i like the slaters, there are a lot less of them now on the square but some could return in the future and even just to have one or two of them still keeps the names in the square which i like
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sisters return at some point (not Lynne Slater or Zoe, but Kat, Little Mo and possibly Belinda now and then). Santer seems set on restoring the show's former glory bringing back classic characters such as Janine, Bianca, Nick, Ricky, etcetera). However I don't think we'll see them for a while. The Slater family as we knew it ended for me when Jessie Wallace and Kacey Ainsworth quit though, I can't stand Stacey Slater and her glum face and Charlie and Mo have just become slapstick shells of them formerselves.
I think Stacey has been over-used in her time on the show BUT much of that was wasted with crappy Bradley storylines.
I think her first relationship with Bradley was fine, but then the affair with Max (which consumed 2007), and then the bouncing between Steven, Bradley, and Callum last year left no space for other (much more interesting) story lines.
Where would you rank the Masoods, the Fox/Johnsons, the Allens, and ...... the Ferreiras ???!!!
To be honest, they are in the lower grade of families for me. Nothing really against either the Masoods or the Foxes, but *as yet* they haven't been important enough to the show to rate them higher.
I am looking at this from the overall history and mythology of the show, going 25 years, so the Allens and the Ferreiras are pretty much on par in that sense.
Generally speaking, i'd always rank the Watts first because they were just fab and there wasn't a dud character among them, then after that the other "great" EE families: Beales, Fowlers, Mitchells, Butchers, and most recently the SLaters.
The Slaters are a recent addition mind. I wouldn't have put them in the same group as the Beales or Fowlers a few years back, but not that they've been around for nearly a decade, (and been responsible for alot of the 00s biggest storylines) I think its fair to say they are now one of EE great families.
Then there is the middle tier for families that are good, but for one reason or another, cannot really be considered great families of the show when one looks at EE in its entirety.
The Brannings and the Jacksons are here, along with other families like the di Marcos and the Wicks. If the Brannings are still around in 2012, then they may well have qualified for "great" status, but I think its impossible to call them a great family atm.
I'd probably also put the Truemans in this tier, the Millers, as well as the Indian family whose name escapes me.... but who were in EE in the late 80s and early 90s - Sunita, Mena, Sunjay, etc.
Then there are the b-grade families, that either didn't work (Ferrerria's) or didn't have a big enough impact on the show during their stay (Allens, Palmers, etc.), or haven't *yet* had a big enough impact on the show, ie: Massoods, Foxes.
So, if I was tempting to rank, it would go something like this:
1. Watts
2. Fowlers
3. Beales
4. Butchers
5. Mitchells
6. Slaters
7. Jacksons
8. Wicks (in spite of Harwood's dreadful revival)
9. Brannings
10. di Marcos
11. Kapoors (was that the name??)
12. Evans
13. Truemans
14. Millers
Then I'd probably lump the Foxes, Masoods, Allens, Hunters(??!!) together.
This may seem harsh to fans of the Foxes and Masoods, but there is nothing to stop them gaining in stature over the years (unlike the Allens who are dead in the water). The Foxes or Masoods may become a great family, but at present they aren't.
If, in 10 years time no more Watts appear then I'd probably have to (reluctantly) bring them down in alignment with the Mitchells and Slaters. if they don't appear for the 25th anniversary year then I think I will probably have to pull them down and probably put the Beales or even the Mitchells in top spot.
hope the Slaters dont go, would love to see son of rapist 'Freddie' in a few years.
[PHP]Also I read on another forum that Staceys next fling is with a new Mitchell. This could be R&R's brother and Danielles brother. (none of this maybe true)[/PHP]
they could bring lynn back,gary is still there,elaine was a good actress but had problems which seems she has sorted herself out
I liked Gary and Lynne as a couple. I think Gary deserves better storylines. We saw a bit what he could do when he was supporting Dawn with Summer. Time they gave him a bit more depth!
