If people are saying that Bobby has been "floating around", doing nothing, in the background, having a low profile - how do you expect him to have a larger profile and be more visible as a character without a big story line? If they're not going to give him one and let the character develop, they might as well kill him off.
I understand that folk didn't want it to be Bobby, but, to me, it's not a problem, and nothing's been ruined. I must say that I don't believe that his single blow alone killed Lucy - or if it did, there may have already been a problem caused either by the fall in the car lot, or by Lucy's fight with Denise. She did look dazed after this.
Aside from the brilliant acting in the live ep, I think the best bit about Bobby being responsible is the possibility for future storylines/development. I mean, the killer could have turned out to be Peter, he would get arrested, stuck in jail and that would be that - since Ben was leaving. I can't help feeling that people would still feel cheated if that had turned out to be the case.
If people are saying that Bobby has been "floating around", doing nothing, in the background, having a low profile - how do you expect him to have a larger profile and be more visible as a character without a big story line? If they're not going to give him one and let the character develop, they might as well kill him off.
I understand that folk didn't want it to be Bobby, but, to me, it's not a problem, and nothing's been ruined. I must say that I don't believe that his single blow alone killed Lucy - or if it did, there may have already been a problem caused either by the fall in the car lot, or by Lucy's fight with Denise. She did look dazed after this.
Aside from the brilliant acting in the live ep, I think the best bit about Bobby being responsible is the possibility for future storylines/development. I mean, the killer could have turned out to be Peter, he would get arrested, stuck in jail and that would be that - since Ben was leaving. I can't help feeling that people would still feel cheated if that had turned out to be the case.
So in a sense this 30th anniversary was constructed to develop Booby's character?
No problem with future story lines but would it not be reasonable to expect that the Lucy Beale case was a thing in itself, due to climax on the 30th Anniversary?
This is what many here expected I think because that is what we were led to believe. I might be wrong but I actually don't think people are as bothered with the actual SL, it's more the bullshit we were fed for 10 months portraying it to be something worthy of deep analysis and attention.
We feel suckered and people who get suckered feel hurt. We wouldn't be here 1 week later if we didn't care. That is the saddest thing of all to me. I don't think there was ever a need to make people feel like this. What was it that they gained?
If people are saying that Bobby has been "floating around", doing nothing, in the background, having a low profile - how do you expect him to have a larger profile and be more visible as a character without a big story line? If they're not going to give him one and let the character develop, they might as well kill him off.
I understand that folk didn't want it to be Bobby, but, to me, it's not a problem, and nothing's been ruined. I must say that I don't believe that his single blow alone killed Lucy - or if it did, there may have already been a problem caused either by the fall in the car lot, or by Lucy's fight with Denise. She did look dazed after this.
Aside from the brilliant acting in the live ep, I think the best bit about Bobby being responsible is the possibility for future storylines/development. I mean, the killer could have turned out to be Peter, he would get arrested, stuck in jail and that would be that - since Ben was leaving. I can't help feeling that people would still feel cheated if that had turned out to be the case.
Child characters can be developed without big storylines of their own. Most soap children don't get their own storylines. It is their reactions to family problems and their interactions with relations and friends which shape their characters.
Abi as a child didn't have a big storyline of her own. Watching her respond to Max and Tanya's marital problems and interact with her parents, sister, Dot, Jim and Ben gave us a sense of who she was. This process never happened with Bobby so he never evolved into a character.
Child characters can be developed without big storylines of their own. Most soap children don't get their own storylines. It is their reactions to family problems and their interactions with relations and friends which shape their characters.
Abi as a child didn't have a big storyline of her own. Watching her respond to Max and Tanya's marital problems and interact with her parents, sister, Dot, Jim and Ben gave us a sense of who she was. This process never happened with Bobby so he never evolved into a character.
Agreed. It looked like Denny was being developed into Damien a year ago. Now he is forgotten about even by Sharon! Instead we have Bobby enter stage left to assume the Damien mantra. In all seriousness Denny bashing someone over the head with a jewellery box in Apr 2014 would have made more sense and fitted into a characterisation created for the viewers. So what are they going to do with Denny?
