|
||||||||
EE the Branning dominance vs the Carter dominance |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,664
|
EE the Branning dominance vs the Carter dominance
Witch was worse???
I think they are both equally frustrating. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
The Brannings was much worse. The Carter's are all different and so therefore it is more refreshing. I think they did make a mistake in bringing Lee into it so soon, or they could have just had him as a recurring character for a couple of years. Tosh is another surplus to requirements, she joined in February so I am presuming if she was on a six month contracted it's been extended or she's on a year contract. Either way it's probably likely that she will be onscreen till February next year and I hope that they don't continue after this point.
Dean on the other hand is needed for the Shirley/Mick reveal and he is an intriguing character. Babe is just recurring and I am hoping that Sylvie will be just a guest appearance rather than a regular. |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,410
|
I prefer the Brannings, some of them were ok, the Carters are just obnoxious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,002
|
There's no comparison. The Carters are a well thought out family full of wonderful personalities. There are a couple of weak links but no doubt they'll not stay too long. Best soap family since the Masoods or even the Slaters.
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
The brannings was much worse. To the point where all the other characters were faltering due to the ridiculous centre stage action on them.
Because The carters have not dominated and focus has been equal on all the families. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cell Block H
Posts: 11,878
|
It all depends how people compare it.
The Brannings as they were in 2006 and 2007 are much better than the Carters. The Brannings didn't reach over use until 2012. 6 years after they had joined. So there is the big and major difference. The Brannings were also so popular that almost 15 million people decided to watch them on Christmas day in 2007. I prefer the Brannings. This Dean/Linda thing for example is nothing on the Tanya and Sean thing which was similar. This is without factoring in how brilliant the original Max and Stacey affair was. The Mick/Shirley thing is lame as in comparison. Sorry but its true. That's why you cannot compare the Brannings after six years to the Carters after 8 months. That said I don't dislike the Carters but so many of them weren't needed yet and underneath it all the storylines they have had as family aside from Johnny's coming out have been weak. Mick, Linda, Johnny, Nancy and Stan are the best of them but are being wasted mainly because there are so many hangers on in the family diluting their screen time. I honestly think if Danny Dyer quits the Carters will fold and be finished. They need him in order to survive. Whereas the Brannings could have survived, and have, without Jo, Scott, Charlie or Jake being there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,547
|
The Branning dominance was AWFUL, there were no storylines, and in fact the VERY SMALL storylines they did had no development on the characters! And plus the Branning's aren't even the most likeable family in Soap either
The Carter's are different and their dominance is EXPECTED, they live in the VIC! We got this dominance when the Mitchell's were running the Vic, and the difference between the CARTER dominance and the BRANNING dominance is that the Carter's WORK together, they're a strong family unit whereas the Branning's just had multiple affairs |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
|
Quote:
It all depends how people compare it.
The Brannings as they were in 2006 and 2007 are much better than the Carters. The Brannings didn't reach over use until 2012. 6 years after they had joined. So there is the big and major difference. The Brannings were also so popular that almost 15 million people decided to watch them on Christmas day in 2007. I prefer the Brannings. This Dean/Linda thing for example is nothing on the Tanya and Sean thing which was similar. This is without factoring in how brilliant the original Max and Stacey affair was. The Mick/Shirley thing is lame as in comparison. Sorry but its true. That's why you cannot compare the Brannings after six years to the Carters after 8 months. That said I don't dislike the Carters but so many of them weren't needed yet and underneath it all the storylines they have had as family aside from Johnny's coming out have been weak. Mick, Linda, Johnny, Nancy and Stan are the best of them but are being wasted mainly because there are so many hangers on in the family diluting their screen time. I honestly think if Danny Dyer quits the Carters will fold and be finished. They need him in order to survive. Whereas the Brannings could have survived, and have, without Jo, Scott, Charlie or Jake being there. Lets see if people are still loving the Carters in 7 years time. That's if they are still on screen! |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The kitchen, eating a biscuit
Posts: 9,757
|
I prefer the Carter dominance, because they are all played by capable actors and actresses whereas people such as Derek, Joey and Jack Branning stunk the place up. I'll take a Carter over a Branning anyday.*
*Note, I'm not including my lovely Stace in this, she'll always be a Slater to me. |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
Witch was worse???
