Jump to content

EastEnders: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Did anyone see the documentary the BBC did with Rita Simons and her deaf daughter? I thought it was pretty well-handled and heartwarming.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhRYfBaBfVE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r4OMxZ_xCNg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b0HyKYrKNFg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B3x6gK7mKeY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, that was fast. Mandy is being written out.

I guess this is the start of cleansing the show of Kirkwood's influence.

Though, I'll miss Mandy. I think they just started using her to her full potential.

However, the on/off stuff with Ian was bound to get tired fast.

http://www.thesun.co...edding-day.html

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

  • Members

Ian and Mandy's relationship is one of the best things to come out of Kirkwood's tenure, they really work well together IMO and I don't see why it couldn't have been a long-term thing. Was she axed? If so, I think it's the wrong decision.

Ben - I take it you just don't like Ben then? You are right, I'm spreading the Ben love tongue.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a shame about Mandy. She's one character that actually works, who has depth and history with the show, so I'm disappointed that, whomever decided to get rid of her couldn't see her potential (from how that article is worded, it doesn't sound like she quit). I'm thinking her pairing with Ian may have been a mistake, as they haven't written them in the way they should, meaning they sometimes feel "off", like something doesn't click. IMO, they go round in circles too much, and they write them like they are blind to their situation and who each of them are in order to create unnecessary angst. I don't think Mandy is in love with Ian, and I don't think Ian is in love with Mandy, and I believe they both know this, even if they don't really acknowledge it; they kinda feel like a stop gap until someone better comes along who can give them what they want (more so with Mandy, as you know she'd be the first to go if she found her prince). I think they've missed a trick to tell a story with some heart, instead of the usual stuff they churn out these days.

Ed: I don't like Ben. I should, b/c he has all the ingredients that I love in a character: emotional trauma, psychological scarring, depth and layers, tragic past, conflict with family members, etc. But I find he's less of a character and more of a caricature, like they've added all the ingredients and hoped it would rise, but instead its fallen flat. The writing has failed him. They've piled all these issues on to him and not developed any of them properly, instead they've stirred it a bit, said it's all down to his big bad dad Phil, and that's it. Too easy, too simple. I also think the character is too much for Joshua Pascoe to handle at his age, as Ben's too complex, and JP doesn't have the experience or talent to pull it all off and produce a well rounded character. Plus, I have a problem with characters who don't suffer any comeback for their many crimes. Like I said, the writing has sucked for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think this episode is from 1990 is from Grant and Phil's second week on the show:

And damn, Michelle Collins always looked so much older than Adam Woodyatt, and Peter Dean was always a terrible actor.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pU8BTpTuyQA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8yA9kWwTEh0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5vr1GKv2diI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't mind the Mitchell's during their first 5 years or so on the show. Phil and Grant were actually quite goofy and light-hearted characters in the beginning (which is apparent in the episode I just posted).

But by the late 90's, they were getting tired and really started to dominate the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was watching the Goodbye Heather thing - the narrator is so flat and takes away from how you should feel. Who is she? Didn't they have someone else for years?

When Kathy was around I kind of felt a little for Phil, because I thought she was a drain (at that time anyway), but once they made him the big stud/kingpin of Walford, I had a tough time watching him.

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

    • I'd say just the opposite - conflict means they will find out and then be at odds. For the limited amount of time people on this show have conflict (if they aren't named Nina or Ric, I guess).
    • Totes mcgoats (aka I agree). But, now the character needs to move forward.  Clyde's exit was 12/11/24.  It is May.  She and Chad have been on one date. I don't think they've slept together. And she was only planning on sticking around for a year.
    • That is one of the best insults I've heard in a long time.  I burst out laughing when Kat called Eva that.  LOL Their scenes, of course, were really good.  Colby and Ambyr have so much chemistry.  The only thing I'd change is Kat saying "you're dead to me."  That's a phrase usually said about someone you care about.  I would've preferred something like "You will never be my sister," or something similar to that.  Nice contrast at the end with both mothers/daughters:  Kat comforting/consoling her mother, and Eva being locked out by her mother.  Yeah, I wasn't a big of fan of the singing either, especially after your daughter's life has been destroyed.  What?  LOL And I also agree with those that thought Dana/Leslie's scenes with the Dupree's didn't feel right since Eva is not a Dupree....unless she is.  But as of right now, she's not. 
    • Trisha Mann-Grant, Ambyr Michelle, Sean Freeman are destined for bigger and better things. They need to move on as soon as their initial contracts are done.
    • Daphnée Duplaix and Trisha Mann-Grant on Instagram live, 5/5/2025 just concluded, saved here https://www.instagram.com/p/DJSsYb7PDv8/                
    • I really need to see Anita in a scene that isn't with a family member. In fact, I would have preferred that she would have gotten rid of the mob and had a one on one with Leslie to lay down the law with her.  I'm going to say it, Mike Manning has been completely lifeless on this show. Other than people's superficial fondness for him, I don't get what they see in him as an actor. I never saw him on DAYS though. The show had another really strange cut right before the opening credits where it looked like they almost cut off Nicole mid-sentence.  Kat/Eva are carrying this show on their backs. Lock them in for lifetime contracts, I beg.
    • There's a 1980 scene of Victor and Katherine in the Chancellor Estate living room where they went over a contract that would put Victor in charge of Chancellor Industries, but it was rewritten that Katherine brought Victor to Genoa City so he could run Chancellor Industries.
    • Put me in the minority in being happy about Cat not being Abby. After the two adult recasts played tag with the role, it's time for a few years of rest. I have a huge list of things I hate about RC's writing, but that choice was not one of them. 
    • Except she never worked there at all and barely even knew where the Chancellor Industries plant was located  In 1980, Kay attempted to install Derek Thurston (her third husband) in a position at Chancellor Industries.  The show introduced a character named George Packard who'd supposedly been running Chancellor since Phillip's demise in 1975.  (George Packard's storyline in 1980 was attempting to keep Derek Thurston from bankrupting the company.)   We didn't hear much of anything about Chancellor Industries for the next twenty-five years.  Then, at that point, we met Eliot Hampton (?) who'd been running the company for decades and had been embezzling from it.  Jill took it upon her herself to oust Eliot Hampton (?) and take control of the company.  That's when Kay became actively involved in the management of the company.  From 1974 till 2004 Kay Chancellor was strictly a hands-off owner.  It was downright absurd that the last ten years of life, she was written as this formidable businesswoman who'd always been involved in Chancellor Industries.  
    • Well, it's going to be something when he finds out the truth.  Agreed.  On that note, I can't until it all comes out. I find Lulu to be ridiculous. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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