Originally Posted by kitkat1971:
“He can make his dis satisfa9tion public but it can'( stop them ending his contract and ending the character story arc in such a way as he can't come back. Ie kill him off.
They did it to Wendy Richards, Les Grantham, martine McCutcheon and Pam st Clement - why should Ritchie be exempt from having his character killed off when he'd rather he wasn't?
Frankly whilst I admire his honesty, I find it rather presumptive and arrogant that Ritchie assumes that his services are so indespensible that he can rely on EE for financial security into his old age. Not many people can assume that about a single employer or job in this day and age - least of all actors.”
“He can make his dis satisfa9tion public but it can'( stop them ending his contract and ending the character story arc in such a way as he can't come back. Ie kill him off.
They did it to Wendy Richards, Les Grantham, martine McCutcheon and Pam st Clement - why should Ritchie be exempt from having his character killed off when he'd rather he wasn't?
Frankly whilst I admire his honesty, I find it rather presumptive and arrogant that Ritchie assumes that his services are so indespensible that he can rely on EE for financial security into his old age. Not many people can assume that about a single employer or job in this day and age - least of all actors.”
I think it would come down to a question of whether the benefits coming from the storyline would be worth the possibility of Richie slamming them in the press.