I still think Belinda should be brought in to spice it up a bit for the Slaters. Her and her husband Neville sound like a right pair of stuck up so and so's.
I can still see either Kat or Little Mo returning though. Charlie, Mo, Stacey and Jean work well together. Sean always ruined things.
The fact that no one has mentioned the Moons is a good indication that they are also bottom tier! lol Shame, as there was potential with Alfie & Nana. Jake wasn't too bad. Danny was AWFUL!
Edit: ...and SPENCER!! How could I forget!! One of the worst actors in soapland. I couldn't bear any of his scenes. Was so glad when he finally left.
When you look at the Slaters now its hard to believe that only a few years back they were getting all of the big storylines. There were even rumoures that other cast members resented them and had a saying, 'if your not a Slater, see you later'.
I know Stacey still does a lot, but what would happen if she left? Lacey Turner is still very young and I can't see her wanting to do Eastenders forever.
I think instead of obsessing about the Mitchells and Brannings they should bring in some more new Slaters.
Was Charlie a lot older than his wife Viv? He always seems to be about the same age as Mo and she is supposed to be his mother in law. Didn't he celebrate his 60th birthday?
Was Charlie a lot older than his wife Viv? He always seems to be about the same age as Mo and she is supposed to be his mother in law. Didn't he celebrate his 60th birthday?
Mo had Viv at a very young age, about 15. Charlie was about 5 years older than Viv, so theres only about 10 years difference between Charlie and Mo.
The fact that no one has mentioned the Moons is a good indication that they are also bottom tier! lol Shame, as there was potential with Alfie & Nana. Jake wasn't too bad. Danny was AWFUL!
Edit: ...and SPENCER!! How could I forget!! One of the worst actors in soapland. I couldn't bear any of his scenes. Was so glad when he finally left.
When you look at the Slaters now its hard to believe that only a few years back they were getting all of the big storylines. There were even rumoures that other cast members resented them and had a saying, 'if your not a Slater, see you later'.
Whereas now it's more "If you're not a Branning you're a stand-in."
(Not a great rhyme, I know, but it's the best I could come up with...)
Until one or two of the sisters makes a return (I'd love any of them back), I think they should go in a completely different direction with the Slaters and rather than focusing on Slater name, let's see a few more Harris's.
I do agree with Filiman though that the Slaters are the last great family EastEnders have introduced.
hope the Slaters dont go, would love to see son of rapist 'Freddie' in a few years.
[PHP]Also I read on another forum that Staceys next fling is with a new Mitchell. This could be R&R's brother and Danielles brother. (none of this maybe true)[/PHP]
How original of EE's writers to have Stacey have yet another romantic entanglement. Constantly pairing Stacey up with blokes is ruining her character.
Last week's stuff with Jean is more the sort of story lines we should see with Stacey.
Whereas now it's more "If you're not a Branning you're a stand-in."
(Not a great rhyme, I know, but it's the best I could come up with...)
Im glad you have said this because I think the Branning's get too many big storylines these days, and why does Bianca have little to do with them? Max and Jack are her Uncles.
Im glad you have said this because I think the Branning's get too many big storylines these days, and why does Bianca have little to do with them? Max and Jack are her Uncles.
I would have agreed about 6 months ago, but it does seem a bit more balanced now between the Brannings, Mitchells, Butcher/jacksons and the Beales.
The Fox/Johnsons, the Masoods (And now even the Slaters)are still in the B team though.
He could return. Didn't Johnny Allen ask him to kill Sean a few years ago, but there was a mix up in communication, and he became the target? His last scenes were of him leaving the club and then seeing about 5 or so guys waiting for him. We never saw what happened to him, and his body was never recovered as far as I recall, so there's a good chance he's still alive. It was a hot topic of discussion on here if I remember correctly.
Back on topic, I think the Slaters will be around for at least another 2 years. Unless Lacey and Gillian (Stacey and Jean) decide to leave, then there's still room for some sort of storyline with them.
I definatly think the Foxes and Masoods should be given more to do. Whats the point in them being there otherwise?
