serious question , do you think the soaps now a days are better or worse than when you first started watching them or your first memorys of them?
Do you think the soaps are better now a days than when you first started watching?
1 of 2
I'd say worse but I think I started watching at a bit of a golden time (about 79) with the American super soaps like Dallas, dynasty, Knots Landing going, Brookside and EE and the Aussie soaps like Sons and Daughters, Neighbours, Home and Away about to start etc. Plus everything is better first time you see things as a child or teenager - after a couple of decades it's a bit 'seen that already' and anything 'new' risks being over the top or offensive.
EastEnders was better during the 2000's era (the only memories I have of watching, & there's not many) however these days it seems to be better than 2007-2013 EastEnders that I mostly remember watching.
Corrie is worse, nuff said really.
Emmerdale is a different now than what it was in the later 2000's, there's no Kings anymore, apart from Jimmy. It seems that there is a different feel to the village now, like it's 'glammed up' or something. I don't know how to describe it.
Hollyoaks, well I wouldn't really know, I only began watching it in June but I did catch glimps of BK's first era & it was epic then.
Corrie is worse, nuff said really.
Emmerdale is a different now than what it was in the later 2000's, there's no Kings anymore, apart from Jimmy. It seems that there is a different feel to the village now, like it's 'glammed up' or something. I don't know how to describe it.
Hollyoaks, well I wouldn't really know, I only began watching it in June but I did catch glimps of BK's first era & it was epic then.
Emmerdale is much better than it used to be. Corrie has always been fantastic in my opinion. Eastenders, despite all the new storylines, is worse. They have lost too many interesting characters and it just keeps failing to interest me although I have to say that when I heard they were giving Sharon a storyline, I started to watch regularly again. DTC seems to be doing a much better job than his predecessor.
None of the rest are worth watching.
None of the rest are worth watching.
I agree EastEnders is better now than it was from 2006-2013. It'll never be as good as it was in it's heyday but I'm not looking for miracles. The 80's was the best era for soaps. EastEnders, Coronation Street and Brookside were great and we had great US soaps like Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing and so on.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“I agree EastEnders is better now than it was from 2006-2013. It'll never be as good as it was in it's heyday but I'm not looking for miracles. The 80's was the best era for soaps. EastEnders, Coronation Street and Brookside were great and we had great US soaps like Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing and so on.”
“I agree EastEnders is better now than it was from 2006-2013. It'll never be as good as it was in it's heyday but I'm not looking for miracles. The 80's was the best era for soaps. EastEnders, Coronation Street and Brookside were great and we had great US soaps like Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing and so on.”
The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.
Originally Posted by JTSee2:
“The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.”
“The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.”
In the 80's and early 90's I think a lot of stuff was done for the first time and the writers had not become so disillusioned with the concept of soap. Now we all know what to expect when we watch because it has all been done countless times before. When comparing the 80's era of EastEnders to now I really don't think there's any comparison. The writing was so much better back then because it was character driven rather than plot driven.
I don't get the significance of you bringing up the 4 terrestrial channels in the 80's. That has nothing to do with the quality of the soaps. If they were that bad everyone would look back and say "What a load of old shit that was" but instead they're looked back on fondly. I didn't sit there watching these shows because there was nothing else to look at. If that was the case I would have done something else rather than watch tv.
Originally Posted by radcliffe95:
“No, the 80's/early 90's were the heydey.”
“No, the 80's/early 90's were the heydey.”
Yep totally agree todays soaps are rubbish, even Corrie which I always rated has slumped into the gutter.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“In the 80's and early 90's I think a lot of stuff was done for the first time and the writers had not become so disillusioned with the concept of soap. Now we all know what to expect when we watch because it has all been done countless times before. When comparing the 80's era of EastEnders to now I really don't think there's any comparison. The writing was so much better back then because it was character driven rather than plot driven.
I don't get the significance of you bringing up the 4 terrestrial channels in the 80's. That has nothing to do with the quality of the soaps. If they were that bad everyone would look back and say "What a load of old shit that was" but instead they're looked back on fondly. I didn't sit there watching these shows because there was nothing else to look at. If that was the case I would have done something else rather than watch tv.”
