DRW50

I'll just repost my Walford Web comments... I was hoping with a new producer there would be less push of Carmel as some focal point of the markets, or of Walford. Nothing against Bonnie Langford, who did a passable job with ridiculous lines (although they were certainly in character for Carmel, especially, "you saved my market" - I hope Lou gives you a good haunting for that one Carmel...), but she is not the heart of Eastenders, or even close, she's a selfish child-woman who inhales all around her. Many scenes in this episode felt a bit empty to me and she was a good example of why. I was stumped by the scene with Keegan and Lee. I guess Keegan is stupid and arrogant enough to go into a cafe and try to sell stolen goods (and given that the woman working in the cafe didn't give a damn, maybe this is common practice - if so someone should tell Big Mo, that is if she still exists in the Eastenders universe), but what a bizarre way for Lee to find out about Whitney. I didn't really get the scene with Louise and Shakil either. It's not that her reaction made no sense - she's scared, she's upset, she's been through a lot, she's probably humiliated that she had to be saved, especially by someone who had been participating in bullying of her only a day earlier - but it felt disjointed enough to where I almost wonder if something was cut between when she first sees him and when she shouts for him to leave. Clearly the show was under a lot of pressure filming these so I guess I should be happy for the parts that didn't feel as strange or empty. This episode probably was a good window into everything SOC has done so far with Eastenders. - genuine intrigue (Max's mission of destruction) overlaid with cheesy dialogue (no one should ever be using Peggy Mitchell lines for dramatic effect) and imagery (rather than being disturbed by the final shot of Max at the window I thought he looked like Holly on Red Dwarf) - genuine heart and warmth (Martin and Stacey agreeing to try for another baby) overlaid with pap (the fakeout over whether Martin was dead) - the lip service of community (people hovering in the Vic, talking about what happened) marred by self-awareness or apathy (everyone played the "where is Dot?" scenes as if they already knew the answer; the strongest emotion in the Vic scenes was Carmel's speech that had no particular purpose or value) - emotionally affecting scenes that are also incredibly troubling, leaving you to wonder how much of that is intentional, before you are again washed away by familiar melodrama (Whitney kissing Mick JUST as Denise sees, JUST before Lee arrives) I'm going to wait and see with Max's revenge. They certainly have chosen the right actor for this type of plot, and while I don't have that much need for a mysterious businessman who of course was from the old days (for a moment I was scared he'd say he too knew Eric, Archie, Gavin, Henry, Ted, Claudette, Peggy, Pete, Den, and any other assorted retcons), I get the idea. I don't believe Max caused the bus to crash. Causing a man to have a heart attack so that the Square can be wiped out for some Nefarious Purpose is beyond DTC, beyond Santer, beyond even Paul Marquess or Kirkwood - it would be too far for Eastenders. I think the show wanted us to think it's a possibility, without suggesting it actually is. That's OK with me (not that they need my approval). Hopefully it will be an interesting story, one that will bring about real change. Usually soaps only bring about massive change if they're about to be canceled - an American soap once destroyed an entire town via flash flood, consigning the cast to a new high-rise apartment building, with the longtime matriarchal and patriarchal figures acting as building managers. (it wasn't a bad idea, but the show was still canned by the end of the year). Eastenders doesn't need that level of change to survive, but with a new set and this story likely written to help accommodate it, it is something I hope they ask themselves now that they're going here. Do they need the markets? Do they need the same old businesses and buildings? Can they actually create real change, rather than the fake change soaps often sell ("nothing will ever be the same" [for about a week])? I'm glad they gave Max those scenes with Jack to remind us that he isn't just there for some type of wipeout - he does care and he does love people, even the people who don't care about or love him. Moving on to Martin and Stacey, again aside from the death fakeout this was the strongest part of the episode for me. James Bye gave his best performance, one that solidifies him as the younger leading man Eastenders