Hollyoaks nearly DEAD

Oh lord I just assumed it was. It seems to have done well for them so I can see it becoming a staple. For now, anyway. (Ken Bruce is not a renewable source)
 
Same. On arrival in any new hotel room I do now find myself HUNTING FOR PUBES, so I can be appalled in homage to it
 
It's somewhat ironic that viewers routinely complain that UK soaps produce too much content, but Hollyoaks cutting back is seen as the next step towards it being axed.

That said, they've made all these changes to where and when the show is broadcast to appeal to their younger demographic, but generally, if you're competing in that domain, the strategy is more content, not less. It's probably reasonable to suggest five 30-minute (including adverts) episodes a week is too much, but then, the format is surely the issue, not the amount.
 
And the downsizing begins

Cindy AXED

The show were apparently going to claim the actress quit, but Steph Waring has publically stated she's part of the cull.

She's the first I think to admit she's been binned - there's been a few other "resignations" though including Jamie Lomas and poor old Jamelia.

She's second only to Nick Pickard in longevity. I guess we knew things were dire, but they really are in the shitter if they're immediately going there. In Hollyoaks terms, it's the equivalent of EE culling Kathy or Phil.
 
Take it off air, give it a couple of years, reintroduce it with most of the families gone, bring back the Mandy Richardson Memorial Community College, make the storylines about actual human drama and not just issue of the week shite, have a massive explosion every few months. Problem solved.
 
I suspect their actual "solution" will just be more McQueens, and Silas back to try and kill Mercedes round #13.

Sarah Jayne Dunn's decision to stick with the Only Fans £ seems very much the right one at this point!
 
Silas (already DEAD) was murdered by eleven-year-old bad seed Bobbeh McQueen who pushed him onto a life size electrified chess board where other members of the family were being used as pawns.

Hollyoaks (almost DEAD) really fulfils the CAMP missing from other soaps.

See also Evil Maddie’s “Final Destination” style comeuppance.

 
That Silas thing sounded like a parody, but YouTube confirmed it's REAL :D

That same clip also has who I think is DAME GLYNIS BARBER doing her best acting yet (unconscious)

Maddie's death was the very very very peak of Hollyoaks. Downhill from there.

Sarah's parachute splat in second place.
 
Sarah's death is genuinely one of the most horrifying, haunting soap moments. The editing and music are brilliant.

I admire Channel 4's persistence in pushing forward, but I don't see any of these changes making any difference to the inevitable outcome.

SOAP DEATH PREDICTOR:

1. Hollyoaks
2. Neighbours (again)
3. EastEnders (licence fee dependent. It's great right now, but is stuck in third place behind Corrie and Emmerdale and will absolutely not survive another slump like the one it's just come out of)
4. Coronation Street (surviving on its legacy and little else at the moment)
5. Emmerdale (ITV could sell studio tours out of the Corrie set for years to come, so it makes sense to stick with the cheaper of their two soaps)
6. Home & Away (will outlive us all due to that lifetime deal with Channel 5)
 
I'd swap Emmerdale into 3rd (no way are ITV ever ditching Corrie before it), but otherwise YES

As much as they are all in the doldrums though, I only see #1 and #2 happening in the next five years.

I think there'll be a much higher tolerance for financial loss on the others given their "brand power". Corrie definitely has a good few easy budget savings if they ever need - their cast size is utterly ludicrous.
 
They really need to put it (and Mercedes McQueen) out of its misery now.
 
Shoat said:
I'd swap Emmerdale into 3rd (no way are ITV ever ditching Corrie before it), but otherwise YES

As much as they are all in the doldrums though, I only see #1 and #2 happening in the next five years.

I think there'll be a much higher tolerance for financial loss on the others given their "brand power". Corrie definitely has a good few easy budget savings if they ever need - their cast size is utterly ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Coronation Street is such a mess. The tabloids are starting to jump on it, but they're only saying things that have been evident to most viewers for at least a year or so. The cast size really is ridiculous - they have over 80 permanent cast members! Even taking into account the fact that they churn out three 60-minute (including adverts) episodes a week, that's about 30 more than EastEnders and Emmerdale have.

I just wonder whether it'll eventually become more lucrative for ITV to sell studio tours out of the set than actually make a show. It's well-situated for visitors (unlike Emmerdale) and I can imagine enough people would happily traipse through it for a good few years.

Either way, I think both Coronation Street and Emmerdale will end up being scaled back within the next few years (which would probably be a good thing). They've reached saturation point, and they're losing 200,000 - 300,000 viewers year on year.
 
I wonder if
Cindy and Warren
being the starters is an indication of where Hollyoaks will try to go.

Looking at their cast list, despite their reputation as a "youth soap", the majority of Hollyoaks' leads are now hovering around in the 35 - 45 bracket. They've naturally and perhaps unwittingly aged upwards as they've refused to move focus from the likes of Mercedes, Ste, Darren, John-Paul etc.

