Jamie Foreman leaving Eastenders

24567

Comments

  • monalisa62003monalisa62003 Posts: 56,845
    Forum Member
    cliffy91 wrote: »
    Instead of a good storyline like that could have been we get him constantly displeasing Alice and then winning her round again :yawn:

    Also a waste of a very good actor

    yep its all cos of the complaints he got they brought in his children to soften him but he's now crap. they bigged that feud up and it was barely nothing.
  • monalisa62003monalisa62003 Posts: 56,845
    Forum Member
    TLC1098 wrote: »
    I think it was because Phil's characters just past it now.

    seems more about derek cos they brought in his children shortly after it was dropped
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 122
    Forum Member
    You do realise he's just an actor in a soap don't you?

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN?! Eastenders is live, the people are real! :D
    Yes, of course I realise, It was a joke. Sarcasm is hard to get across through text, I think...
  • funcat650funcat650 Posts: 1,108
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    At last:).
  • Sez_babeSez_babe Posts: 133,998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I just really hope we find out what happened between Michael and Derek when Michael was younger
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Phil/Derek feud being consigned to the wayside is more down to inconsistent writing, than anything else.

    Take two examples, of the writer's inconsistency, and you'll see.

    Masood, for instance was supposed to be a TA at Walford Primary (or whatever it is called). Suddenly, this was forgotten. Michael, was supposed to be broke and thus due to Janine's wealth have a motive to con Jean - despite the fact he had income coming in from the Gym. Kat and MM had an ONS, but as recently as this summer it has been made out to be a special bond, a love affair - which is utter rubbish.
  • scorpionatthepcscorpionatthepc Posts: 5,371
    Forum Member
    He always looks like he's chewing a wasp to me.
  • monalisa62003monalisa62003 Posts: 56,845
    Forum Member
    The Phil/Derek feud being consigned to the wayside is more down to inconsistent writing, than anything else.

    Take two examples, of the writer's inconsistency, and you'll see.

    Masood, for instance was supposed to be a TA at Walford Primary (or whatever it is called). Suddenly, this was forgotten. Michael, was supposed to be broke and thus due to Janine's wealth have a motive to con Jean - despite the fact he had income coming in from the Gym. Kat and MM had an ONS, but as recently as this summer it has been made out to be a special bond, a love affair - which is utter rubbish.

    those are a bit different to two characters being bigged up when one arrived and then had no screentime together whatesover. it was meant to be a huge storyline but it was dropped shortly after the shirley stuff.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    those are a bit different to two characters being bigged up when one arrived and then had no screentime together whatesover. it was meant to be a huge storyline but it was dropped shortly after the shirley stuff.
    You're missing the point. I'm trying to say the writers have form regarding inconsistiency and not following through storylines, which is the case of the Phil/Derek situation.
  • fawltytowers93fawltytowers93 Posts: 1,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    those are a bit different to two characters being bigged up when one arrived and then had no screentime together whatesover. it was meant to be a huge storyline but it was dropped shortly after the shirley stuff.

    Its because of BK's departure. If he'd stayed on, the feud would've been developed, LN obviously didn't like the storyline and dropped it
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    *does the dance of happiness*
  • dulliredullire Posts: 20,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This is just what the show needs!

    This all but verifies that he is the shagger.

    Possible suspects:

    Joey: Derek will hit the roof when he finds out about him and Lauren.

    Lauren: Doesn't like her uncle, won't be happy if he keeps her & Joey apart.

    Max: Derek might reveal his secret.

    Tanya: hates him, will blame him for getting Max in trouble.

    Alfie: When he finds out he's shagging Kat

    Kat: He has violent streak and she could kill him in self defence

    Lucy: He threatened her earlier this year.

    Ian: Stole money from his businesses.

    Alice: He promised he'd change, sick of him controlling her life.

    Michael: their history could be revisited

    Phil: he could find out his secret

    Sharon: he tells Denny about Dennis

    Jack: they fallout regularly

    Lithuanian Mafia??

    If it's a current character, my money is on Joey/Alice.
  • Digital SidDigital Sid Posts: 39,870
    Forum Member
    JodieG11 wrote: »
    WHAT DO YOU MEAN?! Eastenders is live, the people are real! :D
    Yes, of course I realise, It was a joke. Sarcasm is hard to get across through text, I think...

