I think it just highlights DTCs lack of experience. I don;t think Santer would have ever killed Lucy off. In fact I don't think any other producer the show has had would have killed her either. It was extremly short sighted and that is now coming home to roost.
Agree with this. Lucy's death story is so random, it just doesn't tie in with any of the plots of Beale family or where the writers want to explore Ian's storyline. What's the sense in killing a character which seems so level headed and business savvy to all of a sudden a drug addict....where did it come from???
Contracts are funny things. He could be contracted for 60 episodes per year. If that's the case then he could appear in every episode from Christmas until he leaves and be gone by the spring.
Oh I agree contracts are like that and the obligation is measured episode wise rather than number of months.
The fact that Ben is quitting doesn't have to imply that Peter is leaving or does it?? Here in the Netherlands we have had actors quitting the soap but their role was taken over by someone else.
It seems with both Ben and Sam's exits they have been forced to reveal their exits as the rumours were strong of them leaving.
That's my take on it too. They would rather have kept them quiet until after Xmas at least and probably the Lucy reveal but it is beyond their control.
The fact that Ben is quitting doesn't have to imply that Peter is leaving or does it?? Here in the Netherlands we have had actors quitting the soap but their role was taken over by someone else.
Recasting immediately is quite common in many countries soaps (America and Australia principally) but it is incredibly rare in the UK. In fact I can't think of one example of it happening with an adult actor in over 55 years of Soap history.
What if they don't work out though? Then the producers are stuck with them for 2/3 years. There's a reason actors start out with 6/12 month contracts, neither side wants the risk of signing a long term contract straight away. The producers don't know how well the character will be received and that kind of commitment straight off the bat could put some actors off. Neither side is at fault here imo, it's just the way things are.
Also they may have offered him a longer contract and he refused, they can't force him to sign anything.
This is exactly it. If they signed every new casting on 2 or 3 year contracts we would have a lot of characters or actors that don't work out hanging around long after the audience wants them gone. They could just not feature them of course but they would still have to honour the financial commitments of the contract so effectively they are throwing that (license fee funded) money down the toilet which the money men just wouldn't stand for. There might even be legal complications about recasting the role for the duration of the contract.
Contracts are funny things. He could be contracted for 60 episodes per year. If that's the case then he could appear in every episode from Christmas until he leaves and be gone by the spring.
Yes, another good point. It may be for an episode count rather than a period of time so he could go quite soon.
Perhaps EE should sometimes be looking at lowering there expectations at actors, there is a reason why alot of the Corrie lot stay for years and years because they aren't good enough to be elsewhere. I'm not saying we want a cast of Tony Disciplines but unless the show is lucky enough to find more Lacey Turners and Jamie Borthwicks out there who are good actors and happy to commit long term the show will continue to find this happening of actors, especially the youngsters to go elsewhere after just a couple of years.
Recasting immediately is quite common in many countries soaps (America and Australia principally) but it is incredibly rare in the UK. In fact I can't think of one example of it happening with an adult actor in over 55 years of Soap history.
Oh yes, Holly. I'd forgoTten about her. She was a fairly minor character though (she's become much more prominent in the last year) and on the cusp of child/adult character and kids are recast more often. Also she'd only been there a few months.
I wonder if this has thrown the spanner in the works for rewrites on the lucy storyline, or had Ben wanted to leave a while ago but they convinced him to stay on for the murder mystery.
I doubt they will recast again and if Ben becomes a big name actor they will always hang onto the hope he might pop back for a while and give the show some big PR.
I think he has got this role you know and I think the only reason EE have had to announce his exit is because of that. I bet they didn't want it revealed. If Peter is the killer then I wonder if they will change the outcome like they did with Peggy when Bab's let it slip she was leaving too early.
Comments
One out of two, I'll let you decide for yourselves which one
Agree with this. Lucy's death story is so random, it just doesn't tie in with any of the plots of Beale family or where the writers want to explore Ian's storyline. What's the sense in killing a character which seems so level headed and business savvy to all of a sudden a drug addict....where did it come from???
It's baffling.
Well if you're located between Lauren's legs, I'm guessing you're not blonde.
And that was by far the rudest thing I've ever written on here.
That's my take on it too. They would rather have kept them quiet until after Xmas at least and probably the Lucy reveal but it is beyond their control.
Recasting immediately is quite common in many countries soaps (America and Australia principally) but it is incredibly rare in the UK. In fact I can't think of one example of it happening with an adult actor in over 55 years of Soap history.
This is exactly it. If they signed every new casting on 2 or 3 year contracts we would have a lot of characters or actors that don't work out hanging around long after the audience wants them gone. They could just not feature them of course but they would still have to honour the financial commitments of the contract so effectively they are throwing that (license fee funded) money down the toilet which the money men just wouldn't stand for. There might even be legal complications about recasting the role for the duration of the contract.
Yes, another good point. It may be for an episode count rather than a period of time so he could go quite soon.
It happened last year in hollyoaks
No need for a recast, again.
Oh yes, Holly. I'd forgoTten about her. She was a fairly minor character though (she's become much more prominent in the last year) and on the cusp of child/adult character and kids are recast more often. Also she'd only been there a few months.
It is one example though.
He committed fully to the terms of his contract
Fair play to him for not wanting to end up like Emmerdales' Kelvin Fletcher or Corrie's Ryan Thomas years down the line. .
A couple of Peters ago!
I wonder if theyll try and lure Thomas Law back?Not sure if thats wise but could be their line of thinking!
I think he has got this role you know and I think the only reason EE have had to announce his exit is because of that. I bet they didn't want it revealed. If Peter is the killer then I wonder if they will change the outcome like they did with Peggy when Bab's let it slip she was leaving too early.
Shouldn't have left it so long till the reveal (10 months). Hope he's learned from this.
I do lean towards agreeing with you.A 10 month mystery was a risk fraught venture.