DS Forums

 
 

EE: Why do they make Jim Branning sound like a bully?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-04-2015, 08:58
Clackers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 604

There is NOTHING in the way the actor played Jim Branning that bears similarity to the way the writers know portray him as some kind of bullying child beater.

The actor who played Jim was soppy and pathetic and no way would such a hard east end child beater marry Dot Cotton, of all people!

I cannot buy into this storyline. I can understand that the Brannings had an abusive father, but FFS we already saw the father and he didn't fit the description of what we are told now.
Clackers is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-04-2015, 09:01
broadshoulder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,357
His racism and background caused alot of pain to his kids..
broadshoulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:01
Scrabbler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
It's been made clear that Jim Branning mellowed in his old age, in,particular he was in a loveless marriage. When his first wife died I suppose he managed to relax more and became the Jim we knew.

His first appearances at Carols wedding showed a glimpse of what he used to be like.
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:06
Clackers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 604
It's been made clear that Jim Branning mellowed in his old age, in,particular he was in a loveless marriage. When his first wife died I suppose he managed to relax more and became the Jim we knew.

His first appearances at Carols wedding showed a glimpse of what he used to be like.
I searched for that scene on YouTube but can't find it. What happened?
Clackers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:07
Firegazer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Downtown
Posts: 5,810
I searched for that scene on YouTube but can't find it. What happened?
Carol was getting married to a black man, and Jim couldn't stand for it.
Firegazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:10
Clackers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 604
Carol was getting married to a black man, and Jim couldn't stand for it.
Oh thanks. I found the Jim/Max reunion, which explained some stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm-mELrFFL4
Clackers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:11
Lady Voldemort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here
Posts: 4,814
On the contrary, I think it's good that they are remembering the oririginal Jim finally before his big personality transplant when he moved to Albert Square.

I can accept that he mellowed but his children had more of the bully in their lives than the harmless old man. Just like Sonia (who had had little to do with him until he moved to the Square) only new his good side and so remembers Jim fondly.
Lady Voldemort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:14
Adrian_Ward1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
Its Ji's backstory and part of the Branning history, im pleased they keep bringing it up.
Adrian_Ward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:40
Amb5rs17
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 244
It's a very realistic reaction from Max and Carol, it's extremely hard to forgive a parent for that type of behavior even if they move away from it in old age. Jim may have softened into a nice old man and maybe even seen the error of his ways bit his treatment of Max and Carol had a lasting impact.
Amb5rs17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 09:47
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
There is NOTHING in the way the actor played Jim Branning that bears similarity to the way the writers know portray him as some kind of bullying child beater.

The actor who played Jim was soppy and pathetic and no way would such a hard east end child beater marry Dot Cotton, of all people!

I cannot buy into this storyline. I can understand that the Brannings had an abusive father, but FFS we already saw the father and he didn't fit the description of what we are told now.
He did when we first saw him in 1996 and from everything we were told about him by Carol and April in the 90s. Also this was talked about a lot when Max arrived in 2006. Do you not remember the storyline about Max being locked in a coffin overnight by Jim when he was a child?

These things did happen on screen and are completely in keeping with the Jim that is being discussed now.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 10:34
AcerBen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,155
Has Carol ever been on screen with Jim? I can't remember them ever having a scene together.
AcerBen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 10:43
Seymour Butts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,170
Oh thanks. I found the Jim/Max reunion, which explained some stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm-mELrFFL4
Really good scene that. Also further proof that Jack wasn't invented at that point as Max asks if he's seen his brother rather than brothers
Seymour Butts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 11:30
Dr K Noisewater
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,730
I'm guessing you never saw April's wedding episodes in 1996 OP? Jim was absolutely vile to his daughters then, April, Carol and Suzy were all shown to be terrified of him and Derek. This was revisited 10 years later when Max arrived onscreen and talked about the abuse he also suffered at the hands of his dad. Jim was terrible father but mellowed in old age and developed a very close bond with his grandkids, Robbie and Sonia in particular. As Dot said to Sonia last week 'we had the best of him' which also applies to us viewers as we saw the nice old man he became, his children however never saw that side. Neither Carol nor Max ever really made their peace with him so their reactions to his death now are very understandable.
Dr K Noisewater is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 12:11
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
I would have been annoyed if they didn't reference what a nasty man Jim was. It would never have been true to who Carol is if she spent her whole time crying and grieving. He was her dad at the end of the day and i am sure she loved him, but why should she make out he was some sort of saint, when he wasn't. He beat Max up over something Jack stole, and that still haunts Max. He was also horrific to Carol when she married Alan and had Billy. These are not things you suddenly forget and get over about. Jim may have mellowed in his old age, but Carol and Max know Jim a lot more than what Dot and us viewers know.
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 12:19
Amaretto2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,562
Bit of a rubbish "tribute" to the actor when they keep droning on about what a vile man Jim was...something the audience only ever saw for about 0.0005% of his time on the show. They may as well not have bothered.

