DS Forums

 
 

EastEnders - the gangster rubbish is killing the show


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-12-2015, 21:01
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412

This storyline with the Hubbards and Mitchells is embarrassingly bad. Seriously, it's becoming unwatchable.

Ronnie and Vincent need to go.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-12-2015, 21:03
PorkchopExpress
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North Lanarkshire
Posts: 3,214
They used to do it quite well, with Andy Hunter and Johnny Allen, Jack Dalton etc. This is just a joke. Total amateur hour.
PorkchopExpress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:08
computermaster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,993
No, Phil always winning and Phil in general is killing the show. Ronnie as well to a lesser extent. She doesn't work as a badass and has now defeated Vincent with a character a lot of people didn't really like that much in the first place (Jack)

A lack of any character being built up at the expense of the Mitchells staying on top is killing the show. The gangster stuff is good when done right.
computermaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:27
SegaGamer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 19,604
Eastenders is too much right now. They need to dial it down a bit, it's closing in on Hollyoaks level's of ridiculousness.
SegaGamer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:29
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
No, Phil always winning and Phil in general is killing the show. Ronnie as well to a lesser extent. She doesn't work as a badass and has now defeated Vincent with a character a lot of people didn't really like that much in the first place (Jack)

A lack of any character being built up at the expense of the Mitchells staying on top is killing the show. The gangster stuff is good when done right.
Phil's not winning tho? Ronnie is!
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:29
CUP OF TEAAA!
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 4,063
I don't mind it but this particular story is confusing me! This is what I have gathered so far:
Vincent and Claudette hate the Mitchells because Phils dad killed Vincent's. Phil told the Vincent the other day that his dad is alive and ran away. What I dont understand is why didn't Vincent confront Claudette about it? And why was Claudette so angry that he is a grass- I thought she was part of the plan? Plus, Ronnie and Vincent's relationship is VERY confusing, one minute they are sleeping with each other, then they are threatening each other. Currently, Ronnie is worling with someone to kill Vincent?
CUP OF TEAAA! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:34
Get Den Watts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,237
What makes it worse is that it's based on some supposed decades long feud which they plucked out of thin air and it's being fronted by one of the weakest "actors" the show has ever had.
Get Den Watts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:35
computermaster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,993
Phil's not winning tho? Ronnie is!
We know Phil would win in the end. Ronnie is even less convincing as a gangster/badass than Phil. She has had her fair share of victories in recent times as well. The character is not quite on Phil levels of absurdity, but the way things are going it's only a matter of time.
computermaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:39
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,009
We know Phil would win in the end. Ronnie is even less convincing as a gangster/badass than Phil. She has had her fair share of victories in recent times as well. The character is not quite on Phil levels of absurdity, but the way things are going it's only a matter of time.
I find her far more believable as she comes across as a psychopath who would do anything..Phil on the other hand isn't emotionally dead and has a conscience
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:52
computermaster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,993
I find her far more believable as she comes across as a psychopath who would do anything..Phil on the other hand isn't emotionally dead and has a conscience
You have to be more than a psycho without a concience to be convincing. To me Ronnie just doesn't come across as convincing and there have been far more believable gangsters in the past than Ronnie.
computermaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 21:53
SegaGamer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 19,604
What makes it worse is that it's based on some supposed decades long feud which they plucked out of thin air and it's being fronted by one of the weakest "actors" the show has ever had.
Meh, i have seen much worse than Richard Blackwood. I have seen a lot of the early days of Eastenders and the acting back then was terrible.
SegaGamer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 22:31
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
We know Phil would win in the end. Ronnie is even less convincing as a gangster/badass than Phil. She has had her fair share of victories in recent times as well. The character is not quite on Phil levels of absurdity, but the way things are going it's only a matter of time.
Richard blackwood did an interview the other day and he says this is th nd of Phil being top dog and vincent is his replacement. that the storyline is phils coming of age and that the younger guys will now win
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 22:32
BHAnorthstand
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 36
This is the East End, if you don't like it watch something else.
BHAnorthstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 23:24
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,009
You have to be more than a psycho without a concience to be convincing. To me Ronnie just doesn't come across as convincing and there have been far more believable gangsters in the past than Ronnie.
I was just explaining why I find ronnie convincing. I wasn't telling you that you had to find her convincing
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2015, 23:34
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
They used to do it quite well, with Andy Hunter and Johnny Allen, Jack Dalton etc. This is just a joke. Total amateur hour.
I agree.
Everything to do with the Hubbards is utterly pathetic. Worst storyline since the Ferreiras kidney caper. Ronnie's been totally ruined as well.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 00:23
MinaH
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
This is the end. The east end.
MinaH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 01:03
Shappy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: By the window
Posts: 14,154
Richard blackwood did an interview the other day and he says this is th nd of Phil being top dog and vincent is his replacement. that the storyline is phils coming of age and that the younger guys will now win
Keep dreaming Blackwood. The Phillith will always be top dog until the final ever duff duff of EE.
Shappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 01:19
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,319
Eastenders is too much right now. They need to dial it down a bit, it's closing in on Hollyoaks level's of ridiculousness.
Absolutely and it's reaching tedium levels
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 05:30
Pink_Smurf
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 6,362
No, Phil always winning and Phil in general is killing the show. Ronnie as well to a lesser extent. She doesn't work as a badass and has now defeated Vincent with a character a lot of people didn't really like that much in the first place (Jack)