I could imagine there being an idea of a total reset back to teenagers and 21 year old Owen Warner-a-likes.

I also think it would likely fail.
 
Last edited:
Slave said:
Coronation Street is such a mess. The tabloids are starting to jump on it, but they're only saying things that have been evident to most viewers for at least a year or so. The cast size really is ridiculous - they have over 80 permanent cast members! Even taking into account the fact that they churn out three 60-minute (including adverts) episodes a week, that's about 30 more than EastEnders and Emmerdale have.

I just wonder whether it'll eventually become more lucrative for ITV to sell studio tours out of the set than actually make a show. It's well-situated for visitors (unlike Emmerdale) and I can imagine enough people would happily traipse through it for a good few years.

Either way, I think both Coronation Street and Emmerdale will end up being scaled back within the next few years (which would probably be a good thing). They've reached saturation point, and they're losing 200,000 - 300,000 viewers year on year.
Click to expand...

Ever since the backlash against Brian Park in the late 90s, they've been TERRIFIED of moving cast members on. I can't think of another drama that would pay an Andrew Whyment for almost 25 years without getting a single storyline out of them.
 
Last edited:
Mercedes is also pregnant with twins, one black, one white as the lucky cow is seeing both Warren Fox and whatever Richard Blackwood's character is.

It wouldn't surprise me if it went down the Brookside Road of death and eventually be broadcast as an omnibus only.
 
Shoat said:
I wonder if
Cindy and Warren
being the starters is an indication of where Hollyoaks will try to go.

Looking at their cast list, despite their reputation as a "youth soap", the majority of Hollyoaks' leads are now hovering around in the 35 - 45 bracket. They've naturally and perhaps unwittingly aged upwards as they've refused to move focus from the likes of Mercedes, Ste, Darren, John-Paul etc.

I could imagine there being an idea of a total reset back to teenagers and 21 year old Owen Warner-a-likes.

I also think it would likely fail.
Click to expand...
It looks like Hollyoaks may be skewing younger as there have been some hastily aged-up reintroductions of forgotten children recently. Tony, Ste, and Darren now all have 15/16 year-olds involved in twincest abuse and gay conversion therapy plots. Plus the return of Kathleen-Angel and Myra-Pocahontas indicates more possible HOT MESS McQueen storylines.

The only teen freshly axed was Ella Richardson who is the last link to Sarah Jayne Dunn. There was no explanation as to why Mandy didn't even attend her own daughter's funeral. :bruised:
 
Slave said:
Coronation Street is such a mess. The tabloids are starting to jump on it, but they're only saying things that have been evident to most viewers for at least a year or so. The cast size really is ridiculous - they have over 80 permanent cast members! Even taking into account the fact that they churn out three 60-minute (including adverts) episodes a week, that's about 30 more than EastEnders and Emmerdale have.

I just wonder whether it'll eventually become more lucrative for ITV to sell studio tours out of the set than actually make a show. It's well-situated for visitors (unlike Emmerdale) and I can imagine enough people would happily traipse through it for a good few years.

Either way, I think both Coronation Street and Emmerdale will end up being scaled back within the next few years (which would probably be a good thing). They've reached saturation point, and they're losing 200,000 - 300,000 viewers year on year.
Click to expand...

Corrie lives on its legacy. I think it would be the last one to go just because it is the longest running. How that will stand when the likes of old William Roache and Barbara Knox do the inevitable in the not so distant future is anyone’s guess. Who is in charge at Corrie at the moment? I agree it has been terrible for quite some time and I think it has probably too far gone now to come back from it.

Eastenders still seems to pull in the punters on the big storylines, although week to week the viewing figures although stable at the moment are terrible and it consistently falling behind the equally awful Emmerdae is NOT a good look for them.
 
Slave I don't think the 'Corrie studio tours' suggestion has legs considering Granada Studios flopped, and far more recently - if it were viable - they could still have the old (used-for-decades-until-recently) set open for tours to the public. But they clearly didn't see that as sustainable longer term than the period of time they had it open.

Things can change, but EastEnders feels safest of all the soaps tbh, as it seems best suited to the streaming age? It skews far younger than the ITV soaps, and is pretty much always at the top of the iPlayer most popular chart. I'd still be surprised if it still exists in 10-15 years though.

Hollyoaks will be dead whenever this new deal that's seen it reduced in eps runs out (is that two or three more years?). And I think Neighbours will probably go before it.
 
Finn said:
Slave I don't think the 'Corrie studio tours' suggestion has legs considering Granada Studios flopped, and far more recently - if it were viable - they could still have the old (used-for-decades-until-recently) set open for tours to the public. But they clearly didn't see that as sustainable longer term than the period of time they had it open.
Click to expand...

