I just don't think any of the soaps are capable of portraying rape and sexual crimes in general. The fast paced nature of storytelling just isn't conductive to such a complex and unpleasant crime.
I hope to God that ED doesn't go down the male rape route any time soon.
The fact that it was Bryan's choice to go with it, it doesn't feel right. When you try to change show history or kill off a character, you need to consult people who know the show best because Pat was iconic, no doubt about that. It didn't feel like her time to go, the way they treated Pam wasn't good. Bryan is known for re writing history and killing characters off in Hollyoaks. If anyone was to get rid of Pat, it shouldn't have been him.
I don't take any notice of who produces a soap and when - if I like a character, storyline or whatever I like it; if I don't like it then I don't. The producer doesn't come into it.
I don't think there is any reason EE needs to shy away from a male rape storyline. The one on HO could have been improved but it wasn't the show's worse storyline by a long shot. The Welsh soap Pobol Y Cwm did a male rape storyline and a child sexual abuse storyline with a male victim. Both were really good and more than just issue storylines. It all depends on how well the storyline is written.
IMO what soaps should avoid is doing more over dramatic storylines about affairs. The ones where characters treat marriage with as much seriousness as going to the shops and take crazy revenge when wronged. Affairs may be common but I sure don't relate to that at all.
From memory, I assume it would have been Christian or Syed that would have had the storyline then?
Maybe Ben in prison? When did he come back with a new head?
I'm sure this storyline would've been horrific under BK (as the JP one was on HO) but I think it really could've been a good storyline under another producer for Christian. It could've been interesting to see it with someone so strong and so confident. Though he got beaten up practically every other episode anyway, so they'd probably done violence to death with him.
Christian got beaten up by a guy he was on a date with and struggled for a couple of eps afterwards, but then it was forgotten.
Oh yes, it could have been Ben I suppose. Ben was born in 1996 but in 2010 didn't he turn 16? However old he is, I don't think it would have been him as he would have been very young. Bryan made it sound like it would have been someone older.
Christian got beaten up by a guy he was on a date with and struggled for a couple of eps afterwards, but then it was forgotten.
Oh yes, it could have been Ben I suppose. Ben was born in 1996 but in 2010 didn't he turn 16? However old he is, I don't think it would have been him as he would have been very young. Bryan made it sound like it would have been someone older.
Yeah, that would've been way too controversial. I think I was thinking of him coming out of prison the second time rather than back then; I'd forgotten how young he was! I remember when he accused Christian of touching him, he was underage (I think 15) so he was only 14 in 2010.
I have zero doubt it would've been Syed or Christian, but not sure which of the two they'd have decided would make a better story. I'm just so glad BBC nipped it in the bud even if it was for the wrong reasons- BK would've made a total mess of it.
I think it was pretty heavily implied toward the end of his last stint? It would also make some sense to how he ended up so screwed up.
But it isn't canon, no.
no people on this forum just assume it was implied. its never said anywhere else (that i have seen) and It has never been said on screen or indicated in my opinion that it happened
no people on this forum just assume it was implied. its never said anywhere else (that i have seen) and It has never been said on screen or indicated in my opinion that it happened
Hmm, I'm not actually sure myself, but I can see how people got to the conclusion. He really did change quite dramatically after prison (in a way not really consistent with how long he was in there- it was only a few months, wasn't it?) and started acting really inappropriately with women- the incident with the prostitute and asking Shirley to pay her? Then obviously attacking Shirley... I don't know. Obviously it's totally ambiguous but I don't think it's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion.
I'd never use it to try to minimise what he did, though. It just might help explain it- like how his issues with his mother help explain it. Not justify it in a million years. He's still a disgusting rapist, but he's also a fictional character and it can be interesting to see why characters turn out how they do.
Hmm, I'm not actually sure myself, but I can see how people got to the conclusion. He really did change quite dramatically after prison (in a way not really consistent with how long he was in there- it was only a few months, wasn't it?) and started acting really inappropriately with women- the incident with the prostitute and asking Shirley to pay her? Then obviously attacking Shirley... I don't know. Obviously it's totally ambiguous but I don't think it's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion.
I'd never use it to try to minimise what he did, though. It just might help explain it- like how his issues with his mother help explain it. Not justify it in a million years. He's still a disgusting rapist, but he's also a fictional character and it can be interesting to see why characters turn out how they do.
or it could be that he felt bitter and lost respect towards women because it was because of one he ended up in prison.
all the shirley stuff is seperate, he has always had issues with her cos she left him. in fact those two reasons alone would make him weird towards women.
I have zero doubt it would've been Syed or Christian, but not sure which of the two they'd have decided would make a better story. I'm just so glad BBC nipped it in the bud even if it was for the wrong reasons- BK would've made a total mess of it.
I think Syed had most of the focus of their storyline before so I think it could have been Christian who was intended to be the character.
However, I do agree that I don't think (judging by Hollyoaks' writing of it) it would have been written well. Hollyoaks did the storyline well in a couple of ways (JP's initial response by going to the police and James' acting was incredible), but the aftermath was ridiculous - having the victim having the give mouth to mouth to their rapist, have a photograph taken with him for the local newspaper because of it and also being put in prison after the offender swaps witness statements and makes out that the victim is an abuser of another character - why did any of that need to happen?! I stopped watching Hollyoaks in October as I got to the point where I didn't like any of the characters of cared about the show anymore. The writing for JP has been OK in terms of his reactions and character, but after a certain point it got utterly ridiculous. I mean writing him having sex (with his cousin's husband, but that's another stupid point!!) in the school where you were raped barely a year later, I mean really Hollyoaks?!!
