|
||||||||
SOC- Is he Axing the Right Characters? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,398
|
Quote:
He's the best actor on the show by miles and miles and miles. Why would you axe that talent?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,674
|
Quote:
He's a good actor but the character is boring. Talented actors have been axed before. I'm not sure that I think that Steve is the best actor on the show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,674
|
Quote:
He's the best actor on the show by miles and miles and miles. Why would you axe that talent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,562
|
Quote:
He is too iconic to be axed and i dont see SOC axing Phil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 123
|
What annoys me about this producer is he get's rid of interesting characters, and brings back boring Libby, Dereck and bloody Michelle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,061
|
Quote:
Kyle is the only axing i understand, maybe Les and Pam at a push. Otherwise his axing's have been completely baffling and we are left with the dullest most uninspiring cast ever. In my
opinion Quote:
A New Family is long overdue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,445
|
Quote:
A New Family is long overdue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,674
|
Quote:
I also question his axings. There is still a fair amount of deadwood still at EE.
This! |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North of England
Posts: 14,123
|
If R&R's house has a buyer (Jack can move into one of his properties) maybe that can hold a new family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,067
|
I didn't really have an issue with the fact roxy and Ronnie were axed but I certainly do with the fact they've both been killed off, it's not even a story that's been done to open other avenues like the who killed Lucy story, doesn't make any sense.
as for the others the Cokers were far better worth than the likes of Donna/shakil, so don't see why they couldn't have stayed even as background. agreed with mas going and kyle, it's a shame babe is going but she has turned a bit panto |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,654
|
Roxy and Ronnie are as iconic as Kathy and Michelle so should not have been axed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 585
|
Quote:
Roxy and Ronnie are as iconic as Kathy and Michelle so should not have been axed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,674
|
Quote:
I'm struggling to see how either is iconic. Roxy fiddling with her ponytail, has to have her hand held by her sister, getting a family member into drug dealing, having it off with any bloke in the pub and saying "yeah? Yeah? You what?" doesn't really say iconic to me. Iconic means someone who will leave a hole by their departure, stamped an identity in their character and who one can have a significant amount of sympathy/anger/warmth for. I didn't have any of these for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,713
|
Quote:
Les and Pam - Absolutley not. They had plenty of life in them and were amoung my favorites. They proved themselves when given storylines and were the best in the community scenes and felt like a real part of Walford. Their exit was beautiful but was wasn't the time.
Belinda - No. great character who was starting to get involved and justs ups and leaves in a bizzare exit. She should have stayed for longer. Kyle - absolutley not. He was underused and had alot of potential. I would have liked to seen him get love interest and explore the struggle they get finding their someone. I thibk he needed another year but with storylines rather than completly neglected like he had been since he moved to the square. Claudette - This one is a bit tricky. Yes in the sense no one liked her in Walford and her awful backstory that she murdered Henry and sent Fatboy to die she had to go. But at the same time, no. She was suppposed to help the arrival of various characters she fostered over the years and tbh I would have liked to have seen this. We have seen 4 although 1 was a cameo character but I'd have liked to have gotten to meet them and see their bond over a few years. Babe - Yes. As much as I love Babe, I can't see her realistically staying in Walford as another of her evii schemes is revealed. She needs a break away from the square for a while. Ronnie - Yes and she had to die. However her exit story was stupid. She should have foubd out about Fatboy and had her murderous past catch up as revenge got taken. Not drowning in some random accident. Roxy: No. tbh I'd love to see Roxy cope with Ronnie's death. Also with Ronnie dead she can break free and grow into her own character. Ronnie always controlled her and brought her down. Also she is the neglected Mitchell sisted. Lee: No. The robbery story is stupid and Lee having a part doesnt sit right with me. Also Lee has proven himself as a character these last few weeks especially in the suicide attempt episode. Plus with Linda away already, it's really not the time. So thags just Babe and Ronnie I fully agree with. He should have axed Billy, Sharon or Phil, Kim, Dot, Mick and Whitney I think if your favourite or a favourite character gets axed it's always going to be the wrong decision. I have always liked Roxy so was sorry to see her go but I'll get over it. Should they have been killed? Not sure, but I didn't think it was done particularly well so a bit of a wasted opportunity. Getting rid of the likes of Claudette, Lee and the Cokers seems more like a lazy reaction to previous bad writing than a decision made with real forward planning. I'll be very sorry to see Lee go as he has been badly underused. If I was wielding the axe, I'd be saying goodbye to Johnny, Tina and Kim. I think they've run out of steam. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Runcorn UK
Posts: 1,072
|
Most of those characters don't matter to me but Ronnie & Roxy has been a miserable situation. Also I don't think Lee should go now either. Danny-Boy Hatchard has totally surprised me as I used to find him really dull and boring, yet he's really pulled off the depression and stress storyline brilliantly recently, especially over Christmas and New Year with him nearly killing himself and finally admitting the truth to Mick and Whitney. Rather than him go (especially with Linda being away too) I'd much rather see him have some sort of redemption and piece things back together slowly. After the horrible ending for Ronnie & Roxy, I think sending Lee away is a mistake too which just brings things down even further. Not to mention I wonder how they're going to do it and what that does to Whitney etc afterwards.
