I have just realised that the Lomax's were the only actual family unit that existed of two parents and children. Is this important to have in the show though? I feel it brings more realism then lots of single parents.

Opinions?

I think the family unit is important, I understand Hollyoaks is seen more as a teen soap, but it really doesn't need to just have an entire cast of young people. It also gets slightly annoying when they have finished with the older cast members, they either kill them off or send them off somewhere when you rarely see them again, or even see them mentioned.

No.
Hollyoaks has primarily always been about youth. It has a predominantly young cast. Even the very young characters seem to act independently of the adults in charge of them. I think HO has always tried to tap into that teenage mindset of "I don't need adults in my life". It reminds me of Enid Blyton books I read as a child where children led fantastic lives without interference from adults and parents. The producers clearly regard parent-type figures as supporting characters. Hence family is unnecessary.

Hollyoaks is certainly "Separation City" in that when "normal" nuclear families are introduced they are soon smashed to pieces by death or divorce. True a soap is a drama and dramatic things need to happen to the cast but I think this particular soap goes OTT on wrecking older characters and family groups.

I think more important than biological both parent nuclear family is the fact that you get multi generational family type groups in the same house such as the McQueens, Osbournes, etc. I really do think that a smattering of middle aged and older characters that are kept as long term regulars is a desirable thing as it provides depth to the ensemble and in a sense continuity and stability. It doesn't matter if these are more wallpaper characters and not central to the major plots all the time.

When Hollyoaks started there were several families (Benson's, Cunningham's, Anderson's, the original Osborne's), today's Hollyoaks is nothing like the original Hollyoaks and they fail to portray families realistically. But then none of the soaps seem to be able to portray nuclear families any more.

It doesn't bother me that Sam and Danny have left as that's normal for soaps, people do eventually leave especially on Hollyoaks no one sticks around long but what I don't like is that they invested all of this time to create a family for Ste with a Dad and 3 sisters for them to just kill them off a year later.

I did really like having a proper family in the show and some older actors too but I guess they just want to make the younger characters the priority.

I think there should be more family groups yes. It's fine to concentrate on the younger characters but I don't see why their parents can't be there as mainly supporting characters coming to the forefront infrequently as plots demand it - provided the actors involved are happy with that arrangement and I think many would be as it enables them to do other work - like Jimmy being a semi regular on 'A Touch of Frost' for many years at the same time as playing Jack.

There should be some young characters without their parents around as not everybody stays local to their families when going to university or starting work but a few families are necessary - nuclear or nor not. I think the Burton/Taylors worked quite well for example which were a family with a slight twist - 2nd marriage and step siblings but still mum, Dad and kids.

HO has always been much less dependent on families than other shows

Recently I think it's become too dependent and tried to become like EE, bringing in the Roscoes and Lomaxes

I think HO worked best when it had the two dominant families (Osbornes and McQueens), a few little families (O'Connors, Brady's, Savages) and a good few single characters, it fitted in to HO's theme

It hasn't always been like that. As mentioned, when it started there were the Bensons, Cunningham, Richardson, Osborne. As those families left or were depleted they introduced the Morgan's, Deans, Hunters, then the Burton/Taylors and probably at it's most successful the McQueens, Ashworths, Barnes so there have actually, historically tended to be 3 quite large, prominent famies at the centre of things with other independent characters floating around them.

It's essential for all good soaps, think Hollyoaks with the likes of the Deans, Ashworths, the Valentines, the original McQueens much better than the Savages and Roscoes which would both be a better fit for Eastenders.

Yes the Barnes were quality, as well as the Hunters and Burton clan

Not for this show

GansterOaks Dosent need a Family or students sure they ditched halls and the Subar for a hospital....

I've personally always preferred the characters outside of the families like the Ui students and the 20 somethings like Louise, Claire etc

I think families get stale because either the stories stick just to the families or they revolve just around the teenagers anyway and the parents become glorified extras (see every person over 30 between 2009-2011)