“In the 80's and early 90's I think a lot of stuff was done for the first time and the writers had not become so disillusioned with the concept of soap. Now we all know what to expect when we watch because it has all been done countless times before. When comparing the 80's era of EastEnders to now I really don't think there's any comparison. The writing was so much better back then because it was character driven rather than plot driven.
I don't get the significance of you bringing up the 4 terrestrial channels in the 80's. That has nothing to do with the quality of the soaps. If they were that bad everyone would look back and say "What a load of old shit that was" but instead they're looked back on fondly. I didn't sit there watching these shows because there was nothing else to look at. If that was the case I would have done something else rather than watch tv.”
I didn't say the number of terrestrial channels affected the quality, in my first sentence, I said soaps were just different. As you said, they were more character driven which is why. It's easy to say that you would have found something else to do if you only had the four channels but realistically most people stick the TV on when they are feeding the kids, ironing or just chilling for example. That's why audience numbers were so huge. It's not because people loved the programmes or they wouldn't have abandoned them in droves when more choice became available.
Originally Posted by JTSee2:
“I didn't say the number of terrestrial channels affected the quality, in my first sentence, I said soaps were just different. As you said, they were more character driven which is why. It's easy to say that you would have found something else to do if you only had the four channels but realistically most people stick the TV on when they are feeding the kids, ironing or just chilling for example. That's why audience numbers were so huge. It's not because people loved the programmes or they wouldn't have abandoned them in droves when more choice became available.”
“I didn't say the number of terrestrial channels affected the quality, in my first sentence, I said soaps were just different. As you said, they were more character driven which is why. It's easy to say that you would have found something else to do if you only had the four channels but realistically most people stick the TV on when they are feeding the kids, ironing or just chilling for example. That's why audience numbers were so huge. It's not because people loved the programmes or they wouldn't have abandoned them in droves when more choice became available.”
That's not true. I loved them and I'd still watch most of the ones I mentioned if they were still on. Indeed I have re-watched some of them when they were repeated years later. The only thing that has changed, quality aside, is that the soaps no longer have the monopoly on what people watch as there's more choice these days. I'd still rather watch a scripted drama like a soap than rubbish reality tv but I accept satellite tv has a big selection of homegrown and US shows for people to watch which wasn't available years ago.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“That's not true. I loved them and I'd still watch most of the ones I mentioned if they were still on. Indeed I have re-watched some of them when they were repeated years later. The only thing that has changed, quality aside, is that the soaps no longer have the monopoly on what people watch as there's more choice these days. I'd still rather watch a scripted drama like a soap than rubbish reality tv but I accept satellite tv has a big selection of homegrown and US shows for people to watch which wasn't available years ago.”
“That's not true. I loved them and I'd still watch most of the ones I mentioned if they were still on. Indeed I have re-watched some of them when they were repeated years later. The only thing that has changed, quality aside, is that the soaps no longer have the monopoly on what people watch as there's more choice these days. I'd still rather watch a scripted drama like a soap than rubbish reality tv but I accept satellite tv has a big selection of homegrown and US shows for people to watch which wasn't available years ago.”
I'm glad that's not true for you and I'm glad you love them too. I love Corrie and Emmerdale and wouldn't abandon them but, unfortunately, the majority of the population didn't and still don't agree, that's why viewing figures have diminished by about 50-75% since then and that's what makes it true. Corrie alone had over 20million viewers in the 80's and there was no on demand or catch up at that time. The choice gave people an escape from the confines of the four original channels and the programming they churned out. When people were given the choice, the majority abandoned the street, the farm and the square. It was nothing to do with the storylines the Soaps were putting out there. People like having choices.
