Shortland Street

Shortland Street was pretty good for a soap (although I prefer Home and Away, which has more excitement like a gun-toting, crystal-meth addict on the lose), but Shortland Street has gone down hill.

If you like your programs with 99% relationship stuff and 1% excitement, then you might like the 2005 series of Shortland Street. I haven't actually watched much of it, but I can tell from the ads on T.V. that relationships are the main source of entertainment for 2005.

But, if you can see episodes before 2005, it has had some good stuff and the end of year cliffhangers are a must for most viewers of this type of soap opera.

In it's original form, "Shortland Street" had a certain naive charm. It was cheesy, it was bad, but it was a soap opera, it was filmed locally (about two minutes from my house, to be exact) and we were young so we forgave it's flaws.

Over the eight years it's been on, however, there's been a definite drop in quality. The early writers of "Shortland Street" knew it was drivel, so nothing was taken very seriously. Minnie's devotion to American soap "Tides of the Heart" was an opportunity for SS to poke fun at itself. Unfortunately, the self-depreciative remarks have gone, as have the enjoyably silly story lines. Current writers seem to believe they're writing Montana Sunday Theatre...only without the talent. Consequently, storylines are now delivered in deadly ernest, and those over the age (and IQ) of 15 are beginning to turn off.

Ive watched the odd bit of Shortland Street over the years and what astonishes me is how incredibly bad the acting is in this show and yet somehow this doesnt seem to bother the people who watch this show religously. I wondered whether perhaps part of being taken on as an actor in Shortland Street is NOT having the ability to act? I say this in all seriousness. Is part of the likeability of Shortland Street that the acting is so bad? Are actors maybe encouraged to "act badly"? Ive seen actors who have been with the show since the beginning and seen their acting in more recent years and I can honestly say that their acting ability has not changed in all the years and if anything appears to be worse, so I do wonder "is that Shortland Streets charm, that it is so bad?

Being a New Zealand resident, I get a first-hand look at this 8 year old soap opera, which stars some of New Zealand's finest acting talent.

Starting in May, 1992, SST got off to a rocky beginning in it's home country. The ratings weren't that great, yet the producers were still optomistic. However, only a year after, the ratings picked up, and now it's come to be a way of life in NZ. Yep - nearly every house will have the TV on channel 2 at 7pm, to watch their fave soap.

Over the past 8 years keen followers have seen Nick, Kirsty, Rachel and the gang battle diseases, broken hearts and evil maniacs as they try to live life as the script-writers see fit. Many an actor have walked into the Clinic Reception, and let's hope Shortland Street Medical Centre will keep it's doors open for a long time to come!

I really see no appeal to this show, it's a struggle for me to watch when I'm forced to. I remember watching it a lot when I was a kid, but that's because back then there were three channels, we couldn't get TV3 and TV1 was pretty bad reception.

The show is repetitive and, personally, boring. When forced to watch it, I know what's going to happen because I can almost always say "This happened ten years ago," and it will have, except with different characters... well, sometimes it's the same characters.

Also, sadly, there are often untalented actors. But that can almost be excusable, as there is admittedly little public outlet for actors in New Zealand to hone their skills.

In all, I feel that the show is rather cheap. So I guess if you want to watch something with limited quality, and you didn't watch the show already a few years ago, you can give it a shot, but I wouldn't recommend it.