When the likes of Scott Maslen, Marc Elliot, or Robert Kazinsky win your acting awards, then that's basically saying that the best of your show never deserves to be rewarded.

I wouldn't really say that. You know well it's all PR. British Soap Awards, TVChoice Awards... are all utter junk, without any sort of credibility (at least with me) and that is why I don't take it as an offense against my intelligence when Scott Maslen wins.

Looks got him the award.

Carl, I'd call Corrie a dull, plain straight line now.

EastEnders is just — fun. And I know you will disagree. There is something about the show, even when it was a blatant hack job, that's just fun, entertaining, especially when it comes to the latest stunt.

I wouldn't disagree with you. I think Santer knew how to get people talking. It's telling that the stunts since he's pretty much gone, like Ben abusing Louise, Christian's latest beating and Syed's suicide attempt, have been both hollow and unpleasant, with a strange tone, and are then quickly forgotten, as if the show is scared to touch these subjects yet they're also desperate to try to rev up what is a weak storyline. Santer probably wouldn't have done those story beats, and he would have been right.

Certainly the campy stuff wins more awards. Camp and men who look like they don't know how to cut their hair/are constipated/ are trying to figure out how to make fire.

And Lacey Turner.

I wouldn't really say that. You know well it's all PR. British Soap Awards, TVChoice Awards... are all utter junk, without any sort of credibility (at least with me) and that is why I don't take it as an offense against my intelligence when Scott Maslen wins.

Looks got him the award.

Unfortunately even the panel awards at this year's BSAs were not all that great. They chose the laziest picks and barely seemed to pay attention to most of what was available. To give an award to Marc Eliot when the guy who plays Ryan would have been a better nominee and winner, if they had to pick someone from Eastenders. To award the horrible Who Killed Archie story instead of Stacey's bipolar or the day Christian married Amira.

Edited May 18, 201015 yr by CarlD2

In all of these, poor Emmerdale always gets forgotten. Which is a shame really, the show should receive more acclaim.

Emmerdale and Hollyoaks will never be popular with award shows, it's just the way it is. Both shows have horrible stigmas attached to them and are considered the "lesser soaps" regardless if its reflected in quality or not.

Especially if the awards are voted on by the public, those shows just don't have the viewing audience or fanbase that Corrie and EastEnders have.

and we all know Charlotte Bellamy is a better actress than Amanda Donohoe.

Edited May 18, 201015 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

I wouldn't really say that. You know well it's all PR. British Soap Awards, TVChoice Awards... are all utter junk, without any sort of credibility (at least with me) and that is why I don't take it as an offense against my intelligence when Scott Maslen wins.

Looks got him the award.

Agreed. All the BSA's are good for are the montage sequences, IMO.

Look at the BAFTA's for television, you hardly see a traditional serial like EastEnders, Corrie, or Emmerdale win their Best Continuing Drama award.

Is EastEnders the only one of the main soaps that's actually won that award? It usually goes to one of the medical or procedural serials.

I wouldn't disagree with you. I think Santer knew how to get people talking. It's telling that the stunts since he's pretty much gone, like Ben abusing Louise, Christian's latest beating and Syed's suicide attempt, have been both hollow and unpleasant, with a strange tone, and are then quickly forgotten, as if the show is scared to touch these subjects yet they're also desperate to try to rev up what is a weak storyline. Santer probably wouldn't have done those story beats, and he would have been right.

Certainly the campy stuff wins more awards. Camp and men who look like they don't know how to cut their hair/are constipated/ are trying to figure out how to make fire.

And Lacey Turner.

Santer does, after all, hold a degree in psychology. He knew his stuff. And ultimately was successful. I bet Yorke loves him, which is one of the reasons I found him leaving BBC to be strange. EastEnders, when you do it "right", is just a step on the corporate ladder.

Who's the guy who can't cut his hair?

Unfortunately even the panel awards at this year's BSAs were not all that great. They chose the laziest picks and barely seemed to pay attention to most of what was available. To give an award to Marc Eliot when the guy who plays Ryan would have been a better nominee and winner, if they had to pick someone from Eastenders. To award the horrible Who Killed Archie story instead of Stacey's bipolar or the day Christian married Amira.

