DS Forums

 
 

Soap Disaster Storylines


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-07-2011, 16:22
bhvictory
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,294

I've often wondered why it is that if a soap disaster is announced these days why it receives so much negativity.......

I find it odd that people say Coronation Street was going in the wrong direction with the tram crash for example, when there was a similar storyline as far back as 1967.......

And what of the fire in Emmerdale? I've just been watching the Crossgill Fire episodes from 1988 and I doubt they would have generated such negativity back then, or would they have been deemed acceptable because they involved an "original cast" member........ The same was said of the bus crash in 2000, that it wouldn't have happened in the early days....... I remember Coronation Street had a coach crash in 1969, but people don't talk about that in the same way......

Soaps have always had big disasters, they're part and parcel of life and something which can not be avoided.......

Some say it's because towards the end of the 90s special effects got cleverer and more up-to-date....... Surely that's progress??????
bhvictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-07-2011, 16:36
ilovecorrie2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,524
I've often wondered why it is that if a soap disaster is announced these days why it receives so much negativity.......

I find it odd that people say Coronation Street was going in the wrong direction with the tram crash for example, when there was a similar storyline as far back as 1967.......

And what of the fire in Emmerdale? I've just been watching the Crossgill Fire episodes from 1988 and I doubt they would have generated such negativity back then, or would they have been deemed acceptable because they involved an "original cast" member........ The same was said of the bus crash in 2000, that it wouldn't have happened in the early days....... I remember Coronation Street had a coach crash in 1969, but people don't talk about that in the same way......

Soaps have always had big disasters, they're part and parcel of life and something which can not be avoided.......

Some say it's because towards the end of the 90s special effects got cleverer and more up-to-date....... Surely that's progress??????
There's the argument that the more sensationalist a programme becomes it's eventually doomed because people get fed up of seeing such things time and again - hence the demise of Brookside. And maybe some people aren't keen on making entertainment out of such things? The bus crash in the 60s was an isolated event and Corrie was the only soap on offer. Most soaps now tend to have something major happening and it just gets too much especially if you watch more than one soap
ilovecorrie2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 16:45
bhvictory
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,294
There's the argument that the more sensationalist a programme becomes it's eventually doomed because people get fed up of seeing such things time and again - hence the demise of Brookside. And maybe some people aren't keen on making entertainment out of such things? The bus crash in the 60s was an isolated event and Corrie was the only soap on offer. Most soaps now tend to have something major happening and it just gets too much especially if you watch more than one soap
"These things happen to people, and we show them happening - everything that happens in Emmerdale Farm could happen and I think does happen to ordinary people" (Kevin Laffan, Emmerdale creator, 1982)

Like people seem to think that the plane crash was Emmerdale's first disaster, despite there having been several fires, a storm and a mine explosion, not to mention the death of the Skilbeck twins, all in the 1970s.....

If soaps "only" showed people sitting down drinking tea and gossiping, which they never have "just" done, that would be so dull and unrealistic no-one would want to watch it....
bhvictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 17:27
ilovecorrie2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,524
"These things happen to people, and we show them happening - everything that happens in Emmerdale Farm could happen and I think does happen to ordinary people" (Kevin Laffan, Emmerdale creator, 1982)

Like people seem to think that the plane crash was Emmerdale's first disaster, despite there having been several fires, a storm and a mine explosion, not to mention the death of the Skilbeck twins, all in the 1970s.....

If soaps "only" showed people sitting down drinking tea and gossiping, which they never have "just" done, that would be so dull and unrealistic no-one would want to watch it....
But equally people don't have or know people who have so many disasters in their lives. It gets exhausting (and eventually boring) to see people in such turmoil all the time especially when it's the same characters. That is why we need some humour in soaps to balance out all the melodrama otherwise it just gets tedious no matter how dramatic the storyline may appear to be.
ilovecorrie2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 17:33
Malik24
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,456
Disasters need to be done very well to be effective. Doing them for the sake of it is a waste of budget - but there are a couple which spawned some good scenes. Remember that people watch soaps typically for a 'dramatic setting', rather than an action film - of which there are many out there already.
Malik24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 17:44
big dan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,257
A disaster is only really worthwhile for me in the long-term if the events that take place have a long-lasting effect on the characters involved in some shape or form.

For example, the tram crash was great for me as yes, the stunt itself was great (minus the Godzilla thing they did with it just before the end of the stunt). However, the fact that the lives of so many characters were turned upside down as a result - Molly/Kevin climax, Nick/Leanne/Peter/Carla to name the two major ones was what made it such compelling television.