Babe I didn't realise was going (I normally don't look for spoilers) but I'll be glad to see the back of her. The one and only time I saw anything redeeming about her in any way was when she told Mick things will be ok after he came back from dealing with Oz and told her about having to find money to bail Lee out (and I also was so annoyed they didn't show that confrontation in any way! I so wanted to see Mick deal with the rat!) People like Claudette had burned a lot of bridges and become horrible after the way she treated Patrick on top of all her past darkness, so didn't have anything left to offer by sticking around really. The Cokers I didn't mind about but would have preferred they explored the storyline of Ben and Paul running the funeral parlour instead of killing Paul off. That's one of my main complaints with EE like with Ronnie & Roxy, it sometimes feels like instead of exploring how to turn characters lives around and give them some sort of chance to change and grow, they just go with the lazy approach of killing them off for short term ratings and pile even more misery on the ones left behind. Kyle was a dull character so I didn't mind him going at all. You could say he was let down by not being given anything to work with. Unfortunately he'll go down as pretty much being brought in for good publicity alone seeing as they did nothing with him. Belinda's exit seemed really bizarre. I wasn't her biggest fan but the way she was used quite a lot in storylines over a short space of time but then sent off again quite quickly in a strange out of the blue exit was a bit odd. Ronnie & Roxy I'm really struggling with. I caught up with the last 4 episodes only the night before last so watched 1 before the new year special, then the special itself and 2 more episodes back to back. I will say I thought they went above and beyond on the wedding scenes, the afterparty and how they did the stills of Roxy dancing etc. It really ramped up the emotion of the whole event and came off more like a movie. The actual death scenes were horrible and it stuck with me a while after I finished watching (actually regretted watching late at night when I was already feeling a bit low at the end of Christmas and New Year and family no longer being around myself etc) so I guess the filming was top notch in that way and did what it was meant to well. I didn't understand how Roxy died though on a sidenote? All that makes sense to me is that she maybe had some massive heart attack due to the drink and drugs etc? Otherwise I don't know why she just dropped like a stone. Ronnnie I presume got into trouble with the wedding dress weighing her down and getting tangled up in it along with not wanting to leave her sister under the water any longer. But back to the sisters exit overall. I know Ronnie has seemingly done a lot that's caused her a lot of backlash on here (I missed a lot as I went a while not watching when the things like Vincent/Fatboy happened) and I don't mind her going as much as Roxy. I do think she should have gone away with Jack though rather than this. Killing her at the end of her wedding day (and with the Jack reading stories to the kids for added emotional effect etc) was a little much, even for EastEnders in my book. And I often joke how much they love to really hammer their characters. Sometimes it feels like EastEnders writers are evil gods, looking down on their pathetic minions and planning what misery to drop on them next! Not many people get happiness in this soap and when they do, well they're only a moment away from total devastation! But this seemed to REALLY go overboard with it. Roxy I will miss. And although I did have a very soft spot for her (especially in tight jeans but I'll leave that there!) I will miss the character too. They took her to the bottom many a time but I'd like to have seen her finally find some sort of long term redemption too. As someone noted, maybe if she had lost Ronnie and been finally forced to turn herself around. I think that would have been a much better storyline long term than killing them both off. Roxy eventually finds her way and becomes a proper mum etc. But I can see why they decided to chop both for shock value and to kinda paint the picture how they went out together as they always were so linked in life too. I found the scenes at the end quite disturbing with Roxy face up in the pool too. Not in a "oh they shouldn't show that!" way but quite harrowing, which again is well filmed for the emotional reaction. It was such a shame to rob both characters like that in one quick swoop on a big day (and pile it right on Jack too!) Generally it's definitely time to bring in some more characters with how many are either away or gone