There's another Mitchell family out there which could be explored... and let's it face the Mitchell are a lot more interesting then the Massods and Co... Clive Mitchell is the younger brother of Eric and Archie, he has two sons

The thing is, they don't utilise and develop the Mitchells that they do have for instance Roxy and Billy. Would rather they did that than extended the clan,

Are they?

Give me the Masood's tragic stillbirth storyline over endless Philth faux gangster 'owning' crap every single time.

I always feel like the Mitchells are stuck in the nineties personally due to Phil not being accepting of Ben, Kathy coming back and Phil still acting like some gangster. I prefer the Masoods, they have better actors for example and more relatable than the Mitchells who think they are so high and mighty.

Would rather not. The Mitchells are fine the way they are.

Not sure why you have to bash the Masoods in the process.

The still-birth storyline is just another reason why Eastenders gets slated for being morbid.

I'd love to see more Mitchell's, particularly some younger members of the family, anything involving the Mitchell's is better than all this boring and depressing Masood and Beale stuff.

[quote=Chris197800;79486436The still-birth storyline is just another reason why Eastenders gets slated for being morbid.

I'd love to see more Mitchell's, particularly some younger members of the family, anything involving the Mitchell's is better than all this boring and depressing Masood and Beale stuff.[/QUOTE]

The endless Invincible Philth 'owning' crap is the most laughable, boring and predictable thing on the programme.

Whilst the Masood stillbirth storyline has been a beautifully acted triumph.

Each to their own but my opinion is the family tragedy stuff is so over-played in Eastenders it's now just miserable and dull. I admit the invincible Phil act isn't realistic and is annoying but I prefer watching the Mitchell's and Carters as their stories are more lively and a bit comical, basically provide more entertainment for me at least, but as I said everyone enjoys different aspects of the show.

I agree that the Mitchell's and Carters are very watchable.

It's just the endless invincibility of the Philth that ruins the Mitchell storylines a lot of the time because it makes them so predictable.

Give me more Mitchells anyday. The family could do with new blood. Plus they are the family that have carried EastEnders throughout most of its history. 90s, 00s, 10s.

This, Roxy has hardly had any character development for 9 years, except for the Jack/Amy/Roxy storyline which actually showed her taking responsibility, and what has happened to Billy? Half of them are just their because of their surname,all of the Mitchell clan need to be utilised more before any new Mitchell characters.

This!
I find myself getting bored of Phil with imhis usual controlling and thug storylines.

The masoods are alot better IMO.

The Mitchells need new life. phil is a tired character who needs a drastoc change like becoming paralyzed and dependant, ronnie and roxy need new storylines but they do have the best chemistty on screen, Billy isna pointless character who should of gone with Lola. And sharon I can take pr leave.

Ben and Jay are the only interstinf current Mitchells and Lola
Too if she had been used and not axed.

Phil's invincibility is ridiculous, hes pushing sixty and not exactly in peak condition yet hes able to hand a vicious beating to Vincent a known tough guy around fifteen years younger than Phil and in much better shape.

This is why I would like to see a younger generation of Mitchell men appear in the square, this would allow Phil to take more of a arm-chair hardman role similar to past guys like Johnny Allen and Jack Dalton, men who were known to be tough in the past and tons of underworld connections but now ageing they leave the fisticuffs to younger folk.

Don't know why Danny Mitchell was only around for a cup of coffee before being written out, he was exactly the kind of character the Mitchell family needed.