DS Forums

 
 

FFS bringing back Michelle Fowler is a mistake IMO - EastEnders


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-12-2016, 08:54
mumbles26
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,760
I'm guilty of judging too quickly and first impressions are not favourable. She's not the Michelle I'd hoped for at all. I'll give her a chance though. Maybe once she gets a good storyline, my opinion will change. On the fence at the moment.
mumbles26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-12-2016, 09:31
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
If a character hasn't been on screen for 20 years, then I have no problem with a recast. And yes, I have watched EE from the start and Susan Tully in Grange Hill before that.

Jenna Russell is doing fine. She looks about right for a Michelle nearing fifty and there appears to be some chemistry between her and LD and AW.

Yes, the character is coming over as a bit 'lost' but that's quite reasonable when you return to somewhere you haven't been for 20 years. Walford looks the same but it's not the same (just as they said in the show) - you remember it from 20 years ago and the people who were around at the time but things move on, change and people come and go. It's only right that Michelle feels a bit like a fish out of water. That will ease, but hopefully it will be shown to be gradual.

In six months time, JR will have settled into the role, we'll be more used to her as Michelle and we'll have a lot more idea of the reasons that the character has been brought back. I don't see how judging it before then helps, it's almost bound not to meet expectations as it simply hasn't played out enough, it's only been four episodes!
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:31
sqwidge1978
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 651
BIB - James Alexandrou played Martin for 11 years but they still recast him and it's worked well.

Michelle's been on-screen for less than a week. So far all she's done is visit family members, so isn't it a bit too soon to judge? Yes Michelle was a big character due to the fact that she was an original etc, but she was only in the show for ten years, which is just under a 1/3 of the show's time on air. If the producers want to bring a character back and the original actress doesn't want to return, they should be allowed to recast - it's not like they went against Susan's wishes as she agreed to the recast!
Beat me to it re Martin. Only recast the never worked for me was Peggy
sqwidge1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:38
all_night
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,674
Well it was either she never returned again or killed her off. I think enough time has passed for it to be a new actress for the simple fact the character would have aged anyway. In Sean's interview with DS he says he spoke with Susan and everything was OK about being recast along with finding out the history of the character and the vision the creators had.
all_night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:40
sqwidge1978
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 651
I really dont see what the problem at all .she just has to settle in and be given time. Martin has been recast 3 times now and to be honest I have excepted martin 3 now. Mark was recast twice and ben is now on the 5th actor also Peter Beal has been recast 5 times .Sue Tally was never the greatest actresses for those who remember her. so iconic being thrown around is ridicules .Sue has no plans to return to acting. so it's time to get over it and give jenna a fair go
Mark has only been recast once
Martain has only been recast twice
sqwidge1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:49
SuperSoaper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,686
After a twenty-year break, I think it's reasonable that they can recast. She's now a woman approaching 50 as opposed to 26. I think she has breathed a bit of life into the show.
SuperSoaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:38
masterquan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,919
When stacey is recasted in 20 years I guess people will be ok with it too....
masterquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:52
sw2963
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,236
When stacey is recasted in 20 years I guess people will be ok with it too....
We'll be lucky if EE is still going in 20 years time!!
sw2963 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:01
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
When stacey is recasted in 20 years I guess people will be ok with it too....
Yes, if the character isn't seen between now and then.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:09
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,914
I was one of those against a recast of Michelle but I am very happy to admit I was wrong.

Jenna is a great addition imo
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:18
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
I was one of those against a recast of Michelle but I am very happy to admit I was wrong.

Jenna is a great addition imo
Welcome back Sorcha.

Please check your inbox.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:42
masterquan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,919
I didn't watch Eastenders back then but watching clips like this on YouTube

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xwje92YdXnQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LACYBVrwF-o

It looks like Michelle was feisty and interesting and the actress was decent while this new one feels a bit bland and a different character.
So i can understand fans back then not accepting this recast and I think it's a bit arrogant for those who didn't watch back then to tell them to get over it.
masterquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:43
masterquan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,919
We'll be lucky if EE is still going in 20 years time!!
I think eastenders is safe till then lol
masterquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:46
silversox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wantage, Oxfordshire
Posts: 3,551
No, I can't take to her yet, but as many have said, give it time. Trouble with me is, she doesn't resemble the original Michelle at all. Michelle was a bit plump with plenty of hair. What have they done to this one's hair? It's awful!!
silversox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:06
cobis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,513
No, I can't take to her yet, but as many have said, give it time. Trouble with me is, she doesn't resemble the original Michelle at all. Michelle was a bit plump with plenty of hair. What have they done to this one's hair? It's awful!!
the teenage michelle had a shaggy perm beloved of many teenagers in the eighties, the older michelle had a very similar hairstyle to the 'new michelle' for many years, she was never plump!
cobis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:14
adam_fransella
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,597
It was about time. It should have been done years ago. And what's it got to do with the other actors...They get well paid to do a job and that's what they should be getting on with, not interfering in Executive decisions.
Re-casting Michelle should indeed have been done many years ago, even if Susan Tully was/is indelibly linked to the character, and thus re-casting Michelle if Tully declined to return seemed like a sacrilege - unlike the re-casting of her brother Mark which was not a matter of choice, or even re-casting their cousin Martin who never has invited quite as much as sympathy as Pauline and co. and was not always missed.

