So I've this question now on a couple of threads so apologies for the repetition but I realised it's probably more prudent to give it it's own thread as I think it's a fair question.

First off it's probably best to admit that I don't agree with killing off Ronnie and Roxy, I don't think the episode itself was executed particularly well and I think the aftermath so far as be nothing more than a damp squid. So I completely appreciate that perhaps I'm coming at this with rose tinted glasses but personally I think killing them off (particularly both of them) is a massive mistake that in the long term will be viewed as such.

My own personal feelings aside, and your own if you happened to like the episodes and/or didn't particularly like the two characters, answer me this:

Would Matthew Robinson have killed off Phil and Grant in 1999 when they crashed into the Thames?

Like Ronnie and Roxy, the two characters were coming up to ten years since they first turned up in the Square but unlike the sisters, they didn't have the backing of the family behind them - they were completely unoriginal, unattached characters back in the 90's. However, considering the involvement of both the brothers (but Phil in particular) imagine if they had been killed off so suddenly, as Ronnie and Roxy have been, back in the late 90's.

Would Robinson, or any EP for that matter, dared to kill off two of the shows most iconic characters when they had so many years and so much potential ahead of them?

Sorry, as soon as I saw the Thread title I just had an instant image of Grant & Phil in the exact same drowning final shot positions as Ronnie & Roxy and burst out laughing!

I'm a terrible person.

probably not, but then again in 1999 Phil and Grant were far more iconic than Ronnie and Roxy were/are

Simple answer. No, it would never happen. BBC Eastenders seem to LOVE killing off big female characters!! Always the females. Its pretty ridiculous and i do not understand why, they always regret it in the end.

ps. and its damp SQUIB!!!

But is that purely because of the popularity of the soap rather than the popularity of the characters? Its difficult to compare icons from two very different decades. The landscape of soap has changed so much!

Ronnie in particular has been involved in as many storylines, if not more, than Phil did during the 90's. Like Grant, Roxy's stories have usually involved a relationship with a man or her relationship with her sibling.

Interesting question. I'd say yes, Phil and Grant could very well have been killed off. EastEnders has never shied away from killing off iconic/popular characters - Den, Pat, Pauline, Kathy, Cindy, Tiffany - and, particularly as Ross Kemp had quit the show anyway, they might have taken that opportunity to send them both out with a bang. I'm glad they didn't though, obviously.

Phil and Grant vs Ronnie and Roxy isn't exactly a fair comparison either. The Mitchell brothers were absolutely central to the show throughout the 1990s and were both brilliant characters in their own right. Ronnie and Roxy have never hit the heights of popularity that Phil and Grant did, and have never been as important to the show either.

Haha is it? I had no idea. See this is my parents fault, they never corrected me when I was young and now as an adult, I look ridiculous!

maybe but i class both Grant and Phil as iconic characters, only Ronnie could possibly fit into that category, Roxy is nowhere near it imo

That's fair. I'd argue Ronnie is equally as iconic as Grant and given more time, could have surpassed him in the future. I think it's shortsighted in all honesty.

And in response to Bass, other than Tiffany, all the others were ageing characters or died off screen. Would Tiffany be in the same league as Ronnie, Roxy maybe but not Ronnie in my opinion. The same could be argued for Cindy. Generally speaking, the show only kills off characters who are in the twilight years of their lives and wouldn't necessarily be around in 20 years time. There are exceptions of course but it's rare they kill a lead character in the prime of their life, departing anyway or otherwise.

TPTB don't have the balls to do it

i do sort of agree, if Phil or Grant were ever to be killed off i think it would be like Peggy and only at the actor's request

Yet they killed of all of the other iconic Walford characters and treated them like shit.

The Brothers Grimm should have been finished off before the 21st century even began - because with the Philth morphing into an omniscient/omnipotent super-thug no credible male villain has been allowed to challenge him/them.

Even a man who was once the most feared gangster in London - Johnny Allen (someone who cut people's fingers off for fun) was reduced to being duffed up (and he had once been a pro boxer) in a fluffy pink jumper by King Weeble whilst Grunt had a bit of tiffin with his daughter.

TBTB bizarre obsession with the Mitchells really does my bloody head in.

Look at the send off the screeching old banshee got compared to Angie, Pat or Pauline for example.

Phil and Grant are a billion times more popular than Ronnie and Roxy.

No. Ronnie and Roxy should have been treated the exact same as the Mitchell brothers and could have been around for years with multiple breaks.
.

Maybe they regret not killing them off when they had the chance and don't want to make the same mistake again. Phil and Grant were fabulous in their early years but they haven't known what to do with Philfor years, so he just goes round in circles defying death every year in time for Steve's Panto break. Most characters have a shelf life, especially if they've been involved in endless drama. Ronnie and Roxy were stale, Phil is stale and Grant no longer excites. Kudos to Ross for getting out before he became a burnt out joke too.

Now that the Mitchell sisters have been killed off, my wife is gearing up to the next flurry of exits, in particular her pet hate .. Phil Mitchell.

I've told here that she can hate the geyser all she likes but he won't be killed off as he's too much of a pivotal character. If you get rid of Phil you're essentially cutting the umbilicus linking present day EE with it's illustrious past.

There are loads of characters who need to be got rid of, but to list them here would be silly because they'd only be my own particular hate characters which others may like a lot!

Suffice to say, thankfully we all have different opinions. Heaven forbid DS ever shuts down because we'd all have to go to the local coffee shop or the pub to vent our spleen about the things we don't like in soaps!

nope, hence why it didn't happen

I don't know if that's true. It's hard to compare two sets of characters from two very distinct periods where the number of viewers differ by about 10 million. I think if a vote was taken, Ronnie would (and does) rank very highly. Phil, despite his iconic status, has a lot of detractors.

I was thinking this and no.

No way the Mitchell brothers were from the 90's and that was the soaps biggest decade ever. They were 2 huge characters who were involved in many iconic storylines.

The Mitchell sisters were huge aswell but never on the same level as Phil and Grant.

Phil would laugh in the face at any script in which he died.

I wonder if Ronnie and Roxy were SOC's first choice. I remember Kirkwood wanted to kill off Charlie Slater but the actor complained and Kirkwood killed Pat instead. Maybe SOC wanted Phil to finally die so the show can move on from the stranglehold he has over it but the BBC chickened out.

Of course they could have.

BBC are bitter. Martin Kemp signed a deal with ITV hence why he got killed off. So it's quite easy that they could have done that for Ross as he signed a similar deal with ITV.

No, but I would.