Home› Soaps
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Soaps section for the latest breaking news and spoilers.
Options

Should Cindy be bought back from the dead for the shows 30th Anniversary?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 117
Forum Member
✭
in Soaps #1
I know she is dead but the one character that I would like to return for the shows 30th anniversary would be Cindy. With Mitchell Collins leaving Coronation Street wouldn't it be great if she returned and with Ian and his children and David, Sharon, Carol, Bianca, Phil, Dot, Sonia all around when she was in it she will have many characters that recognize her and interact with her.

It would be interesting to see how her children react to her being alive and whether or not they choose to live with her in a house she has rented on the square. It would also cause problems for David and Carol. I would love to see scenes between Cindy and Sharon as she stole Simon Wicks from her.

As far as a job for Cindy it would be great if she took over ownership somehow of scarlet's from Ian with the help of Lucy.

They could also bring back Steven.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Menime123Menime123 Posts: 1,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    No. I'd rather it be Ian's wedding day to Jane over a Cindy return.
  • Options
    Menime123Menime123 Posts: 1,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    Plus the fact if anyone should be resurrected it should be Kathy!
  • Options
    bass55bass55 Posts: 18,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    No. Let's not bring any more dead characters back to life.
  • Options
    MindbearMindbear Posts: 2,698
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    We can't really do that can we? I mean, as much as things were pushed with Den, THREE characters revived from death would be too much.
  • Options
    MutantXMutantX Posts: 1,772
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    If she dies whilst giving birth I fail to see a way for her to return..
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    Menime123 wrote: »
    No. I'd rather it be Ian's wedding day to Jane over a Cindy return.

    This, please :D
  • Options
    pothuthicpothuthic Posts: 47,103
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    I think it'll be about Nick, the wheels are in motion
  • Options
    Dan_1983Dan_1983 Posts: 503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    No because she is dead.
  • Options
    BertypopBertypop Posts: 4,232
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    pothuthic wrote: »
    I think it'll be about Nick, the wheels are in motion

    Do you know, that's the first thing I thought of when the new Charlie was announced. We'll be due a Nick return soon, which could lead to a big disaster or see him killed off for next February.

    The other option, of course is a sad and poignant death for Dot (or possibly Jim) next February. Either way, I think Dot will feature quite heavily in the 30th anniversary.
  • Options
    JoanneKJoanneK Posts: 25,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    I would love to see Cindy back as, right now, she is one character who could cause a lot of problems.

    She has links with Ian (ex-husband), Lucy, Peter and Cindy Jr (children), David (ex-lover), not to mention people like Carol, Bianca, Sharon and Phil. She would cause a lot of trouble for Ian and Denise and I would imagine she would want revenge on David for using her and then dumping her at the train station. Sadly though the EE producers were too short-sighted when they killed her off and it would be a step to far to bring her back to life now.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,885
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    pothuthic wrote: »
    I think it'll be about Nick, the wheels are in motion

    Yeah I agree.

    Defo Nick back for 30th and Dot's exit :(
  • Options
    AngieWattsFanAngieWattsFan Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    I think it would be logical to bring back Cindy in the run-up to the 30th anniversay on the basis that her children are there, her husband is there and David is there. Also, Michelle Collins has left Corrie and we all know the brilliant mind that DTC has. I'd love for Kathy to come back but now that Ben is jail, it would make little sense seeing as Gillian Taylforth is in Hollyoaks. Maybe both of them could come back for the 30th anniversary - but that could risk credibility.
  • Options
    rikstan87rikstan87 Posts: 2,359
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    Oh FFS OP get a massive grip on yourself the F***ing character is dead
  • Options
    felixrexfelixrex Posts: 7,307
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    No. The dead should stay dead.
  • Options
    Belpry_1Belpry_1 Posts: 3,617
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    Mindbear wrote: »
    We can't really do that can we? I mean, as much as things were pushed with Den, THREE characters revived from death would be too much.

    This.
  • Options
    bass55bass55 Posts: 18,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    AngieWattsFan wrote: »
    I think it would be logical to bring back Cindy in the run-up to the 30th anniversay on the basis that her children are there, her husband is there and David is there. Also, Michelle Collins has left Corrie and we all know the brilliant mind that DTC has. I'd love for Kathy to come back but now that Ben is jail, it would make little sense seeing as Gillian Taylforth is in Hollyoaks. Maybe both of them could come back for the 30th anniversary - but that could risk credibility.

    How can it be 'logical' to bring Cindy back? The character has been dead for 16 years. That's completely illogical.
  • Options
    dd68dd68 Posts: 17,841
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #18
    Absolutely not
  • Options
    Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    No. Even if she could be brought back believably do we really want to see a rehash 16 years later of whatever story she had going on with David and Ian?

