BBC Television programmes  permalink

Eastenders

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 19751 - 19800 of 19999
  • Message 19751

    , in reply to message 19750.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    Lmao Prophet, Count Moonula appearing from a fog, where do you think that up 
    An allusion to his Dracula inspired name - one of his abilities being to transform into either fog or a bat.

    So Arthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhur also suffers from the empty mug syndrome. 
    Can you imagine how much it would cost to fill those mugs every episode?!

    Imagine how delighted everyone would have been if someone had taken the keys from that machine and Alfie would have been stuck up there all Christmas and New Year. 
    I don't know, they seemed to be trying to sell him as some sort of beloved celebrity... presumably because he used his own personal fortune to pay for the German market, merry-go-round and Christmas tree. Can someone explain how Alfie (who couldn't afford to go to Germany until someone paid for the ferry ticket) was able to pay for the very elaborate stuff apparently purchased?

    So Wooden Jack really needs to make a FUSS about Oscar, despite forgetting his other 4 children, charming 
    He doesn't seem to be worried about the fact the Kinder Egg kid has been rendered inaudible and invisible!

    Report message1

  • Message 19752

    , in reply to message 19751.

    Posted by smiley (U14357686) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    Because I haven't watched EE for a while, it may have been explained, so apologies if this is a silly question, but why exactly can’t Alfie just go and confront his horrid wife? His puppy eyes and sainthood being rammed down people’s throats is nauseating.

    I don't know, they seemed to be trying to sell him as some sort of beloved celebrity... presumably because he used his own personal fortune to pay for the German market, merry-go-round and Christmas tree. Can someone explain how Alfie (who couldn't afford to go to Germany until someone paid for the ferry ticket) was able to pay for the very elaborate stuff apparently purchased? 


    Yeah one minute he is broke the next he has all these money to spend.
    Does anyone in the production team read these scripts to make sure that there is some continuity?


    So Wooden Jack really needs to make a FUSS about Oscar, despite forgetting his other 4 children, charming 

    He doesn't seem to be worried about the fact the Kinder Egg kid has been rendered inaudible and invisible! 


    The Crayon Crew have no clue what their characters are meant to be. They write them as they see fit for the episode they appear on. Jack appears to periodically have amnesia. And it happens more often than not. One minute he doesn't remember any of his children, the next he wants mute Amy, is devastated because she moved two doors down the road, the next he never mentions any of them. What is the betting that there won't be any mention of the second anniversary of his son’s death again this year?

    Or it could be that the Crayon Crew have amnesia themselves.


    Report message2

  • Message 19753

    , in reply to message 19752.

    Posted by popcangetbetter (U2319212) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    if you look at what is coming up next week, all episodes are summarized by:
    Alfie is devastated/shocked/horrified when the truth about Kat is revealed.

    Why does it have to be spread over a whole week, just let him do what any NORMAL person would do and decide to leave Waldump, the place where every Christmas is a murder or infidelity fest.

    Also sick of Big Mo whose every scene involves some DEAL she has with Fat Elvis, I doubt any sane person would buy goods illegal from a nutter gran who thinks she is the main selling point for dodgy gear.

    Report message3

  • Message 19754

    , in reply to message 19753.

    Posted by popcangetbetter (U2319212) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    also, where did Ray's CSI daughter appear to???

    Looks like Kim has been put to the background the last few weeks

    Report message4

  • Message 19755

    , in reply to message 19752.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    Because I haven't watched EE for a while, it may have been explained, so apologies if this is a silly question, but why exactly can’t Alfie just go and confront his horrid wife? His puppy eyes and sainthood being rammed down people’s throats is nauseating. 
    For the same reason that his horrid wife (having promised no more lies or secrets) decided to start lying and keeping secret the fact that the Phantom Shagger started talking to her as soon as she and Alfie returned to the Square.

    The Crayon Crew have no clue what their characters are meant to be. They write them as they see fit for the episode they appear on. Jack appears to periodically have amnesia. And it happens more often than not. One minute he doesn't remember any of his children, the next he wants mute Amy, is devastated because she moved two doors down the road, the next he never mentions any of them. 
    Pretty much everyone with children not on the Square (and yes, Jack and his one man bid to reforest the world is certainly doing more than his part) just seems to forget about them after about a week... we even had an example of this from Denise just yesterday, going on about how she envies Bianca because she is spending Christmas with FAAAAMMMMMMLLLEEEE and totally fails to mention her two daughters - did they get killed off-screen or something?