I think they are both equally frustrating. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
I prefer the Carter dominance, because they are all played by capable actors and actresses whereas people such as Derek, Joey and Jack Branning stunk the place up. I'll take a Carter over a Branning anyday.*
*Note, I'm not including my lovely Stace in this, she'll always be a Slater to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
The Branning dominance was AWFUL, there were no storylines, and in fact the VERY SMALL storylines they did had no development on the characters! And plus the Branning's aren't even the most likeable family in Soap either
The Carter's are different and their dominance is EXPECTED, they live in the VIC! We got this dominance when the Mitchell's were running the Vic, and the difference between the CARTER dominance and the BRANNING dominance is that the Carter's WORK together, they're a strong family unit whereas the Branning's just had multiple affairs |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The kitchen, eating a biscuit
Posts: 9,757
|
Quote:
Stacey branning I do not think so, STACEY SLATER ICE SKATER
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,674
|
Quote:
The carters are better characters but terrible actors, therefore me along with many other public viewers would prefer to watch the original the brannings (minus Derek, Alice and joey)
Maggie O'Neill was also good but completely wasted. IMO Stacey was best whilst being a Branning. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
|
Quote:
Of the 2006 onward Brannings, i thought only Jake Wood and Charlie Clements were that good, the rest were medicore or worse.
Maggie O'Neill was also good but completely wasted. IMO Stacey was best whilst being a Branning. Stacey Branning brought us a mature Stacey with mature storylines like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Giw9eMkJdJY Not the crappy sex on the car bonnet stuff she had with Ryan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,410
|
Some people seem to have very short and selective memories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
|
During Branningmania I liked them but the more they got shoved down our throats and started multiplying like rabbits I started to detest them. The Carters were good at the beginning now I can't stand them, none of their sls have captured my interests fully and I still don't think Babe and the older son are needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,447
|
Quote:
During Branningmania I liked them but the more they got shoved down our throats and started multiplying like rabbits I started to detest them. The Carters were good at the beginning now I can't stand them, none of their sls have captured my interests fully and I still don't think Babe and the older son are needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
|
Quote:
Do you like any of the Carter's like Linda, Nancy, Mick, Johnny, Stan and Shirley?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,447
|
Quote:
I like Nancy and Johnny, but all they seem to do is stand behind the bar and say a few lines. I don't like the others, the less I see of them the better unfortunately those are the ones that are shoved down our throats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,447
|
I prefer Branning
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,447
|
Quote:
It all depends how people compare it.
The Brannings as they were in 2006 and 2007 are much better than the Carters. The Brannings didn't reach over use until 2012. 6 years after they had joined. So there is the big and major difference. The Brannings were also so popular that almost 15 million people decided to watch them on Christmas day in 2007. I prefer the Brannings. This Dean/Linda thing for example is nothing on the Tanya and Sean thing which was similar. This is without factoring in how brilliant the original Max and Stacey affair was. The Mick/Shirley thing is lame as in comparison. Sorry but its true. That's why you cannot compare the Brannings after six years to the Carters after 8 months. That said I don't dislike the Carters but so many of them weren't needed yet and underneath it all the storylines they have had as family aside from Johnny's coming out have been weak. Mick, Linda, Johnny, Nancy and Stan are the best of them but are being wasted mainly because there are so many hangers on in the family diluting their screen time. I honestly think if Danny Dyer quits the Carters will fold and be finished. They need him in order to survive. Whereas the Brannings could have survived, and have, without Jo, Scott, Charlie or Jake being there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: God didn't do this, devil did
Posts: 28,118
|
Quote:
Do you think Kellie Bright is a good actress? I think Linda is one of the best females in the show atm
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,447
|
Quote:
Yeh she's good not the best imo and definitely not the best female on the show. Atm I don't think any of the female characters on EE take that crown, Janine for me even though she killed Michael will always be one of my favourites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,552
|
Tough one, don't have a view
for those that think Babe is unnecessary, I disagree. She is part of the Mick is really Shirley's son story and Sylvie Carter who she was on the phone to in her Robin Reliant in her first episode |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:35.



