defeated by Sasha. Come on.

Edited April 13, 2010 by CarlD2

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I think Clare's return was lost in the shuffle. Kirkwood admitted in an interview that Lucy Allan would be rewriting a lot of his final material before it aired. Also, that exit for Clare thanks to Sasha was just days into Allan's time as Producer. I wonder how Kirkwood would have had her last exit turn out. He loved Clare and Gemma, I can't imagine him being too happy with how Allan handled her exit and the aftermath of Warren's death.

I wonder Kirkwood will re-hire Gemma at EastEnders and attempt to make up for that dreadful return Santer and Collins gave to Clare Bates. I don't think there's room for her right now, but they really dropped the ball with her at EastEnders.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner

[DRW50]

Who is it who owns the Loft now? Sasha? That's so ludicrous. I kind of wish they would just get rid of the place for good.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Sheree Murphy has told Inside Soap that she's only contracted for 6 months, but hopes to stay longer, and she'll initially be "in and out" like a recurring player as her story builds...

Edited April 13, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner

[Y&RWorldTurner]

I must say, it seems like Marquess wants to make Hollyoaks more of a multi-generational show with all these families. It seems like the parents of many of these young characters will be heavily involved in stories, even leading them.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner

[DRW50]

You're right, it does sound like that. It also sounds like they're going to have these stories begin with a bang very early on, no real establishing. That's probably smart, as long as the acting and writing can pull it off.

I hope that Sheree will lead to India's exit.

I heard that Samantha Giles is supposedly returning as Valerie Valentine to wrap up that family's stories. I hope that's true, I really liked her.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

It's amazing how ALL of Lucy Allan's new characters have sucked ass, not one seems to have much promise. She also tried so hard to keep the tone Kirkwood brought to the show, but has failed miserably and doesn't have the storytelling mind he had.

I'm sure Marquess will get rid of all of these characters, when the actors who play them, contacts expire.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner