DS Forums

 
 

Fed up of the Mitchells


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-07-2016, 18:19
Fred2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 29

I'm fed up of them.. Bored of Phil, Ben and Sharon and why do they always take up so much airtime? Ronnie has a big storyline with Andy and it's as dull as dishwasher. Ronnie and Roxy are tedious together and they argue about the same thing. Don't like Louise and she is a self entitled immature teenager played by an adult who looks like she's in her early twenties.

Other families need a look in! Carters, Beales, Fowlers, Masoods and others need the same treatment.
Fred2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-07-2016, 18:25
Menime123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,608
This is a 20 year old argument. Live with it. it could be worse. Sam could still be around demanding storylines.
Menime123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 19:00
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
It seems to have got worse recently. If it's not Phil it's Ben, if it's not Ben it's Sharon, if it's not Sharon it's Ronnie or Roxy. Then there's Louise, Peggy's death, Grant's return and of course Billy, Honey and Jay (althogh they're the only ones I don't mind because they never dominate). It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't such a miserable, dysfunctional family.
vald is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 19:02
Reem2011
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,687
I'm fed up of the crew not the cast
Reem2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 19:22
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
Give me the Mitchells over Donna's brother-baby plot or yet another Carter family-karaoke-Dicky-Ticker-theme-night-trifle-meal-party any day.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 19:48
Noxy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 1,285
I'm fed up of them.. Bored of Phil, Ben and Sharon and why do they always take up so much airtime? Ronnie has a big storyline with Andy and it's as dull as dishwasher. Ronnie and Roxy are tedious together and they argue about the same thing. Don't like Louise and she is a self entitled immature teenager played by an adult who looks like she's in her early twenties.

Other families need a look in! Carters, Beales, Fowlers, Masoods and others need the same treatment.
What, all one of them? (excluding the kid because he's a kid)

But I take your point. I want to see more Fowlers, Slaters and Foxes personally. And I also think the show desperately needs one or two new families that aren't strongly connected to pre-existing families in some way. I also think Jane is spent as a character.
Noxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 20:17
Scrabbler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
I like the Mitchell's, although they could do with a bit of freshening up. The Roxy/Ronnie set up is the unit I like the least. Even more so now Planks back.
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 20:36
OLD Mitch
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 421
The Carters have had their fair share.
OLD Mitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 20:57
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
Their material (Phil's cirrhosis, Peggy's death, Phil and Sharon on a more even keel, Ben's non-death) has been stronger than in the last couple of years. But they are on too much.

They've always been a prominent family and are probably always going to be, but it becomes an issue when little (sometimes nothing) else is being developed alongside. Over the past year nearly every ep has revolved around them and they've had not just one but several big storylines thrown at them in that time, a number running concurrently.

They were a major force in the 90s, certainly the mid 90s onwards with Sharongate, Phil/Kathy, Grant/Tiffany and Peggy's relationships and breast cancer, but it didn't feel all-consuming and there was never a period where they had four or five storylines going on at the same time.

It helped that there was only 4 or 5 Mitchells at any given time back then. Now there's about 15 of them. They easily outnumber the Carters and are roughly a similar size to the Branning family (incl. Bianca and her brood) of a few years back when that started getting out of control.

A little pruning may be in order. It does feel like Ronnie has reached the end of the road. There's only so long she can get away with murder for. Louise should never have been introduced and I don't see the point in Jack ending up with Richard. His presence just seems to be an excuse to slag off Sam, even though Jack has never bothered with Richard for the last six years.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 22:33
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,236
They are in your face 24/7 in every single episode (whether other characters have been given the honour of a small storyline or not).

But it has been like this since the mid-nineties, EP after EP seems to believe that Eastenders is the bloody Mitchell show and nothing more.

I don't see this ever changing either.

Bah!

Humbug!
Keyser_Soze1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 22:56
MissMonkeyMoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,413
A little pruning may be in order. It does feel like Ronnie has reached the end of the road. There's only so long she can get away with murder for. Louise should never have been introduced and I don't see the point in Jack ending up with Richard. His presence just seems to be an excuse to slag off Sam, even though Jack has never bothered with Richard for the last six years.
A little pruning is definitely in order! I don't mind Ronnie but seriously, where can they take her character now? I couldn't care less about the Andy storyline! I don't mind Louise cos after Cindy and Lola went we needed another young female but I agree on what is the point of Richard? Jack is playing father to Ronnie's son that she had with Jack's step mum's grandson whilst she is playing Mum to Jack's son by her cousin and Jack's daughter by her sister

I liked roxy when she was away from Ronnie and the Mitchells - i thought she worked well with Alfie, Christian and her (albeit brief) working relationship with Masood.
MissMonkeyMoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 23:00
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
The Mitchells are used a lot but they're the only characters generating any kind of drama at the moment, so give me Mitchells over salsa classes, Donna longing for a baby, and drippy Lee and Whitney any day. People complain that other characters/families don't get enough screentime, yet when the focus does switch to the Hubbards, Cokers, Kazemis the quality goes through the bloody floor. I tune in to watch exciting characters and storylines, I'm not going to waste my time with Carter karaoke parties and Denise and Carmel whining about how lonely they are.

The Mitchells provide drama. They can't be blamed for the fact that so many of the other characters are poor. Besides, the Mitchells have been the main EE family for more than 20 years. It's not like this is a new development.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 23:20
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
They are in your face 24/7 in every single episode (whether other characters have been given the honour of a small storyline or not).

But it has been like this since the mid-nineties, EP after EP seems to believe that Eastenders is the bloody Mitchell show and nothing more.

I don't see this ever changing either.

Bah!

Humbug!
They didn't feel that invasive to me in the 90s. But that's probably only because there weren't as many of them as they certainly got a lot of material.

I think what also helped back then was that their material was fresh and the writing for them hadn't become so self-aware. Phil/Grant/Peggy all had a defined characterisation and were relatable people. The noughties saw both Phil and Peggy drift into caricature territory and taken to extremes on occasion.

I do still enjoy the Mitchells here and there, but the writing for them is often self-referential and full of clichés.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 23:24
Damien_Johnson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 592
I don't find them as overbearing as the Brannings were crica 2011 or the Carters in 2014/2015.
Damien_Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 00:01
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
A little pruning is definitely in order! I don't mind Ronnie but seriously, where can they take her character now? I couldn't care less about the Andy storyline! I don't mind Louise cos after Cindy and Lola went we needed another young female but I agree on what is the point of Richard? Jack is playing father to Ronnie's son that she had with Jack's step mum's grandson whilst she is playing Mum to Jack's son by her cousin and Jack's daughter by her sister

I liked roxy when she was away from Ronnie and the Mitchells - i thought she worked well with Alfie, Christian and her (albeit brief) working relationship with Masood.
There are too many kids.

It wasn't necessary for Sam to leave Richard behind or for the annoying Louise to be introduced.

I agree that the Ronnie and Roxy dynamic is tired. I thought when Roxy left in January (to cover Rita's panto leave) and had seen the light re: Ronnie that that was going to be an end to it. Alas not.

I preferred Ronnie with Charlie and it annoys me how he was scrapped probably just so she could get back together with Jack. I feel like they are always changing direction with Ronnie and it has ruined her. We've seen her kill Carl and the show tout her as a major villain off the back of that, a rom com with Charlie Cotton, the return of her villainous side when she ran Charlie out of town with secret lover Vincent, then a feud with Vincent which was swiftly dropped, and now she's playing happy families again but with Jack. Yes, she doesn't just have to be one thing but there's no fluidity to her characterisation and so many of these stories had unsatisfactory conclusions. She'd probably still be with Charlie had Scott Maslen declined a return.

I actually liked it when Santer built on the family in 2007/2008 with Ronnie, Roxy and Archie. It was the kick up the bum needed following Grant's departure some years previous (aside from his brief returns in 05 and the lesser successful of the two 06). I'm just not overly fond of the current set-up. I think there are way too many kids atm, the R&R dynamic has gone stale and I don't like that they're trying to turn Sharon into Peggy.

R&R are only okay when they're around other people as then there's less focus on Ronnie's obsession with Roxy, like the other night when Sharon threw that party to welcome Phil home. But what I liked best about that was Sam's sarcastic commentary. At least she, while not perfect herself, sees them for what they are.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 06:01
MissMonkeyMoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,413
LHolmes - i liked Ronnie with Charlie too. Thought they worked much better than Ronnie and Jack. There was a real spark there and much more potential for long term storylines. They found have kept Charlie and still had jack back on the square - he found initially have come back to be near amy, then stayed to support Abi before finally interacting with Max on his return. And the Vincent thing was ridiculous - Ronnie told roxy that she had met someone before Charlie that she thought was actually the one but that she had to let him go because roxy had needed her and that's when they went abroad and at the time it was heavily hinted at that it was Vincent. wtf? Their liaison was so quickly swept under the carpet it was ridiculous.
MissMonkeyMoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 07:16
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
The Mitchells are used a lot but they're the only characters generating any kind of drama at the moment,
Isn't that because they're the only characters being allowed to? It's a chicken and egg scenario.

