|
||||||||
EE - Should the Beales now be axed? |
| View Poll Results: axe the beales? | |||
| Yes |
|
10 | 15.63% |
| No |
|
54 | 84.38% |
| Voters: 64. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
EE - Should the Beales now be axed?
This might be a bit controversial but is it time they went ?
DTC single handedly ruined this family. Ian has a wife in Mcbeale who said she had left him for a job cheffing in wales but had actually left him to teach in scotland. she then comes back and chases Cindy away with her baby stealing ways, she marries Ian purely to cover up her and bobbys crimes. So first up he has a wife just using him. His daughter is dead as a result of the bobster and his wife His son Peter left for new climes but was a drug dealing scum bag. His final son Bobby is in prison for playing hockey with mcbeales head and killing his sister then we have his ex wifes kids, as above cindy chased away by mcbeale & Steven up to something and hanging round like a bad smell. So Ian now has very little in the way of family. the lucy story made him and mcbeale very unlikeable and they have had no commupance Is it time they axed him and stopped with the stupid stories, replace the beales with a proper family that has family members in it. Also, if the beales have gone, the constant hallucinations of Ian's dead mother would stop occuring so axe or save? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Why would you axe the backbone of the show?
EastEnders without the Beales is like Christmas without Santa Claus. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
No they maybe distorted atm but EE without a Beale is like Corrie without a Barlow, The Carters on the other hand could go tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,800
|
No they shouldn't axe the Beales.
Ian has been there since day one, and I dont think he would ever leave on his own account, it would need a very brave producer to get rid of him. I do agree DTC ruined the Beales, it was almost like he had decided to rip the heart out of the Beales before he took over. It seemed very quick in his tenure, like he had planned it way back |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
|
McBeale has to go... there's no way back from her horrific crimes. I heard that Sean O'Connor prefers that characters get their comeuppance, so I look forward to McBeale's sentencing soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 621
|
I say keep Ian, get rid of Jane. give him a new angle where he is addicted to prostitutes and other risky behaviour
![]() But i do think he needs to be rested for 8 - 10 months again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 485
|
Its a shame. I remember in early 2014 when Jane came back and they had scenes as a whole family - Ian, Jane, (and Denise), Peter, Lucy, Cindy, and Bobby. I really liked the Beales as a unit. 2 years later and the family is down to 4 members (Ian, Jane, Steven, and Kathy). Rebuilding the Beales is something that needs to happen, because at the moment they're morally repugnant and short on numbers that they can't get justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,800
|
DTC wanted his beloved Carters to be the main thing.
With the Beales/Mitchell's/Brannings, being the main family's for years, for the carters to get there screen time, he decided to ruin the Beales. Probably because Adam Woodyatt probably didn't say anything, I cant imagine Steve McFadden or Jake Wood being such a easy touch if her ruined them. I guess in a way he slightly ruined the Mitchell's, as he took the pub away from a family who had it for years |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
Quote:
Why would you axe the backbone of the show?
EastEnders without the Beales is like Christmas without Santa Claus. His wife Mcbeale married him to cover up her crimes, she should soon rightfully be lovked up for life. surely no other woman will now touch him with a bargepole. no longer the backbone of the show the family has been destroyed and is not even a shadow of its former self |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,800
|
Sorry but another post.
If they keep Jane inmobile her character will become a minor one, especially if she doesn't go any further than there living room |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Pauline had a number of siblings we've never seen I understand.
There's plenty of ways of reinvigorating one of the shows founding families. Ian is massively damaged though and that's a shame given he's a touchstone "untouchable" character -one of the very few |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
|
Quote:
Its a shame. I remember in early 2014 when Jane came back and they had scenes as a whole family - Ian, Jane, (and Denise), Peter, Lucy, Cindy, and Bobby. I really liked the Beales as a unit. 2 years later and the family is down to 4 members (Ian, Jane, Steven, and Kathy). Rebuilding the Beales is something that needs to happen, because at the moment they're morally repugnant and short on numbers that they can't get justice.