I don't really like doing the whole Corrie vs EE thing, but looking at the tram crash in contract to the Queen Vic fire really epitomizes what makes a stunt worthwhile, and what makes it nothing more than good tv at the time for me. The episode of the fire itself was compelling television, and it actually seemed like they were spiralling so many characters' stories in different directions as a result of it.

However, Zainab saving Syed (which was one of my favourite elements of the ep as it was so under-stated) was completely brushed aside and when we finally saw them again they were just going through the same old motions with no development as a result. It was clear the reason it was so under-stated was not for any effect, but because they merely wanted a bit more emotion for that episode and had no intention of taking that story in a different direction at that time.

Don't think anything needs to be said about the Phil fiasco. The only story that really benefited in the long-term was Stacey/Ryan/Lily, but that turned into a mess so yeah... was just a stunt for the sake of it really in my opinion.

So basically, a stunt can produce some visually stunning episodes, with some edge-of-your seat drama. However if nothing happens that really changes characters lives for a long time to come, then at the end of the day it's a pretty pointless exercise within a show that is supposed to be all about the characters and depends on your emotional attachment to them and their journeys.
big dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 18:32
Charcole911
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Fife
Posts: 6,078
Has anyone seen the Home and Away disasters?
Charcole911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 18:44
eastenda123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 138
I've often wondered why it is that if a soap disaster is announced these days why it receives so much negativity.......

I find it odd that people say Coronation Street was going in the wrong direction with the tram crash for example, when there was a similar storyline as far back as 1967.......

And what of the fire in Emmerdale? I've just been watching the Crossgill Fire episodes from 1988 and I doubt they would have generated such negativity back then, or would they have been deemed acceptable because they involved an "original cast" member........ The same was said of the bus crash in 2000, that it wouldn't have happened in the early days....... I remember Coronation Street had a coach crash in 1969, but people don't talk about that in the same way......

Soaps have always had big disasters, they're part and parcel of life and something which can not be avoided.......

Some say it's because towards the end of the 90s special effects got cleverer and more up-to-date....... Surely that's progress??????
because its much easier to come up with some ridiculous stunt to get viewers to tune in, than it is to come up with a compelling storyline that grips viewers with good writing and storytelling
eastenda123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 18:47
Stitches83
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,050
However, Zainab saving Syed (which was one of my favourite elements of the ep as it was so under-stated) was completely brushed aside and when we finally saw them again they were just going through the same old motions with no development as a result. It was clear the reason it was so under-stated was not for any effect, but because they merely wanted a bit more emotion for that episode and had no intention of taking that story in a different direction at that time.
I agree with your post and this part about Zainab and Syed is an excellent example. I seem to remember the Masood's virtually disappeared after the fire, which seemed to be so people would forget what happened between them during the episode.
Stitches83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 19:03
ilovecorrie2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,524
A disaster is only really worthwhile for me in the long-term if the events that take place have a long-lasting effect on the characters involved in some shape or form.

For example, the tram crash was great for me as yes, the stunt itself was great (minus the Godzilla thing they did with it just before the end of the stunt). However, the fact that the lives of so many characters were turned upside down as a result - Molly/Kevin climax, Nick/Leanne/Peter/Carla to name the two major ones was what made it such compelling television.

I don't really like doing the whole Corrie vs EE thing, but looking at the tram crash in contract to the Queen Vic fire really epitomizes what makes a stunt worthwhile, and what makes it nothing more than good tv at the time for me. The episode of the fire itself was compelling television, and it actually seemed like they were spiralling so many characters' stories in different directions as a result of it.

However, Zainab saving Syed (which was one of my favourite elements of the ep as it was so under-stated) was completely brushed aside and when we finally saw them again they were just going through the same old motions with no development as a result. It was clear the reason it was so under-stated was not for any effect, but because they merely wanted a bit more emotion for that episode and had no intention of taking that story in a different direction at that time.

Don't think anything needs to be said about the Phil fiasco. The only story that really benefited in the long-term was Stacey/Ryan/Lily, but that turned into a mess so yeah... was just a stunt for the sake of it really in my opinion.

So basically, a stunt can produce some visually stunning episodes, with some edge-of-your seat drama. However if nothing happens that really changes characters lives for a long time to come, then at the end of the day it's a pretty pointless exercise within a show that is supposed to be all about the characters and depends on your emotional attachment to them and their journeys.
Never really thought of it like that before but it's an interesting point. It would be tempting to think that disasters lead to life changes and that should be reflected in soap. However it isn't always the case. Sometimes people do carry on as normal after a disaster as demonstrated in the film Ordinary People with Mary Tyler Moore's character. Some people prefer to live in denial so whatever disaster befalls them they bury their emotions as carry on as normal.
ilovecorrie2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 22:36
RobInnes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,429
A disaster is only really worthwhile for me in the long-term if the events that take place have a long-lasting effect on the characters involved in some shape or form.

