It WAS a whimper! You obviously don't know who Dennis Watts is if you think that was a 'fitting tribute'. A doorstop! Three ridiiculous women! The only good thing about it was Den reminding Sam that she set fire to his club, and reminding Chrissie that she schemed with him to releive her of the Vic. Only Zoe was a victim out of the trio, but the fact that Den forced her into bed already made the whole thing a farce. Den is a lothario and a playboy from way back, but he'd never blackmail someone into bed, not his style, no way, no how.
It had an impact amonst younger fans who do not remember Den the first time round. If you do remember him, and you TRULY feel that that this was appropriate, I feel for you.
Epic? I've seen more epic Adam Sandler movies.
All I seem to see from you is this ludicrous notion that 00s Den should = 80s Den. If you actually watched EE for any length of time you'd be aware that is no possible. Pauline was not the same in the 00s as she was in the 80s; Kathy was not the same in the late 90s as she was in the 80s; Phil is not the same now as he was then. 80s Den was never going to just walk back on.
The 20th anniversary episode was outstanding! TAO acting was superb and demonstrated why she was from the RSC; the comeuppance of Den played well into the mind-game dynamic of the Chrissie-Den relationship, and the surprise appearance of Sharon was a good hook.
As I said I did not agree with getting rid of Den, I loved his relationship with Chrissie, and i agree they definately negatively portrayed his character in the last few months. it doesb't change the fact that i LOVED seeing Den behind the bar again; I loved watching him and Chrissie run the Vic, it was fantastic viewing and made the Vic feel electric again.
Den's murder rubbish? I think you'll find that the recent 'vote for EastEnders' best year' saw 2005 come 3rd place, beaten by only 2009 and 2001 because of that storyline...it beats all the Archie stuff by a country mile.
Agree.
The poster in question just seems to be one of those who expected 80s Den to walk through the door... never mind that a decade and a half of EE had passed in between.
Den is one of my favourite characters - as anyone here will tell you, I am a defiant defender of the Watts and the fact that they are the show';s greatest family.
And I was definately annoyed and did not agree with Den being killed off, because it meant an end to Den, and also, Chrissie. 2 of my favourite characters (along with Angie, Sharon, Pat, Kathy, and pauline).
But the murder storyline had a fantastic epic quality to it.... if you look up epic in the OED it fits the definition.
Do you know what, this is why I can't bear to post on here and actually read this tosh.
EastEnders BEST year? 2005? 2001? 2009?
Absolute horseSHIT! Nothing from 2000+ can be considered as thats when thing hit the toilets. 1986, 87 and 88 are way out in front, with another period from 1991-1994. This is when the writing, the acting, the storylines and the overall production were of a higher standard, nothing remains today, nothing whatsoever!
People that vote on these polls are children who don't what good is, and the simple minded fools who accept anything that comes their way and whoop with joy as if they're witnessing Moses and the red sea.
Of course I expected the same person to walk in the door. He is the same human being. His return came about on the back of his legend and the production of an illicit son. I expected 14 years of age, some greying hair but aside that, absolutely I expected the same man, anyone with a brain would.
You don't know what epic is! A 30 or even 60 minute soap opera can never be an epic, and epic is The Godfather, or Gone With The Wind.
Its fine if you want to like all this 2005 cack, thats your decision, but I have ACTUALLY been watching the show for probably longer than you've been alive and I know exactly where the show is going wrong, and when it was going right.
Yes, Den's murder featured some great acting. Grantham excelled and Oberman's acting was decent even though it should have been her that died. The rest? Fnar. Sharons return was overblown and Dean was as wooden as ever. The only other really good performance was that of Michael Higgs, another great character bumped off by a cretinous EP.
This reminded me that Gail's past was retconned to give her a loose-moraled, slutty mother - Audrey. Apparently she'd always referred to living at home with both her parents in a happy home. Audrey arrived in 1979 and all of that was forgotten - Gail was now the child of a wayward single mother who was always on the lookout for a 'feller'.
And years later her father became a gay man who wasn't really interested in Audrey at all to begin with
Do you know what, this is why I can't bear to post on here and actually read this tosh.
