I still think making the father Kush would be pointless. Chances are he will not be in the show come 18 months, Phil is the best option.
Denise Fox - Eastenders
4 of 7
Originally Posted by Aiden James:
“I still think making the father Kush would be pointless. Chances are he will not be in the show come 18 months, Phil is the best option.”
“I still think making the father Kush would be pointless. Chances are he will not be in the show come 18 months, Phil is the best option.”
I still disagree. If its Phil's, she will get rid of it. Why would she keep the baby of the man she hates, especially when he doesn't even remember that they slept together? Whereas, if it is Kush's, it creates a dilemma for Denise. Does she really want to be a mother at her age or does she keep the baby and raise it with Kush? Also, they will have to deal with their families' reaction. I can't imagine Carmel being too pleased about it. Even if Kush isn't a forever character, it will create good drama for Davood Ghadami and Diane Parish.
I do believe that it will end being Phil's because the writers can't resist getting the Mitchells involved in things.
Originally Posted by Aiden James:
“I still think making the father Kush would be pointless. Chances are he will not be in the show come 18 months, Phil is the best option.”
“I still think making the father Kush would be pointless. Chances are he will not be in the show come 18 months, Phil is the best option.”
Even if it is Phil's and he finds out the child will be of no interest until it's in it's teens. By then Phil will be an old man. Giving Denise a family would be far more interesting. It's ridiculous that she is still alone.
Originally Posted by vald:
“Even if it is Phil's and he finds out the child will be of no interest until it's in it's teens. By then Phil will be an old man. Giving Denise a family would be far more interesting. It's ridiculous that she is still alone.”
“Even if it is Phil's and he finds out the child will be of no interest until it's in it's teens. By then Phil will be an old man. Giving Denise a family would be far more interesting. It's ridiculous that she is still alone.”
But its a another Mitchell for the future and it will be the half sibling of Ben and Louise. I personally think its the right call making it Phil's. There is no story benefit long term of it being Kush's child imho.
Perhaps this will go the same way Mark Jr will with Grant. Denise will move to America, in 20 years Denise will write to Sharon to let her know, Sharon and Grant will discuss it and decide not to tell Phil (if he is still alive by then, although being Eastenders he will have died and come back 10 times by then), then the son/daughter will hook up with another Phil offspring and the truth will have to be revealed.
Originally Posted by vald:
“Even if it is Phil's and he finds out the child will be of no interest until it's in it's teens. By then Phil will be an old man. Giving Denise a family would be far more interesting. It's ridiculous that she is still alone.”
“Even if it is Phil's and he finds out the child will be of no interest until it's in it's teens. By then Phil will be an old man. Giving Denise a family would be far more interesting. It's ridiculous that she is still alone.”
Agreed.
Also, by then, there's no guarantee that Phil will still be in the show. If its Kush's, there's the possibility of a new family unit of Denise, Kush and their baby. If Kush finally has a baby, we might get to see his dad.
Originally Posted by Aiden James:
“But its a another Mitchell for the future and it will be the half sibling of Ben and Louise. I personally think its the right call making it Phil's. There is no story benefit long term of it being Kush's child imho.”
“But its a another Mitchell for the future and it will be the half sibling of Ben and Louise. I personally think its the right call making it Phil's. There is no story benefit long term of it being Kush's child imho.”
There's absolutely NO need for Phil to have another child or for any of the Mitchells to have anymore children. He has 2 already, plus he's like a dad to Denny.
Originally Posted by jamauk1:
“Perhaps this will go the same way Mark Jr will with Grant. Denise will move to America, in 20 years Denise will write to Sharon to let her know, Sharon and Grant will discuss it and decide not to tell Phil (if he is still alive by then, although being Eastenders he will have died and come back 10 times by then), then the son/daughter will hook up with another Phil offspring and the truth will have to be revealed.”
“Perhaps this will go the same way Mark Jr will with Grant. Denise will move to America, in 20 years Denise will write to Sharon to let her know, Sharon and Grant will discuss it and decide not to tell Phil (if he is still alive by then, although being Eastenders he will have died and come back 10 times by then), then the son/daughter will hook up with another Phil offspring and the truth will have to be revealed.”
Hopefully not, that's completely unoriginal.
Originally Posted by londongirlGre:
“Hopefully not, that's completely unoriginal.”
“Hopefully not, that's completely unoriginal.”
I hope not too, It just seems the same old storylines are being used, just updated to a newer standard, as though it saves time thinking up new stories.
Originally Posted by Aiden James:
“But its a another Mitchell for the future and it will be the half sibling of Ben and Louise. I personally think its the right call making it Phil's. There is no story benefit long term of it being Kush's child imho.”
“But its a another Mitchell for the future and it will be the half sibling of Ben and Louise. I personally think its the right call making it Phil's. There is no story benefit long term of it being Kush's child imho.”
How many Mitchell kids do we need. We have
Courtney
Mark
Ben
Louise
Amy
Richard
Matthew
William
Janet
Plus Lola and Lexi that never get a mention. Then any children that Mark, Courtney or Louise have in the next few years.