A farce, I tell you.

and we all know Charlotte Bellamy is a better actress than Amanda Donohoe.

You're right about Hollyoaks and Emmerdale, although I still hope to see Emmerdale win big one day.

Edited May 18, 201015 yr by Sylph

Look at the BAFTA's for television, you hardly see a traditional serial like EastEnders, Corrie, or Emmerdale win their Best Continuing Drama award.

Is EastEnders the only one of the main soaps that's actually won that award? It usually goes to one of the medical or procedural serials.

One of the big problems with these awards, and the same goes for the Daytime Emmy, is the sample: there are so few shows, especially now. In some years they are all dismal and you just don't know who to pick.

BAFTA's probably have a bias against certain shows and find the medical/procedural ones to be of "higher" value, loftier.

You're right about Hollyoaks and Emmerdale, although I still hope to see Emmerdale win big one day.

Keep waiting, their hate-name isn't EmmerFail for no reason, after all.

Edited May 18, 201015 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Keep waiting, their hate-name isn't EmmerFail for no reason, after all.

I will.

Y'all think Corrie is more depressing and darker than EE? Really?! Jeez.

When I watch EE, I always get the feeling that this is a show that is well aware of the fact that its best years are behind it. They know that they have a lot to live up to and are failing on every turn. Corrie feels alive, like a show that is perfectly fine with its current reputation.

Though, it's interesting to examine Emmerdale.

When Hollyoaks got good creatively, the press couldn't stop talking about it, and ratings went up, and for the first time, they started getting more attention award-wise.

The same isn't really true for Emmerdale. EastEnders and Corrie have such STRONG identities, Emmerdale doesn't. Emmerdale has had SO MANY identities over the years, kind of like One Life to Live, and also like that show, it tends to not get the type of attention its main rivals get, even if its creatively good.

Y'all think Corrie is more depressing and darker than EE? Really?! Jeez.

When I watch EE, I always get the feeling that this is a show that is well aware of the fact that its best years are behind it. They know that they have a lot to live up to and are failing on every turn. Corrie feels alive, like a show that is perfectly fine with its current reputation.

:mellow:

I feel exactly the opposite. I see Corrie as a show that peaked. It's a TV show equivalent of a retired person.

EE peaked too, but the prospect for it is much more exciting than Corrie.

Emmerdale won Best Soap at the BAFTA TV Awards in 2001.

Coronation Street has won the following BAFTA's ...

The Lew Grade Award - 1997

Special Award - 2001

Best Soap - 2003

Best Continuing Drama - 2004, 2005

:mellow:

I feel exactly the opposite. I see Corrie as a show that peaked. It's a TV show equivalent of a retired person.

EE peaked too, but the prospect for it is much more exciting than Corrie.

For years Corrie was accused of resting on its laurels, playing it too safe, or trying to compete with EastEnders grittiness.

Though the show always had high ratings and popular support, for a long time, it was bashed creatively. Then they underwent a renaissance of sorts in the early 00's with the Richard Hillman story and all that, and people and critics started to love the show and giving it more creative respect. Of course, they've lost a lot of that since.

Edited May 18, 201015 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

:mellow:

I feel exactly the opposite. I see Corrie as a show that peaked. It's a TV show equivalent of a retired person.

EE peaked too, but the prospect for it is much more exciting than Corrie.

Corrie's been a retired person for 50 years As much as the show has changed over the years, an episode from today still has great similarities to episodes from years and years ago. The characters still seem bright and alive.

EE, on the other hand...I just look at a character like Phil and my mood just wilts over like a flower sprayed with Agent Orange. When Pat and Peggy have their scenes together, it all feels like "Oh, remember how these two would spar and spar and spar with each other? Oh, the great memories! We'll never be able to top that, but we can try and come within a kilometer of that greatness!"

When Peggy leaves, what in the blue hell will they do with Pat? She barely has any family of her own on the show, and they aren't being written for either. They'll keep her around as a reminder of how great the past was.