Options
Why did Zoe Lucker, Jamie Lomas and Gary Lucy fail ?
All three actors are very competent and have done so well in their previous programmes be it Footballers Wives or Hollyoaks but in Eastenders they all failed in my eyes. They were not given the right storylines to show case their talents. Why was this?
0
Comments
As for Vanessa, she suffered from being little more than Max's lady. A plot device there to make a Max and Tanya affair all the more "thrilling". We got glimpses of magic from her, and it is an absolute insult that Zoe wasn't given more to do.
As for Jamie, meh. He's never thrilled me as an actor.
They are both deadwood characters and are played by poor actors yet Khali Best wins best newcomer at the NTA's!
new characters basically had no thought put to them also many were hired for the wrong reasons their names/ thier looks etc.
Zoe - big name and only brought in for plot device as stated above
Jamie - for me he will always be Warren from Hollyoaks. I think his storyline was more to highlight Lauren is just like her Dad.
Gary - had potential and his small scenes with Johnny I liked, they could have built that up as two don't get along.
I think under DTC the characters will flourish a lot more.
That's the big problem i have with him. He hasn't been able to, or maybe not good enough to shake off Warren. I keep thinking i'm watching a down trodden Warren.
I think the biggest oversight in recent years was Kierston Wareing. By rights she should have been one of the shows leading ladies by now. A BAFTA nominated actress no less. Yet she was completely wasted from start to finish. Such a shame.
Its far too early to tell what will happen with Jake. DTC could end up taking the character in a completely different direction now. Jac Jossa seemed to hint Lauren and Jake were over. So I don't think the plan is for them two to play all happy families.
As for the other two, they've failed so far because LN has paced them awfully. I still think there's a chance for Jake to improve though.
I think he started off good, like when he was being creepy round Ronnie, I thought they should have kept being a twisted villain, instead they lumbered him with a wife and kid and they character went down hill from then.
He defiantly could have been better.
Jake or his family were not established or developed enough for me to care about them. Sadie went from obsessing over bins to revealing her and Jake killed a child. Not enough development for me to care.
Why was Danny brought in if they had no plans for him.
he wasn't even used very well in that, only to be a complete d*ck to Johnny.
Lindsey Coulson, Jessie Wallace, Steve McFadden etc are all better than the likes of Kiersten Warren or Ann Mitchell.
Likewise with Danny. they should not have made him a city banker. His character should have just been the local business manager in the bank on the high street and someone who grew up in Walford so was well known by the locals. By making him a city banker he just seemed really out of place in the east end.
And the problem with all three of them was that they were not integrated and developed enough.
No, they were simply not given any proper storylines, and in most cases were left on the sidelines as a background character with no real development.
A lack of creative imagination from the writers who are paid to be creative.
And as was seen from Zoe Lucker's performance, once her character was on the way out, the writing improved dramatically.
He just came in at the wrong era.