DS Forums

 
 

Is HO getting too OTT?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-01-2014, 00:53
Leeah
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 18,883

I mean gaawd! Just seen there's going to be a fire next week ... is there going to be a week w/o explosions/fires/deaths etc??? Seems they're really trying to win 'spectacular scene of the year' at BSA's.
Leeah is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 26-01-2014, 00:56
priscilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
It's a small fire, but the gangster crap ott and there is way too much of it. They have some fantastic sls atm but instead of focusing on them they focus on gangster.
I'm in the minority because I still love HO but the gangster stuff us getting on my nerves.
priscilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 01:46
blue_cheese
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South East
Posts: 2,286
It was ok when warren and Brendan were running the show. But seriously who would listen to Fraser. I hope Trevor makes him disappear.

Would love it if they had a mention of Trevor bumping into warren or Brendan while on remand.
blue_cheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 01:58
LI0N
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 824
It's not just the OTT storylines that annoy me, it's the shame characters hogging them all. One example is Sinead. Since Esther's bullying storyline last year Esther had a thing with Tilly and that bizarre storyline in HO Later. Whilst Sinead has been involved with: Bulling, Baby pregnancy, Price Slice robbery, Running over her brother, Drug dealing, Prostitution/Stealing, Bomb explosion, and the endless Roscoe/gangster rubbish. Other storyline hoggers include Frazer, Grace, Freddie, Lynsey and Mercedes. Spread the storylines out between characters please
LI0N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 02:14
trevon1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,931
Hollyoaks has always been over-the-top. I actually don't mind that as long as the stories are interesting. However, I don't find the gangster storylines interesting.
trevon1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 02:17
swollenclout
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: England
Posts: 22
One example is Sinead. Since Esther's bullying storyline last year Esther had a thing with Tilly and that bizarre storyline in HO Later. Whilst Sinead has been involved with: Bulling, Baby pregnancy, Price Slice robbery, Running over her brother, Drug dealing, Prostitution/Stealing, Bomb explosion, and the endless Roscoe/gangster rubbish.
More to add to this:
- Staging weekly moon landings on her forehead

I agree on Sinead (and a few others) being given much more screentime than necessary. I know they need to add depth to characters but there's a line they've crossed with some where you see them exclusively in storylines that involve danger, lies, evil intentions etc. And with Sinead, Grace, Mercedes etc, they get away with so many bad acts every week that it becomes increasingly impossible to find them credible as a character.
swollenclout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 05:07
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,461
Hollyoaks has always been over-the-top. I actually don't mind that as long as the stories are interesting. However, I don't find the gangster storylines interesting.
Exactly. I don't know why people are complaining now, it's always been over the top to various degrees.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 05:25
Goosebee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,468
I don't feel its necessarily over the top. For me it just feels stagnant and dry. There is a core group of characters that are focussed on (Trevor/Grace/Fraser) and its bringing others with potential down (Jim/Freddie/Teegan)...I actually loathe Jim but he seems quite popular on here.

Many people are considering the Roscoes a failure but again the potential is there amidst the poor imagination of the writers (three weddings for one family in less than a year). People who could be good with decent material are given awful storylines which turn them into caricatures (Ziggy) or no screentime at all (Joe and Jason, who has only just started being developed after nine months).

The writers invest significant screen time into characters that have not been greatly recieved (vincent, chloe and possibly tilly/will) at the expense of ruining others (Phoebe) or ignoring the aftermath of those that have got lots going on (John Paul).

I think the show is littered with potential but the cast arent being utilised right. We have references to the imminent past (Browning and Calvin) but nothing which acknowledges the history of the show- later attempted this but was abysmally executed IMO.

Finally big characters who the audience care about are given horrendous exits... Myra. Mitzee. Jacquie even Brendan to a point.

I guess as I've said a thousand times before. I love the show. I love most of the characters but its just got so much untapped potential in favour of OTT gangster storylines. If these were removed the balance would be a lot better.
Goosebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 10:46
lady_xanax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
Hollyoaks is basically content now to become a parody of itself. It's almost blackly comic.
lady_xanax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 11:22
los.kav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,824
It's a small fire, but the gangster crap ott and there is way too much of it. They have some fantastic sls atm but instead of focusing on them they focus on gangster.
I'm in the minority because I still love HO but the gangster stuff us getting on my nerves.
I feel the same. The sooner the gangster stuff ends the better.
los.kav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 11:24
StarryNight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,425
I think it's looking at OTT in the rearview mirror.
StarryNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 11:36
mojo5000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 53,967
In a word yes. But it's not just the OTT sensationalist stuff, it's the disregard for characterisation. No character is anything more than a plot puppet these days and how on earth can anyone care? Nothing has an aftermath or impact. There's zero heart and soul, no emotional depth.