Kathy wouldn't ever have faked her own death like that. I have no idea why they brought her back as the character has done nothing since. She can't have a 'viewpoint' on any storylines as any character can just turn it round and say "well yes, but you let your sons believe you were dead for a decade." The only reason to possibly bring her back was that incompetent DTC wanted to be the one that did it for his own egotistical agenda. McBeale tried to steal Cindy's baby, drove her out of the country, let 2 innocent people go to prison, made plans to ensure that her brother in law could be framed as well, dragged Lucy's body and flung it in a ditch, then had sex with the corpses father on the spot she dragged it from. Nowhere for that repulsive character to go either. Putting her in a wheelchair isn't redemption, it's clear that imbecile DTC had absolutely no plan for a conclusion to the story so just chucked that in and expected the viewing public to accept it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
Quote:
Sorry but another post.
If they keep Jane inmobile her character will become a minor one, especially if she doesn't go any further than there living room tho as an aside when in her scene with grant the other week, I am sure she was trying to move cos she wanted to jump his bones. Ian should be grateful at this point cos he wouldn't see her for dust |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
|
Quote:
Why would you axe the backbone of the show?
EastEnders without the Beales is like Christmas without Santa Claus. I was initially excited by the Lucy plot but we've since lost Cindy and Peter and it's going to be hard for Bobby to be anything other than Ian's Nick. I don't want them axed as Ian's got the status and I like Laurie as an actress, but they're very damaged and I think there's a way to go before viewers can root for them again. The police should've been involved in the Lucy climax just to wrap it up properly with a bit of artistic licence seeing Ian and Jane avoid lengthy sentences. The situation they're in now is kind of fascinating with Jane stuck in a bed right where Lucy died. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
Kathy wouldn't ever have faked her own death like that. I have no idea why they brought her back as the character has done nothing since. She can't have a 'viewpoint' on any storylines as any character can just turn it round and say "well yes, but you let your sons believe you were dead for a decade." |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,800
|
Sean O Connor doesn't like characters who haven't paid for there crimes does he, which if true Jane could be gone.
But saying that Phil Mitchell has done loads of crimes through the years, cant see him being axed |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,413
|
Axe Jane. after everything she did she cannot be redeemed unless she is convicted for her crimes and comes back to the square after serving her sentence. And before I get lynched about other characters that have done dreadful things and got away with them, this discussion is about the Beale's and that's the way in feel. What Jane did was despicable and I couldn't care less about her as a character now.
Same goes for Kathy ; as J-B said, DTC was just fulfilling his own wishes by bringing her back without real thought of what effect it would have on the character of where she would fit in future stories. If she had been in a crash and suffered amnesia for many years that would have been ridiculously far fetched but more acceptable than the willingness to fake her own death and abandon her sons. I cannot take anything Kathy does seriously and it really don't want to listen to either her or Jane when they get on their moral high horse. As for Ian, he still needs to leave the square but he does have the capacity to come back in. He should also serve a prison sentence for his part in the cover up and allowing max to go to jail ; it doesn't need to be very long - 3 -6 months and then that would kick start some new stories for him. Ian is a stalwart of the square but i do think he needs a break for him to remain viable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 485
|
When they brought Kathy back, the storylines didn't even know anything about it. They've done the rest of it in a rushed klunky way and then put her in an affair
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 651
|
Getting rid of the Beales, would be like Coronation Street getting rid of the Barlows.
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
|
Quote:
When they brought Kathy back, the storylines didn't even know anything about it. They've done the rest of it in a rushed klunky way and then put her in an affair
she should have stayed dead |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
|
Quote:
McBeale has to go... there's no way back from her horrific crimes. I heard that Sean O'Connor prefers that characters get their comeuppance, so I look forward to McBeale's sentencing soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
|
Quote:
I have a feeling Jane will be gone soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,413
|
Quote:
Getting rid of the Beales, would be like Coronation Street getting rid of the Barlows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,413
|
Quote:
I have a feeling Jane will be gone soon.
Quote:
We can live in hope, Vastopher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North of England
Posts: 14,124
|
I was surprised that Jane didn't leave a few months ago when she was planning to move to Birmingham with Christian and Auntie Mabel. Some of us thought that Bobby getting sent down would serve as the start of a surprise exit for Laurie Brett.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18.




