• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Soaps
  • Soaps Appreciation
Brendan Brady (Emmett J. Scanlan) Fan Thread! (Part 44)
<<
<
2 of 110
>>
>
ally08
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by qwerty282:
“I still don't totally forgive her for her meddling in Ste's realtionship and liking Noel over Brendan and I still do blame her for baseball!gate but I don't think she deserves to have a breakdown all because of flaming Ruby! And she is the mother of Ste's children, we can't forget that.



I want that too! Plus tea as Lulu said.”

She never has those bloody kids, and to be honest Ste hasn't been much better lately, I know HOs kids are always disappearing but even when Amy and Ste are in the house together the kids are nowhere to be seen, if they had a patio outside the slum I would be worried that the kids were under it.

They can't always be with Mike.
tezzabobs
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by fredcat:
“i know it's been said here before but it does look like they're going to have Ste looking after the kids on his own again and i cant see Noel being too happy with that”

I hope Leah gets her magic wand out again, and does some major damage with it.

Bet Brendan's been teaching her how to use it properly.
mojo5000
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by LemonadeMan:
“Plus Brendan's gay. Amy won't have to worry about him seeing her in her undercrackers.

What a lovely evening it could be.”

It may be a stupid question but why do you want to see Amy in her pants?
KiaraMoore
09-06-2011
Amy and Ste do seem to have a lot of free time Ally, but its not as bad as Nancy with Charlie!

Originally Posted by fredcat:
“yeah i remember Cheryl living there now, at least thats sort of possible unlike the ladz flat which had three rooms until Rae wanted to move in which created an extra bedroom.”

Yeah, that was rather random. Though didn't Ste briefly live there with the reduced Roys? I can't remember if that was just Anita and Ravi, or with Leila too. Either way, I'm pretty sure its meant to be just 3 bedrooms!
fredcat
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by KiaraMoore:
“Amy and Ste do seem to have a lot of free time Ally, but its not as bad as Nancy with Charlie!


Yeah, that was rather random. Though didn't Ste briefly live there with the reduced Roys? I can't remember if that was just Anita and Ravi, or with Leila too. Either way, I'm pretty sure its meant to be just 3 bedrooms!”

dont remember Ste living there, must have been whn i stopped watching for a bit.
When Frankie and Jack lived there didn't Newt and Darren have bunkbeds in the living room? or am i making that up?
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by mojo5000:
“It may be a stupid question but why do you want to see Amy in her pants?”

You haven't battered all the heterosexuality out of me yet.

But no, I just imagine people have breakdowns in their pants now, thanks to ally.*

* Not that ally had a breakdown in her pants. It's just her Brendan idea.
mojo5000
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by fredcat:
“dont remember Ste living there, must have been whn i stopped watching for a bit.
When Frankie and Jack lived there didn't Newt and Darren have bunkbeds in the living room? or am i making that up?”

No they did! And yeah Ste did live with the Roys briefly in that flat. Weird.
ally08
09-06-2011
I can confirm that I have never had a breakdown in my pants and if I ever do I will make sure nobody is watching.
KiaraMoore
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by mojo5000:
“No they did! And yeah Ste did live with the Roys briefly in that flat. Weird.”

Haha, I'd forgotten about the bunkbeds. Oh, Hollyoaks.

In fairness, we have seen a bit more of Leah since they re-cast her, I suppose she's getting to the age where they needed a girl who could act a bit instead of being a prop. And I guess we will be seeing Leah and Lucas in the next couple of weeks, with Lee trying to play Dad.
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by ally08:
“I can confirm that I have never had a breakdown in my pants and if I ever do I will make sure nobody is watching. ”

I had one last week. No one saw though, it's fine.

Apart from me neighbours.
mojo5000
09-06-2011
Eurgh Noel's in it the week after next according to the RT cast list.
tezzabobs
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by mojo5000:
“Eurgh Noel's in it the week after next according to the RT cast list.”

Oh I want someone to strange him with one of his own scarves.
KiaraMoore
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by mojo5000:
“Eurgh Noel's in it the week after next according to the RT cast list.”