    What is the betting that there won't be any mention of the second anniversary of his son’s death again this year? 
    I'll give the Burger Queen a big gold star if the baby swap goes unmentioned - if it's never mentioned again, it will be too soon.

    Or it could be that the Crayon Crew have amnesia themselves. 
    Quite possible but I think it may be more cynical than that - we know that the cast like their holidays, so it could just be that many storylines are written with minimal consideration given to who participates in them so that should an actor become unavailable, it's just a question of running a find-replace on the script.

    I honestly would not be surprised, so fleeting is the relevance of character to storylines.

    if you look at what is coming up next week, all episodes are summarized by:
    Alfie is devastated/shocked/horrified when the truth about Kat is revealed. 

    Haven't we already had three episodes of that? Or was that him trying to put the puzzle pieces together?

    Why does it have to be spread over a whole week, just let him do what any NORMAL person would do and decide to leave Waldump, the place where every Christmas is a murder or infidelity fest. 
    Because the Crayon Crew are just out of ideas and Alfie spending a week trying to work out that the wife he trusted so much, he previously said she could go and sleep with other men behind his back because he's well aware that she's little more than a bitch in heat and then taking ANOTHER week to confront her about this is the only way they can pad the run times.

    I mean, hasn't the recurring theme behind about 50% of major storylines since Burger King started (which shows no sign of abating under the Burger Queen) been that they drag on for months and months just endlessly repeating like a stuck record? The fact we've moved on from Kat's "I'm about to lose control of my bowels" looks every time the Branning beast enters the Vic is about the ONLY development we've had in over a month.

    Also sick of Big Mo whose every scene involves some DEAL she has with Fat Elvis, I doubt any sane person would buy goods illegal from a nutter gran who thinks she is the main selling point for dodgy gear. 
    I'd dearly like to see Mo meet a grizzly demise. She's a tedious character who doesn't fit and who is more superfluous than Pointless Poppy - she has LONG overstayed her welcome and contributes nothing beyond cluttering a cast so full of deadwood, it's surprising elf 'n' safety haven't been in touch.

    It feels like a while since I have said it and it does warrant saying with some regularity - it's time to purge the deadwood. Just off the top of my head, I can easily reach a half-dozen characters that are either used so little they might as well be gone or are so awful they're dragging the show down. For additional difficulty - NO CHILDREN!

    Actually, you know what? This post has gone on for long enough, I'll post it on my blog... I'll put the link up when I'm done.

    Report message5

  • Message 19756

    , in reply to message 19755.

    Posted by smiley (U14357686) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012


    It feels like a while since I have said it and it does warrant saying with some regularity - it's time to purge the deadwood. Just off the top of my head, I can easily reach a half-dozen characters that are either used so little they might as well be gone or are so awful they're dragging the show down. For additional difficulty - NO CHILDREN!

     


    Yeah the children need to stop. It is ridiculous to have so many children that are hardly ever seen or mentioned, nor do they serve any purpose beyond a tacky reveal of some unwanted pregnancy.


    Under Burger King we had:
    Sam Mitchell, Ronnie, Kat, Janine, Lola all have babies. The characters make up pretty much most of Walford home sapiens female species of child bearing age.
    The rmeaining ones either had a child not that long ago or didn’t have any storylines where they were meant to have slept with anyone. Nor had they been in the presence of Jack the sperminator, as all he needs to do is set eyes on one and they will fall pregnant.

    Mind you how long till we have Lauren pregnant by Joey?
    Burger Queen will no doubt want to meet the quota of pregnancies during her reign too.




    Report message6

  • Message 19757

    , in reply to message 19741.

    Posted by Tweeet (U15280056) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    "7. Half-day Alice's apathy!"

    Had to smile when Hogfather said to Hogdaughter that he thought she would be at work ........ 
    WORK smiley - laugh NO CHANCE! smiley - laugh

    Report message7

  • Message 19758

    , in reply to message 19742.

    Posted by Tweeet (U15280056) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    Who is Phil's daughter? I honestly have no idea!

