EastEnders: Discussion Thread

[DRW50]

I can't make it through Emmerdale anymore. It's basically Survivors meets Skins. Or Hollysurvivors.

I think EE is OK at the moment, some more than others. The Masood stuff is good and the Michael/Eddie saga is picking up steam. There are quite a few strong scenes in most of the episodes. I do wish the stories themselves were better (Max/Tanya ugh).

There were rumors of illness and other things last year which caused problems. There was also the replacement of the story editor, Emily Gascoyne, with Kathleen Beedles being moved over from producing River City.

[Skylover]

Ah, thanks for the heads up. ITA about Max/Tanya. I think in order for the characters to develop they were better apart. Their reuinion doesn't ring true to me because the last time she dumped him Tanya seemed like she never wanted to see him ever again.

I think the cast is quite weak at the moment. So many key cast members from various familes have left, leaving only the Masoods as a solid family unit. I would count the Mitchells, but I find Phil/Shirley and Ben to be quite weak characters. I'm also finding myself getting quite offended by the Christian/Syed scenes. Their relationship is becoming stereotypical and I also feel that they are portraying gays as irrespoinsible...I mean wanting to 'adopt' a child and start a family after being together for a few months...?!

I've never watched Emmerdale, but I just wondered what it was like because I'm not too fond of EE or Corrie at the minute. EE is properly slightly in a better position. I like how Bryan Kirkwood is re-visiting most of the characters' families to develop them a bit. The conclusion to the story with Janine and Lydia was great, but then even the ending to that seemed to come out of nowhere and I'm not entirely sure about the exact details of the storyline!

[DRW50]

I don't think it paints gays as irresponsible - if we're talking about bad stereotypes then Chryed have always been bad stereotypes, but at least some of this has been addressed. I think this is mostly just a plot device so Syed will learn about Amira's pregnancy.

I have never been a huge fan of this relationship and I spent much of 2009 and 2010 complaining about them, but I think the show has gotten better at exploring the strengths and weaknesses of the characters and trying to show them changing over time. Syed in particular is more of a person and less of a plot device.

[Skylover]

I agree that they've tried to flesh out Christian and Syed's characters more as well as their relatonship, but I still think they're a pretty bad representation of a gay couple. I guess you're right that they always have been, but making them want to adopt now as a plot device is both poor writing and quite unnecessary if you ask me. I think it would have had quite a big impact if both actors had stayed and the writers had decided to go down that route in a few years...A loving couple, regardless of sexuality, want to start a family and care for a child just like a normal couple would. But considering how unstable their circumstances are, i.e. the Masoods not accepting the relationship, the couple not even being married (not that I think they necessarily need to be married but it's still another aspect which proves it's far too soon). I guess the whole point is that Christian wants a family to make sure he holds on to Syed...But gays have it difficult enough with such an issue without making us look like we stumble into such life changing decisions without thinking.

I hope it doesn't seem from this post that like I wanted to argue wth you, of course I respect your opinion and I enjoy reading your comments in this thread so it's quite the opposite. These characters just rile me up so badly.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Edward Skylover

[Ben]

Is it the rushed nature of C&S' adoption plot that annoys you, or just C&S generally? I really like them as a couple, now (I didn't last year or even a few months ago), and I like how they're developing Syed's character, and portraying how they're both at different aspects of life that is causing conflict. I know the adoption plan is rushed, but I think it's quite natural for where Christian is in life, but as a couple it is too soon. I think it's a character plot point, but I can see why you'd see it as being stereotypical, even though I don't believe that's they're intention. And I like how touchy-feely they are with each other, as opposed to every other same-sex couple on other soaps who rarely display any physical intimacy at all.

Ironically, I think One Life To Live was more ahead of the times than the UK at portraying a successful gay couple in Kyle & Oliver. Bar the defunct Family Affairs, what other UK soap has had a gay love triangle? (Where all the parties were gay and didn't involve the third wheel being straight.) Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

To add to Carl's comments, there were also some storylines that were randomly dropped last year, namely all of Vanessa's; Billy & Julie also seemed to be a casualty of this.

What is it about Mandy's return that you anticipate so much? I hardly remember much of anything she did, but she just seems so random to me. Actually, I hardly remember much about the show from those years.

Ricky has gone to Dubai for a lucrative job. Sid Owen wanted to leave for a year, and has said he will return if Patsy Palmer does. As it appears she will not, I wonder if they're bringing Mandy back as an incentive for SO to resign with the show, as apparently, Mandy and Ricky had a ONS or something.

