DS Forums

 
 

This is why killing R&R was a waste


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 09:48
davrosdodebird
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Whoonie Inn
Posts: 7,601
The last producer killed off Nick Cotton now that was a travesty and pointless.
Not really, as much as I hate to say it, June Brown won't be around forever and dot is the entire point of nick's character.
davrosdodebird is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 09:50
Aura101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,561
The whole thing is an absolute ****ing travesty and SOC is by far the most selfish, self absorbed producer the show has EVER had.
He's gotten rid of, what, about 13 characters now? Now some, fair enough it happens.
I didn't agree with the Cokers leaving but they were newish characters and producers often come in and get rid of the newest.
The Mitchell sisters were something else. Whilst they might have gone round in circles a bit over the years, they were, especially Ronnie, two of the biggest characters from the show's past decade. And because he couldn't think of anything to do with the , he axes them. But not content with just sending them off so that another producer who actually knows what they're doing can use them, he kills them both off??!
The Mitchells as a family unit have been completely decimated - Peggy is gone, Phil is a now old and decrepit and now it falls to Sharon, Louise, Ben and Jay to keep their legacy alive?
I'm genuinely furious as you can tell. SOC is an absolute power hungry moron. It's not just even that - the laundrette? A set that has been there from the start and has been the setting for some iconic scenes over the years? Gone.
It's very late and I'm tired but as far as I'm comcernd, the sooner the BBC see sense and get rid of him, the better. I do fear that he has actually done some irreparable damage though.
I completely agree. And there's no way he will see through his contract the BBC will get rid as they did Newman and Birkwood. Anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Aura101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:07
Lizzie Brookes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,318
1. There was no point in showing someone discovering their bodies because it probably would be staff member that would find it and we wouldn't get the same shock reaction from that.

2. Jack referenced in tonight episode that he didn't want to tell the children yet so it didn't happen yet in which i wouldn't blame him because telling the kids that their aunt and mother died would be very hard
I agree.

I also wouldn't say it was a bad move because Ronnie and Roxy had clearly run out of storylines and were going to be written out - by killing them off, new storylines automatically opened up for Max and Jack - otherwise Max wouldn't have had much to do with Roxy and Jack gone other than the self injury storyline.
Lizzie Brookes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:12
Lizzie Brookes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,318
Why? Because he killed off a couple of characters that you liked?

Maybe the aftermath episode could have been done a little differently. So what? I have to agree with others when they say we can't have been watching so many people being told in the same way again and again.

I think the grief has been conveyed very effectively. Jack. Louise. Ben, Sharon all reacted in very different ways. Life is cold and hard for the people left behind.

So another producer has made the decision to kill off some characters that they liked. Hard luck. The way some people are reacting is like SOC has committed crime of the century, Perosnally I think he's started off 2017 with a bamg and those last 10 minutes will go down as some of the most iconic in the shows history. I for one will never forget it,
I agree.
Lizzie Brookes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:17
lordOfTime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
I am still hoping like a fool that when they come to identifying the bodies we find out the one of them is not a sister. Now that would be a amazing twist.
One of them isn't a sister, neither of them are sisters

I completely agree. And there's no way he will see through his contract the BBC will get rid as they did Newman and Birkwood. Anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Delusional? Why's that? Why should we write off his tenure so soon? I think he's done a lot of good things for the show.
lordOfTime is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:20
Mellsbells
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,493
The whole thing is an absolute ****ing travesty and SOC is by far the most selfish, self absorbed producer the show has EVER had.
He's gotten rid of, what, about 13 characters now? Now some, fair enough it happens.
I didn't agree with the Cokers leaving but they were newish characters and producers often come in and get rid of the newest.
The Mitchell sisters were something else. Whilst they might have gone round in circles a bit over the years, they were, especially Ronnie, two of the biggest characters from the show's past decade. And because he couldn't think of anything to do with the , he axes them. But not content with just sending them off so that another producer who actually knows what they're doing can use them, he kills them both off??!
The Mitchells as a family unit have been completely decimated - Peggy is gone, Phil is a now old and decrepit and now it falls to Sharon, Louise, Ben and Jay to keep their legacy alive?
I'm genuinely furious as you can tell. SOC is an absolute power hungry moron. It's not just even that - the laundrette? A set that has been there from the start and has been the setting for some iconic scenes over the years? Gone.
It's very late and I'm tired but as far as I'm comcernd, the sooner the BBC see sense and get rid of him, the better. I do fear that he has actually done some irreparable damage though.
I've said the same. When Pat was killed off, I thought that was a huge mistake, that character and her part in others' storylines was missed and still is to some extent. DTC brought Kathy back because for years people had been rattling on about it and in all the things that have happened with Ben, Ian, Lucy etc, she was another character who would have been invaluable to have around. He brought her back because killing her off all those years ago by that producer was a mistake. Just like this storyline. Two of the biggest characters, whether you liked them or not, could have come back in five, ten or 15 years. They ALWAYS regret killing the big characters off. It's ego on the part of the producer plain and simple. I wish the BBC would write something into future producer's contracts 'you are not allowed to kill big characters off just because the actor wants a break or to leave' and 'but you are allowed to cull the deadwood like Shakky or Lee'

Was bringing back Michelle supposed to sweeten the loss of these two? Because it hasn't worked, she's irritating the pish out of me and hearing that nonsense about Pauline, Arthur and the kids' table was pointless.
Mellsbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:33
Collins1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,529
It was a brave move by SOC. Roxy, lets face it, had nothing more left in her. Waste of space there only to mess things up for Ronnie. Ronnie was going around in circles. Sam looked bored out of her mind for the past two years or so. Now that the shock of them being killed off in such a macabre way is dimming a bit I am realising that I won't miss them much at all.

They were good while they lasted but for me they had had their day. Mind you I am surprised the likes of Carmel Shakil and Donna were not axed first.

The killing of Lucy by DTC was a mistake and destroyed the Beales. Ronnie and Roxy not so much a mistake as a bold move imo.
Collins1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:48
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
It was a brave move by SOC. Roxy, lets face it, had nothing more left in her. Waste of space there only to mess things up for Ronnie. Ronnie was going around in circles. Sam looked bored out of her mind for the past two years or so. Now that the shock of them being killed off in such a macabre way is dimming a bit I am realising that I won't miss them much at all.

They were good while they lasted but for me they had had their day. Mind you I am surprised the likes of Carmel Shakil and Donna were not axed first.

The killing of Lucy by DTC was a mistake and destroyed the Beales. Ronnie and Roxy not so much a mistake as a bold move imo.
Lucy was a legacy character but the actress portraying her at the time of the murder was not very strong. She had a future in the show that may be regretted in time. However her death had major ramifications that are still being felt!

R&R once the funerals are over will just be gone. I totally agree they seemed spent and should have been written out but putting both beyond the reach of future producers is a mistake and closes down creative options about revisiting them at a later date.

I think it will be seen as a major mistake.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:12
pinkprint
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 277
It would be easy to blame SOC, because its his fault however somebody somewhere at the BBC must of given the green light for this. He may have come up with the absurd idea of sacking these two actresses then killing their characters off. But with EastEnders chronically bad history of such short sighted decisions, surely someone could have stopped it happening?
After all BBC is publicly funded, surely the fans should be listened to to some extent, after all these are probably the most popular duo on the show! Nearly 14.000 votes on DS poll on home page and 84% say they should not have been killed off!
pinkprint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:29
LakieLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,175
It was a brave move by SOC. Roxy, lets face it, had nothing more left in her. Waste of space there only to mess things up for Ronnie. Ronnie was going around in circles.
The rinse-and-repeat Ronnie storylines were tedious and I'd stopped finding her credible, tbh. Roxy, otoh, still had some mileage imo. If she'd survived, there would have been scope for a great change of direction. I'd have loved to have seen her clean up her act, start being a good mum to Amy, get some sort of career or business together (ideally one that wasn't a bar or a market stall!) and be the Mitchell matriarch in waiting.

The only recent axing that has been a loss imo was Belinda. I loved Masood, but the character had become pointless. He only really worked when he had family around.
LakieLady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:34
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
The rinse-and-repeat Ronnie storylines were tedious and I'd stopped finding her credible, tbh. Roxy, otoh, still had some mileage imo. If she'd survived, there would have been scope for a great change of direction. I'd have loved to have seen her clean up her act, start being a good mum to Amy, get some sort of career or business together (ideally one that wasn't a bar or a market stall!) and be the Mitchell matriarch in waiting.

The only recent axing that has been a loss imo was Belinda. I loved Masood, but the character had become pointless. He only really worked when he had family around.
I agree. It was time to rest the characters, but who can say now where they could have gone with them in the future, either together or separately.

It's a perplexing decision. It doesn't have the ramifications of Lucy's death and it was completely unnecessary. So why do it? To give Jack and Max new mileage... could that not have been done without killing R&R? It seems the producer was intent on slamming the door shut and one has to wonder why that is. There is probably more to this that we know.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:45
Aura101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,561
I agree. It was time to rest the characters, but who can say now where they could have gone with them in the future, either together or separately.

