I Am A Swede

It's hilarious! At first I wondered if I had missed something, but then I remembered that the statement came from Trump.....

I don't really mind the story with Pierce and Rhona, or I wouldn't have minded it if I didn't fear that the end result will be that Rhona takes Paddy back. The story itself is well done, they've taken their time with it and built it up slowly. I just hate the idea that all that good work will be wasted on a Paddy/Rhona reunion. Just because Pierce turns out to be a creep doesn't mean that Rhona should take Paddy back. As for Debbie's story it falls flat for me because I just cannot muster up any sympathy for her. Every time they try to make us feel bad for Debbie because her child is ill I can't help but think of Gennie lying dead beside her wrecked car, and of Molly having to grow up without her mother. I know that Debbie didn't actually kill Gennie, but I can't shake off her involvement. It doesn't help either that Charley Webb is a rather hard and cold actress, at least to me. She can't portray the softness and vulnerability that would make me care about Debbie, and make her a leading lady on the show. I could name any number of characters, past and present, that would work in a story like this: Laurel, Rhona, Leyla, Katie, Donna, Zoe, Rachel, Kathy, Sarah, Sandie, Dolly.

It's a struggle right now to remain interested in the show. I suspected this would happen as soon as Debbie returned, because I knew that as soon as she was back the show would become even more Dingle-centric than usual. And what do you know, it's not enough that Debbie immediately begins monopolizing the show, they add yet another Dingle to the cast...... All that, and the destruction of Pierce to pave the way for a reunion between Paddy and Rhona, makes it hard to enjoy much of the show right now. The only thing that's keeping me interested is Ashley's story. While it's sad I can't stop watching, because I just know that Charlotte Bellamy will act the hell out of it. I hope that they don't sideline Laurel when Ashley's gone, because she's their best asset.

Hallelujah and Amen!! Everytime I think I couldn't possibly dislike that family any more than I already do they find a way to prove me wrong.

I actually agree with you about both Cain and Charity. I think they've managed to bring out a more human side in Cain this time around compared to his first stint, whereas Charity was much more complex the first time around. The Youtube-channel which contains the lovely 1985 episode you posted recently also has some interesting behind-the-scenes stuff. Of course it was far to heavy on the more recent material, but it was still nice to watch. In one of those they talked about the Dingles and they appear to be very popular with the writers, at least those who appeared in the clips, so I guess we're stuck with them.... (The fact that they've been around since 1994 should perhaps already have convinced me of that, but as they say, hope springs eternal..... )

I beg to differ. There is nothing sad about any Dingle appearance being missing. The most recent episodes have reminded me why I've always had a problem warming up to Charity, apart from her being a Dingle. I'm so sick and tired of her scheming and doing stupid things. If this is the all they can write for her then just drop her instead. She should have stayed away after her first exit, just like Cain should have.

Of course it was a mistake to kill him off. There had been enough deaths in the Sugden family. But I think an even bigger mistake was to not give him any children. He only had two step-children, Mark and Rachel, and by the time Joe died Mark was also dead, and Rachel would be gone within a few years as well. On paper you would say that Joe should have fit in during the 1990s and early 2000s, since he had already been involved in business stories outside of the farm during the 1980s with NY Estates, but during his last years he had become increasingly isolated as a character, and perhaps he could have used a rest from the show and then returned. It would have been nice to have him now as a father figure for Robert and Victoria. It's funny how Joe was repeatedly so unlucky in love and relationships when he was actually a much nicer and more decent man than his older brother Jack. He had a few serious relationships during his years on the show, but they always ended badly with him being abandoned. First it was Christine Sharp, whom he married but the marriage only lasted a few weeks. Then came Kathy Gimbel, but she left the village after her father's suicide, Ruth Pennington left Joe for her former fiance, and his second wife Kate left him when she couldn't re-adjust to the village after her stint in prison. It was a huge mistake to kill of sister Peggy's twins and to never give Joe any children. This left only Jack's children to carry on the Sugden legacy on the show, and they also killed one of them, Jackie, before he could have any children.

Thank you for posting that. It's always such a treat to see these old episodes. Not a Dingle in sight! Those who say that nothing happened on Emmerdale before 1989 can't have been watching that closely. Just because the pace was slower and there weren't a lot of immoral, half-criminal characters running around doesn't mean nothing happened. I really can't stand people who have that attitude. It was a bit sad when Annie talked about how Sam had made peace with his impending death, and that it made it easier to take than when life was being snatched away from someone unexpectedly. I couldn't help thinking about how many members of Annie's family who suffered that very fate, having their lives taken away from them much too soon.

Amazing that Mirjana Lucic-Baroni has reached another semifinal, 18 years after her first (Wimbledon 1999, losing to Steffi Graf). It's also 19 years since she won the doubles title at the Australian Open together with Martina Hingis,

Yuck, Debbie is back....

This is insane. Not being all that familiar with American politics I have to ask, what will happen if this turns out to be true?

^^ Someone's having a Madonna moment....

I don't see why either couple (Paddy/Rhona & Zak/Lisa) has to get back together. They split up for a reason, infidelity! I fear that they are falling into the same trap that the US soaps have fallen into. That some couples are "destined" to be together and will always find their way back to each other. It severely damages the shows and limits the writing. I don't need to reiterate my feelings towards the Dingles, but I'm starting to put Paddy in the same position. Frankly, even though he's a veteran character by now, I wouldn't mind if they dropped him. He hasn't really worked since his time with Emily.

It's infuriating, isn't it? My guess is that it was done to pave the way for a reunion between Rhona and Paddy. But did they really have to trash Pierce to do that?