Enjoyment is of course subjective, but the days of soaps being relevant and compelling through characters and situations that felt real are long gone. They're more about escapism now, which is fair enough but it isn't what they were about originally.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“That's not true. I loved them and I'd still watch most of the ones I mentioned if they were still on. Indeed I have re-watched some of them when they were repeated years later. The only thing that has changed, quality aside, is that the soaps no longer have the monopoly on what people watch as there's more choice these days. I'd still rather watch a scripted drama like a soap than rubbish reality tv but I accept satellite tv has a big selection of homegrown and US shows for people to watch which wasn't available years ago.”
“That's not true. I loved them and I'd still watch most of the ones I mentioned if they were still on. Indeed I have re-watched some of them when they were repeated years later. The only thing that has changed, quality aside, is that the soaps no longer have the monopoly on what people watch as there's more choice these days. I'd still rather watch a scripted drama like a soap than rubbish reality tv but I accept satellite tv has a big selection of homegrown and US shows for people to watch which wasn't available years ago.”
lol, haven't you just argued your own viewpoint out the water and backed up JT's? bit of a turn around and just because you re-watch them and value them doesn't mean the millions of other people do. Just look at the facts.
I think the soaps are stuck in a rut a bit. Both Corrie and Eastenders should take a leaf out of Emmerdales book. the script writers there are on fire and have been far from lazy whereas the Corrie and Eastenders writers have become complacent. Maybe it's because Emmerdale has always been playing catch up that the standards just keep improving, They should definitely take home lots of awards soon.
Eastenders script writers are trying too hard. Corries could use a kick up the ass to get them going again.
Originally Posted by JTSee2:
“The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.”
“The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.”
Yes i'd agree with all that although i'm not just judging it on the viewing figures. Having watched most soaps consistently since I was about 8 in 79 so all through the 80s in my teens and now into middle age, they were 'better' in the 80s but that might be because I prefer character led drama to plot led drama - even if it means it is slower in pace. But I accept that is a subjective thing and perhaps just my personal taste. So, in the 80s, I loved shows like Dynasty, Knots Landing, Sons and Daughters and Santa Barbara for the more outlandish viewing - pure entertainment if you will (and still love watching my videos of them now) but also loved the gritty, depressing drama of EastEnders and especially Brookside and cosiness of Corrie and Emmerdale, I also still enjoy rewatching them and have to say that generally I do tend to get more caught up in it (even mundane episodes that I just happen across by chance - perhaps on the end of another tape) than I do what has been on screen in the last 15 years or so.
It did also seem like the British soaps at least we're pushing boundaries with the subjects they tackled (SIDS, Unemployment and it's devastating emotional as well as financial consequences on family life, domestic abuse, rape actually being shown and called rape etc) and perhaps because so much was done back then, there are few boundaries left to push now - to make it new they have to goo Ott (like combining SIDS with a baby swap) and make it melodrama rather than just drama - and very often tacky melodrama which is in rather poor taste.
More choice is certainly part of it but isn't the main problem for soaps that there are very few new stories left to tell.
I was v young when EE started and can recall it being a force of nature that stood head and shoulders above everything else on TV. I think part of this was that it was so daring: Michelle's teen pregnancy, Colin and Barry's kiss, the Saeeds and Osmans, racial abuse on screen, Mark's HIV, Donna/Kathy and of course the amazing Den and Angie.
Social mores have changed dramatically and none of these stories would raise an eyebrow these days.
I would say the last time EE did a story with that impact was Kat/Zoe and Trev/Mo in 2001. They have had some more highs like Den's return and demise and Ronnie/Danielle but these haven't been rooted in truth like the older stories.
And of course all the soaps have constantly upped the ante and churned out more episodes which will be to their long term detriment.
Edit: Just seen KK's great post above : ditto!
I was v young when EE started and can recall it being a force of nature that stood head and shoulders above everything else on TV. I think part of this was that it was so daring: Michelle's teen pregnancy, Colin and Barry's kiss, the Saeeds and Osmans, racial abuse on screen, Mark's HIV, Donna/Kathy and of course the amazing Den and Angie.
Social mores have changed dramatically and none of these stories would raise an eyebrow these days.
I would say the last time EE did a story with that impact was Kat/Zoe and Trev/Mo in 2001. They have had some more highs like Den's return and demise and Ronnie/Danielle but these haven't been rooted in truth like the older stories.
