First of all, let me explain that I haven't watched Eastenders for about five years.
I stopped watching Emmerdale after Stuart Blackburn took over.
I tuned in last night because the hype was there and I was left very underwhelmed by it all. It was unrealistic and the acting was painfully OTT. I can only assume some of you were that desperate to see Emmerdale rise from the ashes again that you'd take this nonsense over a genuinely believable and well acted and thought out storyline.
First of all, let me explain that I haven't watched Eastenders for about five years.
I stopped watching Emmerdale after Stuart Blackburn took over.
I tuned in last night because the hype was there and I was left very underwhelmed by it all. It was unrealistic and the acting was painfully OTT. I can only assume some of you were that desperate to see Emmerdale rise from the ashes again that you'd take this nonsense over a genuinely believable and well acted and thought out storyline.
Thing is, if you haven't watched ED for such a long time, then you can't possibly have any investment in any of the characters, nor any knowledge of how the different story threads have been building up for many months. In that case it's hardly surprising that you're not going to either believe or understand what it was all about.
Thing is, if you haven't watched ED for such a long time, then you can't possibly have any investment in any of the characters, nor any knowledge of how the different story threads have been building up for many months. In that case it's hardly surprising that you're not going to either believe or understand what it was all about.
Yes, it is very complex is Emmerdale isn't it? It needs a greater understanding. :rolleyes:
Yes, it is very complex is Emmerdale isn't it? It needs a greater understanding. :rolleyes:
Pull the other one.
but you haven't followed the storyline. Do you like or care about any of the characters? YIou wouldn't even know who Gennie or Alex were. It would be like me tuning into Downton Abbey, which I presume from your user name you're a fan of, and straight away grasping who everybody was. TBH I'm no big fan of Downton but I dip in from time to time. I find that a lot of its episodes last series were car crash in terms of writing and some of the acting was over rated. It seems to have improved this series. I wouldn't have been able to tell that from, for example watching the Christmas episode.
I've watched a few episodes since and it has vastly improved. Are you really dismissing Emmerdale on the basis of two episodes which you didn't like, when you as a soap viewer (which Downton is to all intents and purposes) know that you really do have to invest time in watching soaps and getting to know and like/dislike the characters?
Actually, the Cameron story was fairly complex, and those of us who view regularly had watched this person turn, over the course of a few years, from an apparently 'nice guy' with a slight edge, into a desperado. We had also seen the fallout from his actions along the way, and how it had affected the other characters. If you haven't been following the soap, you wouldn't know any of this or care.
There's no need to be so dismissive towards those who did enjoy it.:)
As for rising from the ashes - it was never that bad in the first place, and has been great for the past six months.
but you haven't followed the storyline. Do you like or care about any of the characters? YIou wouldn't even know who Gennie or Alex were. It would be like me tuning into Downton Abbey, which I presume from your user name you're a fan of, and straight away grasping who everybody was. TBH I'm no big fan of Downton but I dip in from time to time. I find that a lot of its episodes last series were car crash in terms of writing and some of the acting was over rated. It seems to have improved this series. I wouldn't have been able to tell that from, for example watching the Christmas episode.
I've watched a few episodes since and it has vastly improved. Are you really dismissing Emmerdale on the basis of two episodes which you didn't like, when you as a soap viewer (which Downton is to all intents and purposes) know that you really do have to invest time in watching soaps and getting to know and like/dislike the characters?
Actually, the Cameron story was fairly complex, and those of us who view regularly had watched this person turn, over the course of a few years, from an apparently 'nice guy' with a slight edge, into a desperado. We had also seen the fallout from his actions along the way, and how it had affected the other characters. If you haven't been following the soap, you wouldn't know any of this or care.
There's no need to be so dismissive towards those who did enjoy it.:)
As for rising from the ashes - it was never that bad in the first place, and has been great for the past six months.
but you haven't followed the storyline. Do you like or care about any of the characters? YIou wouldn't even know who Gennie or Alex were. It would be like me tuning into Downton Abbey, which I presume from your user name you're a fan of, and straight away grasping who everybody was. TBH I'm no big fan of Downton but I dip in from time to time. I find that a lot of its episodes last series were car crash in terms of writing and some of the acting was over rated. It seems to have improved this series. I wouldn't have been able to tell that from, for example watching the Christmas episode.
