I would say these 2 are even more popular than Phil Mitchell as a duo. Killing Phil would have had less outrage than killing these 2.
Unless of course their popularity was underestimated. But I think SOC did it as an ego thing. Therefore I really do see the simalrities with him and Birkwood.
And especially after reading the DS interview earlier on after OP mentioned it.

Agree but I don't feel an EP would so quickly go and kill a random male off for the ego trip, they always do it to the women.

Personally have not been impressed with SOC so far. The storylines have generally ground to a halt and the show has become very stale and boring. All the posters praising him and going on about grounding the show in reality seem to think they are watching an oscar winning film rather than a soap. A soap is meant to be dramatic and sensationalist, it is what keeps viewers watching. Viewers don't want to see characters moaning about the bins and putting on Christmas plays. These storylines are fine, but as secondary storylines when something else exciting is taking place along side it. Eastenders used to be must watch television, now you can miss a whole week of episodes and not miss a thing.

In terms of bringing the show back to the 80s/90s, the problem is that times and the show has moved on. A large number of the viewers, especially as many of EE's viewers are younger, never watched the show in 80's and don't care about returning to that style. They grew up with drama and exciting plots and that's what they want from the soap. Admittedly many of the previous producers went too far with the sensationalism, but a balance needs to be struck between exciting plots and character development as Eastenders is not good at the moment. Many critics are even saying the show is completely unwatchable.

Many of SOC's decisions are also very questionable. He seems to be going out of his way to axe any morally questionable, hence interesting, character from the show. He has already axed Babe, Claudette and Ronnie and Roxy who all provided drama to the show. He will probably set out to now turn Max and Abbie into saints or otherwise axe them too. Characters like this are needed on a show. The best characters are the bad guys or a good "bitch" character, if you do not have these characters than you are left with boring characters that no one wants to watch. I am pretty sure that if Janine had still been on the show than he would have likely sent her to the bottom of the swimming pool with Roxy and Ronnie.

The treatment of R and R has also been awful. These two characters should have been rested but actually killing them was a dire decision and the death scene itself was horrifically bad and utterly ridiculous. Ronnie rolling around in the water and screeching Roxy, while making no attempt to stand up or push up from the bottom or even swim was funny more than shocking and the deaths were an insult to the actresses who had devoted a lot of their career to the show.

The characters he has axed has also been highly baffling. He allows the dire Kasimi's to remain yet axes Belinda the most popular new character in years, who was being raved about in the press and on message boards. He also axes Kyle, though not an exciting character, had plenty of potential and had plenty of aspects of his transgender storyline to explore (his sisters, future girlfriends, further operations, prejudice of others).

Maybe SOC will improve, he has only just started, but so far it is not looking good for him in my opinion,

I am looking forward to Rita Simons and Samantha speaking out. Looks like its only a matter of time judging by the tweets

Rita Simons has shown far greater dignity about the decision than Samantha

Real question is, which one will be doing Strictly next year? My money's on Rita.

Are either or both going into CBB tonight?

In fact, Sean O'Connor is probably one of the most experienced producers the show's had in a while. I've said it before and I'll say it again - give him a f**king chance! Once the characters he wants to get rid of have gone, that's when his era really begins. He's obviously getting the show to a particular place.

Ronnie and Roxy are (were) major characters but I don't understand how they're major losses right now. The Mitchells will get over it and Jack will move on to someone else. The people on this forum comparing their axing to Pat's exit are stupid - Pat truly WAS an iconic character, who was extremely important to the show and is needed. She should not have been killed off. The Mitchell sisters are (were) good characters but they can be replaced. Ronnie filled the tragic heroine slot after Sharon left, and Sharon - funnily enough - hasn't been the same since she returned, maybe this is the chance for her to be? And Roxy was just a wild child. They went round in circles with those two for years, over and over, doing the same stories ("I hate you", "actually I don't, you're my sister", "Roxy you can't keep being a bad mother", Ronnie loses a kid or kills someone) - where else could they go with them????

But why is he keeping deadwood like Whitney, Kazemis, Tina, Donna, Sylvie, and heck even Billy. While I get the need for some background characters none of them do anything of note and aren't great people either so while he's swinging the morality axe it'd be better to ditch them than say the likes of Claudette.

I know I listed the Kazemis but I don't mind Carmel, its her gormless sons I'd send packing.

Also bringing it back to its "roots" doesn't work cause not only have the viewers changed the whole demographics of the Eastend has too, far more ethnic minorities and bougie hipsters and city slickers in EE than Mick and Linda people who'd be off in Essex somewhere. So his idea of the Eastend is completely unrealistic.

Also what was with the whining about a Compulsory Purchase Order from Kaffy? Is urban development a bad thing now. Of course Ian's rebuttal makes it look like its somehow a bad thing given he's the squares defender of CPOs.

He has axed any slightly controversial character, i fully expect him to introduce a family of nuns next.
I am not against the slightly slower pace and 'realistic' dialogue, but where the **** are all the characters? The cast is dwindling, he has kept all the deadwood on. Its just bizarre. his ''vision'' for the show is one big borefest, he is the only producer now in 25 years who has made me consciously switch off (yes i have had periods before where i havent watched, but this time i am switching off as i just cannot bear it anymore) I will watch the funerals then im signing out from this nonsense.