A lack of any character being built up at the expense of the Mitchells staying on top is killing the show. The gangster stuff is good when done right.
You're right. The Mitchells are ruining the show. I didn't see last night's show but picked up bits from on here and it sounds like the same old, same old Mitchells winning. It's ridiculous and boring.
Pink_Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 06:51
Ouroboros
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,603
They needed a better actor for the part of Vincent, Richard Blackwood is crap as that character, maybe they should have reversed the roles of Vincent and Fatboy?
Ouroboros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 10:13
Pink_Smurf
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 6,362
They needed a better actor for the part of Vincent, Richard Blackwood is crap as that character, maybe they should have reversed the roles of Vincent and Fatboy?
Nooooo....not a chance. I hated Fatboy. Ricky Norwood was awful. He sounded so false as Fatboy. He's not hot like Richard Blackwood either. I'm sure he has his fans (Fatboy) but I wasn't one. Unfortunately Vincent was ruined when they made him a snitch and Richard Blackwood's face pulling is distracting.
Pink_Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 10:50
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
While they keep kidding themselves that Phil is some sort of hard man they'll keep bringing in adversaries to try and bring him down on a yearly basis....Derek, Carl and Vincent being the latest. And I suppose we have to include the man with the Zippo, Gavin. Vincent could have been a good character but for two things...pairing him up with the most annoying and shallow woman on the square, and giving him a lame reason to go after Phil that required history to be rewritten. Phil is a joke, Kim is a joke and Vincent has become a joke by being henpecked by one and bested by the other.
vald is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 11:08
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
This is the East End, if you don't like it watch something else.
I think the OP's complaint is regarding how ludicrous and fatuous this pseudo-thug storyline has been, not necessarily the mere depiction of East End gangsters per se.

Why should people tune off and disregard the stuff they are enjoying because there's other stuff they're not massively keen on? Are long-term, dedicated fans not entitled to offer their opinions (positive, neutral, or negative) on a discussion board designated for that very purpose?
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 11:36
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
I think the OP's complaint is regarding how ludicrous and fatuous this pseudo-thug storyline has been, not necessarily the mere depiction of East End gangsters per se.

Why should people tune off and disregard the stuff they are enjoying because there's other stuff they're not massively keen on? Are long-term, dedicated fans not entitled to offer their opinions (positive, neutral, or negative) on a discussion board designated for that very purpose?
That's precisely the point I'm making. EastEnders has portrayed gangsters very effectively in the past; we had the Firm in the 80s, and in the 90s Mitchell brothers came up against some very dangerous characters. Johnny Allen was also particularly menacing and nasty. Since 2006 the show has struggled to get it right, and we've now reached a point where their attempts at creating gangster plots are embarrassing to watch.

We've had a succession of bumbling villains and pretend 'hardmen' that seem to get worse every year: First Derek, then Carl, now Vincent. Phil has also become a ridiculous panto villain. The petty feuding and the amount of people walking around in BROAD DAYLIGHT with guns in their hands is laughable. Sharon fired an actual gun in her own house the other day. What the hell??? EastEnders is fast turning into Hollyoaks.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2015, 12:01
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
That's precisely the point I'm making. EastEnders has portrayed gangsters very effectively in the past; we had the Firm in the 80s, and in the 90s Mitchell brothers came up against some very dangerous characters. Johnny Allen was also particularly menacing and nasty. Since 2006 the show has struggled to get it right, and we've now reached a point where their attempts at creating gangster plots are embarrassing to watch.

We've had a succession of bumbling villains and pretend 'hardmen' that seem to get worse every year: First Derek, then Carl, now Vincent. Phil has also become a ridiculous panto villain. The petty feuding and the amount of people walking around in BROAD DAYLIGHT with guns in their hands is laughable. Sharon fired an actual gun in her own house the other day. What the hell??? EastEnders is fast turning into Hollyoaks.
Couldn't agree more, bass. The mid-noughties clan of Jack Dalton, Den, Dennis, Andy, Johnny Allen, Jake, and, later, Phil, Grant, and Sean was infinitely more enjoyable to watch and, unlike the atrocious "actors" who portray such utter failures as Derek the toad and Vincent, each and every one were generally very well-acted. It was interesting seeing them plot against each other and even manage to get tied up in other, high-profile stories (Den's murder, Shannis/Zonnis, etc.). They were complex and nuanced and viable assets to the show in more than one way.

The gangster era may have been heavily criticised by the Daily Fail but since 2006 we've had all manner of cardboard cutout, pantomime villains (Lucas, Janine 2.0, Derek, Vincent). The closest character who came closet to recapturing former successes in this regard (aside from Janine in her final months) was probably Archie, and we all know what become of him and the story that ruined the show long-term (as well as Stacey), from which it has yet to recover. And I can't abide the Mitchell sisters, nor could I Peggy post-2005, so it's not like I was particularly interested in his family clan.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09.