    I see Ian Beale's completely cured of his breakdown then! 
    Yep, Ian Beale is completely back to normal, whatever normal is in the world of Walford.....anyone else get the feeling Ian and Denise are going to become a couple.....now a couple of what remains to be seen smiley - laugh

    Report message8

  • Message 19759

    , in reply to message 19758.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    , Ian Beale is completely back to normal, whatever normal is in the world of Walford 

    Wow, I go away for a week and return to find Ian being his usual insufferably smug, opinionated self. Only a few days before he'd been a gibbering wreck at the thought of going to see Ben in court. Remarkable feat of recovery, up there with Tanya's cancer-flu.

    Ah well, that's the mental health issues box ticked back at the writer's room.

    anyone else get the feeling Ian and Denise are going to become a couple 

    The warning signs are choo-chooing their way down the track smiley - yikes

    Report message9

  • Message 19760

    , in reply to message 19756.

    Posted by MrsMiggins (U11734250) on Wednesday, 12th December 2012

    Jack the sperminator 

    smiley - laugh smiley - laugh

    Report message10

  • Message 19761

    , in reply to message 19760.

    Posted by Straw_Donkey (U14516455) on Thursday, 13th December 2012

    I haven't watched this tripe for a few episode but am keeping abreast of the action with Prophet's blog because I can't think of any character that I am remotely interested in. I have also had a laugh at the link posted on here last week, the intereviews with script writers! They say the right things but don't practice what they preach. Surprisingly they all appeared to be middle-aged and normal. I was expecting a bunch of 20 something half-wits, they must spend a couple of hours a day cobbling together the scripts and the rest of their time enjoying their vast wages.

    Report message11

  • Message 19762

    , in reply to message 19756.

    Posted by childofthestones (U15491546) on Thursday, 13th December 2012


    It feels like a while since I have said it and it does warrant saying with some regularity - it's time to purge the deadwood. Just off the top of my head, I can easily reach a half-dozen characters that are either used so little they might as well be gone or are so awful they're dragging the show down. For additional difficulty - NO CHILDREN!

     


    Yeah the children need to stop. It is ridiculous to have so many children that are hardly ever seen or mentioned, nor do they serve any purpose beyond a tacky reveal of some unwanted pregnancy.


    Under Burger King we had:
    Sam Mitchell, Ronnie, Kat, Janine, Lola all have babies. The characters make up pretty much most of Walford home sapiens female species of child bearing age.
    The rmeaining ones either had a child not that long ago or didn’t have any storylines where they were meant to have slept with anyone. Nor had they been in the presence of Jack the sperminator, as all he needs to do is set eyes on one and they will fall pregnant.

    Mind you how long till we have Lauren pregnant by Joey?
    Burger Queen will no doubt want to meet the quota of pregnancies during her reign too.




     
    All the children will come back in 15-20 years time as the new generation in Albert Square! Lexi, Oscar, Scarlett, Tommy, Amy, Louise etc etc - all miserable, monosyllabic, aggressive, brain dead yoofs joined by Heather's son George, who although his mother was killed there will desire no other place to live than Albert Square, and Richard, the son of Jack and Sam Mitchell, come to check out his roots. . They will all crawl out of the woodwork seeking revenge!!! (cue Vincent Price laughter).

    Report message12

  • Message 19763

    , in reply to message 19761.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Thursday, 13th December 2012

    Surprisingly they all appeared to be middle-aged and normal. I was expecting a bunch of 20 something half-wits, they must spend a couple of hours a day cobbling together the scripts and the rest of their time enjoying their vast wages. 
    No... hacks are generally (though, not always) older and having had the weight of the world crush their dreams are ready to just do anything that will pay the bills, youthful ideals of making something original or good long since forgotten.

    Although, given what they say they could just be in some very serious denial... who knows?

    Report message13

  • Message 19764

    , in reply to message 19763.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Thursday, 13th December 2012

    I know many of you forgo the episode and make do with my paltry scribblings, so here they are:

    wackywalford.blogspo...

    Report message14

  • Message 19765

    , in reply to message 19764.

    Posted by popcangetbetter (U2319212) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    I suppose we should be thankful for every episode that does not involve Hogson.

    Another short memory loss moment yesterday:

    Shirl sitting with Derek at the bar and giving a friendly Hello to Jacknocchio after mouthing off to him the week before with the SHOUT -A-THON to Phil and Dragron outside.


