I don't think EE are going to far, Plenty of Soaps have done cot death storylines and done them well. And i'm sure EE will be extremly well written and acted.
I actually think Ronnie swapping the babies is very believable, my only worry is noone being able to tell. Especially if they've had the babies home for awhile.
EastEnders is at its best with plots like this. I don't see why a drama should have to shy away from doing a storyline just because a few might be upset. EastEnders have had child death before and also covered just as many horrifying storylines in the past. Look at the Trevor and Little Mo abuse and the episode were Trevor raped Mo and then beat her up very badly on Christmas Day. EastEnders at its very best.
Totally agree with you - this is what EE is know for and why the viewing figures are so high
If the storyline is so strong the actors have been offered counselling I would say that is a positive sign to some amazing acting and storylining. This might not be what everyone wants to see but seeing as how it's going to be emotional I can't help but think that means only good things in terms of storytelling.
Elle you are so right, there must be some powerful acting being filmed. It sounds like it is going to be superb. Samantha Womack will totally do this justice
initially i thought it was a ridiculous storyline but after reading lots of posts i actually think it has the potential to be a great storyline and sam womack is bound to do it great justice as i think shes a great actress who can handle such a role. I think it will make a hell of a lot of people understand and realise just how traumatic it actually is. Some people have to sit and watch something on tv to have a certain understanding of the consequences of such events.
my opinion thats all, and yes i can say right now ill be blubbing watching it. How kat doesnt recognise her own baby i still cant get my head around but theres obviously a reason for it that the writers know about even if we dont
What's "too far" is giving Ronnie yet another gloomy, morbid storyline. If I were Sam Womack, I'd probably cry just knowing I'd have to weep for weeks on end and be heartbroken less than two years after Ronnie: found out her oldest daughter was still alive, contrary to what her own father had told her, then watched her mowed down to her death; had her spiteful sister, who had a baby with her fiancé, try to snatch him back, go on to split up with him anyway, and discover he had now impregnated her cousin; suffered a miscarriage after a one-night stand with a mentally ill former convict and wife-beater who was then murdered by his ex's groom; was falsely arrested for the murder of her dad, who she then disclosed had raped her as a child; almost lost her fiancé after he was shot.
I don't believe Ronnie is a "tragic heroine"; she's just plain tragic. I don't find it believable or even enjoyable anymore, and I quite like the new friendship struck up between her and Kat, especially as their life experiences have been very similar. If a baby had to be killed off, I'd rather it have been Kat's, giving her a proper storyline since her return. In the aftermath of the Zoe reveal, she was superb. It'd be gripping to watch her in that position again.
I'd sooner get the shrewd, headstrong, but fun-loving Ronnie we had when she first arrived.
Let's not forget, of course, the trauma the Brannings will have had: Jim will have lost three grandchildren in under a year, and siblings Carol, Jack, and Max will have all lost a child. I just don't buy this storyline, as much as I know it will be played out brilliantly by all involved.
The only thing wrong with this storyline is that it involves Ronnie. Of course, Kat's been through enough herself, but she's only just returned, whereas we've only just had 3 years of solid Ronnie misery. For them now to pile more on her is taking things too far in a similar way to Little Mo being raped by a stranger in the Vic for no reason at all (does anyone else find it disturbing that so many of the Slaters have been raped, Kat, Little Mo, Stacey, Zoe (by Den, wasn't it?) madness)
What's "too far" is giving Ronnie yet another gloomy, morbid storyline. If I were Sam Womack, I'd probably cry just knowing I'd have to weep for weeks on end and be heartbroken less than two years after Ronnie: found out her oldest daughter was still alive, contrary to what her own father had told her, then watched her mowed down to her death; had her spiteful sister, who had a baby with her fiancé, try to snatch him back, go on to split up with him anyway, and discover he had now impregnated her cousin; suffered a miscarriage after a one-night stand with a mentally ill former convict and wife-beater who was then murdered by his ex's groom; was falsely arrested for the murder of her dad, who she then disclosed had raped her as a child; almost lost her fiancé after he was shot.
I don't believe Ronnie is a "tragic heroine"; she's just plain tragic. I don't find it believable or even enjoyable anymore, and I quite like the new friendship struck up between her and Kat, especially as their life experiences have been very similar. If a baby had to be killed off, I'd rather it have been Kat's, giving her a proper storyline since her return. In the aftermath of the Zoe reveal, she was superb. It'd be gripping to watch her in that position again.