I've watched a few episodes since and it has vastly improved. Are you really dismissing Emmerdale on the basis of two episodes which you didn't like, when you as a soap viewer (which Downton is to all intents and purposes) know that you really do have to invest time in watching soaps and getting to know and like/dislike the characters?
Actually, the Cameron story was fairly complex, and those of us who view regularly had watched this person turn, over the course of a few years, from an apparently 'nice guy' with a slight edge, into a desperado. We had also seen the fallout from his actions along the way, and how it had affected the other characters. If you haven't been following the soap, you wouldn't know any of this or care.
There's no need to be so dismissive towards those who did enjoy it.:)
As for rising from the ashes - it was never that bad in the first place, and has been great for the past six months.
Nicely put. It was very well done and look forward to what this new producer has lined up for christmas
Me too. I was confused by many things in tonight's episodes tbh. Like Why did Debbie and Chas rush to the cellar and jump in the lake and not to the door or windows What did Marlon do to Cameron when he suddenly appeared in the cellar lake and why did he jump in there again Did the gun actually have any bullets in it when it was just Cameron and Debbie and Chas as I thought Cameron said it didn't
Also why was there so much water in the cellar anyway after the water broke into the street
I didn't really get where they all thought they were swimming to either and how come Marlon suddenly got out and ran to the windows As that was eminently sensible, why hadn't it been done already
I love Cameron though and his one liners tonight particularly were great :cool: Wish he hadn't died
Agree wit all of the above except the last sentence
I was quite bored with all the nonsense in the cellar and fast forward through most of it
but yet you still continued to watch it, not one, but two nights?
So you're saying that because I watched it I don't have the right not to like it?If I came on here saying "I turned it off because I thought it was rubbish", I'd no doubt have people saying "Ahh, then you missed all the good stuff, so your opinion doesn't count."There'll always be someone coming up with a snide reason to discount an opinion they don't like.
As storytelling goes, it's a disaster.For a start, Cameron came in two and a half years ago as a creepy guy who was stalking Debbie so is anyone really surprised that that's what he was? All he did was gain a gun and a load of water.
If you define a story as characters going on a journey and being changed by it, that episode failed.Nothing changes except Cameron's dead.He doesn't die because anything changes, it's so arbitrary they might as well have had a spaceship flown by Elvis land on him.Cameron never lets go of his delusions.Debbie and Chas never move from their "We hate each other but we hate Cameron more" stance.
Why were Jimmy and Brenda, who should have been at the heart of the story, shunted aside in favour of another episode of The Chas and Debbie Show?Why not have Jimmy in Marlon's role instead of picking a random character out of a hat?
They'd already come up with a satisfying ending, by having Cameron's delusion that Debbie will stand by him blind him to the fact that she's disgusted by what he's done and turning him in.(They messed that up with a pointless ten minutes of him barricading them in but it was better than this.)But they couldn't let it go and we get another ending tacked on, with a totally nonsensical reason for Cameron getting out of jail.Did he have the mafia on speed dial or something?
Same with the fake ending of Marlon clubbing Cameron. Another nice bit of irony:Cameron loses because he's so busy playing power games with the people he considers important he's forgotten Marlon's there.But that's not the ending, it's just something that happened, and we're soon playing about in a water tank.
That electrocution wasn't poetic, ironic or clever, it was just a desperate move to end an episode that had been marking time in an attempt to turn ten minutes' worth of plot("Cameron shoots Alicia and then dies")into two hours.
Why not have Jimmy in Marlon's role instead of picking a random character out of a hat?
I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to challenge the negative views on show here (EDIT: even though to an extent I probably have done below! :rolleyes:), but if you'd watched tonight's episode you'd have seen that there was nothing random about choosing Marlon to be the hero.
I also think it's a bit harsh to suggest that Cameron was introduced as a stalker. His journey comprised jealousy that Debbie went with Andy to conceive Jack, lust for her aunty, staving a man's head in (who he already didn't like) to stop Debbie finding out, feelings of guilt leading to a confession, protecting himself by committing another murder, then gradually driving over the edge as he tried to cover his tracks leading up to him killing Gennie but telling her he was sorry for doing it, to - upon being found out - a final psychotic breakdown whereupon shooting Alicia 'didn't matter'
I'm sure if anyone had told him when he turned up in the village that in two and a half years time he'd be facing a triple murder charge he'd have found the idea preposterous in the extreme. That's a journey.