    Are Scotch Egg's money issues to Derek not a cause of the rent he has to pay for the Kat flat?

    Report message15

  • Message 19766

    , in reply to message 19764.

    Posted by smiley (U14357686) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    I know many of you forgo the episode and make do with my paltry scribblings, so here they are:

    wackywalford.blogspo...

     


    Thank you for the blog prophet. Very amusing as always. smiley - ok
    This part made me laugh so much.

    "Derek swans around to Tanya's but he's not there to exude mild menace today, he's there to see his bruuuuv Scotch Egg - who lumbers in with a Christmas tree and Tanya feels the need to IMMEDIATELY castigate him for this because she doesn't want to go up the aisle with pine needles in her knickers... uh... Unless you're planning on attempting to copulate with it, that's probably not going to happen" smiley - laugh

    Yeah Tanya is probably planning to throw herself on the Christmas tree.

    Now on to Lola/Lexi/Phil/Dragron tripe.
    Omg what a pile of c*ap the Lexi storyline is. Where did EE see this happen in a family court? I wouldn’t know where to start about the inaccuracies of that court hearing. smiley - doh



    Yeah right the judge will make a decision to give the child to Phil because he is telling the truth that his father was an alcoholic.
    Never mind the truth about Ben or Louise etc. And I am sorry but how much more stupid are the judges or the Social going to be portrayed by EE. Phil would have been thoroughly assessed, so his alcohol and crack addiction, his children, his relationship with Dragron and all his credentials would be known to the judge and will form part of an assessment that SS or an independent social worker would have completed.
    The judges don’t make decisions on “the witness says so”. They base it on evidence. Phil’s CRB would show that he was in prison not that long ago, and eventhough it would transpire that his son made false accusations, it is another reason for the judge and everyone else to question his parenting and what he can offer to this child.

    Never mind the fact that even on a practical level, Phil can not look after the baby 24hrs as he has support network etc, which will form part of the assessments and affect any decisions.

    Where is Lola’s solicitor, who can easily argue and win the right for Lola to have her baby back, albeit under a care order for the time being until assessments are completed?
    Where are the Child’s Guardian and his/her solicitor? What about Ben's solicitor? Ben may be in prison but he will be party of the proceedings and be represented in court. I am sure he would instruct his solicitor to say one or two things about Don Michelloni. smiley - doh

    I will stop because the post is getting too long.

    Did EE flaunt the helpline at the end of the episode for people who have been affected and need help? smiley - doh




    Report message16

  • Message 19767

    , in reply to message 19766.

    Posted by Penn (U10777282) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Are the EE's scriptwriters smoking crack or something? I just watched last nights episode and cannot believe how this Lexie storyline is fanning out. So they take a baby away from its mother for no apparent reason, and then a few months later award custody to a violent, alcoholic drug addict who could write the book on screwing people's lives up.

    I don't know whether the scriptwriters, producers, directors ever read these boards, but I hope they realise that most people regard Eastenders as a laughable pile of c**p[ nowadays

    Report message17

  • Message 19768

    , in reply to message 19767.

    Posted by Fearless1 (U14792613) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    I haven’t watched EE for a few months but judging by the posts here and the viewing figures the quality keeps getting worse.

    I can’t fathom how the Beeb can justify spending the licence fee money on this drivel.
    I regard BBC as a great broadcaster that comes up with some fantastic programmes, worth every penny of the licence fee money, but when it comes to EE this really is unacceptable. Somebody should question the money spent on such incompetent producers and writers producing a below par quality program.

    Report message18

  • Message 19769

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by popcangetbetter (U2319212) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Why is Charlie Slater in the programme?? Add him to Heather, Libby, Dot, Steven, Mo Slater  Mo has been an annoyance for 4 years now it seems smiley - smiley

    I have just betted with my collegue that next week we will get some child singing a Christmas song in the Jackson household and then we get the camera sliding over Bianca (looking 'appy with her cardboard Xmas tree), Saint Alfie in tears alone with Tommy upstairs), Kat (in trampy clothes in rain/snow outside on Albert Fowler's bench), Hogson and Lauren in a bed, Lola hanging out a window crying while the SS take Lexi away.
    it is going to cost me a luxury lunch if this is not going to happen smiley - smiley

    Report message19

  • Message 19770

    , in reply to message 19769.

