DS Forums

 
 

Sean O'Connor- Ruthless?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-08-2016, 02:34
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708

How many EastEnders characters will Sean O'Connor axe?

Lee Carter is the sixth character to be axed by O'Connor.

Are we heading for an axing bloodbath on the Square?
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-08-2016, 02:36
mw0390
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,462
How many EastEnders characters will Sean O'Connor axe?

Lee Carter is the sixth character to be axed by O'Connor.

Are we heading for an axing bloodbath on the Square?
He's only axed 5, Buster was axed/left by DTC
mw0390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:38
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
Deffo more to come, maybe it frees up the budget for characters and actors he wants.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:41
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
He's not ruthless. All the characters he's axed were at a dead end either because they'd been through the mill too many times, never clicked into place or were dull. Characters shouldn't be kept just because of their surname or because they're relatively new. It's a tv series not a charity for jobbing actors. It's supposed to be entertaining and those axed so far ceased to be entertaining long ago or never were in the first place.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:45
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
He's not ruthless. All the characters he's axed were at a dead end either because they'd been through the mill too many times, never clicked into place or were dull. Characters shouldn't be kept just because of their surname or because they're relatively new. It's a tv series not a charity for jobbing actors. It's supposed to be entertaining and those axed so far ceased to be entertaining long ago or never were in the first place.
Perhaps he not, although he appears to be because of how many and who but your right he doing he job he was hired for, its obviously sad actors are now effectively unemployed but there is rarely any security in this type of work.

At least he had the balls to make the sacrifices for the show needed however deep it cuts, the show has to survive and thrive and it can't do that staying in one place.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:46
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
So far I agree with his axing decisions.
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:50
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
Perhaps he not, although he appears to be because of how many and who but your right he doing he job he was hired for, its obviously sad actors are now effectively unemployed but there is rarely any security in this type of work.

At least he had the balls to make the sacrifices for the show needed however deep it cuts, the show has to survive and thrive and it can't do that staying in one place.
Agreed.

The show will survive without Lee standing around looking gormless, Roxy shouting her head off and Ronnie acting like a weirdo.

Back in the late 90's one of the EPs axed a load of deadwood in a huge cast cull and replaced them with the likes of Steve Owen, Lisa Fowler and Jamie Mitchell. It's been too long since someone did that.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:51
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
Ruthless is exactly what Eastenders needs... Have to remember that the last producer was a lying egotist who just made his own fan fiction for 2 and a half years. There is a lot of work to be done to fix it, and a cast clear out is a good place to start.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:53
Stacey_Barlow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 622
Ruthless is exactly what Eastenders needs... Have to remember that the last producer was a lying egotist who just made his own fan fiction for 2 and a half years. There is a lot of work to be done to fix it, and a cast clear out is a good place to start.
.

I agree dtc was lying so glad he was gone
Stacey_Barlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 02:56
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
Agreed.

The show will survive without Lee standing around looking gormless, Roxy shouting her head off and Ronnie acting like a weirdo.

Back in the late 90's one of the EPs axed a load of deadwood in a huge cast cull and replaced them with the likes of Steve Owen, Lisa Fowler and Jamie Mitchell. It's been too long since someone did that.
I'm guessing that was Matthew Robinson? someone said SOC worked under him, if they could recreate half that era the show would be on form.

We've lacked a good bad boy like Steve Owen or Dan Sullivan in a long time.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 03:02
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
He needs to be careful he doesn't bite off more than he can chew.

When Santer took over EE there was no massive cast cull, he just utilised the cast better then phased out those (Keith & Mickey IIRC) who really needed to go a year into his run.

When Kate Oates took over Emmerdale, she didn't axe loads of characters either. Most of her work was style over substance and in particular her last year there wasn't great but one thing she was good at was utilising the cast, even whilst catering to show hoggers like Aaron and Chas. Again, she didn't write out those who needed to go (Ali and Ruby, although personally I didn't mind Ruby and would've kept her over Dan) until she'd been there a while.

It's hasty to come in and start waving an axe around without working with a cast for a while first IMO. I mean fair enough he might need space for a few creations of his own but he's getting rid of innocuous characters who could be utilised whilst genuinely aggravating characters remain.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 03:04
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
I'm guessing that was Matthew Robinson? someone said SOC worked under him, if they could recreate half that era the show would be on form.

We've lacked a good bad boy like Steve Owen or Dan Sullivan in a long time.
They never seem to get the casting right lately with their hard men/bad boy characters.

If SOC is smart he'll rest Philth for a while. It's really boring how he keeps owning everyone he comes up against. I also think Phil is having a negative impact on Sharon, Ben and Kathy. I'd like to see all three come into their own away from Phil's negativity.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 03:07
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
He needs to be careful he doesn't bite off more than he can chew.

When Santer took over EE there was no massive cast cull, he just utilised the cast better then phased out those (Keith & Mickey IIRC) who really needed to go a year into his run.

When Kate Oates took over Emmerdale, she didn't axe loads of characters either. Most of her work was style over substance and in particular her last year there wasn't great but one thing she was good at was utilising the cast, even whilst catering to show hoggers like Aaron and Chas. Again, she didn't write out those who needed to go (Ali and Ruby, although personally I didn't mind Ruby and would've kept her over Dan) until she'd been there a while.

It's hasty to come in and start waving an axe around without working with a cast for a while first IMO. I mean fair enough he might need space for a few creations of his own but he's getting rid of innocuous characters who could be utilised whilst genuinely aggravating characters remain.
We don't know who will remain. SOC could axe 10 more characters by this time next week for all we know.

I'd argue all of those axed had ample time to get their shit together and if SOC watches the show he's already seen they're not worth holding onto.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 04:23
Whitehouse95
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,473
We don't know who will remain. SOC could axe 10 more characters by this time next week for all we know.

