Options

EE: Nancy's lack of screentime is really starting to piss me off

135

Comments

  • Options
    Lucylocket88Lucylocket88 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    Aaron1995 wrote: »
    Mick and Stacey are destined to end up together. Stacey seems to understand Mick on a deeper level that Linda will never be able to. Two lost souls coming together and what do you get? SPARKS is what you get!!!

    Hilarious. They are not destined to be together at all. Stacey should find someone single, rather than go for another married man. It would be a desperate storyline.
  • Options
    Lucylocket88Lucylocket88 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    Beaconboof wrote: »
    It needn't have to be an affair. Linda dies, Stacey comes to pick up the pieces.

    Still wouldn't put Stacey with Mick. I do not want them together and I actually like Linda and Mick together.
  • Options
    BeaconboofBeaconboof Posts: 2,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hilarious. They are not destined to be together at all. Stacey should find someone single, rather than go for another married man. It would be a desperate storyline.

    Of course they are destined. Does Mick look at Linda like he looked at Stacey? No!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,925
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hilarious. They are not destined to be together at all. Stacey should find someone single, rather than go for another married man. It would be a desperate storyline.

    Isn't the point of any paring on a Soap suppose to equivalent the most chemistry? Which Stacey and Mick seem to have a lot more off than he has currently has with Linda.
  • Options
    BeaconboofBeaconboof Posts: 2,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aaron1995 wrote: »
    Isn't the point of any paring on a Soap suppose to equivalent the most chemistry? Which Stacey and Mick seem to have a lot more off than he has currently has with Linda.

    Exactly. Also, Danny Dyer as the older man with the younger woman is very romantic and erotic.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,925
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Beaconboof wrote: »
    Exactly. Also, Danny Dyer as the older man with the younger woman is very romantic and erotic.

    There is absolutely no way that Danny Dyer would object to the idea of sharing steamy scenes with Lacey Turner ;-).
  • Options
    TayTayTayTay Posts: 657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't see the need to have every member of one family at forefront of various different storylines. In fact, I quite like that some drop into the background from time to time so that it's easier to take them in, especially when they're new.

    The only issue I'd have with a Stacey/Mick affair is that it would undo everything they've done so far to portray him as a loyal family man.
  • Options
    BeaconboofBeaconboof Posts: 2,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TayTay wrote: »
    I don't see the need to have every member of one family at forefront of various different storylines. In fact, I quite like that some drop into the background from time to time so that it's easier to take them in, especially when they're new.

    The only issue I'd have with a Stacey/Mick affair is that it would undo everything they've done so far to portray him as a loyal family man.

    Screw the 'family man' image. Soap operas are about conflict. Let's get the drama started for fooks sake.
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    There is much more long term characters (Roxy) that deserve more screen time than Nancy. Let the new characters blend in. I know the Carters have blended in quite well, but it's not as if they've been sat in the background without a SL for months. There's nothing urgently needed for Nancy right now.
  • Options
    BeaconboofBeaconboof Posts: 2,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    iMatt_101 wrote: »
    There is much more long term characters (Roxy) that deserve more screen time than Nancy. Let the new characters blend in. I know the Carters have blended in quite well, but it's not as if they've been sat in the background without a SL for months. There's nothing urgently needed for Nancy right now.

    Roxy needs getting rid of. More screen time for our Nance.
  • Options
    Louise540056Louise540056 Posts: 33
    Forum Member
    Joe_Zel wrote: »
    Yeah, Linda's having trouble accepting her son's sexuality, you know, because not everyone's perfect so she's the devil incarnate. So let's stick him with the cold blooded murderer who breaks up marriages and blames everyone else for her own problems. She's a nice girl.

    Ha ha! This made me laugh! :D
  • Options
    Louise540056Louise540056 Posts: 33
    Forum Member
    I still don't get what there is to like about Nancy though.
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    Beaconboof wrote: »
    Roxy needs getting rid of. More screen time for our Nance.
    No she doesn't.

    Roxy has been on the show for a few years now and we've established her tragic past but it's never been used. She, out of anyone deserves a big SL. Nancy's a lowlife chav that has had no development yet. Give the regular, deserving characters the big SL's. Let the newbies blend in. Nancy's in no immediate rush to have any big SL's ,she can wait.
  • Options
    _elly001_elly001 Posts: 11,937
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    iMatt_101 wrote: »
    No she doesn't.

