Adam RIckitt`s acting is great - but this story line so stupid. It is impossible to fake Kyle`s death with the little sample of blood Sami stole - and had Kyle secretly been tapping his own blood, freezing it down somewhere, that would be tough, all the time he has shared both life and bed with James for quite a few weeks now, and James therefore would have wondered about the marks, or many band aids, on Kyle`s body. Therefore Kyle should be more worried about what plans Sami had for him, than what he was planning for James - cause it is highly doubtful Sami would be able to frame James for murder without a dead body. And preferably the dead body of the person who James was supposed to, and seemingly was a strong candidate to, have killed. Had this not been a Hollyoaks story line, I think Kyle would have realized this from the get go - and just had pretended to go along with Sami`s plans, until he had enough on Sami to tell him to cough up the money Kyle needed for his operation - if not, Kyle would show his employer evidence of what Sami had in the planning and Sami would for certain be out of a job and career, quite possibly never allowed to practice law again, and perhaps even assigned a tiny cell for some years. Therefore Sami wouldn`t have had any other choice than pay Kyle - and Kyle wouldn`t have had to do anything that would cause trouble for James. But if that had been on Kyle`s radar, he could have had Sami and the £50 000 a long time ago, and wouldn`t have had to dance to Sami`s tune all the time. So clearly Sami is controlling him, which doesn`t exactly match the level of intelligence and wisdom Kyle showed when he first arrived in Hollyoaks. Which is why I hate this story line more than anything at the moment. So fingers crossed it will end soon, but not by Kyle being killed off. It would be sad if this poorly put together fake murder plot should be the last story line Adam Rickitt got. He is, and his character could be, a great asset to Hollyoaks - provided the storyliners pulled their act together, and gave him better story lines.
I voted Ryan Hawley, Emmerdale and the motorway pile up crash - once. All of them from Emmerdale. Not because I thought the Hunter performance was bad - far from it, Theo Graham was excellent, and should he win it will be well deserved, in my opinion - but I think it is time not only Danny Miller got all the glory from the Robron success - there are two of them after all. But after having seen Michael Parr in the episodes following Finn`s death, I kind of think he would deserve to win equally as much as Ryan Hawley and Theo Graham. Still there can only be one winner. Two from Emmerdale nominated in the same category could split the votes for Hawley and Parr, so this could be Theo Graham`s golden year (so far - he might have many more to come). What goes against him is Corrie and Easenders have a bigger base to receive votes from. Since I only follow Hollyoaks and Emmerdale, I pick the one of those two I feel is the best - and having a past writing screenplays for broadcasting for a few years, that vote easily goes to Emmerdale, for keeping their story lines and characters more authentic and anchored in real life, than what Hollyoaks does. Unfortunately Hollyoaks has so many developments which neither follow logic nor reflect real life institutions, situations and procedures correctly, had the story lines been exams, many of them would be in danger of getting an F. And for some of them, that would be generous. When the story line have a lawyer plant Ste`s fresh blood on shoes in a police evidence room, when the shoes have been submerged in pond water for four months, and this is done to frame Ste for the killing, since the recovered from the pond shoes were Ste`s, that is just too stupid for anything better than an F. Just think about it? Fresh blood on top of a shoe which have been soaked in pond water for 4 months - it would have stuck out as plant as obvious as an elephant in a hen-house. Yet in Hollyoaks it went undiscovered. Sorry Hollyoaks, but such flaws disqualify Hollyoaks from my vote as Best soap. The death of Jade was too soppy and filled with cliches for my taste too. The technical achievements of Emmerdale`s motorway pile up crash, and the stunts and genuine post accident feel and atmosphere they created for those scenes, impressed me a lot more.
