DS Forums

 
 

Eastenders: New Michelle


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 17:10
davejc64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,996
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word. I think you should focus on that before being snide
Or it could be that I don't think the recasting of a character is that important and certainly not something anyone should feel betrayed over after all said and done it's only a soap so hardly of earth shattering importance.
davejc64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 17:11
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
Absolutely. She's going to be a key member of the cast going forward and quite rightly now that SOC has given her back her personality and found a niche for her back in the cafe. DTC only wanted the kudos and publicity for bringing her back. Beyond that he had no idea what to do with her.



Of course she's not dead. You really need to alter your expectations where stories don't play out to your exact liking. They've given the explanations. It was an insurance scam orchestrated by mad-Gavin, whom Kathy was terrified of. He had a hold over her and she had no choice but to go along with it. It took all her effort to get in touch with Phil and to eventually get away from Gavin.

I'm not saying it was the most clever of explanations but it was plainly plausible. It's history now and is probably best left as water under the bridge for the time being. It can be revisited if there's a need to in the future.
I don't have to alter anything. I expect EastEnders to remain true to it's characters and stories and more and more it's letting me down on that score and that is a betrayal of the characters, the legacy ad the viewers.

I know the explanation given for Kathy's *ahem* absence, but it doesn't ring true. It doesn't make sense and it's out of character. It's my firm opinion that it should not have been done and the end does not justify the means.

So now Kathy is back in the cafe as if nothing had happened. No jail term. Ian has totally forgotten the unforgivable. Every time she's onscreen I am taken out of the scene and distracted because she is dead and yet there she is! It's such a pity that the producers are resorting to this instead of creating strong and memorable new characters. It smacks of desperation and is a slippery path. When they are done plundering the past, changing heads and rewriting back story what will they have?
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:12
vaslav37
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,675
But she is dead. They jumped the shark by bringing her back. They have never given sufficient explanation as to why she did what she did... Kathy would never have abandoned her infant son in South Africa... she would never have left Ian thinking she was dead for over a decade.

She is irredeemable and all so she can be in the Christmas play? Joke
SOC obviously doesnt think so.
vaslav37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:21
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
Or it could be that I don't think the recasting of a character is that important and certainly not something anyone should feel betrayed over after all said and done it's only a soap so hardly of earth shattering importance.
Again I suggest you don't understand that which you attempt to mock and it's ironic to me that your response is so cliche ridden as to use the term "earth shattering importance".

I can assure you I loose no sleep over this, but I do find what's happening at EastEnders to be interesting, unfortunate and unnecessary. It's indicative of a creative stunting in British television which is constantly looking to rely on the existing and rehash rather than create the new or look forward.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:23
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
SOC obviously doesnt think so.
Clearly not... So why not bring Angie and Cindi back... they could have been part of the same scheme. Where should they stop?
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:24
Edward Skylover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,597
First Tully should have been grateful... now she was no good in the first place?
Exactly, considering she was never very good she should be grateful to be asked back. If I was producer I would have re-cast without asking Tully back.

No-one cared about Michelle when she left, no-one has mentioned her since she left, other than when the Grant and Mark story came to the surface. Now Jenna has the chance to do something with the character.

You very clearly don't like re-casts which is fair enough. Perhaps instead of taking it so seriously just enjoy it for what it is.
Edward Skylover is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:25
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
Susan tully Michelle was never as memorable a character or actress as people on here state she was.

It was a different world and no Internet forum hype on anything , in fact no internet at all.

So it's easy in this era to overpraising a character who wasn't great and is certainly not iconic .

The new lady time will tell but most recastings have done ok Lauren, Martin sam first time round.

Just not sure what the point of her is
There was internet when Michelle left in 1995. I first got dial-up in 1994.

There were debates about soap operas too. In fact the old Usenet newsgroups were buzzing in the mid and late 90s. EE and Corrie were split out into their own newsgroups in May 1995 (just looked to confirm).
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:26
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
Exactly, considering she was never very good she should be grateful to be asked back. If I was producer I would have re-cast without asking Tully back.

No-one cared about Michelle when she left, no-one has mentioned her since she left, other than when the Grant and Mark story came to the surface. Now Jenna has the chance to do something with the character.

You very clearly don't like re-casts which is fair enough. Perhaps instead of taking it so seriously just enjoy it for what it is.
Absolutely untrue. In fact Michelle has been mentioned a hell of a lot more than most other characters...

Considering the fiction you post here as fact you might make a great producer... then again probably not.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:34
Edward Skylover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,597
Absolutely untrue. In fact Michelle has been mentioned a hell of a lot more than most other characters...

Considering the fiction you post here as fact you might make a great producer... then again probably not.
Yeah I do think I'd make a great producer. I haven't posted any fiction as fact, you misunderstood my point, though I could have explained it better - I meant no viewers have mentioned or cared about her since she left. Characters may have mentioned her.

