Jump to content

EastEnders: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Steven Beale is one of those soap characters that should have been an integral part of the show, but because of clueless soap producers/writers was not.

Louise Berridge really screwed the character over, when she had an 13 year old Steven decide, after learning Ian wasn't his biological father, he wanted to leave Ian to live with the father he never knew in New Zealand (Simon). Seriously, how ridiculous was it that Ian allowed a 13 year old to do that? The character was written out for no apparent reason at all the the first time around.

Then when Santer brought the character back, he totally raped him of any integrity and damaged him so bad that the character had to be written out.

I wonder with Pat leaving soon if she'll mention Steven. I mean, he is her grandson.

Edited by Y&RWorldTurner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it was a big mistake to write Steven out under Berridge. Wasn't this after Steven had written poison pen letters to hurt Ian? Steven probably needed to get away.

The biggest mistake was that hideous storyline that told viewers being bisexual means you are mentally ill. I'm so tired of seeing that sh!t on TV. That's not what it means, really!

I also had little use for the story where Jane was shot and couldn't have kids, as it basically destroyed her character, and, along with the need to have Lucy with the same annoying stories and smirks again and again and again, destroyed the Beale family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, which he tried to frame Janine for (and Pat was on Janine's side through this, despite everyone else thinking it was her).

What made no sense to me was why Ian/Pat allowed a 13 year old to go off to a strange country to be with the father who wanted nothing to do with him. It didn't seem in character for any of them, and Steven was only a kid,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members

I'm really enjoying the Ben story, and all the stuff with Amira/Syed/Christian.

I thought Ben'c oming out scene to Phil was extremely powerful and I can't wait to see wht happens when Phil returns. I think Josh has been doing a good job and I'm glad that the writers decided to focus on Ben's sexuality rather than trying to create another gay love story. The only thing that has let it down is Ben having feelings for Christian. I think that's wrong and I don't like how it portrays young gay people as needing a father figure. However, I was glad that in no uncertain terms Christian told Ben how inappropriate it all was.

I HATED Christian's ultimatum of 'it's me or the baby' - it's so wrong. Syed is the father and does have rights. Therefore I see no reason why Christian should have no access to the child at all considering his and Syed's relationship. I still findte Yusefplot totally unbelievable. Why can't anybody see how evl Yusef is? Everyone is blind too it, it's like they're all stupid. Even Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't really like Ben's story, as he's a pretty unlikeable character, and he's written in such a messy way that I don't feel sorry for him, or anything really. He lurches from one nasty act to another, with some nice scenes thrown in for good measure, trying to show us that he's not all bad. There's never any consequences to his actions, or development of his character; it's just the same 'ol same 'ol story rehashed. And the Christian "twist" is the worst so far - it's so unnecessary. I'm sick of seeing Christian's character victimised by violence b/c he's gay (Qadim's thugs and now the aftermath of Ben's lie, and I'm sure he was gay-bashed a couple of years ago), not to forget that they've been here before with Steven Beale. On a side note: I've always thought it should have been Syed who got beat up by Qadim's thugs instead of Christian - that would have made more sense, as Qadim would have gone after him to avenge his daughter.

The continuity in the Yusef story is terrible. They brought back Amira, and suddenly she's lost her brain after one meeting with Yusef. They actually had a good set-up with Christian/Syed/Amira, as you can see all the sides to the story as no-one is truly in the wrong, but by involving Dr. Evil, it has tainted that triangle and turned it into something it didn't need to be. The Yusef story could have been awesome, but due to the shoddy plotting, pacing and continuity with character's personalities, that has let it down. It's still entertaining for the most part, but a lot of the time it's difficult to suspend one's disbelief.

Not feeling the moronic Moons and the Jodie/Poopy stuff; I don't get why they never got rid of Jodie when they axed Vanessa and Darren, instead of axing her a couple of months later. Not much to say about Tanya's story, as it doesn't get played much. I am enjoying the show without Alfie & Kat, who had become especially annoying before they left for their Spanish vacation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, George Michael is...not happy about the way Eastenders tells gay stories.

I just wonder where he was in 2008-2010, which were also quite reprehensible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2060178/Gay-people-deserve-better-BBCs-pathetic-attempts-represent-George-Michael-slams-EastEnders-gay-storyline.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder if they will mention Pat's old relationship with Mandy.

I hope David will have some good scenes with Bianca and Carol.

