1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

The last three appearances of Faith Dingle (sadly her 2000 appearances are MIA...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfilze9R6NM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxddhQ8FEzw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0xyivIe_M

 

I beg to differ. There is nothing sad about any Dingle appearance being missing.  

 

The most recent episodes have reminded me why I've always had a problem warming up to Charity, apart from her being a Dingle. I'm so sick and tired of her scheming and doing stupid things. If this is the all they can write for her then just drop her instead. She should have stayed away after her first exit, just like Cain should have. 

5 minutes ago, I Am A Swede said:

 

I beg to differ. There is nothing sad about any Dingle appearance being missing.  

 

The most recent episodes have reminded me why I've always had a problem warming up to Charity, apart from her being a Dingle. I'm so sick and tired of her scheming and doing stupid things. If this is the all they can write for her then just drop her instead. She should have stayed away after her first exit, just like Cain should have. 

 

I don't really mind the schemes, it's just that they get very repetitive and silly. I prefer when they focus more on her broken past and what made her what she is now.

 

I do think that her first stint was much better (for me it's the reverse with Cain).

I actually agree with you about both Cain and Charity. I think they've managed to bring out a more human side in Cain this time around compared to his first stint, whereas Charity was much more complex the first time around.

 

The Youtube-channel which contains the lovely 1985 episode you posted recently also has some interesting behind-the-scenes stuff. Of course it was far to heavy on the more recent material, but it was still nice to watch. In one of those they talked about the Dingles and they appear to be very popular with the writers, at least those who appeared in the clips, so I guess we're stuck with them....      (The fact that they've been around since 1994 should perhaps already have convinced me of that, but as they say, hope springs eternal.....  ) 

13 minutes ago, I Am A Swede said:

I actually agree with you about both Cain and Charity. I think they've managed to bring out a more human side in Cain this time around compared to his first stint, whereas Charity was much more complex the first time around.

 

The Youtube-channel which contains the lovely 1985 episode you posted recently also has some interesting behind-the-scenes stuff. Of course it was far to heavy on the more recent material, but it was still nice to watch. In one of those they talked about the Dingles and they appear to be very popular with the writers, at least those who appeared in the clips, so I guess we're stuck with them....      (The fact that they've been around since 1994 should perhaps already have convinced me of that, but as they say, hope springs eternal.....  ) 

 

The writing for women in general was much stronger in her first stint. Other than her time with Jai, I've never felt comfortable with a lot of her return material. I've never liked her relationship with Cain and I really don't like the way that her essentially being a child prostitute is used to demean her by other characters. I prefer the current stuff to her chasing after Cain but I can see why you're tired of it. I wish there were more balance for her. 

 

I haven't watched those (I have seen a few bits), but I imagine the Dingles of that era were popular as it was lots and lots of comedy and drama. After 2008, when it all got very silly and strange, Gavin Blyth took away most of the comedy and also broke the Dingles up into sections (Aaron/Chas, Cain/Charity/Debbie, Lisa/Zak/Belle/Sam, Marlon). 

 

They seem to have muddied this somewhat in the last year, with more Dingle family stuff and more comedy, but I guess it's still mostly true. 

Are we meant to feel sorry for Zak now that he's guilt-ridden and in danger of misplacing his marbles again? Well, I feel nothing. He treated Joanie abysmally and I was cheering Kerry on during her eulogy. 

I'm surprised that at the wake, Belle didn't reminisce about all the good times, like when she spat in Joanie's face. Uggh, that family!

3 hours ago, Adamski said:

Are we meant to feel sorry for Zak now that he's guilt-ridden and in danger of misplacing his marbles again? Well, I feel nothing. He treated Joanie abysmally and I was cheering Kerry on during her eulogy. 

I'm surprised that at the wake, Belle didn't reminisce about all the good times, like when she spat in Joanie's face. Uggh, that family!

 

Hallelujah and Amen!! 

Everytime I think I couldn't possibly dislike that family any more than I already do they find a way to prove me wrong. 

3 hours ago, I Am A Swede said:

 

Hallelujah and Amen!! 

Everytime I think I couldn't possibly dislike that family any more than I already do they find a way to prove me wrong. 

 

It's a shame, because Zak actually used to be one of my favourite characters, but he has been spineless for too long now. 

12 minutes ago, Adamski said:

 

It's a shame, because Zak actually used to be one of my favourite characters, but he has been spineless for too long now. 

 

Zak has always been spineless. It's just that in recent years that was more tolerable because he and Lisa were a settled couple, and he was allowed to be more of a voice of reason. Kate Oates destroyed that with the affair and the callous way he treated Lisa. It's never been the same since. 

7 hours ago, Adamski said:

I'm surprised that at the wake, Belle didn't reminisce about all the good times, like when she spat in Joanie's face. Uggh, that family!

 

Other than those few months when she was going off the rails, I think Belle did what she could with Joanie. Joanie was her friend, a mentor to her, and she broke up her parents behind her back. 

Just now, DRW50 said:

 

Zak has always been spineless. It's just that in recent years that was more tolerable because he and Lisa were a settled couple, and he was allowed to be more of a voice of reason. Kate Oates destroyed that with the affair and the callous way he treated Lisa. It's never been the same since. 

 

Very true!

It's a struggle right now to remain interested in the show. I suspected this would happen as soon as Debbie returned, because I knew that as soon as she was back the show would become even more Dingle-centric than usual. And what do you know, it's not enough that Debbie immediately begins monopolizing the show, they add yet another Dingle to the cast...... 

All that, and the destruction of Pierce to pave the way for a reunion between Paddy and Rhona, makes it hard to enjoy much of the show right now.

 

The only thing that's keeping me interested is Ashley's story. While it's sad I can't stop watching, because I just know that Charlotte Bellamy will act the hell out of it. I hope that they don't sideline Laurel when Ashley's gone, because she's their best asset.

3 hours ago, I Am A Swede said:

All that, and the destruction of Pierce to pave the way for a reunion between Paddy and Rhona, makes it hard to enjoy much of the show right now.

 

What's happening with Pierce doesn't bother me, because he was always set up this way (this is who Tess was complaining about from way back), but it bothers me that this is likely being done to set up Paddy/Rhona redux. I have never liked that relationship. Rhona is much better off without him, and Paddy is mostly either just dour or a blithering idiot around her. 

 

I find the show wildly uneven. The Ashley and Laurel stuff really is far above the rest, then there are other parts I think sometimes reach high quality, like Moira's grief. The rest is all over the place. There are some things I simply don't care about, like Zak reuniting with Lisa. I'd rather she be on her own. I don't mind the Debbie return or Faith as much as you do but I do think the Dingles easily get in a rut - it's difficult to really believe that Sarah is ill, it just feels like a plot device for schemes or comedy. 

 

Generally I enjoy Charity the most of that group.

I don't really mind the story with Pierce and Rhona, or I wouldn't have minded it if I didn't fear that the end result will be that Rhona takes Paddy back. The story itself is well done, they've taken their time with it and built it up slowly. I just hate the idea that all that good work will be wasted on a Paddy/Rhona reunion. Just because Pierce turns out to be a creep doesn't mean that Rhona should take Paddy back.

 

As for Debbie's story it falls flat for me because I just cannot muster up any sympathy for her. Every time they try to make us feel bad for Debbie because her child is ill I can't help but think of Gennie lying dead beside her wrecked car, and of Molly having to grow up without her mother. I know that Debbie didn't actually kill Gennie, but I can't shake off her involvement.

It doesn't help either that Charley Webb is a rather hard and cold actress, at least to me. She can't portray the softness and vulnerability that would make me care about Debbie, and make her a leading lady on the show. I could name any number of characters, past and present, that would work in a story like this: Laurel, Rhona, Leyla, Katie, Donna, Zoe, Rachel, Kathy, Sarah, Sandie, Dolly.

20 years of Dominic Brunt as Paddy.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-02-20/one-of-emmerdales-best-loved-faces-celebrates-landmark-anniversary/

15 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

20 years of Dominic Brunt as Paddy.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-02-20/one-of-emmerdales-best-loved-faces-celebrates-landmark-anniversary/

 

Congrats to him even though I can't stand Paddy at times. 

Am I an awful person to want Maggie dead...like, real soon?

 

The naughty Gustav novel is cute but is this a case of Sharon Marshall saying during a story conference "Well, this went down a treat on Neighbours a few years back!"? Having Dr. Karl write a steamy book was a whole lot more amusing than Tracy and Pearl, though.

Edited March 1, 20178 yr by TimWil