    Posted by popcangetbetter (U2319212) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Oops I meant Arthhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur Fowler of course

    Report message20

  • Message 19771

    , in reply to message 19766.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Yeah right the judge will make a decision to give the child to Phil because he is telling the truth that his father was an alcoholic. 
    I'm starting to think that perhaps this whole scenario is being written by Daily Mail columnists... hmm, not enough about the evils of Europe or immigration though - maybe not but the contempt shown for the system is certainly there.

    The judges don’t make decisions on “the witness says so”. They base it on evidence. Phil’s CRB would show that he was in prison not that long ago, and eventhough it would transpire that his son made false accusations, it is another reason for the judge and everyone else to question his parenting and what he can offer to this child. 
    Yes, I can understand that they don't want to spend a whole episode on technical legal proceedings but there's NO indication that the judge even read Phil's very lengthy criminal record, his history of alcohol AND drug abuse, his relationship with his incarcerated son and estranged daughter and so on.

    Did EE flaunt the helpline at the end of the episode for people who have been affected and need help? 
    Yes. Just... why? Lola's situation is ridiculously complex and improbable... she gets her baby taken away from her because she's being taken into custody and Billy Idiot is drunk - I guess they forgot about having given Patrick some legal standing in regards to Lola and Lexi, eh?

    And now Lexi's evil grandfather is trying to steal custody away from Lola - who should never have lost custody in the first place... Yes, I can see how that's a situation a lot of people could find themselves in - thus totally warranting the phone number. Groan.

    Report message21

  • Message 19772

    , in reply to message 19766.

    Posted by Ed of Global Integrated Vision (U8471561) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Where did EE see this happen in a family court? 
    That was a very peculiar family court setting. The judge in something home-sewn, Phil's solicitor addressing the court with his hands in his pockets, SS without their uniforms. It must have been so comforting to a bewildered looking Lola.

    Report message22

  • Message 19773

    , in reply to message 19772.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Where did EE see this happen in a family court? 
    That was a very peculiar family court setting. The judge in something home-sewn, Phil's solicitor addressing the court with his hands in his pockets, SS without their uniforms. It must have been so comforting to a bewildered looking Lola.
     
    Isn't family court generally much more informal? This felt as if someone was basing it off an episode of Perry Mason rather than real life (no change there)... I kept waiting for someone to jump up and shout "OBJECTION!"

    Report message23

  • Message 19774

    , in reply to message 19773.

    Posted by Viligante (U14039144) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    I kept waiting for someone to jump up and shout "OBJECTION!" 

    Yes, and by the looks on her face I thought it was going to be Lola that shouted it!

    Report message24

  • Message 19775

    , in reply to message 19774.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    It's daft to even think that a judge would allow matters to proceed when Lola was standing giving evidence in a state verging on catatonic fear and dread with tears flooding down her face, and having to have answers extracted from her with little short of Gestapo-type forcefulness. A real triumph Crayon Crew.

    Report message25

  • Message 19776

    , in reply to message 19775.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    It's daft to even think that a judge would allow matters to proceed when Lola was standing giving evidence in a state verging on catatonic fear and dread with tears flooding down her face, and having to have answers extracted from her with little short of Gestapo-type forcefulness. A real triumph Crayon Crew.   The fact that people were apparently taking the stand felt very at odds with the nature of the proceeding... do the Crayon Crew think that legal proceedings are ALL like criminal trials? Perhaps we could have had the judge banging a gabble and saying "ORDER! I WILL HAVE ORDER IN THIS COURT!"

    But seriously, Lola taking the stand and being questioned as if she was a WITNESS?! Incapable of answering, while in floods of tears... and this didn't warrant ANY reaction from the judge beyond prompting her to answer? She didn't express any concern to the visible emotional distress of someone in her court - surely even professional decorum would allow her to tell the girl to take her time?

    Report message26

  • Message 19777

    , in reply to message 19776.

    Posted by Viligante (U14039144) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Yes the Court Hearing was ridiculous. As for the outcome, Lola only having contact for 3 days a week, that was even more ridiculous.

    Report message27

  • Message 19778

    , in reply to message 19777.

    Posted by Penn (U10777282) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    And what about Sharon? She of all people knows exactly what Phil Mitchell is capable of, however she sat there as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, has she had some kind of memory lapse lately?

    You wouldn't believe Phil Mitchell in charge of a cockroach, let alone a little baby.