    Sarcasm doesn't work in text full stop (and when done properly doesn't include the words "I'm not even joking").
  • priscillapriscilla Posts: 34,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    YES YES YES !!!!!!!! So happy about this, Derek was an awful character not just because of his bullying but because it was just so unbelievable.
  • monalisa62003monalisa62003 Posts: 56,845
    Forum Member
    You're missing the point. I'm trying to say the writers have form regarding inconsistiency and not following through storylines, which is the case of the Phil/Derek situation.

    thats what i mean but its different to michael/kat having a ONS originally and changing it to an affair. its completely plausible that they ended up having an affair. that wasn't dropped as they still had screentime together.

    people didnt like derek as a baddie. they brought in his children to soften him up
  • Sez_babeSez_babe Posts: 133,998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Michael needs to stear clear of any involvement in any murder!!

    :D

    Plus Michael doesn't do violence (forgetting the Fatboy thing...)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Its because of BK's departure. If he'd stayed on, the feud would've been developed, LN obviously didn't like the storyline and dropped it
    I don't think it is.

    Bryan Kirkwood storylines, regardless of Lorraine Newman's appointment would still be running, even up until now. We won't really see her work until early 2013, since storylines can be planned 18-12 months in advance.
  • aspijackaspijack Posts: 1,202
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jamies a great actor but I dont like Derreck he will be on other things soon
  • monalisa62003monalisa62003 Posts: 56,845
    Forum Member
    I don't think it is.

    Bryan Kirkwood storylines, regardless of Lorraine Newman's appointment would still be running, even up until now. We won't really see her work until early 2013, since storylines can be planned 18-12 months in advance.
    i agree with the other poster. yes all of this work is still kath's work but it doesn't mean LN didn't want it changed.
  • KieranDSKieranDS Posts: 16,545
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Its because of BK's departure. If he'd stayed on, the feud would've been developed, LN obviously didn't like the storyline and dropped it

    Kathleen Beedles said some of the storylines she and Kirkwood planned are still going on (i.e Lexi being taken away). It's hard now to decipher who's storyline is who's.
  • monalisa62003monalisa62003 Posts: 56,845
    Forum Member
    KieranDS wrote: »
    Kathleen Beedles said some of the storylines she and Kirkwood planned are still going on (i.e Lexi being taken away). It's hard now to decipher who's storyline is who's.

    yeah we dont know which storylines belong to which producer. im pretty sure LN would've changed some storylines after BK left but of course kath was still story producer so its still her work.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 122
    Forum Member
    Sarcasm doesn't work in text full stop (and doesn't include the words "I'm serious")

    Okay, okay, jesus. I'm not a big fan of the character, so I thought I'd make a jokey comment, don't really see the problem with that. As if I would get the champagne out for a soap character's death, anyway, I thought it was clear I didn't actually mean it...
  • KieranDSKieranDS Posts: 16,545
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    yeah we dont know which storylines belong to which producer. im pretty sure LN would've changed some storylines after BK left but of course kath was still story producer so its still her work.

    I don't think they would be allowed to change things tbh. That costs money and spending is something BBC (and EastEnders) are cutting down on. But obviously things could have been changed slightly.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thats what i mean but its different to michael/kat having a ONS originally and changing it to an affair. its completely plausible that they ended up having an affair. that wasn't dropped as they still had screentime together.

    people didnt like derek as a baddie. they brought in his children to soften him up

    Not really. A ONS can't = sudden love affair. The ONS aspect was dropped from the entire thing, but anyway there were other examples I listed if you didn't agree with the Kat/MM one.

    Derek's children being brought in would have likely been a long running decision, not based on audience reception. EastEnders writing team would have to have sat down, drawn up the character arcs of both Joey and Alice, and cast the actors to play them, which would take several months. Then, that actor/actress would need to come in a flim scenes which are flimed up to eight weeks in advance (so two months). Jasmine Banks would have started fliming for Alice, possibly as early March, and would have had to have gone through the audition and casting process months/weeks before that. The real negative commentry I noticed began around January on Derek, and by then it's likely the casting plans for Joey and Alice would have already been in a pipeline.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i agree with the other poster. yes all of this work is still kath's work but it doesn't mean LN didn't want it changed.
    KieranDS wrote: »
    Kathleen Beedles said some of the storylines she and Kirkwood planned are still going on (i.e Lexi being taken away). It's hard now to decipher who's storyline is who's.

    This.
Sign In or Register to comment.