I think they also have this 'who can we nominate for awards' stuff going on too. Every year there seems to be more and more of it go on. Someone has a few good scenes 'she better be up for an award'
I honestly think they purposely use certain stories, certain actors and characters they know will be up for the main awards and then give them every storyline till they can bleed it dry. So that's why we have so many 'specatular scenes' and why no character can be anything but miserble and cry for a year.
I read recently, this might have been on twitter, a press officer say that no character can be contented no one wants to see that, they want to see the characters struggle, so we have to find ways of keeping that going. We can't have a soap couple can stay together without putting a wedge between them. Happy couples are boring nobody wants to see it. We have to create drama to keep people watching and keep them talking.
In my mind that is the attitude that is all wrong. To some extent yes they do have to keep it going. But not when it's at expense of the character and for drama sake because it ruins the characters compeletely. That's how you get a Kat and Alfie disaster. It's how you bleed characters dry till they have nowhere else to go and then leave. Becky in corrie. Stacey and Tanya in Eastenders. It means you can't really care about the characters because it's plot drama rather than naturally building character. And I think it shows they use this more often than not which is why we need a serial killer every year in every soap, which let's face it is pretty much overkill, as an affair, love triangle or who's the daddy is.
I think they also have this 'who can we nominate for awards' stuff going on too. Every year there seems to be more and more of it go on. Someone has a few good scenes 'she better be up for an award'
I honestly think they purposely use certain stories, certain actors and characters they know will be up for the main awards and then give them every storyline till they can bleed it dry. So that's why we have so many 'specatular scenes' and why no character can be anything but miserble and cry for a year.
I read recently, this might have been on twitter, a press officer say that no character can be contented no one wants to see that, they want to see the characters struggle, so we have to find ways of keeping that going. We can't have a soap couple can stay together without putting a wedge between them. Happy couples are boring nobody wants to see it. We have to create drama to keep people watching and keep them talking.
In my mind that is the attitude that is all wrong. To some extent yes they do have to keep it going. But not when it's at expense of the character and for drama sake because it ruins the characters compeletely. That's how you get a Kat and Alfie disaster. It's how you bleed characters dry till they have nowhere else to go and then leave. Becky in corrie. Stacey and Tanya in Eastenders. It means you can't really care about the characters because it's plot drama rather than naturally building character. And I think it shows they use this more often than not which is why we need a serial killer every year in every soap, which let's face it is pretty much overkill, as an affair, love triangle or who's the daddy is.
Just shows how utterly useless, clueless and devoid of imagination the people who work behind the scenes on soaps really are.
(Although it will never happen...) Corrie and EE should collectively get together, and then announce simultaneously that they're BOTH going down to three episodes a week. I think it would be a brave move and would mean neither 'lost face' or looked like they were giving in because they'd lost a ratings war. If they explained why they were doing it - to improve the quality, and perhaps make more special 'one-off' episodes focusing on a particular storyline or character, I think they'd actually get the viewers behind them.
Neighbours hands down is the best "Soap" at the moment because it is doing what it should be doing, depicting every day life, that is in essence what it should really be about, they do the odd stunt and senational story but like real life that does not happen every week in a small suburb. They are strong as well with the continuity to the past, they really want to embrace what made the show what it was so again, like in real life you see old faces coming back every so often because they work, live away etc. British Soaps are so inward looking, as soon as someone leaves they are forgotten about, even if their family still "live there".
Neighbours hands down is the best "Soap" at the moment because it is doing what it should be doing, depicting every day life, that is in essence what it should really be about, they do the odd stunt and senational story but like real life that does not happen every week in a small suburb. They are strong as well with the continuity to the past, they really want to embrace what made the show what it was so again, like in real life you see old faces coming back every so often because they work, live away etc. British Soaps are so inward looking, as soon as someone leaves they are forgotten about, even if their family still "live there".
I haven't watched Neighbours properly for years. It does sound like the show has had a real turnaround. A few years ago I heard many people say the producer (Susan Bower) was dreadful and really ruining the show.
One example of bad continuity during this time being the Jill Ramsay character. Meant to be a nod to the shows past but a lovechild between Ann Robinson and Max Ramsay who was put up for adoption???
Anyone who has seen the early episodes knows how ridiculous this is and there would be better more realistic ways to bring back the Ramsays.
