Options
For me the nadir of the Newman era was...
Forum Member
✭✭
The wrecking of Ians restaurant by Bianca, Jean and Shirley..
....and them getting away with it....:mad::mad::mad:
What were the producer, storyliners and writers thinking? It used to be that actions had consequences. Ronnie went to jail, Yusef burnt alive. Why should these three get away with thousands of pounds of intentional damage?
And it was intentional damage. They did it with shouts of "he had it coming" and "it dont matter, its Beale". That fire could have spread and the whole street could have burnt down.
No remorse, just concern for their own cowardly backsides. Pressurising old mad Jean into keeping schtum. Have the writers lost all sense of justice?
And when they are found out. No repercussions. Bianca snivelling "I could go to jail, wot about my kids" gave her a sense of entitlement that means she can get away with anything.
Lets hope the new producers gives some justice to characters in storylines. Not entitlement.
....and them getting away with it....:mad::mad::mad:
What were the producer, storyliners and writers thinking? It used to be that actions had consequences. Ronnie went to jail, Yusef burnt alive. Why should these three get away with thousands of pounds of intentional damage?
And it was intentional damage. They did it with shouts of "he had it coming" and "it dont matter, its Beale". That fire could have spread and the whole street could have burnt down.
No remorse, just concern for their own cowardly backsides. Pressurising old mad Jean into keeping schtum. Have the writers lost all sense of justice?
And when they are found out. No repercussions. Bianca snivelling "I could go to jail, wot about my kids" gave her a sense of entitlement that means she can get away with anything.
Lets hope the new producers gives some justice to characters in storylines. Not entitlement.
0
Comments
I think a lot of people are latching on to that incident because they dislike Shirley and Bianca, and want some justification as to why the karmic laws of soap should remove those two characters from the show.
I don't like Denise with Ian full stop
They done thousands of pounds worth of damage, are you saying it's ok because worse things happen?
I think people are more concerned about the message that it's ok to do what you like against perceived "bad" people.
Doesn't matter what teh crime was - a crime is a crime. A hard working man has lost out whilst three spongers get away with it
I didn't say Ian was a bad person. I also didn't say that what they did was ok. Not one time during that story did I look at Ian as though he was the bad guy or that he was in the wrong. I also thought Denise came out of it looking very well.
Its the message it sends out. You can cause thousands
Of pounds worth of damage and geitt away with it because he had it coming.
A crime was committed. Are you saying that is ok?
The moral compass is screwy
However I agree with the OP's point - EastEnders' moral compass has been skewed for a long time. Several characters have acted in appalling ways and yet are portrayed in a sympathetic light: Kat with her cheating, Ronnie and her baby-stealing, Whitney and her non-stop bed hopping (I still haven't forgotten her disgraceful treatment of Fatboy, yet they wanted us to be happy she dumped him for Tyler!), Ben and his murdering; the list goes on. Stacey just swanned out of Walford after committing a murder, and I also hated the way Jean was emotionally blackmailed into admitting benefit fraud to cover for Mo :mad: And of course, the perpetual victim (and convicted criminal) Bianca. If you don't like prison love, stop committing crimes.
EastEnders needs to address this. At present, the message is: behave like a criminal, and you will get away with it.
The Lola story.
The B&B- everybody lives there forever and not one of them could really afford it.
The treatment of Jean - a lady who can really act just turned into some caricature.
Then just probably her overall direction and lack of plots! She was really quite poor.
Ian's stole £10,000 that was his punishment, and it was an accident. Jean had a key so no breaking in.
A year on, and literally nothing has happened to Shirley. Nothing noteworthy anyway. Her character has not progressed; but rather has become a sorry mess. There was something very ironic about her blackmailing Jean to keep schtum, along with Bianca. It was the exact same thing Phil did to Jay, in Heather murder - and yet Shirley, who a year previous to this was Walford's moral crusader on the hunt for whole her Hev' was acting almost as amoral as the man whom she despises. Shirley, getting pissed 'smelling' etc, even having Phil pitying her - is in the gutter. Rather than having Shirley evolve as a character, EastEnders has simply neglected her; letting her become more redundant as time goes on.
I agree completely they've turned Ian into some sort of panto-style villain; that is the depth of writing in the show these days. Ian, is not even enemy no.1 in the Restaurant saga, he's also that in the on-going storyline regarding his businesses. How EE producers are even figuring that a girl who conned her dad out of his businesses while he was mentally ill, is somehow in the right, and how we should back her and Janine is beyond me. Lucy has no right to take away her father's livelihood; and if she is smart enough to run a business she is smart enough to know that she didn't have to carry the burden of her dad's businesses. There are real contradictions in Lucy's thinking that stinks of poor writing more than anything else.
Storylines also feel poorly structured. There was a thread on DTC and Danielle storyline - and regardless of whether you agreed with the end or not storylines like that felt like they had a structure; like they had some sort of connection to a character's arc. That there was a beginning - a middle, and a conclusion. These days storylines lack that structure - they sort of drag long in a circle of repetitiveness; the same events happening in different ways. A prime example of this are Michael and Janine; and how poor writing has dogged down a once really interesting pair. The most long-running example of this has to be Kat and Alfie's arc. Since 2010, it has just made little sense from day one. Kat's cheating has no purpose, no end game nothing - in fact we're just stuck with the same old events of Kat degrading herself, and Alfie being Walford's resident doormat. That's set to continue. At least until the 30th anniversary, where I'm sure they'll go through some 'crisis' or whatever. 'We Love You Kat Moon' is, IMHO Newman's nadir.
bib: The line always given in order to defend Ian.
That's as may be, but as he is such an obnoxious git, I still have no sympathy for him, even though Bianca, Shirley and Jean were out of order.
Since when is being an obnoxious git an excuse to wreck his restaurant?
Well I guess Ian's a git because he hates seeing the tax he pays going on the likes of Bianca and Shirl!
I do agree with you that it was wrong to show them all getting away with destroying Ian's restaurant. I think at least one of them should have faced some consequences, like Shirley or Bianca. I didn't like how Ian was the bad guy for wanting to call the cops on the people that intentionally set fire to his business. I mean, he was the victim of a crime, how very dare he!
I do agree, though, that it's important for soaps to be moral and show that actions have consequences. It's been a big problem on Hollyoaks for years. Not even murder necessarily has a serious consequence on Hollyoaks, there's no sense of justice. I've stopped watching. I found all the crimes and panto villains tedious.