Jump to content

EastEnders: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Yeah, York had the Slaters.

Berridge had, what, the Millers, and the Ferrieras, and the modern version of the Watts.

Harwood brought in new extensions of the Brannings (which was something of a success) and the Wicks (generally a big flop).

Santer, how long did he wait until he brought in a new family, I guess it was until late 2007, with the Masoods. And then he basically rewrote the Mitchells to suit his purposes, or someone at the show did.

Kirkwood waited 4-5 months to start bringing in the McQueens and the Valentines, didn't he? I guess with so many cast departures he may have the luxury of not waiting as long this time around.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ronnie and Roxy are both one-note characters, both very plot-driven, and they heavily rely on plot being churned out constantly, with no real effort to ever flesh them out. Santer or Treadwell Collins or whoever seemed very leery of actually giving any character any depth -- for the past few years it has been that same one note pounded again and again.

Ronnie is supposed to be the "serious" one but her stories have become so short-sighted and there seems to be little to do for her because they are running from actually exploring her. Roxy is the "fun" one but fun = SHOUTING EVERY LINE, and this "fun" character has often behaved monstrously, with no real fallout, ever.

There are a lot of characters over the past few years who could be easily written out, although I doubt they will be, since the show has managed to sell them as big stars.

I do think there's potential for Ronnie, mostly because of Sam Janus, if the show ever makes the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

These scenes have some very good, more subtle acting from Jessie Wallace, showing the more vulnerable side of Kat, and how her reputation haunts her. She tells Alfie, when they first start dating, about the number of men she's been with. Several days later, he falsely believes she slept with her ex, Anthony, and says as much to her at a fancy dinner, adding that if she hadn't slept with Anthony it would have been someone else. Kat tries to cover up how hurt she is by how he sees her, and thanking him for their time together, leaves the meal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Qx56LD4IY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuAfR3PRcZQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

EastEnders is like instant coffee: you put the powder in the cup, pour hot water over it and you're done. Unless Kirkwood changes the way things are done and brings someone else instead of Dominic. Which won't happen until Yorke says it needs to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's interesting. I know some fans have felt the show is now relying too much on Ashdown as many other strong writers like Phelps and Jordan have gone, as there were some views that the most recent "big" episodes he wrote, like the Stax two-hander and the Bianca/Ricky wedding, didn't live up to hype. It might be a good idea for them to give him more input with new characters like they are doing with Vanessa, especially since his favorite, Stacey is leaving. Isn't she his favorite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It should be interesting to see how Dominic works with Kirkwood. They'll be a change in the way things play out on-screen, there always is.

Santer had many good qualities that I don't think people are keen to acknowledge often, but I never thought he properly understood story and how to craft serial drama. I think a lot of the story problems and failure of the basics were down to him during his tenure.

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

    • Thank you for the constructive suggestion. 
    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
    • Oh, really? I think we're really getting close.  What does "apparently" mean to you? To me, it means that this is something I think has happened but not something I absolutely positively know to have happened. When I use a word like "apparently" as I have here, I am doing so by intent. Can you think of a better way to communicate that?
    • Wow...I was not expecting a montage.   I know SilkPress did not!!! Poor Eva.  Lol. Funnily enough I missed that.     
    • For the record, VW thought having the twins at their ages was absurd & who wanted that story, was some group of fans, who wanted her & Carl to have a chance at having children together. Not any fans that I knew of, but supposedly they existed. 
    • Brandon Tartikoff saved NBC primetime. Brandon Stoddard got ABC Tuesday to rebound and put an end to the Aaron Spelling hit factory.
    • Awwwww Brad. I know I shouldn't, but I feel bad for him 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And yeah, agreed that Dante having animosity towards Gio is very forced and contrived. And it also has me concerned that it means the reveal won't be happening anytime soon.
    • God, I love that woman. Another amazing interview!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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