DS Forums

 
 

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?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-06-2015, 10:11
CherryRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: #EE#TheCarters
Posts: 11,310

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.
CherryRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-06-2015, 10:16
Lady Voldemort
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.
Lady Voldemort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 10:17
SJ_Mental
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.
SJ_Mental is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 10:18
joe gillott
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.
joe gillott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 10:20
xTonix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Albert Square.
Posts: 46,296
No! Danielle is one of the best actors in EE/soap.
xTonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 10:23
Deschanel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,532
Has she been axed? Everything I've seen (admittedly just two articles) simply says she is leaving.
The DS article states she is being "written out", which means her contract wasn't renewed. If it was her choice to leave, they would have said so. So, it's an axe.

It's a waste of a good character. But, the writing was on the wall.
Deschanel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 10:27
Sick Bullet
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.
Sick Bullet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 10:29
joe gillott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Master of all fit EE males
Posts: 6,529
No but soon everyone will turn against him if he carries on, but that bit is a good thing.
I agree. I hope danielle stands up to him and complains/reports him like so many past actors have. I hope she returns under the next producer or billy ahould also be writte. Out.
joe gillott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 11:59
imawotsit
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.
imawotsit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:00
Soapfan678
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
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.
I would love to see Honey back.
Soapfan678 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:03
theiceman2014
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.
theiceman2014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:03
lionkingonstage
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,947
I've agreed with all his axing's so far. He's got my vote.
lionkingonstage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:04
Tony_Daniels
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.
Tony_Daniels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:09
Scrabbler
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.
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:09
puppetangel
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?
puppetangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:10
Acejr200
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
Acejr200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:15
Soapfan678
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
No. I do not agree with the decision.
Soapfan678 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:17
bass55
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.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:19
Tony_Daniels
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,529
But it makes no sense with Kathy coming back - she's a grandmother now yet they are taking Lola and Lexi away?
I think that would have been a distraction. The main focus for the Kathy/Phil/Ben triangle should be Ben's re-coming out, his resentment of his dad for not telling him his mum's alive, etc.

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.
Tony_Daniels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:22
vaslav37
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.
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:27
Tony_Daniels
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,529
DTC does not care what we the fans think. He has never liked Lola and that's why the character has been axed.
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.
Tony_Daniels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:28
SteKoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 414
more screen time for Shirley.

no they should nt axe her
SteKoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:31
Tony_Daniels
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.
Tony_Daniels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:32
Scrabbler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
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.
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.
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2015, 12:35
Soapfan678
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
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.
I agree with that. Eastenders have including Whitney with the Carters and now seem to have plan for the character. Why could they not do the same with Lola and include her in scenes with Ronnie/Roxy and Ben? Saying Lola has hit a dead end, just seems a bit of a lazy reason to be honest. A lot more could have been done with the character.
Soapfan678 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:17.