Options
Why should Danny Dyer last any longer than Jamie Foreman and Kierston Warring?
Dream_catcher
Posts: 362 Forum Member
✭
Both Jamie Foreman and Kierston Warring had been in films and neither stayed longer than a year. What makes this guy who has also been in films any different?
I bet this time next year the same will happen to him and he will also be written out.
I bet this time next year the same will happen to him and he will also be written out.
0
Comments
Nothing to do with the fact they have appeared in films.
Maybe he will or maybe he won't, but I don't think what happened to those other two actors has any bearing on how long Danny Dyer will stay.
Derek was a 'baddie', out and out, and they always have limited shelf lives on a soap. He was never going to be around longer than he was. Just like Yusef, Archie or Lucas etc. They all have to either die or go to jail sooner or later. There are characters in soaps who have more 'shades of grey' about them. Take Janine for example. She does bad things, and usually pays a price, but is redeemable and has characteristics that make her vulnerable to the audience. Derek was just a nasty man though.
With Kirsty, I think she unfortunately fell into the same path that a lot of new characters did the past 18 months or so. Basically even our existing, developed and classic characters were struggling for storylines, so a new character didn't have a huge chance. A lot of new characters were presented without a huge fanfare, underdeveloped and just left to see if they would succeed. It's not the actor's fault really, just came along to the show at a bad time.
With Danny Dyer's character, clearly a lot of TLC has gone in to carefully and slowly crafting a family and giving them a good introduction, with storylines straight away. He's been put in the centre of the show, literally, so is instantly integrated into storylines and interactions with other characters. This of course doesn't mean he'll survive, but it'll give him a fighting chance. It's really to soon to tell.
From the second Kirsty turned up on Max's door as his secret wife, I knew the character would flop. It didn't matter what her CV looked like or her acting skills. She was a plot-device character to execute Tanya's exit. It was bye by Kirsty from then on.
Derek came in as panto unscary Branning villian. He was an extention of the Brannings - just like Kirsty - and as a character, a complete joke.
Danny Dyer has come in as part of a new family, Shirley's brother and owner of the Vic. There is more scope to be had with him and it doesn't matter if he's a british film actor or if it was his first major TV role. The character has potential from the off. Ditto Kelly Bright.
I also get the impression that alot of thought and planning has gone into this new family. That's something I doubt went into with Kirsty, the Hartmans or even Derek.
Completely agree with this. Derek was a massive let down and disappointment, Kirsty hasn't added any value and the Hartmans were/are just beyond atrocious. I have every faith in Danny Dyer and the rest of the Carters, and really think that they are going to be the face of EastEnders for the foreseeable future.
What a crap argument. Martin Kemp was a member of Spandau Ballet that was in several films and he was in the show for 3 years, the actress that played Dawn Swann was in Football Factory with Danny Dyer and she was in it for 4 years, Steve McFadden had an uncredited appearance in the film Buster before going onto join EastEnders in a role he has played for over 20 years, and so on and so forth.
Jamie Foreman, who was also in Football Factory, was cast to play a character that was just an epic fail, and Kirsty was a pointless character, along with that stupid boyfriend of hers. Pathetic.
People take the piss too much out of Dyer, but if you do your research you will find that he is a very driven, committed and hardworking actor .
He's got 40 films under his belt and is looking forward to some stability on EE ( according to that free paper you get on the train )
I think Kierston Wareing and Jamie Foreman both knew that EE was a short term gig even before they filmed their first scenes.
Eddie Royle was in the Vic. He only lasted a year before being murdered.
Mick has his family around him though...
Eddie Royle had a family. A father, a girlfriend and relationships with Sharon and Kathy
The good thing about this casting is it's not the usual kind of character Danny plays so he's more likely to be a long standing character as Eastenders villians ( with the exception of Phil ) usually have a shelf life of between 1 to 1 1/2 years.
Exactly. They do seem to have a clear plan for Danny, they knew exactly what they wanted for the character of Mick.
What people seem to fail to grasp is that there is a shortage of acting jobs at the moment, actors are having to take work where they can get it. It's why a lot of actors seem to be going to soaps, or going back to soaps. There's been a huge influx of big names joining in recent years.
Agreed. It's early days yet but so far there's no warning signs that the new lot will flop. I too think it will mostly ride on Dyer's ability to cope with the schedule; I think he has commented on the gruelling nature, but as much as he is seen as a bit of a joke he is a pro and I'm sure he knew what he was getting into. He seems to have real passion for the show, along with Kellie Shirley who I also think has potential to be a mainstay. So yeah, it's basically too soon to call it but nothing as of yet tells me this is destined to be a short term thing.
Filming a television show is different to filming a movie, so it will be interesting to see how Danny adjusts.
Derek as a villain was never a long term character.
And he's just had a baby son, too. So after being at the studio all day, he returns to a newborn. He must be absolutely exhausted!!!
There was a lot of untapped potential in Kirsty. Derek was someone whose characterisation was an even bigger joke - he went from a complete villain to TPTB casting his kids to reveal his 'softer' side to being a villain again with his children running around like spare parts. Mick on the other hand I feel will be more of a slow burner in terms of how much is revealed to the audience about him. From the spoilers regarding Phil in January, I think think we can put paid to the notion he's going to be some sort of Alfie MK 2. He'll be quite multifaceted I feel.
Wow! Though I do feel if the character is successful Dyer will stay at least for the next couple of years especially as you've pointed out there aren't too many acting jobs about and this is a long term role.
Shane Richie also came from a light entertainment background and he's lasted for years.
However Bobby Davro who has had a similar career to both of the above was a total flop so its swings and roundabouts. It depends on the character development and the storylines they are given and whether the viewers take to them and nothing to do with their previous CV.