has needed for well over a decade, as he processed what Stacey was telling him. It's not just the "we're having a baby" type reaction at the end, it's fear, and doubt, and confusion. He still doesn't completely know that Stacey loves him. He knows that she passed another man's child off as his. He knows that there are parts of her life he simply can never touch. It's a permanent bond to have a baby, it means something, and it comes just as Max's return has made him have nagging doubts about Stacey and their life. He wants a child, and a happy ever ever after, with Stacey, even as much as he sees Lily as his daughter and Arthur as his son. Her asking him that is the greatest thing she could do, yet if the marriage collapses, then this is going to kill him. It's such wonderful conflict, so wonderfully acted by James. His face during that scene was a master class in soap acting, or dramatic acting in general. Denise - given that she has a concussion and she was drained from Kim deigning to meet her for one more chance to Denise to beg forgiveness, I didn't think her behavior was that selfish, but there's always been a bit of a selfish core to Denise anyway, so I can't say it bothered me. I'm not sure about her being involved in the Mick/Whitney story - I would have put Shirley or even Tina in that scene - but if it means less time being toyed with by her wretched sister, fine by me. Mick and Whitney - now here is where I'm just completely unsure of anything being told. The best I can say is that at least this isn't being presented as a Stax-style affair, but that's the best. We can say that Mick misses Linda. He feels like he's failing her and like he's failing Elaine (essentially the only mother he's ever had). He's disappointed in Lee. He gets to be the big man for Whitney, at a time when he feels smaller than ever. So he wants to protect Whitney, he wants to prove he can do something. That changed today when she kissed him and he responded. I didn't actually think the show would take this path, partly because I think his not responding and Whitney putting all of her fantasies onto him would be truer to the characters and be the more interesting story, partly because up to now I just hadn't seen him actually suggest that he wants her. Today was unsettling, starting from the time that he didn't correct them over Whitney being his wife (which he would have done immediately up to now, I believe), to where he told her how pretty and special she is (again, what he'd do to keep Linda going), to the kiss, where he was clearly in shock - not over his daughter-in-law kissing him (which wasn't new), but over his responding, and his level of physical and emotional intimacy with her, so intimate that he had to force himself to pull away. But this isn't just transference, or forbidden desire. This is a woman - emotionally still a girl, a princess waiting to be saved - who is crippled by years of sexual abuse, which she all but said to Mick seconds before they kissed. Lee isn't just his son, he's a son who Mick knows nearly committed suicide only a month ago. Yet I don't know if any of this is important to the story. If it's just the kiss and that's it, then it won't necessarily be an issue, but if this becomes an affair, then this is monstrous behavior from Mick - predatory and selfish in a way that reminds me of nothing less than Den Watts 2.0. I'm left wondering exactly why the depression story was needed if this is Lee's reason for going, as there were many other problems that could have taken Whitney, Lee and Mick to where they are now. As it is I just feel like they made a hash of a serious issue for the sake of what is rapidly turning into one of the most lurid stories I've seen since a forever leering Sean Slater used Chelsea and Carly as blowup dolls. I did think Danny Dyer's performance in the scene itself was very good - he's seemed checked out of most of this plot, but for whatever reason, he was right there in those moments, especially the complete bewilderment at what he'd done. On a final note, I'm starting to wonder if Babe should have been kept around after all. I was all for her going when I thought SOC's Eastenders was going to be a hugely different show, but now that I see that the sadism and sensationalism are still around (just in different textures), I wonder if she does need to go. I think SOC has done a lot better with her than DTC, at least when she hasn't been doing the awful smiley Mockney routine. She's been great in these last few episodes - her cruelty and callous glee the perfect contrast to all the "community" that always sounds so much more important than it actually is.