There's enough Mitchells for them to have their own spin off show.
Are you two only against Phil being the father because you dislike his character?
I'm looking it from a long term point of view. I'm willing to bet if Eastenders is still on air in 20 years time Steve McFadden will still be in it. Daran Little who writes for the show once said it was always important to keep creating links to the past for the future. Phil being the father would slot into that category.
I'm looking it from a long term point of view. I'm willing to bet if Eastenders is still on air in 20 years time Steve McFadden will still be in it. Daran Little who writes for the show once said it was always important to keep creating links to the past for the future. Phil being the father would slot into that category.
Originally Posted by vald:
“How many Mitchell kids do we need. We have
Courtney
Mark
Ben
Louise
Amy
Richard
Matthew
William
Janet
Plus Lola and Lexi that never get a mention. Then any children that Mark, Courtney or Louise have in the next few years.
There's enough Mitchells for them to have their own spin off show.”
“How many Mitchell kids do we need. We have
Courtney
Mark
Ben
Louise
Amy
Richard
Matthew
William
Janet
Plus Lola and Lexi that never get a mention. Then any children that Mark, Courtney or Louise have in the next few years.
There's enough Mitchells for them to have their own spin off show.”
Completely agree.
Let the baby be Kush's!
Originally Posted by jamauk1:
“Perhaps this will go the same way Mark Jr will with Grant. Denise will move to America, in 20 years Denise will write to Sharon to let her know, Sharon and Grant will discuss it and decide not to tell Phil (if he is still alive by then, although being Eastenders he will have died and come back 10 times by then), then the son/daughter will hook up with another Phil offspring and the truth will have to be revealed.”
“Perhaps this will go the same way Mark Jr will with Grant. Denise will move to America, in 20 years Denise will write to Sharon to let her know, Sharon and Grant will discuss it and decide not to tell Phil (if he is still alive by then, although being Eastenders he will have died and come back 10 times by then), then the son/daughter will hook up with another Phil offspring and the truth will have to be revealed.”
Sounds about right 😕
Originally Posted by Aiden James:
“Are you two only against Phil being the father because you dislike his character?
I'm looking it from a long term point of view. I'm willing to bet if Eastenders is still on air in 20 years time Steve McFadden will still be in it. Daran Little who writes for the show once said it was always important to keep creating links to the past for the future. Phil being the father would slot into that category.”
“Are you two only against Phil being the father because you dislike his character?
I'm looking it from a long term point of view. I'm willing to bet if Eastenders is still on air in 20 years time Steve McFadden will still be in it. Daran Little who writes for the show once said it was always important to keep creating links to the past for the future. Phil being the father would slot into that category.”
I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.
Originally Posted by vald:
“How many Mitchell kids do we need. We have
Courtney
Mark
Ben
Louise
Amy
Richard
Matthew
William,
Janet
Plus Lola and Lexi that never get a mention. Then any children that Mark, Courtney or Louise have in the next few years.
There's enough Mitchells for them to have their own spin off show.”
“How many Mitchell kids do we need. We have
Courtney
Mark
Ben
Louise
Amy
Richard
Matthew
William,
Janet
Plus Lola and Lexi that never get a mention. Then any children that Mark, Courtney or Louise have in the next few years.
There's enough Mitchells for them to have their own spin off show.”
Matthew will leave next year, Amy may follow suit and I'm hoping she does. Far too many kids atm. Then hopefully Jack and Richard will also depart.
Originally Posted by vald:
“I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.”
“I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.”
I can understand that.
Originally Posted by vald:
“I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.”
“I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.”
Agreed.
Originally Posted by Aiden James:
“Are you two only against Phil being the father because you dislike his character?
I'm looking it from a long term point of view. I'm willing to bet if Eastenders is still on air in 20 years time Steve McFadden will still be in it. Daran Little who writes for the show once said it was always important to keep creating links to the past for the future. Phil being the father would slot into that category.”
“Are you two only against Phil being the father because you dislike his character?
I'm looking it from a long term point of view. I'm willing to bet if Eastenders is still on air in 20 years time Steve McFadden will still be in it. Daran Little who writes for the show once said it was always important to keep creating links to the past for the future. Phil being the father would slot into that category.”
I don't dislike Phil, I am indifferent to him.
While Daren Little is right, I don't think that they should use Denise's pregnancy for that. I want this storyline to be a happy one. Initially, Denise might not want the baby because of her age. However, Kush might be very happy about the pregnancy and says that he will support Denise throughout the journey. It could lead to them becoming a proper couple and raising a family. The baby will root the Kazemis in the show.
The writers need to start creating new legacies in Walford for the newer families such as the Foxes, the Carters and the Kazemis. I don't think that all of the history that show creates these days has to do with the Fowlers, the Mitchells or the Beales, even if they have been around for ages.