EastEnders BEST year? 2005? 2001? 2009?
Absolute horseSHIT! Nothing from 2000+ can be considered as thats when thing hit the toilets. 1986, 87 and 88 are way out in front, with another period from 1991-1994. This is when the writing, the acting, the storylines and the overall production were of a higher standard, nothing remains today, nothing whatsoever!
People that vote on these polls are children who don't what good is, and the simple minded fools who accept anything that comes their way and whoop with joy as if they're witnessing Moses and the red sea.
Of course I expected the same person to walk in the door. He is the same human being. His return came about on the back of his legend and the production of an illicit son. I expected 14 years of age, some greying hair but aside that, absolutely I expected the same man, anyone with a brain would.
You don't know what epic is! A 30 or even 60 minute soap opera can never be an epic, and epic is The Godfather, or Gone With The Wind.
Its fine if you want to like all this 2005 cack, thats your decision, but I have ACTUALLY been watching the show for probably longer than you've been alive and I know exactly where the show is going wrong, and when it was going right.
Yes, Den's murder featured some great acting. Grantham excelled and Oberman's acting was decent even though it should have been her that died. The rest? Fnar. Sharons return was overblown and Dean was as wooden as ever. The only other really good performance was that of Michael Higgs, another great character bumped off by a cretinous EP.
I expect vicious response. Go for it.
Don't think I'll bother tbh.... I have been watching EE since the first episode; I have followed it all the way through; I have a masters in English literature and have been a literary editor dealing in script writing... I know more about characterisation and how to put a character and plot together than you could ever understand in a life time.
It is quite apparent that you have little comprehension regarding plotting and storylining; that your addoration of Den Watts has all the sophistication of a teenager's crush on Justin Beiber - you certainly sound like you are 12.
It is also quite evident that your ego is so fragile that you cannot tolerate any view other than your own, for fear it would shatter.
Do you know what, this is why I can't bear to post on here and actually read this tosh.
EastEnders BEST year? 2005? 2001? 2009?
Absolute horseSHIT! Nothing from 2000+ can be considered as thats when thing hit the toilets. 1986, 87 and 88 are way out in front, with another period from 1991-1994. This is when the writing, the acting, the storylines and the overall production were of a higher standard, nothing remains today, nothing whatsoever!
People that vote on these polls are children who don't what good is, and the simple minded fools who accept anything that comes their way and whoop with joy as if they're witnessing Moses and the red sea.
Of course I expected the same person to walk in the door. He is the same human being. His return came about on the back of his legend and the production of an illicit son. I expected 14 years of age, some greying hair but aside that, absolutely I expected the same man, anyone with a brain would.
You don't know what epic is! A 30 or even 60 minute soap opera can never be an epic, and epic is The Godfather, or Gone With The Wind.
Its fine if you want to like all this 2005 cack, thats your decision, but I have ACTUALLY been watching the show for probably longer than you've been alive and I know exactly where the show is going wrong, and when it was going right.
Yes, Den's murder featured some great acting. Grantham excelled and Oberman's acting was decent even though it should have been her that died. The rest? Fnar. Sharons return was overblown and Dean was as wooden as ever. The only other really good performance was that of Michael Higgs, another great character bumped off by a cretinous EP.
I expect vicious response. Go for it.
Well, you'd be far more accurate to leave out 2001 and 2005, which are generally held up to be some of EastEnders' best every years, as strongly reflected by the general sentiments across the boards and with viewers old enough to remember those years. I agree that 2009 shouldn't have been included in the show's best ever years, as bar one or two storylines it was pretty mediocre.
It is, of course, YOUR opinion that none of those years, or Den's murder storyline, were good, which is fine, but simply far too many people would disagree with that for it to be the fact you claim it is. Unless you have any valid substantiation to prove your statements, I simply cannot take you seriously.
You're also wrong in saying you've been watching the show longer than I have been alive - I've been watching since day 1, too, so you'll have to find some other way to patronise me and appear superior.
And years later her father became a gay man who wasn't really interested in Audrey at all to begin with
How could I forget about Ted!!!