I'd argue all of those axed had ample time to get their shit together and if SOC watches the show he's already seen they're not worth holding onto.
Or maybe not. Maybe he's so vainglorious that he's on a one-way mission to demolish the Treadwell-Collins' era at any cost. He might be like the executive producer's version of Pol Pot and his dream of Year Zero.
Whitehouse95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 06:27
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
It's not the axings that count, no one should be exempt. It's what he plans to replace them with. Until I see his signings and what s/l he's got planned I will remain sceptical. It's always easier to tear something down than rebuild.

Three relationships destroyed and he's barely got started (four if you count Tina and Sonia).
vald is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 06:42
Aiden James
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Team GB
Posts: 539
I have a feeling Jay will be next but it should be Shakil. The character is awful.

The only character I would really want to see him axe is Tina.

What it looks like to me is that he is cutting down families so they aren't too overcrowded.
Aiden James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 06:51
ClassicGarfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,283
Ruthless is exactly what Eastenders needs... Have to remember that the last producer was a lying egotist who just made his own fan fiction for 2 and a half years. There is a lot of work to be done to fix it, and a cast clear out is a good place to start.
No truer words have ever been said

DTC must be seething that the cockers and a carter are gone.
ClassicGarfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 06:57
ClassicGarfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,283
He needs to be careful he doesn't bite off more than he can chew.

When Santer took over EE there was no massive cast cull, he just utilised the cast better then phased out those (Keith & Mickey IIRC) who really needed to go a year into his run.

When Kate Oates took over Emmerdale, she didn't axe loads of characters either. Most of her work was style over substance and in particular her last year there wasn't great but one thing she was good at was utilising the cast, even whilst catering to show hoggers like Aaron and Chas. Again, she didn't write out those who needed to go (Ali and Ruby, although personally I didn't mind Ruby and would've kept her over Dan) until she'd been there a while.

It's hasty to come in and start waving an axe around without working with a cast for a while first IMO. I mean fair enough he might need space for a few creations of his own but he's getting rid of innocuous characters who could be utilised whilst genuinely aggravating characters remain.
We have to remember though that eastenders has never had a more aborrant 5 years in its entire history like the last 5. Characters have hit corners and been dragged by their heels from the writers and EPs.
ClassicGarfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 07:06
Pepsii Cola
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 953
Cast clear outs if done right work wonders for the show long term. Look at Robinson, he axed over 20 characters and replaced them with the likes of Steve Owen, Mel Healy, Lisa Fowler - who I think is odds on for a return tbh. Sean worked under both Robinson and Yorke so I think he should be trusted. This guy is old school EastEnders.
Pepsii Cola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 08:47
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
The show needs a bit of ruthlessness. DTC axed every character introduced by Kirkwood and replaced them with his own dud characters and pet projects. Sean O Connor is simply axing characters that ran out of mileage years ago. Axing Ronnie and Roxy is the clearest example of this: two characters that haven't been interesting for at least five years, but have stuck around because they're mates with DTC.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 08:50
Bettty Boo
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 200
Cast clear outs if done right work wonders for the show long term. Look at Robinson, he axed over 20 characters and replaced them with the likes of Steve Owen, Mel Healy, Lisa Fowler - who I think is odds on for a return tbh. Sean worked under both Robinson and Yorke so I think he should be trusted. This guy is old school EastEnders.
If he does bring Lucy Benjamin back do you think that opens the door for Tamzin Outhwaite? Tamzin always said she would go back but there wasn't a way to make it possible... Lisa would open that door.
Bettty Boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 09:08
willows
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,461
The show needs a bit of ruthlessness. DTC axed every character introduced by Kirkwood and replaced them with his own dud characters and pet projects. Sean O Connor is simply axing characters that ran out of mileage years ago. Axing Ronnie and Roxy is the clearest example of this: two characters that haven't been interesting for at least five years, but have stuck around because they're mates with DTC.
I agree

But think some behind the scenes departures should be happening also. Alex lamb and the lady who's name Escapes me right now
willows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 09:20
_elly001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,622
The problem is he's being ruthless with the wrong characters. The show needs some moral 'tidying up' to get it away from the sensationalist ideas that bogged down DTC's era and back to old-school EE. I thought when we got news that Ronnie was going that this was going to happen, but Lee and Roxy are both (for want a better word) 'normal' people - ie. not murderers and psychopaths - played with conviction by actors who clearly want to be there.

The second on his list should have been Jane, to put that whole nightmare storyline firmly in the past, and the second and third should have been Babe and Claudette. He then should have imposed a year's sabbatical on Phil and Ian to give their characters time to refresh. THAT would have been a bold and ruthless list, but also one that made sense.

Finally, he should have kicked Alex Lamb to the kerb and brought in a fresh chief storyliner with brilliant longterm ideas for ALL characters, not just the A-listers.

As much as the likes of Tina and Shakil irritate me, I no longer think it's the right decision to get rid of them. I want a show that treats its cast well and does the right thing by them rather than simply axing them because nobody is imaginative enough to come up with some longterm investment.

To be honest if the axings of decent, ordinary characters keep happening I can see myself switching off fairly soon. At least Hollyoaks appears to be improving again, thankfully, so I can still get my soap fix there.
_elly001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 09:27
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
I wonder how DTC himself feels that his mates Sam and Rita have been axed?

I do see more Carter's going now Lee has been announced - DTC must be annoyed about this!
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-08-2016, 09:30
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,708
We don't know who will remain. SOC could axe 10 more characters by this time next week for all we know.

I'd argue all of those axed had ample time to get their shit together and if SOC watches the show he's already seen they're not worth holding onto.
I think we will see at least five to ten more characters being axed.
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18.