Well here is a list of fantastic actors in Emmerdale(imo);
Leslie Dunlop
Charley Webb
Emma Atkins
Lucy Pargeter
Matthew Wolfenden
Shirley Stelfox
Laura Norton
Charlotte Bellamy (try and tell me that her acting in the Cot Death storyline was not good)
Jane Cox
Zoe Henry (Compare her addiction storyline to Sharon's in Eastenders)
James Hooton
Steve Halliwell
John Middleton
Chelsea Halfpenny
Now most of them have been with the show a good few years and have had great plots. There is no way in hell that Eastenders have as many good actors in their show.
Compared to
Steve john shephard
Jake wood
Adam woodyatt
Sam womack
Linda henry
Lindsay colousn
Ann mitchell (when the material is right)
Charlie brooks
Kirsty actress
Jessie wallace
Jacq jossa
Its had plenty of more brilliant actors in the past.
Even so i dont think it was fair for that original poster who said we dont have taste was insulting
I only did it cos the original poster insullted ee fans.
Sorry, I just had this thought of "oh god, not another 'look at my list of actors' round of posts again" which I've come across on these boards before, but I suppose it was quite reasonable of you to accept the challenge that "There is no way in hell that Eastenders have as many good actors in their show" (a stupid thing to say itself (though not actually disproven as you're list was shorter than dubgaz's!)). My complaint was not directed at you personally, but when you see posts like FrankieS's at 00:05 it becomes clear that such attempts at listing good actors are futile (though I wouldn't personally describe Matthew Wolfenden as "fantastic" either).
I also think it's a bit harsh to suggest that Cameron was introduced as a stalker. His journey comprised jealousy that Debbie went with Andy to conceive Jack, lust for her aunty, staving a man's head in (who he already didn't like) to stop Debbie finding out, feelings of guilt leading to a confession, protecting himself by committing another murder, then gradually driving over the edge as he tried to cover his tracks leading up to him killing Gennie but telling her he was sorry for doing it, to - upon being found out - a final psychotic breakdown whereupon shooting Alicia 'didn't matter'
I'm sure if anyone had told him when he turned up in the village that in two and a half years time he'd be facing a triple murder charge he'd have found the idea preposterous in the extreme. That's a journey.
I don't think it's harsh at all.He was this creepy bloke that Debbie had had a fling with who followed her back to the village, kept hanging around her insisting they belonged together no matter how many times she told him she wasn't interested, got a job just down the road from her house as a way of inveigling his way into her life...And incredibly, it worked and she took him back into her bed, just like she did when she found out he'd killed Carl.Is it really any surprise that he was exactly what he seemed to be when he first appeared, a sociopath who only cared about getting his own way?He might have been surprised to hear he'd end up killing three people but that's because he was delusional.No-one else should be.
I don't think it's harsh at all.He was this creepy bloke that Debbie had had a fling with who followed her back to the village, kept hanging around her insisting they belonged together no matter how many times she told him she wasn't interested, got a job just down the road from her house as a way of inveigling his way into her life...And incredibly, it worked and she took him back into her bed, just like she did when she found out he'd killed Carl.Is it really any surprise that he was exactly what he seemed to be when he first appeared, a sociopath who only cared about getting his own way?He might have been surprised to hear he'd end up killing three people but that's because he was delusional.No-one else should be.
Yeah, all that is true in theory.
Yes, he followed her back from Jersey, leaving his wife and kids on the off-chance that a woman he'd had a brief affair with would want to spend her life with him. I suppose you could call that impulsive behaviour in the extreme.
But his behaviour in his day-to-day life wasn't psychopathic or narcissistic.
He formed normal relationships with other villagers, had normal conversations and social interactions with other people.
He was never- until the point where he killed Carl- the kind of person who could become the delusional,psychotic sociopath who we saw in this week's episodes.
He reminded me of another poorly written soap killer,actually; Richard Hillman. Pantomime villains, the pair of them.
Karl Monroe, on the other hand, really was a narcissist right from when he first arrived on the street.
When he 'talked' to other people you could see he wasn't listening or caring about them or what they had to say ( typical narcissistic behaviour) He stuck out like a sore thumb in family scenes with Stella, Eva and Gloria..like he was a square peg in a round hole. Always ill at ease around people.
You never got that with Cameron.
Perhaps it was better characterisation, or maybe because John Richie is a better actor.
I don't know, but I was never convinced by Cameron's character.
