It is unrealistic, 80 percent of Hollyoaks gay? Are you high? When do you ever go into an area and have 80 percent of the population being gay? Even Brighton isn't that gay!
Hollyoaks isn't that big so that sort of figure is considering the size. Brighton is much bigger.
It's a student district in a suburb of Chester. I think the number of gay characters is more representative of real life than say EastEnders for example. (not that Hollyoaks aims for gritty realism but at one time EastEnders used to. I think those days are sadly over)
It is unrealistic, 80 percent of Hollyoaks gay? Are you high? When do you ever go into an area and have 80 percent of the population being gay? Even Brighton isn't that gay!
Eastenders is one street in the whole of the East End, so not unrealistic.
But, let's face it, none of the soaps are heading for realism, they include characters and other aspects purely because of story ideas they have or an EP's motivations for the direction of the show.
None of them have a genuine attempt at reflecting the area they are set in.
There'll never be more gay characters than straight or more gay relationships than straight, but it's really the relatability and complexity of the characters and the relationships that matter, regardless of the sexuality of it.
Is it just me who sees a strange irony (perhaps, hypocrisy) in the fact that some people are pointing out how it's unrealistic to have no gay characters on Eastenders currently, whilst simultaneously defending the fact that 16% (I'm not going to include Tom and Peri, like one of the posters above) of the main characters of Hollyoaks are LGBT, which it's fair to say is an optimistic representation of society?
Bear in mind that Hollyoaks currently has ONE Asian character (2.3% of the main characters), when about 8% of the population are Asian.
And ONE black character (2.3% of the main characters) who may be leaving soon (the storyline suggests so. Correct me if I'm wrong), despite about 4% of the population being black.
So let's not pretend that gay characters aren't over-represented. It's a simple fact.
However, over-representing one demographic or another should not be an issue. Drama is drama, regardless of the skin colour, sexuality, gender etc. of the characters. Soaps aren't meant to strictly reflect society. It's not a documentary.
But I do think it's a shame that LGBT characters seem to be consistently over-represented in Hollyoaks recently (presumably because the producers have found gay characters/relationships to be well received by the target audience), whereas it was all the way back in 2010 that there was more than one black main character and back in 2009 that there was more than one Asian main character.
I think in light of how under-represented other demographics are it is a bit rich for people to pretend that LGBT characters aren't quite blatantly over-represented.
As a viewer who has started watching again after several years I have to admit I was a little surprised at the number of gay male characters, the five mentioned and then of course Doug and Brendan who departed earlier this year. There's also apparently a lesbian character who doesn't seem to get much screen time. I don't think it's "too gay" because that would imply there is something wrong with gay characters existing and being at the forefront of the show when it's refreshing to see soaps that don't just have the one token gay character. My only qualms would be how realistic it is but Hollyoaks generally doesn't seem to care too much about realism (the text messages on the screen really annoy me, they never used to do that when I watched it several years ago!), that's not a criticism of the show as it is actually really good at the moment just less concerned than the other soaps about being true to real life.
What I do find quite unrealistic (and disturbing!) though is that Ste nearly had sex with his dad.
I do think people get mixed up with unrealistic and implausible, between something being completely impossible and being highly unlikely but still possible.
I do agree though with the idea that show capitalizes on the appeal of gay relationships. I'm sure for the most part that's how the show's ended up with so many gay characters at one time, and most of them aren't much more than their sexuality.
All that's ended up really happening and what it's all been reduced to, is rushed storylines with bland pointless characters that have no chemistry. Everything's plotdriven, and any two gay characters might be made a couple with no regard for compatibility or attraction or sense. People are quick to assume a character could be secretly gay or could randomly switch teams entirely because that's how the show's conditioned them. That's not anything that should ever just be expected, even on a soap.
But even the straight relationships aren't anything worth investing in these days.
The viewers, because it is unrealistic, just as it would be unrealistic for none of the soaps to have a gay character — which people would then say is homophobic... :sleep:
Maybe some of the plots have been contrived, but I think once you introduce gay characters you can either reduce them to token roles or you can naturally expand their world to include partners, lovers and friends.
Tilly was brought in to help Esther explore her sexuality. Vincent to provide drama between best friends Phoebe and George. The decision to make Danny bisexual at least provided some shock value to his arrival and has been John Paul's first love interest since he returned.
