|
||||||||
Channel 4: Hollyoaks NOT Under threat |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 840
|
Channel 4: Hollyoaks NOT Under threat
The guardian reports that teen soap Hollyoaks is not under threat despite independent producers are pitching to channel 4 for a new show on the 6:30 time slot.
This has left me further puzzled about the future of the Channel 4 soap...hope it stays on- I have loved it this week! http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...t-under-threat |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,355
|
As I've said in many other threads, if they were considering axing it why would they commission a new series of Hollyoaks Later? It just wouldn't make sense.
Hollyoaks is fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,880
|
I'm no surfie/raven, but what i'm worried about is
a) Why are pitches being received for the 6:30 slot? They're obviously looking at ideas for what could take over the slot. b) It says that "for the next year [Channel 4] regards things with the soap as "business as usual". "for the next year..." I.E. until the contract runs out. Just like it was "business as usual" with Brookside until the contract was coming to an end. I think Hollyoaks is at great risk of losing its 6:30 slot by next year and becoming E4 only (perhaps with the C4 Sunday omnibus too). But there's still a while to go and things might get better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 178
|
Quote:
I'm no surfie/raven, but what i'm worried about is
a) Why are pitches being received for the 6:30 slot? They're obviously looking at ideas for what could take over the slot. b) It says that "for the next year [Channel 4] regards things with the soap as "business as usual". "for the next year..." I.E. until the contract runs out. Just like it was "business as usual" with Brookside until the contract was coming to an end. I think Hollyoaks is at great risk of losing its 6:30 slot by next year and becoming E4 only (perhaps with the C4 Sunday omnibus too). But there's still a while to go and things might get better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South London
Posts: 1,426
|
I stopped watching HO last year, the last episode I saw was the one where Chris left and they played Green Days Good ridence song.
I hope it doesn't get the axe all the same though, I'd be very surprised if another teen show could attract the same level of audience. Its still raking in around a million on C4, in this day and age thats still pretty good going. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,131
|
I actually don't think it would do any harm to have it got to e4 all the time - there's far to many viewings of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 178
|
It's just stupid to suggest it's not under threat...the very fact that C4 keep coming out and saying it tells us that it IS UNDER THREAT and so it should be. They've messed it up BADLY in the last year. Too many wooden, boring, gormless morons that they think appeal to a TEEN audience when TEENS LOVE SOAPS LIKE CORRY, EMMERDALE AND EASTIES! Take a leaf out of phil collinsons book and stop being sooo trashy, settle with your cast, have real BELIEVABLE families who go through things together, suffer together, come through hardships together and have a good old laugh doing it. Hollyoaks is too gordy at the mo, too trashy. More people watch NEIGHBOURS than HOLLYOAKS and think about it, NEIGHBOURS is very young and has always generated a young audience, it does it through real and believable family orientated drama that doesn't resort to TRASHY OVER THE TOP SENSATIONALIST STORYLINES THAT ARE SOOO FAR FETCHED WE FAIL TO CARE ANYMORE NO MATTER HOW OLD WE ARE. The Savages stink to high heaven. Get a grip HOLLYOAKS before it's too late!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Channel 4's statement is just like that from a football club chairman about a beleaguered manager, supporting his manager just before giving him the sack.
Channel 4 will deny axe rumour for the time being because the risk of Nikon pulling out of their sponorship deal. However Channel 4 cannot be happy with the spiraling costs of what it takes to make Hollyoaks and the limited returns they get back from advertising and sponsorship deals as Hollyoaks no longer has the appeal it once did to it's target audience. With regard to Hollyoaks Later that is a seperate entity and noting to do with the commissioning run of the main show because it's a one off. However given that Hollyoaks Later impacts on the main show taking away better cast members then it's logical to comission another one in the hope it damages the main programme and loses it viewers. It isn't beyond the realms of possiblity that TV broadcasters - and programme makers come to that - deliberately damage a programme to get it axed by driving away viewers. At the moment Hollyoaks has all the hallmarks of a programme being deliberately left to rot in an excuse to get it axed by the lack of concern over the low ratings. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,633
|
Quote:
It's just stupid to suggest it's not under threat...the very fact that C4 keep coming out and saying it tells us that it IS UNDER THREAT and so it should be. They've messed it up BADLY in the last year. Too many wooden, boring, gormless morons that they think appeal to a TEEN audience when TEENS LOVE SOAPS LIKE CORRY, EMMERDALE AND EASTIES! Take a leaf out of phil collinsons book and stop being sooo trashy, settle with your cast, have real BELIEVABLE families who go through things together, suffer together, come through hardships together and have a good old laugh doing it. Hollyoaks is too gordy at the mo, too trashy. More people watch NEIGHBOURS than HOLLYOAKS and think about it, NEIGHBOURS is very young and has always generated a young audience, it does it through real and believable family orientated drama that doesn't resort to TRASHY OVER THE TOP SENSATIONALIST STORYLINES THAT ARE SOOO FAR FETCHED WE FAIL TO CARE ANYMORE NO MATTER HOW OLD WE ARE. The Savages stink to high heaven. Get a grip HOLLYOAKS before it's too late!