He was given a total personality transplant after his initial 1996 appearance, so I'd imagine the vast majoirty of non hardcore fans are completely baffled.
Amaretto2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 12:24
MrJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,968
Pretty integral part of Jim's backstory was that he had a dark past.
MrJames is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 13:28
shrinkingviolet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,233
Bit of a rubbish "tribute" to the actor when they keep droning on about what a vile man Jim was...something the audience only ever saw for about 0.0005% of his time on the show. They may as well not have bothered.

He was given a total personality transplant after his initial 1996 appearance, so I'd imagine the vast majoirty of non hardcore fans are completely baffled.
It's not a tribute to the actor though - it's about the character and to dismiss a major part of his character, one that still affected the characters relationship with his children even after he became the nice old man would be doing a greater disservice. This way, addressing it and letting the characters find closure to then mourn him is the best sort of tribute, imho.

What kind of ridiculous revisionism would we be expected to buy about the character otherwise? His kids barely wanted to visit him when he was sick for a reason.
shrinkingviolet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 14:00
Heathyheath_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 968
I like the fact that it's being shown that Jim wasn't always an angel and was somebody who mellowed in his old age but I don't think it's something that should be the focus after his death. It's some irony though, his first appearance was turning up to blast Carol for marrying a black man, by the time of Jim's stroke his best friend was a black man. I love the evolution of Jim's character
Heathyheath_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 14:03
Dr K Noisewater
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,730
Really good scene that. Also further proof that Jack wasn't invented at that point as Max asks if he's seen his brother rather than brothers
The Branning backstory is a bit of a mess. In 1994 David mentioned being beaten up by Carol's brothers (plural) when they learned of her teenage pregnancy in 1976. However in 1996 we were introduced to all the Branning siblings and it was established that Derek was Jim's only son along with the three girls. David's earlier beating at the hands of Derek was again referenced but this time it was stated that Derek and his mates had beaten David up, as at this point no other Branning brother existed. Fast forward 10 years to 2006 and Max is first mentioned when Bradley arrives in Walford and the following year in 2007 Jack is very first mentioned a week before his arrival. So it would seem that Carol did have more brothers after all however they couldn't possibly have been the brothers David referred to in 94 as Max and Jack are both a decade younger than Carol and David so when 14 year old David was beaten up Max and Jack would only have been toddlers.
Dr K Noisewater is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 14:09
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
On the contrary, I think it's good that they are remembering the oririginal Jim finally before his big personality transplant when he moved to Albert Square.

I can accept that he mellowed but his children had more of the bully in their lives than the harmless old man. Just like Sonia (who had had little to do with him until he moved to the Square) only new his good side and so remembers Jim fondly.
It's a very realistic reaction from Max and Carol, it's extremely hard to forgive a parent for that type of behavior even if they move away from it in old age. Jim may have softened into a nice old man and maybe even seen the error of his ways bit his treatment of Max and Carol had a lasting impact.
It's not a tribute to the actor though - it's about the character and to dismiss a major part of his character, one that still affected the characters relationship with his children even after he became the nice old man would be doing a greater disservice. This way, addressing it and letting the characters find closure to then mourn him is the best sort of tribute, imho.

What kind of ridiculous revisionism would we be expected to buy about the character otherwise? His kids barely wanted to visit him when he was sick for a reason.

Exactly. As the child of a comparably difficult father I'd be pretty annoyed if they airbrushed Jim's nature for most of his life out of history.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 14:19
misty cloud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,130
I think it's been done really well, the Brannings are struggling and can't forgive the past then in comparison the Carters appear to have forgiven Stan. It's good to see the two different comparisons.
misty cloud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 14:44
MrJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,968
It's nice because Carol and Max are mourning for he version of Jim that they knew, whilst Sonia and Dot mourn for the version that they knew.
MrJames is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 14:59
Marcus_Smith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,461
Those scenes with sonia the last week she kept asking carol whats wrong and carol bad mouthing Jim i was expecting scene's of sonia to have lost it big time and Stuck up for jim telling carol straight out how good he was to her and how he was there when you wern't mum when i had rebecca when i lost jamie we could have had some great argument scenes even of carol and sonia falling out. I'm abit disappoint they haven't shown Sonia defending him since she seen the best parts of Jim
Marcus_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 16:07
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
I know his past was alluded to before but they've really gone to town on trashing his character since he died. While I like he's getting the warts and all treatment it would be good if they could have Sonia balance out all the non-stop hating.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2015, 17:07
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
Carol and Max have no idea where Suzy is it seems. Is April still in Greece?
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:02.