Do they actually have a B-Team?
Not officially, no. But it is obvious that some families (and therefore some characters) get more storylines and action than others.
The Brannings and mitchells certainly are top billing, with the beales and the butcher/jacksons getting a lot of limelight too. The Slaters used to be up there with them, but with the departure of Sean, i fear the Slaters will be relegated down with the Foxes, the Masoods and the 'single' characters with no family (think Gary & minty!)
The only 'single' character that is in the thick of the action is Shirley.
Not officially, no. But it is obvious that some families (and therefore some characters) get more storylines and action than others.
The Brannings and mitchells certainly are top billing, with the beales and the butcher/jacksons getting a lot of limelight too. The Slaters used to be up there with them, but with the departure of Sean, i fear the Slaters will be relegated down with the Foxes, the Masoods and the 'single' characters with no family (think Gary & minty!)
The only 'single' character that is in the thick of the action is Shirley.
I don't understand why there are has always been so much of a focus on the Mitchells? They are not even an original family (as in from the begining) yet you'd swear they were the ammount of air time they get.
The Beales are more worthy for sure. Mind you before Bianca and her kids came back Pat did nothing for ages.
Don't the Masoods have another son? Why have they not brought him in yet?
I don't know I think if Sam Janus left the viewing figures would plummet. She's carrying so many storylines at the moment (and doing a great job)
I wasn't talking about the viewing figures, I was making reference to the Brannings dominating many of the storylines over the last couple of years. There were even two of them at the Mitchell Xmas that we just had.
As for Sam Janus - not a big fan of her, though I really think she and Lauren Crace work well together and I've really started to like the character of Ronnie this last week.
I'm sure that'll change once they involve her with Jack again.
Comments
I think her first relationship with Bradley was fine, but then the affair with Max (which consumed 2007), and then the bouncing between Steven, Bradley, and Callum last year left no space for other (much more interesting) story lines.
To be honest, they are in the lower grade of families for me. Nothing really against either the Masoods or the Foxes, but *as yet* they haven't been important enough to the show to rate them higher.
I am looking at this from the overall history and mythology of the show, going 25 years, so the Allens and the Ferreiras are pretty much on par in that sense.
Generally speaking, i'd always rank the Watts first because they were just fab and there wasn't a dud character among them, then after that the other "great" EE families: Beales, Fowlers, Mitchells, Butchers, and most recently the SLaters.
The Slaters are a recent addition mind. I wouldn't have put them in the same group as the Beales or Fowlers a few years back, but not that they've been around for nearly a decade, (and been responsible for alot of the 00s biggest storylines) I think its fair to say they are now one of EE great families.
Then there is the middle tier for families that are good, but for one reason or another, cannot really be considered great families of the show when one looks at EE in its entirety.
The Brannings and the Jacksons are here, along with other families like the di Marcos and the Wicks. If the Brannings are still around in 2012, then they may well have qualified for "great" status, but I think its impossible to call them a great family atm.
I'd probably also put the Truemans in this tier, the Millers, as well as the Indian family whose name escapes me.... but who were in EE in the late 80s and early 90s - Sunita, Mena, Sunjay, etc.
Then there are the b-grade families, that either didn't work (Ferrerria's) or didn't have a big enough impact on the show during their stay (Allens, Palmers, etc.), or haven't *yet* had a big enough impact on the show, ie: Massoods, Foxes.
So, if I was tempting to rank, it would go something like this:
1. Watts
2. Fowlers
3. Beales
4. Butchers
5. Mitchells
6. Slaters
7. Jacksons
8. Wicks (in spite of Harwood's dreadful revival)
9. Brannings
10. di Marcos
11. Kapoors (was that the name??)
12. Evans
13. Truemans
14. Millers
Then I'd probably lump the Foxes, Masoods, Allens, Hunters(??!!) together.
This may seem harsh to fans of the Foxes and Masoods, but there is nothing to stop them gaining in stature over the years (unlike the Allens who are dead in the water). The Foxes or Masoods may become a great family, but at present they aren't.