    Report message28

  • Message 19779

    , in reply to message 19778.

    Posted by Ed of Global Integrated Vision (U8471561) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    Jean is looking very café-au-lait (instant, of course); has she developed Addison's disease, is it her medication, has she been on holiday or is she on clandestine light therapy again. So many questions, writers.

    Report message29

  • Message 19780

    , in reply to message 19779.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 14th December 2012

    wackywalford.blogspo...

    Report message30

  • Message 19781

    , in reply to message 19780.

    Posted by Ziggy (U14268308) on Saturday, 15th December 2012

    CHRISTOPHER REASON is the writer of last night´s little ditty. It was rubbish Christopher.

    Report message31

  • Message 19782

    , in reply to message 19781.

    Posted by popcangetbetter (U2319212) on Saturday, 15th December 2012

    CHRISTOPHER REASON is the writer of last night´s little ditty. It was rubbish Christopher.  I wouldn't say that Ziggy smiley - winkeye

    Surely the repeated scenes of St Alfie sitting deprived on the bed 23 times last week are main contenders for BEST ACTOR at the soap awards 2013, true Oscar stuff.

    For God's sake, why not CONFRONTING Kat but keeping quiet, who in real life would do that, oh right this is EE smiley - doh

    Report message32

  • Message 19783

    , in reply to message 19782.

    Posted by fuzzysquirrel (U15305803) on Saturday, 15th December 2012

    The scripts are absolutely dire at the moment.

    The whole Lola situation is ridiculous, does no one at the BBC investigate situations like this BEFORE they write/film it??

    The 'who is Kat's lover' boring, we will all be past caring by the time someone has put a script together with the answer its been dragging on so long!

    Oh and by the way get your continuity right........last night Sharon took her child to his Christmas play. When she left her hair was curled and when she arrived with him it was straight!!

    I've said it before, GET BACK TO BASICS!! Its not difficult, good strong families whom we form an affinity with (try checking out the Fowler family script writers).
    PROPER FAMILIES, with real stories, older people (come back June Brown soon!)

    Bed hopping, 'gansters', phantom lovers, constant remarrying of ex spouses are lazy, sloppy script subjects and are NOT acceptable!

    Report message33

  • Message 19784

    , in reply to message 19782.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Saturday, 15th December 2012

    Also, what happened to Alfie and his sad realisation that Kat was such a slapper that she'd just whore around as a matter of course and he was resigned to that, so long as she didn't tell him?

    I know that in practical terms, it's very difficult to actually put aside the emotional component but he seemed to be aware that it was going to be something he had to live with and now we're just back to where he was BEFORE he decided that. Sure, it's possible he changed his mind but you need to SHOW THAT and with the Crayon Crew being the hacks they are, I doubt they even remember that.

    It does make no sense that he wouldn't confront Kat and how is she not aware something is wrong anyway? Her normally chipper husband has become short and irritable.

    Also, fuzzy - I don't think you'll ever go too long without gangstas in Eastenders. They're a crutch for the show and when in doubt, they toss one or two in - regardless of how little sense it makes.

    Anyway, I promised this a few days ago but I thought I'd save it until the weekend so as not to interrupt my usually scheduled slating of the week's episode - it's a top 10 characters that need to go! I bet you can guess who is #1!

    wackywalford.blogspo...

    Report message34

  • Message 19785

    , in reply to message 19784.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Very good summation of the Top Ten, Prophet. Trouble is that the second and even third ten are only millimetres behind!

    Jack the Plank appears to have no purpose other than to prop up Sharon and the now you see him now you don't Little Lord Fauntleroy ..... Lauren and Joey have no existence outside their doomed affair.......Skeletor just wafts around looking thin........Cora and the long-lost daughter appear to be going nowhere other than to a saccharine reunion. Noithing seems to be happening in Roxy's life - she doesn't even get to visit (or mention) her sister in jail. All she does is look wistfully at whichever man she happens to be lusting after at any given time. Count Moonula as a character is beyond redemption, having all the depth of a lolly-stick. It is, of course, possible to go on in similar vein through most of the cast. Everyone will have their own particular favourite for a grisly end. smiley - laugh smiley - laugh

    Report message35

  • Message 19786

    , in reply to message 19784.

