|
||||||||
Lucys dead, who cares? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: England, Bolton
Posts: 693
|
Lucys dead, who cares?
A s/l like this only really works if we care about the character. So let me ask u this: Who actually cared about Lucy Beale?.. Yep.. thought not
. She was just as pointless as the 1st Lucy (although the 1st 1 was somehow even more detestable). It doesn't help either that we already knew her death months beforehand. And now we've got a year to pretend we care about her. Typical EE, emphasising the rubbish characters over the gd 1s. Stan is an example where the show should be headin. I feel sorry for Ian Beale, that mans had it rough so credit to Adam Woodyat. However, the hype surrounding this s/l does not justify the investment we have in this dead character .
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,740
|
Quote:
A s/l like this only really works if we care about the character. So let me ask u this: Who actually cared about Lucy Beale?.. Yep.. thought not
. She was just as pointless as the 1st Lucy (although the 1st 1 was somehow even more detestable). It doesn't help either that we already knew her death months beforehand. And now we've got a year to pretend we care about her. Typical EE, emphasising the rubbish characters over the gd 1s. Stan is an example where the show should be headin. I feel sorry for Ian Beale, that mans had it rough so credit to Adam Woodyat. However, the hype surrounding this s/l does not justify the investment we have in this dead character . |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 16,468
|
Ian cares
. Oh wait he's too busy trying to bonk Jane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
I said this the other day. I'm very interested in the mystery but I don't actually care that Lucy is dead. I didn't like her and I won't miss her. I also don't like Ian and I don't care about his grief. This part of the storyline is a misfire for me I'm afraid.
I remember DTC saying EastEnders storyline would make a bigger impact than Coronation Street's murder story because Lucy has a family. I do not agree with that. Lucy's death would have been bigger if she'd been a character viewers cared about and her family were sympathetic. None of them are except stage school Bobby who can't even act. Denise is the only "Beale" who has my sympathy because she's stuck with them now. Playing up the mystery angle will be a better route to take and it seems like that's the plan with the whole "There's A Killer Amongst Them" promotional campaign. But then I agree with the OP that with the victim being Lucy, a character few cared for, it will be difficult to maintain interest for 10 months. I can see another murder occuring and the hype machine going into full force to keep viewers interested until February 2015. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
A s/l like this only really works if we care about the character.
Did we care about Archie Mitchell? Do we care about the poor bugger who gets killed at the start of Poirot? No, they're dead. The focus is on the people left alive, the suspects and the unfolding mystery. It's quite tiring that people keep reeling out "But who actually cares about Lucy Beale? Nobody cares" ad nauseum. It's not really the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
|
Quote:
Ian cares
. Oh wait he's too busy trying to bonk Jane. ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,968
|
I cared about Lucy, especially towards the end.
I care about Ian and the Beales. I care about this storyline. The whole reason that Lucy was chosen to be killed was that she wasn't a particular big character, so she wouldn't be greatly missed and they can easily build secrets around her. But she is also a part of a Walford dynasty so in that sense she WILL be missed. This is a murder mystery story. We don't get to know the characters at the beginning of Poirot or Marple before they're killed off and yet they are deemed the greatest murder mysteries of all time. This story was never about Lucy, but everything that she left behind. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
I remember DTC saying EastEnders storyline would make a bigger impact than Coronation Street's murder story because Lucy has a family. I do not agree with that. Lucy's death would have been bigger if she'd been a character viewers cared about and her family were sympathetic.
He said those deaths are about them where as Lucy's is about Ian's daughter dying, Peter's brother, Lauren's friend, it's about everyone connected to her rather than Lucy herself which is entirely different to Tina from Corrie. People seem to think he was saying Corrie's is crap or some other made up bull when he was just highlighting how, other than them being about the death of a young woman, the stories are different. Lucy wasn't chosen because everyone would miss her and feel sympathy for her, although some do, she was chosen because although she's not a huge character in her own right she would have a big impact in regards to her connections to the show's roots and history. It put the Beale's at the front of the show. It's not about Lucy, it's about Ian. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 16,468
|
Quote:
Ian did it, so he could have pity sex with Jane. Watch out Bobby, you'll be next
![]() . You've solved the whole thing! ![]() No need to wait till 2015 .That's why Jane took off with Bobby at the end. She was taking him into Witness Protection in case Ian tried killing him too .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
|
I like Lucy and I was sad she was killed off. She had potential but tptb never used it instead always focusing on st Lauren.