How does it do for ratings now? I know it does/did perform very poorly in Australia and only really kept alive by it's appeal overseas (especially the UK)
(Although it will never happen...) Corrie and EE should collectively get together, and then announce simultaneously that they're BOTH going down to three episodes a week. I think it would be a brave move and would mean neither 'lost face' or looked like they were giving in because they'd lost a ratings war. If they explained why they were doing it - to improve the quality, and perhaps make more special 'one-off' episodes focusing on a particular storyline or character, I think they'd actually get the viewers behind them.
And Emmerdale I do agree here but unless their ratings really drop off they won't do anything like that, it was cost money to fill the vacated slots.
They hit on the idea that if they stretch the soaps to more weekly slots, people will still watch, out of habit rather than enjoyment
Neighbours was moved to Channel 11 in Austrailia almost 2 years ago and its ratings are still holding strong for it, of course it is the International Market, especially the UK which keeps it going in many ways however there is still a lot of life left in the show for it to keep going for another 25 years easily.
I remember reading about how Kate and Sophie came in, with Jack Lassiter coming back for a stint, Lucy Robinson, I think the precedent and the desire is there to always be looking to respect the past, as long as there is a Robinson or a Ramsay on the Street there will always be potential to bring some big past characters back. Scott and Charlene will never happen, unless they can convince Jason/Kylie to come back for the 30th Anniversary, so for me would love to see either Shane or Henry Ramsay back or Doctor Clive Gibbons!
Neighbours hands down is the best "Soap" at the moment because it is doing what it should be doing, depicting every day life, that is in essence what it should really be about, they do the odd stunt and senational story but like real life that does not happen every week in a small suburb. They are strong as well with the continuity to the past, they really want to embrace what made the show what it was so again, like in real life you see old faces coming back every so often because they work, live away etc. British Soaps are so inward looking, as soon as someone leaves they are forgotten about, even if their family still "live there".
Home and Away is very good at that. Many of the characters from the late 80s/early 90s return for weddings, funerals etc. Most of the original cast have been back at some stage even it's 10-15 years down the line.
Neighbours isn't that great at the moment. Some weird decisions by the new producer axing characters and bringing in new families with zero personality (bar 1).
Soaps used to mimic more of real life with a little added drama but now they are mainly hard hitting unrealistic with very little about real everyday life.
The increase of channels has led to less viewers along with life style been at a faster pace, less people have time to be glued to the TV.
Simple a max of 3 episodes per week would increase quality of writing and allow actors time to rehearse, which for the younger less experienced cast would be a huge bonus. However the channels want the audience, ITV especially need to draw audiences for advertising revenue.
In the 80s Corrie and EE had 2 episodes a week. At that stage Emmerdale Farm was not seen exactly in the same vein. Wanting to recreate the high (20m +) figures for their flagship soaps they created more soaps. Albion Market on ITV and in the early 90s Eldorado on BBC. both shows flopped and showed that the magic couldn't be recreated at will... the solution... a third episode of Corrie and EE... and then more episodes were added when these were a success...
There are too many episodes and too many murders. I think corrie had one in the first twenty years but now they're a common occurrence. Even EastEnders didn't have that much in the early days.
Exactly right! I for ages have been wanting Eastenders to go back to 2 episodes a week again on the Tuesday and Thrsday nights which broke up the week well anyway.
What we have had for some time in 4 episodes plus a week is quantity over quality and that IS the reason why soaps are so poor on the whole though Doctors holds its own very well.
What determines the show's survival is not the quality, but the ratings. For instance, take Corrie. It could become a hideous, repetitive, boring heap of depressing trash, but if people watch it, it's staying on. And Corrie in particular often secures VERY high ratings. People are still tuning in, and as long as people tune in, the shows will be safe.
It's easy to say they get a huge majority share of the ratings, but what kind of competition do they get?
Emmerdale only real rival is The One Show. Channel 4 News is not relevant in this day and age and other freeivew/main sky channels consist of repeats of You've Been Framed, Hollyoaks, The Simpsons, Murder She Wrote etc.
Eastenders and Coronation Street have more competiton, but it's usually stuff like University Challenge, Countrywise, Police Interceptors or at the most some bland quiz.
Not like they're up against Doc Martin, New Tricks, Benidorm etc.
The fact that all the channels are on demand and you can watch what you when you want you don't have to watch at a set time it's not the end of the world if you miss it..
When the bbc iplayer put shows on there before they air be fun to see if the how many people tune in.
