Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 29, 2010 Members Share Posted May 29, 2010 Laurie Brett said that the abortion reveal was going to be a slow-burner, so who knows... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BadBoy93 Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 Hopefully this isn`t because like you said she has the biggest potential in the programme to grow and develop. Honestly a suspension would be better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 (edited) I think the character has potential, but if she's written out, and then eventually recast in a year or two, it can give them time to retool their teen scene and eventually (and hopefully) bring the character back stronger than ever. While I think others can be cut before her, losing Lucy temporarily isn't a huge blow Wasn't Janine played by like 3 different actresses before Charlie Brooks? I remember that ugly one that played the character during her early teen years... The character can always come back with a better actress in a year or so, and hopefully by then, the teen scene/younger set will be stronger. Edited May 30, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 (edited) Yeah, Janine was played by several actresses. I think the girl who played her for most of Frank's first run on the show was somewhat popular, but then they replaced her. This is the Janine from 89-93. The problem I have with Lucy is that they have her do bad things because it helps move story forward and they just say, "She's a young Cindy!" Cindy, from what I have seen of her, didn't just go around doing awful things to people for the hell of it, or to get revenge. Cindy saw herself as a victim. She often only acted out against people if she wanted to protect herself or her children. Even hiring a hit man to kill Ian was, in her mind, a way out for herself and her kids. I really hope that Bryan Kirkwood moves away from the idea that the child of an established character has to be exactly like them. It is often very limiting, and, with the exception of Ben (who is nothing like either of his parents), has resulted in a lot of kids and teenage characters who either have one-note personalities, or no personalities whatsoever. Edited May 30, 2010 by CarlD2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ben Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 He hasn't thrown as much mud at Roxy, as he has Ronnie. There are still avenues to explore with Roxy, but they've made sure that Ronnie has been all tapped out. All of her enigmatic qualities have been explored; there's no more layers to peal. What they need to do with Ronnie, is reboot the character, and send her on a soul-searching mission. I think moving her and Jack forward, and making them a proper couple, will help with that; but really, outside of her past with Archie, what do we really know about Ronnie? She's not developing at all. Y&RWorldTurner is right: she just suffers. There has to be more to her than suffering. And yeah, they are great characters, and their stories have sucked, but it's the sucky stories that have ruined/ing the characters. I'm gonna take that with a pinch of salt. Every interview she does, she talks about how privileged she is to be working on EE (especially now that she is a permanent player), and how much she loves playing Lucy. I just can't see her jeopardising that after being warned by the show. Of course, she could just have been stupid, and I could've totally misjudged her. Plus, would they really fire her for this, instead of just giving her a suspension? So, she went to a club under age, and posted some risqué photos of herself on the net - it's not like she's always in the news for being drunk, and stuff - they suspended Jessie Wallace, and now they're bringing her back, so I can't see why they wouldn't do the same with Melissa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 What would you do with Roxy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 (edited) Kris Green said on Twitter he saw Kirkwood's first credited episode and liked it a lot, he thought Vanessa, Kim, and Mercy's grandmother were all great, and that Jodie was alright and has potential... He also said the "humour" was a lot better than it's been in a while in that episode. I guess we'll see for ourselves on June 4th... Edited May 30, 2010 by Y&RWorldTurner 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ben Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 So it's true - Lucy is out. And I totally misjudged her. They'll have to recast, now... - Digital Spy. What would I do with Roxy? Well, I think they need to take her back to a time when she wasn't so dumb, b/c this isn't Roxy. Yeah, she puts her trust in the wrong people, but she's no bimbo. This whole plot with Danny makes her look and act, like she's devoid of any brain matter. A zombie has more sense than her. They also need to address why she disowned Ronnie, as they haven't really mentioned it at all, and go from there. Explore her motive for believing Archie (and Danny) at all costs; explore her relationship with Glenda; have her face reality, instead of letting her languish in the fantasy world that was/is her life. I get that she didn't want to believe Ronnie, b/c that would've meant her whole relationship with her dad would've been based on a lie, and it's easier to run away and not have to deal with horrific truths, like your father abusing your sister. But this needs addressing, and it would develop her character, too. I think the original fun Roxy, is who she needs to be, which could conflict with her trying to be a good mum to Amy. I can totally see her raising her as a mini-me. They need to explore that, b/c at the moment, it's like Amy's a china doll, wheeled out for special tea parties, or something; it's not real. She shouldn't have the Vic, but the salon suits her. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 Do you think that her sleeping with Jack damaged the character? I like your ideas. I have a feeling they are going to just ignore the rape reveal, which is one of the reasons I was so bothered by the whole thing in the first place. People said oh well the show set this up, you could tell from the earlier scenes, but what does that matter if it's not even addressed. It's kind of funny seeing all the furor at Digital Spy over this firing. People saying Kirkwood is ruining the show, people saying that Eastenders won so many awards and why is this happening (all those awards they won in 2001 and 2002 didn't seem to help much for what was ahead), people saying Kirkwood is just firing any young character, people saying Lucy should never return without Melissa, that the Beales should all be fired because they are nothing without her. A lot of these firings have generated increased hysteria (Zsa Zsa was going to be a major female character, what will they do without her!) I guess a lot of those posters weren't around during years like 1998, with the mass firing spree. One of Gita was worth just about every character who has been axed this year. Even Simon and Ruth were. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 30, 2010 Members Share Posted May 30, 2010 This show needs a burst of energy, and all of those fired so far were nothing but dead weight. I don't understand any particular outcry over them. Lucy will probably be back in no time with another actress. Let's get real here, the character had a lot of potential, but Melissa wasn't THAT great of an actress... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 31, 2010 Members Share Posted May 31, 2010 I think that people are scared of change. Eastenders has had an influx of new viewers in the past few years, which is great, but also means they may not be adjusted to just how much turmoil this show has gone through. Eastenders has always been a big pop culture phenomenon but in the last 3 years it seems to have become even more of a "brand", if that makes any sense. A lot of fans online seem to worry about the brand, and the show has been riding high the last few years, so people don't like to face the idea that anything was wrong with the show. You always see this in posts that defend the show's down periods (oh well every show has slumps, the show is always like this in the summer/early part of the year, the show is fine, so and so show is doing worse), in posts that defend if the ratings ever decrease slightly. Even the incredible lull and lapses in continuity, filler, pointless stories, etc. that have gone on ever since February were written off as being natural, this is how it happens after a big episode, and so on. The show is almost always doing great and wonderful and anything which isn't can be shrugged off. The thing is that obviously someone at BBC sees the show as not being perfect, because otherwise why bring in someone who wants to make serious changes? Why not just do what happened when John Yorke left and have someone who had been with the show for years (Berridge)? The show has become a bit too comfortable recently and has been too dominated by certain faces, with the show no longer having any structure or heart or identity. You can't rely on faces forever. I think one of the reasons people are upset about Melissa, beyond her being an interesting performer, is that she was one of those faces. She wasn't a big player but she was easily identifiable and she was marked up as someone who would be a part of the future. I think that's a reason why some are also upset with Zsa Zsa going, because she was also getting marked up as some sort of typical Eastenders face. I am sorry this had to happen and I do think she had a lot of potential but the only bright spot in this is that it underscores how weak the show's teen set really is (hard to believe last year and the year before some were saying this show had the best teen cast on soaps!). Hopefully Kirkwood can improve that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 31, 2010 Members Share Posted May 31, 2010 EastEnders has always had cast turnovers and an influx of characters coming it. It's almost apart of the show's roots. Santer seemed to keep everyone, no matter how useless they were. I'm glad a lot of the dead weight is being fired now. I think it's for the better. The show had very little teens during the early years, and even up to a few years ago, the teens weren't any major part of the show. They need to retool the teen set and keep them as supporting, not lead. I think the cast cull of '98 actually helped the show. I didn't like a lot of what I saw from '96 and '97, by the late 90's, the show seemed more lively again. John Yorke's era in the early 00's just improved on that and his new creations (like the Slater's) just fit in perfectly. If done right, this new era could be just as successful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 31, 2010 Members Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) You're right about the show going through a lot of upheaval -- with the exception of the mid-90s, which were a little more stable, I would say it happens every five years. From my taste level the most damaging was the stream of exits in 1988-89, as these were superb characters replaced by, first, a lot of flop characters, and then the thug Mitchells, but the show survived. I think the show got a burst of energy from the new producer in 1998. I disagreed with some of the firings, and I still do -- I think you could have gotten a lot of story out of Gita -- but looking back, many of the characters did reach their natural end, even if I was very fond of them, like Simon and Ruth. The problem I had with what happened after that was more about those who took their place -- I thought they were very bland and took away from Eastenders uniqueness. Steve was very interesting but I just had little time for Mel or Jamie, and of course the horrible Dimarcos who stayed around (although apparently Robinson wanted to fire them). But certainly the show went up in the ratings and got a new lease on life. This time around it isn't even that complicated. Most of these characters are dead wood. Santer himself said he wished he'd fired more people earlier on. I don't think that means the characters who should have been fired but never were, more those he did fire (people like Yolande, who helped add to the fabric of Walford far more than Minty or Libby ever have), but it shows that a lot of producers are tempted to make big cuts. Sometimes they are right to do so. I really think it's all about image. People want to see the show as strong and in their mind a strong show doesn't get rid of so many people. I don't think that's true. I think a strong show knows when to cut losses, and these are losses. I just hope they can do some repair work on those who are left, instead of thinking new characters will be enough. What remains of the Brannings still has potential, I'm sure many feel Ronnie and Roxy still have potential, and even though I think they have been very badly damaged thanks to Syed's story, I think the Masoods still have potential. Edited May 31, 2010 by CarlD2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 31, 2010 Members Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) This is the Max mystery promo from late 2008. It's very good. I love that smirk at the end. Edited May 31, 2010 by CarlD2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 31, 2010 Members Share Posted May 31, 2010 EastEnders always has the best promos. ITV gives their soaps some rubbish and cheap promos that usually gives everything away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.