|
Post by joshjones on Nov 14, 2007 22:48:56 GMT
Those titles are such a mess, I always thought they were put down by someone from on high. Kirkwood's squirming about them doesn't change my mind.
I had hoped someone would ask him if he considered the Boringtines to be mistakes, as they really are a huge waste of time and they have been on the show for far too long, but it sounds like he probably wouldn't have answered the question anyway. I really wish that we could get these producers off the record sometimes because they will always give the most formal, self-supporting answers in these settings.
Poor Summer Strallen, maybe she had already been outspoken once before and that's why they put her with Rubbish Tranny? She sounds even better in person than she is on the show.
Thanks so much to all of you who went and who told us what happened. Sounds like it was an interesting time. This is the place where I most wanted to read the reactions of those who attended the panel, because I think DS will end up being all about how Kirkwood did not swear on James Sutton's life that JP will spend the rest of his time weeping over Craig until the blessed Sunset Ending.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Nov 14, 2007 22:53:36 GMT
Spoilerwise: Paedo!rape is "not all it may at first appear". So it hi-jinx rather than real rape based. Great
|
|
|
Post by joshjones on Nov 14, 2007 22:55:40 GMT
I wonder if it's supposed to be about what false accusations can do, how this divides the town, ruins their opinion of Simon, OB leaves when people think he would put Tom in danger, etc. I don't know. When I first read the spoilers last month it seemed like the story was deliberately vague. That's why I was surprised the episode this week was so heavily pointing in the paedo direction.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkle on Nov 14, 2007 22:55:50 GMT
I think DS will end up being all about how Kirkwood did not swear on James Sutton's life that JP will spend the rest of his time weeping over Craig until the blessed Sunset Ending. Ooh, someone did ask about that - that's when Kirkwood (or was it HollyoaksNotLouis?) asked them, "Are you from Digital Spy?", we all laughed like lunatics, and then he said, "Oh no, they must be over there" (pointing at us). He said that watching people weeping over photos isn't very interesting telly.
|
|
|
Post by joshjones on Nov 14, 2007 22:58:39 GMT
Thanks. That's very funny. I expect a lot of "NO ONE EVER SAID WE WANTED TEARS, WE JUST WANT SOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF JP'S PAIN AS HE HAS NOW BEEN RUINED AS A CHARACTER!!!11!!" and 5000000 word essays on how Bryan Kirkwood betrayed McDeaners and only cares about headlines.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Nov 14, 2007 23:03:29 GMT
I think that it was notHollyoaksLouis who asked that.
Some of the girls who asked questions were serious mentalists taking it very seriously.
Taking Hollyoaks seriously is something I just don't get.
Except for Camel's pilferred humps, which is NOT a joke.
|
|
|
Post by joshjones on Nov 14, 2007 23:17:48 GMT
Did they ask Summer any Bonnie Langford questions? I mentioned this in the regular HO thread, but Is it true they said something about a late night special with the McQueens? Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkle on Nov 14, 2007 23:20:06 GMT
No, no Langford questions.
Re your spoiler - they did - they said no! At least, in terms of late nighters, maybe some day but not now.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Nov 14, 2007 23:51:15 GMT
All in all, I think it's a good thing I didn't attend this - I would have heckled.
I made cookies instead.
|
|
|
Post by joshjones on Nov 15, 2007 1:13:13 GMT
Thanks, Sparkle, I appreciate you answering my question.
|
|
|
Post by Robbing the Dead on Nov 15, 2007 1:43:34 GMT
The programme sheet thing had the Valentine family down as being one of the high-points of the show's recent success. Yes, it may be a good thing they introduced a black family, but surely they don't actually think they are any good.
A really old, bit senile, man asked if there would be a spin-off for the McQueens, because "they have every snag going". Then he rambled on about them being "typical Liverpool Irish, they're typical Liverpool Irish", and then, being an old man, launched into "the first time I encountered Liverpool Irish was when I was in the army...."
A few seats along from me there was another really old man, who was alone, but he fell asleep about half way through.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Nov 15, 2007 9:37:07 GMT
The Boringtines as a high point did strike me as odd. It did help me understand a lot of the random character changes that seemed to happen last year and a bit. It seems Kirkwood felt he was landed with 50% bad actors and 50% 'good' actors in shite roles. So to fix the latter he transformed Jake from 'loveable' looser into Cromagnon hit and run prick and Craig from wheeler-dealer to repressed gay sexually deviant prick.
I suppose it's a testament of sorts that it didn't completely fall apart in the interim. However it does belie his statement that he'd like Hollyoaks to be taken seriously, as random character inconsistency is still very much a major weakness.
I should stop thinking about this now.
|
|
|
Post by Steven on Nov 15, 2007 11:49:40 GMT
Re your spoiler - they did - they said no! At least, in terms of late nighters, maybe some day but not now. I thought they said that one was actually planned? Oh, I'm all confused now.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkle on Nov 15, 2007 13:22:55 GMT
Re your spoiler - they did - they said no! At least, in terms of late nighters, maybe some day but not now. I thought they said that one was actually planned? Oh, I'm all confused now. I don't think it was planned as a late-nighter? He said he didn't want to do any more late-nighters at the moment because HOLLYOAKS IS ON AT 6.30.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Nov 15, 2007 14:15:38 GMT
I thought he said that they wanted to get away from the late night spinoffs etc. to reestablish what Hollyoaks is (shit?) and that they were considering doing one in the new year about the McQueen's going to Manchester.
