Why I've stopped watching Eastenders (Merged)

1356727

Comments

  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JarkdeLuxe wrote: »
    Still banging that old drum I see...



    Every single time I express my opinions about the unnecessary recasts you follow me around the forum, replying to each of my posts with a sentence like: "Still banging on that old drum I see".

    Why?

    You do realise that this is a forum, and we are free to express opinions don't you? And you do realise that we can express those opinions as many times as we like, don't you?

    If you are happy with Eastenders and the unnecessary recasts, why does me talking about them bother you?

    And do you really think I'm going to stop expressing myself, just because you follow me round the forum with your negative, unconstructive replies?
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Makson wrote: »
    I think the new Lauren works really well.
    New Lauren is fantastic...even if she does seem to have an un-healthy obsession with Checkered Shirts... :D

    Liking the "new" Lauren isn't the issue at all.

    The fact is Lauren shouldn't have been recast in the first place.

    We shouldn't even be having this discussion because Kirkwood never should have thought about recasting. It never should have entered his head. He should have concentrated on things that need to be concentrated on. Like, oh, I don't know...storylines!

    Well he didn't concetrate on storylines or characterisation at all. And look at the mess Eastenders instantly became when he was given the job. He was too busy changing things that didn't need to be changed. Such as recasting established characters who where already being played!

    He obviously just recast them as a result of his own ego-He wanted to change something from Santer's era, to put his own egotistical mark on the show.-

    I bet he never recasts a character who he himself brought in.

    Eastenders looks realistic. It always has done. It's realistic look is one of the things that draws us in. But you coudln't get anymore unrealistic than someone changing in to another person. And then see her parents act as if it's still their daughter. :rolleyes:

    If your going to be so unrealistic, you might as well abandon the whole gritty look of the series. You might as well have all the house's looking sparkly clean and tidy. Have all the characters stop looking so 'common'. Not film at night. Not show charaters smoking. Might as well have Phil wear a bright pink flowery shirt-because Eastenders just isn't set in reality anymore.
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭

    He was a soft kid trying to act hard.

    And that came across.

    Once again you've mistaken a cringe worthy character for cringe worthy acting.

    You've accidently proven my point. I'me embarrassed for you.:o

    :D
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He was a soft kid trying to act hard.

    And that came across.

    Once again you've mistaken a cringe worthy character for cringe worthy acting.

    You've accidently proven my point. I'me embarrassed for you.:o

    :D
    I'm embarrassed for you being unable to spell simple words such as accidentally and I'm.

    Here's little Charlie not trying to act hard and still being utterly cringe worthy.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsowj4pwDEE&feature=related
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Personally I like all the recasts. New Lauren is fantastic - way better than the old version.

    The new Ben lacks charm so far but he is definitely a better actor than the old one.

    As for Lucy, I didn't like her. The actress playing her was nothing special. They should bring her back as a glamourous young blonde ready to reek havoc and manipulate all the men. That's what I would like to see.

    There are far more valid things to complain about than recasts. Its not the actors who spoil the charactors - its the writers that do that. Lack of consistency is my biggest gripe about EE. Writers conveniently forget certain things and then have characters saying or doing something that seems totally out of place with who they are. That is the main problem. Perhaps Chucky is only noticing it amongs the recasts.
  • davey_waveydavey_wavey Posts: 27,406
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't see the issue with the recasts at all. In fact, I thought they were necessary. I couldn't imagine Madeline acting out the scenes that Lauren did last week.

    Madeline and Charlie Jones were OK as child actors, but they were hardly the stars of the show or the 'faces' of EastEnders, were they? So I don't get why it's such an issue for some. Lauren and Ben needed to become more mature and have more capable actors behind them to deal with the big stories for the future (e.g. Lauren becoming involved in finding Whitney last week).

    I've always really liked the new Lauren, but the new Ben is yet to grow on me...
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm embarrassed for you being unable to spell simple words such as accidentally and I'm.

    Here's little Charlie not trying to act hard and still being utterly cringe worthy.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsowj4pwDEE&feature=related

    You scanned my post for spelling mistakes?!

    :D My god, that's sad.
  • miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Every single time I express my opinions about the unnecessary recasts you follow me around the forum, replying to each of my posts with a sentence like: "Still banging on that old drum I see".

    Why?

    You do realise that this is a forum, and we are free to express opinions don't you? And you do realise that we can express those opinions as many times as we like, don't you?