ETA: From early comments about Ryan leaving, I think they chose to get rid of him b/c they have the new Moon brothers arriving soon. I think Ryan has potential, but they ruined him with the Stacey affair. I'm also surprised that Julie is out, considering it looked like her and Billy were being made into a solid couple. Really random decision.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Ben

[DRW50]

The main problem with Kyle and Oliver was most of their backstory took place offscreen, which meant that viewers had little idea who they were, and yet we were immediately supposed to be involved in this love story. Then you had the ridiculousness of the Nick character who instantly wanted to marry Kyle and then he exploited gay-bashing to get a man, which was horribly offensive.

No soaps have had gay love triangles, aside from the brief story on Emmerdale where Zoe cheated on her partner with her ex-girlfriend, which wasn't really a triangle.

The chemistry between the actors was what made it work...unfortunately by the time they actually got together, ABC had already pulled the plug.

Christian has wanted to be a father even before he met Syed - when Roxy thought Sean Slater wasn't going to be with her Christian told her he would act as Amy's father. He was very invested.

I think the story is rushed but I think they have shown, through some of Syed's doubts, that it isn't a decision being made lightly.

Did you see the clips I posted a few pages back when her return was announced?

Mandy is, or was, a real sparkplug character, a terrier. She's fascinating to watch. She's vulnerable but she causes such havoc. I'm not sure if she will be now, especially if she's in a story with Billy, but we'll see.

Edited June 22, 2011 by CarlD2

[Ben]

That makes what I said seem so stupid. In my defence, I wasn't watching when they came on, so I just thought from the way they talked the back story had been dealt with on screen in some form. I liked them as a couple, and you are right about Nick, but I thought it was still progressive for a US soap to feature a gay love triangle, and not just a couple. I never liked Nick, who I found clingy and predictable, but I never thought about him exploiting the gay-bashing as being offensive, more something that was born out of desperation to keep Kyle by his side. After all, other characters have exploited worse/similar before, so this wasn't any different. What I thought was more offensive was how they handled the homophobia in the end, and how blasé they were with Dorian pretending to be gay to win an election.

I will have to check some of them out. You make Mandy sound quite interesting. I didn't realize she's going to have story with Billy - what's the deal with that?

Do you think Sid Owen will return? And what did you think of the inclusion of those "racist" (inverted commas b/c, apparently, not everyone saw them as racist) comments with Phil & Shirley yesterday? It seems to have caused a mini-storm at DS.

[DRW50]

I think the comments from Phil and Shirley were very true to life. Many people are racist, and racism is often casual - it's not something I was surprised by in either character, and I'm glad the show did it.

There is no real proof she is going to be in a story with Billy but many are speculating she is

The most interesting clips involve her relationship with Mark and with Kathy.

The reason I found it offensive is because there is a very vocal belief out there that hate crimes against gays are hoaxes, are exaggerated, and are just a calling card of the gay agenda. So when you have a story where a gay man who is beaten uses this for his own personal gain and has no point of view beyond the scheming gay, it's damaging, IMO.

I assume Ricky will be back, but I guess we won't know until Patsy decides.

[DRW50]

Here is the cast for the new series of E20.

Why are they casting Mercy's sister when Mercy is being written out? This tells me again that getting rid of Mercy was a mistake.

http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/s86/eastenders-e20/news/a326279/eastenders-unveils-new-e20-cast-members.html

http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/s86/eastenders-e20/scoop/a326288/eastenders-e20-guide-to-the-new-characters.html

[MichaelGL]

Whattttt? No comments on yesterday's brilliant episode, that ended with the Yusef reveal?

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Jessie Wallace was on The Graham Norton Show last night, along with Kim Catrall and Lee Mack. It looks like she had her 2002-early 2003 hairdo.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zESKipdNZLE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sD3_RFNo5rs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ciO7N9a_aVk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XrDbKFaPpHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[dannigold]

Tanya Spoilers

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a326847/eastenders-confirms-cervical-cancer-storyline.html

[DRW50]

I kept thinking this would be more than a pregnancy. I'm sure Jake and Jo will do a great job. I wonder how this will affect Greg's character - I can see him smothering Tanya and she pushes him out of her life.

[Ben]

^^

There won't be much of a reaction, considering Greg is leaving the show after he finds out about her affair. He is an afterthought, and has been all along. So much potential, so much waste.

Personally, I would have Kept Greg, Ryan, Vanessa and Mercy, and spent time developing their characters; I wouldn't have bothered with the Moon brothers - well, not right now at least. I don't think they're necessary. To compensate, I would have got rid of Heather, Shirley, Phil and Ben... although, I kinda like the Phil/Rainie relationship, as it's kinda new territory for his character being a sponsor.

[DRW50]

Oh. For some reason I thought the affair wouldn't come out until after she battles cancer. I didn't read closely.

I think that there were many issues going on with Ryan onscreen and off that doomed him, and I have mixed feelings on Vanessa, but I would have kept Greg and Mercy, definitely. Greg is a very rare male character for Eastenders. I have no use for more "bad boys" or "hard men" or "ladykillers." I miss the days of Lofty Holloway.