Tvjunkieful12 I agree and I also watch emmerdale and coronation street but I think hollyoaks is better than some of the other years and I have been watching for 6 years
Angel Saville Yes, I agree there have been some improvements. But unfortunately not many enough for me to feel Hollyoaks is worthy of being awarded Best soap. Usually there is some sort of development in a story line or character, which kills off the little flame of light I thought I saw when the story line begun. Most often because the development either isn`t authentic or doesn`t follow logic. I watched Hollyoaks when it`s first season was shown here in Norway (a few months, or a year or two, after it premiered in England). Back then it was more feelgood and innocent romances. Then the show was taken off air for many years, but returned (and in between I saw some of it in the UK), but was taken off air again here in Norway, and has been off here since the episodes around the big car crash at Ste and Doug`s wedding, not long after the full Roscoe clan had arrived. What I liked about Hollyoaks was it`s fresher youth profile, that the show dared to push the envelope in regard to both story lines and scenes. I wasn`t always convinced about the plots and story lines - or t be brutally honest not often convinced. But the show had both a great ensemble of cast and some very funny and sarcastic lines and one-liners at times, I found it worth my time still. Even though already back then I found some of the story lines not very convincing, and more ripping the envelope into pieces than pushing it, sometimes. To me it felt, and still feels, Hollyoaks were - and is - speculating more in shocking it`s audience, than tell us proper stories. Which is unnecessary in my opinion. Take the "revival" from the dead idea they had for Sienna which quite frankly couldn`t possibly have been done as it was shown. Not only would the police not have been allowed to submit a civilian - and least of all a baby - of such a risk. But it doesn`t make sense Nico would have surfaced again, if she learned her mother was dead. All the time her intention when returning had been to get her own back at her mother. It is very tricky to get revenge on someone who is dead - much more likely Nico would have thought mission accomplished, and gone back to wherever she came from. Silly logical flaws like that annoys me, and prevents me from clicking for Hollyoaks as best soap. And there has been A LOT of them during the last year - and before that too. Just when I think there is an improvement in the making, the story line takes a ridiculous twist which makes me roll my eyes over it, or even be annoyed by it. Adam being shot by his dad, Glenn, is another example. In my eyes it makes absolutely no sense - if Adam had gone back from the dark side, and had informed the police about the deal and meeting with Jay - why then didn`t he also inform the police what plans Glenn had for Zack? Had he, the police could have caught Glenn red-handed attempting to kidnap Zack. Attempted kidnapping and, because of Adam`s testimony, attempted murder is solid charges in themselves. But with automatic access to anything from Glenn`s home and businesses, to possible discoveries of secret shell companies or secret bank accounts, which could be discovered through that again, the police could have traced Glenn`s money flow downwards - all the way to the dealers on the street and drug contacts abroad. Follow the money is a strategy which is near full-proof, provided you get hold of the kingpins of the organisation - cause the money is the aorta and the kingpin the heart of a criminal organisation. But even if Adam wasn`t aware of the latter possibilities to catch Glenn once and for all, it makes no sense whatsoever - if he had decided to go good again - he wouldn`t have alerted the police about Glenn`s plans for Zack, so at least Zack could be protected. Therefore in real life, I feel it would have been more likely Glenn had been arrested when attempting to kidnap Zack - and that would have been how he discovered Adam had worked against him. I would have loved to have voted for Hollyoaks as best soap someday. But that would have had to have been because I felt Hollyoaks deserved it, and as long as the show keeps offering up story lines and character developments which don`t reflect accurately how the involved characters had acted if the same had happened in real life, and on top of it the developments also defies logic, I cannot bring myself to vote it Best soap. To be honest, sometimes - when I find the story line and character developments particularly strange - I imagine what the story line meeting the day that idea was hammered out could have been like. And I always ends up wondering how weird some of the other alternatives for development must have been, for the storyliners to think their chosen one was a good idea. Killing off Adam, Sami bribing Kyle to fake his death so James could be