For example, the tram crash was great for me as yes, the stunt itself was great (minus the Godzilla thing they did with it just before the end of the stunt). However, the fact that the lives of so many characters were turned upside down as a result - Molly/Kevin climax, Nick/Leanne/Peter/Carla to name the two major ones was what made it such compelling television.

I don't really like doing the whole Corrie vs EE thing, but looking at the tram crash in contract to the Queen Vic fire really epitomizes what makes a stunt worthwhile, and what makes it nothing more than good tv at the time for me. The episode of the fire itself was compelling television, and it actually seemed like they were spiralling so many characters' stories in different directions as a result of it.

However, Zainab saving Syed (which was one of my favourite elements of the ep as it was so under-stated) was completely brushed aside and when we finally saw them again they were just going through the same old motions with no development as a result. It was clear the reason it was so under-stated was not for any effect, but because they merely wanted a bit more emotion for that episode and had no intention of taking that story in a different direction at that time.

Don't think anything needs to be said about the Phil fiasco. The only story that really benefited in the long-term was Stacey/Ryan/Lily, but that turned into a mess so yeah... was just a stunt for the sake of it really in my opinion.

So basically, a stunt can produce some visually stunning episodes, with some edge-of-your seat drama. However if nothing happens that really changes characters lives for a long time to come, then at the end of the day it's a pretty pointless exercise within a show that is supposed to be all about the characters and depends on your emotional attachment to them and their journeys.
Great post

The thing with the Queen Vic fire was that it wasn't even used to kill off anybody which is normally the aim of any big stunts that occur in soaps. If Peggy had been killed in the fire then we could have several story lines as Phil copes, at the height of an addiction to crack, with losing his mother by a fire that he created. Barbara Windsor has already said that she is never going back so she may as well have been killed off, and dying in the Vic would have been a nice poetic ending for her.
The tram crash sent about five different story lines in a completely different direction and so was beneficial to the characters and the programme.
RobInnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 22:40
Melephunk2010
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Aaron's Green Jumper
Posts: 22,879
Didnt someone in Home and Away die from a Shark Attack?

Personally, I think ED would of been wise to have the train crash stunt kill Jackson, which they had orginally planned.

The best ED stunt for me was the storm. Brilliant.
Melephunk2010 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 22:48
emmerdalelover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 760
I've often wondered why it is that if a soap disaster is announced these days why it receives so much negativity.......

I find it odd that people say Coronation Street was going in the wrong direction with the tram crash for example, when there was a similar storyline as far back as 1967.......

And what of the fire in Emmerdale? I've just been watching the Crossgill Fire episodes from 1988 and I doubt they would have generated such negativity back then, or would they have been deemed acceptable because they involved an "original cast" member........ The same was said of the bus crash in 2000, that it wouldn't have happened in the early days....... I remember Coronation Street had a coach crash in 1969, but people don't talk about that in the same way......

Soaps have always had big disasters, they're part and parcel of life and something which can not be avoided.......

Some say it's because towards the end of the 90s special effects got cleverer and more up-to-date....... Surely that's progress??????
I've got the Crossgill fire episodes from 1988 and the drama with Annie was quickly over, and the story then moved onto the knock-on effects the fire had on the Skilbeck marriage, with Dolly unable to have her dream home and growing increasingly unhappy living at Emmerdale Farm, and increasingly disatisfied with her marriage to Matt. And if you find the story-line in anyway similar to somebody setting fire to houses with people inside on purpose, as in the recent fire, then I do not understand you.
emmerdalelover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 22:50
tenchgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 10,967
Disasters work best when the whole community is involved, The tram crash was excellent because it did just that, emmerdale did it the night trisha died with the storm as alot of the cast were involved. The fire with Little Mo & Trevor was better I think than the vic fire which achieved nothing and I feel was done just because they could even though alot of cast were involved.
tenchgirl is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 23:18
ilovecorrie2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,524
"Disasters work best when the whole community is involved"

Very true.
ilovecorrie2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2011, 23:25
Stitches83
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,050
The more I think about The Vic fire the more frustrated I get.

The episode itself was fantastic. The tension kept swinging from character to character. First you thought Phil might die, then it was Peggy, then it was Stacey, then it was Ryan.