The gangster stuff is the tip of the iceberg - there are much bigger problems.

*awaits the usual: but the ratings are good!!1!11*
mojo5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 11:40
Dr K Noisewater
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,730
For me the show lost all credibility when they brought back Warren Fox despite the fact he died onscreen the year before.
Dr K Noisewater is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 11:56
gwenda
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,007
I like the fact it is a OTT. It makes easy viewing when I get home from work! Having said that I grew up near Chester and am certain the crap that goes down in HO (especially the gangster rubbish) would never, EVER happen there!
gwenda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 12:32
digichant
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,996
Don't blame Gemma Bissix for quitting.. she obviously saw all of her horrendous upcoming storylines and realised it wasn't worth the backlash.
digichant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 12:55
hetty100
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,777
HO is awful at the mo, all thier good sl never get any focus.

next week more gangster sh*te, after that a stunt (roll eyes)
hetty100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 13:07
mojo5000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 53,967
Don't blame Gemma Bissix for quitting.. she obviously saw all of her horrendous upcoming storylines and realised it wasn't worth the backlash.
Axed more like. Hollyoaks had big plans for Clare (aka the material Grace has got) and because her return was loathed by almost everyone and the ratings were piss poor they clearly got rid.
mojo5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 13:15
hetty100
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,777
Axed more like. Hollyoaks had big plans for Clare (aka the material Grace has got) and because her return was loathed by almost everyone and the ratings were piss poor they clearly got rid.
I'd love to know why thier not getting rid of Grace then?

her and Fraser are loathed by practically everyone on here.
hetty100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 13:21
redrose89
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,514
Hollyoaks has always been OTT but it used to get the balance right between shocks, proper storylines and development. Now it just feels like they're doing it for the sake of it.
redrose89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 13:21
mojo5000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 53,967
I'd love to know why thier not getting rid of Grace then?

her and Fraser are loathed by practically everyone on here.
Ratings are good I guess, unlike the lows they sunk to with Clare's return.
mojo5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 14:31
digichant
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,996
Axed more like. Hollyoaks had big plans for Clare (aka the material Grace has got) and because her return was loathed by almost everyone and the ratings were piss poor they clearly got rid.
It wasn't really Clare that was loathed, it was more the OTT plot that was to blame.

The only reason Grace has all of Clare's material is because Gemma quit. Why would they bring in what is pretty much an exact replica of the character to carry out more OTT plots when they already had an established one with plenty of history?
There's no way they'd axe her just to give these stories to Grace, who is now equally unpopular anyway because of the crap material the poor actress has to work with.
digichant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 14:42
mojo5000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 53,967
It wasn't really Clare that was loathed, it was more the OTT plot that was to blame.

The only reason Grace has all of Clare's material is because Gemma quit. Why would they bring in what is pretty much an exact replica of the character to carry out more OTT plots when they already had an established one with plenty of history?
There's no way they'd axe her just to give these stories to Grace, who is now equally unpopular anyway because of the crap material the poor actress has to work with.
Because most of the criticisms were that she was a poor actress, the character was too panto now and she was really hammy, that's why. They were hoping Grace would be easier to accept because they could start from scratch and they hoped she was a better actress...the rest is history.
mojo5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 14:44
hetty100
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,777
Because most of the criticisms were that she was a poor actress, the character was too panto now and she was really hammy, that's why. They were hoping Grace would be easier to accept because they could start from scratch and they hoped she was a better actress...the rest is history.
but Grace is worse
hetty100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 14:49
Hit Em Up Style
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cell Block H
Posts: 11,878
Was Clare really axed? I mean the only place I saw people complaining was DS and it was only in regards to how panto it was.

If Clare was axed off the back of a few online users having a moan then its more fool Hollyoaks. I think the producers of Hollyoaks spend too much time bowing to the whims of forum users than actually producing the show. I got the same feeling when BK was working at EE.
Hit Em Up Style is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 14:50
mojo5000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 53,967
but Grace is worse
Well, yes that's been the conclusion but look at it this way, what could they do? Keep Gemma and Clare with the risk of hideous ratings, new viewers hated her and the plots and so did old viewers who loved Clare. Or do they scrap the actress and character and try again with someone new, with the hope she'll be better received and cope better with the same material. In their eyes the viewers have no pre-conceptions as she's a new character and actress.

Obviously she wasn't as well received as they hoped but it was a solution to the problem.
mojo5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45.