Oh goody. He'll probably be moaning about Ste selfishly being concerned about Amy and not paying him every waking moment of intention.

On the bright side though, they'll probably argue and that can't be a bad thing (eyebrows aside).
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
So definitely no Brendan that week then?

Hopefully Ste will be lucking after the kids and Lucas and Leah hatch some Machiavellian plan to rid themselves of Noel.
mojo5000
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by LemonadeMan:
“So definitely no Brendan that week then?

Hopefully Ste will be lucking after the kids and Lucas and Leah hatch some Machiavellian plan to rid themselves of Noel.”

Definitely no Brendan but like Kiara said it'll probably be Noel whinging and maybe Ste can get rid......too hopeful?!
AnotherSarah
09-06-2011
Hello part 44
Go us (albeit a bit more slowly than usual)
Originally Posted by cyrilandshirley:
“That was quick.

As Ste said to Noah. ”

No doubt. But it's probably better that way

I quite like the idea of Brendan teaming up with Todge, as long as there's menacing and/or manipulation involved.
KiaraMoore
09-06-2011
Actually, Duncan and Ricky perving over girls in the spa is that week too so Noel might be in those scenes. Not that he can take any moral higher ground over that activity of course
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by mojo5000:
“Definitely no Brendan but like Kiara said it'll probably be Noel whinging and maybe Ste can get rid......too hopeful?!”

I like hopefulness!

I mean, if Law wasn't exaggerating and it really ways quite a while since he and Kieron had filmed together, then we must be nearing the end of their shared scenes onscreen, whether they're a couple or not.
mojo5000
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by KiaraMoore:
“Actually, Duncan and Ricky perving over girls in the spa is that week too so Noel might be in those scenes. Not that he can take any moral higher ground over that activity of course ”

Originally Posted by LemonadeMan:
“I like hopefulness!

I mean, if Law wasn't exaggerating and it really ways quite a while since he and Kieron had filmed together, then we must be nearing the end of their shared scenes onscreen, whether they're a couple or not.”

Both good points *crosses fingers and limbs*
qwerty282
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by fredcat:
“i know it's been said here before but it does look like they're going to have Ste looking after the kids on his own again and i cant see Noel being too happy with that”

Yeah, I think that's going to happen too! Well, I hope it does. But I don't think Brendan'll like the fact that two young children got Note to break up, something that even him with his Badass-y Brendany ways couldn't achieve.


Originally Posted by ally08:
“She never has those bloody kids, and to be honest Ste hasn't been much better lately, I know HOs kids are always disappearing but even when Amy and Ste are in the house together the kids are nowhere to be seen, if they had a patio outside the slum I would be worried that the kids were under it.

They can't always be with Mike. ”

Lol! But they do appear more frequently than Charlie and Tom. And it seems they're going to be shown a bit more in the next few weeks, which at least means lots of annoyed Noel.

So is Noel going to be in the show during Ethan!week? I might not bother watching, even if he may be getting tortured by Leah and her wand.
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
I've just looked as his Twitter and the cocoon either means he's left or he's being the most misleading man ever.

I do keep expecting him to say he's in work though, any day now.
tezzabobs
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by LemonadeMan:
“I've just looked as his Twitter and the cocoon either means he's left or he's being the most misleading man ever.

I do keep expecting him to say he's in work though, any day now. ”

Seriously, if he does, he'll be getting a tweet from me. And nobody wants a tweet from me.
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by tezzabobs:
“Seriously, if he does, he'll be getting a tweet from me. And nobody wants a tweet from me. ”

Sikander does.
tezzabobs
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by LemonadeMan:
“Sikander does. ”

...Point.


No but, if Law does tweet about working, he's doing it on purpose. He knows people want him to go, and he's making it sound like he has so he can upset people.
LemonadeMan
09-06-2011
Originally Posted by tezzabobs:
“...Point.

No but, if Law does tweet about working, he's doing it on purpose. He knows people want him to go, and he's making it sound like he has so he can upset people. ”

Lovely Sikander.

He's an evil genius, that Law! Bet he's cackling away.
<<
<
2 of 110
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map