DS Forums

 
 

Hollyoaks Inferno 2010


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-10-2015, 16:50
danp13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 140

With Hollyoaks 20th just around the corner, it got me thinking about other big stunts they've done in the past. Anyone remember the much-hyped inferno of 2010 that would 'change Hollyoaks forever'. It originally sounded amazing but was then completely ruined by last minute re writes, the changing of storylines at the 11th hour and some of the worst editing ever.
It eventually transpired that Dom was the arsonist after being terrorised by Bart. He set the fire to destroy a laptop that had 'revealing' pics of Amber on there and also to get the insurance money for Il Gnosh. Completely ridiculous and pointless scenes of Warren and Mandy were them crammed into these episodes to add an extra suspect.

What I want to know is Who the original intended arsonist was going to be?

It seems like Paul Marquess had some amazing storyline ideas, but he completely cut them and butchered the episodes at the last minute. Mitzeee's revenge on the Costello's went nowhere, the Sharpe's were axed (if they had remained on the shows and been good actors, I think they could have been a really good family with their storylines), Rob O'Connor was dropped so we'll never know what long term storyline plans his family unit had, Danny Houston was suddenly killed off in last minute scenes involving Brendan AND Warren (what had been intended for his character originally, before Warren and Mandy were shoe horned in?) etc.
I think if Paul's run as producer had followed his original plan storyline-wise, it would have been so much better.
danp13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-10-2015, 18:03
attitude99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Alcohol aisle in Tescos *gulp*
Posts: 12,043
I liked the fire itself but can't really remember it apart from the trailer

I preferred the Dog explosion myself, now that was epic.
attitude99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2015, 18:08
MediaMan5
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 724
Wasn't Amy originally killed in the fire? But then it was re-shot and they decided not to kill her off. Even footage of 'Amy dying' was leaked meaning they had even filmed it! Which shows what diabolical planning and what a shambles it was.
MediaMan5 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2015, 18:20
Hank1234
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,677
Paul Marquess killed the show... Axing most of the cast and bringing in new faces.... I've watched it since.... Talk about soap suicide
Hank1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2015, 18:29
cyrilandshirley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 39,630

What I want to know is Who the original intended arsonist was going to be?

It seems like Paul Marquess had some amazing storyline ideas, but he completely cut them and butchered the episodes at the last minute. Mitzeee's revenge on the Costello's went nowhere, the Sharpe's were axed (if they had remained on the shows and been good actors, I think they could have been a really good family with their storylines), Rob O'Connor was dropped so we'll never know what long term storyline plans his family unit had, Danny Houston was suddenly killed off in last minute scenes involving Brendan AND Warren (what had been intended for his character originally, before Warren and Mandy were shoe horned in?) etc.
I think if Paul's run as producer had followed his original plan storyline-wise, it would have been so much better.
I remember it well, it was a total shocker that they had to re-edit. I heard there was a proclamation from on high that they weren't happy with it. I always thought the original arsonist was Phil Sharpe, the Dad with 2 families. But they'd decided to write out all of the Sharpes anyway so it wouldn't have worked.

Most of those cuts you mentioned were all connected together, they had to pretty much change direction for the show on a sixpence. Kept Amy on, kept Brendan on (he was only signed up for 6 months originally), write out Dom and the Sharpes and Phil O' Connor, bring back Warren and Mandy.

The only one who I think was always meant to die was Danny Houston (on a short contract) - so I think they stuck to the plan there and had Brendan kill him but threw Warren into the mix as well.

I also sometimes wonder what the show would have been like without all the cuts, because I really liked Paul Marquess's work, he was ace. But we did get some good stuff out of it - the Brendan and Warren v Danny Houston plot was one of my favourites ever. And Amy was brilliant with Ste, and the Sharpes were flipping awful. I just wish they'd kept Marquess on as well to take it all forward.
cyrilandshirley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2015, 20:07
danp13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 140
I remember it well, it was a total shocker that they had to re-edit. I heard there was a proclamation from on high that they weren't happy with it. I always thought the original arsonist was Phil Sharpe, the Dad with 2 families. But they'd decided to write out all of the Sharpes anyway so it wouldn't have worked.

Most of those cuts you mentioned were all connected together, they had to pretty much change direction for the show on a sixpence. Kept Amy on, kept Brendan on (he was only signed up for 6 months originally), write out Dom and the Sharpes and Phil O' Connor, bring back Warren and Mandy.

The only one who I think was always meant to die was Danny Houston (on a short contract) - so I think they stuck to the plan there and had Brendan kill him but threw Warren into the mix as well.

I also sometimes wonder what the show would have been like without all the cuts, because I really liked Paul Marquess's work, he was ace. But we did get some good stuff out of it - the Brendan and Warren v Danny Houston plot was one of my favourites ever. And Amy was brilliant with Ste, and the Sharpes were flipping awful. I just wish they'd kept Marquess on as well to take it all forward.

This is exactly what I mean. He brought the show out of a very rough patch and gave it some interesting and different storylines and, if they had been played by good actors, some very good characters. It's just a shame he ruined it all by his last minute cuts and storyline changes. If he'd have stuck with it he would have had all those great characters and storylines mixing quite nicely together, which is exactly what Hollyoaks needed at the time.
danp13 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32.