It's a perplexing decision. It doesn't have the ramifications of Lucy's death and it was completely unnecessary. So why do it? To give Jack and Max new mileage... could that not have been done without killing R&R? It seems the producer was intent on slamming the door shut and one has to wonder why that is. There is probably more to this that we know.
After Scott Maslen 'liked' my tweet slagging off the producer, i am wondering if he too had been given the axe!
Aura101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:47
NoughtiesMusic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North of England
Posts: 14,119
The rinse-and-repeat Ronnie storylines were tedious and I'd stopped finding her credible, tbh. Roxy, otoh, still had some mileage imo. If she'd survived, there would have been scope for a great change of direction. I'd have loved to have seen her clean up her act, start being a good mum to Amy, get some sort of career or business together (ideally one that wasn't a bar or a market stall!) and be the Mitchell matriarch in waiting.

The only recent axing that has been a loss imo was Belinda. I loved Masood, but the character had become pointless. He only really worked when he had family around.
Belinda's axing was totally pointless. Why get rid of someone with connections to the Square (Stacey and Lily) and was played by a strong actress? I'd have gotten rid of Tina instead.

I love Mas too, but he had pretty much come to his time on EE. After Shabs and Tam left he was twisting in the wind for months. Plus SOC has sort of reunited him with Zainab off screen after DTC ruined her with that marriage in Pakistan. Since he still owns that house there's always a chance him and Zainab could return one day.
NoughtiesMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:47
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,922
After Scott Maslen 'liked' my tweet slagging off the producer, i am wondering if he too had been given the axe!
He liked my tweet praising his performance and the episodes too
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:03
firefly_irl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
Iand 'but you are allowed to cull the deadwood like Shakky or Lee'
.
While people would think this wouldn't bring about a big story killing minor characters can be more successful in terms on ongoing stories for main characters. Look at Saskia, her death had quite the follow up for someone very minor in the grand scheme of EE.
firefly_irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:39
Stube
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 15,386
As a huge fan of Ronnie and Roxy, I found the New Year's episode tough to watch. I can see both sides of the "should they have been killed off?" debate though.

I do think it is incredibly short-sighted of SOC to kill off two of the biggest characters of the past 10 years just to make his mark. Sooner or later, EE is just going to be filled with the all-time classics (Sharon, Phil, Ian) and a quick turnover of new characters who get axed by the next EP.

On the flip side, I can't believe how little credit SOC has been given on this forum for a phenomenal New Year's episode. If you put aside your feelings of whether R&R should've been killed off, you'll see that the writing and pacing of the episode did the characters - and actors - justice. It wasn't just a rushed exit, it was an episode that could've easily been a BBC one-off special in my opinion. The imagery, the references to R&R's past, the Cinderella/Titanic comparisons, and that final image of what looked like Ronnie and Roxy's arms interlocked in the pool with Ronnie's dress wrapped around Roxy. Never have I seen so much thought put into a soap character's (or two) exit.

It's just a shame yesterday's episode fell flat. We didn't see anyone's raw reaction except Phil's - which I consider lazy. For dramatic value, I hope the CCTV footage of the swimming pool scene gets released publicly so we can actually see the characters witness what we did.
Stube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:46
Aura101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,561
He liked my tweet praising his performance and the episodes too
Well why wouldn't he ?? The performances were good and the episodes were well directed.
Doesn't take away from the fact they should not have been killed off and SOC is poo.
Aura101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:57
AuntieSoap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,607
As a huge fan of Ronnie and Roxy, I found the New Year's episode tough to watch. I can see both sides of the "should they have been killed off?" debate though.

I do think it is incredibly short-sighted of SOC to kill off two of the biggest characters of the past 10 years just to make his mark. Sooner or later, EE is just going to be filled with the all-time classics (Sharon, Phil, Ian) and a quick turnover of new characters who get axed by the next EP.

On the flip side, I can't believe how little credit SOC has been given on this forum for a phenomenal New Year's episode. If you put aside your feelings of whether R&R should've been killed off, you'll see that the writing and pacing of the episode did the characters - and actors - justice. It wasn't just a rushed exit, it was an episode that could've easily been a BBC one-off special in my opinion. The imagery, the references to R&R's past, the Cinderella/Titanic comparisons, and that final image of what looked like Ronnie and Roxy's arms interlocked in the pool with Ronnie's dress wrapped around Roxy. Never have I seen so much thought put into a soap character's (or two) exit.