    Posted by Ziggy (U14268308) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Also, what happened to Alfie and his sad realisation that Kat was such a slapper that she'd just whore around as a matter of course and he was resigned to that, so long as she didn't tell him?

    I know that in practical terms, it's very difficult to actually put aside the emotional component but he seemed to be aware that it was going to be something he had to live with and now we're just back to where he was BEFORE he decided that. Sure, it's possible he changed his mind but you need to SHOW THAT and with the Crayon Crew being the hacks they are, I doubt they even remember that.

    It does make no sense that he wouldn't confront Kat and how is she not aware something is wrong anyway? Her normally chipper husband has become short and irritable.

    Also, fuzzy - I don't think you'll ever go too long without gangstas in Eastenders. They're a crutch for the show and when in doubt, they toss one or two in - regardless of how little sense it makes.

    Anyway, I promised this a few days ago but I thought I'd save it until the weekend so as not to interrupt my usually scheduled slating of the week's episode - it's a top 10 characters that need to go! I bet you can guess who is #1!

    wackywalford.blogspo... 
    Well your list didn´t contain the one character who is leaving of her/his own accord. IMO a shame.

    But agree with everyone on your list. A clearout is needed soon.

    Report message36

  • Message 19787

    , in reply to message 19786.

    Posted by fuzzysquirrel (U15305803) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Another strangeness in EE scripts right now....why is such a big thing being made of Lauren and Joey's relationship?

    They are cousins. Cousins are allowed to marry.

    You would think they were brother and sister the way their 'families' are carrying on, unless...........that is the plot line yet to be revealed!!

    If so, been done before on Brookside years ago!

    Report message37

  • Message 19788

    , in reply to message 19787.

    Posted by LoopyLobes (U14384399) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    I agree. They are cousins and there's nothing wrong with cousins even marrying. Yes, we know it increases the (small) risk of birth defects, but there's nothing actually morally wrong in it.

    Report message38

  • Message 19789

    , in reply to message 19788.

    Posted by saffiewalks (U11222674) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Have to say that this thread is a lot more entertaining than the actual programme these days. Cora top of my list to go but closely followed by most of the others.

    Report message39

  • Message 19790

    , in reply to message 19789.

    Posted by Tweeet (U15280056) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    How the hell did Phil Mitchell get the hall, living and dining room of his house totally redecorated and a complete change of furniture in a few days smiley - laugh...this cracks me up.... the arches has been left unattended for god knows how long although I'm sure Phil will be able to pick up where he left off and still have customers...he has no income yet still has plenty of money to splash around on home improvements and Solicitors etc and now he's going to support baby Lexi smiley - doh...what a load of **** smiley - laugh

    Report message40

  • Message 19791

    , in reply to message 19787.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Another strangeness in EE scripts right now....why is such a big thing being made of Lauren and Joey's relationship?

    They are cousins. Cousins are allowed to marry.

    You would think they were brother and sister the way their 'families' are carrying on, unless...........that is the plot line yet to be revealed!!

    If so, been done before on Brookside years ago! 
    We went over this at some length before... I'm going to guess that the Crayon Crew just didn't know what to do and so they thought that they would show that Joey was so undiscriminating that he would copulate with blood relatives.

    And yes, if the attempt is to be shocking by having an incest storyline... Brookside did it first and a lot better, I only vaguely recall it (and was never more than an infrequent viewer of Brookside) but there was a real sense of the family being torn apart by the revelation - the parents plagued with unanswerable questions about whether they could have stopped it by doing things differently and the two siblings struggling with their feelings toward one another.

    It should go without saying that is all stuff that Joey "The human glass of water" Hogson couldn't begin to handle... So, I'm baffled as to why the Crayon Crew are going for it. It's hardly ground breaking and it really just hasn't been that good...

    Now, if they'd wanted to take a different tact and highlighted the taboos that still exist around intimate relations with blood relative (even if they are legal)... oh, wait - they'd have made a pig's ear of that too.

    Report message41

  • Message 19792

    , in reply to message 19791.

    Posted by Veldmuis (U9930111) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    I think Tamwar is another useless character and could be written out of the soap unless of course he turns out to be the Phantom Shagger. He could just disappear into the sunset when his mother leaves the series. Why is AJ still around? Does he have a regular job to pay his way?

    Report message42

  • Message 19793

    , in reply to message 19792.