So far the aftermath has been good, I still find it hard to believe even the person responsible won't know they are. Surely by now, knowing Lucy's dead they may have an inkling they are responsible. Even though I think it's Abi, she seems like the sort of person who would have confessed by now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: DS
Posts: 3,101
|
I always cared about Lucy. She has always been a strong character from her teenage years. When Hetti started to play her, she became even stronger and stronger right up 'til her demise. Lucy was the only character, I personally could relate to (i.e. she was near to my age, she was very mature for her age, very ambitious etc.).
I'm very excited with the storyline. The point of the storyline is not if you liked Lucy or cared about her dying. It's about the mystery behind her death, the detrimental effects it has had all the people around her especially Ian. I'm sure the writers have thought out long and hard how they keep this storyline gripping to the audience as it is long term. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
No he didn't. He was asked about Lucy's death in comparison to the whodunits in the other shows.
He said those deaths are about them where as Lucy's is about Ian's daughter dying, Peter's brother, Lauren's friend, it's about everyone connected to her rather than Lucy herself which is entirely different to Tina from Corrie. People seem to think he was saying Corrie's is crap or some other made up bull when he was just highlighting how, other than them being about the death of a young woman, the stories are different. Lucy wasn't chosen because everyone would miss her and feel sympathy for her, although some do, she was chosen because although she's not a huge character in her own right she would have a big impact in regards to her connections to the show's roots and history. It put the Beale's at the front of the show. It's not about Lucy, it's about Ian. I also wonder if Lucy's death is supposed to be about the grief of those around her then why are they promoting it as a murder mystery? That's exactly the way the CS story is being promoted as far as I can see. If the storyline is indeed about Ian then he was a poor choice of character in my opinion. There's barely anything sympathetic about him. As I said I'm intrigued by the mystery but I don't know if I'll still feel that way 10 months from now. As far as Who Killed Archie is concerned it only lasted about 2 months and ended up being a contrived mess as far as I'm concerned. Did I like Archie? Not really. But I found him a lot more interesting than Lucy or Ian so I had a slight interest in who killed him and didn't have to wait almost an entire year to find out who the killer was. I certainly wouldn't have cared by that point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,545
|
Does anyone know when the killer will be revealed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
I don't watch Coronation Street but I read on DS the other day that Tina's mother is joining the cast. With my lack of knowledge of Tina is it fair to assume she's a solitary character who has no friends? I don't really understand how such a character could last for what I gather is years if they haven't formed any relationships with other characters. Can her murder storyline really only be about her? Surely her death will effect others just like Lucy's. I admit I don't know enough about CS/Tina to speak with authority on this storyline.
I also wonder if Lucy's death is supposed to be about the grief of those around her then why are they promoting it as a murder mystery? That's exactly the way the CS story is being promoted as far as I can see. Tina has next to no connections. Her father died, her mother was a guest character for 1 or 2 episodes, her boyfriends have left, she was heavily involved with the Platt's for a few years but has been disbanded from them for a long while. Her only purpose in the show is Peter Barlow's latest mistress. Her death won't leave anywhere near the amount of grief Lucy's has. Nowhere near the amount Hayley Cropper's got in January. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
Tina's murder is not a whodunnit, it's who-will-do-it. When she dies, we will see it occur and see who is responsible. Like with Den in the 20th anniversary, we knew he'd die but not who would deliver the killer blow.
Tina has next to no connections. Her father died, her mother was a guest character for 1 or 2 episodes, her boyfriends have left, she was heavily involved with the Platt's for a few years but has been disbanded from them for a long while. Her only purpose in the show is Peter Barlow's latest mistress. Her death won't leave anywhere near the amount of grief Lucy's has. Nowhere near the amount Hayley Cropper's got in January.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
If the storyline is indeed about Ian then he was a poor choice of character in my opinion. There's barely anything sympathetic about him. As I said I'm intrigued by the mystery but I don't know if I'll still feel that way 10 months from now.