I am not just upset he needlessly killed off R&R, i am not even angry, IM ****ING FUMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For me that is the problem I am having with SOC. He seems to be axing characters because HE does not like them, rather than what is best for the show and its long term future. As I have said earlier I agree that Ronnie and Roxy needed resting as characters and they were becoming a bit stale, but to kill them was a step too far and seemed a spiteful attempt to ensure that two characters he did not like were unable to return. All the characters that he have axed have seemed unnecessary, especially considering the characters that remain (Shakil, Donna, Johnny, Tina) and seem to have been axed simply because he did not like them.

Personally I find it hard to justify the axing of an interesting character with potential like Belinda, while much of the deadwood remains. In her place he has brought back previously axed characters like Derek and Danny Moon. He has axed interesting characters that brought drama to the show and were played by experienced actors (Babe, Claudette) for the ridiculous reason that they are morally questionable. How can you have a soap where everyone is nice and lovely?. It is not interesting and makes the show boring.

SOC decisions are just utterly baffling and there does not seem to be any real purpose behind them. How can he justify axing Lee, after Danny-Boy Hatchard has massively proved himself with this recent storyline, yet keep on the plank of wood Johnny who is played by an awful actor and has little storyline potential. The character has been on/off the show for about two years and has only had one decent storyline and that was when he first entered the show and was played by a far superior actor. Any potential storylines for Johnny could easily be given to any of the other young adults on the show (Ben, Jay).

It just seems that SOC is doing what he wants to do and not considering the permanent damage he may be doing to the show in the long term.

Completely agree, just realised I posted virtually exactly the same thing. We must have been typing at the same time.

SOC isn't anything like BK, however I don't agree with his decision to axe Ronnie and Roxy, two of soaps best characters ever, imo. I really miss them already.

Considering Samantha and Rita did not want to leave, considering all the cast are clearly annoyed and heartbroken by it, all this along with the fact the show is really lacking in any 'icon' or 'legacy' characters, I am absolutely amazed the BBC allowed this to go ahead. I know Sean comes up with the ideas, but surely the powers that be can say 'we arent doing that'.
I could also weep for what he has done to Michelle and her legacy, who the hell is that strange woman in Martin and Staceys house?! cos it aint Michelle.
I am absolutely miffed by how long term fans of the show are defending this new producer, but I am guessing these are the first steps to it becoming a 'cult show'.
My prediction: by summer there will be fewer than 5million watching, though there will still be alot of 'hardcore' fans praising it, the cult of Walford.
I have watched for a long time but i am really struggling with it now. Though the episodes recently have not been that bad, nowhere near as monotonous and appalling as Sep-December. Thank god that bloody play is out of the way anyway.
I would say some big characters from the past could inject some life into the show, Janine maybe? But he would probably kill her off aswell!
His ego is clearly too big for the show. To sack Samantha and Rita then kill off their characters. There is just no logic to it whatsoever.
Maybe the show needs new writers if they are struggling to be creative for long term characters?

I am still shaking with anger.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/03/easten...-year-6358839/

Well ratings were well up last night, highest rating in a year, he can't be doing that bad of a job

Sorry but how is this indicative of quality? Rather than just being because of the huge social media and press attention to the deaths of R&R. Also testament to how well liked they were as characters. Come back to me if they still have that rating next week.

For someone who said they wouldn't be watching after Ronnie and Roxy left u sure do have some agenda against SOC lol

I'll tell you what it is. I love the show, I don't want to stop watching I literally feel there is no other choice, I'm very busy despite my presence on the forum I can't afford 2 hours a week watching drivvel. But I will miss the show. I want this man gone so I can maybe enjoy it again. But I can't see myself enjoying it knowing the iconic sisters are dead I feel like the life and soul has been ripped from the show. It would take one hell of a big return to get me tuned in again! * Cough* Kim Medcalf *Cough*

You see this is what I don't get (and I'm hoping this doesn't come across has having ago at u personally as I'm not) but they just wernt iconic, not to me anyway. Ronnie should never have come bk after her first exit, and Roxys storylines mainly revolved around Men , I don't see why SOC is getting so much hate for killing them off, no one should be immune from being axed or then being killed off, no one is bigger than the show

There's plenty of logic to it. I'm not convinced that R&R needed to be killed off rather than rested but I can understand why that choice has been made and that door has been closed. It's only a TV show, so I'm happy to go along with it.

BIB1 is just bonkers. There's no real suggestion that all the cast are heartbroken. That's just pandering to an odd tweet being 'liked' as it fits in with your agenda.

R&R were okay characters, a bit monotonous and in need of a rest but they were neither legacy nor iconic in my book. In fact I'd have put them in the 'disposable' category. The show has plenty of iconic or legacy characters left: Ian, Sharon, Phil, Dot, Kathy and plenty more who could get there in time: Jane, Martin, Stacey, Ben, Max, Shirley, Peter, Michelle. At the end of the day, a soap only needs a few of these and it's a highly subjective thing anyway.

What it needs more importantly is a strong cast - which it has.
What it needs, right now, is some new and fresh characters - which we know are coming imminently.

This. Exactly this.


And just why is KIm Medcalf hailed as the saviour of the show? The whole Sam character was a badly written, inconsistent mess whoever was playing her.

I can understand writing them out and saying they need a few years out to be rested... but to kill them off is unnecessary

Wrong I would say The SOC is up there with Santer and Holland/Smith as he's has gone back to their vision of EE

I can fully understand why they have gone a roxie was going round in circles and way past here sell by date and Ronnie was beyond redeemable as a character and this was the only was she could get her cummupance for all her evil.