They're using the existing set to run the Coronation Street tours instead now. I guess financially, it makes sense to have everything in one place. Though there are some fans who argue having studio tours of the (exterior) live set is contributing to some of the issues because it immediately limits access for filming.

There are plenty of changes that could be made to Coronation Street before any serious discussions are had about its future. Nonetheless, it must be one of the most expensive soaps to produce given the massive, long-term cast size and while the most-watched of the big three, it's not exactly steaming ahead in the ratings.
 
ButterTart said:
Oh, parents never turn up for their children's funerals. Liz Burton lost both of her daughters in the Dog in the Pond fire and couldn't be arsed showing up to see them off.
Click to expand...
Actually just realised that of all the kids from the Burton-Taylor household (Justin, Sophie, Mel, Ali, Darlene), only Darlene is still alive.
 
Finn said:
Slave I don't think the 'Corrie studio tours' suggestion has legs considering Granada Studios flopped, and far more recently - if it were viable - they could still have the old (used-for-decades-until-recently) set open for tours to the public. But they clearly didn't see that as sustainable longer term than the period of time they had it open.

Things can change, but EastEnders feels safest of all the soaps tbh, as it seems best suited to the streaming age? It skews far younger than the ITV soaps, and is pretty much always at the top of the iPlayer most popular chart. I'd still be surprised if it still exists in 10-15 years though.

Hollyoaks will be dead whenever this new deal that's seen it reduced in eps runs out (is that two or three more years?). And I think Neighbours will probably go before it.
Click to expand...
Do we KNOW EastEnders skews 'far younger' than Coronation Street and Emmerdale? I suspect it does attract a younger audience, but I don't think it's a massively significant difference. This is where I wish the BBC reported demographic info like commercial channels do. And that there was more of it generally.

We know that EastEnders does better on non TV viewing than Corrie and Emmerdale, but also that for all soaps regardless, much of their viewing is still live. And on streaming there isn't actually THAT much of a difference. If you look at the top episode of the soaps this last reporting week, the non live viewing is 1.842m for Corrie, 1.667m for Emmerdale, and 1.660m for EastEnders. Obviously that's a greater proportion for EastEnders given a lower total audience, but it does make me think the demographic difference isn't huge.

I suspect that of the 3.5 - 4.5m viewers that those three soaps get now, at least half those people watch all three, and the demographic difference isn't as significant as we think.
 
I'd be surprised if any of the big three soaps had an average viewer age below 40.
 
People seem to be guessing that both Chelsee Healey and Anna Passey may be culled, due to posts both have made on social media.
 
Alex Fletcher similarly

I do wonder if this might spark mass resignations even from those not on the axe list.

I wouldn't see Hollyoaks as a stable long-term gig, even if I were picked to stay.
 
I've also read (and this is just speculation as far as I'm aware) that there may be a TIME JUMP later this year so all the departing characters don't have an exit storyline - they will just suddenly not be around and presumably it will be like a great reset :D
 
lolly said:
I've also read (and this is just speculation as far as I'm aware) that there may be a TIME JUMP later this year so all the departing characters don't have an exit storyline - they will just suddenly not be around and presumably it will be like a great reset :D
Click to expand...

It's basically going to be Neighbours without mute Kylie!

Maybe they'll also relaunch with a shock wedding between Mercedes and Jack Osborne.
 
It’s a bit concerning that all the characters rumoured to be axed so far seem to be long term women.

And yet they bring back Freddie and Robbie Roscoe.

I think they are trying to get a younger audience but forgetting that the only ones that watch the show these days are those that have been watching long term and love the older characters they’re axing.

I give the show till September 2025. It’s fucked.
 
Are soaps dead generally? Will there never be another one really?
 
I imagine bringing back the Roscoes (and also Hannah and Suzanne Ashworth) was actually a panicked tactic to bring back those old viewers BEFORE the C4 renewal decision rather than because of.
 
cwej said:
Are soaps dead generally? Will there never be another one really?
Click to expand...
I think so. It’s a huge commitment to watch every episode of a show that never ends. These days most people watch limited series with a specific number of episodes.

Soaps died a death much earlier in the US, it’s just taking more time for it to happen here.
 
Aside from the commitment demand (which is a very valid point), the other challenge soaps have is the trend for TV dramas to become big budget movie-like epics.

They had it fine up until the early 00s when they could set fire to a couple of sets, and it would be the closest thing to BIG EVENT that most terrestrial TV viewers would get, unless you stayed up until 11pm for ER.

Now it all seems rather TAME
 
Agreed on all of the above points, plus the fact that soaps have basically done every storyline to death now. It’s no longer must-see when you’ve seen other characters go through a variation of the same already

I think the reason the EE flash forward made so much noise was because it was something a mainstream soap hadn’t done, so it had a novelty to it. Even though aside from that element it was just the standard non pre-meditated murder that bonds a few characters together when they panic and don’t just CALL THE POLICE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom