Jump to content

Emmerdale: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I've always found the first episodes a little bit stiff, and the acting a bit wobbly in places. But despite that it's miles better than what we're getting nowadays.

I think Gail Harrison as Marian Wilks is the best thing about those early episodes. She has a bit more spirit and energy than the Sugden family members. I wonder how things would have progressed if she had remained on the show. She did visit on two occasions during the seventies and I think she fit right in both times. I wasn't impressed with the recast Marian in the late 80s though. Too bad that Gail either wasn't available or interested in reprising her role.

 

 

 

Edited by I Am A Swede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I haven't seen them until now and I was very impressed by the tightness of the scripts and fully realized characters. The first episode tells you all you need to know about this world, the relationships between the characters, and what's to come. Now if I could only find Episode #2...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, it looks like the rumours about Charity having a secret son will turn out to be true.... 

Please register in order to view this content

I guess we are supposed to feel for Charity now, but all I feel is annoyance. Yet another Dingle-brat who will run around the village and take up screentime....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

If the Dingles were just Charity, an evolved pansexual Debbie, a recast Noah when the time is right, and hopefully a good character in whoever this son is, I could get behind that. I share your hatred of the Dingle characters despite my affinity for some of the actors, but Charity is just too hard to let go of for me. And I find, she excels so much when she's away from the family because she's alsways been so much more than any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess I must face the fact that the Dingles are popular. But when you hate a group of characters as much as I have come to hate them it makes it difficult to continue watching when the show just keeps on adding to  that group.

Furhermore, Charity already has three children. I realize it's not exactly the same since her child is going to be grown up, but why not give Victoria a child instead? You know, a member of the show's founding family, the daughter of Jack Sugden and the grand-daughter of Annie Sugden. The destruction the Sugden's have been subjected to makes it even more infuriating to think about the multiplying Dingles.

Peggy was killed off, just like her two children were. Honorary Sugden Matt lost two further children with Dolly. Jack's son Jackie was killed off, and Kathy lost his unborn child. Joe never even got to have biological children, and even his two step-children were killed off....

I think the only reason Andy and Robert were allowed to have children was because it involved Dingles. Andy had his children with Debbie and Robert is married to Aaron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I have a feeling that her son is going to turn out to be the man who blackmailed/harassed Tracy, and the story will have her helping his daughter, a Liv knockoff. And it will upset Tracy, since everything has to be about her. 

 

Victoria having a child would be nice, but the show does nothing with Robert having a child. They just don't care about the Sugdens. They really haven't for 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He doesn’t look a few years younger than Debbie, though, does he? At first I thought it could be Gerry but he’s definitely too young. This could be a real long shot but could it actually be...Joe? Has Emmerdale done a baby switch story yet? Joe does appear to be the right age to fit the storyline. But then again Joe and Debbie have had sex so...ewww. But...I don’t know...

Edited by TimWil, One minute ago.

 

Edited by TimWil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes, they did a baby switch story with Ashley/Laurel and Greg and Melanie Doland in 2007-08.

And absolutely NO to Joe being Charity's son! That would be the last straw for me. But I don't think they would go there because as you said Joe and Debbie have had sex. Of course they would both be Dingles so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course re Ashley/Laurel/Arthur. This wouldn’t quite be the same situation, though. I can see Chris Tate having bought a baby (he hadn’t even met Charity yet) after his and Rachel’s died. He passed him off as a Tate and never told anyone, especially Rachel.

 

As for Debbie and Joe having had sex, yeah, that would be a huge ewwww....but it wouldn’t be unprecedented. There were those two siblings on Brookside...

Edited by TimWil
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

    • He also lost the woman he was going to marry, under very sudden circumstances.  
    • I agree.  Rena doesn't seem to mind the lighter workload and seems happy though. Strangely, a lot of the veteran cast are without viable love interests-Sonny, Nina, Lois, Jason, Tracy, Alexis, Carly (Brennan doesn't count).  The show lacks serious interest in romance.
    • I just can't wait until next week when we can go back to a full weeks worth of episodes. 3 episodes and a mid-week gap has been so difficult to deal with, especially in light of how good the show is.
    • I always hoped they'd change Parker's paternity back to Phillip.  I guess it doesn't matter since Chloe is off the show currently.  I don't recall Holly or Maggie mentioning Parker, so it's not they are close to him. 
    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, early 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
    • I love your ideas. I would love to see Jack grown up this confused unhinged individual. He should hold a grudge against both Brooke and Taylor.   
    • @chrisml

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Lois's return has been a bust. So disappointing that the writers have never written for her. As with Tracy, the pool of GH vets is so thin, there's no one to pair her with. Doubtful they would go to the trouble of properly recasting a legacy character and then sticking  him with Lois; they're obviously not that invested. If she wants to be on this show, it'll be as a noisy grandma who stays in the background. 
    • I love me some Anita and TT. They need to give her a good storyline and I know that it's coming. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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