Any word on Diane? Even if they couldn't get Peggy or SImon, Diane should be there.

Have you heard about the stories where

? Is all this happening at Christmas? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Heather is leaving somewhere at the beginning of next year, so not sure if her exit is ties into Christmas.

I just stumbled upon the Sharon/Phil two-hander from 2002:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YKddtM4H__g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pIH2E_yPojk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The show seemed to exploit the hell out of the two-hander format during 2002-2004. Now, it seems as if they don't even do it much anymore. Even when they used to be done sparingly, there seemed to be more frequency in the 80's, 90's, and early 00's when they were done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back when I used to be able to stomach the EE areas of the Digital Spy forum, one of my favorite posters there ranked the two-handers. I didn't realize there had been so many, and with random characters like Ricky and Phil.

If anyone wants to see more Mandy, another 1992 episode with her has been uploaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • https://x.com/MicheleValJean/status/1919575319146856657  
    • The penthouse was my favorite set... and it changed hands from Margo to Draper/April to Miles/Nicole then to just Miles... before he opted to give that beautiful place for that drab house with the even more drab Beth.  That was a jump the shark moment for me LOL
    • The storyline April and Draper are involved in during the summer/autumn of 1979 seems fairly "benign" but soon turns very serious.  April has a VERY intrusive, wealthy mother (Margo Huntington Dorn).  Margo knows that April and Draper (who've recently had a miscarriage and are theoretically never going to be able to conceive another baby) want to buy a house.  Margo hoodwinks them into buying a house they can't afford.  The house is listed at $100,000 (about $400,000 in today's dollars).  Margo pays the first $35,000 and leads Draper to believe the asking price of the house is $65,000 instead of $100,000.  If Draper finds out his meddling mother-in-law paid 1/3 of the cost of the home and tricked him, he'll be mad as hell.   Meanwhile, Draper has received a job offer from a prestigious New York law firm.  Margo pulls some strings and has the senior partner in the firm rescind the offer, to keep April in Monticello.  If Draper finds out about THAT, he'll be even angrier with Margo than he will be about the house trickery.  All of that is "bubbling under the surface" in the fall of 1979 but will be the next major story, as everything begins to spiral out of control.   Yep, you've got the Karrs and their very basic middle-class house, the Victorian-themed place where Miles and Nicole live, April and Draper's old craftsman house with the exposed beams, the Madisons & their Mission revival house, and Margo with her 1970s-chic penthouse.  Each of the sets is completely different.  And their budget was like zero, lol.  
    • It felt weird and out of place.  I get. While I agree with those on here that he's gotten better, it's still really bad. I'm not seeing the "good" acting some see...but I'll give him a B for being better than when he first started. There's potential. I'll leave it at that. 
    • It's like watching paint dry at a slow-ass pace. It's bad acting. Entirely. Excellent? With Claybon? Never. Ever. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Ah! Good to hear. Isn't it especially odd to think that house fictionally exists not far from the Karrs?  Or, that it was designed non-fictionally by the same person who designed April's place?
    • Good to know I'm not the only one who noticed that. Strange and awkward, and I don't know what they're doing with those fades.   -- Finally, had to laugh at how many Emmys this board passed out today.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Not unless they live in an apartment complex. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That was bad. Product placement is fine, but not here, not now. Besides, no one carries their damn detergent to the living room.   Completely and utterly disagree. I thought Brandon Claybon was excellent today -- maybe his best performance since the show started. No recast needed.   Not unpopular with me. That didn't work. The montage was good, but 5 minutes of Amazing Grace? With all those verses? No. What kind of family breaks into a loud version of Amazing Grace after what just happened??? None. Anita's lecture to Leslie was great. Ending the show -- a really good episode with crackling dialogue -- like that was a mistake.  
    • Today, was a fantastic episode. I loved everything about, including Ainta singing, Amazing Grace. I love the family dynamic of the Dupree's so much. They remind me of my own family at times. Martin & Smitty have come leaps and bounds from where they  started. I genuinely felt a connection between them I can't wait to watch it deepen. Dana/Leslie/Sherry/Ana is a piece of work. Her speech at the Dupree's about her "concern" for Eva and then locking her out of their apartment??? She is pure evil, but I love it. I can't wait to see where the Eva/Kat story goes. There's so much potential there. As for Ted, I need to see Keith Robinson in the role before giving my true critique of Maurice Johnson.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy