LondonScribe
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LondonScribe
-
-
-
-
On 3/27/2026 at 5:37 PM, DRW50 said: @LondonScribe @AMCOLTLLover @Forever8 @Ben Some "new" episodes on this channel.
That’s brilliant.
Thank you so much. It’s good to be reminded of the show. The show lives on digitally, even if Channel 5 would rather forget it ever existed 🤣
-
-
-
This aspect about the way the rumour was conveyed annoyed the heck out of me. It was so contrived and cack-handed, all so it could lead to that ‘cute’ moment when Vernon revealed the truth of the matter. It made Ted, Nicole and Dani all look like vectors of statements rather than actual people, even if we were ‘meant’ to understand why the sisters’ own experiences would cause them to act how they did.
-
Edited by LondonScribe
More substance added.9 hours ago, DRW50 said: Shock value and plot over character are two of the reasons I zoned out most of the time with Clenshaw. I'd agree that's still the case, just with more incoherent plotting. Anthony was never a very nice man, he was just the idea of a nice man, so I could go along with the story to a point, but the whole execution was sloppy and his death was even worse (and part of another "mystery" we didn't need).
I don't care a great deal about fan complaints because many of the most vocal complaints are people just care about what their pet characters are doing, not the show (like the fans who immediately went from praising to panning the show once Callum cheated on Ben), or they just want viral tweets, or they just want Elaine in the Vic retching up camp one-liners, but I wish improvements were made as Wadey does not know how to tell a story. This isn't getting any better. There are nice relationships and scenes, but the storytelling is the pits. At this point I just have to accept he is never going to learn, and some of those above him aren't either. Kate Oates is too busy canceling shows and probably trying to figure out another way to get hunky men to beat each other up and kidnap each other. And whoever else is in charge, like Susan Batten, have been out to sea for years.
If the show does get a new producer and it is just back to the Clenshaw mentality, I'll pass. He did a lot of good for EE but by early 2024 tuning in became a chore for me. I still cringe at the Panesar stories or Cindy/Junior or twitchy Reiss (killing Martin was also a very stupid, ego-driven producer decision - I don't care if James Bye wanted to be killed off). One of those cases where I could respect a producer's efforts, as he was clearly better than any who had been there before him since somewhere around 2013 or 2014, but I did not enjoy the product.
People also end up having so much focus on the producer above the rest of the show, which creates a constant heaven/hell pattern. I don't want to hear people talking about their sexual fantasies for a producer any more than I want to see people sending death threats to a producer (not that that's on the same level of severity), yet here we are. Fans know too much about these shows, yet they also don't know as much as they think. I include myself there.
The last six months or so are the most I've watched EE in a few years, but as we enter into 2026, I am tempted to go back to my old pledge to avoid the British soaps until they stop trying to be everything they never were. I doubt I will, but I should.
I enjoyed the Max and Cindy scenes. It's very cliched but somehow they made it work. The Max Christmas scenes were the most I enjoyed his return so far.
Martin isn't mentioned now, after many months of mentions, but other than Ian and Kathy (Ian is selfish and Kathy barely has anything of value to say - I was flabbergasted when she was suddenly written like it was in 1995 again in Nigel's special episode), most of the people who are left are not going to bring him up. To be honest I found the mentions completely hollow - Clenshaw never cared about him while he was alive.
Annie's paternity reveal was rushed and poorly mishandled, and Linda's behavior makes no real sense. Then again I never thought she'd sleep with Max in the first place.
I don’t I’ve ever explicitly asked you @DRW50
When was the last time you consistently enjoyed Eastenders while watching?
We seem to only put you in the position to explain what doesn’t work but, not detail what worked for you with the show and where in could go to make it more watchable.
-
I’m certainly not a Chris Clenshaw ‘devotee’ and he was far from perfectly consistent, but holy moly, the drop off from him to Ben Wadey’s stewardship, and how quickly it occurred is both heartbreaking and astounding.
I promised I’d give it 6 months before making up my mind and that’s reflected in my lack of posting in this thread.
But Nigel, Phil and Julie aside, I’ve not liked what I have been watching. Characterisations have been torpedoed to serve the plot and the ‘shock factor’ (what the heck was that with Anthony Trueman?) and the stories have been structured in a stodgy way.
Christmas 2025 wasn’t for me, and with the show not showing much promise (and guaranteed when the previews for 2026 come out, Wadey will use the words ‘dramatic’ and ‘explosive’ and ‘shocks, shocking, etc’ a lot of times) I’m ready to tap out fully, my watching already intermittent.
Viewers are already calling for Wadey’s head, but I don’t believe the BBC/Kate Oates will act that quickly, so the hope should be that this messy period was to get to 2026 and enough pieces will be in place that the show can kick on and increase in quality.
-
Hello everyone.
Hope this isn’t an unfair question but I think the material shift has occurred over a long enough time that I can ask.
What is the show like now with Ron Carlivati long gone from the show?
Better? Worse? Different but the same? Etc
I’m likely taking on more soaps next year and want seeing the lay of the land.
Thanks.
-
-
Interesting story (as in, not interesting at all 😂), a friend and I were in the very early stages of developing a mini series of very short parts (2-3 minutes each) but the pandemic happened and then life. I guess the true desire wasn’t there.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into ‘vertical dramas’ and I wonder if this P&G enterprise is going to follow those lines.
-
Edited by LondonScribe
I don’t know if this has been mentioned or not but catching up on last week’s shows, I suddenly sensing anvils where Jessica is concerned.
I wonder if she ends up being something like the daughter of the person who is going to Primary Martin next year.
Or, unconnected to Jessica, if ‘known hot guy’ ends up being his primary opponent?
-
1 hour ago, Aback said:
Yolanda, Dante have both seemingly driven story without being seen not even in pictures. We had Alan being mentioned multiple times. I’m sure there’s more I’m missing. I’m not saying this is a mistake or it has never been done. I’m saying that there have been too many instances in 8 months.
Let me rephrase my thoughts: no one worrying about Tyrell’s virginity - because he’s a male - while everybody is riled up about Samantha’s virginity is the problem.
First of all sex is a basic human need and a human right. You admitted that teens are having sex at 16. So you might as well teach them what’s fair game and what isn’t. Who decides when you’re mature enough for sex? Is Dani mature for sex? This attitude from Sam’s parents (and the writers) is hypocritical, sex negative and it’s honestly the foundation for any sexual related trauma.
The thought of Samantha’s ‘honour being defended’ honestly scares me. We should be past that in 2025. As if having sex with a guy, as questionable as he may be, would say anything about your honor. It doesn’t.
As for Tyrell, I agree guys like him exist. I like him. My problem is that the show has not worried once about his virginity being taken. Why? Because he’s a man. Double standard much?
Everybody was happy to have sex at 16 and now in their conservative adulthood want to forbid teens from living their life. It’s absurd to me.
Being talked about as a conquest is outside Samantha’s control. One progressive and adult alternative to Martin’s parenting is helping their kid realize that sex and love are different things and expectations can lead to disappointment. It’s better than treating sex as a sin.
I agree - that’s the story. But it’s slanted in favor of Martin’s parenting and Sam being portrayed as a sinful, manipulative, immature brat. When in reality her desire to have intimacy is perfectly normal and should be fulfilled. It makes me really uncomfortable.
My assessment of why nobody has been concerned about Tyrell losing his virginity is because he hasn’t been shown trying to lose it. There’s nothing to suggest there has been a ‘boys will be boys’ approach, in fact Martin’s approach has touched on Tyrell (with Jessica cheekily trying to joust with him about curfews, etc).
If the next stage of their relationship is explored, and there is a more ‘hands off’ approach from the other characters, then I’ll be the first to point out a double standard that has not yet been shown.
I think it was you who referenced Eastenders and Hollyoaks as examples of soaps that depict a more ‘realistic’ approach to teenage sexuality?
That is true, but even they broadly take a didactic approach to that. Rarely does underage sex go without consequence, especially for the female. 13-14 year old Lily Slater has a 1 year old daughter after her first time with same age Ricky Branning.
Hollyoaks is absolutely THE show that shows (British) teenagers as they are with full agency. It’s also a show that skews younger and targets teenagers and young adults.And for all that BTG is doing to modernise its presentation, I think American daytime skews older and more conservative, so a kid gloves approach may be what is happening here. The story is still young.
-
Edited by LondonScribe
The dichotomy between Samantha and Tyrell is very deliberate. The writers have gone out of their way to present Samantha’s impulsive streak and want for attention versus Tyrell being more sensitive, happy to keep his head down and being studious. The former being something I suspect will be linked to June and her own past, despite her being completely spot on about Nathan on first sight.
I’d have to reserve judgement on the slightly subtle aspect of the story that Tyrell is being impacted by Samantha’s actions (I wouldn’t be surprised if this story sees Tyrell lose Jessica again, on top of him already nearly catching a beating from Nathan trying to ‘defend his sister’s honour’ when she herself seems ‘less concerned’ about it).
The only reason I will never say that Tyrell is atypical of a teenage boy is because I was exactly like him at his age.
As the preview for next week shows, this story has a way to go and I have a feeling that after a number of near-misses, Samantha will find herself in a position that she won’t be able to get out of as easily. Whether Nathan-related or otherwise.
-
-
-
-
Watching the episode, I got the sense that they were putting a bow on June’s story for the time being and we may be seeing less of her, until such time as her being back serves the story.
Unless this ‘purpose building’ and life construction plays out on screen with her working in any of the establishments (Orphey Gene’s or Uptown) or Naomi somehow convinces someone to provide an entry-level job of some kind.
-
-
-
-
Edited by LondonScribe
The speed of the relationship between Chelsea and Madison is being figured into the writing, so this choice appears (at the moment) to be character-based, a residual effect of Chelsea’s own family trauma setting off her own impulses. As well as Dani’s rushing to get them in front of the rest of the family.
It may end up being that the relationship is the real deal, but the viewers concern/skepticism has been vocalised on screen by primarily Vernon. So that’s a step.
-
-
BTG: June 2026 Spoilers
in DTS: Previews & Spoilers
It’s either that or Kat IS a match. The only match. And the story brings in the rest of the Dupree family (particularly Nicole, who I note they’ve done all they could in the writing up to now, to keep from knowing about Eva) and the conflict of Ted’s “proper” daughter being put in the position of risking her life for Ted’s “illegitimate” daughter.
Just a guess.