I do think it's a mistake to kill him. Firstly he's so irregular that I don't think doing so would really matter and be a waste of time.
Secondly, although storylines with 'Mar' have been a bit overdone now, if he's potentially going to have a son and Grandson on the square, possibly for years to come, the potential for future storylines exist and I don't see what good it would do to shut down that avenue.
I agree with this. Why bring in his son, ex wife and grandchild along with making Ronnie his daughter-in-law only to kill him off? Yes, the Dot/Nick angle has been done to death but right now the character of Nick has more storyline options than he's ever had before and not all of them are reliant on Dot. The feud with the Mitchells could have ran for years.
In my heart of hearts I think Nick's death is the lead in to Dot's exit. I think June has decided to leave and John isn't interested in returning without her there. If the truth of the matter is DTC is killing Nick off for the sake of anniversary ratings it's a silly decision. There's more to be lost than gained by such a short term decison. As I said, if John is done with the character then fair enough. But if he's still willing to pop back every now and then it's such a waste. Maybe Charlie isn't long term either. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
I also have to agree that the group of 80's characters who can be brought back has dwindled to almost nothing and if losing another one could have been avoided I think it should have been. Having original characters might not be important to some people but it is to others. It helps us remember it's the same show we've been watching for years.
I agree with this. Why bring in his son, ex wife and grandchild along with making Ronnie his daughter-in-law only to kill him off? Yes, the Dot/Nick angle has been done to death but right now the character of Nick has more storyline options than he's ever had before and not all of them are reliant on Dot. The feud with the Mitchells could have ran for years.
In my heart of hearts I think Nick's death is the lead in to Dot's exit. I think June has decided to leave and John isn't interested in returning without her there. If the truth of the matter is DTC is killing Nick off for the sake of anniversary ratings it's a silly decision. There's more to be lost than gained by such a short term decison. As I said, if John is done with the character then fair enough. But if he's still willing to pop back every now and then it's such a waste. Maybe Charlie isn't long term either. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
I also have to agree that the group of 80's characters who can be brought back has dwindled to almost nothing and if losing another one could have been avoided I think it should have been. Having original characters might not be important to some people but it is to others. It helps us remember it's the same show we've been watching for years.
Nick is an original character - one of the very few left - that should mean something to TPTB
I am very disappointed that he has been killed off - as you say with his new family he could have been around for years. It may be fitting that 'Reg Cox' is to die again three decades on but it is still a real shame in my opinion.
People calling Nick's storylines dull and repetitive should take a look at the Invincible Philth.
Just because Nick has been a character for 30 years does not mean he should be on the show forever. The character has gone round in circles - "I've changed ma!" Followed by deceit and ruin. John Altman seems to want this stint to be his last. Nasty Nick either needs a redemption arc or a death.
This is the reason DTC should kill him off. He's a spent (over spent) character now. The merry go round of what you said above is just tedious. I'd pat DTC on the back for getting rid of a character who has had his time and now needs to never be seen again. The 30th anniversary is a fitting time for him to take a bow.
I'm afraid i think its definately his time to go, he is bringing down the shows credibility . The character has always been slightly panto but back in the early days there was a bit of depth there and some genuinely dark storylines such,as when he tried to poison Dot and when Dot locked him in the bedroom. But now its all a bit silly, John Altman seems to be having a laugh with the part now, its impossible to watch any of his scenes without laughing. add to that Mrs Doyle being on the scene now too
It's time for Nick to go, hes had about a million returns over the years as it is
I'm afraid i think its definately his time to go, he is bringing down the shows credibility . The character has always been slightly panto but back in the early days there was a bit of depth there and some genuinely dark storylines such,as when he tried to poison Dot and when Dot locked him in the bedroom. But now its all a bit silly, John Altman seems to be having a laugh with the part now, its impossible to watch any of his scenes without laughing. add to that Mrs Doyle being on the scene now too
It's time for Nick to go, hes had about a million returns over the years as it is
In a nutshell. Nick is damaging the programme as a drama. He is totally pantomime and it is a shame the impact it is having on potentially good or proven characters. Charlie and Dot made to look ridiculous. Even more so Ronnie actually believing that she could give him a bag or money and he would just disappear. That is so contra to the character of Ronnie who is far more savvy and streetwise. This whole storyline is pulling the show down after a good spell.
This obsession by a small no. of folks on here whereby characters who were in at the beginning (or offspring of those characters) of the show are demi gods is just silly. You've got spent characters / poor actors being acclaimed. The show is a living being and it needs to move and grow and it can only be successful if it has storylines and characters who resonate in 21st century. Having the same old doing the same old may appeal to the same old but it is not going to lead to a successful EastEnders.
He should be killed off as there's nothing left for him to do now - even Dot mentioned him having previous for cutting brakes. Seriously - do you want the same storylines played out but with Charlie refusing to believe Nick did bad instead of Dot?
Oh, and it doesn't help that Altman is simply awful. His crying last night was laughable - in fact it looked more like laughing.
I like Nick so obviously I think it's a stupid idea to kill him off. He has made Eastenders so much more watchable for me. I am not bothered that he isn't the best actor or that his character goes round in circles, he brings a black humour to the show something which it has lacked. He called himself Reg Cox's after all.
If the actor's decided this is it then far better to have a on screen death rather than Nick vanishing again then somebody mentioning off hand years later that he died in Spain or something.
This obsession with original characters is a bit much. It nice having them around but it's not the be all and end all.
Just because Nick has been a character for 30 years does not mean he should be on the show forever. The character has gone round in circles - "I've changed ma!" Followed by deceit and ruin. John Altman seems to want this stint to be his last. Nasty Nick either needs a redemption arc or a death.
There are certain characters like Kathy who it was a mistake to kill and they would fit in with the show. But Nick is best left to the 80's and 90's. After the 90's each time they wheel him out he gets more ridiculous and the show loses credibility. In one scene you have Carol battling cancer, and Linda dealing with her rape. Then you have a pensioner holding up a cafe with a table leg and faking his death etc..
Kill him off for the 30th anniversary and let it go.
There are certain characters like Kathy who it was a mistake to kill and they would fit in with the show. But Nick is best left to the 80's and 90's. After the 90's each time they wheel him out he gets more ridiculous and the show loses credibility. In one scene you have Carol battling cancer, and Linda dealing with her rape. Then you have a pensioner holding up a cafe with a table leg and faking his death etc..
Kill him off for the 30th anniversary and let it go.
BIB - I think everyone would agree about Kathy but they wanted to bring Ben into show and I suppose they thought there was no way Kathy would let him go. Which was right - she wouldn't. Kathy character was got rid of to boost Phil character. There was a desperate need to do something with Phil character and bringing in his son was an answer.
As for Nick farcical. Anyone remember that American programme SOAP. Where it was a complete p.sstake of the genre. This stuff with Nick would fit right into the American show.
Love Nick Cotton. Watched EE from the very first episode. He is a real soap legend. No-one will forget Nasty Nick.
Well done to John Altman for giving us this great character. www.johnaltman.info
I don't think it's a mistake to kill him off, I think the mistake has always been with Nick is they haven't made the best use of his character in the past, I feel there is so much more they could have done with Nick but they've turned him into a panto villian that is more laughable than anything else. I can't take him seriously as being sinister.
Actually, the only way I'd want Nick to stay is if something happened to make him listen to his Ma finally and he finds God and starts repenting his sins. It would be great. Then we could maybe see him turn into a priest (I think he'd make a good priest) or have him working with young offenders and finally doing his mum proud. No more random kids with random mothers showing up, no more "I've changed"/"No I haven't" routine, it's getting old now.
If anyone can't see the point of Nick Cotton demise it goes ..........
Ello Ma, I'm reformed, Ere's my latest wife / son / daughter/ grandchild, I need money to pay off some bad men, I'll frame / blackmail one of the residents. Bye Ma, see you in 6 years.
I don't think DTC would be killing Nick off if John Altman and June Brown weren't okay with it. June is known for being vocal when she doesn't like something and in the past has lobbied for Nick to return. Altman has already said he wants to pursue music/films and that he didn't see any harm in returning 'one last time' so it was more than likely his decision than not. I can't see DTC killing an original otherwise, and June would have to accept it if it was his decision. Perhaps they're playing on the logic that Dot (sadly) won't be there forever and Nick won't have any reason to come back after her day.
Look at it this way, at least we have had one final good story out of Nick. Had his initial 'death' last year been genuine, we wouldn't have even got that. The current story (cutting the brakes) has paid homage to the past, while creating lots of good drama in the present. They have got the character back to a good standard, it won't get any better than this; prior to this stint, Nick didn't have many fans. They have really done justice to the Dot and Nick relationship this time around, the interaction between them has been superb. However, Nick can never truly reform, he doesn't have it in him and cutting the brakes on the car was a classic reverting to type.
If he has to die then I'd rather it be on screen and it's only fitting that Dot is involved in the storyline in a big way. I'm a bit worried by the reports that she's going to kill him but I don't think it will be that simple. Dot isn't a coldblooded murderer.
