|
||||||||
EE: Pointless Putting the Mitchells Back in The Vic |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 917
|
EE: Pointless Putting the Mitchells Back in The Vic
There is no denying that EastEnders has come on a great deal in the last few months and like most people I was delighted to have all the Mitchells back.
However, I really don't think the Mitchells should be back in the Vic. The writers haven't thought it through, they're back in the Vic for the sake of it. Grant and Sam are gone now so we're left with Peggy and Phil. The last time we were in this situation they had to bring in Alfie because the Vic became so dull. The writers can't be bothered thinking of something else for Peggy to do so they just put her back in the pub. It's only going to be a matter of time before Windsor and McFadden start demanding more breaks and then the writers will be back in square one. They would have been better off bringing in a decent new family to buy the pub or even Pat and...
Spoiler
What does everybody else think? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
The Mitchells are better having the Vic - It's better than seeing them in Pat's house all the time.
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6,522
|
Get Peggy a man - marry them off and they can live together in the Vic with Phil taking a dislike to his new step-father and so there's this feud between them. The man can then have an affair, leave Walford and leave Peggy alone and bitter...
Oh wait! They already did that! |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,067
|
I agree it is not a very creative solution to stick the Mitchells back in the Vic, but given the fact that they are back, there was no choice. Peggy would have nothing to do without the Vic.
They made the mistake of bringing Den back and then taking over a year to get him back behind the bar, having him pointlessly wandering about the Square. At least they are not making that mistake with the Mitchells. But I agree they will both probably clear off again in the not too distant future, so I hope the producers have a contingency plan. I'd like to see Stace behind the bar in a year or two, personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 439
|
its been a bit of an anti climax to me, i wanted to get the Mitchels back in, but now they are it's a little disapointing. Phil and Peggy are hardlt the most excitng duo in EE, and it was much more gripping with the Watts behined the bar
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,354
|
I'd be quite happy with Pat becoming the new owner but I'm just fine with Peggy & Phil there. Quote:
It's only going to be a matter of time before Windsor and McFadden start demanding more breaks and then the writers will be back in square one.
Steve McFadden does ask for breaks a lot but I don't believe Barbara Windsor does. The only reason she left last time is because she was ill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,939
|
The best Vic family were obviously the classic Watts, followed by Pat and Frank and then Grant and Sharon. There is a write up in todays Mail which actually touches on this in a round about way regarding the show becoming a parody of itself and totally cliched.
At the moment I would agree but the new characters coming in look interesting and the wisest decision by far has been to extend existing families. Maybe this is something they need to do with the Mitchells. There must be tons of them out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Grant Mitchell is a good character but i am getting bored of him coming and going - why does Enders' bring him back for two weeks and he's gone untill next year agin.
Either come back and stay - or dont come back - i am now not fussed. Babs will stay at Enders' however. |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 514
|
How did they get the pub back? Sorry for asking, but I don't watch it that often and was surprised to see them all behind the bar the other night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,354
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intosoap
Grant Mitchell is a good character but i am getting bored of him coming and going - why does Enders' bring him back for two weeks and he's gone untill next year agin.
Either come back and stay - or dont come back - i am now not fussed. Babs will stay at Enders' however. He left for 6 years then they managed to do what they've always wanted, to persuade him to return. 3 weeks was the deal because right now he's filming Ultimate Force, he'll be back soon for 3-6? months. He's only come and gone once. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Island
Posts: 315
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadgie
How did they get the pub back? Sorry for asking, but I don't watch it that often and was surprised to see them all behind the bar the other night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 514
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat 01
Sharon offered the pub to the Mitchells after finding out Chrissie didn't really own it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 514
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Puppy
right now he's filming Ultimate Force
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,752
|
i agree with the initial post, the decision to place the Mitchells back in the Vic is a very lazy decision - its cliched and old ground. As we all know, historically EE were able to make the Vic the centre of dramatic and captivating storylines, with equally effective managers / landlords. For me, this has not been acheived in recent years. I know many people on here enjoyed the Den / Chrissie saga, but personally, it left me cold.
I don't think it is essential that the vic is the centre of things, in fact I'm glad it isn't. However, they may as well have at least crafted a more creative storyline about the ownership of the vic. The notion of Ian Beale running it was wonderful and unpredictable. It would have brought about new and interesting angles - for example, his harsh treatment of customers, his capitalist working methods, his treatment of enemies within the Vic environment, his ability / inability to control and prevent anti social behaviour within the pub etc. Would have been really refreshing to have a character like that runnin the vic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Here in spirit!
Posts: 9,605
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinbazro_05
What does everybody else think?
Unfortunately, the Vic is portrayed as the seat of power for Walford's "ruling family" so it was inevitable that the Mitchells would end up back behind the bar. I agree with posters who have said they would prefer for tptb to dream up something else for Peggy to do. I never wanted the Mitchells back in the Vic, and I agree that it would be fantastic to see Pat as landlady (again.) Or an entirely new family. As Thedirector pointed out, I think they missed a trick in not installing someone different. I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that with the Mitchells back in the Vic, it will be the same old, same old. Not wishing to judge something before it's been aired, I eagerly anticipate being proven wrong. To give credit where it's due, I think the Mitchells have bought some much needed energy back to Walford. But the biggest question is: How the hell can they afford to buy back both the Vic and the Arches - and both for a fair price? Where is the money coming from - and where has the money come from to pay for hot-shot lawyer Richie? The last we knew, Sam had lost them everything and Grant just about made ends meet with his bar in Rio. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London Town
Posts: 8,791
|
I think it wouldve been good for Sharon to sell them a share of the pub but not all of it so that the two families run it together. Could you imagine Dennis, Sharon, Phil, Grant and Peggy behind the bar? Let the fireworks begin!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,867
|
I think the key to the success of the Mitchells back in the Vic is Ross Kemp coming back full-time (or for a long period anyway).
I thought the idea of the Mitchells coming back was unoriginal but had forgotten how good Phil and Grant were. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,122
|
Personally I would have preferred seeing Ian being succesful in buying the Vic. It would have been much more entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,067
|
I agree the writers have missed a trick by just handing the Vic back to the Mitchells, they didn't even have to make any effort, it arrived on a plate (despite them having no dosh).
I would have liked to see a more 'realistic' storyline, with the pub going through probate, and there being some tension as to who was going to get it over several months (they could have installed someone to manage it in the meantime). Ian owning it would be interesting, but I think he would have seemed very out of place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 792
|
i think there is a touch of the old about EE these days. in my opinion with the Mitchells there EE seems to be back at its best , i think Peggy is a great landlady. the mitchells fit in there not many other characters did. I feel alfie and chrissie were not at home behind the bar, it didnt seem right. for me the mitchells , den and sharon are the only people that fitted the part of pub owner properly
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London Town
Posts: 8,791
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lippincote
I would have liked to see a more 'realistic' storyline, with the pub going through probate, and there being some tension as to who was going to get it over several months (they could have installed someone to manage it in the meantime). Ian owning it would be interesting, but I think he would have seemed very out of place. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:48.


