Hollyoaks: Ollie Speaks Up 

Everyone from Aedan Duckworth and Nathan Sussex to Adam Woodward and Gary Lucy has been great in their parts, in my opinion. But I cannot subscribe to the idea Hollyoaks gets it right every time. For that the storyline is too filled with inaccuracies and downright mistakes to be believable. Especially the Sami, James and Kyle drama was particularly moronic, in regard to storyline - both Gregory Finnegan and Adam Rickitt owned their characters with the same excellence as they always do. Even parts of this storyline has been well below par, as far as the storyline and character development is concerned. But the acting has been great almost from the start - and especially Duckworth has grown as an actor over that time too. Adam Woodward has had the chance to do more than walk around flirting - and in some scenes been absolutely sensational. Nathan Sussex has brilliantly managed to combine both sides to Buster, and Gary Lucy has been very credible as a dad too focused on the next drink to notice what is going on within his own family. Truth be told - apart from it being hard to figure out what Buster had done to both Ollie and Brody, and also the many types of victims and abusers both Ollie and Buster appeared as from scene to scene - the writing has been pretty solid too. Even though it seems a little stupid Buster went to all the trouble of getting Ollie a special phone that couldn`t be traced - but himself continued to use his own phone and computer, leaving a tell tell line of the texts and photos he had exchanged with Ollie, which the police in the end could use to nail Buster. But I suppose Hollyoaks needed to round off this storyline quickly, since many viewers complained it was starting to drag on? It is somewhat funny just a few days ago I was defending this storyline on posts where viewers were complaining about it - but now all of the sudden the opinion has changed, and everyone claims to love it, suggesting it for awards and more. The actors yes - the storyline and individual episodes - no. Not enough realism and accuracy, as I see it.

Ramona Flowers What about when they kill off all the good characters like Adam? Amy? Dirk? Doug? DS Thorpe? Frankie, Amy's Sister? Cindy, Tom and Mandy's Parents or Celine? or when they leave the show such as. John Paul? Porche? Esther? or Louis? Ellie? Holly? 😣😫😤😠😡

@@ChelseyLinden natural order of things to me. Contracts don't get renewed some actors no longer want to continue with the show. That's how it goes.

Ramona Flowers AHH TARTER SAUCE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM???>>>>>>>>

He did 😁

Apparently a trial is coming. Hope it ends with him in prison. Unfotunately it may be too late for Brody to get justice though 😢

Maybe you haven't been watching Hollyoaks the past 6-8 months. "Amazing" is way too much of a stretch

John Aiwone if you’re talking about the drinking, the only person to blame for that is Mandy. He was starting to get his life back on track before he found out about the affair she had.

+Nory Goals x He can't blame Mandy for going back to drinking. Those were his own actions at the end of the day, and he ended up missing the signs about what was happening to Ollie. Going back on drugs whenever something bad happens in your life isn't an effective way to handle problems.

Hi i agree i am so happy that buster is arrested throw away the key

Now he’s back in the trailer :/

Bob Clunt you got what you desired

Can u not he's mine 😍👫💑💏💋❤

U mean behind the seans

docstef MD No I feel Scott will forgive and forget Imagine you heard someone was making the moves on your sexually minor son

I fear Scott will actually do that ... doesn´t make Lukes action right, especially when he beats up the wrong guy!

what did he do to Scott.

