Originally Posted by MrJames:
“Make it too fast and it becomes too cheap.”
“Make it too fast and it becomes too cheap.”
I agree.
EE - Is the slow burn effect starting to kill the storytelling?
2 of 3
Originally Posted by joe gillott:
“Agreed. He's going downhill fast.”
“Agreed. He's going downhill fast.”
That's a bit of an exaggeration. I much prefer how storylines play out at Eastenders than at hollyoaks where the characters are ruined for a shock storyline.
Originally Posted by joe gillott:
“Agreed. He's going downhill fast.”
“Agreed. He's going downhill fast.”
He needs to make filler and normal episode more entertaining and watchable. Even if there no big storyline during the spring and summer. He still need to make it fun to watch.
dominic Dreadwell Collins... 10 month storyline massive build up for **** all, nicks return story and ending? it was good at the beginning but its going downhill now. I still cant get over bobby ****ing beale that is an absolute joke.
Originally Posted by GeekInfected:
“I don't think slow burn would be the right terminology. A story will appear and then disappear for months on end with nothing "burning" in the mean time”
“I don't think slow burn would be the right terminology. A story will appear and then disappear for months on end with nothing "burning" in the mean time”
Yes, a slow burn suggests considered, organic development when what we get is stop-start plots that disappear off screen then lunge back on again with 1/4 of the story having taken place off camera.
Originally Posted by HarrietGrace:
“It's far too slow paced at the moment. It's making me bored of EastEnders.
I've even turned back to Hollyoaks, because despite some of the shocking writing and characterisation, at least things happen quickly. :O
It's frustrating me. Ronnie should have been back ages ago and there's so many other characters that just go missing for weeks on end.
I'm sick of characters returning or new characters being introduced and then not being seen for ages, such as nuMartin, Vincent, Kathy, Ryan (what on earth was the point of his 5 second return?!), and that's only naming a few.
There's also so many storylines that haven't been explained or have just stopped.
EE really need to sort it out. Everyone seems to love DTC on here, but I'm not really feeling it at the moment.”
“It's far too slow paced at the moment. It's making me bored of EastEnders.
I've even turned back to Hollyoaks, because despite some of the shocking writing and characterisation, at least things happen quickly. :O
It's frustrating me. Ronnie should have been back ages ago and there's so many other characters that just go missing for weeks on end.
I'm sick of characters returning or new characters being introduced and then not being seen for ages, such as nuMartin, Vincent, Kathy, Ryan (what on earth was the point of his 5 second return?!), and that's only naming a few.
There's also so many storylines that haven't been explained or have just stopped.
EE really need to sort it out. Everyone seems to love DTC on here, but I'm not really feeling it at the moment.”
If you are basing your enjoyment of Soap and tv on Hollyoaks then my goodness maybe you should stick to MTV
Hollyoaks is literally the most appalling, tacky, ridiculous, OTT show I've ever had the misfortune to 'watch' (yes I've caught an episode or two and i keep upto date with spoilers online)
I swear this is a generational thing. Younger people have very very very short attention spans.
Every return doesn't have to be a full-time return.
One off cameos, small appearances, they all add to the realism. They make the viewing experience rounded and fulfilling. Because in real life people are still out there, and you will only bump into someone briefly for a few minutes and they not see them again for 5 years.
What happened to allowing storylines room to breath, to bed in, to build up momentum.
We live in such an instant world now that impatience is an enemy of entertainment. Ya'll want it now!
The best soap storylines over the years have been ones that have built over time.
Danielle/Ronnie, The Jordache saga, Richard Hillman.
Originally Posted by cindy_watts:
“He needs to make filler and normal episode more entertaining and watchable. Even if there no big storyline during the spring and summer. He still need to make it fun to watch.”
“He needs to make filler and normal episode more entertaining and watchable. Even if there no big storyline during the spring and summer. He still need to make it fun to watch.”
That's not the problem imo.
He only focuses on his favorite characters.