for good. I do think people like Tina don't have much to offer any more either and Michelle is grating big time. I can understand the backlash with the recast but they obviously had no option there if Susan Tully wasn't coming back. I will say they did well casting and dressing someone as dull and unappealing as Michelle always was though! Is she supposed to be sticking around long term? That's a shame if so as I always found her dull way back in the past and she still is. Can't see that being very popular with the recast situation too. Oh and please ditch Libby again with her utter boredom, holier than thou attitude and the incredibly irritating vegan stuff. She's infuriating to watch! Max being back is at least something good but it's feeling very dark right now after the new year stuff. Much more than usual. Glad Phil (or Phiwl as I always like to say!) is sticking around as he's an iconic character and I want to see him get better and still be a main character. Especially after losing R&R. In my opinion Kim needs to go (can't stand her shallow crap) and Vincent is dull too being the flash git who constantly feeds his wife's ego with his wallet. Just for gods sake don't let Mick go anywhere or the soap really will hit the skids for me. He's the best character in it aside from Phil. Quite like Martin, Ben, Jay and a few others too. Can't we bring Roxy back in some Bobby in the shower scenario though please? In all this depression it's nice to have people easy on the eye at least! |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 586
|
On reflection, I'm really gutted about Roxy.
I liked Rita Simons, and Roxy was a fairly realistic character that could've fitted in with O'Connor's vision. She was fun but had a heart. Her drug and alcohol issues were interesting to explore as well as her struggles as a single mom to Amy. I always felt Ronnie dragged the character down and I'd prefer it if she survived the swimming pool incident and returned in a few years refreshed. Ronnie I didn't care about. She was too cold a character and a murderer. Womack never fully comitted to EE and she appears to think she's more important than she is. She was always having breaks (Mount Pleasant and Kingsman twice) and her performances were patchy. As well as falling out with her co-stars (Aaron Sidwell and Maggie O'Neil) I can see why O'Connor wanted to move her, and Ronnie, on. It's a shame Roxy was in the firing line as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Runcorn UK
Posts: 1,072
|
Quote:
On reflection, I'm really gutted about Roxy.
I liked Rita Simons, and Roxy was a fairly realistic character that could've fitted in with O'Connor's vision. She was fun but had a heart. Her drug and alcohol issues were interesting to explore as well as her struggles as a single mom to Amy. I always felt Ronnie dragged the character down and I'd prefer it if she survived the swimming pool incident and returned in a few years refreshed. Ronnie I didn't care about. She was too cold a character and a murderer. Womack never fully comitted to EE and she appears to think she's more important than she is. She was always having breaks (Mount Pleasant and Kingsman twice) and her performances were patchy. As well as falling out with her co-stars (Aaron Sidwell and Maggie O'Neil) I can see why O'Connor wanted to move her, and Ronnie, on. It's a shame Roxy was in the firing line as well. I never see much behind the scenes stuff so out of interest, what's the falling out stories you mention?! |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 586
|
Quote:
I never see much behind the scenes stuff so out of interest, what's the falling out stories you mention?!
She also tweeted at a time when Aaron Sidwell was getting grief for his criticisms of Stacey Solomon. Although she would've stopped filming at that point. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,934
|
It's a case of whoever I like shouldn't be axed who I don't should be
|
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Runcorn UK
Posts: 1,072
|
Quote:
Around 2008ish Maggie O'Neil's contract was cut short with rumours that she didn't like Sam Womack telling her how to do her scenes. I think Rob Kazinsky got involved as well (who was an ally to Womack).
She also tweeted at a time when Aaron Sidwell was getting grief for his criticisms of Stacey Solomon. Although she would've stopped filming at that point. I had no idea on any of that! Just googled about Aaron Sidwell and Stacey Solomon as I knew nothing about that either and read the whole Twitter war thing. Wow, Joe Swash came off like he's still 14 years old in that whole scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,061
|
Quote:
There is still deadwood I agree.