I'd sooner get the shrewd, headstrong, but fun-loving Ronnie we had when she first arrived.
Let's not forget, of course, the trauma the Brannings will have had: Jim will have lost three grandchildren in under a year, and siblings Carol, Jack, and Max will have all lost a child. I just don't buy this storyline, as much as I know it will be played out brilliantly by all involved.
completely agree with you ! the writers are bloody tragic morbid gits not ronnie,and yes id be quite depressed reading my scripts too if i was sam womack. She has proved she can do comedy so give the actress some fun!
I don't really believe Ronnie is a character who suits long-term happiness I mean one of the original characters Sue Osman was given tragic stories from the start so Ronnie is actually one of many tragic characters the show has had.
They choose Ronnie for all these storylines because of how all you lot react. It shows how invovled in Ronnie's life you are!! if you weren't bothered you wouldn't care about what happens to her. At least she is a character that provokes this sort of reaction and that's why she gets these big plots because people feel her pain.
How many mothers that have suffered the loss of a cot death then go on to snatch someone else's baby?
This could be terribly insulting to people affected by cot death. Eastenders and the BBC should prepare to be inundated with angry cot death support groups.
Where on earth do Eastenders get their ideas from?:rolleyes:
How many mothers that have suffered the loss of a cot death then go on to snatch someone else's baby?
This could be terribly insulting to people affected by cot death. Eastenders and the BBC should prepare to be inundated with angry cot death support groups.
Where on earth does Eastenders get their ideas from?:rolleyes:
Well in the article announcing it- the story has being endorsed by a cot death charity FSID I'll hardly think that would happen unless the story was grounded in reality and handled well, and baby snatches have happened they are extremely rare occurrences but are feasible events so the story isn't that daft.
How many mothers that have suffered the loss of a cot death then go on to snatch someone else's baby?
This could be terribly insulting to people affected by cot death. Eastenders and the BBC should prepare to be inundated with angry cot death support groups.
Where on earth do Eastenders get their ideas from?:rolleyes:
IMO it's not EastEnders responsibility to not upset mothers or people who have experienced serious grief. This is a fictional story and they are in no way insulting people who have lost babies or children. I honestly can't take it seriously when people get that worked up. Of course there can become a point where things can become instulting but this isn't one of them.
I'm not saying it shouldn't upset people, of course it's going to. The actors themselves were upset apparently. But there is a big difference in finding a story upsetting and actively being offended at the way they portray it. We have have not seen the story yet and I don't think they would do this storyline and make a mockery of it. I don't see how Ronnie taking the other baby makes it an insult to other mothers or anything like that.
Even the actors don't know it's not real anymore? =/
But it must be very different when you're the one reading the script and being that character you get into that character and feel the pain. It must be really emotional then, real tears in the scenes.
But it must be very different when you're the one reading the script and being that character you get into that character and feel the pain. It must be really emotional then, real tears in the scenes.
That's what happens where you're an actor. You can't be a truly good actor if you can't feel what your character feels. That's why child actors are normally so technical, they don't yet know how to 'connect' emotionally with the part they play.
I didn't watch that episode of Emmerdale when the baby died, too upsetting for me. Might not watch EE when this happens.
See, that's fine. If it upsets you and you don't want to watch. My problem is those will inevitably complain - how dare EE do such a plot, that sort of thing.
I don't really believe Ronnie is a character who suits long-term happiness I mean one of the original characters Sue Osman was given tragic stories from the start so Ronnie is actually one of many tragic characters the show has had.
I disagree. I think people generally swallow this nonsense as that's what we've been told by the producers of the show. When she first arrived, she was fun-loving and independent, but obviously had a dark secret, which was eventually revealed. I honestly believe that, now Danielle's identity has been revealed and she's died, then with the following Archie and Jack stories on top, it's time for her to be the happy, headstrong person she has always tried to be, particularly as she now feels liberated at long last, following her father's murder. After all the ins and outs, she now has Jack, her sister, and her baby. I'd like to see her handle happiness, for a change.
Kat, on the other hand, while probably having gone through as much trauma as Ronnie, is fresh on our screens, and her pregnancy allows her to engage with motherhood again, which we haven't seen since Zoe's departure. We saw Kat attempt to commit suicide when Zoe rejected her after the truth about her parentage came out, and I'd be far more interested to see how she handles the prospect of motherhood this time, in circumstances where she isn't alone and facing the realization that she will have to give it up, only to lose the baby in a similar way to losing Zoe, except more permanently. I also wish Alfie was the father, as I feel having Michael as the dad was just a cheap 'shock' storyline to put a twist on her returning pregnant.