If anyone here hasn't watched the above episode yet, you should give it a try. It's a surprisingly tense, well-directed, well-acted episode, with a gruesome twist at the end, and some wonderful scenes between the two Clays. And if you're into Richard Steinmetz, there's also a great ass shot.

I still miss GL. For me ATWT was the head and GL was the heart - probably why I kept trying with GL even though it deeply betrayed me as a fan in ways ATWT never quite did. I guess for Irna it was more the opposite, but she created something special in GL, and Agnes Nixon then went on to make the crude but likeable stereotypes into real people. Even today I still wish it could come back, I still think it would be viable. I know it's for the best it's gone and had a passable ending compared to many soaps in recent years, but I still feel like the characters are out there, wondering where we are.

Thanks.

The synopsis sounded like cheap trash to me, especially the part about Ms Grundy and Archie. I'm sure it will be lapped up by many as anything by overhyped Berlanti is, but I'm just sorry that Archie Comics seems so determined to make themselves into interchangeable sleaze. And I'm tired of shows claiming to be Twin Peaks.

Based on how freaked out they've reportedly been by him I don't think that will happen, but of course I can see why you'd worry.

You have to undo a constitutional amendment for that, don't you? I think the thing with the wall is anyone with a brain knows it's stupid and destructive in many ways, but it's something he wants, and something his most racist supporters want. So he keeps pushing whether it makes sense or not. I wouldn't be that surprised if we end up with a scenario where lip service is paid and people end up lying to him for most of his Presidency about what is actually being done when it's really just a few bricks in mud.

The problem with the Parks Service is rather than tweeting from the start about environmental facts, someone decided to be cute and retweet something about a crowd size. That isn't brave keyboard warriors speaking out against truth. It was a break away from what they should be doing and it gave their critics ammo. Cartoons are nice but they can't help basic tactics. And that's something that most who oppose Trump seem to lack.

Given the political situation in the Netherlands I mostly wonder how long until they are where we are. Weren't they the ones who said Russia was hacking Vermont to get to Bernie Sanders? I can believe there's something going on at State, but I don't trust them. In the case of trade, the US' poor handling of the matter in the last few decades is one of the reasons we got Trump in the first place. I wouldn't mind another country "filling the void" on that if it meant better policies than vague talk about "globalization" that mostly benefits fat cat bosses. Sadly that isn't what this will be - Trump is driving people away and bringing nothing in.

Ben Carson is not someone I have much use for, but the outrage over Elizabeth Warren voting for him to move to the full Senate, something he was going to do with or without her vote, only makes sense to me if people are desperate for purity contests (which sadly many are). Never mind that a purity contest is one of the biggest damn reasons that Hillary ended up suffering so much from Bernie. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/elizabeth-warren-ben-carson-234185

Oh I didn't mean you - I meant Salon. And much of the press in general. It gets hits so that's the lead, but it lets Republicans off IMO.

It's also not new or exclusive to Trump. Republicans have deprived suffering people of disaster relief for a number of years, and several years back even went around saying they would only give disaster relief if other things like food stamps (I think) were cut - only with intense backlash did they change their minds. Salon gets more clicks talking about Trump, but this did not start with him and will not end with him. Any media that takes their eye off the ball is doing their ever-diminishing amount of readers a disservice.

Thanks for the screencaps. Looks very powerful.

I hope Corrie doesn't win anything again as long as that story is still going. Emmerdale and Eastenders are very uneven but to me they are worthy shows. Corrie has just become a gruesome husk.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/25/the-islamic-state-wanted-the-west-to-fear-refugees-and-muslims-it-worked/?utm_term=.4a173a4cb7ae I rarely go into the whole "ashamed of America" mode, because it's narcissistic and glib, but things like this do make me feel shame. Shame because of what we're saying to vulnerable people in the world, and shame because he was very very blatant about this and yet he still won (he may not have won the popular vote but he won what mattered), and shame because it's just stupid - it's not going to do anything to help terrorism and will very possibly just make the problem even worse.

JLB talked about how horrible the working conditions were - I guess that couldn't have helped. I do find it telling how many cast members who left seemed to have regrets of one kind or another. I often how many others had regrets and never really spoke about them, like Terry Lester possibly.

I've always wondered what particular brew it was that made Y&R such a difficult set from so early on. Maybe the tension between Bill Bell and Conboy. I can't guess. It's a fascinating read though.

I saw some posts about the Dakota pipeline and such - well it looks like these executive actions are being so poorly handled they may not even be enforceable. They are for show (what a shocker). http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trumps-flashy-executive-actions-could-run-aground-234200 Trump's sister involved heavily in SCOTUS pick: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-pick-234202 To be honest for a while I seriously wondered if he really would just nominate his sister. I guess someone out there must have said that wasn't going to fly.

Are Jennifer Gatti and Jane Cameron in the Soft & Dri ad at the end? It goes by so quick I can't tell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEYLjhBrIz8

If that happens then I have a feeling the show will leave it as ambiguous and let us think he deliberately went in front of the bus if we want to.

I figure it will be Lee or no one. If this is the end of Lee then I can't think of a worse depiction I've seen of suicide and mental illness on a soap, aside from when Storm blew his head off on B&B so Katie could play the Little Mermaid.

I'd take that over Phil back in there, to be honest. I don't mind the Carters too much in the Vic, I just hate how abusive Mick is to his children. And I'm tired of Whitney humping his leg. I can't even watch her at this point.

Most likely according to speculation, Sharon will take over the license and Mick will run it.

And the Ashley special episode. I had just assumed it, especially after the crash, so it's a nice surprise. I haven't seen it but someone said the Corrie cast didn't seem too thrilled. If so that makes it even better knowing how that cast operates...