Quote:
It's a case of whoever I like shouldn't be axed who I don't should be
![]() You are right, but I can't imagine there would have been anywhere near the viewer reaction if Donna & Kim were axed instead of Ronnie & Roxy! |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,674
|
Ann Mitchell is apparently returning in April for some episodes- not sure if it will lead to a longer return for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
SOC has axed Ronnie, Roxy, Belinda, Claudette, Babe, Lee and possibly Cora, but his he axing the right characters?
Belinda - I didn't see enough to form an opinion. Kyle - I didn't mind, however if they didn't want to invest in him then there was no point him remaining. The Cokers - agree 100% with this. Was never a fan of her and that was sealed after it was revealed that she had let Paul spend his whole life believing his Mum didn't want him, when actually she really did. Their characters had been brought in to revolve solely around specific stories. Those specific stories had played out. By their exit, it has opened up a whole new world to Jay and Billy. It has given Billy a purpose of his own rather than a lacky to the rest of the Mitchells. It has also opened story opportunities for Jay. Jay vs Pam! Jay every time. Lee - depends what their plans are for the Carter family? However I don't mind seeing them decrease and for me he was the weakest link out of the 3 kids. Babe - has no redeeming qualities and while she is entrtaining in small doses, she becomes a bit much as a main character there all the time. Annette B. is brilliant in her portrayal. She makes Babe make my skin crawl. Claudette - I liked and it is a shame that she isn't around at the moment with Glenda in the square. However I am not that bothered at the end of the day. Cora - the writing was dismal for. The two questions are 1) could SOC give her a purpose and turn her character around? 2) Is it worth salvaging her when he already has enough characters to contend with? I don't have an answer to either question. Quote:
There are characters like Tina, Sylvie, Shakil and even Johnny who are crying out to be axed, why have these characters not been axed?
I don't mind Johnny. However, Tina, Sylvie, Shakil and Linda all need to go. The first three are wastes of space and Linda I cannot warm to. I am actually finding the Carter scenes more tolerable without her there. If she went for good it would actually destroy this family's stronghold once and for all. Sharon needs to be put back in the Vic and Mick can still work as a barman.I am so over Whitney too! Unless Ryan or some of the Jacksons were to return to give her a new purpose, Whitney has been ruined for me by the Carters. |
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 26,674
|
Quote:
Ronnie needed resting but Roxy was starting to go in a new direction. I didn't want them killed off. However what an exit. It will be remembered forever.
Belinda - I didn't see enough to form an opinion. Kyle - I didn't mind, however if they didn't want to invest in him then there was no point him remaining. The Cokers - agree 100% with this. Was never a fan of her and that was sealed after it was revealed that she had let Paul spend his whole life believing his Mum didn't want him, when actually she really did. Their characters had been brought in to revolve solely around specific stories. Those specific stories had played out. By their exit, it has opened up a whole new world to Jay and Billy. It has given Billy a purpose of his own rather than a lacky to the rest of the Mitchells. It has also opened story opportunities for Jay. Jay vs Pam! Jay every time. Lee - depends what their plans are for the Carter family? However I don't mind seeing them decrease and for me he was the weakest link out of the 3 kids. Babe - has no redeeming qualities and while she is entrtaining in small doses, she becomes a bit much as a main character there all the time. Annette B. is brilliant in her portrayal. She makes Babe make my skin crawl. Claudette - I liked and it is a shame that she isn't around at the moment with Glenda in the square. However I am not that bothered at the end of the day. Cora - the writing was dismal for. The two questions are 1) could SOC give her a purpose and turn her character around? 2) Is it worth salvaging her when he already has enough characters to contend with? I don't have an answer to either question. I don't mind Johnny. However, Tina, Sylvie, Shakil and Linda all need to go. The first three are wastes of space and Linda I cannot warm to. I am actually finding the Carter scenes more tolerable without her there. If she went for good it would actually destroy this family's stronghold once and for all. Sharon needs to be put back in the Vic and Mick can still work as a barman. I am so over Whitney too! Unless Ryan or some of the Jacksons were to return to give her a new purpose, Whitney has been ruined for me by the Carters. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:10.



