Untitled

[disparition]

at the time when anne frank was arrested, she was breaking the law. the people who helped hide her and other targets of the nazis were also breaking the law.

that is where it leads when you justify state violence. “if you didn’t want oppression you shouldn’t have broken the law” is an attitude that leads directly to fascism, and it rings entirely hollow from those who also support a leader that flagrantly violated the law but waived the consequences by virtue of power possession.

[incorrectwwe]

Punk: The first time I saw you, you stole my heart.

Drew: But I'm a kleptomaniac, so that doesn't mean anything.

[thecwspn]

Do you like exclusives? Get this photo to over 5k reblogs and we have one right here waiting for you from Wednesday’s NEW Supernatural!

[saslass]

Thoughts about Hollyoaks

Yep I'm using my first ever post to have a moan. I have been watching Hollyoaks from the start! (Yep that's right back when Jambo, Natasha and all were in it) I have put up with a lot, from simple well plotted storylines focusing "youth" issues, to really good looking people acting really badly, and by badly I mean as in bad acting not character wise bad. However, tonight's E4 episode (29/7/15) has made me question why I have watched it for so long, why? Simply because the quality of the show reached a new low. For a good year I have joined many on social media moaning about the output of Hollyoaks, fair enough I have lurked, but I still agree with the majority of people complaining about the quality and how they are switching it off. I have kept with it so far as I think some off the storylines are worth watching such as the Lovedays, Esther's surrogacy and Patrick's MND. However, when a soap begins a to use what for many is a serious mental health issue for humour and almost to the point of mocking people with bi-polar, it made me realise how much a show I once loved turn to something of an embarrassment to admit you even watch. Will I keep watching? Probably more out of habit then anything, but I would say something needs to happen at senior level to return to its former glory. I.e probably from 2003-2012. So I have decided to play imaginary channel 4 board of directors and look at what can be done. 1. Axe the show entirely ( I don't think this requires further explanation other then the reasons I have set out above) Pro's • The show is losing viewers so just get rid of it before it becomes nothing. • Can come up with a new replacement •money saved Con's • will anger the fan base • expense of ending the show and finding stuff to fill it *cough (probably endless repeats of the Big Bang theory) *cough • lots of people lose their job, will effect livelihoods and families of those employed by the show and also lime pictures. 2. Revamp/take a break Okay I may blame the fact today I watched saved by the bell (the unauthorised story) TV movie today for this idea. But if instead of 6 weeks of summer Hollyoaks had a 6 week or longer break then came back with new storylines, characters etc. Could attract new viewers. Plus it is a well known fact that view ship is down during the holidays. So turn Hollyoaks more into a long running serial of 9 months per year could be an idea. This means leaving in early July on a cliff hanger or 2 and coming back with ideas that viewers see as fresh due to a break. Pros • Can drop storylines/characters that aren't working at the end of a series • Actors can go and do other roles in the break (good for young actors to get experience elsewhere) • will save money • Can use online content over the summer to keep fans interested (seriously this is the online content is the one thing Hollyoaks does better then any other UK soap) Cons • No guarantee fans will watch when it comes back • long running storylines made difficult and massive continuity issues I.e does a pregnant character stay at x months pregnant or does she give birth in the 6 weeks. • not going to be a popular decision with cast and crew being out of work. Plus empty sets means they will lose money that way. Plus actors may not wish return if they find another role that is a success. 3. Let's do some axing! Everyone knows half the fun of soaps in the UK is the announcement of a new of executive producer as it means 2 things the show will change styles slightly. CAST CLEAR OUT CLAXTON GOES OFF!!! However being an imaginary channel 4 executive means producers/or top people too can go! Pros • Bye bye to bad actors *coughs Freddie Roscoe and possibly the rest of the Roscoes *cough why? Poor actors produce poor drama no matter how good a storyline is. Hollyoaks will never shake the tag of good looking people are in it. In fact it's been something that should be embraced, I.e. sienna or Mercedes are both good actresses and good looking. but it doesn't mean the quality of acting should go down. Instead, find a balance and quick! Also there are about 50 main cast members but due to the delights of block story lining we only get to see about 15 per episode. Why have a cast so big especially as it means characters can just disappear for weeks on end without being mentioned. I.e where is Ste during the whole baby Rose plot this week??? • Bryan Kirkwood, Di Burrows anyone who appears in the last 10 seconds of credits goes! Why? Sorry, but the low quality output that Hollyoaks is currently making is down to these people. They are in charge of hiring and firing, storylines and sets and everything else. So they should be the main ones to go. Then get a new team in and they can go mad with CAST CLEAROUT CLAXTON! • cut the number of days Hollyoaks is shown. (Technically days axe) Hollyoaks started off once a week and is now five nights. If it 3/4 night a weeks I think would work. Bowers can get a break from the show and if you end the weeks episode on a cliff hanger people tend to tune instead. Instead Hollyoaks seems to be wrapping up its storylines on Thursday and Friday ready for new storylines the following weeks which leaves the casual viewer with little temptation to tune in. Pros of axing • a new executive team comes in and changes the show for the better. • costs savings of going 4 nights a week plus it would mean having a smaller cast but with more screen time. • Would help end/deflect the criticisms that Hollyoaks gets. • also mean we get rid of a producer who thinks that basing storylines from 80's American soaps is a good idea! (No Bryan no.) And hopefully stop the repetitive storylines. I mean is Hollyoaks just going to be full of runaway teenagers and children? Or mass murderers. • some characters work, some don't. it's a fact of media making. One good thing about Hollyoaks of the past is when characters didn't work they went pretty quick i.e. The sharpe family or for anyone who watched it even further back that annoying Canadian student who couldn't act and was in it for all of 1 month or so. ( I can't be arsed to IMDb be it) but now characters seem to stay on whether we like it or not. it is fine to admit when something hasn't worked but please stop trying to make viewers watch a characters that get bad criticism. It isn't pretty to watch. Get rid of those who are criticised and those who hardly appear and you could probably knock out about 10+ characters. Cons • the tween fans will moan/groan/bitch/whine if certain male members went, but pretty boys can easily be replaced. • If the show was to go to 4 times a week, loss of money for the show has to be considered. So my time as imaginary channel 4 executive is up. But please Hollyoaks don't make me give up on you. P.S I just really want to write CAST CLEAROUT CLAXTON again