My problem is that the ending displayed no real writing talent or foresight. Even if they got hit by a bus at least there'd be a driver involved somehow to initiate a potential future storyline.

Short of the hotel being sued for breaches of health and safety protocol it's hard to see what difference their deaths will make to anything. By all means kill the characters if you've an idea for it and what it'll lead to. But to kill them for no other reason just to kill them with absolutely nothing possibly to come of it, isn't really what you'd expect from writers at this level.

Evidently it isn't something that commanded much time in story development meetings.

"Okay, so we're killing Ronnie and Roxie. Any ideas?"

- Um......accidental drowning?

"Great that's that sorted. Now moving on...."

But why get rid of decent characters. Phil has had his time and by disowning Jay in that ridiculous storyline just made him an even more unlikeable character. Billy doesn't add anything to the programme.
Danny Dyer is just being himself.
I loved Ronnie she was a truly tragic heroine who always looked out for her sister. Wasn't it Birkwood who was responsible for the baby swap storyline?

Recent producers seem to think killing major characters is what its all about when in reality the deaths of more minor character can actually have a greater impetus for continued storylines depending on how the death is handled. Killing the likes of Pat, Ronnie and Roxy is just for pure shock value, and while the Lucy death resulted in continued storyline I feel killing her was a waste as she had a lot of future potential as a character.

But producers want a big death to cement their "legacy"

I wouldn't be proud of that exit if I was him. They may be the producers but it's the actors\ characters that people are invested in. Their memories won't be forgotten.

I liked it, quit complaining and switch off if you don't like it.

What advice would you give to people who see threads with someone voicing a different view to them?

Keep a constructive debate or just ignore the thread.

He really isn't.
You won't be seeing explosions and murders every five minutes.

Two characters who served their purpose met their end tonight.
Bigger characters have met their demise, it's a soap.

The endless dramatics and hissy fits is a bit sad really.

Yes bigger characters have also wrongly met their demise, i.e. Pat and Lucy, two further examples of characters that shouldn't have been killed off.

I don't care about them being killed off, I just think we should expect more than an inconsequential random accident when it happens. It isn't a hissy fit to suggest that one of the leading TV soaps in the country should come up with a better death story-line for two major, long standing characters than: "they accidentally drown a bit"

That must have taken all of 7 seconds to come up with.

Just in for a look in the forums tonight.
Wondering does anyone know why the new producer decided to permanently axe Ronnie and roxy? It does seem very extreme to write them out forever - was there anything in the press or anywhere or does anyone know anything as to the logic.
Did he just dislike the actors?

That literally does seem the motto these days. Like there's someone in the room with the storyliners going "Whoa now that sounds too exciting. Let them sort out their differences amicably over tea instead"

Literally what have we got? An ongoing storyline about garbage collection, a two month saga over a christmas play that we didn't even get to see much of the finished product, exits for newer characters with potential, multiple examples of the normalization of rape culture in the forms of Shakil and the slut shaming of Roxy, and now a forgettable death for two legacy characters that everyone will be over in 6 weeks time (Probably in time for Jack to chase after that dullard Honey Mitchell).

How about Tony and Phil both getting their livers? Easy. Same bittersweet result, plenty of drama to carry forward for the months and years ahead and it would have had some meaning.

Yeah we'll have to endure Jack being driven into Honey's arms due to the grief. And I swear that bin storyline has to be one of the worst ever in soap, as bad as Billy stealing the post.

Well on R&R they had Max as a someone who could have been involved in their deaths. A psychotic nephew in Ben who's killed before. Maybe Lee snapped. Maybe even their mum or brother?

Sod it, have Aunt Sal accidentally back into them in her wheelchair and knock them off a cliff. Something that's going to matter going forward.

Random act of drowning, as dramatic and as well directed as the scenes might have been, is very limp creatively.

This doesn't equate with how Sean O'Connor is Bryan Kirkwood though.
You're just naming characters who were killed off.

[quote=BomoLad;85024287]Well on R&R they had Max as a someone who could have been involved in their deaths. A psychotic nephew in Ben who's killed before. Maybe Lee snapped. Maybe even their mum or brother?

Sod it, have Aunt Sal accidentally back into them in her wheelchair and knock them off a cliff. Something that's going to matter going forward.

Random act of drowning, as dramatic and as well directed as the scenes might have been, is very limp creatively.[/QUOTE

And when Who Killed Lucy was airing, the same forum had people bemoaning how unrealistic it was, how over the top, how boring and drawn out it was. DTC was daily given the height of abuse on here.

Sean O'Connor has come in with his own vision for EastEnders, and that vision seems to be very much in character drama. Tonight's death scenes were gruesome, but there is no rule that says soap deaths should be the result of some massive fairground of mirrors and inside the mirrors there's a man with a gun, because if EastEnders did that, guess what, they'd be mauled by the same forum.

All you were promised by EastEnders regarding Ronnie and Roxy's exits, were that it would be memorable. People were always going to be divided over them dying given how big they were to the show, but it's necessary to say goodbye to characters at a certain point. I believe Ronnie and Roxy were at that point and their exit was very well executed. There is only so much you can do to characters, especially Ronnie, without treading old ground. If it had been a car accident people would have said "oh they're copying two years ago, boring, yawn"

Even this wasn't their first New Years swimming trip, remember New Years Day in Epping Forest?

How is Lucy a bigger character than Ronnie

[quote=Keibro;85024403]
And it wasn't. This will be forgotten in 4 months tops. At least when Barry went down that cliff in his freak accident is set off events for Janine, and was comedic. There are no repercussions here except for people being sad for a bit.

Ronnie killing Fatboy has more repercussions than Ronnie's own death.

Exactly. She was only a proper character for two years and played by child actresses before hand with limited material.

R&R were on for 9 years front and centre.

They were showing Roxy potentially descend into drug addiction, which could have been an interesting avenue to explore.

Now that all seems a bit pointless. A bit like going to the bother of giving a character a terminal illness and have them hit by a bus on the way back from a hospital appointment.

Ronnie and Roxy were brilliant, but I really felt we'd seen it all from them. They were in danger of becoming really repetitive. Maybe risky to kill them off, preventing them from ever returning, but I can see why they did it.

I didn't like the ending, I really liked these characters, and if you're going to kill them off, I think a much better job could have been done.

I don't understand the seemingly completely random references to the Titanic and Cinderella?

How can 2 grown women die in a swimming pool in a matter of 30 seconds or so? This scene didn't make sense.

Why did they choose to have the characters die in an unfamiliar location, if they are going to kill two iconic characters (Yes I know some people don't agree that they were iconic, but I think they were) why not have them die in the heart of the show - in Walford?

I get killing Roxy off. The whole 'immature younger sister knocking 40' thing was a bit played out. But there was so much they could have done with that. I mentioned the drug storyline above, maybe she got in too deep, got addicted, dealers started threatening her/Amy etc. There was something to build towards there and would have provided an exit more powerful than an out-of-the-blue accident.

Ronnie on the other hand is a character they could have saved even if they wanted to rest her for a bit or if the current EP had no plans for. She's killed before, she likely would have again, and she always seemed quite fragile and capable of going from normal mum/wife to psychotic b**** in a heartbeat. Difficult to see how nobody thought that character might be useful in the future.

Ronnie was weighed down by her dress and the fact she was trying to bring Roxy back to the surface with her. She would have drowned quicker from the fact she was panicking as well. Plus I doubt it was only 30 seconds.

Roxy jumping in feet first and not coming back up immediately seemed more odd, but then she was hammered.