He block storytells
This stupid slow introduction stuff
No interviews which a lot of fans like to read from a producer
Too lenient with how many of the main cast go on breaks at the same time. Minor characters haven't got the fan base to carry the show on yet as the weeks after live have proved and they could of had their stories beginning sooner.
Too many mick and linda scenes
Originally Posted by joe gillott:
“That's not the problem imo.
He only focuses on his favorite characters.
He block storytells
This stupid slow introduction stuff
No interviews which a lot of fans like to read from a producer
Too lenient with how many of the main cast go on breaks at the same time. Minor characters haven't got the fan base to carry the show on yet as the weeks after live have proved and they could of had their stories beginning sooner.
Too many mick and linda scenes”
“That's not the problem imo.
He only focuses on his favorite characters.
He block storytells
This stupid slow introduction stuff
No interviews which a lot of fans like to read from a producer
Too lenient with how many of the main cast go on breaks at the same time. Minor characters haven't got the fan base to carry the show on yet as the weeks after live have proved and they could of had their stories beginning sooner.
Too many mick and linda scenes”
Yeah we need a interview to know what going to happen and probably a trailer like corrie and all the soaps have. I agree with Mick and Linda they need to reduce the scenes because the take 85% of the episode lol.
Originally Posted by cindy_watts:
“Yeah we need a interview to know what going to happen and probably a trailer like corrie and all the soaps have. I agree with Mick and Linda they need to reduce the scenes because the take 85% of the episode lol.”
“Yeah we need a interview to know what going to happen and probably a trailer like corrie and all the soaps have. I agree with Mick and Linda they need to reduce the scenes because the take 85% of the episode lol.”
I much prefer surprises than finding out everything. Corrie gives every plot away at the moment and it's boring.
Originally Posted by LiammaiL:
“The thing is, if everything was wrapped up too quickly then people would moan that it is unrealistic.
They've just come out of a week of live episodes.
The Kathy reveal doesn't need to go anywhere until later in the year, it was just a nice shock/surprise for the audience in the live.
Just because a character isn't seen for a week or two doesn't mean they're being underused or they've disappeared.”
“The thing is, if everything was wrapped up too quickly then people would moan that it is unrealistic.
They've just come out of a week of live episodes.
The Kathy reveal doesn't need to go anywhere until later in the year, it was just a nice shock/surprise for the audience in the live.
Just because a character isn't seen for a week or two doesn't mean they're being underused or they've disappeared.”
Originally Posted by MrJames:
“Make it too fast and it becomes too cheap.”
“Make it too fast and it becomes too cheap.”
It's not even about having everything wrapped up or becoming too fast it just having some movement even if's a tad.
Originally Posted by cindy_watts:
“Yeah we need a interview to know what going to happen and probably a trailer like corrie and all the soaps have. I agree with Mick and Linda they need to reduce the scenes because the take 85% of the episode lol.”
“Yeah we need a interview to know what going to happen and probably a trailer like corrie and all the soaps have. I agree with Mick and Linda they need to reduce the scenes because the take 85% of the episode lol.”
He doesn't have to tell us everything nor in detail but to give teasers and how he feels about his past storylines and how they played out and such. I don't want everything a surprise though. I did like the month trailers we had in September and October and wish they were perminant and we had one end of every month.
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“I much prefer surprises than finding out everything. Corrie gives every plot away at the moment and it's boring.”
“I much prefer surprises than finding out everything. Corrie gives every plot away at the moment and it's boring.”
I get what you mean about suprises I like them too but we need answers and insight what going to happen in the future.
Originally Posted by joe gillott:
“That's not the problem imo.
He block storytells
Too many mick and linda scenes”
“That's not the problem imo.
He block storytells
Too many mick and linda scenes”
Block storytelling doesn't exist. People on here have just adopted the term last year.
Basically people who don't like certain characters or stories will complain when its the focus for a time.
Storylines have always been told that way. Its mainly the Carter haters that came up with this.
Mick and Linda own the Queen Vic. The central hub of the entire Square. The heart of the series.
They are also a fairly big deal in terms of EE narrative. They're first family to have ever moved to Albert Square to specifically take over the running of the pub.
