|
||||||||
Why's Phil Mitchell Still There????????? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 247
|
Why's Phil Mitchell Still There?????????
he was once a awesome character, from 2000-2003 imo. Now they haven't given him a proper storyline in ages it always revolves around another character if he has something to do. Heshould quit before his character becomes even more of a parody. Give him a proper storyline! lol
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
Its just one of the mysteries that God only knows, really.
I certainly don't. Get rid asap, or at the very least get him out of the Vic and KEEP him out. EE would be ALOT better off without him. He doesn't bring anything to the show anymore. He can't even do the petty thug thing that was the whole point of his character in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 247
|
i mean he used to be a good character but since 2006 he's just been boring lol i think it's about time they give him something good to do or gt rid, even though he was one of my fave charactors of all time. but ithink it's time to do something, coz he seems redundant and pointless
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: a village
Posts: 608
|
I agree. I think Tanya would make a good landlord of the vic for some reason!
Maybe she should hook up with phil lol |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 247
|
i think Tanya might be able to do a bit better then Phil lol although i'd say the same for the rest of his past girlfriends lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12
|
Phil's so far past his sell by date he's stinking the whole place up. You get the feeling he's clinging on for dear life as he can't do anything else. I mean no-one's likely to give him panto are they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wigan, Lancashire
Posts: 7,586
|
I've always thought Phil's character works best when Grant is around. One without the other doesn't work as well I don't think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
I've always thought Phil's character works best when Grant is around. One without the other doesn't work as well I don't think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,307
|
The Stella stuff was only last year which many people agree was fantastic. There was also the big car stunt which, on reflection, while done well, was a bit pointless. This year we've had the Shirley stuff but yes he has been underused lately. He has a new love interest coming into the show soon so maybe that will go somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,307
|
Quote:
Yeah well that bird's flown, he'll never be back.
Not that I actually want Grant back atm...I don't think it's needed at the present time, but just saying. I don't think the show needs anyone. The programme wouldn't be successful if it did. In theory, soaps shouldn't need any single character. Some characters are very important and would be missed, maybe ratings would drop a little if they left but as long as there's good characters new and old the show goes on. Nobody is needed for the show to go on. The show would go on even if Ian left. That said, it's always nice to have a link to Walford past and love them or hate them (I concede that some people have grown a bit tired of them in recent years but would argue that they're still popular in the mainstream) the Mitchells provide that. I wouldn't like to see Babs or Steve axed and thankfully that won't happen. When they go, it will be their decision and rightfully so after the no. of years each has given to the show. Not many people do over 10 years in EastEnders. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wigan, Lancashire
Posts: 7,586
|
I reckon if the time is right, actor Ross Kemp could be tempted back again and he's always said he would return as Grant one day. He's recently ruled out a return though as he is too busy, but one day I reckon he'll be back.
The sooner the better
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Conspiracy HQ
Posts: 12,232
|
Quote:
Phil's so far past his sell by date he's stinking the whole place up. You get the feeling he's clinging on for dear life as he can't do anything else. I mean no-one's likely to give him panto are they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Conspiracy HQ
Posts: 12,232
|
Quote:
The Stella stuff was only last year which many people agree was fantastic. There was also the big car stunt which, on reflection, while done well, was a bit pointless. This year we've had the Shirley stuff but yes he has been underused lately. He has a new love interest coming into the show soon so maybe that will go somewhere.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 959
|
I said the same thing to someone last week it's like all they do is give him the same old story lines over and over again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Blackpool, England
Posts: 8,618
|
Be good to see how exactly their work in Phil's arm/hand injury with Steve McFadden's real life accident. Perhaps Ben will 'accidently' push him down the stairs.
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South East
Posts: 1,456
|
I thought Phil's alcoholic storyline last year was fantastic, one of the best drunk performances in soap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
Quote:
Never say never. He's already been back twice. The first time after a five year break.
