|
||||||||
Eastenders: New Michelle |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,749
|
She's more like a happier version of Carol Jackson than Michelle Fowler. I just can't buy into any of this. It looks like the idea is to have Michelle be the new Pauline but that's not working either. I'm not sure why anyone would want to recreate the Martin/Sonia/Pauline saga from the mid 2000s but SOC must have liked it. Michelle Vs. Stacey will be like Pauline Vs. Sonia once Stacey drops her knickers for Max.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North Lanarkshire
Posts: 3,175
|
So far an utterly loathsome character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
|
Quote:
She's more like a happier version of Carol Jackson than Michelle Fowler. I just can't buy into any of this. It looks like the idea is to have Michelle be the new Pauline but that's not working either. I'm not sure why anyone would want to recreate the Martin/Sonia/Pauline saga from the mid 2000s but SOC must have liked it. Michelle Vs. Stacey will be like Pauline Vs. Sonia once Stacey drops her knickers for Max.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,919
|
Quote:
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 I 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,919
|
I didn't even watch Eastenders with the original actress and this recast feels very off to me must be extra weird for those who did watch back then
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,804
|
I don't mind her.
Stacey is being an effing bitch to her no surprise there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
|
It's perhaps not helped because she's in the 'wrong' house, staying with Martin in Pat's old house, rather than Ian's which was the original Fowler home that she grew up in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,278
|
Quote:
I don't mind her.
Stacey is being an effing bitch to her no surprise there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 455
|
Quote:
Hmm. I don't think they're pushing her too hard or even at all. She's mostly been in the background apart from the Christmas Day ep when she accompanied Sharon to the hospital.
She gets inconsequential scenes like making a minced beef pie and using up all the hot water. It's probably wise that they're using her in this way. Tbh she'll never be who I immediately think of when I think of Michelle but I don't mind her. The passing of 20 years gives them a bit of licence re the character not being exactly the same. I normally hate it when they recast adult characters but am giving this a chance as at least I understand the reasons behind it; the original actor being impossible to obtain. She has just returned to the place she grew up after 20 years so it's only natural she'd talk about the old days. However, last night was the first time NuMichelle had mentioned Pauline. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,488
|
The actress is unlikeable hence can't take into this Michelle "reincarnation". In any case no strong storyline could justify bringing her back considering Arthur, Pauline, Mark passed away without a sneeze from "Michelle". Best left the character in the cupboard and forget about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
|
Quote:
She goes on and on about Pauline,but didn't even go to her funeral
|
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,403
|
I'm finding her quite irritating but I suspect that's the point. And I still haven't got my head around the recast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,878
|
The original Michelle wasn't a goody goody character at all...she had her one night stands with Den and Grant, betraying her best friend Sharon horribly both times. Now she's trying to take over the running of Stacey's household, all the while speaking in a mild northern accent. Accents don't go from Cockney to Cheshire when you move to the US in your 20s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,708
|
Quote:
She never met Pauline.... it's a different bloody woman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,358
|
Quote:
The original Michelle wasn't a goody goody character at all...she had her one night stands with Den and Grant, betraying her best friend Sharon horribly both times. Now she's trying to take over the running of Stacey's household, all the while speaking in a mild northern accent. Accents don't go from Cockney to Cheshire when you move to the US in your 20s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
|
Quote:
The original Michelle wasn't a goody goody character at all...she had her one night stands with Den and Grant, betraying her best friend Sharon horribly both times. Now she's trying to take over the running of Stacey's household, all the while speaking in a mild northern accent. Accents don't go from Cockney to Cheshire when you move to the US in your 20s.
Quote:
And let's not forgot she left poor Lofty at the alter, she a right wrongon!
Newer viewers won't know any of this, of course, which is perhaps why they're playing her as tentatively as they are at the moment. As Jenna R has had input from Susan T, Letitia D and Adam IW, I'd imagine that SOC wants as the original feisty Michelle back... hence the one to one with Sharon next week which presumably will cover not just the current secret but much of the history as well. Somehow the EE team need to get viewers to accept the character as not especially likeable but interesting and watchable. Not easy in any situation. Harder after a 20 year gap. And harder still with a new head. It will be fascinating to watch how it develops. |
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
This is why people need to give the character time. I doubt that any of us who remember the original will regard her as a particularly pleasant person. She had her moments but generally she was a stroppy, moody, sulky, arsey bint - a mixture of Lou (gandmother) and Pauline (mother). She may have mellowed a lit in the intervening years. Not the most likeable of people but a complex and interesting character nonetheless.
Newer viewers won't know any of this, of course, which is perhaps why they're playing her as tentatively as they are at the moment. As Jenna R has had input from Susan T, Letitia D and Adam IW, I'd imagine that SOC wants as the original feisty Michelle back... hence the one to one with Sharon next week which presumably will cover not just the current secret but much of the history as well. Somehow the EE team need to get viewers to accept the character as not especially likeable but interesting and watchable. Not easy in any situation. Harder after a 20 year gap. And harder still with a new head. It will be fascinating to watch how it develops. I think the issue people are having - me included - is the total lack of any vestiges of physical resemblance to the original, younger Michelle. This Michelle might as well be a completely new character to the series, which is making things hard for many viewers. Because she's being given all the old Michelle background history, but bears not the slightest physical resemblance to the original character (albeit twenty years on), longer term viewers are left thinking: 'Imposter!'. It's little wonder we're finding it hard to buy into her at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
|
Quote:
You make some good points and I'm sure we'll see how the character develops during her time in Walford. I presume she's due to remain for a while, now that the writers have taken the trouble to bring her back.
I think the issue people are having - me included - is the total lack of any vestiges of physical resemblance to the original, younger Michelle. This Michelle might as well be a completely new character to the series, which is making things hard for many viewers. Because she's being given all the old Michelle background history, but bears not the slightest physical resemblance to the original character (albeit twenty years on), longer term viewers are left thinking: 'Imposter!'. It's little wonder we're finding it hard to buy into her at the moment. I don't think Jemma Russell's resemblance is that far away from what Michelle might be like twenty years on. But yes, I agree, you still have to think about who she is supposed to be each time she's on screen. That should fade in time, as it did with Martin. Even if ST had returned, they'd still have a big task of selling the character (who isn't always nicey-nicey) to a huge swathe of the audience who don't know her at all. I see little point in trying to judge success or otherwise too soon and certainly not before next week's episode with Sharon, assuming that's when the secret will come out. Even then it still takes a while to get to know someone, even in real life. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:41.


