EastEnders can get itself back to the top of it's game by thinking like it did pre2010, nobody likes change and the EastEnders cast is getting better, but look how many key characters have left the show over the past 4 years, EastEnders need many old characters back (tanya, peggy, zainab, janine, grant, sam, zoe, charlie, sean, jean, michelle fowler) would be the obvious choices! Quality is also a key issue... On all soaps the cast and characters used to interact really well with eachover and work a lot better together, now acting is getting a lot worst! All big 3 soaps have lost some of their quality! Emmerdale because there's way too many episodes, and eastenders and corrie because the acting from some cast members and lack of night shoots... They should also reduce the carters and axe a lot of the younger characters who do nothing for the show! Also they need to come up with better storylines! It's not hard to come up with storylines like they did 1985-2010, storylines that actually won awards, and I'm unsure as to why they're unable to come up with any good storylines now? They need to improve or change the who killed lucy storyline and make sure the nick cotton storyline is great! Also they need to advertise A LOT! What dtc should NEVER do is try and create a new show... He needs to make it a lot more like the old EastEnders again, I think he's trying to do that, and they are getting there, however the viewers are getting too impatient!

MAde me laugh

1) Producers should stick with the template they are given; Eastenders, a gritty drama set in the East End of London and Coronation Street, set in the cobbles in a small town near Manchester, are doing just that. These are the two soap I still watch regularly. The producer of Emmerdale has abandoned the rural drama and made it a childish cops and robbers programme; a lot of people enjoy this, but it was dishonest to steal Emmerdale from its millions of loyal fans. They should rename it Gangstas R Us and put another producer in charge of the original Emmerdale.
2) When they make a mistake in casting, they should own up to it and write the characters out quickly, not push them in our face in the hope that we will come to like them.
3) The soaps need a better quality of writing.

This.


And this. But not number two.

This is the kinda thing US soaps fans were asking themselves 10 years ago, and really, geographical location is irrelevant, as the answer is always the same.

I think the last 5 years has been tough for the soaps, which has seen them all slowly shed viewers, as well as a general interest in the genre. I think they struggled to modernize at a time when TV was changing. People talk about the golden eras of soaps, and how they want to go back to the 80s or the 90s, but these successful periods worked b/c the writing was there, the cast was great, and they generally reflected the conventions of the time. This isn't the 80s or the 90s - the conventions that worked then won't all work now; soaps need to be pacier, and they need to be interesting - they need to be reflecting modern society.

As soon as they struggled to adapt to the changing face of TV, the soaps all fell back on repeating successful storylines - suddenly there was an abundance in affairs, murders, crime, pregnancies and who's the daddy?, innocent characters going to jail, car crashes and fire plots - what was once fresh, became stale. Characters started changing personalities; sensationalism and OTT storytelling crept in; characters stopped being developed; the writing became lazy and tired; the heart of all soaps have been ripped out at one point of another, and in some cases (Home and Away for one) have transformed into something unrecognizable (some say this of Emmerdale)

I think the soaps need to be edgy and not be afraid to take risks. They need to respect the characters and not change their personalities to suit a plot. They should respect the continuity of the show, and know what the soap is all about - they all have different identities (EastEnders is not Hollyoaks, HO is not Sunset Beach, Neighbours is not Home and Away, etc) that established an audience many years ago, so trying to change it into a crime/cop show or a teen drama is only going alienate viewers.

Good storytelling that reflects a variety of relatable subjects and themes, involving a variety of well developed characters who have distinctive, engaging, likeable personalities that are realistic and relatable. This isn't the 80s or 90s, so while honouring the past is great, the past is not the answer. Bringing back past characters can work in advancing the current canvas and creating some nostalgia, but if the rest of show is still in a rut, then they won't entice viewers back, and may even damage those once great characters. They have to be willing to invest in the small character moments, create a community and pace storylines that are audience friendly - this is era of binge viewing and boxsets after all; people don't have the patience to wait a year for a story to play out.

I think networks have to be bold in not propping their schedule up with soaps (I'm looking at you, ITV!). Over saturation for some soaps has affected quality. Less episodes would suit a modern audience... But, ITV probably rely on the ad revenue that these shows generate.

I'll shut up now before I bore you all into a coma with my essay!

Personally, I found it fascinating.

Coronation Street is not set in a small town near Manchester.

Nicely said Deschanel!

May I also add that UK Soaps are too busy doing violent/gangster/murders rubbish - when all the viewers want is Entertainment!. Deaths, fires and earthquakes are OK now and again.....but people like to see normal people living normal lives - with the odd problem cropping up now and again, with a bit of comedy and drama thrown in!
CHARACTERS are the people that they want to watch! A bit more reality and believability would help.

I know Soaps are meant to be fantasy (look at the original soap - Crossroads ...it succeeded for 24 years with no disastrous murders or explosions! Well, maybe a couple or two - but they were tame!)!), but it's nice to have a bit of 'realism' in them as well! WITHOUT the 'Disasters' every week!!

I personally would cut them back to 3 episodes a week!!

When I read posts saying the number of weekly episodes should be reduced, my first thought was always 'no don't do that because it will mean a reduction in income for the Crew who earn their crust working in telly.'
Less hours filming means less work for them. In these days of recession etc, I don't want to see people put out of work.