As Audrey said to Elsie in 1979: "Him I had Gail by, her father, he was all promises, y'know [..] he'd gambled half his wages after he got them!"
Hardly fits with the way that Ken described him when Ted reappeared ... "[...] an interesting man who has lived life to the full, a properly rounded human being!"
Don't think I'll bother tbh.... I have been watching EE since the first episode; I have followed it all the way through; I have a masters in English literature and have been a literary editor dealing in script writing... I know more about characterisation and how to put a character and plot together than you could ever understand in a life time.
It is quite apparent that you have little comprehension regarding plotting and storylining; that your addoration of Den Watts has all the sophistication of a teenager's crush on Justin Beiber - you certainly sound like you are 12.
It is also quite evident that your ego is so fragile that you cannot tolerate any view other than your own, for fear it would shatter.
So I see no real point in engaging you.
Then don't.
But if you have a masters degree in literature and I'm assuming a brain - how the HELL can you praise anything so dire. Aren't you thinking to yourself 'I could write better scripts!' I also like the way you assume I'm completely uneducated myself.
Now, your scornful attitude to my love of Den is rubbish, we all have our favourites. And we'll all defend our favourites. That's just the way it is. I am critical of the characters treatment by idiot writers and idiot producers who flagrantly ignored his narrative.
Well, you'd be far more accurate to leave out 2001 and 2005, which are generally held up to be some of EastEnders' best every years, as strongly reflected by the general sentiments across the boards and with viewers old enough to remember those years. I agree that 2009 shouldn't have been included in the show's best ever years, as bar one or two storylines it was pretty mediocre.
It is, of course, YOUR opinion that none of those years, or Den's murder storyline, were good, which is fine, but simply far too many people would disagree with that for it to be the fact you claim it is. Unless you have any valid substantiation to prove your statements, I simply cannot take you seriously.
You're also wrong in saying you've been watching the show longer than I have been alive - I've been watching since day 1, too, so you'll have to find some other way to patronise me and appear superior.
I have little to no faith in the British public I'm afraid. Standards are gone, people like shit.
Ok, I'll patronise you by saying this, if you truly think todays EE is better than the genuine gold of the past, then you need to have a word with yourself.
But if you have a masters degree in literature and I'm assuming a brain - how the HELL can you praise anything so dire. Aren't you thinking to yourself 'I could write better scripts!' I also like the way you assume I'm completely uneducated myself.
Now, your scornful attitude to my love of Den is rubbish, we all have our favourites. And we'll all defend our favourites. That's just the way it is. I am critical of the characters treatment by idiot writers and idiot producers who flagrantly ignored his narrative.
That is YOUR personal OPINION, though. No offense, but when you go around thinking your word's gospel, when it seems you haven't heard of an opinion, you're certainly not doing yourself any favours making yourself look in any position to engage in a debate.
I have little to no faith in the British public I'm afraid. Standards are gone, people like shit.
Ok, I'll patronise you by saying this, if you truly think todays EE is better than the genuine gold of the past, then you need to have a word with yousrself.
I didn't say that EastEnders is good right now - as anyone on here will tell you. I just think there were some good years in the past, which most will agree on, and the fact that YOU disagree with something doesn't mean everyone has to adapt the same sort of ideology and if you can't understand that then there really is no point going any further with you in this debate.
The arrival of the 'new' Baldwins
Mike Baldwin was an only child and had always been referred to as such since his arrival in 1976. His father, Frankie, had appeared in the early 80s and made no reference to Mike having a brother.
Suddenly, in 2004, Mike had a brother (who had conveniently died). From the brother Mike had a nephew (Danny Baldwin) and a clan of other Baldwins who promptly moved north to Weatherfield.
A completely new backstory was created for Mike, which included him fathering a child with his brother's wife, Viv (the child was Danny).
The return of Adam Barlow \ Baldwin was also a bit of a retcon. Susan Barlow and Mike split in the 80's as Susan aborted their child. But then the writers obviously decided that they needed to bulk out the Baldwins further and changed the story, saying that she lied about the abortion and actually had the child which she raised in secret for years.
Adam Barlow was a huge retcon. I always found the notion that lou Beale had a daughter adopted out a hard one to swallow too.