After a week since the revelations, I have come to the conclusion that to construct a whodunnit plot that is credible and entertaining is that you need to have your suspects and the actual perpetrator in mind and then stick to it.
I think the climax of who killed Lucy came to the forefront as Bobby was revealed. It showed that the producers were not sure who should be the killer or that they changed their minds during the process. Consequently, the conclusion was not realistic and the viewing public were left with more questions than answers or just felt that was far fetched.
I understand that the show had to produce a story line such as this for their anniversary as soaps need this sort of publicity in order to remain a credible source of entertainment Particularly nowadays, when you are in the era of reality TV and live talent shows like X Factor which can pull in many viewers. Therefore, when anniversaries come round such as this, this is an opportunity for soaps such as Eastenders to pull in many viewers and get the kind of exposure and indeed the figures the show once enjoyed prior to that of digital TV and as previously mentioned the reality TV era. However, this storyline intwined with the anniversary put constraints on the finale it deserved.
Ok, I have a question about this. I thought about it last week but forgot about it until watching Gogglebox last night.
Lucy was killed just after writing Ian the letter where she told him to wake her up when he got home. But, in the flashback episode, we saw that he was already home & in bed.
So is that right that she was killed & her body moved all while he was asleep?
Ok, I have a question about this. I thought about it last week but forgot about it until watching Gogglebox last night.
Lucy was killed just after writing Ian the letter where she told him to wake her up when he got home. But, in the flashback episode, we saw that he was already home & in bed.
So is that right that she was killed & her body moved all while he was asleep?
Yup. Ian, Denise and Cindy were all asleep upstairs. Bobby came downstairs had an argument with Lucy and accidentally bludgeoned her with the jewellery box. He rang Jane from his mobile who came in via open door to find dead Lucy. Jane pronounced her dead. She took Bobby back to bed. Bobby was sleeping in same room as Cindy but she didn't wake up. Jane then went downstairs and hoisted a dead Lucy onto her shoulder and took her out to her car boot. This whilst the party revellers are out and about in the Square. Jane must have re entered house to clean up. Bobby is left sleeping and when he got up next morning said nothing about Lucy. Jane came back next morning to pick up Bobby to take him to Mas.
Yup. Ian, Denise and Cindy were all asleep upstairs. Bobby came downstairs had an argument with Lucy and accidentally bludgeoned her with the jewellery box. He rang Jane from his mobile who came in via open door to find dead Lucy. Jane pronounced her dead. She took Bobby back to bed. Bobby was sleeping in same room as Cindy but she didn't wake up. Jane then went downstairs and hoisted a dead Lucy onto her shoulder and took her out to her car boot. This whilst the party revellers are out and about in the Square. Jane must have re entered house to clean up. Bobby is left sleeping and when he got up next morning said nothing about Lucy. Jane came back next morning to pick up Bobby to take him to Mas.
I think reading that it all makes perfect sense yes
I thought that Bobby was living with Jane at Masood's house at the time when Lucy was killed. I don't understand why he was at Ian's.
Unless I'm wrong and he was living with Ian?
I don't think anyone (viewers) cared where Bobby was living at the time so unimportant was he to EE. *I'm sure someone will know where he was supposed to be!
Cindy and Bobby weren't sharing a room. It was simply because of the atmosphere that they cuddled up that night but we can assume Jane would have taken him to his room.
Also, the outcome actually makes more sense than had it been pretty much anyone else. No one else in the family was ultimately capable of killing someone they loved and then covering it up - guilt would have consumed them. Bobby however was reasonably oblivious to the truth and Jane's guilt was so deep she had to leave Albert Square!
Cindy and Bobby weren't sharing a room. It was simply because of the atmosphere that they cuddled up that night but we can assume Jane would have taken him to his room.
Also, the outcome actually makes more sense than had it been pretty much anyone else. No one else in the family was ultimately capable of killing someone they loved and then covering it up - guilt would have consumed them. Bobby however was reasonably oblivious to the truth and Jane's guilt was so deep she had to leave Albert Square!