As far as Who Killed Archie is concerned it only lasted about 2 months and ended up being a contrived mess as far as I'm concerned. Did I like Archie? Not really. But I found him a lot more interesting than Lucy or Ian so I had a slight interest in who killed him and didn't have to wait almost an entire year to find out who the killer was. I certainly wouldn't have cared by that point. I can sympathise with Ian in his grief but disagree and find his behaviour concerning Jane and Denise absolutely awful. But I like that, it gives his character depth and more than just "poor grieving dad who now doesn't do any wrong because it's a perfect world". The length of the who killed Archie story isn't the point. The point is that most whodunits in soap involve bad guys getting their comeuppance. Do we have to care about the victim to be interested in the murder mystery aspect? No. The victim themselves is largely irrelevant. It's the people in the show we have to watch, not Lucy. Also all of this "we have to wait a year to find out the killer" as though it's a matter of sitting in a room and waiting 12 months to hear some result back. Is the end all there is to a story? What happened to enjoying an unfolding story? What if people just asked for Sharon and Phil to jump straight into bed with one another in the early 90s and have Grant catch them because we don't want to wait 2-3 years for the story to end. Or lets read the last page in a book, I can't be bothered reading the middle. It's a storyline, not simply on pause until they'll provide an answer next February. Also, the story can't focus on the grief and mystery? Of course it can. The very fact Lucy simply showed up dead suddenly and they've focussed episode after episode on Ian's family and the community's reaction tells you everything about the focus of the story. The next 10 months will be Ian and his family discovering more about Lucy and the side of her life they didn't know anything about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: England, Bolton
Posts: 693
|
Should have killed the 1st Lucy, she had a face I wanted to slap. I did feel a bit sorry for Lucy2 towards the end but the character was as pointless as Alice Branning. Another who we were expected to care about..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
Should have killed the 1st Lucy, she had a face I wanted to slap. I did feel a bit sorry for Lucy2 towards the end but the character was as pointless as Alice Branning. Another who we were expected to care about..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
A poor choice of character? The only remaining original who's been there consistently from the beginning? Not really.
The length of the who killed Archie story isn't the point. The point is that most whodunits in soap involve bad guys getting their comeuppance. Do we have to care about the victim to be interested in the murder mystery aspect? No. The victim themselves is largely irrelevant. It's the people in the show we have to watch, not Lucy. Also all of this "we have to wait a year to find out the killer" as though it's a matter of sitting in a room and waiting 12 months to hear some result back. Is the end all there is to a story? What happened to enjoying an unfolding story? What if people just asked for Sharon and Phil to jump straight into bed with one another in the early 90s and have Grant catch them because we don't want to wait 2-3 years for the story to end. Or lets read the last page in a book, I can't be bothered reading the middle. It's a storyline, not simply on pause until they'll provide an answer next February. Also, the story can't focus on the grief and mystery? Of course it can. The very fact Lucy simply showed up dead suddenly and they've focussed episode after episode on Ian's family and the community's reaction tells you everything about the focus of the story. The next 10 months will be Ian and his family discovering more about Lucy and the side of her life they didn't know anything about. My intention is not to offend but to express my opinion. Hopefully we can disuss without the need to be condescending and preachy.Just because Ian is the only remaining original character to stick with the show since day one doesn't mean I have to like the character or care about him. He wasn't my favourite character in 1985, 1995 or 2005 and he's not going to suddenly become it now. I find him highly unsympathetic and I care little about what happens to him. The other long term characters from 1985 like Sharon and Dot shouldn't be looked down on just because the actors decided to do what 99% of actors do and attempted to play other roles, successfully or not. Adam Woodyatt, like William Roache, is an anomaly. Actors don't get into acting to play one role for their entire life. The other factor here is that the pool of likeable sympathetic long term characters with families large enough to sustain the loss of a child was extremely limited. The characters in EastEnders these days just aren't very nice on the whole. I could only really have sympathised with the Carters and it wouldn't have been very effective since they've only been in Walford a wet day. I recognise this limitation facing the writers but they don't do themselves any favours with the way they write for most of the characters. You've brought up Sharon and Phil's affair so I'll get to the point. I actually like Sharon and (at the time) Phil. Grant wasn't my cup of tea but he was an interesting and engaging character. The writers chose the right set of characters for that storyline as they were easy to invest in. Watching that story play out was a pleasure and it payed off spectacularly. That's not the case (so far) with the Beales. You've got snidey cow Lucy, selfish cruel weasel Ian, stuck up cheater Jane and the normally nice Peter who has recently become pig headed and whiney. The mystery is all that sustains this Lucy storyline for me but if others are enjoying the grief then that's their prerogative. We all get different things out of fiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
I'm not sure if it's intentional but your post is coming across as confrontational and defensive
My intention is not to offend but to express my opinion. Hopefully we can disuss without the need to be condescending and preachy. We're discussing a soap. If you're reading my words as confrontational then that can't be helped. Quote:
Just because Ian is the only remaining original character to stick with the show since day one doesn't mean I have to like the character or care about him. He wasn't my favourite character in 1985, 1995 or 2005 and he's not going to suddenly become it now. I find him highly unsympathetic and I care little about what happens to him. The other long term characters from 1985 like Sharon and Dot shouldn't be looked down on just because the actors decided to do what 99% of actors do and attempted to play other roles, successfully or not. Adam Woodyatt, like William Roache, is an anomaly. Actors don't get into acting to play one role for their entire life.