Usually the Landlord/Landlady will be an already existing character who ends up running it.
They're the first Big Family unit since the Brannings to have moved to the Square.
Danny Dyer was quite a big name to be attached to the show.
So with all that in mind.
- First family unit in years.
- Only family to specifically move to the Square to run the pub.
- Live in the central heart of the show
- Big name casting
Plus its only been their first year.
OF COURSE they're gonna have a lot of fanfare and attention and screen time.
They're a pretty big dynamic change to what we've ever had in the Square before
Originally Posted by cindy_watts:
“I get what you mean about suprises I like them too but we need answers and insight what going to happen in the future.”
“I get what you mean about suprises I like them too but we need answers and insight what going to happen in the future.”
It depends on the storyline tbh. I don't mind waiting myself but I can understand others frustration. However back in the day storylines were more often than not slow burning (eg sharongate).
Originally Posted by LiammaiL:
“
I swear this is a generational thing. Younger people have very very very short attention spans.
Every return doesn't have to be a full-time return.
One off cameos, small appearances, they all add to the realism. They make the viewing experience rounded and fulfilling. Because in real life people are still out there, and you will only bump into someone briefly for a few minutes and they not see them again for 5 years.
What happened to allowing storylines room to breath, to bed in, to build up momentum.
We live in such an instant world now that impatience is an enemy of entertainment. Ya'll want it now!
The best soap storylines over the years have been ones that have built over time.
Danielle/Ronnie, The Jordache saga, Richard Hillman.”
“
I swear this is a generational thing. Younger people have very very very short attention spans.
Every return doesn't have to be a full-time return.
One off cameos, small appearances, they all add to the realism. They make the viewing experience rounded and fulfilling. Because in real life people are still out there, and you will only bump into someone briefly for a few minutes and they not see them again for 5 years.
What happened to allowing storylines room to breath, to bed in, to build up momentum.
We live in such an instant world now that impatience is an enemy of entertainment. Ya'll want it now!
The best soap storylines over the years have been ones that have built over time.
Danielle/Ronnie, The Jordache saga, Richard Hillman.”
That's far too simplistic. I am far from young and have a lot of patience, but I find the s/ls just lurch along in a most frustrating way. A mystery or two is fine, s/ls building is fine, but we must have at least a dozen mysteries ATM as well as gaps in the storytelling.
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“It depends on the storyline tbh. I don't mind waiting myself but I can understand others frustration. However back in the day storylines were more often than not slow burning (eg sharongate).”
“It depends on the storyline tbh. I don't mind waiting myself but I can understand others frustration. However back in the day storylines were more often than not slow burning (eg sharongate).”
There was no big mystery in sharongate. We knew what was happening from beginning to end. Although I'm fine with being left out of the loop from time to time they are now doing it with every s/l, every family.
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“It depends on the storyline tbh. I don't mind waiting myself but I can understand others frustration. However back in the day storylines were more often than not slow burning (eg sharongate).”
“It depends on the storyline tbh. I don't mind waiting myself but I can understand others frustration. However back in the day storylines were more often than not slow burning (eg sharongate).”
I think it smart to do slow burning storylines if the story is intresting like who killed lucy.
Originally Posted by vald:
“There was no big mystery in sharongate. We knew what was happening from beginning to end. Although I'm fine with being left out of the loop from time to time they are now doing it with every s/l, every family.”
“There was no big mystery in sharongate. We knew what was happening from beginning to end. Although I'm fine with being left out of the loop from time to time they are now doing it with every s/l, every family.”
Yes I agree but sharongate was still a long running storyline that built up over a considerable time period to its ahem unbelievably excellent/iconic climax
Originally Posted by cindy_watts:
“I think it smart to do slow burning storylines if the story is intresting like who killed lucy.”
“I think it smart to do slow burning storylines if the story is intresting like who killed lucy.”
I agree Cindy. I loved the Lucy storyline. the kat/alfie stuff isn't interesting me though.
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“Yes I agree but sharongate was still a long running storyline that built up over a considerable time period to its ahem unbelievably excellent/iconic climax”
“Yes I agree but sharongate was still a long running storyline that built up over a considerable time period to its ahem unbelievably excellent/iconic climax”
There's nothing wrong with long running s/l if they're well written, have a satisfactory conclusion and the viewer is allowed to feel involved.
Originally Posted by vald:
“There's nothing wrong with long running s/l if they're well written, have a satisfactory conclusion and the viewer is allowed to feel involved.”
“There's nothing wrong with long running s/l if they're well written, have a satisfactory conclusion and the viewer is allowed to feel involved.”
I completely agree vald.
Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“I agree Cindy. I loved the Lucy storyline. the kat/alfie stuff isn't interesting me though.”
“I agree Cindy. I loved the Lucy storyline. the kat/alfie stuff isn't interesting me though.”
I agree with some posters people are so unpatience these days and want everything to wrapped up in a week. I personally like the Who killed lucy storyline because it was throughout the year and it also make eastenders strong. Social media people was complaing like ffs when is the lucy storyline going to finish. I don't want eastenders to become like hollyoaks and become ott & ridiculous.
I think DTC's whole approach to pacing the show is awful, and has been since last spring. Storylines are slow paced, but not in the traditional sense of having a slow build up, they literally stop and start only to have developments happen off screen.
Denise hitting Patrick was so random, and just casually brushed aside. I still don't get the point of making Denise an abuser for a couple of episodes, as it all played out off screen. The same for her drinking problem, which seems to have been wrapped up? Patrick constantly seems to be left on his own, despite needing 24 hour care.
Characters pop up and disappear again for months on end. Sometimes, the characters will appear, but their story won't. The last time we saw Ben/Abi/Jay, Jay was blasting Abi for being stupid, and nearly outing Ben, but the next time we see them, they appear to have moved on. This group is a solid example of a group of characters having a story which never develops - it literally is going nowhere fast, and that's been the case since last year.
Ronnie had woken from her coma, then she hadn't, now she's improving off screen, apparently. Who know? We never see her. We never see a lot of characters.
The Carters have so many storylines, and none of them have really reached a decent conclusion. They seem to rotate their storylines every month. Right now it's all about Stan dying, which means Dean continues to be MIA; Mick and Shirley haven't really followed up on her being his mother; Nancy and Tamwar started something, but that's fallen off screen again; Lee had anger issues for a week, and nothing more. What's going on with Linda's rape case and questioning her unborn baby's paternity?
After Carol was given the all clear last summer, she started showing signs of struggling with the aftermath, but that story disappeared for months, only to be resurrected and concluded a couple of weeks ago, but by that time, I had forgotten all about it, and didn't really care. Carol certainly hadn't shown any signs of struggling in the previous months.
Why does Cindy want to randomly give up Beth, now? How does Ian and Jane wanting to adopt her serve any real purpose?
Mas is gambling, but I don't know what for - to buy the restaurant? Has that been forgotten? I guess it's all about his gambling addiction, now.
Will Shabnam's secret serve any real purpose?
Will Stacey's key have any real purpose?
Will Whitney trying to find Ryan, only to randomly give up have any real purpose?
Will Pam ever reveal who she killed? (I really don't recall if she told Billy the identity on screen.)
I guess Dot will only be appearing for one episode every two weeks until her story finally moves forward.
New characters are introduced, then disappear, only to reappear and still never get developed until months later. It hurts the show when they end up being front burner, and no-one really cares about them, b/c we haven't seen them. It's silly that it has taken so long for Donna to get any decent development, and the same for Shabnam really. And Martin should have been on screen long before now, so he could interact with other characters at a natural pace.
All of this stop and start pacing, slow introduction of characters ruins all momentum. It's so easy to lose interest in characters and their stories. If they don't have an actor for a while, then don't use them for a couple of episodes, then drop them for months. The pacing needs to be faster, but not Hollyoaks' breakneck speed, and plot points need to develop on screen. Stories need to develop organically, without feeling like they're happening at a certain time simply b/c it's Christmas/New year/September/etc, etc. This is all too obvious now.