If you say so. I'll keep being disappointed at the contrived unbelievable nature of it all. Bobby is only reasonably oblivious now. LOL Does the deep guilt felt by Jane have anything to do with the script making her sociopathic in her response. Hey it's character development of a sort!
I actually thought the flashback episode did a good job of showing how flimsy the suspects 'motives' were. Like Whitney, obviously she didn't like Lucy but would she really kill someone just because they got with someone she liked? Or Peter who we were shown just went for a run and that was that. None of them really felt strongly enough to kill her so I think what they came up with is as good as they could (although hopefully we get the holes filled in in the next few months)
Lucy wasn't Archie, she had a lot of people with some arguments against her but no one with a REAL motive to kill without making them a complete psychopath
Cindy and Bobby weren't sharing a room. It was simply because of the atmosphere that they cuddled up that night but we can assume Jane would have taken him to his room.
Also, the outcome actually makes more sense than had it been pretty much anyone else. No one else in the family was ultimately capable of killing someone they loved and then covering it up - guilt would have consumed them. Bobby however was reasonably oblivious to the truth and Jane's guilt was so deep she had to leave Albert Square!
Yep I agree. Plus Bobby really was the only one you could see Jane doing something so cold and heartless for (dumping Lucy.) The desperation of a mum trying to protect her alive child over her dead child. Before the reveal. I couldn't see Jane being able to do this, but if she did it would be only for Bobby.
Still not sure how she could've carried Lucy and if I was Cindy, I'd be a little concerned Bobby might belt me one and kill me and Jane would dump me, but apart from that, I have no real issues with how it went!!!:D
If you say so. I'll keep being disappointed at the contrived unbelievable nature of it all. Bobby is only reasonably oblivious now. LOL Does the deep guilt felt by Jane have anything to do with the script making her sociopathic in her response. Hey it's character development of a sort!
Well said. I think the storyline with Jane covering might have been more believable if we had seen her defending Bobby previously the way that Sharon defends denny. With denny we saw how naughty he was but Sharon could see no wrong in him - if that had been Jane and Bobby then maybe the big reveal would have made more sense. I still wouldn't have agreed with it though, and still don't get why people are justifying Jane's actions with the words 'mothers love'. What she did was horrific and wrong and I won't be convinced otherwise.
Well said. I think the storyline with Jane covering might have been more believable if we had seen her defending Bobby previously the way that Sharon defends denny. With denny we saw how naughty he was but Sharon could see no wrong in him - if that had been Jane and Bobby then maybe the big reveal would have made more sense. I still wouldn't have agreed with it though, and still don't get why people are justifying Jane's actions with the words 'mothers love'. What she did was horrific and wrong and I won't be convinced otherwise.
And she wasn't much of a mother when his Dad was unwell. This is to be overlooked within in the "it will sense" spiel i guess. Frankly it makes no sense.
Well said. I think the storyline with Jane covering might have been more believable if we had seen her defending Bobby previously the way that Sharon defends denny. With denny we saw how naughty he was but Sharon could see no wrong in him - if that had been Jane and Bobby then maybe the big reveal would have made more sense. I still wouldn't have agreed with it though, and still don't get why people are justifying Jane's actions with the words 'mothers love'. What she did was horrific and wrong and I won't be convinced otherwise.
We did see Bobby in a sense manipulating Jane. When he ran away and came back to London. Jane was all set to take him back to whereever she was living, but he said he wanted to stay and she had to stay as well. So she did, her life left because he insisited they stayed.
Yup. Ian, Denise and Cindy were all asleep upstairs. Bobby came downstairs had an argument with Lucy and accidentally bludgeoned her with the jewellery box. He rang Jane from his mobile who came in via open door to find dead Lucy. Jane pronounced her dead. She took Bobby back to bed. Bobby was sleeping in same room as Cindy but she didn't wake up. Jane then went downstairs and hoisted a dead Lucy onto her shoulder and took her out to her car boot. This whilst the party revellers are out and about in the Square. Jane must have re entered house to clean up. Bobby is left sleeping and when he got up next morning said nothing about Lucy. Jane came back next morning to pick up Bobby to take him to Mas.