If, in 10 years time no more Watts appear then I'd probably have to (reluctantly) bring them down in alignment with the Mitchells and Slaters. if they don't appear for the 25th anniversary year then I think I will probably have to pull them down and probably put the Beales or even the Mitchells in top spot.
[PHP]Also I read on another forum that Staceys next fling is with a new Mitchell. This could be R&R's brother and Danielles brother. (none of this maybe true)[/PHP]
Phew indeed! Thanks Bleaney. I'd never have guessed!
I liked Gary and Lynne as a couple. I think Gary deserves better storylines. We saw a bit what he could do when he was supporting Dawn with Summer. Time they gave him a bit more depth!
I can still see either Kat or Little Mo returning though.
Edit: ...and SPENCER!! How could I forget!! One of the worst actors in soapland. I couldn't bear any of his scenes. Was so glad when he finally left.
I know Stacey still does a lot, but what would happen if she left? Lacey Turner is still very young and I can't see her wanting to do Eastenders forever.
I think instead of obsessing about the Mitchells and Brannings they should bring in some more new Slaters.
Mo had Viv at a very young age, about 15. Charlie was about 5 years older than Viv, so theres only about 10 years difference between Charlie and Mo.
Jake was gorgeous! Please bring him back!
Whereas now it's more "If you're not a Branning you're a stand-in."
(Not a great rhyme, I know, but it's the best I could come up with...)
I do agree with Filiman though that the Slaters are the last great family EastEnders have introduced.
How original of EE's writers to have Stacey have yet another romantic entanglement. Constantly pairing Stacey up with blokes is ruining her character.
Last week's stuff with Jean is more the sort of story lines we should see with Stacey.
I don't know I think if Sam Janus left the viewing figures would plummet. She's carrying so many storylines at the moment (and doing a great job)
Im glad you have said this because I think the Branning's get too many big storylines these days, and why does Bianca have little to do with them? Max and Jack are her Uncles.
I would have agreed about 6 months ago, but it does seem a bit more balanced now between the Brannings, Mitchells, Butcher/jacksons and the Beales.
The Fox/Johnsons, the Masoods (And now even the Slaters)are still in the B team though.
He could return. Didn't Johnny Allen ask him to kill Sean a few years ago, but there was a mix up in communication, and he became the target? His last scenes were of him leaving the club and then seeing about 5 or so guys waiting for him. We never saw what happened to him, and his body was never recovered as far as I recall, so there's a good chance he's still alive. It was a hot topic of discussion on here if I remember correctly.
Back on topic, I think the Slaters will be around for at least another 2 years. Unless Lacey and Gillian (Stacey and Jean) decide to leave, then there's still room for some sort of storyline with them.
I definatly think the Foxes and Masoods should be given more to do. Whats the point in them being there otherwise?
Do they actually have a B-Team?
Not officially, no. But it is obvious that some families (and therefore some characters) get more storylines and action than others.
The Brannings and mitchells certainly are top billing, with the beales and the butcher/jacksons getting a lot of limelight too. The Slaters used to be up there with them, but with the departure of Sean, i fear the Slaters will be relegated down with the Foxes, the Masoods and the 'single' characters with no family (think Gary & minty!)
The only 'single' character that is in the thick of the action is Shirley.
I don't understand why there are has always been so much of a focus on the Mitchells? They are not even an original family (as in from the begining) yet you'd swear they were the ammount of air time they get.
The Beales are more worthy for sure. Mind you before Bianca and her kids came back Pat did nothing for ages.
Don't the Masoods have another son? Why have they not brought him in yet?
I wasn't talking about the viewing figures, I was making reference to the Brannings dominating many of the storylines over the last couple of years. There were even two of them at the Mitchell Xmas that we just had.
As for Sam Janus - not a big fan of her, though I really think she and Lauren Crace work well together and I've really started to like the character of Ronnie this last week.
I'm sure that'll change once they involve her with Jack again.