Yeah, all that is true in theory.
Yes, he followed her back from Jersey, leaving his wife and kids on the off-chance that a woman he'd had a brief affair with would want to spend her life with him. I suppose you could call that impulsive behaviour in the extreme.
But his behaviour in his day-to-day life wasn't psychopathic or narcissistic.
He formed normal relationships with other villagers, had normal conversations and social interactions with other people.
He was never- until the point where he killed Carl- the kind of person who could become the delusional,psychotic sociopath who we saw in this week's episodes.
He reminded me of another poorly written soap killer,actually; Richard Hillman. Pantomime villains, the pair of them.
Karl Monroe, on the other hand, really was a narcissist right from when he first arrived on the street.
When he 'talked' to other people you could see he wasn't listening or caring about them or what they had to say ( typical narcissistic behaviour) He stuck out like a sore thumb in family scenes with Stella, Eva and Gloria..like he was a square peg in a round hole. Always ill at ease around people.
You never got that with Cameron.
Perhaps it was better characterisation, or maybe because John Richie is a better actor.
I don't know, but I was never convinced by Cameron's character.
you see, from what I saw, i never got any of that with Karl. I always thought there was something strange, untrustworthy and 'too good to be true' about Cameron, but from what I saw of Karl he just came across as a 'Jack the Lad' - partly because Cain was there reminding us all of the time, which made me question what he was seeing that everyone else didn't. I don't think with either of them the original intention was to turn them into a serial killer. In Karl's case that only happened when Stuart Blackburn joined Corrie. He clearly thought it was a good story and decided to do something similar with Corrie.
I do agree that John Michie is a better actor - but from what I've seen of him in other programmes, not Corrie. I didn't follow the murder story but before that he gave the impression of 'phoning it in' and being really a supporting character. It could be, as you say, that was deliberate, but even if it was it doesn't follow that he would turn into a serial killer. Plenty of people have psychopathic characteristics, it doesn't make them murderers. The point with Cameron is that we saw him gradually become more and more hardened to killing - after the first one (which was done under desperate circumstances) he was very remorseful but by the time he got to the siege he had completely lost his mind. So his own actions (including having to dig up and move a decomposing corpse) drove him mad.
Why didn't the police just ram the flipping place .They just stood around in the rain doing nothing - and what was the point of a helicopter hovering overhead ?
bit of a damp squib :D
seriously , enjoyed it but thought the police were like the Keystone cops.
Thought maybe it was Cain flying over in the helicopter all 007 James Bond like. :D
A bit like Saturday morning pictures when we were children. I hope no real police were watching !!
I suspect there might have been - there's quite a few serving police officers in the country!;) I wouldn't worry, I think they're used to seeing the police being completely misrepresented on t.v for the sake of dramatic license. They'd pretty much have to avoid every single t.v programme on the box if it bothered them that much. Even the thrillers! I suspect they like to watch t.v for a bit of escapism as much as the rest of us do. I hope no real vets are watching when Paddy's terrified or horses, or Rhona's stealing from the drug cabinet. I hope no real customer service staff are watching when Val's rude or overbearing to guests or David shuts the shop to count a delivery. They don't get any professions right.
-and what was the point of a helicopter hovering overhead ?
I thought the helicopter was for Cameron as he had asked for one in his 'demands' in order to get away but neither the police when talking to Cameron mentioned that the helicopter was there nor Cameron made any mention of it again. Surely he would have heard it hovering above the pub during the quieter moments. So as you say there was no point to it.
Apart from that little niggle I absolutely loved this weeks episodes, yes it got a little car fetched in parts and the bits where Cameron kept taking it in turns pointing the gun at either Chas or Debbie could have been reduced but I was on the edge of my seat for most of the episodes.
In regards to the girls going through the flooded cellar, a quick scene of them attempting to open some other doors, even though they were locked, would have put paid to people wondering why they headed straight for the cellar.
Comments
First of all, let me explain that I haven't watched Eastenders for about five years.
I stopped watching Emmerdale after Stuart Blackburn took over.
I tuned in last night because the hype was there and I was left very underwhelmed by it all. It was unrealistic and the acting was painfully OTT. I can only assume some of you were that desperate to see Emmerdale rise from the ashes again that you'd take this nonsense over a genuinely believable and well acted and thought out storyline.