It's just a shame yesterday's episode fell flat. We didn't see anyone's raw reaction except Phil's - which I consider lazy. For dramatic value, I hope the CCTV footage of the swimming pool scene gets released publicly so we can actually see the characters witness what we did.
Really well put thank you. I guess for me I have to ask is the beautiful image at the end worth it? It was a stunningly beautiful final shot.
AuntieSoap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:16
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,922
Well why wouldn't he ?? The performances were good and the episodes were well directed.
Doesn't take away from the fact they should not have been killed off and SOC is poo.
Disagree but lol
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:03
ArthurJBear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jedward Land
Posts: 3,477
That aftermath was a like a damp squid.

We don't see the bodies being discovered, we don't see the children being told (and I imagine we won't either) and the reactions we did get were quite frankly underwhelming. In fact, Louise's reaction was probably the most effective and it wasn't revisited later.

I also don't think Maslen is a strong enough actor to pull this off long term. He wasn't even that great in this episode but I felt that's more to do with the material he had to work with.

The episode kept cutting far, far too early.

This is exactly why their deaths are a complete waste.
They didn't tell the children (we may see it today "One resident is forced to do the unthinkable" - although this may be referring to a identification of Ronnie)

Only if it was written that way? There is no reason they couldn't have written it for Jack, or Max to wonder where Ronnie/Roxy was and go looking, and notice the door to the pool open......
And lose the effectiveness of the way it played out - Max, Jack and the Children falling asleep waiting for Ronnie and Roxy - waking the next morning in the midst of the tragedy that is already playing out - and the realisation you had slept through it - I know which version I'd prefer - realistic emotional scenes over contrived cliched scenes any day.

Who said Max didn't go looking for them? Understandably Jack nodded off as he was lying in bed, reading a story, after a few too many drinks no doubt. But Max was sober and waiting for Roxy who told him she'd be 20 minutes. After an hour, he'd have gone looking or for just left. Ultimately it comes down to lazy writing!

As for telling the children, I get that but for dramatic purposes, it's best to do something like this almost instantly. I think back to when Ian told Peter and then Cindy and Bobby which was completely heartbreaking. It's moments like this that can make or break an episode.
He didn't he woke up in Roxy's room where he'd fallen asleep waiting for her.

Is it surely it is better for Jack to get in the right place emotionally before telling them.

I completely agree. And there's no way he will see through his contract the BBC will get rid as they did Newman and Birkwood. Anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.

So anyone who disagrees with you (such as me) is delusional? I think you need to look in the dictionary for the definition, you should find it easy enough it will be next to a big picture of you.
ArthurJBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:15
The_abbott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,566
Lucy was a legacy character but the actress portraying her at the time of the murder was not very strong. She had a future in the show that may be regretted in time. However her death had major ramifications that are still being felt!

R&R once the funerals are over will just be gone. I totally agree they seemed spent and should have been written out but putting both beyond the reach of future producers is a mistake and closes down creative options about revisiting them at a later date.

I think it will be seen as a major mistake.
I agree - let another producer bring characters back if he chooses to do so if they fit into their plan. I mean Ronnie has so many unfinished storylines. They could have done something with Fatboy or even Tommy when he's grown up.

It seems most EP's want to kill somebody off to stamp their mark. Birkwood killed Pat then DTC offed Lucy and now SOC kills not one but two characters off.

The Mitchell's are really going to struggle in the future now and this new Michelle is not what I want to see despite being a viewer when Susan Tully was playing her.

The aftermath has been poor and with the kids so young it won't have any long term story plots. 5 minute rating boost and that is all.

EE is boring now, not Newman boring but boring nonetheless. I don't want explosions, fights, car crashes every week but 'something' should be happening that isn't to do with the weather or the cost of pies.
The_abbott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:20
Aura101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,561
They didn't tell the children (we may see it today "One resident is forced to do the unthinkable" - although this may be referring to a identification of Ronnie)



And lose the effectiveness of the way it played out - Max, Jack and the Children falling asleep waiting for Ronnie and Roxy - waking the next morning in the midst of the tragedy that is already playing out - and the realisation you had slept through it - I know which version I'd prefer - realistic emotional scenes over contrived cliched scenes any day.



He didn't he woke up in Roxy's room where he'd fallen asleep waiting for her.

Is it surely it is better for Jack to get in the right place emotionally before telling them.