So yeh, maybe I am glad it wasn't written back then!
I think the BBC were right to stop the story line, but I'll bet my bottom dollar it was stopped for the wrong reason:
The BBC would have stopped it for fear of offending ( This really bugs me about the Beeb they have a tendency to pander to the PC brigade of idiots). If the Beeb could find a way of offending me I wish they would maybe their content wouldn't be almost as dire as ITV's
I would have stopped it because Kirkwood would have messed it up and made an absolute joke of EE, oh wait he managed that anyway
Err, didn't they already touch on the subject with Michael Moon and Derek Branning? That scene where Derek was panting and doing up his belt after "attacking" Michael had very heavy implications.
Err, didn't they already touch on the subject with Michael Moon and Derek Branning? That scene where Derek was panting and doing up his belt after "attacking" Michael had very heavy implications.
see me, nice normal person with no rape fixation would say maybe he took his belt off to belt him with?
The Derek / Michael dynamic was mentioned on here. Could've been interesting but glad they didn't do that. Kirkwoods take on male rape in on Hollyoaks was awful, so I dread to think how it would've played out on EastEnders.
Comments
They already have with Ashley
I don't remember the male rape aspect being the central point of the story line, I know that she drugged him.
Perhaps my memory fails me.
He told Laurel about it and then was interviewed by the police.
I hope ED doesn't go down that road again for a while.
I don't take any notice of who produces a soap and when - if I like a character, storyline or whatever I like it; if I don't like it then I don't. The producer doesn't come into it.
IMO what soaps should avoid is doing more over dramatic storylines about affairs. The ones where characters treat marriage with as much seriousness as going to the shops and take crazy revenge when wronged. Affairs may be common but I sure don't relate to that at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/02/male-rape-hollyoaks_n_8681414.html
From memory, I assume it would have been Christian or Syed that would have had the storyline then?
Maybe Ben in prison? When did he come back with a new head?
I'm sure this storyline would've been horrific under BK (as the JP one was on HO) but I think it really could've been a good storyline under another producer for Christian. It could've been interesting to see it with someone so strong and so confident. Though he got beaten up practically every other episode anyway, so they'd probably done violence to death with him.
Oh yes, it could have been Ben I suppose. Ben was born in 1996 but in 2010 didn't he turn 16? However old he is, I don't think it would have been him as he would have been very young. Bryan made it sound like it would have been someone older.
Nothing was ever said on screen though.
Yeah, that would've been way too controversial. I think I was thinking of him coming out of prison the second time rather than back then; I'd forgotten how young he was! I remember when he accused Christian of touching him, he was underage (I think 15) so he was only 14 in 2010.
I have zero doubt it would've been Syed or Christian, but not sure which of the two they'd have decided would make a better story. I'm just so glad BBC nipped it in the bud even if it was for the wrong reasons- BK would've made a total mess of it.
no that is just this forums collective imagination
I think it was pretty heavily implied toward the end of his last stint? It would also make some sense to how he ended up so screwed up.
But it isn't canon, no.
no people on this forum just assume it was implied. its never said anywhere else (that i have seen) and It has never been said on screen or indicated in my opinion that it happened
Just a theory, often used in conjunction with trying to defend him in some way
Hmm, I'm not actually sure myself, but I can see how people got to the conclusion. He really did change quite dramatically after prison (in a way not really consistent with how long he was in there- it was only a few months, wasn't it?) and started acting really inappropriately with women- the incident with the prostitute and asking Shirley to pay her? Then obviously attacking Shirley... I don't know. Obviously it's totally ambiguous but I don't think it's ridiculous to jump to that conclusion.
I'd never use it to try to minimise what he did, though. It just might help explain it- like how his issues with his mother help explain it. Not justify it in a million years. He's still a disgusting rapist, but he's also a fictional character and it can be interesting to see why characters turn out how they do.
or it could be that he felt bitter and lost respect towards women because it was because of one he ended up in prison.
all the shirley stuff is seperate, he has always had issues with her cos she left him. in fact those two reasons alone would make him weird towards women.
I think Syed had most of the focus of their storyline before so I think it could have been Christian who was intended to be the character.
However, I do agree that I don't think (judging by Hollyoaks' writing of it) it would have been written well. Hollyoaks did the storyline well in a couple of ways (JP's initial response by going to the police and James' acting was incredible), but the aftermath was ridiculous - having the victim having the give mouth to mouth to their rapist, have a photograph taken with him for the local newspaper because of it and also being put in prison after the offender swaps witness statements and makes out that the victim is an abuser of another character - why did any of that need to happen?! I stopped watching Hollyoaks in October as I got to the point where I didn't like any of the characters of cared about the show anymore. The writing for JP has been OK in terms of his reactions and character, but after a certain point it got utterly ridiculous. I mean writing him having sex (with his cousin's husband, but that's another stupid point!!) in the school where you were raped barely a year later, I mean really Hollyoaks?!!
So yeh, maybe I am glad it wasn't written back then!
The reason I posted today was because I read that Bryan wanted to use a gay character in the storyline, which I didn't know before.
The BBC would have stopped it for fear of offending ( This really bugs me about the Beeb they have a tendency to pander to the PC brigade of idiots). If the Beeb could find a way of offending me I wish they would maybe their content wouldn't be almost as dire as ITV's
I would have stopped it because Kirkwood would have messed it up and made an absolute joke of EE, oh wait he managed that anyway
:kitty::kitty:
see me, nice normal person with no rape fixation would say maybe he took his belt off to belt him with?