However the important point was that Hollyoaks is on at 6:30 and that must be the priority.
Six. Thirty.
|
|
|
Post by joshjones on Nov 15, 2007 15:19:04 GMT
I wonder if the resistance to more specials is because the last specials or spinoff shows were so poorly received. Even in Bryan Kirkwood's first interviews after taking over as producer, he seemed very cool to more of them, aside from what was already in the pipeline ("In the City"). Or maybe I mixed that up with somebody else.
I thought Jake was a huge jagoff when he was with Becca. Then after the hit and run, he became more pathetic, and eventually, I was even willing to add "sym" to the pathetic. I didn't like him but I did think he had become a less repulsive person. Then after Craig came out, the switch flips and he's not only a homophobe, but one who seems to enjoy humiliating his brother. Since then they have tried to build up more to why he's falling apart, but they really made a mistake with how they handled his reaction to Craig. And then there's Nancy. We should be feeling for her in this story, but she's such a nasty bint and has been that way for such a long time that instead of seeing her as this wonderful woman who is settling for a useless man, I just see a selfish, stuck-up poser who is nowhere near as clever or important as she thinks she is.
If they're going to give somebody a worthless story, then worthless casting is fine, but when someone has a story that has the potential to be good, or at least entertaining, than casting a potted plant is a horrible idea, because viewers feel cheated. This is exactly what has happened with Bethbot.
Too many characters end up doing or saying something really awful and then we're just supposed to get over it, either because they move on to other plots or because they sort of feel bad for a split second. Now we have the Skoda/Tony sex, which crosses a line the characters hadn't crossed and makes them both look like shit.
There are also too many characters who go around smirking all the time in spite of doing nothing to justify such behavior. In real life there are people who act like this, but in the fictional world it's nice to see this type of smug person get some comeuppance and have to earn the right to be pleased with themselves.
I also wish they'd cut some of their dead weight. I don't mind side characters like Fletch or Gilly, but the Boringtines add nothing, I don't really know why Swimbint still needs to be on the show, and while I try to like all the McQueens, they might want to consider giving some of them a rest. They obviously have no real story plans right now for some of the sisters, and instead mistake partner swapping for character development. Sending Mercedes, Tina, or Carmel out of town for a while wouldn't be the worst idea.
I really enjoy lots of Hollyoaks. The performances, the humor, the quirky character interaction, and some really complex, fascinating characters (Jacqui, Steph, JP). I think they let themselves hear too much hype earlier this year when the stories were never quite as good as the momentum which carried them (McDean lagged during the summer and only burst back up when Guy was leaving, and aside from Gemma Bissix's wonderful performances, the Clare story was flat for quite a while between the time she tried to kill Max at the cabin and the time she was presumed drowned). Now that momentum is gone and the show seems to be aimlessly wandering along. That's not the worst thing in the world, it's provided some interesting moments we may not have had otherwise, but they shouldn't make it quite so obvious that they have no idea what they're doing month to month. I think that freewheeling nature has pushed people's buttons and in some cases, like John Paul's story, could have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Robbing the Dead on Nov 15, 2007 23:46:00 GMT
I thought he said they might do late night specials in a couple of years, but for now, Hollyoaks is just on at 6:30.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkle on Nov 15, 2007 23:51:32 GMT
Sorry, what time is Hollyoaks on?
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Nov 16, 2007 9:22:07 GMT
I'm not quite sure. I think we should write to Bryan and find out.
|
|
|
Post by Robbing the Dead on Nov 16, 2007 15:09:09 GMT
I missed Hollyoaks last night because I completely forgot what time it's on. I tuned in at 10:30 because it's so hard-hitting and controversial I thought, it must have been on after the watershed.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Nov 16, 2007 16:50:07 GMT
But... but... but...
It's on at 7, isn't it?
Or have I been doing it all wrong for the last 18 months?
|
|
|
Post by secretoakser on Jan 6, 2008 19:15:16 GMT
BK's lies at the symposium:
1) Hollyoaks used to be terrible but now it's amazing. (Come, come, that's not only incredibly smug and self-satisfied but also WRONG).
2) All the current 'actors' and 'actresses' in Hollyoaks are good looking. (I can see why some people might be considered attractive but they offer a very narrow view of attractiveness which, with the exception of JP and perhaps OB doesn't appeal to me at all).
3) All the current 'actors' and 'actresses' in Hollyoaks are Brando-esque Gods and Goddesses of the screen. (Who is he watching?).
The best bit about the symposium was when Hannah said some of the cast read the forums and got upset by them. I don't mean to be cruel at all but if I was doing a bad job, I'd be told about it and, if it continued, fired. Most of their egos probably do need bashing down a bit.
|
|