Originally Posted by Scrabbler:
“Matthew will leave next year, Amy may follow suit and I'm hoping she does. Far too many kids atm. Then hopefully Jack and Richard will also depart.”
“Matthew will leave next year, Amy may follow suit and I'm hoping she does. Far too many kids atm. Then hopefully Jack and Richard will also depart.”
They will all still be out there ready to be brought back when they're older. Can you imagine this show in 15 years time when they're all adults. The Square will be swarming with them. Incest will be the only option.
Originally Posted by vald:
“I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.”
“I would like just one family to have it's own s/l that doesn't involve the bloomin' Mitchells... not too much to ask.”
I totally get that, but I'm intrigued by this storyline. Mainly because Denise hates the Mitchell's and what they stand for and she is now carrying the child of the head honcho. I hope they don't try and mellow her though, Denise needs to be the one who holds all the cards in this storyline.
Plus a Sharon/Denise feud could be interesting and it could change the dynamic Denise has with Shirley.
Originally Posted by vald:
“They will all still be out there ready to be brought back when they're older. Can you imagine this show in 15 years time when they're all adults. The Square will be swarming with them. Incest will be the only option.”
“They will all still be out there ready to be brought back when they're older. Can you imagine this show in 15 years time when they're all adults. The Square will be swarming with them. Incest will be the only option.”
Dont panic, I'm sure one of the Butchers will be along to knock a few of them over
Originally Posted by Scrabbler:
“Dont panic, I'm sure one of the Butchers will be along to knock a few of them over”
“Dont panic, I'm sure one of the Butchers will be along to knock a few of them over
”
They'll need a tank to thin this lot out by then. They're like bloomin' rabbits 😕
Originally Posted by vald:
“They'll need a tank to thin this lot out by then. They're like bloomin' rabbits 😕”
“They'll need a tank to thin this lot out by then. They're like bloomin' rabbits 😕”
It's why I'm glad the Archie Branch of the family are going, they are the ones I'm least invested in. I do agree that the Eric branch of the family have been too dominant. My problem wi the show at the moment is that when the Beales and Mitchell's aren't about the show is boring. They seem to give all the other families the weaker storylines. Honey and Billy were so refreshing the past week, we need to see more of them and more of the Slater-Fowlers.
Originally Posted by Scrabbler:
“I totally get that, but I'm intrigued by this storyline. Mainly because Denise hates the Mitchell's and what they stand for and she is now carrying the child of the head honcho. I hope they don't try and mellow her though, Denise needs to be the one who holds all the cards in this storyline.
Plus a Sharon/Denise feud could be interesting and it could change the dynamic Denise has with Shirley.”
“I totally get that, but I'm intrigued by this storyline. Mainly because Denise hates the Mitchell's and what they stand for and she is now carrying the child of the head honcho. I hope they don't try and mellow her though, Denise needs to be the one who holds all the cards in this storyline.
Plus a Sharon/Denise feud could be interesting and it could change the dynamic Denise has with Shirley.”
Sorry S but that sounds like sacrificing a decent long term s/l for 10 minutes of drama.
Having said that I'm resigned to this being all about the Mitchells.... everything has been for the last two years.
Until it has been confirmed on the show as the baby being Phil's, I'm convinced that Kush is the father. Even though they first had sex, a couple of weeks ago, it's still possible for Denise to be pregnant by him. She's probably in the very early stages but maybe due to her age, her symptoms are stronger.
Originally Posted by Scrabbler:
“It's why I'm glad the Archie Branch of the family are going, they are the ones I'm least invested in. I do agree that the Eric branch of the family have been too dominant. My problem wi the show at the moment is that when the Beales and Mitchell's aren't about the show is boring. They seem to give all the other families the weaker storylines. Honey and Billy were so refreshing the past week, we need to see more of them and more of the Slater-Fowlers.”
“It's why I'm glad the Archie Branch of the family are going, they are the ones I'm least invested in. I do agree that the Eric branch of the family have been too dominant. My problem wi the show at the moment is that when the Beales and Mitchell's aren't about the show is boring. They seem to give all the other families the weaker storylines. Honey and Billy were so refreshing the past week, we need to see more of them and more of the Slater-Fowlers.”
The Mitchells have had some dire s/is. Phil and Sharon's on off relationship, their involvement in the Bobby cover up. The Christmas crash followed by another 1 hour coma. Ronnie's stalker. Phil suddenly being broke. Louise... everything about her. And Grant's much anticipated but dreadful return.
Woops I forgot Gavin, how could I. What a bloomin' mess that was. I'd have rather seen Dexter back.
Originally Posted by londongirlGre:
“It's annoying how Phil has to come out on top in everything. Hopefully, this storyline will have nothing to do with him.”
“It's annoying how Phil has to come out on top in everything. Hopefully, this storyline will have nothing to do with him.”
I don't really see Phil coming out on top in this one if he is the father. He's critically ill, this would be a massive upheaval if he found out. If he somehow manages to survive the liver disease, I don't think his wife or kids, who he finally has around him, would be very happy!
4 of 7