And of course all the soaps have constantly upped the ante and churned out more episodes which will be to their long term detriment.
Edit: Just seen KK's great post above : ditto!
Originally Posted by kitkat1971:
“It did also seem like the British soaps at least we're pushing boundaries with the subjects they tackled (SIDS, Unemployment and it's devastating emotional as well as financial consequences on family life, domestic abuse, rape actually being shown and called rape etc) and perhaps because so much was done back then, there are few boundaries left to push now - to make it new they have to goo Ott (like combining SIDS with a baby swap) and make it melodrama rather than just drama - and very often tacky melodrama which is in rather poor taste.”
“It did also seem like the British soaps at least we're pushing boundaries with the subjects they tackled (SIDS, Unemployment and it's devastating emotional as well as financial consequences on family life, domestic abuse, rape actually being shown and called rape etc) and perhaps because so much was done back then, there are few boundaries left to push now - to make it new they have to goo Ott (like combining SIDS with a baby swap) and make it melodrama rather than just drama - and very often tacky melodrama which is in rather poor taste.”
I completely agree that British Soaps were ground breaking and a lot of the melodrama now is in poor taste. The more they try to sensationalise things, the less they work though, I wish they would learn from the past. Fine, have the odd explosion or murder or whatever but without examining the following as character driven and examining the bones of the plot and the characters involved, the writers are doing everyone an injustice. Tinas death for example in Corrie could have had much more of an impact. Her mother didn't seem too bothered, there were no tears, no guilt for not seeing her over the last few years no devastation at the loss of her only daughter. The only real emotion other than Rita, was from Steph who hardly knew her. They invented a whole history that we knew nothing about and hadn't engaged with as an audience. If this storyline had been done years ago, we'd all be in bits. It's not very complimentary to the actors who try to do a good job or to fans of the show who invest in the characters. We knew almost every detail before it played out on screen too thanks to Blackburn and they wonder why they are stuck in a rut.
The only soaps I remember watching when I was in my teens were Peyton Place, Dr Kildare and Coronation street. The latter I only watched because my mum loved it so I had no choice.
Eastenders is the only one I watch now but it's impossible for them to keep it fresh, there are only so many things that you can do or have happen to you in a lifetime. I don't think it has slowly deteriorated over the years, it's more that it has highs and lows...I remember it going through a slump as early as the late 1980s. it's in a pretty good place right now, although IMO it would be in a much better place if we hadn't lost the likes of Pat, Zainab, Janine and David.
Eastenders is the only one I watch now but it's impossible for them to keep it fresh, there are only so many things that you can do or have happen to you in a lifetime. I don't think it has slowly deteriorated over the years, it's more that it has highs and lows...I remember it going through a slump as early as the late 1980s. it's in a pretty good place right now, although IMO it would be in a much better place if we hadn't lost the likes of Pat, Zainab, Janine and David.
Originally Posted by JTSee2:
“The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.”
“The Soaps weren't better in the 80's just different. The reason that they got such high ratings wasn't because they were amazing viewing, it's because there was nothing else on. Most people in the UK at that time only had 4 terrestrial channels because satellite was just being introduced and was hugely expensive. TV was dire, unless you had a video player - you were stuck with it. I remember Eastenders being in the paper all the time and all over the news because it was so depressing. Not much has changed really apart from the fact they are spending more money on sensationalising storylines nowadays. In the past, the actors carried the stories with fantastic acting and that's what made it compelling viewing. A lot of that is lost now I feel.”
I'm not sure I'd say that tv other than Soaps was dire in the 80s. There were some very good shorter dramas made like Edge of Darkness, Jewel in the Crown, Brideshead Revisted, Bird of Prey and also plenty of perfectly serviceable 13 episode a year shows like Bergerac, Tenko and lots of Sunday evening costume dramas. Also some of the best sitcoms come from that time, Just Good Friends, Only Fools and Horses, Yes Minister, Comic Strip Presents, Young Ones. Also there were some great documentaries, travel programmes (like Whickers world) and chat shows. Also Ch4 showed a lot of great repeats from 60s and 70s like The Prisoner, The Avengers, Upstairs, Downstairs, Budgie etc. There wasn't as much tv back then, only 4 channels as you say and they didn't transmit for as long (little or nothing in the mornings and switch off at 11pm most nights) but there was usually something fairly decent on one of them during the evening.
Originally Posted by kitkat1971:
“I'm not sure I'd say that tv other than Soaps was dire in the 80s. There were some very good shorter dramas made like Edge of Darkness, Jewel in the Crown, Brideshead Revisted, Bird of Prey and also plenty of perfectly serviceable 13 episode a year shows like Bergerac, Tenko and lots of Sunday evening costume dramas. Also some of the best sitcoms come from that time, Just Good Friends, Only Fools and Horses, Yes Minister, Comic Strip Presents, Young Ones. Also there were some great documentaries, travel programmes (like Whickers world) and chat shows. Also Ch4 showed a lot of great repeats from 60s and 70s like The Prisoner, The Avengers, Upstairs, Downstairs, Budgie etc. There wasn't as much tv back then, only 4 channels as you say and they didn't transmit for as long (little or nothing in the mornings and switch off at 11pm most nights) but there was usually something fairly decent on one of them during the evening.”
“I'm not sure I'd say that tv other than Soaps was dire in the 80s. There were some very good shorter dramas made like Edge of Darkness, Jewel in the Crown, Brideshead Revisted, Bird of Prey and also plenty of perfectly serviceable 13 episode a year shows like Bergerac, Tenko and lots of Sunday evening costume dramas. Also some of the best sitcoms come from that time, Just Good Friends, Only Fools and Horses, Yes Minister, Comic Strip Presents, Young Ones. Also there were some great documentaries, travel programmes (like Whickers world) and chat shows. Also Ch4 showed a lot of great repeats from 60s and 70s like The Prisoner, The Avengers, Upstairs, Downstairs, Budgie etc. There wasn't as much tv back then, only 4 channels as you say and they didn't transmit for as long (little or nothing in the mornings and switch off at 11pm most nights) but there was usually something fairly decent on one of them during the evening.”
Sorry, didn't mean TV was dire, was referring to the choice available but didn't put it across very well. There was a lot of good TV the dire thing was that you only had the four choices and if there was nothing on to suit, then that would probably be the case for the rest of that season until we were eventually given more choice. I still watch some of the old classics even with all that choice. Especially Only Fools and Horses and have recently got back into Prisoner Cell Block H
Originally Posted by JTSee2:
“I didn't say the number of terrestrial channels affected the quality, in my first sentence, I said soaps were just different. As you said, they were more character driven which is why. It's easy to say that you would have found something else to do if you only had the four channels but realistically most people stick the TV on when they are feeding the kids, ironing or just chilling for example. That's why audience numbers were so huge. It's not because people loved the programmes or they wouldn't have abandoned them in droves when more choice became available.”
“I didn't say the number of terrestrial channels affected the quality, in my first sentence, I said soaps were just different. As you said, they were more character driven which is why. It's easy to say that you would have found something else to do if you only had the four channels but realistically most people stick the TV on when they are feeding the kids, ironing or just chilling for example. That's why audience numbers were so huge. It's not because people loved the programmes or they wouldn't have abandoned them in droves when more choice became available.”
That is very true. I always said that Neighbours only became so incredibly successful in the late 80s because of it being on in an incredibly convenient time slot - if you finished work at 4.30 or 5.00pm and worked fairly locally so 30 minute commute (as I had in my first job before moving to London) it was on when you got in and just very easy viewing as you got changed, grabbed a bite to eat - it was entertaining enough but you didn't have to concentrate on it. That's not to say it wasn't good, it was at that time but no better than most of the other daytime soaps soaps like Santa Barnara, Sons and Daughters, Gems.