The Mitchells provide drama.
They aren't the only ones capable of doing that though bass.

They can't be blamed for the fact that so many of the other characters are poor.
Aren't they only 'poor' due to TPTB's lack of investment in them whilst they instead focus on whoever is current flavour of the month, constantly? The Carters > The Beales > The Mitchells.

You mention the Kazemis but they were at the centre of one of the most praised storylines of 2015 when Shabnam and Kush lost their baby. Meanwhile, the Cokers have had some powerful scenes and been praised over the past week. So if the material is there...

Besides, the Mitchells have been the main EE family for more than 20 years. It's not like this is a new development.
I get what you are saying.

They are so embedded in the show and well known (Phil, Peggy, Grant and Sharon anyway) there's no question of them not being put to good use. I expect them to get more than most but I'm of the opinion that not everything should revolve around them to the extent everything and everyone else is stifled. And the same goes for the Carters and Beales as we've been here with them too.

Santer clearly favoured Stacey, the Mitchells and Brannings 2.0 but still gave other families and characters big storylines and time in the spotlight eg. the Masoods with Christian/Syed, the Beales with all the Lucy dramas feeding into Ian being stalked, the Truemans with Patrick's attack and the Jacksons/Butchers with Whitney/Tony.

DTC himself demonstrated the ability to use a cast well in 2014. Several characters and families got big storylines that year eg. the Jacksons/Butchers (Carol's breast cancer), Dot (Charlie's introduction and Nick's return), the Beales (Lucy's murder), the Mitchells (Phil and Sharon's warring and his affair with Shirley) and the Carters (general adjusting to life in the Square, Linda's rape) but something changed after Live Week. Now the focus seems to be on the same group of characters for ages with little let-up.

What bothers me is that the Mitchells haven't even been on-screen with good material for much of this time. A lot of their stuff in 2014/2015 was substandard. The Mitchells vs. the Hubbards is truly one of the worst storylines I can ever recall being told on the show and I think we were all sick of Sharon and Phil's double crossing of each other by the end.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 07:38
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
LHolmes - i liked Ronnie with Charlie too. Thought they worked much better than Ronnie and Jack. There was a real spark there and much more potential for long term storylines. They found have kept Charlie and still had jack back on the square - he found initially have come back to be near amy, then stayed to support Abi before finally interacting with Max on his return. And the Vincent thing was ridiculous - Ronnie told roxy that she had met someone before Charlie that she thought was actually the one but that she had to let him go because roxy had needed her and that's when they went abroad and at the time it was heavily hinted at that it was Vincent. wtf? Their liaison was so quickly swept under the carpet it was ridiculous.
I feel like a lot of Ronnie's material over the past 18 months or so has followed a similar pattern - as though it's been hastily rewritten/scrapped halfway through.

I wonder if Jack's return also saw an end to them building on Ronnie/Vincent. The thing she had with Vincent became the big feud between the Mitchells and Hubbards, that ended pretty quickly itself. I suppose Vincent had no ammo left after Claudette admitted the truth about his father's death.

What happened to the police's (some special unit IIRC) investigation into Phil, the one Vincent was feeding information into? And are we expected to believe they'd just turn a blind eye to Ronnie killing Carl?
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 07:48
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,012
They are in your face 24/7 in every single episode (whether other characters have been given the honour of a small storyline or not).

But it has been like this since the mid-nineties, EP after EP seems to believe that Eastenders is the bloody Mitchell show and nothing more.

I don't see this ever changing either.

Bah!

Humbug!


To be honest the Mitchells are the only thing I find interesting about the show at the moment
sorcha_healy27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:09
The_abbott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
I would take the Mitchells over the other families. I would still be watching if it wasn't for the other boring nonsense going on. THe Mitchells have three distinct units so IMO it was never like they dominated all the time. The Carters are all lumped together and involved in everyone's stories particularly Shirley even if a character farted Shirl would be there to comment.

The Foxes/Hubbards have had their day, So has Roxy, Jane, Masood. They just keep them around in case other ex-cast members return. Just because a character has been around a long time is not a reason to keep a character.

They need a full clear out.
The_abbott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:11
joe gillott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Master of all fit EE males
Posts: 6,529
Out of all of them I only like Ben, Jay and Honey. The rest are unbearable.
joe gillott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:22
davejc64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,054
I'm fed up of them.. Bored of Phil, Ben and Sharon and why do they always take up so much airtime? Ronnie has a big storyline with Andy and it's as dull as dishwasher. Ronnie and Roxy are tedious together and they argue about the same thing. Don't like Louise and she is a self entitled immature teenager played by an adult who looks like she's in her early twenties.