jailed for murder and lastly the return of Leah`s dad, some of the others. Not only has Ste been through one custody battle not so long ago already, but in my eyes it would have been much more interesting if Nancy`s nephew, Charlie`s, biological father, Justin, returned and wanted custody of Charlie cause Nancy had MS and Darren had been convicted of drug dealing and been to prison. Because of the latter circumstances, the outcome of that case would not have been given - especially if Darren`s affair to Mandy should be known, and Charlie and Oscar be negatively effected by it. But in Leah`s case, she being adopted by Ste and has had him as a father figure most of her life, it is unlikely she would want to stay with a total stranger, despite him being her biological father. And without her approval the biological father would realistically only have a chance of visitation rights. And that to only if Leah approved. Therefore whatever is going to play out here appears to be another story line totally without connections to reality - and therefore quite pointless in my eyes. But if Hollyoaks should become more attentive to keeping story lines and characters more authentic, and also kept the same within the boundaries of logic, I definitely could come to change my mind. Cause, as I said, I love the funny sides to the show and the fact Hollyoaks used to dare push the envelope a little more. So fingers crossed you are right in your observation, and I next year can vote for Hollyoaks with as clear a conscience as when I this year voted for Emmerdale.:-)
Angel Saville You mean Leah doesn`t know she is adopted, so what Ste is afraid of is not losing custody, but Leah finding out she is not Ste`s biological child? That certainly puts a different light on Billy`s return, and why Ste would be willing to pay him off. I still would have preferred to have had Justin (played by Chris Fountain) returned, though. And it also is a bit odd Ste all of a sudden is allowed custody of Leah and Lucas, when he is supposed to suffer from blackouts which restricted his access to supervised visits once a week. I know the court order dictating as much was only temporary. But the thing with temporary court orders, is that they stand until a more permanent one has been decided, so legally Ste is in breach of a court order living with Leah and Lucas. But Hollyoaks seems to have forgotten all about that. But they seem to have forgotten all about Nancy`s MS too, so... And it is not as big a disaster as killing off someone which logically shouldn`t have been killed, like Adam was. But thank you for the info about Leah, things seems a little clearer now.:-)
Gotta love how James is trying so hard to repair his mistakes.
Kyle is clearly now in love with him, not so sure about James.
Kick kyle out James
Hope ellie and james make up as bro and sister soon hate when his own family reject him
Adam RIckitt`s acting is great - but this story line so stupid. It is impossible to fake Kyle`s death with the little sample of blood Sami stole - and had Kyle secretly been tapping his own blood, freezing it down somewhere, that would be tough, all the time he has shared both life and bed with James for quite a few weeks now, and James therefore would have wondered about the marks, or many band aids, on Kyle`s body. Therefore Kyle should be more worried about what plans Sami had for him, than what he was planning for James - cause it is highly doubtful Sami would be able to frame James for murder without a dead body. And preferably the dead body of the person who James was supposed to, and seemingly was a strong candidate to, have killed. Had this not been a Hollyoaks story line, I think Kyle would have realized this from the get go - and just had pretended to go along with Sami`s plans, until he had enough on Sami to tell him to cough up the money Kyle needed for his operation - if not, Kyle would show his employer evidence of what Sami had in the planning and Sami would for certain be out of a job and career, quite possibly never allowed to practice law again, and perhaps even assigned a tiny cell for some years. Therefore Sami wouldn`t have had any other choice than pay Kyle - and Kyle wouldn`t have had to do anything that would cause trouble for James.
But if that had been on Kyle`s radar, he could have had Sami and the £50 000 a long time ago, and wouldn`t have had to dance to Sami`s tune all the time. So clearly Sami is controlling him, which doesn`t exactly match the level of intelligence and wisdom Kyle showed when he first arrived in Hollyoaks. Which is why I hate this story line more than anything at the moment. So fingers crossed it will end soon, but not by Kyle being killed off. It would be sad if this poorly put together fake murder plot should be the last story line Adam Rickitt got. He is, and his character could be, a great asset to Hollyoaks - provided the storyliners pulled their act together, and gave him better story lines.