American soap but Roger grimes going from having been crippled for life by blake carrington and dying 3 months befor his trial in 81 to having been shot by little Fallon, body hidden by Tom and laid at a bottom of a lake for 25 years was a pretty major one in Dynasty. Also, the entire cration of the Colbys after Jeff having to be raised by his one survivng uncle Cecil.
The return of Adam Barlow \ Baldwin was also a bit of a retcon. Susan Barlow and Mike split in the 80's as Susan aborted their child. But then the writers obviously decided that they needed to bulk out the Baldwins further and changed the story, saying that she lied about the abortion and actually had the child which she raised in secret for years.
Adam Barlow was a huge retcon. I always found the notion that lou Beale had a daughter adopted out a hard one to swallow too.
American soap but Roger grimes going from having been crippled for life by blake carrington and dying 3 months befor his trial in 81 to having been shot by little Fallon, body hidden by Tom and laid at a bottom of a lake for 25 years was a pretty major one in Dynasty. Also, the entire cration of the Colbys after Jeff having to be raised by his one survivng uncle Cecil.
Again, I forgot about Adam Barlow!
There definitely was an air of desperation from around 2002 - 2004 to bulk out Mike's connections in any way possible.
It's ironic because I think that Mike's isolation was what made the character work so well. He spent the majority of his time on the show as a bit of a loner - surrounded by the factory girls and a string of girlfriends but never with a family in the soap sense of the word. His marriage to Alma worked really well, but when Alma died in 2001, the production team decided that Mike needed 'faaaaamily' so brought in Adam and then the rest of the retconned Baldwins in 2004.
In my view none of it was necessary to keep the character of Mike going, he worked really well on his own. I kind of think that Johnny Briggs knew this and was part of the reason that he left the show in 2006.
Wasn't Roy in CS initially the creepy caretaker/fellow resident in the bedsits Deidre was living at the time? And didn't he have some sort of stalkerish obsession with her? Or have I dreamt all this up?
Wasn't Roy in CS initially the creepy caretaker/fellow resident in the bedsits Deidre was living at the time? And didn't he have some sort of stalkerish obsession with her? Or have I dreamt all this up?
It's funny because Roy was actually much more sociable when he first appeared - he certainly wasn't as quiet and dithering as he has been for the past 10 years or so.
I don't remember Roy actually stalking Deirdre (though I may be wrong) but I'm pretty sure that she found him to be very 'creepy'.
I didn't say that EastEnders is good right now - as anyone on here will tell you. I just think there were some good years in the past, which most will agree on, and the fact that YOU disagree with something doesn't mean everyone has to adapt the same sort of ideology and if you can't understand that then there really is no point going any further with you in this debate.
That's fine, and you're right, the only opinion I care about is my own, thats because I refuse to allow todays tackiness be referred to as 'good'
Anyway, back on topic. I thought there was a hideous piece of retcon in EE when Phil and Grant's heavyset mother Peggy suddenly morphed into a laughable mockney midget
There definitely was an air of desperation from around 2002 - 2004 to bulk out Mike's connections in any way possible.
It's ironic because I think that Mike's isolation was what made the character work so well. He spent the majority of his time on the show as a bit of a loner - surrounded by the factory girls and a string of girlfriends but never with a family in the soap sense of the word. His marriage to Alma worked really well, but when Alma died in 2001, the production team decided that Mike needed 'faaaaamily' so brought in Adam and then the rest of the retconned Baldwins in 2004.
In my view none of it was necessary to keep the character of Mike going, he worked really well on his own. I kind of think that Johnny Briggs knew this and was part of the reason that he left the show in 2006.
American soap but Roger grimes going from having been crippled for life by blake carrington and dying 3 months befor his trial in 81 to having been shot by little Fallon, body hidden by Tom and laid at a bottom of a lake for 25 years was a pretty major one in Dynasty. Also, the entire cration of the Colbys after Jeff having to be raised by his one survivng uncle Cecil.
