Confused Trains

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:09 pm

whoever made that sign couldn't have done it with a straight face

seaflower · Post by **seaflower** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:30 am

The tone was lowered of this forum when someone suggested that the writers for hollyoaks deserve an award. What a load of tosh, that soap has become the most flippant, half hearted sham of broadcasting which in turn makes it impossible for anyone to take seriously. I can't even be bothered making comments on the storyline you are discussing because it's not worth my time.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:04 pm

does someone need a lollypop? there, there, you stay away from that nasty telly and read a book instead, i think there's something by dan brown round here somewhere...well, i did say 'a book' i didn't say it would be worth reading.

Post by **Mike** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:01 pm

seaflower wrote:The tone was lowered of this forum when someone suggested that the writers for hollyoaks deserve an award. What a load of tosh, that soap has become the most flippant, half hearted sham of broadcasting which in turn makes it impossible for anyone to take seriously. I can't even be bothered making comments on the storyline you are discussing because it's not worth my time.

I would not take them too seriously you don't know what the award was for! :D

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:29 pm

and the award for 'worst waste of airtime on channel 4 between the simpsons and the news with the godlike peter snow and kick-ass krishnan guru-murphy'

[it's a very specific award]

Post by **Mike** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:41 am

You could almost say that the award was sort of specially created. .. .

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:30 pm

seaflower wrote:The tone was lowered of this forum when someone suggested that the writers for hollyoaks deserve an award. What a load of tosh, that soap has become the most flippant, half hearted sham of broadcasting which in turn makes it impossible for anyone to take seriously. I can't even be bothered making comments on the storyline you are discussing because it's not worth my time.

I think that the whole point of a soap opera really isn't to mirror real-life it is just to entertain you either shockingly, humorously, etc. For example, Sarah Platt in Corrie has gone through an experience a lot of women/girls are going to deal with. The ''unrealistic'' part of the soap is that Sarah Platt has gone through so much crap that it becomes ridiculous. However, a soap has to be unrealistic because otherwise it would just be 30 minutes of switching between a granny having a cup of tea, the grandson listening to the football, the girlfriend having a sleep, the friend reading a book, etc - It would be dull and nobody would watch it. They are supposed to entertain and I like watching Hollyoaks every so often.

Oh and by the way, the ''award'' thing was a joke.

And John Snow is good but he is not god.

Lastly, and most importantly, does anyone remember Krishnan Guru-Murphy's hair from when he presented newsround in the 90s? That was definitely ''kick-ass''!

seaflower · Post by **seaflower** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:55 pm

The sarah platt thing is true she has been through alot however thats nothing compared to Mandy from hollyoaks! Her characters past is just completely amazing. she was sexually abused by her dad and forgot about it untill he did it again years later, her brother was an alcoholic who beat up his girlfriend then killed himself. her boyfriend got raped then she went out with his brother after putting him in a wheelchair, her dad is dead, her mum and stepdad died in a car accident, her step brother then fell in love with her and now her baby is dead. theres probably more too but its either slipped my mind plus i never watch it these days.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:24 am

i'm thinking dating sarah platt would be a really bad idea

i hate soap operas [surprise!] but i understand why they have to be so ludicrous - imagine an entire epiode of eastenders or hollyoaks or any of the other showers of shit that represented people's real lifes; half an hour of the characters sat in front of tv scratching themselves and occasionally burping. maybe then it would spur this country's population into getting out more and starting tangled love affairs and abusing each other...or at least more so.

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:12 pm

Wasn't there a very similar show to what you describe, Fez, called The Royle Family? I'm sure they're a lot wittier than most, however.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:23 am

ah, but in the royale family they may have all been sat around a tv set but they still talked to each other while it was on - something that does not happen in reality