So anyone who disagrees with you (such as me) is delusional? I think you need to look in the dictionary for the definition, you should find it easy enough it will be next to a big picture of you.
Chill out He will not last trust me on that one, all the signs are there. He is doing far worse than Newman & Birkwood were at the same point they were in the jobs, and they were both given the boot.
Aura101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 02:08
Stube
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 15,386
Really well put thank you. I guess for me I have to ask is the beautiful image at the end worth it? It was a stunningly beautiful final shot.
It's a difficult question to answer. Personally I believe certain characters reach a certain status in which they should not be allowed to be killed off/axed without the actor's permission. Soaps need long-term, classic characters in order to keep its history. Ronnie & Roxy helped the show out of its mid-00's slump so I'd say Sam and Rita deserved having the door left open.

Having said that, SOC is there to do a job. He's there to make EastEnders top drama and top entertainment. In his eyes, he believed both characters needed resting (especially Ronnie due to her crimes and general tragedy) and he managed to concoct a truly outstanding exit episode out of it. The fact that R&R are a very popular duo with viewers made the emotional impact huge. If SOC is going to make Eastenders compelling viewing again (despite bold moves), then I'm all for it.

I don't think R&R should quickly be swept under the carpet now though. Amy should be allowed to remain on the show since she is definitely a legacy character for the future. The R&R should be reopened too.
Stube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:48
Aura101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,561
It's a difficult question to answer. Personally I believe certain characters reach a certain status in which they should not be allowed to be killed off/axed without the actor's permission. Soaps need long-term, classic characters in order to keep its history. Ronnie & Roxy helped the show out of its mid-00's slump so I'd say Sam and Rita deserved having the door left open.

Having said that, SOC is there to do a job. He's there to make EastEnders top drama and top entertainment. In his eyes, he believed both characters needed resting (especially Ronnie due to her crimes and general tragedy) and he managed to concoct a truly outstanding exit episode out of it. The fact that R&R are a very popular duo with viewers made the emotional impact huge. If SOC is going to make Eastenders compelling viewing again (despite bold moves), then I'm all for it.

I don't think R&R should quickly be swept under the carpet now though. Amy should be allowed to remain on the show since she is definitely a legacy character for the future. The R&R should be reopened too.
The episode itself was well directed, they should not have died though. I'm.not convinced he did it for the future of the show but more to make his mark and show his contempt for these 2 characters.
I agree that certain characters should be immune from being killed off unless requested. It sounds ridiculous, but in the current soap climate where they are all running out of decent storylines and engaging characters which the public love, I don't think any soap can afford to blindly kill off huge characters for a quick shock factor. At the end of the day it may bring in ratings for the very short term but what about the future. What about when these characters are desperately needed again.
Death death death and misery. I'm sick of it. And its always the females!
Aura101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:28
MFKR78
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Runcorn UK
Posts: 1,072
As a huge fan of Ronnie and Roxy, I found the New Year's episode tough to watch. I can see both sides of the "should they have been killed off?" debate though.

I do think it is incredibly short-sighted of SOC to kill off two of the biggest characters of the past 10 years just to make his mark. Sooner or later, EE is just going to be filled with the all-time classics (Sharon, Phil, Ian) and a quick turnover of new characters who get axed by the next EP.

On the flip side, I can't believe how little credit SOC has been given on this forum for a phenomenal New Year's episode. If you put aside your feelings of whether R&R should've been killed off, you'll see that the writing and pacing of the episode did the characters - and actors - justice. It wasn't just a rushed exit, it was an episode that could've easily been a BBC one-off special in my opinion. The imagery, the references to R&R's past, the Cinderella/Titanic comparisons, and that final image of what looked like Ronnie and Roxy's arms interlocked in the pool with Ronnie's dress wrapped around Roxy. Never have I seen so much thought put into a soap character's (or two) exit.

It's just a shame yesterday's episode fell flat. We didn't see anyone's raw reaction except Phil's - which I consider lazy. For dramatic value, I hope the CCTV footage of the swimming pool scene gets released publicly so we can actually see the characters witness what we did.
Totally agree with this. I personally feel like Ronnie should have gone away with Jack and Roxy they could have done a lot with leaving her behind. Let her finally clean up her act once and for all without Ronnie there.

Through all the backlash against the decision to kill them off though, I think the filming of the episode itself has been overlooked a lot. The way it was shot, especially with the scenes at the party after the wedding with the slow motion shots of Roxy enjoying herself and the happy family etc were brilliantly done and really made the whole thing way more emotional.

I know it's soap but the way the episode ended really affected me. I saw it very late and it took me a while to sleep afterwards because it was so well done and really sad.

I also agree that after doing so amazingly on the special episode, they bungled the follow up. Why they kept cutting away from people being told etc I don't know. It seemed so odd like we went from super emotional on new years day to the following days of "well let's just move on now and leave everything off screen"
MFKR78 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 20:27.