That was a massive retcon. While the final series was great, it did do a lot of retconning of previous plots in both Dynasty and The Colbys. Sable was obviously aged down as she fell pregnant to Dex and the revelation that Jason Colby was not Miles and Monica's father. I don't even know what the point of that one was. It seemed that it was only thrown in there to facilitate the catfight between Sable and Alexis.
That was a massive retcon. While the final series was great, it did do a lot of retconning of previous plots in both Dynasty and The Colbys. Sable was obviously aged down as she fell pregnant to Dex and the revelation that Jason Colby was not Miles and Monica's father. I don't even know what the point of that one was. It seemed that it was only thrown in there to facilitate the catfight between Sable and Alexis.
It was the cat fight and I also suspect that it was trying to lead into a Jeff / Monica romane and also the revealation that Cecil had raped Sable and was the twins father so Monica could go after ownership of ColbyCo in season 10.
Of course all of season 9 was forgotten for the reunion - Miles and Jeff are brothers agains not just cousins.
Of course Adam and Amanda are both huge retcons too!
Oh another one, Blake was a self made man having come from dirt poor parents and put himself through school whilst wildcatting in season 1. Season 5 we discover daddy is incredibly rich - even if Blake turned his back on his fortune and started his own business, he still grew up wealthy.
I know, I always thought it was Johnny Briggs's decision and it was presented that was in the press.
From Sean Egan's 50th anniversary book (brilliant book - much more in-depth than the official one): "The story thread was the idea of writer John Fay. Recalls Daran Little, 'We were at a long-term conference. The producer said, "Anyone else got anything?" He goes, "Yeah, yeah, I've got a story for the death of Mike Baldwin." And the producer said, "Well that's not going to happen." He read the story and we were like - "Oh my god, yes. That's a two-year story. Let's do it." That story was played out in a very sympathetic, caring, well-planned way. That's something that The Street does amazingly well.' Perhaps not so caring of Johnny Briggs, who of course was going to lose his job as a consequence of it. Briggs' good friend John Stevenson says, 'He wasn't happy about it but he could see it was a good story for him and I think that reconciled him to it largely. I think he feels some grievance that he should still be there, but nothing that's disfiguring his life.'"
I totally agree with what you said about Mike's isolation btw.
I know, I always thought it was Johnny Briggs's decision and it was presented that was in the press.
From Sean Egan's 50th anniversary book (brilliant book - much more in-depth than the official one): "The story thread was the idea of writer John Fay. Recalls Daran Little, 'We were at a long-term conference. The producer said, "Anyone else got anything?" He goes, "Yeah, yeah, I've got a story for the death of Mike Baldwin." And the producer said, "Well that's not going to happen." He read the story and we were like - "Oh my god, yes. That's a two-year story. Let's do it." That story was played out in a very sympathetic, caring, well-planned way. That's something that The Street does amazingly well.' Perhaps not so caring of Johnny Briggs, who of course was going to lose his job as a consequence of it. Briggs' good friend John Stevenson says, 'He wasn't happy about it but he could see it was a good story for him and I think that reconciled him to it largely. I think he feels some grievance that he should still be there, but nothing that's disfiguring his life.'"
Comments
All I seem to see from you is this ludicrous notion that 00s Den should = 80s Den. If you actually watched EE for any length of time you'd be aware that is no possible. Pauline was not the same in the 00s as she was in the 80s; Kathy was not the same in the late 90s as she was in the 80s; Phil is not the same now as he was then. 80s Den was never going to just walk back on.
The 20th anniversary episode was outstanding! TAO acting was superb and demonstrated why she was from the RSC; the comeuppance of Den played well into the mind-game dynamic of the Chrissie-Den relationship, and the surprise appearance of Sharon was a good hook.
As I said I did not agree with getting rid of Den, I loved his relationship with Chrissie, and i agree they definately negatively portrayed his character in the last few months. it doesb't change the fact that i LOVED seeing Den behind the bar again; I loved watching him and Chrissie run the Vic, it was fantastic viewing and made the Vic feel electric again.
Things are never so black and white.
Agree.
The poster in question just seems to be one of those who expected 80s Den to walk through the door... never mind that a decade and a half of EE had passed in between.
Den is one of my favourite characters - as anyone here will tell you, I am a defiant defender of the Watts and the fact that they are the show';s greatest family.