I don't think a producer should be throwing out quotes to the media every few months. Producers very rarely did interviews in the past, and viewers survived without them. Sometimes, I think some producers are too involved with the media/Twitter, etc, etc, and should concentrate more on producing their shows.
Denise hitting Patrick was so random, and just casually brushed aside. I still don't get the point of making Denise an abuser for a couple of episodes, as it all played out off screen. The same for her drinking problem, which seems to have been wrapped up? Patrick constantly seems to be left on his own, despite needing 24 hour care.
Characters pop up and disappear again for months on end. Sometimes, the characters will appear, but their story won't. The last time we saw Ben/Abi/Jay, Jay was blasting Abi for being stupid, and nearly outing Ben, but the next time we see them, they appear to have moved on. This group is a solid example of a group of characters having a story which never develops - it literally is going nowhere fast, and that's been the case since last year.
Ronnie had woken from her coma, then she hadn't, now she's improving off screen, apparently. Who know? We never see her. We never see a lot of characters.
The Carters have so many storylines, and none of them have really reached a decent conclusion. They seem to rotate their storylines every month. Right now it's all about Stan dying, which means Dean continues to be MIA; Mick and Shirley haven't really followed up on her being his mother; Nancy and Tamwar started something, but that's fallen off screen again; Lee had anger issues for a week, and nothing more. What's going on with Linda's rape case and questioning her unborn baby's paternity?
After Carol was given the all clear last summer, she started showing signs of struggling with the aftermath, but that story disappeared for months, only to be resurrected and concluded a couple of weeks ago, but by that time, I had forgotten all about it, and didn't really care. Carol certainly hadn't shown any signs of struggling in the previous months.
Why does Cindy want to randomly give up Beth, now? How does Ian and Jane wanting to adopt her serve any real purpose?
Mas is gambling, but I don't know what for - to buy the restaurant? Has that been forgotten? I guess it's all about his gambling addiction, now.
Will Shabnam's secret serve any real purpose?
Will Stacey's key have any real purpose?
Will Whitney trying to find Ryan, only to randomly give up have any real purpose?
Will Pam ever reveal who she killed? (I really don't recall if she told Billy the identity on screen.)
I guess Dot will only be appearing for one episode every two weeks until her story finally moves forward.
New characters are introduced, then disappear, only to reappear and still never get developed until months later. It hurts the show when they end up being front burner, and no-one really cares about them, b/c we haven't seen them. It's silly that it has taken so long for Donna to get any decent development, and the same for Shabnam really. And Martin should have been on screen long before now, so he could interact with other characters at a natural pace.
All of this stop and start pacing, slow introduction of characters ruins all momentum. It's so easy to lose interest in characters and their stories. If they don't have an actor for a while, then don't use them for a couple of episodes, then drop them for months. The pacing needs to be faster, but not Hollyoaks' breakneck speed, and plot points need to develop on screen. Stories need to develop organically, without feeling like they're happening at a certain time simply b/c it's Christmas/New year/September/etc, etc. This is all too obvious now.
Originally Posted by joe gillott:
“No interviews which a lot of fans like to read from a producer”
“No interviews which a lot of fans like to read from a producer”
I don't think a producer should be throwing out quotes to the media every few months. Producers very rarely did interviews in the past, and viewers survived without them. Sometimes, I think some producers are too involved with the media/Twitter, etc, etc, and should concentrate more on producing their shows.
Another potential problem and concern for good storytelling for me is the emphasis on this new BSA award for issue lead storylines which I fear may mean shows tailoring their stories with too much of an eye on awards.
Storytelling is best when it's character lead,too many storylines tailored too much towards being issue lead In feel could end up a mishmash mess of an exercise storytelling.
I fear this prize may tilt the balance against the best forms of storytelling.
Storytelling is best when it's character lead,too many storylines tailored too much towards being issue lead In feel could end up a mishmash mess of an exercise storytelling.
I fear this prize may tilt the balance against the best forms of storytelling.
2 of 3