There's still plenty of time to put it right, but yeah, things need some rebalancing. And personally I would "rebalance" the entire Savage clan into the trashcan, right now. Like they did with the Sharpes. Big mistake. Huge. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 178
|
Quote:
Channel 4's statement is just like that from a football club chairman about a beleaguered manager, supporting his manager just before giving him the sack.
Channel 4 will deny axe rumour for the time being because the risk of Nikon pulling out of their sponorship deal. However Channel 4 cannot be happy with the spiraling costs of what it takes to make Hollyoaks and the limited returns they get back from advertising and sponsorship deals as Hollyoaks no longer has the appeal it once did to it's target audience. With regard to Hollyoaks Later that is a seperate entity and noting to do with the commissioning run of the main show because it's a one off. However given that Hollyoaks Later impacts on the main show taking away better cast members then it's logical to comission another one in the hope it damages the main programme and loses it viewers. It isn't beyond the realms of possiblity that TV broadcasters - and programme makers come to that - deliberately damage a programme to get it axed by driving away viewers. At the moment Hollyoaks has all the hallmarks of a programme being deliberately left to rot in an excuse to get it axed by the lack of concern over the low ratings. I think you are right, and I think the decision has already been made. HOLLYOAKS feels like it's bleeding to death and it is going to be really hard to watch it suffer the death of a thousand over the top storylines in a bid to sensationalise it back to life. That's what happened to Brookside and Lime are doing the same again here. WHY? When there is a formula out there that works. Follow the Corry mold, makle the families believable again with a genuine community feel. Young people respond to drama they can relate to and it just seems to be full of really, really wooden airheads IMO. Sorry but HOLLYOAKS you only have yourself to blame. I hope GP can be brave enough to turn it around with sensible dramatic cliffhanging drama that broadens its audience, young dippy airheads just narrows your viewing audience because we feel insulted by their stupidity. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,357
|
This is exactly what they said just before PM was axed, PM himself also denied a crisis and said he wan't going anywhere. It's standard practise to deny everything to not make anyone panic.
PM's work is shortly coming to an end. I think the new Producer will be on a month by month rolling contract. Which is pretty much what happened with Brookside. Hence why they didn't do a massive search for a new producer, because it's fate is sealed. They simply promoted a writer to watch over things, they have had 2 urgent meeting already this year, both to do with castings and storylining. I think they will go as far as the 16th anniversary which will coincide with Hollyoaks Later in the Autumn and then it will be axed. We already know that there is huge doubt over several key characters on Hollyoaks at the moment. Andrew Moss was only given a 1 year contract following the departure of the rest of his on screen family. Anthony Quinlan's character has pretty much been destroyed by his storylines over the last year - Steph dying, losing his job, rape accusation, losing his best friend. There's no way he can advance now. There was serious doubt over Ashley Davies, is she staying, is she going. This hasn't really been cleared up, all we know is she's barely on screen nowadays, the rest of her on screen family and past friends have already gone. Claire Cooper is reportedly moving on with rumour of joining up with BK again, plus has The Closet to run. Gemma Merna is getting married this Summer. Jen Metcalfe has been in and out of work for years, so won't have any problems moving on, after Dancing On Ice, there was serious doubts over her signing a new contract. Has The Closet to look after as well. Bronagh Waugh is writing a comedy show, in which she is sending to TV companies. Emmett Scanlan only signed a short contract when he joined and is busy doing his own films. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 178
|
Quote:
I actually agree with this, pretty much. I think PM tried to get a balance between family stuff (Sharpes, Costellos, O'Connors) and the more flashy or gangstery stuff. But of the families, only the Costellos have really settled, whereas the Brendan/Warren/Mitzeee stuff has really worked. And Silas. But there isn't enough family stuff to balance it out, and they are in the process of wrecking the McQueens by putting them together with the useless Savages - Shameless-Lite.
There's still plenty of time to put it right, but yeah, things need some rebalancing. And personally I would "rebalance" the entire Savage clan into the trashcan, right now. Like they did with the Sharpes. Big mistake. Huge. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,496
|
Quote:
Channel 4's statement is just like that from a football club chairman about a beleaguered manager, supporting his manager just before giving him the sack.
Channel 4 will deny axe rumour for the time being because the risk of Nikon pulling out of their sponorship deal. However Channel 4 cannot be happy with the spiraling costs of what it takes to make Hollyoaks and the limited returns they get back from advertising and sponsorship deals as Hollyoaks no longer has the appeal it once did to it's target audience. With regard to Hollyoaks Later that is a seperate entity and noting to do with the commissioning run of the main show because it's a one off. However given that Hollyoaks Later impacts on the main show taking away better cast members then it's logical to comission another one in the hope it damages the main programme and loses it viewers. It isn't beyond the realms of possiblity that TV broadcasters - and programme makers come to that - deliberately damage a programme to get it axed by driving away viewers. At the moment Hollyoaks has all the hallmarks of a programme being deliberately left to rot in an excuse to get it axed by the lack of concern over the low ratings. my feelings exactly, I would also like to add that my daughter is a teenager, which is the market that they are looking to please and she really dislikes the way the show is going, especially the awful teens |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8,274
|
If C4 did axe Hollyoaks do you think there would be any chance of having it just screen on E4, a bit like what's happened with Neighbours in Australia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,357
|
Quote:
If C4 did axe Hollyoaks do you think there would be any chance of having it just screen on E4, a bit like what's happened with Neighbours in Australia?
If it goes, it will be gone forever. I can see them creating a new soap though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 178
|
Quote:
If C4 did axe Hollyoaks do you think there would be any chance of having it just screen on E4, a bit like what's happened with Neighbours in Australia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 178
|
it's definately going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: I exist here and there.
Posts: 866
|
I stopped watching it last year and switched to watching Home and Away, I used to love HO but it got the point where there were so many new characters and so many of the old characters that I liked were leaving it just lost it's appeal for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
If C4 did axe Hollyoaks do you think there would be any chance of having it just screen on E4, a bit like what's happened with Neighbours in Australia?
With Hollyoaks at what must be nearly £40 million costs to make per year it would be to expensive to have as a sole e4 programme. Hollyoaks could have - and should have - been saved last year. It wasn't and all the problems that were covered up have come through even worse. Hollyoaks still has the annoying schoolkids that plagued Lucy Allan's era, only worse and more of them. Meanwhile storylines are still hit or miss, often with the air now of being made up as they go along, or even totally suspending all reality like brinig back Warren from the dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,066
|
Hollyoaks should not rest on its laurels and start bucking up its ideas - especially if the rumours of C4 looking for pitches for other shows are true.
Firstly, the cast is overbloated. The first four months of the years have had so many new characters resulting in many of the older ones having next to nothing to do. Storyline are picked up and dropped, characters disappearing and the editing could be much improved. Axe the characters everybody moans about, push to the forefront the most talented actors and use these actors to the maximum of their potential. Give the old-time viewers more of what they want - more characters they know or care about like the Osbournes, the McQueens, Tony, Cindy (where's she gone?), Nancy, the Bradys and Rhys. Does anyone honestly care about the Savages or Gaz? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,609
|
Must admit the Savages/aaGaz arent that good,although Liberty is marginally better than the other characters.I'm sure C4 are just trying to scare the producers into bucking up their ideas
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,633
|
Quote:
Hollyoaks should not rest on its laurels and start bucking up its ideas - especially if the rumours of C4 looking for pitches for other shows are true.
Firstly, the cast is overbloated. The first four months of the years have had so many new characters resulting in many of the older ones having next to nothing to do. Storyline are picked up and dropped, characters disappearing and the editing could be much improved. Axe the characters everybody moans about, push to the forefront the most talented actors and use these actors to the maximum of their potential. Give the old-time viewers more of what they want - more characters they know or care about like the Osbournes, the McQueens, Tony, Cindy (where's she gone?), Nancy, the Bradys and Rhys. Does anyone honestly care about the Savages or Gaz? ![]() Cindy and the McQueens are currently being wasted by throwing them into the Savage black hole. There are things that need fixing on the show right now, mainly the rubbish comedy filler, and the unlikeability of some of the characters. Giving Liberty a family and extending Gaz's contract isn't what I would have done to try and fix them. ![]() Not to be too doomy though, the Rhys stuff is really good at the moment, and I have a big thing for Nancy and Darren together. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,029
|
Theres no smoke withought fire.
They wouldve ignored all the tittle tattling if there was nothing to talk about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,477
|
Last year, there was a rumour that Jay Hunt, Channel 4's new chief creative officer, had Hollyoaks in her sights.
Now the story has resurfaced, this time with reports of C4 'receiving' pitches for a new 6:30pm soap. I hate to burst any bubbles out there - but production companies don't develop new soaps overnight. They take time and require significant investment. And new soaps are not developed unless there is a clear sign from a broadcaster that there might be demand for one. It's therefore pretty clear that Jay Hunt has indicated to a number of production companies that she wants to replace Hollyoaks with a new soap - and that is why C4 has been 'receiving' these pitches. I think it would take some kind of miracle for Hollyoaks to escape the chop now. Hunt has sent such a strong signal - and nowhere does she herself insist that the show is safe. The show getting axed would be a massive blow for Lime Pictures and, indeed, for Liverpool. Any replacement will obviously be aimed at the same demographic, or similar ... but who would make it? I'd keep an eye on Red Planet (Tony Jordan's company) and Lovely Day (Diederick Santer & Dominic Treadwell-Collins) - both perfectly equipped ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: sociopathic island
Posts: 5,236
|
what happend to the sharps
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:22.