But you wonder what the point was. Phil miraculously recovered and within a week had become owner of the Arches and the pub while he still had smoke in his lungs.
Stitches83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2011, 16:09
bhvictory
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,294
I've got the Crossgill fire episodes from 1988 and the drama with Annie was quickly over, and the story then moved onto the knock-on effects the fire had on the Skilbeck marriage, with Dolly unable to have her dream home and growing increasingly unhappy living at Emmerdale Farm, and increasingly disatisfied with her marriage to Matt. And if you find the story-line in anyway similar to somebody setting fire to houses with people inside on purpose, as in the recent fire, then I do not understand you.
No I mean it's not the first time fire has been involved in a storyline, whether it be started accidently or a full-on arson attack......... There's not a storyline Emmerdale can't do...... The Crossgill Fire episodes were very exciting viewing at the time and still are........ as is the Storm of 1977 and the mine-explosion of 1978......... Why do people say Emmerdale Farm back then was nothing but 30 minutes of sheepdipping, when it clearly wasn't.
bhvictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2011, 16:34
bhvictory
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,294
......and special effects are bound to have improved over the last 50 years that was inevitable, but at the end of the day soaps are primarily character based and the special effects (when relevant) are just a bonus to add to the realism........

You only need to look at a show like Doctor Who to notice how far special effects have come......
bhvictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2011, 19:32
emmerdalelover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 760
......and special effects are bound to have improved over the last 50 years that was inevitable, but at the end of the day soaps are primarily character based and the special effects (when relevant) are just a bonus to add to the realism........

You only need to look at a show like Doctor Who to notice how far special effects have come......
Yes, and you only need to look at past episodes of Emmerdale to see that life was a heck of a lot quieter before the plane crash.
emmerdalelover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2011, 19:52
Scoobyh1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,071
I really liked the Neighbours Plane Crash.

I think also the fact that a few characters died made it a bit more realistic aswell.

Thats probably when i started watching it religiously again, it got me straight back into Neighbours from then on.
Scoobyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2011, 22:17
Lady Voldemort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here
Posts: 4,814
I have to agree that the Queen Vic fire was pretty pointless - it seemed almost like they decided they hadn't blown anything up for a while so just chucked it in there and then forgot about it.

My favourite disaster was the Emmerdale plane crash - the effects of that were felt in many ways for years afterwards and it still gets mentioned now. So many disasters are all but forgotten by the characters affected within 6 months.
Lady Voldemort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2011, 01:37
bhvictory
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,294
Yes, and you only need to look at past episodes of Emmerdale to see that life was a heck of a lot quieter before the plane crash.
The plane crash was ages ago, 1993 to be precise..... How is it relevant to what's going on in the show now..... except the wonderful Pollard & Michael stuff over last new year period.......
bhvictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2011, 01:40
Citadel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not DS
Posts: 12,542
The plane crash was ages ago, 1993 to be precise..... How is it relevant to what's going on in the show now..... except the wonderful Pollard & Michael stuff over last new year period.......
That's flippin' rich coming from you of all people, seeing as you bang on pointlessly about Emmerdale's past in almost every single thread you post.
Citadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2011, 01:45
EETILLIDIE11
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: I'm not British, I'm ENGLISH.
Posts: 2,722
The more I think about The Vic fire the more frustrated I get.

The episode itself was fantastic. The tension kept swinging from character to character. First you thought Phil might die, then it was Peggy, then it was Stacey, then it was Ryan.

But you wonder what the point was. Phil miraculously recovered and within a week had become owner of the Arches and the pub while he still had smoke in his lungs.
Agree completely with you. Brilliant episode, appaling aftermath.
EETILLIDIE11 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2011, 01:47
EastEndFan05
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Monologue Central
Posts: 4,712
I don't have anything against disasters or stunts when they come organically from the storyline. The fire at the Slaters when Trevor and Tom were killed, for example. That was the culmination of Little Mo's abuse storyline coming to a close and it was she who lit the match in a moment of rage to force Trevor's hand.

The Vic fire is a tricky one because it did come about organically as it was Phil in a drunken/drugged up rage who set The Vic on fire to spite Peggy. But it still came off like a cheap stunt as no one died and The Vic was up and running about a month later. The only repercussion that lasted is Peggy's exit and that was indeed forced, unrealistic and out of character. You can't help feel it would have been truer to the character to have her die in the fire or from a heart attack due to the ordeal. At least then the fire would have had some meaning.

Stunts such as Nick Cotton setting the cafe on fire and the roof falling in at the Arghee Bhargee are only done when they can't create drama from the current storylines. They're a cheap and lazy ratings ploy and nothing more.
EastEndFan05 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:11.