I’ve voted hollyoaks, Theo , Anna and jades death in the NTA’s 6 times
I voted Ryan Hawley, Emmerdale and the motorway pile up crash - once. All of them from Emmerdale. Not because I thought the Hunter performance was bad - far from it, Theo Graham was excellent, and should he win it will be well deserved, in my opinion - but I think it is time not only Danny Miller got all the glory from the Robron success - there are two of them after all. But after having seen Michael Parr in the episodes following Finn`s death, I kind of think he would deserve to win equally as much as Ryan Hawley and Theo Graham. Still there can only be one winner. Two from Emmerdale nominated in the same category could split the votes for Hawley and Parr, so this could be Theo Graham`s golden year (so far - he might have many more to come). What goes against him is Corrie and Easenders have a bigger base to receive votes from. Since I only follow Hollyoaks and Emmerdale, I pick the one of those two I feel is the best - and having a past writing screenplays for broadcasting for a few years, that vote easily goes to Emmerdale, for keeping their story lines and characters more authentic and anchored in real life, than what Hollyoaks does. Unfortunately Hollyoaks has so many developments which neither follow logic nor reflect real life institutions, situations and procedures correctly, had the story lines been exams, many of them would be in danger of getting an F. And for some of them, that would be generous. When the story line have a lawyer plant Ste`s fresh blood on shoes in a police evidence room, when the shoes have been submerged in pond water for four months, and this is done to frame Ste for the killing, since the recovered from the pond shoes were Ste`s, that is just too stupid for anything better than an F. Just think about it? Fresh blood on top of a shoe which have been soaked in pond water for 4 months - it would have stuck out as plant as obvious as an elephant in a hen-house. Yet in Hollyoaks it went undiscovered. Sorry Hollyoaks, but such flaws disqualify Hollyoaks from my vote as Best soap. The death of Jade was too soppy and filled with cliches for my taste too. The technical achievements of Emmerdale`s motorway pile up crash, and the stunts and genuine post accident feel and atmosphere they created for those scenes, impressed me a lot more.
Tvjunkieful12 I agree and I also watch emmerdale and coronation street but I think hollyoaks is better than some of the other years and I have been watching for 6 years
Angel Saville Yes, I agree there have been some improvements. But unfortunately not many enough for me to feel Hollyoaks is worthy of being awarded Best soap. Usually there is some sort of development in a story line or character, which kills off the little flame of light I thought I saw when the story line begun. Most often because the development either isn`t authentic or doesn`t follow logic. I watched Hollyoaks when it`s first season was shown here in Norway (a few months, or a year or two, after it premiered in England). Back then it was more feelgood and innocent romances. Then the show was taken off air for many years, but returned (and in between I saw some of it in the UK), but was taken off air again here in Norway, and has been off here since the episodes around the big car crash at Ste and Doug`s wedding, not long after the full Roscoe clan had arrived. What I liked about Hollyoaks was it`s fresher youth profile, that the show dared to push the envelope in regard to both story lines and scenes. I wasn`t always convinced about the plots and story lines - or t be brutally honest not often convinced. But the show had both a great ensemble of cast and some very funny and sarcastic lines and one-liners at times, I found it worth my time still. Even though already back then I found some of the story lines not very convincing, and more ripping the envelope into pieces than pushing it, sometimes. To me it felt, and still feels, Hollyoaks were - and is - speculating more in shocking it`s audience, than tell us proper stories. Which is unnecessary in my opinion.
Take the "revival" from the dead idea they had for Sienna which quite frankly couldn`t possibly have been done as it was shown. Not only would the police not have been allowed to submit a civilian - and least of all a baby - of such a risk. But it doesn`t make sense Nico would have surfaced again, if she learned her mother was dead. All the time her intention when returning had been to get her own back at her mother. It is very tricky to get revenge on someone who is dead - much more likely Nico would have thought mission accomplished, and gone back to wherever she came from.