But lately, I have changed my mind and I agree with those who say fewer episodes is the answer to improve quality of scripts.

The writers have just about done every story that is possible to do and then rehashed them several times with different characters. And because of the number of episodes going out each week, these stories are being stretched beyond enjoyment and lines are repeated over and over. This makes viewers switch off because they have lost interest.

I also think the people staffing Casting departments in soaps need a refresher course.
Bad acting also makes people switch off.


And in my little head, maybe if 6 episodes with poor viewing figures were replaced by 3 episodes with large viewing figures, advertisers would still pay enough to keep all the Crew's wages high enough to live on.



Or is all that silly, and viewing figures will never be high ever again because the world has changed?



All I know is that I stop watching if the stories get too daft to laugh at or if characters are so badly acted that I can't enjoy watching any more.

I think that stunts and deaths are overdone, so they end up losing impact. Obviously there's been so much on soaps over the years that there is no real shock factor. Also, whilst Hollyoaks has always been about the young and good-looking, it has lost focus- mainly because its younger characters are too annoying. There's no longer a student group, either sixth-form or university either.

Maybe lack of stability is one of the factors. Even if everything else is up in flames, soaps need some sort of stable family or group.

Also contributing to that is the obsession with releasing advanced information/spoilers about what is coming.

The trouble is I think people would get bored very quickly of that.

While I agree that personality changes are a problem. I think a bigger problem is that nearly everyone lives and works in the immediate area. This gives very little room to develop more stories.

For example, on Corrie, Sophie lives and works on the street and has her girlfriend staying with her.

What the should have done with Sophie is have her living on the street and working in an office elsewhere. They could have then run stories about how people (who don't know her) react to her sexuality and developing relationship with a girl she works with. She could then have to deal with people who disapprove of her.

As it is because nearly everyone has known her for many years and will always back her.

Corrie has done this before with a supermarket, a Hospital, a local newspaper etc. So they need to widen their horizons to the rest of Weatherfield with the characters in the street being part of the stories.

In fact I would go one better than this. Perhaps ITV should create a number of series (One based in a Hospital, One based in a Police Station and one in a large company) set in Weatherfield and have characters from Coronation Street appear in some of those other series and characters from those other series appearing in Coronation Street for certain related stories.

I am afraid that this would not make much difference. As you say the world has changed and viewing figures will never be that high again

I do like spoilers though and they can be done effectively- for example, releasing some info and then concealing a twist.

Thanks, Cit. You're too kind.


You're so right.

They think that gangster/violence/murders/crime is entertainment. Because CSI/Ripper Street/Miss Marple, etc are popular, so incorporating that into the soaps will surely make them popular, too, forgetting why people watch soaps to begin with, and that was for normal people doing everyday things. Characters are the foundation of soaps, so when they get tossed aside, stability is lost and the show loses it's credibility.

Staging the odd stunt every now and again shakes things up, but like everything else, explosions (of varying kinds) have been done to death, no longer fresh.


If spoilers were more like teasers instead revealing nearly every detail in advance, people may be more likely to tune in. They release them b/c they think spoilers will entice viewers to watch, when it can have the opposite effect.


While it's not nice to think about crew members losing their jobs, it is the nature of the business and they'll be aware of that. If having less episodes means the soaps have a longer life, then that can only be a good thing. But networks are greedy, as they prefer to milk shows to death to get as much out of them as possible until they burn out.

that would be fine, if only they would stick to that.

If I've seen clips on telly previews and/or read bits on the net or in a paper or magazine, it sometimes makes me think.........why bother watching now, I know what happens.

If they only gave out teasers rather than telling us everything, that would be different.

I remember the time in EE when Jane Beale got shot. I had no idea that was coming, and I just happened to put on This Morning at the exact time they were doing a soap review and they showed the whole scene!!!
It spoiled it for me and I did drift away from watching after that.

Great post Deschanel. I totally agree.

Edit: Also with the posts below. I gave up on EE when they wrecked the characters of Kat and Sharon. I returned on the promise of their restoration.

I think having a better sense of character history- and sticking to it- would certainly benefit Hollyoaks.

Because soaps have now become all about the big mystery and waiting for the twist, nobody watches the 'in-between' episodes. What the soaps should be doing is building up the tension and suspense through the writing, not by promising that something good will happen at some point over the coming weeks.

I agree with you on this too - for all the soaps.

It sometimes feels like an episode's writer doesn't know the character at all.

I think the way to reconnect with viewers is simple. Deliver back-to-basics storytelling, with an emphasis on character-driven material, and less sensationalism. By all means, have a couple of stunts a year or so if the story allows for it, and spoil less. The twists will mean viewers will keep coming back.

Most of all it's important to strike a chord with the viewer. They can really feel what a character goes through if they've been there themselves. For example, the wedding day. Show the character's nerves, maybe one or two trivial things go wrong but the wedding is a success in the end. Kirk and Beth's upcoming nuptials on Corrie would be a good chance to prove this fact.

I don't think less episodes would help, although potentially it might help the quality. Soaps are very much on-off viewing, with people dipping in and out. I think more people would turn off for good if there were less episodes.