They choose Ronnie for all these storylines because of how all you lot react. It shows how invovled in Ronnie's life you are!! if you weren't bothered you wouldn't care about what happens to her. At least she is a character that provokes this sort of reaction and that's why she gets these big plots because people feel her pain.
They choose Ronnie for all these storylines because of how all you lot react. It shows how invovled in Ronnie's life you are!! if you weren't bothered you wouldn't care about what happens to her. At least she is a character that provokes this sort of reaction and that's why she gets these big plots because people feel her pain.
No, you're missing the point; we're moaning precisely because seeing Ronnie go through yet more misery and tragedy makes us want to turn off, as we simply don't care or aren't affected anymore. As I said earlier, it isn't enjoyable, shocking, or new to watch a story like this happen to her.
Seeing Ronnie lose a child, walk around with drab hair and black, funereal clothes is as banal as eating fish and chips for supper. This is completely different from people being up in arms about Danielle's death, which was because viewers cared about the storyline and characters enough to want to see the reunite. People no longer care; we just want to see something different and get to like Ronnie's character again
No, you're missing the point; we're moaning precisely because seeing Ronnie go through yet more misery and tragedy makes us want to turn off, as we simply don't care or aren't affected anymore. As I said earlier, it isn't enjoyable, shocking, or new to watch a story like this happen to her.
Seeing Ronnie lose a child, walk around with drab hair and black, funereal clothes is as banal as eating fish and chips for supper. This is completely different from people being up in arms about Danielle's death, which was because viewers cared about the storyline and characters enough to want to see the reunite. People no longer care; we just want to see something different and get to like Ronnie's character again
My reasoninghas nothing to do with not "liking" Ronnie. It's also not to do with how "upsetting" so much as I'm getting annoyed with the sunset beach/ unrealistic plots. Ihave no problem with drama when it is fresh and new, but not when it turns a character into a "tragic joke" or when it destroys the character. I disliked Archie's exit for the same reason. He was manipulattive and cruel before his death, but not "evil". then suddenly he was a rapist etc.... They changed the character to suit the storyline. Archie was always more your mind games kind of villain than violent rapist. And whilst the baby swap will provide great "drama", it will be at the expense of a character (potentially ruining the character beyond repair) and also provide further sunset beach scenarios. Storylines need to be spread across characters to have even an ounce of seeming real. But it's ridiculous the amount of baby tragedy on Ronnie to the point that I just laugh and look at it now as sunset beach, fictituous rubbish. Plus how will they explain "crazy" Ronnie getting away with this long term (as suggested) without her family noticing she has lost the plot.
Comments
I actually think Ronnie swapping the babies is very believable, my only worry is noone being able to tell. Especially if they've had the babies home for awhile.
Kat and Ronnie are both fantastic characters so i'm sure the actresses will do it justice.
Totally agree with you - this is what EE is know for and why the viewing figures are so high
Elle you are so right, there must be some powerful acting being filmed. It sounds like it is going to be superb. Samantha Womack will totally do this justice
my opinion thats all, and yes i can say right now ill be blubbing watching it. How kat doesnt recognise her own baby i still cant get my head around but theres obviously a reason for it that the writers know about even if we dont
I don't believe Ronnie is a "tragic heroine"; she's just plain tragic. I don't find it believable or even enjoyable anymore, and I quite like the new friendship struck up between her and Kat, especially as their life experiences have been very similar. If a baby had to be killed off, I'd rather it have been Kat's, giving her a proper storyline since her return. In the aftermath of the Zoe reveal, she was superb. It'd be gripping to watch her in that position again.
I'd sooner get the shrewd, headstrong, but fun-loving Ronnie we had when she first arrived.
Let's not forget, of course, the trauma the Brannings will have had: Jim will have lost three grandchildren in under a year, and siblings Carol, Jack, and Max will have all lost a child. I just don't buy this storyline, as much as I know it will be played out brilliantly by all involved.
completely agree with you ! the writers are bloody tragic morbid gits not ronnie,and yes id be quite depressed reading my scripts too if i was sam womack. She has proved she can do comedy so give the actress some fun!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1331548/EastEnders-baby-burial-cast-Does-Kat-Moon-know-child.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
How many mothers that have suffered the loss of a cot death then go on to snatch someone else's baby?