Comments
I agree with this. Why bring in his son, ex wife and grandchild along with making Ronnie his daughter-in-law only to kill him off? Yes, the Dot/Nick angle has been done to death but right now the character of Nick has more storyline options than he's ever had before and not all of them are reliant on Dot. The feud with the Mitchells could have ran for years.
In my heart of hearts I think Nick's death is the lead in to Dot's exit. I think June has decided to leave and John isn't interested in returning without her there. If the truth of the matter is DTC is killing Nick off for the sake of anniversary ratings it's a silly decision. There's more to be lost than gained by such a short term decison. As I said, if John is done with the character then fair enough. But if he's still willing to pop back every now and then it's such a waste. Maybe Charlie isn't long term either. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
I also have to agree that the group of 80's characters who can be brought back has dwindled to almost nothing and if losing another one could have been avoided I think it should have been. Having original characters might not be important to some people but it is to others. It helps us remember it's the same show we've been watching for years.
Nick is an original character - one of the very few left - that should mean something to TPTB
I am very disappointed that he has been killed off - as you say with his new family he could have been around for years. It may be fitting that 'Reg Cox' is to die again three decades on but it is still a real shame in my opinion.
People calling Nick's storylines dull and repetitive should take a look at the Invincible Philth.
How many more people can he 'own' or humiliate?
Frankly I am not interested.
It's time for Nick to go, hes had about a million returns over the years as it is
In a nutshell. Nick is damaging the programme as a drama. He is totally pantomime and it is a shame the impact it is having on potentially good or proven characters. Charlie and Dot made to look ridiculous. Even more so Ronnie actually believing that she could give him a bag or money and he would just disappear. That is so contra to the character of Ronnie who is far more savvy and streetwise. This whole storyline is pulling the show down after a good spell.
This obsession by a small no. of folks on here whereby characters who were in at the beginning (or offspring of those characters) of the show are demi gods is just silly. You've got spent characters / poor actors being acclaimed. The show is a living being and it needs to move and grow and it can only be successful if it has storylines and characters who resonate in 21st century. Having the same old doing the same old may appeal to the same old but it is not going to lead to a successful EastEnders.
Oh, and it doesn't help that Altman is simply awful. His crying last night was laughable - in fact it looked more like laughing.
Well i do think Altman is having a laugh with the character now tbh. He does seem to be sending it up now
Id like to see more of his role as a grandad!
Good Storylines get ratings higher, Not Sensationalist stuff, of which Mr Solictors said he wouldnt do and said he would bring it back to its roots.
As Nick Killed of Reg Cox in Epsiode 1' Guess it would be a full circle.
If DTC got sacked, I would be happy.
This obsession with original characters is a bit much. It nice having them around but it's not the be all and end all.
I say give him a redemption arc!
There are certain characters like Kathy who it was a mistake to kill and they would fit in with the show. But Nick is best left to the 80's and 90's. After the 90's each time they wheel him out he gets more ridiculous and the show loses credibility. In one scene you have Carol battling cancer, and Linda dealing with her rape. Then you have a pensioner holding up a cafe with a table leg and faking his death etc..
Kill him off for the 30th anniversary and let it go.
BIB - I think everyone would agree about Kathy but they wanted to bring Ben into show and I suppose they thought there was no way Kathy would let him go. Which was right - she wouldn't. Kathy character was got rid of to boost Phil character. There was a desperate need to do something with Phil character and bringing in his son was an answer.
As for Nick farcical. Anyone remember that American programme SOAP. Where it was a complete p.sstake of the genre. This stuff with Nick would fit right into the American show.
Well done to John Altman for giving us this great character.
www.johnaltman.info
Ello Ma, I'm reformed, Ere's my latest wife / son / daughter/ grandchild, I need money to pay off some bad men, I'll frame / blackmail one of the residents. Bye Ma, see you in 6 years.
Please tell me what else they can do ?
Look at it this way, at least we have had one final good story out of Nick. Had his initial 'death' last year been genuine, we wouldn't have even got that. The current story (cutting the brakes) has paid homage to the past, while creating lots of good drama in the present. They have got the character back to a good standard, it won't get any better than this; prior to this stint, Nick didn't have many fans. They have really done justice to the Dot and Nick relationship this time around, the interaction between them has been superb. However, Nick can never truly reform, he doesn't have it in him and cutting the brakes on the car was a classic reverting to type.
If he has to die then I'd rather it be on screen and it's only fitting that Dot is involved in the storyline in a big way. I'm a bit worried by the reports that she's going to kill him but I don't think it will be that simple. Dot isn't a coldblooded murderer.