|
||||||||
EE: Extending families is getting too much |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
|
EE: Extending families is getting too much
This year, under Kate Harwood (know she's gone now), we've had...
*Wicks - Pat suddenly has a whole new family she never knew about. Getting Deano to look through old photos to check he was telling the truth was beyond silly. *Brannans - Suddenly Bradley just turns up as family to Jim, although never mentioned before. Then the rest of his family just suddenly turn up in the square, Max etc... Also, when Bradley met *Foxes - Patrick and the Five Hectors? Bit too much, isn't it? More meeting a parent you don't recognize. *Slaters - No mention of Sean for years and years. No mention of Stacey before her arrival either. Wicks again - Deano and Carly don't recognize their mother (tonights episode). Whats wrong with simply bringing in a new family? Too much of a risk after the Ferriars? I think it's getting too much, and after all of these examples, surely it will happen more. Other soaps don't take this route to introducing characters so often, and there is probably a reason why - it's crap. I'm loving EE at the moment, Pauline has been amazing. I've always hated Ruby but even her last week was great. But, this is a huge fault which distracts me... anybody else feel the same? Last edited by JohnVB : 06-12-2006 at 17:15. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 426
|
i agree.
although i can see that Harwood was trying to introduce a deep rooted family ethic to the show, it just seems unfeasible that Jim had this long lost son, and Stacey a long forgotten brother. Even more unrealistic is that they follow their family members to the square. If I moved away, would I expect my mum, dad, cousins etc to move in a few houses away from me in few years?! |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
4 words emmerdale the dingle family
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,833
|
That's true. I heard that the Dingle family is so big and complicated even they can't work their family tree out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 924
|
What about the Mitchells with all thier husbands and wifes and ex wifes and ex husbands and children and cousins and second cousins. I think Jamie is a Mitchell because he is Peggy's third cousin once removed or something stupid like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Charity Shop
Posts: 9,541
|
What's the problem?
The Trueman's have had no family extension, The Foxes are a brand new family, and all of Max, Bradley, Jean and the 5 Heactors have been mentioned previously. The Slaters and Brannings are certainly realistic, Wick's okay maybe not so okay but it was a desprete way of getting Pat quick connections in the Square. As for the Foxes and Patrick it turns out they arn't connected and it was just a very interesting plot, as for Shirley if someone your father hated and walked out on you when you where a baby would you reconise them? |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom green
4 words emmerdale the dingle family
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissy 2005
The Slaters and Brannings are certainly realistic, Wick's okay maybe not so okay but it was a desprete way of getting Pat quick connections in the Square.
Certainly realistic? No mention of Stacey until four years of the family being there? Then a further two years before the previously unheard of Sean arrives? Come on, do you really believe that THAT is realistic? Really, REALLY?! As for the Wicks family, DESPRETE is the word. I've grown much more ‘attached’ to other new characters and the characters already in place than these 'additions'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 924
|
What about the Mitchells with all thier husbands and wifes and ex wifes and ex husbands and children and cousins and second cousins. I think Jamie is a Mitchell because he is Peggy's third cousin once removed or something stupid like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartme
What about the Mitchells with all thier husbands and wifes and ex wifes and ex husbands and children and cousins and second cousins. I think Jamie is a Mitchell because he is Peggy's third cousin once removed or something stupid like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,354
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissy 2005
What's the problem?
The Trueman's have had no family extension, The Foxes are a brand new family, and all of Max, Bradley, Jean and the 5 Heactors have been mentioned previously. We had no knowledge of Bradley before he arrived, and even though Patrick has been in the show for 5 years, not once has he mentioned he was in a group. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Charity Shop
Posts: 9,541
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Callan
Umm, when? Before Jean's arrival back in December 2004, she'd never been mentioned, nor had Stacey who cropped up a month before.
We had no knowledge of Bradley before he arrived, and even though Patrick has been in the show for 5 years, not once has he mentioned he was in a group. Bradley was mentioned in December for one thing as I remember, Jim reluctantly agreed to visit him and went of with Dot for a week. I'm sure I remember Patrick talking about his days as a musician to Yolande not long after they married, did I imagine it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockport
Posts: 52
|
Who really cares? Like every family we all have members related to the other side.
The Slaters and Brannings are realistic and long term viewers know Jim had two sons and two daughters. The Slaters had no reason to mention Jean or Stacey before her arrival but Jean's husband Brian did get mentioned thoughout the Kat & Zoe storyline because Kat told how she went to stay with Brain and his mother Kat's anuty Violet when pregnant. I'm sure Patrick has mentioned his group a few times before too. Last edited by Confessions : 06-12-2006 at 18:02. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 1,264
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confessions
Who really cares? Like every family we all have members related to the other side.
The Slaters and Brannings are realistic and long term viewers know Jim had two sons and two daughters. The Slaters had no reason to mention Jean or Stacey before her arrival but Jean's husband Brian did get mentioned thoughout the Kat & Zoe storyline because Kat told how she went to stay with Brain and his mother Kat's anuty Violet when pregnant. I'm sure Patrick has mentioned his group a few times before too. I am also sure Patrick has mentioned his band in the past. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
I hated the wicks first but now I love Kevin
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 924
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean_brom
I totally agree, every family has members thay do not always see. As for Jean never been mentioned in years the day Stacey turned up in the square she said "mum has gone all funny again". I think it made the show better that Sean was not mentioned because it was a side of Staceey's life that we did not no. If a family comes in a brings in every member at once you will only complain that the show has had to many new people at once.
I am also sure Patrick has mentioned his band in the past. http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/east...20051209.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
I think what people get annoyed about is the shear volume... its ok to introduce these extensions to the family every so often, but not all at once which is basically what Harwood did. It just shows extremely poor management on her part. Why she didn't introduce one of these new "families" in 2005 is quite beyond me, and certainly would have made for a much smoother transition, instead of all these "new starts" and breaks in the shows continuity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
I guess we will see Bert's grandson soon
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:09.