Thing is, if you haven't watched ED for such a long time, then you can't possibly have any investment in any of the characters, nor any knowledge of how the different story threads have been building up for many months. In that case it's hardly surprising that you're not going to either believe or understand what it was all about.
Debbie was trying to keep Chas alive by breathing oxygen into her lungs. Like kind of giving her the kiss of life.:)
My thoughts precisely:)
Yes, it is very complex is Emmerdale isn't it? It needs a greater understanding. :rolleyes:
Pull the other one.
but you haven't followed the storyline. Do you like or care about any of the characters? YIou wouldn't even know who Gennie or Alex were. It would be like me tuning into Downton Abbey, which I presume from your user name you're a fan of, and straight away grasping who everybody was. TBH I'm no big fan of Downton but I dip in from time to time. I find that a lot of its episodes last series were car crash in terms of writing and some of the acting was over rated. It seems to have improved this series. I wouldn't have been able to tell that from, for example watching the Christmas episode.
I've watched a few episodes since and it has vastly improved. Are you really dismissing Emmerdale on the basis of two episodes which you didn't like, when you as a soap viewer (which Downton is to all intents and purposes) know that you really do have to invest time in watching soaps and getting to know and like/dislike the characters?
Actually, the Cameron story was fairly complex, and those of us who view regularly had watched this person turn, over the course of a few years, from an apparently 'nice guy' with a slight edge, into a desperado. We had also seen the fallout from his actions along the way, and how it had affected the other characters. If you haven't been following the soap, you wouldn't know any of this or care.
There's no need to be so dismissive towards those who did enjoy it.:)
As for rising from the ashes - it was never that bad in the first place, and has been great for the past six months.
well said! here here
Nicely put. It was very well done and look forward to what this new producer has lined up for christmas
Agree wit all of the above except the last sentence
I was quite bored with all the nonsense in the cellar and fast forward through most of it
Yes, very well said, Glenda.
As storytelling goes, it's a disaster.For a start, Cameron came in two and a half years ago as a creepy guy who was stalking Debbie so is anyone really surprised that that's what he was? All he did was gain a gun and a load of water.
If you define a story as characters going on a journey and being changed by it, that episode failed.Nothing changes except Cameron's dead.He doesn't die because anything changes, it's so arbitrary they might as well have had a spaceship flown by Elvis land on him.Cameron never lets go of his delusions.Debbie and Chas never move from their "We hate each other but we hate Cameron more" stance.
Why were Jimmy and Brenda, who should have been at the heart of the story, shunted aside in favour of another episode of The Chas and Debbie Show?Why not have Jimmy in Marlon's role instead of picking a random character out of a hat?
They'd already come up with a satisfying ending, by having Cameron's delusion that Debbie will stand by him blind him to the fact that she's disgusted by what he's done and turning him in.(They messed that up with a pointless ten minutes of him barricading them in but it was better than this.)But they couldn't let it go and we get another ending tacked on, with a totally nonsensical reason for Cameron getting out of jail.Did he have the mafia on speed dial or something?
Same with the fake ending of Marlon clubbing Cameron. Another nice bit of irony:Cameron loses because he's so busy playing power games with the people he considers important he's forgotten Marlon's there.But that's not the ending, it's just something that happened, and we're soon playing about in a water tank.
That electrocution wasn't poetic, ironic or clever, it was just a desperate move to end an episode that had been marking time in an attempt to turn ten minutes' worth of plot("Cameron shoots Alicia and then dies")into two hours.
I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to challenge the negative views on show here (EDIT: even though to an extent I probably have done below! :rolleyes:), but if you'd watched tonight's episode you'd have seen that there was nothing random about choosing Marlon to be the hero.
I also think it's a bit harsh to suggest that Cameron was introduced as a stalker. His journey comprised jealousy that Debbie went with Andy to conceive Jack, lust for her aunty, staving a man's head in (who he already didn't like) to stop Debbie finding out, feelings of guilt leading to a confession, protecting himself by committing another murder, then gradually driving over the edge as he tried to cover his tracks leading up to him killing Gennie but telling her he was sorry for doing it, to - upon being found out - a final psychotic breakdown whereupon shooting Alicia 'didn't matter'
I'm sure if anyone had told him when he turned up in the village that in two and a half years time he'd be facing a triple murder charge he'd have found the idea preposterous in the extreme. That's a journey.