    Roxy has been on the show for a few years now and we've established her tragic past but it's never been used. She, out of anyone deserves a big SL. Nancy's a lowlife chav that has had no development yet. Give the regular, deserving characters the big SL's. Let the newbies blend in. Nancy's in no immediate rush to have any big SL's ,she can wait.

    A lowlife chav?! What a ridiculous, classist thing to say about a potentially very interesting character. What has she done that warrants you calling her that, exactly?
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    _elly001 wrote: »
    A lowlife chav?! What a ridiculous, classist thing to say about a potentially very interesting character. What has she done that warrants you calling her that, exactly?
    Err, just take a look at the wedding she was going to have 3 months ago :D
  • Options
    _elly001_elly001 Posts: 11,937
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    iMatt_101 wrote: »
    Err, just take a look at the wedding she was going to have 3 months ago :D

    So not a chav so much as a rebellious girl who dumped the guy when she realised what he was really like? Yeah, proper lowlife there, having morals and self-respect and listening to her dad.
  • Options
    BeaconboofBeaconboof Posts: 2,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    iMatt_101 wrote: »
    No she doesn't.

    Roxy has been on the show for a few years now and we've established her tragic past but it's never been used. She, out of anyone deserves a big SL. Nancy's a lowlife chav that has had no development yet. Give the regular, deserving characters the big SL's. Let the newbies blend in. Nancy's in no immediate rush to have any big SL's ,she can wait.

    Congratulations Matt - just when you couldn't sink any lower.
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    _elly001 wrote: »
    So not a chav so much as a rebellious girl who dumped the guy when she realised what he was really like? Yeah, proper lowlife there, having morals and self-respect and listening to her dad.
    Did you even read my post?

    I said she was lowlife because of her wedding where everyone turned up in tracksuits and stuff. Your post just then was irrelevant because it had nothing to do with what I'd just said? :D
  • Options
    broadshoulderbroadshoulder Posts: 18,758
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    _elly001 wrote: »
    A lowlife chav?! What a ridiculous, classist thing to say about a potentially very interesting character. What has she done that warrants you calling her that, exactly?

    She's horribly chavvy. The way she goes on the attack when under siege. The use of using Johnnys sexuality as a weapon against him.

    She won't last.
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    Beaconboof wrote: »
    Congratulations Matt - just when you couldn't sink any lower.
    Who do you think you are telling me what I can and can't post? My post just then was referring to a fictional character, and her behavior has hardly been the most classy now has it? Pipe down
  • Options
    BeaconboofBeaconboof Posts: 2,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    iMatt_101 wrote: »
    Who do you think you are telling me what I can and can't post?

    Excuse me? Did I tell you what to post? I just said I was disgusted by what you have posted.
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    Beaconboof wrote: »
    Excuse me? Did I tell you what to post? I just said I was disgusted by what you have posted.
    'Just when you couldn't sink any lower'

    Acting as if I have a chain of nasty posts going on, or as if you're 'above' me. Err, well news flash. I don't have a chain of nasty posts going on at all, you're not 'above' me at all and this post was about a fictional character so there was nothing 'disgusting' about it at all. Stop looking for arguments.
  • Options
    Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nancy's been on the show 3 months so "no development" is not an excuse to axe her. She's a new character. You have to give them a bit more time.

    Let's get rid of Stan as well, he's only had 4 scenes altogether. :D

    I'll use the Slater example again, did they cram all of their multitude of stories and development into their first 4 months? No, they built and developed over 5+ years.
  • Options
    iMatt_101iMatt_101 Posts: 7,081
    Forum Member
    Joe_Zel wrote: »
    Nancy's been on the show 3 months so "no development" is not an excuse to axe her. She's a new character. You have to give them a bit more time.

    Let's get rid of Stan as well, he's only had 4 scenes altogether. :D

    I'll use the Slater example again, did they cram all of their multitude of stories and development into their first 4 months? No, they built and developed over 5+ years.
    if that comment's about mine, I didn't ever say she should be axed? I said she shouldn't be given massive SL's in any urgent rush
  • Options
    Marcus_SmithMarcus_Smith Posts: 3,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We seen plenty of her tonight.
Sign In or Register to comment.