Poll Request- Are You happy about EE's upcoming baby plot?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
Forum Member
Yes
No
Not Sure

For me its a no!

Are you happy with th upcoming baby plot in EE?? 279 votes

Yes
35% 99 votes
No
44% 124 votes
Unsure
20% 56 votes
«134567

Comments

  • PacinoFanPacinoFan Posts: 3,902
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No. I feel really uncomfortable about this storyline. Ronnie losing three children is beginning to look a bit careless for one thing. To swap your dead baby for that of a neighbour's, watching their grief, it sounds awful and destressing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,249
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No

    It's all a bit too distressing for me, Ronnie has lost three baby's now. It wouldn't surprise me if in a few months time Sam Womack leaves. I can't see Ronnie coming back from this.
  • batman.batman. Posts: 8,906
    Forum Member
    No, why can't they just give Ronnie her own baby and let her deal with that, and develop her character as a mum? They had to kill all her children instead, and after this story, Ronnie's character is going to be ruined.
  • Ash's ManAsh's Man Posts: 7,165
    Forum Member
    I'm in two minds about it. The concept is a great story but then the reality is that EE is a soap and it's going out to a lot of people who might not be able to deal with such disturbing scenes. Reading the spoilers today has made me feel very uneasy about the whole thing... So I'm not sure.
  • lotty27lotty27 Posts: 17,858
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No.

    More misery for Ronnie. It's getting beyond a joke now.
  • TakeachancexTakeachancex Posts: 8,029
    Forum Member
    No.

    The actual storyline does have the potential to be a fantastic one, but what irritates me is the fact that it has to involve Ronnie; i'm not just saying this because i'm a massive Ronnie/'Rack' fan, but I just feel as though it was so predictable that something like this would happen to her.. just when it appears that she's got her life back on track and everything is going well (finally married to Jack, and FINALLY having his baby), something like this has to happen. I just don't see how Ronnie and Jack as a couple, and Ronnie on her own can recover from this, she just can't. So it is inevitable, like many of you are saying, that this storyline will lead to her exit which is why, as a massive Ronnie fan, this upsets me. :cry:

    I know they do insist on Ronnie being the tortured heroine or whatever they call it but this is just going to absolute extremes.. I remember when rumours of this babyswap storyline first surfaced, people IMMEDIATELY associated Ronnie with it and knew it would be her baby that died.. just goes to show how stupidly predictable the storylines are when it comes to Ronnie. Would be nice if they could just leave her character alone for a bit. :rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,497
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't think anyone could be 'happy'. I am accepting of it though. I am sure it will be done well, as many other hard hitting storylines have been done over the years with EE.
  • ::Adam::::Adam:: Posts: 7,223
    Forum Member
    I think - it had to be Ronnie because her character has always been about being a mum etc - it wouldn't make sence for it to be someone like Bianca who has Kids, Kym who hasn't even talked about having them etc - so from that POV - it makes sence.
  • Ash's ManAsh's Man Posts: 7,165
    Forum Member
    One thing I don't understand is people saying 'let Ronnie be happy'. They don't have to let her be happy at all, she's not a real person. If you're saying it from the point of view that you're bored of seeing her on screen all the time replaying tragedy and that she should be in the background, then fair enough. But if you want her at the forefront of the action with happy storylines, it's not going to happen. No one in the forefront of EE has happy storylines (for any amount of time) and Ronnie doesn't reserve that right just because she has a cult following.

    The idea that Sam W would quit over this is preposterous. Why would she care? She's getting paid to do her job and it's not like she's a background character who's doing nothing. As an actor you don't want to sit on the fence, and the direction they've taken Ronnie in would be a lot more interesting for her to play than just a happy go lucky person in the background. By constantly replaying tragedy she'll get to show off her acting skills and ultimately gain more respect as an actress, even if EE loses respect for the story itself.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,497
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No.

    The actual storyline does have the potential to be a fantastic one, but what irritates me is the fact that it has to involve Ronnie; i'm not just saying this because i'm a massive Ronnie/'Rack' fan, but I just feel as though it was so predictable that something like this would happen to her.. just when it appears that she's got her life back on track and everything is going well (finally married to Jack, and FINALLY having his baby), something like this has to happen. I just don't see how Ronnie and Jack as a couple, and Ronnie on her own can recover from this, she just can't. So it is inevitable, like many of you are saying, that this storyline will lead to her exit which is why, as a massive Ronnie fan, this upsets me. :cry:

    I know they do insist on Ronnie being the tortured heroine or whatever they it but this is just going to absolute extremes.. I remember when rumours of this babyswap storyline first surfaced, people IMMEDIATELY associated Ronnie with it and knew it would be her baby that died.. just goes to show how stupidly predictable the storylines are when it comes to Ronnie. Would be nice if they could just leave her character alone for a bit. :roll:

    I think if it was the other way round Kats baby died and she swapped the babies that would unbelievable and out of character for her, whereas, I do believe Ronnie would do something like that, and I think the viewers in some way will understand why she did it, even if it is very wrong.
  • PacinoFanPacinoFan Posts: 3,902
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ronnie, our very own Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Born to be a plaything of the gods!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,587
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's a great story, though I am quite frustrated that Ronnie is doomed again.
  • TakeachancexTakeachancex Posts: 8,029
    Forum Member
    Ash's Man wrote: »
    One thing I don't understand is people saying 'let Ronnie be happy'. They don't have to let her be happy at all, she's not a real person. If you're saying it from the point of view that you're bored of seeing her on screen all the time replaying tragedy and that she should be in the background, then fair enough. But if you want her at the forefront of the action with happy storylines, it's not going to happen. No one in the forefront of EE has happy storylines (for any amount of time) and Ronnie doesn't reserve that right just because she has a cult following.

