Options

DTC said they changed the killer. Who WAS the killer??

2»

Comments

  • Options
    kingcnutkingcnut Posts: 590
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They must make hundreds of changes before any storylines actually come to light, it was just a draft idea.
  • Options
    kitkat1971kitkat1971 Posts: 39,257
    Forum Member
    tomas08 wrote: »
    According to the Q&A on EastEnders website the killer was told this week.

    Oh they changed their plans then because originally DTC said the killer would be told at Christmas to allow them time to prepare.

    I hope we will be told who they initially planned it to be. There is no real reason for them not to once the real killer has been revealed.
  • Options
    VioletSummersVioletSummers Posts: 1,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    vickkij wrote: »
    I think this was Nov 2013 and the text was about the storyline rather than who done it. That's the impression I got anyway because Adam says obviously he had to tell Hetti first... ie that she was being killed off.

    That's what I mean. So they would have had a killer in mind by Nov 2013 already. Meaning DTC has managed to keep this secret for at least 15 months.
  • Options
    kitkat1971kitkat1971 Posts: 39,257
    Forum Member
    king**** wrote: »
    They must make hundreds of changes before any storylines actually come to light, it was just a draft idea.

    Exactly. It really isn't unusual for things to change at initial storyline planning stage. The early stages are like brainstorming sessions, throwing ideas out, developing to see how they'd work and inevitable some won't and will be discarded.

    The impression i got from DTC's comments was that they had an initial idea of who they wanted the killer to be but couldn't find a logical reason for it to actually be them, no motive. So, they changed it to somebody where it would be believable.

    I'm pleased they've done it that way rather than deciding on a 'shock' reveal and working backwards to justify it as i'm sure they did with Stacey. The rape always felt tacked on to me as if they only decided to retrospectively have had it happen so stacey would have a motive to have killed Archie.
  • Options
    LMLM Posts: 63,505
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I really couldn't see Lauren as the killer. As much as they clashed, she had no motive to kill her.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 173
    Forum Member
    Didn't DTC say they changed the killer cause they wanted it to be emotional?
    i think originally Les Coker was going to be a serial killer and Lucy was just another victim but that wouldn't have had much emotional impact, not compared to it being someone who knew Lucy.
  • Options
    Pippa2012Pippa2012 Posts: 610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I would have thought the killer would be a character who either is leaving or has run their course. Stacey for Archies reveal had told them she was leaving so it was a great way to write her out, maybe the killer this time is also someone who has expressed an interest in leaving. I would think the original killer may have been Abi but they have changed it to Whitney, as her character is not doing much, the family connection is gone and she has a motive.
  • Options
    guestofsethguestofseth Posts: 5,303
    Forum Member
    kitkat1971 wrote: »
    The change was made at the initial planning stages before they'd started filming and way before Jossa fell pregnant. The reason given for the change is that they couldn't get the motive to work so it was storyline rather than external factor (actors availability, leaks) based.

    Exactly. I hate that people keep bringing up the change without mentioning this, and you just know it will be brought up, without context, if people don't agree with the killer to accuse the writers of "making it up as they go along."
  • Options
    ArthurJBearArthurJBear Posts: 6,909
    Forum Member
    I really couldn't see Lauren as the killer. As much as they clashed, she had no motive to kill her.

    There's your motive. People have bee killed for less. Plus if the death is 'accidental' as could be the case there doesn't necessarily need to be a motive.
  • Options
    LMLM Posts: 63,505
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There's your motive. People have bee killed for less. Plus if the death is 'accidental' as could be the case there doesn't necessarily need to be a motive.

    Very true
  • Options
    MattXfactorMattXfactor Posts: 3,223
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They changed it right at the start literally just after they'd reviewed the script according to DTC. He said it was clever but something didn't feel right and that the new person makes the story a more emotional story. Based on that I think its plausible the original killer was either Les Coker (thats possibly where the leak came) or Abi Branning (he probably though this was clever but not emotional enough).
  • Options
    SuperSoaperSuperSoaper Posts: 5,724
    Forum Member
    I think it was Aleks originally, but when there was a real life killing of a schoolgirl by the Latvian man, they realised there were too many similarities.
  • Options
    ArthurJBearArthurJBear Posts: 6,909
    Forum Member
    I think it was Aleks originally, but when there was a real life killing of a schoolgirl by the Latvian man, they realised there were too many similarities.

    But Alice Gross went missing August 2014, four months after the storyline started on-screen and at least 18 months before the storyline was finalised. :confused:
  • Options
    TheGraduate2012TheGraduate2012 Posts: 14,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I sometimes think Peter, with them going for a 'sibling rivalry' plot.
  • Options
    ClarkF1ClarkF1 Posts: 6,587
    Forum Member
    I'd say the original killer was meant to be Les Coker, I doubt it was him.

    You might be right because Roger Sloman has had a pre-planned hip op which he told them about. He's up and walking again so should be back soon. My mum knows him :D
  • Options
    Collins1965Collins1965 Posts: 13,913
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I too think it was originally to be Les Coker but was changed when DTC realised that it would not have an emotional impact and that the public would rage that Lucy was killed for no good reason.

    I still think that killing her was a mistake, no matter who did it. Reasonably short-term gain; very much a long-term loss. Especially now that Peter is leaving too.
  • Options
    orangesmartieorangesmartie Posts: 3,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm sure I read that they went away to a hotel to plan the story in Sept 2013, DTC and three others. They planned the killer and during that time, changed it because that person wasn't from the heart.
  • Options
    Sweet_PrincessSweet_Princess Posts: 11,038
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DTC did say the killer was changed in the planning stages and he said the killer now makes sense
  • Options
    Shawn_LunnShawn_Lunn Posts: 9,353
    Forum Member
    Whitney would make a little more sense if she was the original killer.

    Lauren had no motive at the time and only found out about Lucy sleeping with Max after the former was killed.
  • Options
    kitkat1971kitkat1971 Posts: 39,257
    Forum Member
    I think it was Aleks originally, but when there was a real life killing of a schoolgirl by the Latvian man, they realised there were too many similarities.

    As Arthur says that happened too late. The change was made right at the beginning of the storylining process in Autumn 2013, 9 months before the real life crime you're referring to.

    There has not been a change since the storyline started airing last April, so the leak about Les hasn't changed anything, nor have any real life crimes.

    Unless DTC was lying in all his interviews.
  • Options
    kitkat1971kitkat1971 Posts: 39,257
    Forum Member
    I'm sure I read that they went away to a hotel to plan the story in Sept 2013, DTC and three others. They planned the killer and during that time, changed it because that person wasn't from the heart.

    I didn't know they'd gone away to a hotel but 4 people thrashing the story out (including who the killer is) in autumn 2013 was my understanding of it as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.