|
||||||||
Is there a case for fewer characters in our soaps? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 98
|
Is there a case for fewer characters in our soaps?
Recently, I have been wondering whether or not fewer main cast members/characters in the UK soaps would to an extentovercome someof the issues that are very often levelled against the different soaps at different times.
■ Eastenders has around 45 main characters ■ Coronation Street has 60+ ■ Emmerdale has 50+ Would fewer characters minimise the impact of block storytelling as less characters means more can be integrated into primary and secondary storylines more seamlessly and feature onscreen simultaneously? Fewer characters might also allow for more in depth character development meaning viewers engage, empathise, relate to, love/hate but most importantly care about what happens to the characters...This in turn could make storylines more enthralling as viewers will know characters more in depth and therfore care about what happens to them in theor various storylines. It could also minimise the underuse of certain characters/cast members with fewer members of cast as the ones that are there will need to be used effectively. With fewer cast members there would be less money spent on salaries and this could be reinvested in other areas of the shows. Don't get me wrong, I realise that a lot of the issues that our soaps are facing is simply not down to having a large cast in fact most probably aren't! It would fair to say the soaps have had large cast numbers for many years and it is down to how they are used/managed. Moreover, block storytelling is mainly down to the decisions made by scriptwriters/producers than simply a problem that is borne out of have 50-60+ characters. Furthermore, more characters adds to the realism of the various communities and helps add diversity and facilitates more varied storylines as you have many different types of characters to place in various situations etc etc. Also, from a practical standpoint with more cast members filming schedules and cast annual leave can be better facilitated and managed without impacting as much on production. There are pros and cons of potentially reducing cast numbers and I'm not advocating that our soaps adopt the Aussie approach with their soaps consistently having fewer than 25 regular cast members. I'm just wondering if we really need as many as 60+ and if there would be a case to be made for reducing cast/character numbers to an average of between 30 and 40, for example? What does everyone think? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,706
|
I'd love to see Coronation Street's cast slashed down to around 20 regulars and 15 'occasionals', but the likelihood of that happening is close to zero.
We really don't need so many people squeezed into these tiny terraced houses. It's worse than something in Dickens. Five people squeezed into the Barlows' and five fully grown adults climbing the walls at the Grimshaws'. Ridiculous. I'm not quite sure when the explosion of soap casts happened, but it's definitely a symptom of the wider decline of the genre over the past decade or so. Too many plates spinning and not enough energy to keep them all going. Corrie had a fairly consistent core cast of between 20 and 35 up until the late 90s when the cast suddenly doubled in size. I know that I've often heard the higher episode output as being one of the reasons for the increase, but I'm not entirely sure that this is the case. I think that one of the main issues is that there is little distinction now between a core cast member and what is essentially a glorified extra. All new characters are parachuted into the show with big fanfare and the promise of 'explosive scenes' and 'dark secrets'. Gone are the days when actresses like Liz Dawn, Lynne Perrie or even Helen Worth would spend 4 or 5 years making irregular appearances before their characters became regulars. Now every new character is expected to make a big impact from the moment they arrive. Frustratingly, very few of them do make an impact and we're just left with a cast that grows more and more bloated. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 8,047
|
I like that the soaps have 60+ characters, it makes them have a real community feel to them. If they start getting rid of characters say cut it down to 30, the shows won't feel the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
I'm not quite sure when the explosion of soap casts happened, but it's definitely a symptom of the wider decline of the genre over the past decade or so. Too many plates spinning and not enough energy to keep them all going. Corrie had a fairly consistent core cast of between 20 and 35 up until the late 90s when the cast suddenly doubled in size. I know that I've often heard the higher episode output as being one of the reasons for the increase, but I'm not entirely sure that this is the case. I think that one of the main issues is that there is little distinction now between a core cast member and what is essentially a glorified extra. All new characters are parachuted into the show with big fanfare and the promise of 'explosive scenes' and 'dark secrets'. Gone are the days when actresses like Liz Dawn, Lynne Perrie or even Helen Worth would spend 4 or 5 years making irregular appearances before their characters became regulars. Now every new character is expected to make a big impact from the moment they arrive. Frustratingly, very few of them do make an impact and we're just left with a cast that grows more and more bloated. Also, like you say do we really need upwards of 60 characters to facilitate 5 episodes a week? Australian soaps have always had five episodes and week and have consistently had less than 25 regular cast members. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
I like that the soaps have 60+ characters, it makes them have a real community feel to them. If they start getting rid of characters say cut it down to 30, the shows won't feel the same.
The only thing I would say is, do we really need 60 plus cast members to have a commuinty feel. Surely good scriptwriters and sroryline developers could do more with fewer cast members... |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 8,047
|
Quote:
I completely agree with your point too. I have an open minded approach to this topic and don't quite know what to think. That's why it is interesting to hear different opinions on the subject!
The only thing I would say is, do we really need 60 plus cast members to have a commuinty feel. Surely good scriptwriters and sroryline developers could do more with fewer cast members... |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 98
|
Quote:
I think so, The US soaps never had 60+ cast members but I remember when they started cutting minor characters to save costs and minor characters disappeared to me the shows lost their feel of community and warmth.
That's another problem that arises as a result of having a 60+ regular cast list is that there is virtually no room for guest roles and therefore the vast majority of characters can only be seen interacting with people they live with or beside and end up having an affair with or murdering their next door neighbour etc etc. In the real world we all interact with people on a daily basis from all sorts of backgrounds, people who live miles from ourselves and we don't all live, work and socialise on the same street and with the three people we live beside. Now, I know that the producers are restricted by the set and the costs of filming on location etc etc so I'm not advocating that they start taking the drama away from the sets(that would be impractical) BUT if there was room for more guest roles the scopeand variety for storylines revolving around the smaller core cast would be varied, more compelling and more realistic, I feel. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 8,047
|
Quote:
I wonder if UK soaps reduced their regular main characters to about 30 but introduced more supporting/guest characters that made appearences for a few months as part of various storylines. This would not only allow for a stronger core group of main characters that would appear regularly onscreen and be well developed and connected to the viewers but the guest characters would give a sense of a wider community and also a variety of different storylines.
That's another problem that arises as a result of having a 60+ regular cast list is that there is virtually no room for guest roles and therefore the vast majority of characters can only be seen interacting with people they live with or beside and end up having an affair with or murdering their next door neighbour etc etc. In the real world we all interact with people on a daily basis from all sorts of backgrounds, people who live miles from ourselves and we don't all live, work and socialise on the same street and with the three people we live beside. Now, I know that the producers are restricted by the set and the costs of filming on location etc etc so I'm not advocating that they start taking the drama away from the sets(that would be impractical) BUT if there was room for more guest roles the scopeand variety for storylines revolving around the smaller core cast would be varied, more compelling and more realistic, I feel. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:17.