Not that I actually want Grant back atm...I don't think it's needed at the present time, but just saying. I don't think the show needs anyone. The programme wouldn't be successful if it did. In theory, soaps shouldn't need any single character. Some characters are very important and would be missed, maybe ratings would drop a little if they left but as long as there's good characters new and old the show goes on. Nobody is needed for the show to go on. The show would go on even if Ian left. That said, it's always nice to have a link to Walford past and love them or hate them (I concede that some people have grown a bit tired of them in recent years but would argue that they're still popular in the mainstream) the Mitchells provide that. I wouldn't like to see Babs or Steve axed and thankfully that won't happen. When they go, it will be their decision and rightfully so after the no. of years each has given to the show. Not many people do over 10 years in EastEnders. And whilst many enjoyed the Stella storyline it really was all down to her - he didn't have anything to do with. In fact, comparatively speaking he wasn't really in it at all, until the end. It was all down to the character of Stella. And that car stunt was entirely pointless - can't believed they wasted 1 million pounds or whatever it was on it. It's no good trying to bring in other characters to liven the Mitchells up (as they did with Stella and with R&R), they are tired and worm figures. Phil was only ever good at being one thing: a petty thug with half a brain (his brother being a petty thug without a brain); now that he has aged he can't even do that. And bring Grant Mitchell back for what?? His first return, in 05, was a success, but that was because it was short - and it had far more to do with the storyline he got tagged onto (Chrissie's downfall), than anything he contributed to. His second return in 06 was far less impressive, and just as many people disliked it as enjoyed it. What's going to happen in another 10 years time: is he going to turn up with a walking frame and try and act the tough guy. Grant, Peggy, and Phil are all one-dimensional figures and are only good at doing one thing; with Phil, he has long since passed the point where he could do even that. Get rid already. People need to think of what's good for the show; and whilst I would admit that killing off all the Mitchell en mass would be the wrong thing to do (unfortunately), getting rid of the more useless ones (Phil and Billy) is not going to cause problem, but could dramatically improve things. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Keep him in for continuity, he is part of the EE furniture!!!! Tanya behind the Vic bar you have got to be kidding, what would she be the next Angie Watts????
And the stunt was fantastic!!! Not a waste of money at all. If you want to get rid of anyone get rid of Ronnie. |
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Conspiracy HQ
Posts: 12,232
|
Quote:
Keep him in for continuity, he is part of the EE furniture!!!! Tanya behind the Vic bar you have got to be kidding, what would she be the next Angie Watts????
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
Quote:
Well her ability to cope with problems by drinking alcohol implies she might well be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
Quote:
Keep him in for continuity, he is part of the EE furniture!!!! Tanya behind the Vic bar you have got to be kidding, what would she be the next Angie Watts????
And the stunt was fantastic!!! Not a waste of money at all. If you want to get rid of anyone get rid of Ronnie. Besides which, that's all Phil and Peggy are... part of the furniture. Having one of then, fine there's a place for it, but 2... it jsut taxes the script writers, whose time would be better spent contextualising their scripts than thinking up ways to coax some more life out of two such dead horses. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,307
|
You could say Pat is just part of the furniture these days but it would be blasphemous to suggest axing her. I've said before but I think Phil does work outside of the tough guy act. If anything it's the tough guy act I don't like because he's just too old for it now - the feud with Jack was awful. It worked before but doesn't now. Neither need a major role to be viable characters. If that were the case and you took away everyone who didn't have a big part to play then we'd be left with Lucy Beale, Sean Slater, the Mitchell sisters, the Brannings and constant non-stop high profile storylines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 92
|
Quote:
Keeping someone just because they are like part of the furniture is not a good enough reason... it should be because they are a viable character, who brings something to the show; not because they are reminders of past "glories".
Besides which, that's all Phil and Peggy are... part of the furniture. Having one of then, fine there's a place for it, but 2... it jsut taxes the script writers, whose time would be better spent contextualising their scripts than thinking up ways to coax some more life out of two such dead horses. I for one like both Peggy and Phil as characters and certainly do not need anyone telling me they are past it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,133
|
Hopefully Phil will be there for another 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 27,629
|
I like Phil (and Peggy). I think it's nice that he will continue living in the Square and hopes to raise his son there aswell - it's realistic. He had the Stella storyline last year and also the Beale/Mitchell fued. Also
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:50.