No one's looked down upon nor mentioned Sharon or Dot for daring to leave. It comes across you're looking down on Adam Woodyatt for daring to stay with EE for all of his career. But with it being an anniversary, he wants the story steer back to a family that have been at the centre of EE from the start. My point wasn't for you to suddenly start liking Ian but part of the reason as to why he was chosen to lead the story. Acting wise he's pulling it off so far IMO. If you don't like the character then that's unfortunate but nobody's going to like everyone. My second point was showing how you can still enjoy a story even if it does involve a character you struggle to sympathise with if you give it a chance and not write off a 10 month arc when it's barely begun. Quote:
You've brought up Sharon and Phil's affair so I'll get to the point. I actually like Sharon and (at the time) Phil. Grant wasn't my cup of tea but he was an interesting and engaging character. The writers chose the right set of characters for that storyline as they were easy to invest in. Watching that story play out was a pleasure and it payed off spectacularly. That's not the case (so far) with the Beales. You've got snidey cow Lucy, selfish cruel weasel Ian, stuck up cheater Jane and the normally nice Peter who has recently become pig headed and whiney. The mystery is all that sustains this Lucy storyline for me but if others are enjoying the grief then that's their prerogative. We all get different things out of fiction.
However my point was story wise not character. If we "just skip over it I don't care, get to the reveal" in the case of Sharongate we miss 2 years worth of story. If we skip to Lucy's killer's reveal we skip the next 10 months of story. My point being that there's more to both stories than simply the end reveals. BIB - Well there you go, you've found an element you may be able to enjoy yet in the OP it was the mystery aspect you wanted over with bemoaning that we have to wait until next February. As I say, it's not a case of us forgetting about Lucy and then coming back to it for the answer next February but there will be a story leading up to it. So skipping to the end will, hopefully, be a bad move. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: England, Bolton
Posts: 693
|
The only characters I think I sympathise with in soap are Emmerdale lol. Their characters seem the most heart warming to me. I've felt for Zak, Eric & even Dom. EE is just a cold show & Corrie has become its equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Albert Square.
Posts: 46,296
|
I cared
lucy was hot
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
|
I think you care about the other characters more like Ian but as for Lucy herself well....no. I think this is partly down to no build up to her death at all. They shoudl have shown Lucy having problems so we would feel more upset about her when she died.
When the kids were talking about Lucy last night they didn't look that upset either!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,318
|
Quote:
I cared about Lucy, especially towards the end.
I care about Ian and the Beales. I care about this storyline. The whole reason that Lucy was chosen to be killed was that she wasn't a particular big character, so she wouldn't be greatly missed and they can easily build secrets around her. But she is also a part of a Walford dynasty so in that sense she WILL be missed. This is a murder mystery story. We don't get to know the characters at the beginning of Poirot or Marple before they're killed off and yet they are deemed the greatest murder mysteries of all time. This story was never about Lucy, but everything that she left behind. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,621
|
Quote:
Does anyone know when the killer will be revealed?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:52.


. She was just as pointless as the 1st Lucy (although the 1st 1 was somehow even more detestable).
.

. Oh wait he's too busy trying to bonk Jane.
Did we care about Archie Mitchell?

. You've solved the whole thing! 