Compared to
Steve john shephard
Jake wood
Adam woodyatt
Sam womack
Linda henry
Lindsay colousn
Ann mitchell (when the material is right)
Charlie brooks
Kirsty actress
Jessie wallace
Jacq jossa
Its had plenty of more brilliant actors in the past.
Even so i dont think it was fair for that original poster who said we dont have taste was insulting
ALL soaps have a selection of great actors, good actors and mediocre actors. Always have, always will.
The ridiculous point scoring of "we've got Steve McFadden", "yeah but we've got Jeff Hordley" gets a bit tedious.
I only did it cos the original poster insullted ee fans.
Sorry, I just had this thought of "oh god, not another 'look at my list of actors' round of posts again" which I've come across on these boards before, but I suppose it was quite reasonable of you to accept the challenge that "There is no way in hell that Eastenders have as many good actors in their show" (a stupid thing to say itself (though not actually disproven as you're list was shorter than dubgaz's!)). My complaint was not directed at you personally, but when you see posts like FrankieS's at 00:05 it becomes clear that such attempts at listing good actors are futile (though I wouldn't personally describe Matthew Wolfenden as "fantastic" either).
Yeah, all that is true in theory.
Yes, he followed her back from Jersey, leaving his wife and kids on the off-chance that a woman he'd had a brief affair with would want to spend her life with him. I suppose you could call that impulsive behaviour in the extreme.
But his behaviour in his day-to-day life wasn't psychopathic or narcissistic.
He formed normal relationships with other villagers, had normal conversations and social interactions with other people.
He was never- until the point where he killed Carl- the kind of person who could become the delusional,psychotic sociopath who we saw in this week's episodes.
He reminded me of another poorly written soap killer,actually; Richard Hillman. Pantomime villains, the pair of them.
Karl Monroe, on the other hand, really was a narcissist right from when he first arrived on the street.
When he 'talked' to other people you could see he wasn't listening or caring about them or what they had to say ( typical narcissistic behaviour) He stuck out like a sore thumb in family scenes with Stella, Eva and Gloria..like he was a square peg in a round hole. Always ill at ease around people.
You never got that with Cameron.
Perhaps it was better characterisation, or maybe because John Richie is a better actor.
I don't know, but I was never convinced by Cameron's character.
you see, from what I saw, i never got any of that with Karl. I always thought there was something strange, untrustworthy and 'too good to be true' about Cameron, but from what I saw of Karl he just came across as a 'Jack the Lad' - partly because Cain was there reminding us all of the time, which made me question what he was seeing that everyone else didn't. I don't think with either of them the original intention was to turn them into a serial killer. In Karl's case that only happened when Stuart Blackburn joined Corrie. He clearly thought it was a good story and decided to do something similar with Corrie.
I do agree that John Michie is a better actor - but from what I've seen of him in other programmes, not Corrie. I didn't follow the murder story but before that he gave the impression of 'phoning it in' and being really a supporting character. It could be, as you say, that was deliberate, but even if it was it doesn't follow that he would turn into a serial killer. Plenty of people have psychopathic characteristics, it doesn't make them murderers. The point with Cameron is that we saw him gradually become more and more hardened to killing - after the first one (which was done under desperate circumstances) he was very remorseful but by the time he got to the siege he had completely lost his mind. So his own actions (including having to dig up and move a decomposing corpse) drove him mad.
Thought maybe it was Cain flying over in the helicopter all 007 James Bond like.
A great week for Emmerdale though.
or as in the I.T.Crowd, a damp squid.:D
I suspect there might have been - there's quite a few serving police officers in the country!;) I wouldn't worry, I think they're used to seeing the police being completely misrepresented on t.v for the sake of dramatic license. They'd pretty much have to avoid every single t.v programme on the box if it bothered them that much. Even the thrillers!
I thought the helicopter was for Cameron as he had asked for one in his 'demands' in order to get away but neither the police when talking to Cameron mentioned that the helicopter was there nor Cameron made any mention of it again. Surely he would have heard it hovering above the pub during the quieter moments. So as you say there was no point to it.
Apart from that little niggle I absolutely loved this weeks episodes, yes it got a little car fetched in parts and the bits where Cameron kept taking it in turns pointing the gun at either Chas or Debbie could have been reduced but I was on the edge of my seat for most of the episodes.
In regards to the girls going through the flooded cellar, a quick scene of them attempting to open some other doors, even though they were locked, would have put paid to people wondering why they headed straight for the cellar.