    Posted by Maxibaby (U14151672) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Tamwar's existence had slipped my mind! He and the entire Masood clan could disappear in a puff of smoke and not be missed.

    Report message43

  • Message 19794

    , in reply to message 19792.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    There are so many, aren't there? I mean, pretty much ALL "da youfffffffffff" are interchangeable and have clearly been chose for their looks, rather than talent.

    Tamwar has been irrelevant for pretty much his entire stint on the Square and he has had AMPLE opportunities to leave. He could have gone to Oxford. He could have gone off to college. He could have left after Afia's "betrayal" or he could have left WITH AFIA - which would actually have made sense.

    Instead, he's just there... occasionally advising Arfuuuuur on how humans (or the Walford equivalent) generally act.

    In fact, I have to agree with Maxibaby - the family is played out. Was AJ meant to buoy the family given the then imminent departure of Syed? He has been a complete irrelevance - is he even still working at the Arches?

    Oh and how could someone ask what Don Mitchelloni does for money, he owns the Vic AND (half) the club and the Arches!

    Report message44

  • Message 19795

    , in reply to message 19794.

    Posted by GusMcGuire (U7223549) on Sunday, 16th December 2012

    Perhaps for the end of the year, Prophet, you should have your own special soap awards for Eastenders, with categories appropriate to the situations the characters and viewers have endured over the past 12 month.

    Report message45

  • Message 19796

    , in reply to message 19788.

    Posted by Bonamai (U9464939) on Monday, 17th December 2012

    I agree. They are cousins and there's nothing wrong with cousins even marrying. Yes, we know it increases the (small) risk of birth defects, but there's nothing actually morally wrong in it.  I stand by my theory that Lauren is really Derek's daughter - making her Joey's half sister - making their relationship incestuous.

    Just the sort of thing to be revealed over the Branning Christmas lunch, no dount ...

    Report message46

  • Message 19797

    , in reply to message 19794.

    Posted by Tweeet (U15280056) on Monday, 17th December 2012


    Oh and how could someone ask what Don Mitchelloni does for money, he owns the Vic AND (half) the club and the Arches! 



    Just goes to show how much I watch EE smiley - laugh ...I thought Roxy owned R and R and Peggy still owned the Vic...OOPS, slapped wrist for me smiley - laugh...sorry Sir
    smiley - laugh

    Report message47

  • Message 19798

    , in reply to message 19797.

    Posted by smiley (U14357686) on Monday, 17th December 2012

    I agree with your list Prophet and other suggestions in here regarding the characters that need to go.
    Kalfie definitely must go. EE has gone from bad to worse since these horrid and life sucking characters stepped in EE, especially Kat.
    There are so many deadwood characters played by mediocre actors, but given a choice I would rather tolerate some of them than put up with Kalfie. At least some of them are in the background and more secondary, whereas Kalfie clog up most of the screen time and continue to dominate. We have had drivel after drivel with these two and yet they remain at the centre of the soap dragging it down even more than it already is. It is a crime how these two and the Brannings are on screen 90% of the time, whereas characters like Denise are reduced to no more than an extra.
    There are so many more that need to be added to that list. It is in fact easier to just write a list of who should still stay in EE. That list should be shorter, although much harder to compile as there are hardly any characters who have a defined personality and potential.

    Report message48

  • Message 19799

    , in reply to message 19798.

    Posted by Ed of Global Integrated Vision (U8471561) on Monday, 17th December 2012

    There are so many more that need to be added to that list. It is in fact easier to just write a list of who should still stay in EE. 
    A cull of characters seems completely pointless to me. They will just be replaced by other bland, empty vessels that you can muster no empathy with, no matter how hard you try.

    I would wield my scythe among the writers, directors, producers, storyline people, etc. This garden doesn't need new plants, it needs new gardeners.

    Report message49

  • Message 19800

    , in reply to message 19799.

    Posted by Ziggy (U14268308) on Monday, 17th December 2012

    There are so many more that need to be added to that list. It is in fact easier to just write a list of who should still stay in EE. 
    A cull of characters seems completely pointless to me. They will just be replaced by other bland, empty vessels that you can muster no empathy with, no matter how hard you try.

    I would wield my scythe among the writers, directors, producers, storyline people, etc. This garden doesn't need new plants, it needs new gardeners.
     
    So true - new writers are a must.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.