Well said. I think the storyline with Jane covering might have been more believable if we had seen her defending Bobby previously the way that Sharon defends denny. With denny we saw how naughty he was but Sharon could see no wrong in him - if that had been Jane and Bobby then maybe the big reveal would have made more sense. I still wouldn't have agreed with it though, and still don't get why people are justifying Jane's actions with the words 'mothers love'. What she did was horrific and wrong and I won't be convinced otherwise.
And f you consider a "mother's love" she was almost a mother to Lucy too. So on the one hand we are to believe she will do anything for her "son" what about her mother's love for Lucy? This gets shelved in the wardrobe of plausibility.
Under the circumstances, I don't know why Jane agreed to bring Bobby back to the Square to live - right there in the same house he killed his sister. Right in amongst the police investigation and people who mourned Lucy.
Yes, he might have said he wanted to go back there, but Jane, being his mother, wanting to protect him so much, should have stood her ground and not been manipulated by a 10 year old.
It would have been better for Bobby and Jane to stay well away. If they had any sense.
Under the circumstances, I don't know why Jane agreed to bring Bobby back to the Square to live - right there in the same house he killed his sister. Right in amongst the police investigation and people who mourned Lucy.
Yes, he might have said he wanted to go back there, but Jane, being his mother, wanting to protect him so much, should have stood her ground and not been manipulated by a 10 year old.
It would have been better for Bobby and Jane to stay well away. If they had any sense.
But then, none of this makes any sense to me.
Yeah. Good point and now as soon as the whole family have found out she wants to go away again.
Good points on this page. Charlie Brooker was a bit dismissive of the discontents this week, but I think it DOES matter. Either the UK's most popular programme has a moral core, or it doesn't. Added to that, the narrative and characterisation need to make sense within their own terms, or it's mickey-taking. Not fair to the audience, nor to the actors.
after 10 months of "who killed Lucy" we find out its Bobby and what............
No it's obviously not the end because Bobby doesn't know he's killed her so the family will still be discussing it over the coming months. DTC said there'd be lots of aftermath
Comments
I understand that folk didn't want it to be Bobby, but, to me, it's not a problem, and nothing's been ruined. I must say that I don't believe that his single blow alone killed Lucy - or if it did, there may have already been a problem caused either by the fall in the car lot, or by Lucy's fight with Denise. She did look dazed after this.
Aside from the brilliant acting in the live ep, I think the best bit about Bobby being responsible is the possibility for future storylines/development. I mean, the killer could have turned out to be Peter, he would get arrested, stuck in jail and that would be that - since Ben was leaving. I can't help feeling that people would still feel cheated if that had turned out to be the case.
So in a sense this 30th anniversary was constructed to develop Booby's character?
No problem with future story lines but would it not be reasonable to expect that the Lucy Beale case was a thing in itself, due to climax on the 30th Anniversary?
This is what many here expected I think because that is what we were led to believe. I might be wrong but I actually don't think people are as bothered with the actual SL, it's more the bullshit we were fed for 10 months portraying it to be something worthy of deep analysis and attention.
We feel suckered and people who get suckered feel hurt. We wouldn't be here 1 week later if we didn't care. That is the saddest thing of all to me. I don't think there was ever a need to make people feel like this. What was it that they gained?
Child characters can be developed without big storylines of their own. Most soap children don't get their own storylines. It is their reactions to family problems and their interactions with relations and friends which shape their characters.
Abi as a child didn't have a big storyline of her own. Watching her respond to Max and Tanya's marital problems and interact with her parents, sister, Dot, Jim and Ben gave us a sense of who she was. This process never happened with Bobby so he never evolved into a character.
Agreed. It looked like Denny was being developed into Damien a year ago. Now he is forgotten about even by Sharon! Instead we have Bobby enter stage left to assume the Damien mantra. In all seriousness Denny bashing someone over the head with a jewellery box in Apr 2014 would have made more sense and fitted into a characterisation created for the viewers. So what are they going to do with Denny?