    If you are happy with Eastenders and the unnecessary recasts, why does me talking about them bother you?

    And do you really think I'm going to stop expressing myself, just because you follow me round the forum with your negative, unconstructive replies?
    Well said. I will continue to do the same until the quality of Eastenders becomes consistently good.
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    miles19740 wrote: »
    Well said. I will continue to do the same until the quality of Eastenders becomes consistently good.

    Thank you miles.

    Fight the power! :D
  • miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thank you miles.

    Fight the power! :D

    As far as I am concerned, the 'live' represented a sudden nose dive in quality and standards...and that has continued ever since...(bar the odd episode!)

    I would love to know what Diederick Santer thinks of the show now. Diederick, what do you think of it? Come on, be honest!
  • tenchgirltenchgirl Posts: 11,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    miles19740 wrote: »
    As far as I am concerned, the 'live' represented a sudden nose dive in quality and standards...and that has continued ever since...(bar the odd episode!)

    agree with this - spot on.
  • coolercooler Posts: 13,024
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wasn't John Yorke responsible for sacking Melissa not BK?
  • Uncle FesterUncle Fester Posts: 15,357
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Every single time I express my opinions about the unnecessary recasts you follow me around the forum, replying to each of my posts with a sentence like: "Still banging on that old drum I see".

    Why?

    You do realise that this is a forum, and we are free to express opinions don't you? And you do realise that we can express those opinions as many times as we like, don't you?

    If you are happy with Eastenders and the unnecessary recasts, why does me talking about them bother you?

    And do you really think I'm going to stop expressing myself, just because you follow me round the forum with your negative, unconstructive replies?

    Good for you :cool:
  • HarloweHarlowe Posts: 20,005
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The recast of the characters are a necessity sometimes because as characters grow older and develop it does becomes pretty obvious that the actors/actresses playing them can't play to the full extent needed for certain characters.

    Ben was a much needed recast for me Charlie is a child actor and he took him as far as he could in the current capacity that was needed and it become painfully obvious as the character of Ben hit his teens the direction they wanted to take him wasn't something Charlie was capable of doing, however I still don't like the new actor for me he just doesn't jell maybe with time he will get better who knows.

    Lauren again I didn't see any problem with Maddie who played her but Jacqueline Jossa has really come into her own and I've warmed to her as Lauren and she doing a really good job so far so this is the only one good thing to come out of it.

    I think the two major problem for me with the recasts is the complete personality changes of the characters that happened by the writers when they first arrived I know its a different actor so it isn't gonna be the same but I think the 'traits' of the characters were completely changed again theses have settle down and are no longer a major issue but I still think its something they need to work on when they decided to recast characters.

    the second problem is the pace of the recasts that was another problem for viewers having them within months of each other doesn't help it confused people who are regular viewers to have a lot of change in one go and I'm guessing that is why they are not recasting Lucy at the moment.
  • _NiallDEE__NiallDEE_ Posts: 13,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I actually think the recast of Lauren is one of the best things BK has done, the new Lauren is a fantastic actress and suits the scenes that Lauren is in much better then the old one would of- Lots of people seem to agree that the new actress makes Lauren a better character. She also seemed really nice and funny in the Whitney revealed special episode
  • Sorcha_27Sorcha_27 Posts: 138,516
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Chucky you said above, that even if a recast actress or actor is better than the original, it doesnt matter as the recast shouldnt have happened- that is ridiculous IMO

    for the record, the new lauren is so much better than the old one and they made the perfect decision

    also you do know Barbara Windsor was the 2nd actress to play Peggy don't you?
  • miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Harlowe wrote: »
    ...The second problem is the pace of the recasts that was another problem for viewers having them within months of each other doesn't help it confused people who are regular viewers to have a lot of change in one go and I'm guessing that is why they are not recasting Lucy at the moment.

    I agree with this. Re-casts can work...for example, Summer in Neighbours...Sam in Eastenders...Nick in Corrie...but one crucial thing is needed...a long enough gap between one actor and the next. A couple of months is not long enough. A minimum of a year between one actor and the next is needed so that viewers can forget the original...and this is where they went wrong with both Lauren and Ben.
  • miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Chucky you said above, that even if a recast actress or actor is better than the original, it doesnt matter as the recast shouldnt have happened- that is ridiculous IMO

    for the record, the new lauren is so much better than the old one and they made the perfect decision

    also you do know Barbara Windsor was the 2nd actress to play Peggy don't you?

    For the record, there is a massive difference between re-casting a high profile character and a non-high profile character.
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good for you :cool:

    Thank you.
    Chucky you said above, that even if a recast actress or actor is better than the original, it doesnt matter as the recast shouldnt have happened- that is ridiculous IMO

    for the record, the new lauren is so much better than the old one and they made the perfect decision

    I don't think "That is ridiculous" is a valid argument. We could go round in circles saying it to each other, and we still wouldn't have actually said antything.
    also you do know Barbara Windsor was the 2nd actress to play Peggy don't you?

    I don't think I was a viewer at that time.

    How long was 'the first Peggy' in the show for?

    How much time had passed until 'the second Peggy'?
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Chucky you said above, that even if a recast actress or actor is better than the original, it doesnt matter as the recast shouldnt have happened- that is ridiculous IMO

    Say, for example some new producer came in. And on a wim, decided to recast Phil Mitchell. Just to put his own egotistical stamp on the show, doing what he wanted, rather than what was good for the show or what the viewers wanted.

    After the recast, some would say they "prefer the nu Phil".

    But that doesn't mean it should have happened in the first place.
  • _NiallDEE__NiallDEE_ Posts: 13,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Say, for example some new producer came in. And on a wim, decided to recast Phil Mitchell. Just to put his own egotistical stamp on the show, doing what he wanted, rather than what was good for the show or what the viewers wanted.

    After the recast, some would say they "prefer the nu Phil".

    But that doesn't mean it should have happened in the first place.

    I think it's quite different recasting Steve McFadden, who is an amazing actor and plays an iconic and legendary character who most people know even if they dont watch EE, to replacing someone who had been due a recast for ages and a small character who's new actress and character is much better
  • ChuckyBlackhartChuckyBlackhart Posts: 2,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    _NiallDEE_ wrote: »
    I think it's quite different recasting Steve McFadden, who is an amazing actor and plays an iconic and legendary character who most people know even if they dont watch EE, to replacing someone who had been due a recast for ages and a small character who's new actress and character is much better

    No character is ever "due a recast."

    If a character isn't working (and Lauren was working just fine) then let them exit the show.

    Not unnecessarily insult the viewers intelligence by sacking the actor, the viewer is familiar with. And then bringing in another actor to play them and expect the fans to buy it!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No character is ever "due a recast."

    If a character isn't working (and Lauren was working just fine) then let them exit the show.

    Not unnecessarily insult the viewers intelligence by sacking the actor, the viewer is familiar with. And then bringing in another actor to play them and expect the fans to buy it!

    I entirely agree with you about recasts of Ben & Lauren. With the old recasts they happened with characters who had only appeared on rare occasions & weren`t established.

    As for Phil, I think the character should be axed as his storylines have become totally unrealistic. He lost everything, stole £20,000 yet now owns a house & part of R & R. No-one could even buy a house in London for $200,000 let alone £20,000, where did he get the money to buy into R & R? Steve McFadden is not a particularly talented actor anyway. How his character manages to get women amazes me, I realise it`s not about looks but he doesn`t have am attractive personality to compensate.

    Kirkwood has ruined EE for me, I`m still watching but there is no urgency to watch it, I do get bored with it. The only reason I still watch is because of The Masoods & the possibility that we might get to see the rest of their storyline with Yusef sometime soon. The Max/Tanya storyline is just going over old ground & bores me. Tanya`s character has been changed. I really can`t stand her now & don1 care about her.

    Ian & Pat are characters with poor storylines as are other long term characters. It seems that Kirkwood & the writers have no interest in these existing & well liked characters. He has decided to bring in the useless Moons etc. Bringing back the Jacksons was a mistake as were Ricky & Bianca. Carol Jackson has never moved on so it was a ridiculous decision to bring her back.
    I do feel like giving up on EE but as I`ve said it`s only The Masoods that keep me watching as well as the possibility that the well loved existing characters might get good storylines.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 712
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have to agree I dont really like re-casts as have you have mentioned it is unrealistic, however it is very tricky ground & I really do like the new lauren branning she does bring a lot more to the role- I dont think it would be realistic that Tanya's daughter could be written out the show how would that work - where would she have gone?

    There are many factors why recasts have to happen, for example: if actors are sacked/fired or are just not working or can't act. I doubt they would ever recast really well established characters that would just be ridiculous. However kid actors you can get away with to a certain extent.

    I'm really hoping they dont recast Lucy Beale either.
Sign In or Register to comment.