Other families need a look in! Carters, Beales, Fowlers, Masoods and others need the same treatment.
Yet some on here are of the opinion that the Carters get too much attention, there's certainly no pleasing everyone that's for sure.
davejc64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:34
Fred2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 29
Ta for the replies, guys. Happy to learn I am not the only one who thinks the show is all about the Mitchells. Fine they provide drama but so do the other families. Cokers last week gave us good drama. Next week credits is implying next week is about Sharon Grant Phil Ronnie zzzzzzzzz
Fred2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:36
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
Isn't that because they're the only characters being allowed to? It's a chicken and egg scenario.

They aren't the only ones capable of doing that though bass.

Aren't they only 'poor' due to TPTB's lack of investment in them whilst they instead focus on whoever is current flavour of the month, constantly? The Carters > The Beales > The Mitchells.

You mention the Kazemis but they were at the centre of one of the most praised storylines of 2015 when Shabnam and Kush lost their baby. Meanwhile, the Cokers have had some powerful scenes and been praised over the past week. So if the material is there...

I get what you are saying.

They are so embedded in the show and well known (Phil, Peggy, Grant and Sharon anyway) there's no question of them not being put to good use. I expect them to get more than most but I'm of the opinion that not everything should revolve around them to the extent everything and everyone else is stifled. And the same goes for the Carters and Beales as we've been here with them too.

Santer clearly favoured Stacey, the Mitchells and Brannings 2.0 but still gave other families and characters big storylines and time in the spotlight eg. the Masoods with Christian/Syed, the Beales with all the Lucy dramas feeding into Ian being stalked, the Truemans with Patrick's attack and the Jacksons/Butchers with Whitney/Tony.

DTC himself demonstrated the ability to use a cast well in 2014. Several characters and families got big storylines that year eg. the Jacksons/Butchers (Carol's breast cancer), Dot (Charlie's introduction and Nick's return), the Beales (Lucy's murder), the Mitchells (Phil and Sharon's warring and his affair with Shirley) and the Carters (general adjusting to life in the Square, Linda's rape) but something changed after Live Week. Now the focus seems to be on the same group of characters for ages with little let-up.

What bothers me is that the Mitchells haven't even been on-screen with good material for much of this time. A lot of their stuff in 2014/2015 was substandard. The Mitchells vs. the Hubbards is truly one of the worst storylines I can ever recall being told on the show and I think we were all sick of Sharon and Phil's double crossing of each other by the end.
I get what you're saying LHolmes, and I don't want to see a show dominated by the Mitchells. Soaps should strive to achieve a balance and never have one family hogging the action. However, this has been one of DTC's big fails: the cast is now pretty much entirely made up of his favourites (the Beales, Mitchells) and characters that he personally created. A lot of his own characters are, quite frankly, poor. They may be capable of delivering drama when given good material, but they certainly haven't shown it in the last couple of years. They haven't delivered the goods in terms of drama and intrigue in the same way that the Mitchells have.

The Hubbards are just a joke. The Cokers, while they have improved, still don't hold my interest. The Kazemis did have a big story last year, but it was driven by Shabnam who is no longer there. Kush has done nothing since, and what does Carmel do other than chase after inappropriate men? Characters like Denise and Masood passed their sell by date years ago.

The Carters are good with the lighter moments and comedy, but appalling when it comes to drama. Every Carter story follows the same mechanical and uninspired formula: Linda is upset about something but won't say what; Mick asks the kids why Linda is upset; Mick and Linda have a long chat in the bedroom; they throw a party to cheer everyone up. It's tedious. The rape storyline dragged on forever, and the presentation of Dean as some kind of victim was a disgrace.

The Mitchells haven't exactly covered themselves in glory these last few years (I also hated the Hubbard feud) but they do make the show exciting. Last summer, following weeks of the Carter story going in circles, the focus switched back to the Beales/Mitchells and the quality shot through the roof. I wasn't a huge fan of the way the Bobby storyline descended into farce, but at least it was exciting. Like I said in my previous post, I watch the show to be entertained and the Mitchells are the only ones doing that right now. So give me more Mitchells if the writers are incapable of writing interesting stories for the other families. It's all very well saying the Mitchells are getting too much of the action, but without them right now EastEnders would be stuffed.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2016, 08:39
Collins1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,533
Personally I could watch them all day - the real Mitchells, that is - Phil, Sharon, Grant, Ben, Jay, Louise with Shirley thrown in for good measure.

Kathy is and always will be a Beale.

I can't stand Billy or Roxy and can only take Ronnie in small doses.

But I'd watch them any day over the Carters.
Collins1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:05.