I think the climax of who killed Lucy came to the forefront as Bobby was revealed. It showed that the producers were not sure who should be the killer or that they changed their minds during the process. Consequently, the conclusion was not realistic and the viewing public were left with more questions than answers or just felt that was far fetched.
I understand that the show had to produce a story line such as this for their anniversary as soaps need this sort of publicity in order to remain a credible source of entertainment Particularly nowadays, when you are in the era of reality TV and live talent shows like X Factor which can pull in many viewers. Therefore, when anniversaries come round such as this, this is an opportunity for soaps such as Eastenders to pull in many viewers and get the kind of exposure and indeed the figures the show once enjoyed prior to that of digital TV and as previously mentioned the reality TV era. However, this storyline intwined with the anniversary put constraints on the finale it deserved.
Lucy was killed just after writing Ian the letter where she told him to wake her up when he got home. But, in the flashback episode, we saw that he was already home & in bed.
So is that right that she was killed & her body moved all while he was asleep?
Yup. Ian, Denise and Cindy were all asleep upstairs. Bobby came downstairs had an argument with Lucy and accidentally bludgeoned her with the jewellery box. He rang Jane from his mobile who came in via open door to find dead Lucy. Jane pronounced her dead. She took Bobby back to bed. Bobby was sleeping in same room as Cindy but she didn't wake up. Jane then went downstairs and hoisted a dead Lucy onto her shoulder and took her out to her car boot. This whilst the party revellers are out and about in the Square. Jane must have re entered house to clean up. Bobby is left sleeping and when he got up next morning said nothing about Lucy. Jane came back next morning to pick up Bobby to take him to Mas.
Unless I'm wrong and he was living with Ian?
I think reading that it all makes perfect sense yes
I don't think anyone (viewers) cared where Bobby was living at the time so unimportant was he to EE. *I'm sure someone will know where he was supposed to be!
The perfect crime.
Also, the outcome actually makes more sense than had it been pretty much anyone else. No one else in the family was ultimately capable of killing someone they loved and then covering it up - guilt would have consumed them. Bobby however was reasonably oblivious to the truth and Jane's guilt was so deep she had to leave Albert Square!
If you say so. I'll keep being disappointed at the contrived unbelievable nature of it all. Bobby is only reasonably oblivious now. LOL Does the deep guilt felt by Jane have anything to do with the script making her sociopathic in her response. Hey it's character development of a sort!
Lucy wasn't Archie, she had a lot of people with some arguments against her but no one with a REAL motive to kill without making them a complete psychopath
Still not sure how she could've carried Lucy and if I was Cindy, I'd be a little concerned Bobby might belt me one and kill me and Jane would dump me, but apart from that, I have no real issues with how it went!!!:D
Well said. I think the storyline with Jane covering might have been more believable if we had seen her defending Bobby previously the way that Sharon defends denny. With denny we saw how naughty he was but Sharon could see no wrong in him - if that had been Jane and Bobby then maybe the big reveal would have made more sense. I still wouldn't have agreed with it though, and still don't get why people are justifying Jane's actions with the words 'mothers love'. What she did was horrific and wrong and I won't be convinced otherwise.
And she wasn't much of a mother when his Dad was unwell. This is to be overlooked within in the "it will sense" spiel i guess. Frankly it makes no sense.
Yep, just as I thought
And f you consider a "mother's love" she was almost a mother to Lucy too. So on the one hand we are to believe she will do anything for her "son" what about her mother's love for Lucy? This gets shelved in the wardrobe of plausibility.
Yes, he might have said he wanted to go back there, but Jane, being his mother, wanting to protect him so much, should have stood her ground and not been manipulated by a 10 year old.
It would have been better for Bobby and Jane to stay well away. If they had any sense.
But then, none of this makes any sense to me.
Yeah. Good point and now as soon as the whole family have found out she wants to go away again.
is that it? the end of the story?
after 10 months of "who killed Lucy" we find out its Bobby and what............
No it's obviously not the end because Bobby doesn't know he's killed her so the family will still be discussing it over the coming months. DTC said there'd be lots of aftermath