Corrie and Emmerdale could manage perfectly well on four episodes a week. They're only slack around the edges and a slight reduction in episodes would make two fairly-tight ships very tight indeed.
EastEnders though has never really worked beyond three episodes a week, possibly because it used to be faster-paced than ITV's soaps, so I'd knock that Friday ep off. I'd also scrap the doubles which I loathe.
Comments
I honestly think they purposely use certain stories, certain actors and characters they know will be up for the main awards and then give them every storyline till they can bleed it dry. So that's why we have so many 'specatular scenes' and why no character can be anything but miserble and cry for a year.
I read recently, this might have been on twitter, a press officer say that no character can be contented no one wants to see that, they want to see the characters struggle, so we have to find ways of keeping that going. We can't have a soap couple can stay together without putting a wedge between them. Happy couples are boring nobody wants to see it. We have to create drama to keep people watching and keep them talking.
In my mind that is the attitude that is all wrong. To some extent yes they do have to keep it going. But not when it's at expense of the character and for drama sake because it ruins the characters compeletely. That's how you get a Kat and Alfie disaster. It's how you bleed characters dry till they have nowhere else to go and then leave. Becky in corrie. Stacey and Tanya in Eastenders. It means you can't really care about the characters because it's plot drama rather than naturally building character. And I think it shows they use this more often than not which is why we need a serial killer every year in every soap, which let's face it is pretty much overkill, as an affair, love triangle or who's the daddy is.
Just shows how utterly useless, clueless and devoid of imagination the people who work behind the scenes on soaps really are.
I haven't watched Neighbours properly for years. It does sound like the show has had a real turnaround. A few years ago I heard many people say the producer (Susan Bower) was dreadful and really ruining the show.
One example of bad continuity during this time being the Jill Ramsay character. Meant to be a nod to the shows past but a lovechild between Ann Robinson and Max Ramsay who was put up for adoption???
Anyone who has seen the early episodes knows how ridiculous this is and there would be better more realistic ways to bring back the Ramsays.
How does it do for ratings now? I know it does/did perform very poorly in Australia and only really kept alive by it's appeal overseas (especially the UK)
And Emmerdale
They hit on the idea that if they stretch the soaps to more weekly slots, people will still watch, out of habit rather than enjoyment
I remember reading about how Kate and Sophie came in, with Jack Lassiter coming back for a stint, Lucy Robinson, I think the precedent and the desire is there to always be looking to respect the past, as long as there is a Robinson or a Ramsay on the Street there will always be potential to bring some big past characters back. Scott and Charlene will never happen, unless they can convince Jason/Kylie to come back for the 30th Anniversary, so for me would love to see either Shane or Henry Ramsay back or Doctor Clive Gibbons!
Home and Away is very good at that. Many of the characters from the late 80s/early 90s return for weddings, funerals etc. Most of the original cast have been back at some stage even it's 10-15 years down the line.
The increase of channels has led to less viewers along with life style been at a faster pace, less people have time to be glued to the TV.
In the 80s Corrie and EE had 2 episodes a week. At that stage Emmerdale Farm was not seen exactly in the same vein. Wanting to recreate the high (20m +) figures for their flagship soaps they created more soaps. Albion Market on ITV and in the early 90s Eldorado on BBC. both shows flopped and showed that the magic couldn't be recreated at will... the solution... a third episode of Corrie and EE... and then more episodes were added when these were a success...
Exactly right! I for ages have been wanting Eastenders to go back to 2 episodes a week again on the Tuesday and Thrsday nights which broke up the week well anyway.
What we have had for some time in 4 episodes plus a week is quantity over quality and that IS the reason why soaps are so poor on the whole though Doctors holds its own very well.
Emmerdale only real rival is The One Show. Channel 4 News is not relevant in this day and age and other freeivew/main sky channels consist of repeats of You've Been Framed, Hollyoaks, The Simpsons, Murder She Wrote etc.
Eastenders and Coronation Street have more competiton, but it's usually stuff like University Challenge, Countrywise, Police Interceptors or at the most some bland quiz.
Not like they're up against Doc Martin, New Tricks, Benidorm etc.
When the bbc iplayer put shows on there before they air be fun to see if the how many people tune in.
EastEnders though has never really worked beyond three episodes a week, possibly because it used to be faster-paced than ITV's soaps, so I'd knock that Friday ep off. I'd also scrap the doubles which I loathe.