And I was definately annoyed and did not agree with Den being killed off, because it meant an end to Den, and also, Chrissie. 2 of my favourite characters (along with Angie, Sharon, Pat, Kathy, and pauline).
But the murder storyline had a fantastic epic quality to it.... if you look up epic in the OED it fits the definition.
EastEnders BEST year? 2005? 2001? 2009?
Absolute horseSHIT! Nothing from 2000+ can be considered as thats when thing hit the toilets. 1986, 87 and 88 are way out in front, with another period from 1991-1994. This is when the writing, the acting, the storylines and the overall production were of a higher standard, nothing remains today, nothing whatsoever!
People that vote on these polls are children who don't what good is, and the simple minded fools who accept anything that comes their way and whoop with joy as if they're witnessing Moses and the red sea.
Of course I expected the same person to walk in the door. He is the same human being. His return came about on the back of his legend and the production of an illicit son. I expected 14 years of age, some greying hair but aside that, absolutely I expected the same man, anyone with a brain would.
You don't know what epic is! A 30 or even 60 minute soap opera can never be an epic, and epic is The Godfather, or Gone With The Wind.
Its fine if you want to like all this 2005 cack, thats your decision, but I have ACTUALLY been watching the show for probably longer than you've been alive and I know exactly where the show is going wrong, and when it was going right.
Yes, Den's murder featured some great acting. Grantham excelled and Oberman's acting was decent even though it should have been her that died. The rest? Fnar. Sharons return was overblown and Dean was as wooden as ever. The only other really good performance was that of Michael Higgs, another great character bumped off by a cretinous EP.
I expect vicious response. Go for it.
And years later her father became a gay man who wasn't really interested in Audrey at all to begin with
Don't think I'll bother tbh.... I have been watching EE since the first episode; I have followed it all the way through; I have a masters in English literature and have been a literary editor dealing in script writing... I know more about characterisation and how to put a character and plot together than you could ever understand in a life time.
It is quite apparent that you have little comprehension regarding plotting and storylining; that your addoration of Den Watts has all the sophistication of a teenager's crush on Justin Beiber - you certainly sound like you are 12.
It is also quite evident that your ego is so fragile that you cannot tolerate any view other than your own, for fear it would shatter.
So I see no real point in engaging you.
It is, of course, YOUR opinion that none of those years, or Den's murder storyline, were good, which is fine, but simply far too many people would disagree with that for it to be the fact you claim it is. Unless you have any valid substantiation to prove your statements, I simply cannot take you seriously.
You're also wrong in saying you've been watching the show longer than I have been alive - I've been watching since day 1, too, so you'll have to find some other way to patronise me and appear superior.
How could I forget about Ted!!!
As Audrey said to Elsie in 1979: "Him I had Gail by, her father, he was all promises, y'know [..] he'd gambled half his wages after he got them!"
Hardly fits with the way that Ken described him when Ted reappeared ... "[...] an interesting man who has lived life to the full, a properly rounded human being!"
Then don't.
But if you have a masters degree in literature and I'm assuming a brain - how the HELL can you praise anything so dire. Aren't you thinking to yourself 'I could write better scripts!' I also like the way you assume I'm completely uneducated myself.
Now, your scornful attitude to my love of Den is rubbish, we all have our favourites. And we'll all defend our favourites. That's just the way it is. I am critical of the characters treatment by idiot writers and idiot producers who flagrantly ignored his narrative.
Your discussion is taking it way off topic and spoiling it for the rest of us.
As they used to say down Weatherfield, belt up will yer!
I have little to no faith in the British public I'm afraid. Standards are gone, people like shit.
Ok, I'll patronise you by saying this, if you truly think todays EE is better than the genuine gold of the past, then you need to have a word with yourself.
That is YOUR personal OPINION, though. No offense, but when you go around thinking your word's gospel, when it seems you haven't heard of an opinion, you're certainly not doing yourself any favours making yourself look in any position to engage in a debate.