    The idea that Sam W would quit over this is preposterous. Why would she care? She's getting paid to do her job and it's not like she's a background character who's doing nothing. As an actor you don't want to sit on the fence, and the direction they've taken Ronnie in would be a lot more interesting for her to play than just a happy go lucky person in the background. By constantly replaying tragedy she'll get to show off her acting skills and ultimately gain more respect as an actress, even if EE loses respect for the story itself.

    No, i'm not saying that Ronnie has to be happy and be happy and STAY happy all the time. I'm just saying that it would be nice just to leave her alone and move on from all the baby drama.. imo it's getting tiresome and repetitive.

    ETA: There are SO many other storylines that could be done.. perhaps her finding it hard to bond with her baby, post natal depression, finding it hard to cope as she has FINALLY got the baby she wants.. i just personally don't like the idea of this storyline. Don't get me wrong, Sam and Jessie and all involved will be FANTASTIC and from a neutral perspective, it will provide some seriously incredible emotional acting from them, but as a person who is heavily invested in Ronnie it just upsets me. But that's just me. :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,206
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think there is too much similarity with the deceased baby storyline in Emmerdale... Then again the Syed / Christian storyline is very similar to the Aaron / Jackson situation.
  • kushtiimayteekushtiimaytee Posts: 9,732
    Forum Member
    No!!!
  • dubgazdubgaz Posts: 2,908
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No for me also.

    I think if it was another character it would be a better storyline but Eastenders have made Ronnie to be an almost cartoon like character with the amount of bad things that have happened to her. It defies logic. Nobody could be as unlucky as her and I think that fact is going to harm the storyline.
  • TakeachancexTakeachancex Posts: 8,029
    Forum Member
    bambii wrote: »
    I think if it was the other way round Kats baby died and she swapped the babies that would unbelievable and out of character for her, whereas, I do believe Ronnie would do something like that, and I think the viewers in some way will understand why she did it, even if it is very wrong.

    Yes that is very true, but I didn't mean it like I wished that Kat's baby would die instead, no way. I just don't want this storyline at all :p
  • TakeachancexTakeachancex Posts: 8,029
    Forum Member
    dubgaz wrote: »
    No for me also.

    I think if it was another character it would be a better storyline but Eastenders have made Ronnie to be an almost cartoon like character with the amount of bad things that have happened to her. It defies logic. Nobody could be as unlucky as her and I think that fact is going to harm the storyline.

    Pretty much this. :)
  • Ash's ManAsh's Man Posts: 7,165
    Forum Member
    dubgaz wrote: »
    No for me also.

    I think if it was another character it would be a better storyline but Eastenders have made Ronnie to be an almost cartoon like character with the amount of bad things that have happened to her. It defies logic. Nobody could be as unlucky as her and I think that fact is going to harm the storyline.

    Yeah, it's a joke, she's surpassed Sharon's tragedy tally and Sharon was in the show for 20 years. :rolleyes:
  • tenchgirltenchgirl Posts: 11,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    yes & No, yes because SIDS should be highlighted but No becuase of the swap part, from experience i can say your in no fit mind to dream up a swap let alone carry it out adn thats as far as im going on this subject.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,679
    Forum Member
    No I do not like it one bit.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,352
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm in the middle, but leaning towards yes. I'm only leaning because I want Ronnie to have a baby so bad. :/ But I still think it has the potential to be one of EE's best storylines. Kat and Ronnie are my favourite characters, so I'm looking forward to seeing them both struggle with what's happened. It will be sad to watch, and very dramatic. But this is a soap opera after all. SIDS is an awful subject, but it needs to be covered IMO. The last time was Emmerdale I think. Baby swapping is a completely new idea, and controversial. But Ronnie is a desperate person, so I think it's quite believable.
  • Cunny FuntCunny Funt Posts: 1,905
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, absolutely not.
  • CherryRoseCherryRose Posts: 13,190
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No.

    For the following reasons -

    Cot death/ SIDS usally happens after four weeks old and is more or less unheard of before this time. EE are going to have this take place only a few days after birth.

    The dead baby swap is just unrealistic that Kat would not know that it was not her baby.

    I think xmas time is a hard enough time for people who have lost children to SIDS so I personally feel there has been little thought for our feelings at this time of year.
  • ::Adam::::Adam:: Posts: 7,223
    Forum Member
    CherryRose wrote: »
    No.

    For the following reasons -

    Cot death/ SIDS usally happens after four weeks old and is more or less unheard of before this time. EE are going to have this take place only a few days after birth.

    The dead baby swap is just unrealistic that Kat would not know that it was not her baby.

    I think xmas time is a hard enough time for people who have lost children to SIDS so I personally feel there has been little thought for our feelings at this time of year.


    I've known someone who lost the baby when he was only 2 days old.
Sign In or Register to comment.