Completely unrealistic, there's not that many openly gay characters in one area, everytime I turn HO on I see men snogging on the screen, so I turn it off again.
How can you possibly know this It may be the case in an area you are familiar with but you cannot know about every single area.
I'm baffled as to why realism is such a bug bear when when it comes to sexuality. When are soaps are realistic and why do they have to be I for one am glad they aren't.
The viewers, because it is unrealistic, just as it would be unrealistic for none of the soaps to have a gay character — which people would then say is homophobic... :sleep:
It's interesting that viewers complain about the idea that there is an over representation of gay characters as making it unrealistic. what about the over representation of serial killers and the rest :rolleyes:
How can you possibly know this It may be the case in an area you are familiar with but you cannot know about every single area.
I'm baffled as to why realism is such a bug bear when when it comes to sexuality. When are soaps are realistic and why do they have to be I for one am glad they aren't.
It's interesting that viewers complain about the idea that there is an over representation of gay characters as making it unrealistic. what about the over representation of serial killers and the rest :rolleyes:
your absolutely right tbh I'm more concerned of how many murderers and psychos are in it, Sienna , Mercy, theresa, Robbie, Finn Trevor, Fraser, Grace, Will, Browning, clair, all in the past year.
some even go unpunished:eek:
still I bet no ones going to start a thread complaining about that:rolleyes:
What about serial killers ? Hollyoaks is a village of the insane that just happens to have gay residents.
An episode doesn't go by without Trevor , Sienna , someone threatening someone, black mailing somebody, disposing a body, abusing, bulling, killing, nearly killing. and no one bats an eye lid
but put 5 or so gay people into a show:eek::eek::eek::eek: OH MY GOD, GET THEM OFF, ITS UNREALISTIC:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Personally, I would say that the fact that it regularly struggles to find even one million viewers tells us all we need to know about all aspects of HO.
I dont watch Hollyoaks regularly enough to know who is gay or straight but my bugbear is that EastEnders with the exception of Danny who appears to Bi now after being Gay at first has ignored LGBT characters since Chryed left.
At least Hollyoaks and Coronation Street represents the LGBT community, EastEnders has failed to do since Chryed departed as Danny has no storyline of his own since he returned.
Emmerdale has three gay female characters as well - Ali, Ruby and Vanessa.
Danny is stlll an LGBT character but one I don't see lasting if the writers don't do something with him.
No, I've never considered it overly gay, as a pp said the ratio of gay to straight is about what you would expect in real life. Now as for murderers or the amount of people who die on a regular basis... That's rather unrealistic.
This could be wrong but the majority of HO viewers I would imagine are women and gay men (possibly women too), so I doubt there's any risk of viewers being alienated.
Is it just me who sees a strange irony (perhaps, hypocrisy) in the fact that some people are pointing out how it's unrealistic to have no gay characters on Eastenders currently, whilst simultaneously defending the fact that 16% (I'm not going to include Tom and Peri, like one of the posters above) of the main characters of Hollyoaks are LGBT, which it's fair to say is an optimistic representation of society?
Bear in mind that Hollyoaks currently has ONE Asian character (2.3% of the main characters), when about 8% of the population are Asian.
And ONE black character (2.3% of the main characters) who may be leaving soon (the storyline suggests so. Correct me if I'm wrong), despite about 4% of the population being black.
So let's not pretend that gay characters aren't over-represented. It's a simple fact.
However, over-representing one demographic or another should not be an issue. Drama is drama, regardless of the skin colour, sexuality, gender etc. of the characters. Soaps aren't meant to strictly reflect society. It's not a documentary.
But I do think it's a shame that LGBT characters seem to be consistently over-represented in Hollyoaks recently (presumably because the producers have found gay characters/relationships to be well received by the target audience), whereas it was all the way back in 2010 that there was more than one black main character and back in 2009 that there was more than one Asian main character.
I think in light of how under-represented other demographics are it is a bit rich for people to pretend that LGBT characters aren't quite blatantly over-represented.
Race and sexuality aren't the same thing. For a metropolitan setting based around young people and students in particular it's hard to say there is over representation.
Comments
Hollyoaks isn't that big so that sort of figure is considering the size. Brighton is much bigger.
very true.