For these particular moments in Walford history, either Tully should have come back or Michelle herself could have been re-cast (or seen only from behind, using a stand-in):

(1) the funeral of her father, Arthur, in 1996 (although given the real-life and fictional circumstances, this was understandable);
(2) the funeral of her brother Mark in 2004 (appalling - 'she was too busy sunning herself in Florida', according to her mother Pauline - and yet Michelle's daughter Vicki was present);
(3) the wedding reception of her younger brother Martin (again, Vicki was present);
(4) the 'real' funeral of Dirty Den in 2005 (this time, no Vicki)
(5) Pauline marrying Joe Macer in 2006 (once again, no Vicki);
(6) Pauline's funeral in 2007, which suffered not only from the absence of Michelle (who inherited Pauline's life-savings) and Vicki, but also that of Derek Harkinson (played by Ian Lavender) and even Dr. Harold Legg (who re-appeared a few months later, in one-to-one with Dot Branning.

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to re-cast and re-introduce Vicki in 2017?
adam_fransella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:21
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
Re-casting Michelle should indeed have been done many years ago, even if Susan Tully was/is indelibly linked to the character, and thus re-casting Michelle if Tully declined to return seemed like a sacrilege - unlike the re-casting of her brother Mark which was not a matter of choice, or even re-casting their cousin Martin who never has invited quite as much as sympathy as Pauline and co. and was not always missed.

For these particular moments in Walford history, either Tully should have come back or Michelle herself could have been re-cast (or seen only from behind, using a stand-in):

(1) the funeral of her father, Arthur, in 1996 (although given the real-life and fictional circumstances, this was understandable);
(2) the funeral of her brother Mark in 2004 (appalling - 'she was too busy sunning herself in Florida', according to her mother Pauline - and yet Michelle's daughter Vicki was present);
(3) the wedding reception of her younger brother Martin (again, Vicki was present);
(4) the 'real' funeral of Dirty Den in 2005 (this time, no Vicki)
(5) Pauline marrying Joe Macer in 2006 (once again, no Vicki);
(6) Pauline's funeral in 2007, which suffered not only from the absence of Michelle (who inherited Pauline's life-savings) and Vicki, but also that of Derek Harkinson (played by Ian Lavender) and even Dr. Harold Legg (who re-appeared a few months later, in one-to-one with Dot Branning.

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to re-cast and re-introduce Vicki in 2017?
Martin is Michelle's brother, not cousin.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:24
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,918
I hate recasts but I didn't watch 80's EastEnders to care that much about Michelle.

The actress is doing a good job so far.
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:32
The_abbott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,566
Too early to judge but I am in the camp that says "why bother bringing her back'.

The show doesn't need to bring the character back. She is happy in America - leave it at that. EE should really try and bring in what is called "new" and "fresh" characters which I know EE have not done in decades but the revolving door will need some serious WD40 in a few years because its been jammed up and won't revolve anymore.
The_abbott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:48
cobis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,513
bringing michelle back paves the way for Mark junr return - he seems to have been a popular character, and I like the opportunity to build up the Fowler family again, they are reduced to Martin and Rebecca now, even baby Arthur isn't a blood relation, the Beales have regrouped nicely and the Mitchells are still strong so why not the Fowlers?

Michelle will now be about the same age Pauline was in the early days of EE, it will be interesting to see if she still resists being a part of a down to earth ordinary family or still aspires for something greater, I think there is a lot of scope for Michelle
cobis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:19
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
Too early to judge but I am in the camp that says "why bother bringing her back'.

The show doesn't need to bring the character back. She is happy in America - leave it at that. EE should really try and bring in what is called "new" and "fresh" characters which I know EE have not done in decades but the revolving door will need some serious WD40 in a few years because its been jammed up and won't revolve anymore.
Exactly, EE is living in the past, no quality characters of note have arrived in recent years. All focus has been on returning old faces and having new characters related to existing ones, i.e. the Carters.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:42
MR_Pitkin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,716
They've totally ruined the legacy of this character.
MR_Pitkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:29
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,008
According to an interview with SOC on Metro.co.uk Jenna and Letitia went to drama school together and are old friends. He also said that Jenna knows Adam Woodyatt too and that they spoke to Susan T prior to recasting.

Not that Letitia/Adam can kick up much of a stink anyway. They're paid to act not interfere in the production process. Having said that I think those who've been around a long time should be able to say if a story is jarring with them but in terms of dictating who can come into the programme nah.

Quite frankly Letitia is lucky to still be in a job after the abysmal work she did on the show for about two years after her return in 2012. Add on the truly appalling writing for Sharon and, icon or not, she was one of the clear issues with the show in that period and could have easily gone. Letitia's improved since as has the writing for Sharon, though not consistently so.

If there was a significant reason to bring back Michelle then I wouldn't of had a problem with her being recast. But if they were going to recast her then they should of done it in the buildup to the Mark Jnr reveal.

Maybe I will be proved wrong, but as things stand I do not see any need for Michelle in the show.
Surely the reason will be revealed in due course? She has literally only been in a few episodes and about 12 scenes in total.

Yes in the past they have brought characters back with no idea what to do with them but it's a bit early to be saying the same thing has happened here.

Clearly something is playing on her mind. SOC is tighter on characterisation than DTC so I'm sure he'll explore what that is sooner rather than later.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:53
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,008
When stacey is recasted in 20 years I guess people will be ok with it too....
For me that would depend on whether Lacey Turner had continued to act and still had a profile.

Susan Tully changing profession and barely being seen in the public eye since is a factor for me in why I've gone along with this. (Even though I was always against a Michelle recast before it was sprung on us ).

Even if Stacey had been gone for 20 years and Lacey had no plans to return, if a 20 years aged Lacey was fresh in my mind I would probably struggle with it a bit.

I doubt this would ever apply anyway since Lacey has already demonstrated a willingness to return to the show and seems committed to it.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 16:54
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,008
No, I can't take to her yet, but as many have said, give it time. Trouble with me is, she doesn't resemble the original Michelle at all. Michelle was a bit plump with plenty of hair. What have they done to this one's hair? It's awful!!
Michelle had a short do for a time in the 90s.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:57.