Yes. Frankie as a schoolgirl, Cheryl as a fairy godmother, Ste as some sort of servant or monkey. Apparently a lot of that was scrapped. I'm not sorry that Nick Pickard does not have to wear that awful outfit...

I noticed Rae was in those and isn't in the new one.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s13/hollyoaks/news/a235332/behind-the-scenes-at-the-new-oaks-titles.html

She is in the new one, right after Brendan.

Oh she is? Thanks. It went so fast I didn't recognize a few.

After all this (pointless, in my view) talk about the new credits, they arrive and the children on Digital Spy are not happy. Hilarious...

Anyway, I happened upon this old treasure from 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQilATEA2iE&feature=related

My favourite version of the theme.

Edited September 13, 201015 yr by UK LAW

Who were those people at the end of the clip?

I like this one, although it makes me a bit dizzy.

I think they kept this up to 2005 didn't they? I remember some fans used to go on about how insane it was that Chloe stayed in the opening credits over a year after she'd left the show.

It's funny as I am not sure about a lot of the changes to the show but DS seems to like it but then I don't mind the opening and some at DS do.

What do you think of the show lately?

Edited September 13, 201015 yr by CarlD2

I think the best way to answer the question is to compare it to going to a music festival and seeing a popular act on the main stage.

On occasion, one goes to the front and risks being battered in the mosh pit or being doused with stuff from the act on the stage.

I am the cautious so-and-so enjoying the act from a distance, close enough to see the act, facial expressions and all, but far enough to make a dash for it if it's not great or it starts raining.

In other words, I'm enjoying the show for what it is (and it's certainly not Pinter or Shakespeare) but the investment is not there. If it goes pear-shaped, it won't hurt me.

This is a show under Paul Marquess, the man who devised Footballers Wives, and turned The Bill from a police show to a show about models who happen to wear police uniforms.

This isn't a knock on Paul Marquess, who has his finger on some kind of pulse. And I'm not going to say I haven't enjoyed some of his work in the past but I haven't been expecting philosophical enlightenment or the answers to any of life's questions.

People have been somewhat spoiled by Bryan Kirkwood's stewardship of Hollyoaks, as his vision of the show was deeper and more complex than it was before or perhaps it ever will be again. If people expect that level of depth from the show under Paul Marquess then the disappointment will be palpable and possibly jading.

The majority of the praise for the show now comes from the 'Seth is fit' and 'Mitzeee is a hottie, check out that a***' brigade, so that is where we are.

Again, it's not a knock as it can be argued that the show has a 'typical' audience to service, and I can't speak for anyone else. In my view, the show is good to look at and it's colourful but I'm not going to just head first into a paddling pool. (At 6'1, that would be daft)...

Thanks for your opinion! I think Kirkwood's time on the show was very uneven (2008 was just many missed opportunities and some questionable decisions, IMO), but I do see that he seemed to get the show more than a lot of producers. I agree with you that Marquess can't be held to the same standard.

I think my main annoyance is in the casting of certain roles and perhaps how panto some things seem. I haven't watched as much of the last few weeks though so I don't know how that's been.

So how do you feel about him re-doing the Diane Murray IVF story on Brookside?

Edited September 13, 201015 yr by CarlD2

Thanks for your opinion! I think Kirkwood's time on the show was very uneven (2008 was just many missed opportunities and some questionable decisions, IMO), but I do see that he seemed to get the show more than a lot of producers. I agree with you that Marquess can't be held to the same standard.

I think my main annoyance is in the casting of certain roles and perhaps how panto some things seem. I haven't watched as much of the last few weeks though so I don't know how that's been.

So how do you feel about him re-doing the Diane Murray IVF story on Brookside?

Make no mistake, I am no Bryan Kirkwood fanboy, and I share some of your views on 2008 and no doubt some of the choices he will take on Eastenders. I just think he took a show that was rusting, restored it and painted it gold. (Lucy Allen then introduced what she thought was polish but turned out to be an erosive stripper).

As for the IVF story, I'm simply going to wait to see how it plays out. I could start caning it now and it could turn out to be the most though-provoking story this year. I could do the opposite and it could turn out to be absolute pony.

I think whether you agreed with all of Kirkwood's decisions or not, he kept a certain momentum on the show and brought a certain amount of credibility and positive press attention to the show that wasn't there before or after him. The ratings for the show for instance didn't start to free-fall until his work had really stopped airing (and a lot of his final work Lucy Allan had re-written).

I think Lucy Allan tried to build on the style that Kirkwood had created, but she just didn't know how to develop story or use characters to any of their potential. She had a bad tendency of having certain very poor characters hog up a lot of airtime, and 99% of her storylines were just boring as hell.

Using an EastEnders comparison, Lucy Allan was probably the Louise Berridge to Bryan Kirkwood's John Yorke.

Paul Marquess just seems to want to be rebuilding a show on a very unstable foundation. While the show needed a revamp after the horrendous Allan era, I don't know if he's going about it in the most sensible or organic way, which is probably true to his style of producing anyway. I don't even think the show is that much "fun" right now from what I've seen. It feels like it's just going through the motions. There hasn't been much of a transition period, Marquess just seems to have skipped most of that.

Edited September 14, 201015 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Tuesday's episode:

Jesus Christ, Doug is the biggest prick I have ever seen. Just absolutely vile. When I have sympathy for some stupid pseudo alien, you know this character is a huge bust. FAIL, AGAIN! And Jamil, can anyone actually be that flaming retarded? These characters hurt my life.

Edited September 14, 201015 yr by Amello

Kieron Richardson was interviewed this morning. He said he's gay, and he talked about his upcoming story.

Apparently Ste and Brendan become lovers, and Brendan begins beating Ste. I wonder if they will bring up Ste doing this to Amy. This is why Amy should have stayed, to see how she would have reacted to this and how she would have felt regarding Ste.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbcbK62i0U0

Keiron Richardson comes out? SHOCK! Good for him though. Of course, now I'll just wonder why they couldn't do this story with Warren and Justin. Le sigh.

Doug needs more more than what he got, considering he hasn't learned not to be a huge prick. I want him dead or to disappear. I am perfectly okay with pretending he never existed. I'd watch Cheryl and Brendan 24/7 over this douchebag.

Jamil, on the other hand, is hot and cold. Mostly, I only really dislike him when he's with Doug and is written as a douchebag-mini. However, in his other scenes, like in the ones with India today, he was kind of likable. It is refreshing (pardon the pun) to see someone who is straight edge! Plus, his mysterious family drama has potential to be interesting.

Jem is a cow. Who made her queen of morality? Of course, making Leanne feel bad has the opposite affect for moi. Hate that cow as well.

Whoa.

Jason (a.k.a Jasmine) kisses Anita!

So are they now saying that Jason/Jasmine is bisexual or is this some sort of mixup story? I thought they were pairing her with Bart.