|
||||||||
EE - Is DTC right to axe *SPOILER* |
| View Poll Results: Is DTC right to get rid of Lola? | |||
| No - Lola should stay |
|
87 | 71.90% |
| Yes - It is time for Lola to leave |
|
34 | 28.10% |
| Voters: 121. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: #EE#TheCarters
Posts: 11,310
|
EE - Is DTC right to axe *SPOILER*
There seems to be a good vary in opinions about DTC's decision NOT to renew Danielle's aka Lola contract (so in a sense its an axe) so I thought it was time to do a good old fashioned poll.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here
Posts: 4,814
|
Has she been axed? Everything I've seen (admittedly just two articles) simply says she is leaving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melting pot of friendship
Posts: 11,734
|
It is the right time for her to leave to me, They do not use her enough to remain, Nothing against her personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Master of all fit EE males
Posts: 6,529
|
He is not roght to axe her. Same with liam.
Hes too focused in goving shirlet and mick all the good storylines and having then involved in most others that he has neglected so many characters fans have wanted to see more of. Both lola and liam i can think of loads of stories but dtc has axed them because they are young and not carter related or close to the carters. If danielle quit then i think shes right to. She has been heavily underused especially this year with no storylines and the lexi being fathered by ben has been washed away and that wouldmof been great for kathys return but no. Dtc clearly doesnt like the character but thats bo excuse to axe or underuse a character as all characters have fans. Aside from ian i hate all the current ones who are shoved down are throats ans only the rotation and ubderused ines i like. Honestly dtc needs to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Albert Square.
Posts: 46,296
|
No! Danielle is one of the best actors in EE/soap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,532
|
Quote:
Has she been axed? Everything I've seen (admittedly just two articles) simply says she is leaving.
It's a waste of a good character. But, the writing was on the wall. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Middleton
Posts: 13,839
|
No but soon everyone will turn against him if he carries on, but that bit is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Master of all fit EE males
Posts: 6,529
|
Quote:
No but soon everyone will turn against him if he carries on, but that bit is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 395
|
Unsure. I'm in two minds about this. She's okay as a character. Not much has been done with her for me to like her, but I think she is vital to Billy. Billy needs some family who aren't the Mitchells because they're just so horrible to him. Hopefully this paves the way to Honey coming back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
|
Quote:
Unsure. I'm in two minds about this. She's okay as a character. Not much has been done with her for me to like her, but I think she is vital to Billy. Billy needs some family who aren't the Mitchells because they're just so horrible to him. Hopefully this paves the way to Honey coming back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 589
|
Well in my opinion, she should of been used more as a main character instead of s extra but DLT is the boss soo what can you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,947
|
I've agreed with all his axing's so far. He's got my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,529
|
She could have been a great character. Young, bolshy, independent single-mum fighting the stigma and stereotypes associated with that. A younger Carol Jackson, doing what she has to for her kid to survive in a difficult world without help from anyone.
That would have been a 'proper' Eastenders character and representative of an underrepresented 'benefit-class' character in this day and age of soaps where half the cast seem to run their own business and be reasonably affluent. Instead she's Mitchell-spare number: 293 and won't be a loss. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Not really fussed either way tbh, she's not a big player, she's never really been developed but she is a harmless enough background character.
The thing is, they probably want to expand the Hubbard and Kazemi families more so getting rid of minor characters such as Liam and Lola allows them to do this. I hope however we get more young characters to replace those we have lost. |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,746
|
But it makes no sense with Kathy coming back - she's a grandmother now yet they are taking Lola and Lexi away?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 180
|
I voted yes by accident
but I am genuinely sad that lola has been axed, just hope Billy won't become a total non-entity without her. He shouldn't do, what with his links to the mitchells and the cokers, but the possibility is there
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
|
No. I do not agree with the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,413
|
It's absolutely the wrong decision, but one which hasn't come with any surprise given her complete lack of screen time since DTC took over. Lola was a Kirkwood character so her days were always numbered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,529
|
Quote:
But it makes no sense with Kathy coming back - she's a grandmother now yet they are taking Lola and Lexi away?
A baby he doesn't even want will be a bit of an annoyance of a storyline to have to include. Making Ben the father of the baby in the first place was ridiculous as it added nothing to anything, took away potential storylines for Lola to have to fight for custody with the father and really bogs Ben down to something that does nothing for his character development. It's like the previous producer decided to pull Ben's name out of the hat to be the father as nothing since has made that decision even remotely logical or explainable and has shut off so many potential storylines with Lola vs Father of baby if the actual father had been thought out. I can understand why they're looking to completely move on from it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
|
DTC does not care what we the fans think. He has never liked Lola and that's why the character has been axed.
How Fatboy has managed to survive for nearly Five and a half years I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,529
|
Quote:
DTC does not care what we the fans think. He has never liked Lola and that's why the character has been axed.
In theory she's a great character but the situation she's been put in means everything you could do with the character theoretically, can't actually be done. The best thing to do would be to cut her out and re-introduce a Lola-like character (feisty, poor, young single-mum fending for herself) and not make her part of the Mitchell clan. It's not a reflection on the actress or even the character but Lola is now so intwined with a nonsensical backstory she's really hit a natural dead-end. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 414
|
more screen time for Shirley.
![]() no they should nt axe her |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,529
|
Here's a case in point:
Single mum loses job at salon. She cannot afford to buy her kid food/clothes. She begins to get desperate and tries to steal money from the cafe but Ian catches her. Now she's going to court for stealing and worried that they might take her baby away. Everyone judges her. She's a pariah in her community but people don't understand she's only doing what she needs to do for her kid... Lola loses job at Salon... Phil: Here's £100 Lola: Cheers, Phil ...this is why the character as a concept is great but Lola cannot be used to her full potential because of her unavoidable backstory. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Quote:
You can't blame him. The father of her baby storyline, which should be ripe for the pickings for any producer, is a complete dead end due to the absurdity of Ben being the father. There's also little you can do for her in terms of 'struggling single mum' because she's a Mitchell and there'll always be fistfuls of Phil handouts when in hard times and she has too much of a support network to prop her up if she fell on hard times.
In theory she's a great character but the situation she's been put in means everything you could do with the character theoretically, can't actually be done. The best thing to do would be to cut her out and re-introduce a Lola-like character (feisty, poor, young single-mum fending for herself) and not make her part of the Mitchell clan. It's not a reflection on the actress or even the character but Lola is now so intwined with a nonsensical backstory she's really hit a natural dead-end. |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
|
Quote:
i disagree that she hit a dead end, she's connected to the Mitchell's, Beales, Carters and Coker families and they could have involved her in a lot more storylines if they wanted to. For instance she could easily have been included in Ronnie and Roxys storyline, Bens homosexuality storyline, Kathys zombie storyline.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:17.




but I am genuinely sad that lola has been axed, just hope Billy won't become a total non-entity without her. He shouldn't do, what with his links to the mitchells and the cokers, but the possibility is there 