I didn't say that EastEnders is good right now - as anyone on here will tell you. I just think there were some good years in the past, which most will agree on, and the fact that YOU disagree with something doesn't mean everyone has to adapt the same sort of ideology and if you can't understand that then there really is no point going any further with you in this debate.
The return of Adam Barlow \ Baldwin was also a bit of a retcon. Susan Barlow and Mike split in the 80's as Susan aborted their child. But then the writers obviously decided that they needed to bulk out the Baldwins further and changed the story, saying that she lied about the abortion and actually had the child which she raised in secret for years.
Seem to remember this but may have dreamed it!
American soap but Roger grimes going from having been crippled for life by blake carrington and dying 3 months befor his trial in 81 to having been shot by little Fallon, body hidden by Tom and laid at a bottom of a lake for 25 years was a pretty major one in Dynasty. Also, the entire cration of the Colbys after Jeff having to be raised by his one survivng uncle Cecil.
Again, I forgot about Adam Barlow!
There definitely was an air of desperation from around 2002 - 2004 to bulk out Mike's connections in any way possible.
It's ironic because I think that Mike's isolation was what made the character work so well. He spent the majority of his time on the show as a bit of a loner - surrounded by the factory girls and a string of girlfriends but never with a family in the soap sense of the word. His marriage to Alma worked really well, but when Alma died in 2001, the production team decided that Mike needed 'faaaaamily' so brought in Adam and then the rest of the retconned Baldwins in 2004.
In my view none of it was necessary to keep the character of Mike going, he worked really well on his own. I kind of think that Johnny Briggs knew this and was part of the reason that he left the show in 2006.
It's funny because Roy was actually much more sociable when he first appeared - he certainly wasn't as quiet and dithering as he has been for the past 10 years or so.
I don't remember Roy actually stalking Deirdre (though I may be wrong) but I'm pretty sure that she found him to be very 'creepy'.
That's fine, and you're right, the only opinion I care about is my own, thats because I refuse to allow todays tackiness be referred to as 'good'
Anyway, back on topic. I thought there was a hideous piece of retcon in EE when Phil and Grant's heavyset mother Peggy suddenly morphed into a laughable mockney midget
What's that all about?
He didn't want to leave, he was axed.
That was a massive retcon. While the final series was great, it did do a lot of retconning of previous plots in both Dynasty and The Colbys. Sable was obviously aged down as she fell pregnant to Dex and the revelation that Jason Colby was not Miles and Monica's father. I don't even know what the point of that one was. It seemed that it was only thrown in there to facilitate the catfight between Sable and Alexis.
Seriously - I didn't know that!!! :eek:
It was the cat fight and I also suspect that it was trying to lead into a Jeff / Monica romane and also the revealation that Cecil had raped Sable and was the twins father so Monica could go after ownership of ColbyCo in season 10.
Of course all of season 9 was forgotten for the reunion - Miles and Jeff are brothers agains not just cousins.
Of course Adam and Amanda are both huge retcons too!
Oh another one, Blake was a self made man having come from dirt poor parents and put himself through school whilst wildcatting in season 1. Season 5 we discover daddy is incredibly rich - even if Blake turned his back on his fortune and started his own business, he still grew up wealthy.
I know, I always thought it was Johnny Briggs's decision and it was presented that was in the press.
From Sean Egan's 50th anniversary book (brilliant book - much more in-depth than the official one): "The story thread was the idea of writer John Fay. Recalls Daran Little, 'We were at a long-term conference. The producer said, "Anyone else got anything?" He goes, "Yeah, yeah, I've got a story for the death of Mike Baldwin." And the producer said, "Well that's not going to happen." He read the story and we were like - "Oh my god, yes. That's a two-year story. Let's do it." That story was played out in a very sympathetic, caring, well-planned way. That's something that The Street does amazingly well.' Perhaps not so caring of Johnny Briggs, who of course was going to lose his job as a consequence of it. Briggs' good friend John Stevenson says, 'He wasn't happy about it but he could see it was a good story for him and I think that reconciled him to it largely. I think he feels some grievance that he should still be there, but nothing that's disfiguring his life.'"
I totally agree with what you said about Mike's isolation btw.
:eek:
I'm shocked!
Really, genuinely shocked!