Frank1e Games What if Damon, when Luke attacked Scott - unprovoked and violently - had grabbed the nearest bottle and hit Luke over the head with it, to stop him attacking Scott. And as a consequence Luke had been killed, or suffered a serious brain injury - reduced to a vegetative state, wheelchair bound, unable to speak, requiring care 24/7? Had I been his lawyer Damon would not have been convicted of manslaughter if Luke had been killed, cause I would have argued Damon`s response was neither intentional nor involved excessive force, but was an instinctive response to Luke`s extremely violent and irrational behavior, making Damon`s action justifiable self-defense. From society`s point of view, Luke committed a reckless act endangering not only Scott, but everyone who was inside that pub when he attacked Scott. As far as that act inside that pub is concerned, Luke`s motive is totally irrelevant, since his very action placed more people than Scott in danger - and those people had no way of knowing if Luke had gone mad and attacked at random, or if his aggression was restricted to Scott. So if Luke had charged into that pub the way he did, and Damon had hit him in the head with a bottle from the bar, before Luke had been able to hit anyone, the situation would still have been the same. But the fact Luke hadn`t had time to hit or harmed anyone at that time, would have made him appear the victim, and Damon to have used excessive force. And therefore Damon likely would have been found guilty of at least manslaughter, had Luke been killed. But if Scott first had been harmed, Damon likely would not even have been charged, but would have been thought to have prevented Scott from being killed. Society has laws for a reason. If we allow people to take the law into their own hands for some criminal acts, we are opening up for others to do the same with other criminal acts. Just as Buster ignored the laws restricting him taking advantage of Ollie`s body anyway he wanted, Luke ignored the laws meant to protect Scott from Luke using him as a punching bag. Both Buster and Luke neglected to respect the individual`s right to have control and ownership to their own body. Attacking someone to inflict physical pain or injury, isn`t less of a crime than violating them with photos or touches of a sexual nature. Whether you hurt someone physically or emotionally, you are still inflicting them pain. And whether you have physical contact with someone to cause them harm, or because you get sexual pleasure from it, you are still invading and violating their personal boundaries. Before this storyline started, most of the comments I saw relating to Aedan Duckworth or his character Ollie Morgan referred to how hot he looked and similar. I haven`t seen any such comments after this storyline started. And my guess is the reason for it, is that those who made those comments a few months ago, now is worried such comments would place them in the same box as Buster. But if people are worried they can be perceived to be similar to Buster, could that be because they actually have more in common with Buster than they like to admit? Is all this talk about Buster being a monster and more, a similar type of way to distract attention and camouflage the truth, as Buster did when he told everyone how disgusted he was by Scott and what Scott was claimed to have done with Ollie? Or is society so hung up about anything relating to sex and youth these days, because of the strong condemnation and quick to judge attitude the common man seems to have relating to anyone they suspect could be a pedophile, that people are scared to say what they honestly feel - out of fear of unjustly being labelled a pedophile? It is something to think about. Cause since no one is commenting on Aedan Duckworth`s good looks anymore, the reason has to be one of the above ones. After all, he still looks the same.

beat him up badly ...

If you are really into it, and by that I mean acting - not the idea of being in Hollyoaks. Go to drama school when you are older, or start with some youth theater group the age you are now. If you are good, because both tv production companies, Hollywood studies and London West End production companies vacuums the entire country for young talent when they are looking for anything from a new set of kids for a West End production of Peter Pan or Song of Music, or somebody to play a kid in a big movie, a start at your local youth theater could be your break to the stars. Provided you are good, off course. Another option is, provided you live near a school which teaches movie and tv production, to contact that institution, tell them you would like to act, and ask if they need someone of your age in one of the shorts the students makes as part of their coursework. Since finding cast willing to work for very little or no money can often be challenging for film students, the school having your photo, contact details - plus a little (no more than ten minutes in length) video of your acting - and if you can sing, dance, ride, play football, play instruments or other types of special skills you got, include those in the video clip too. But be truthful about your skill level. Otherwise you could risk getting fired for not having the required skills needed for the part - and if you have exaggerated one of your skills, they would not chance you lied about more, and you will not be considered for anything afterwards. If you are lucky - and you are good - one of those students might remember you after they have graduated. And if you are extra lucky, will start to work somewhere like Hollyoaks, and Hollyoaks at the time will be looking for a new addition, and he or she will remember this talented kid they used in a short they made at film school, who must be just the right age for the character Hollyoaks is looking for now, and you will get an unexpected invite for an audition. But even if not, having your face, name and work on short movies made by fresh directors and more, and as a consequence being seen by anything from agents to producers and tv execs wondering if the director who made the short is someone they want to sign to represent as an agent, or work for them, could - if you are good - make them notice you too. You could also submit the video and photo of yourself to agents. But quite frankly, you being 13 places you between two chairs, so to speak. Unless you have a twin you can share parts with, you are too costly (because of tutors and chaperons as well as restrictions in how long you can work each day) for most agents to even consider putting up for parts, since a seventeen year old can work a full day - and without the additional costs someone your age would add to a production budget, when both education and chaperons is required by law for the production to provide. And not being a known name from previous work, an agent or agency would likely consider you to tough to sell, to bother to even sign at the age you are now. Had I been you I would have looked for a nearby youth theater or drama course. Tried it first, and if you discovered it was something for you - continued to drama school and become a professional actor. It is hard enough for trained actors to find a living as professional actors. Without any training and experience it is even harder. And you already being 13 (I say already cause many of the kids competing for the few kid roles there are have 5 to 8 years of acting experience from both film and theater when they are 13), your best option is applying to drama school the normal way and take it from there. Break a leg!

He's 16 😍