    Sounds boring and unimaginative. Can't think of a need for her, which is one of my worries for Stacey coming back tbh. I really don't see a place for her.
  • Options
    AngieWattsFanAngieWattsFan Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #20
    Joe_Zel wrote: »
    No. Even if she could be brought back believably do we really want to see a rehash 16 years later of whatever story she had going on with David and Ian?

    Sounds boring and unimaginative. Can't think of a need for her, which is one of my worries for Stacey coming back tbh. I really don't see a place for her.
    There is so much that could happen. Perhaps Lucy and Peter were not Ian's children and she messes around with Ian's relationship with his children. Carol and David's relationship could be put on the rocks. She may have a new husband and a new family could come through the Square. A massive clash with Sharon seeing as it was Cindy who ended Sharon's engagement to Simon Wicks. The dynamic in the Beale family would irrevocably change. It would be great and could end with her really becoming a supervillain.
  • Options
    Hit Em Up StyleHit Em Up Style Posts: 12,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    I think they have missed the chance. While elements of retconning would have needed to take place Cindy could have been brought back. I think Cindy returning would have been a lot more plausible than Den's return. By all accounts Den WAS dead. Julia Smith killed him and we were supposed to see his dead body but the BBC cut the ending and she was so disgusted she demanded her name taken off the end credits for the episode.

    I also think audiences would have been willing to accept Cindy returning as well.

    Santer should have had the balls to do it. Now its too late. Too much time has passed for to work.
  • Options
    bass55bass55 Posts: 18,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    Hit Em Up Style wrote: »
    I think they have missed the chance. While elements of retconning would have needed to take place Cindy could have been brought back. I think Cindy returning would have been a lot more plausible than Den's return. By all accounts Den WAS dead. Julia Smith killed him and we were supposed to see his dead body but the BBC cut the ending and she was so disgusted she demanded her name taken off the end credits for the episode.

    I also think audiences would have been willing to accept Cindy returning as well.

    Santer should have had the balls to do it. Now its too late. Too much time has passed for to work.

    EastEnders just about got away with Dirty Den, but bringing Cindy back really would've been jumping the shark.

    Den's resurrection was stretching the limits of reality, but he was a wanted man so faking his death was plausible.

    Cindy died in prison during childbirth (IIRC), she had no obvious reason to fake her death. Why would she let her four children grieve for their mother only to return a decade later? It would've been ridiculous, I'm glad they didn't do it.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,163
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    They should bring Dirty Den back from the dead for a second time, that would be totally plausible.

    He could say ... "Hello Princess" ... again to Sharon, and share a scene with her.

    I'd definitely tune in for that - then they should kill him again.
  • Options
    Nattie01Nattie01 Posts: 1,658
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    bass55 wrote: »
    EastEnders just about got away with Dirty Den, but bringing Cindy back really would've been jumping the shark.

    Den's resurrection was stretching the limits of reality, but he was a wanted man so faking his death was plausible.

    Cindy died in an Italian prison during childbirth (IIRC) she had no obvious reason to fake her death. Why would she let her four children grieve for their mother only to return a decade later? It would've been ridiculous, I'm glad they didn't do it.

    Perhaps she was sharing a cell with a member of the mob, who told her incrimintating things, and she agreed to testify aganist them in return for her freedom, though she had to pretend to be dead and assume a new identity in order to do so. Or then again, perhaps not. :D:D
  • Options
    Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #25
    AngieWattsFan wrote: »
    There is so much that could happen. Perhaps Lucy and Peter were not Ian's children and she messes around with Ian's relationship with his children. Carol and David's relationship could be put on the rocks. She may have a new husband and a new family could come through the Square. A massive clash with Sharon seeing as it was Cindy who ended Sharon's engagement to Simon Wicks. The dynamic in the Beale family would irrevocably change. It would be great and could end with her really becoming a supervillain.

    So... basically.... a rehash of her 90's stories. Not a good enough reason IMO.

    Her children aren't Ian's? Completely out of the blue and the few Beale's we have aren't Beale's anymore etc etc. Not to mention I can't see how that would benefit the show.

    Causes problems with David and Carol, another rehash of her relationship with him.

    Her arriving with a new family and husband may have potential, but really we're better off with brand new characters when it comes to that.

    It's the actresses fault she was killed off anyway.
  • Options
    rumpleteazerrumpleteazer Posts: 5,746
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    No, but I'm starting to think some kind of one off parody episode where all the dead characters come back to the square as if nothing had happened to confuse the oldies would be fun.
Sign In or Register to comment.