Straight Characters-
Tony, Cindy, Jack, Darren, Frankie, Tom, Holly, Nancy, Mercedes, Carmel, Nana, Theresa, Sinead, Finn, Diane, Ruby, Dodger, Dirk, Dennis, Maxine, Patrick, Sienna, Phoebe, Jim, Robbie, Freddie, Jason, Joe, Ziggy, Sandy, Lindsey, Sam, Fraser, Peri, Tegan, Leela, Grace and Trevor
Bi Characters-
Danny
Gay Characters-
Ste, John Paul, Esther, Tilly, George and Vincent
So to the nearest whole number (I know it doesn't add up to 100)
Straight = 84%
Bi = 2%
Gay = 13%
Which means 3/20 characters are LGBT
So hardly 80% are gay
But, let's face it, none of the soaps are heading for realism, they include characters and other aspects purely because of story ideas they have or an EP's motivations for the direction of the show.
None of them have a genuine attempt at reflecting the area they are set in.
There'll never be more gay characters than straight or more gay relationships than straight, but it's really the relatability and complexity of the characters and the relationships that matter, regardless of the sexuality of it.
Bear in mind that Hollyoaks currently has ONE Asian character (2.3% of the main characters), when about 8% of the population are Asian.
And ONE black character (2.3% of the main characters) who may be leaving soon (the storyline suggests so. Correct me if I'm wrong), despite about 4% of the population being black.
So let's not pretend that gay characters aren't over-represented. It's a simple fact.
However, over-representing one demographic or another should not be an issue. Drama is drama, regardless of the skin colour, sexuality, gender etc. of the characters. Soaps aren't meant to strictly reflect society. It's not a documentary.
But I do think it's a shame that LGBT characters seem to be consistently over-represented in Hollyoaks recently (presumably because the producers have found gay characters/relationships to be well received by the target audience), whereas it was all the way back in 2010 that there was more than one black main character and back in 2009 that there was more than one Asian main character.
I think in light of how under-represented other demographics are it is a bit rich for people to pretend that LGBT characters aren't quite blatantly over-represented.
Cause' this is obviously a wind-up.
What I do find quite unrealistic (and disturbing!) though is that Ste nearly had sex with his dad.
All that's ended up really happening and what it's all been reduced to, is rushed storylines with bland pointless characters that have no chemistry. Everything's plotdriven, and any two gay characters might be made a couple with no regard for compatibility or attraction or sense. People are quick to assume a character could be secretly gay or could randomly switch teams entirely because that's how the show's conditioned them. That's not anything that should ever just be expected, even on a soap.
But even the straight relationships aren't anything worth investing in these days.
The viewers, because it is unrealistic, just as it would be unrealistic for none of the soaps to have a gay character — which people would then say is homophobic... :sleep:
IMO this sums up the criticism.
How can you possibly know this
I'm baffled as to why realism is such a bug bear when when it comes to sexuality. When are soaps are realistic and why do they have to be
It's interesting that viewers complain about the idea that there is an over representation of gay characters as making it unrealistic. what about the over representation of serial killers
your absolutely right tbh I'm more concerned of how many murderers and psychos are in it, Sienna , Mercy, theresa, Robbie, Finn Trevor, Fraser, Grace, Will, Browning, clair, all in the past year.
some even go unpunished:eek:
still I bet no ones going to start a thread complaining about that:rolleyes:
What about serial killers ? Hollyoaks is a village of the insane that just happens to have gay residents.
An episode doesn't go by without Trevor , Sienna , someone threatening someone, black mailing somebody, disposing a body, abusing, bulling, killing, nearly killing. and no one bats an eye lid
but put 5 or so gay people into a show:eek::eek::eek::eek: OH MY GOD, GET THEM OFF, ITS UNREALISTIC:rolleyes::rolleyes:
People out there seriously need GROW UP:mad:
Sophie
Sophies new love interest whos coming in soon
Sean
Jen
Marcus (do we count him
Todd
whats the betting everyone will start threads about that:sleep:
Emmerdale has three gay female characters as well - Ali, Ruby and Vanessa.
Danny is stlll an LGBT character but one I don't see lasting if the writers don't do something with him.
Race and sexuality aren't the same thing. For a metropolitan setting based around young people and students in particular it's hard to say there is over representation.