This could be terribly insulting to people affected by cot death. Eastenders and the BBC should prepare to be inundated with angry cot death support groups.
Where on earth do Eastenders get their ideas from?:rolleyes:
Well in the article announcing it- the story has being endorsed by a cot death charity FSID I'll hardly think that would happen unless the story was grounded in reality and handled well, and baby snatches have happened they are extremely rare occurrences but are feasible events so the story isn't that daft.
IMO it's not EastEnders responsibility to not upset mothers or people who have experienced serious grief. This is a fictional story and they are in no way insulting people who have lost babies or children. I honestly can't take it seriously when people get that worked up. Of course there can become a point where things can become instulting but this isn't one of them.
I'm not saying it shouldn't upset people, of course it's going to. The actors themselves were upset apparently. But there is a big difference in finding a story upsetting and actively being offended at the way they portray it. We have have not seen the story yet and I don't think they would do this storyline and make a mockery of it. I don't see how Ronnie taking the other baby makes it an insult to other mothers or anything like that.
But it must be very different when you're the one reading the script and being that character you get into that character and feel the pain. It must be really emotional then, real tears in the scenes.
That's what happens where you're an actor. You can't be a truly good actor if you can't feel what your character feels. That's why child actors are normally so technical, they don't yet know how to 'connect' emotionally with the part they play.
I didn't watch that episode of Emmerdale when the baby died, too upsetting for me. Might not watch EE when this happens.
I agree. Give Ronnie a break!
See, that's fine. If it upsets you and you don't want to watch. My problem is those will inevitably complain - how dare EE do such a plot, that sort of thing.
I disagree. I think people generally swallow this nonsense as that's what we've been told by the producers of the show. When she first arrived, she was fun-loving and independent, but obviously had a dark secret, which was eventually revealed. I honestly believe that, now Danielle's identity has been revealed and she's died, then with the following Archie and Jack stories on top, it's time for her to be the happy, headstrong person she has always tried to be, particularly as she now feels liberated at long last, following her father's murder. After all the ins and outs, she now has Jack, her sister, and her baby. I'd like to see her handle happiness, for a change.
Kat, on the other hand, while probably having gone through as much trauma as Ronnie, is fresh on our screens, and her pregnancy allows her to engage with motherhood again, which we haven't seen since Zoe's departure. We saw Kat attempt to commit suicide when Zoe rejected her after the truth about her parentage came out, and I'd be far more interested to see how she handles the prospect of motherhood this time, in circumstances where she isn't alone and facing the realization that she will have to give it up, only to lose the baby in a similar way to losing Zoe, except more permanently. I also wish Alfie was the father, as I feel having Michael as the dad was just a cheap 'shock' storyline to put a twist on her returning pregnant.
I agree!! this is EXACTLY it!
No, you're missing the point; we're moaning precisely because seeing Ronnie go through yet more misery and tragedy makes us want to turn off, as we simply don't care or aren't affected anymore. As I said earlier, it isn't enjoyable, shocking, or new to watch a story like this happen to her.
Seeing Ronnie lose a child, walk around with drab hair and black, funereal clothes is as banal as eating fish and chips for supper. This is completely different from people being up in arms about Danielle's death, which was because viewers cared about the storyline and characters enough to want to see the reunite. People no longer care; we just want to see something different and get to like Ronnie's character again
My reasoninghas nothing to do with not "liking" Ronnie. It's also not to do with how "upsetting" so much as I'm getting annoyed with the sunset beach/ unrealistic plots. Ihave no problem with drama when it is fresh and new, but not when it turns a character into a "tragic joke" or when it destroys the character. I disliked Archie's exit for the same reason. He was manipulattive and cruel before his death, but not "evil". then suddenly he was a rapist etc.... They changed the character to suit the storyline. Archie was always more your mind games kind of villain than violent rapist. And whilst the baby swap will provide great "drama", it will be at the expense of a character (potentially ruining the character beyond repair) and also provide further sunset beach scenarios. Storylines need to be spread across characters to have even an ounce of seeming real. But it's ridiculous the amount of baby tragedy on Ronnie to the point that I just laugh and look at it now as sunset beach, fictituous rubbish. Plus how will they explain "crazy" Ronnie getting away with this long term (as suggested) without her family noticing she has lost the plot.