It is also true that there wasn't as much external entertainment - cinemas only showed one film at a time and if it was a blockbuster it stayed on for weeks so people didn't go to the Cinema as much. Obviously there was no internet or games consoles and home computers were rare and very slow. There only tended to be one phone in a house with no call waiting so you couldn't chat to your mates all evening easily. In the Summer you could go out but in the winter really it was tv, listening to records or tapes, reading a book or a board game or god forbid, talking to your family!
I started watching EE in 2008 and preferred it then, I just think it was a stronger cast
HO I started watching it 2011 and it was 100000x better
HO I started watching it 2011 and it was 100000x better
Originally Posted by JTSee2:
“Sorry, didn't mean TV was dire, was referring to the choice available but didn't put it across very well. There was a lot of good TV the dire thing was that you only had the four choices and if there was nothing on to suit, then that would probably be the case for the rest of that season until we were eventually given more choice. I still watch some of the old classics even with all that choice. Especially Only Fools and Horses and have recently got back into Prisoner Cell Block H”
“Sorry, didn't mean TV was dire, was referring to the choice available but didn't put it across very well. There was a lot of good TV the dire thing was that you only had the four choices and if there was nothing on to suit, then that would probably be the case for the rest of that season until we were eventually given more choice. I still watch some of the old classics even with all that choice. Especially Only Fools and Horses and have recently got back into Prisoner Cell Block H
”
I see, yes that does make sense and to be fair the Summer schedules did used to be fairly dire, worse than now. The Autumn and winter schedules were usually pretty good though, they did make a real effort to have at least 3 or 4 good 13 part series on at any one time from September to April plus one off dramas and the longer American shows like Cagney and Lacey, Cheers.
So although you're right, there were times when there was nothing on, if you have fairly eclectic tastes (ie interested in documentaries, comedy, scifi, current affairs and drama) you could usually find something half decent to watch. More so than I often can now anyway, even with the 100+ channels.
ETA: I loved Prisoner Cell Block H for the first few years. That was a great Autumn (1986) - suddenly they invested in daytime viewing getting Neighbours, Knots Landing, repeats like Poldark and ITV started staying on till 3am a couple of days a week showing the wonderful Prisoner! Bliss for a drama and soap mad 15 year old like me! Especially as I was signed off school for several months that year with Glandular Fever - it made it bearable!
Originally Posted by vald:
“The only soaps I remember watching when I was in my teens were Peyton Place, Dr Kildare and Coronation street. The latter I only watched because my mum loved it so I had no choice.
Eastenders is the only one I watch now but it's impossible for them to keep it fresh, there are only so many things that you can do or have happen to you in a lifetime. I don't think it has slowly deteriorated over the years, it's more that it has highs and lows...I remember it going through a slump as early as the late 1980s. it's in a pretty good place right now, although IMO it would be in a much better place if we hadn't lost the likes of Pat, Zainab, Janine and David.”
“The only soaps I remember watching when I was in my teens were Peyton Place, Dr Kildare and Coronation street. The latter I only watched because my mum loved it so I had no choice.
Eastenders is the only one I watch now but it's impossible for them to keep it fresh, there are only so many things that you can do or have happen to you in a lifetime. I don't think it has slowly deteriorated over the years, it's more that it has highs and lows...I remember it going through a slump as early as the late 1980s. it's in a pretty good place right now, although IMO it would be in a much better place if we hadn't lost the likes of Pat, Zainab, Janine and David.”
Yes it did go through a bad slump in the late 80s, straight after a lot of main actors left at the end of their initial 3 year contracts and more damagingly Smith and Holland went and there was no long term storylining left in place as there had been for the first 3 years. I remember deciding to stop watching as I was out on Thursday evenings (Orchestra rehearsal) so had to tape it and was finding it a chore to watch. Then Katjy's rape happened and that was enough to hold my interest for the next few months and it started to improve and had a real resurgence in 90 with the introduction of the Mitchells. I think they've had their day now but we're good back then and we're just the shot in the arm the show needed. Not just them but new plotline but they were the public face of 'new' EE as it was dubbed then.
Shows will always have ups and downs - that is inevitable but the way Soaps are written has changed a lot now.
1 of 2