I do agree with you about Kathy to an extent...I think it's far-fetched she is back and I'll never truly forget what they did to her, but she should never have been killed off in the first place. Cindy shouldn't have either. Neither should Ronnie or Roxy have...oh I see a trend here.

I do want Kathy to stay though.
Edward Skylover is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:41
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
I don't have to alter anything. I expect EastEnders to remain true to it's characters and stories and more and more it's letting me down on that score and that is a betrayal of the characters, the legacy ad the viewers.

I know the explanation given for Kathy's *ahem* absence, but it doesn't ring true. It doesn't make sense and it's out of character. It's my firm opinion that it should not have been done and the end does not justify the means.

So now Kathy is back in the cafe as if nothing had happened. No jail term. Ian has totally forgotten the unforgivable. Every time she's onscreen I am taken out of the scene and distracted because she is dead and yet there she is! It's such a pity that the producers are resorting to this instead of creating strong and memorable new characters. It smacks of desperation and is a slippery path. When they are done plundering the past, changing heads and rewriting back story what will they have?
No, you don't indeed. It's entirely up to you but you may find the show a lot more enjoyable if you accept what's happened and why, and go with the flow. It's fictional light entertainment after all, not something to get stressed about. We can't all agree with every decision made but as Edward Skylover has just said, one has to enjoy it for what it is.

I don't care who is playing Michelle, I think it's interesting that she's been brought back. I'm relieved that Kathy is back to the person she was and I'm not overly fussed that R&R have been killed off. It might have been better long-term to have kept them alive but I can understand why that door has been closed. None or Michelle, Kathy or SOC are likely to be going anywhere in the immediate future and nor are R&R coming back, so I'll happily look to the future and take it as it comes. That doesn't mean I'm easily pleased and that I never complain but one has to operate within known boundaries and accepting those boundaries makes viewing simpler and more enjoyable.

I'm one of the first people to want some realism in my soaps but I acknowledge that a few liberties get taken here and there and that such decisions are (hopefully) made for the greater good.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:48
davejc64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,996
Again I suggest you don't understand that which you attempt to mock and it's ironic to me that your response is so cliche ridden as to use the term "earth shattering importance".

I can assure you I loose no sleep over this, but I do find what's happening at EastEnders to be interesting, unfortunate and unnecessary. It's indicative of a creative stunting in British television which is constantly looking to rely on the existing and rehash rather than create the new or look forward.
Cest la vie.
davejc64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:48
Edward Skylover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,597
That doesn't mean I'm easily pleased and that I never complain but one has to operate within known boundaries and accepting those boundaries makes viewing simpler and more enjoyable.

I'm one of the first people to want some realism in my soaps but I acknowledge that a few liberties get taken here and there and that such decisions are (hopefully) made for the greater good.
I think AuntySoap has to make the call whether the bad outweighs the good for her at the moment. When Michael Moon was in the show and ruining it in my personal opinion, I tuned out for quite a bit of 2010-2013 as a result. Sometimes that's what a viewer has to do. There will be other times AuntySoap may enjoy. At the moment I love the show cause there's a lot for me to enjoy, Ben, my ultimate Steven Michelle, as I love re-casts and I love having Kathy back but I think they need to do more work to fix the absence years, perhaps have her talking about those 10 years and what her and Gavin did during that time.
Edward Skylover is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:58
nattoyaki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,705
Whigh te cast of Sam Danielle to Kim or Kim to Danielle
Sam to Kim.

If you're talking about Kim medcalf taking over Danniella Westbrook that was 14 years ago...


But she is dead. They jumped the shark by bringing her back. They have never given sufficient explanation as to why she did what she did... Kathy would never have abandoned her infant son in South Africa... she would never have left Ian thinking she was dead for over a decade.

She is irredeemable and all so she can be in the Christmas play? Joke
They jumped the shark with Den.

Otherwise agreed
nattoyaki is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:00
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
I think AuntySoap has to make the call whether the bad outweighs the good for her at the moment. When Michael Moon was in the show and ruining it in my personal opinion, I tuned out for quite a bit of 2010-2013 as a result. Sometimes that's what a viewer has to do. There will be other times AuntySoap may enjoy. At the moment I love the show cause there's a lot for me to enjoy, Ben, my ultimate Steven Michelle, as I love re-casts and I love having Kathy back but I think they need to do more work to fix the absence years, perhaps have her talking about those 10 years and what her and Gavin did during that time.
Yes, I didn't go as far as tuning out when Michael Moon was around but he certainly spoilt the show for me too. That period was a real struggle to watch with the likes of Tyler, Joey, Derek, Ava, Dexter etc. It improved dramatically when DTC came along but that didn't last , so I'm enjoying SOC's new direction and being able to relate to, and like, pretty much all of the characters.