Silly logical flaws like that annoys me, and prevents me from clicking for Hollyoaks as best soap. And there has been A LOT of them during the last year - and before that too. Just when I think there is an improvement in the making, the story line takes a ridiculous twist which makes me roll my eyes over it, or even be annoyed by it. Adam being shot by his dad, Glenn, is another example. In my eyes it makes absolutely no sense - if Adam had gone back from the dark side, and had informed the police about the deal and meeting with Jay - why then didn`t he also inform the police what plans Glenn had for Zack? Had he, the police could have caught Glenn red-handed attempting to kidnap Zack. Attempted kidnapping and, because of Adam`s testimony, attempted murder is solid charges in themselves. But with automatic access to anything from Glenn`s home and businesses, to possible discoveries of secret shell companies or secret bank accounts, which could be discovered through that again, the police could have traced Glenn`s money flow downwards - all the way to the dealers on the street and drug contacts abroad. Follow the money is a strategy which is near full-proof, provided you get hold of the kingpins of the organisation - cause the money is the aorta and the kingpin the heart of a criminal organisation.
But even if Adam wasn`t aware of the latter possibilities to catch Glenn once and for all, it makes no sense whatsoever - if he had decided to go good again - he wouldn`t have alerted the police about Glenn`s plans for Zack, so at least Zack could be protected. Therefore in real life, I feel it would have been more likely Glenn had been arrested when attempting to kidnap Zack - and that would have been how he discovered Adam had worked against him.
I would have loved to have voted for Hollyoaks as best soap someday. But that would have had to have been because I felt Hollyoaks deserved it, and as long as the show keeps offering up story lines and character developments which don`t reflect accurately how the involved characters had acted if the same had happened in real life, and on top of it the developments also defies logic, I cannot bring myself to vote it Best soap. To be honest, sometimes - when I find the story line and character developments particularly strange - I imagine what the story line meeting the day that idea was hammered out could have been like. And I always ends up wondering how weird some of the other alternatives for development must have been, for the storyliners to think their chosen one was a good idea. Killing off Adam, Sami bribing Kyle to fake his death so James could be jailed for murder and lastly the return of Leah`s dad, some of the others. Not only has Ste been through one custody battle not so long ago already, but in my eyes it would have been much more interesting if Nancy`s nephew, Charlie`s, biological father, Justin, returned and wanted custody of Charlie cause Nancy had MS and Darren had been convicted of drug dealing and been to prison. Because of the latter circumstances, the outcome of that case would not have been given - especially if Darren`s affair to Mandy should be known, and Charlie and Oscar be negatively effected by it. But in Leah`s case, she being adopted by Ste and has had him as a father figure most of her life, it is unlikely she would want to stay with a total stranger, despite him being her biological father. And without her approval the biological father would realistically only have a chance of visitation rights. And that to only if Leah approved. Therefore whatever is going to play out here appears to be another story line totally without connections to reality - and therefore quite pointless in my eyes.
But if Hollyoaks should become more attentive to keeping story lines and characters more authentic, and also kept the same within the boundaries of logic, I definitely could come to change my mind. Cause, as I said, I love the funny sides to the show and the fact Hollyoaks used to dare push the envelope a little more. So fingers crossed you are right in your observation, and I next year can vote for Hollyoaks with as clear a conscience as when I this year voted for Emmerdale.:-)
Tvjunkieful12 I agree but Leah didn’t know her dad so she sees ste as her dad
Angel Saville You mean Leah doesn`t know she is adopted, so what Ste is afraid of is not losing custody, but Leah finding out she is not Ste`s biological child? That certainly puts a different light on Billy`s return, and why Ste would be willing to pay him off. I still would have preferred to have had Justin (played by Chris Fountain) returned, though. And it also is a bit odd Ste all of a sudden is allowed custody of Leah and Lucas, when he is supposed to suffer from blackouts which restricted his access to supervised visits once a week. I know the court order dictating as much was only temporary. But the thing with temporary court orders, is that they stand until a more permanent one has been decided, so legally Ste is in breach of a court order living with Leah and Lucas. But Hollyoaks seems to have forgotten all about that. But they seem to have forgotten all about Nancy`s MS too, so... And it is not as big a disaster as killing off someone which logically shouldn`t have been killed, like Adam was. But thank you for the info about Leah, things seems a little clearer now.:-)
🔥🔥