Kathy may well get more work to fix the 'dead' period. It's not out of the question but equally it's probably not an urgent need right now.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:11
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,511
I'm sure I read something that said why Michelle is back but as no-one else seems to have the foggiest, I'm starting to think that I must have had a dream (or nightmare!)! I just wish I could recall where I saw it. It's bold but not something that would be easily guessed as
Spoiler
- but as i say, perhaps I did dream it?
I am even more intrigued now. I have not read anything that gives her secret away. Or if I have, I have forgotten what it was.

I have read that we are to find out a lot more on next Thursday's episode (12th Jan) Looking forward to it.
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:11
Edward Skylover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,597
Kathy may well get more work to fix the 'dead' period. It's not out of the question but equally it's probably not an urgent need right now.
I think SOC probably realises there is a problem with Kathy, but I don't think he'll get rid of her. He probably realises too that the Beales are virtually broken and need re-building.
Edward Skylover is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:31
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
Yeah I do think I'd make a great producer. I haven't posted any fiction as fact, you misunderstood my point, though I could have explained it better - I meant no viewers have mentioned or cared about her since she left. Characters may have mentioned her.

I do agree with you about Kathy to an extent...I think it's far-fetched she is back and I'll never truly forget what they did to her, but she should never have been killed off in the first place. Cindy shouldn't have either. Neither should Ronnie or Roxy have...oh I see a trend here.

I do want Kathy to stay though.
BIB You don't know that! Perform a basic search here and you will see her mentioned a lot on this forum (which isn't necessarily indicative of the general viewer), but Michelle was a character that made an impact and was integral to her time in the show.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:32
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
I think SOC probably realises there is a problem with Kathy, but I don't think he'll get rid of her. He probably realises too that the Beales are virtually broken and need re-building.
I don't expect SOC to be in place for very long and I think her place in the show is precarious.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:43
ilovenicnacs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: the back of beyond
Posts: 6,900
I agree that we want new-Michelle to be recognisable but as her secret hasn't yet been revealed, is it not reasonable that the genteel, cheerful, nicey-nicey Michelle is just an act?

She's a fish out of water, feeling out of place in a location that she knows but which has changed and needing her brother and sister-in-law's acceptance and hospitality. Once everything's out in the open, she may very well revert to type (hopefully) but for now she's likely to be biting her tongue, trying to make a good impression and attempting to take her mind off the things that drove her away from her family and her work in the States.
Good point, let's hope you are right, this secret had better be good!!!!
ilovenicnacs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:46
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
Good point, let's hope you are right, this secret had better be good!!!!
She was being a little more arsey tonight, with the inconsiderate upping of the thermostat.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:50
Zarla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,886
Jenna should be making more of an effort with Michelle's voice. She sounds too middle class and almost northern. Jenna was born in London but brought up in Dundee, but as an actress she should be able to modulate her natural accent.
Zarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:02
anndra_w
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,332
Jenna should be making more of an effort with Michelle's voice. She sounds too middle class and almost northern. Jenna was born in London but brought up in Dundee, but as an actress she should be able to modulate her natural accent.
Michelle's accent should have softened in her time away from England. My friends who have left Scotland since school have definitely a slightly different accent than the one they had before they left. It's good that the new Michelle has been able to pick up on this and make the performance more believable. Michelle left for a better life than working class Walford offered.
anndra_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:12
MissMonkeyMoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,413
Wow. Just catching up with this thread! There's a lot of discussion going on here!

I just wanted to say that I like new Michelle BUT I can't see her as Michelle fowler. It's like she's martin's cousin or something. I just can't see her add Michelle no matter how hard I try! That's not the actresses fault, it's not her voice - she's playing Michelle in her own way which is the right way to do it. If she tried to do susan's voice or styled her hair like hers she'd blasted for trying to imitate her. Maybe in time I will accept her as Michelle, but I have to say that when James bye came in as Martin it only took a few episodes for me to accept him. Same as harry Reid as Ben, Ted as Johnny and Kim as Sam. Michelle is not so much of an old character coming back but a brand new character. However, maybe the episode between Michelle and Sharon next week might help to get used to her!
MissMonkeyMoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:13
0...0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: I like to singy singy singy...
Posts: 17,646
Jenna should be making more of an effort with Michelle's voice. She sounds too middle class and almost northern. Jenna was born in London but brought up in Dundee, but as an actress she should be able to modulate her natural accent.
I was hoping for a Deep South drawl so that she can finally coax Sharon into going full Blanche DuBois.
0...0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:15
AcerBen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,143
I wasn't against the idea of her being recast but somehow this is just working for me. I just don't believe it's her. It's weird. It's like she's a long lost auntie or something.
AcerBen 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 20:38.