One of the many sage souls (cough cough) on Digital Spy's Soaps forum is dublintvfan, who really does give the Irish a bad name with some of his presumptions.
His latest offering is this: asking if fans think a new family should take over the Vic.
Another commentator, whose single braincell seemed to be on re-charge, asserted that of course, a new family would work, reasoning that such a move worked on Corrie, and "if it works on Corrie, it'll work on EastEnders."
But will it?
It's been proven time and again that what necessarily is good for Corrie is toxic for EastEnders and vice versa. For example, Corrie is brilliant with humour; EastEnders falls flat. Corrie makes use of its older characters to their fullest extent; EastEnders houses all theirs in one house, when they aren't killing them off.
And, anyway, has this new owner of the Rovers, known in another life as Cindy Beale, been the unmitigated success this numpty thinks it has? I've heard otherwise - especially that all sorts of contingency plans have gone into overdrive because "Stella" just wasn't working ... from the contrived Mancunian accent to having her revealed as Leanne's mother (think Cindy Beale having sex with Les Battersby ... eeeeeuuuwww) to having her presented as sympathetic victim in her husband's sordid affair with Sunita. Not to mention everyone whining how she's been shoehorned into every storyline and interaction with every character.
Stella sounds like Corrie's Derek.
Also, the Rover's Return has been passed around literally everybody on the Street until there was no choice - a new family had to be brought in to run it.
For what it's worth all those Brains of Britain and Ireland on Digital Spy knowing, EastEnders actually did introduce an entirely new character as landlord of the Vic - Eddie Royle, who bought the Vic from Frank and Pat Butcher back in the early 1990s.
Eddie was an ex-copper, who ran the Vic with his elderly father until Nick Cotton killed him (and got away with it).
Eddie bombed. And that's when the then powers-that-be decided to land the Vic right in the hands of the Mitchells - of whose family Sharon was then a part.
Maybe EastEnders is shy about introducing someone or some people entirely new to run the Vic, after the Eddie fiasco. Or maybe it's just the tradition of the Vic's landlord or landlady having something of a history in Walford - the Wattses, the Butchers (through Pat), the Mitchells (through Sharon and later through Phil), even the Moons (and Alfie was a new face brought in to manage the pub) were linked by employment and emotion to the Mitchells.
joy of pat, yet another DS commentator, is being silly-borderline-stupid ... no, just stupid ... when she proposes the Masoods taking over the Vic. They are teetotaling Muslims; Zainab holds her nose every time she enters the Vic, and there was a major family discussion about serving alcohol at the restaurant. Then, there's the problem with Ramadan, the season which prohibits eating or drinking - and even working with food or drink - during proscribed periods of the day.
Do grow up.
As for those people inkling about the Brannings or one of their creatures taking over, to paraphrase a newly-departed character, you need slapping down.
Why not just rename the programme Branningville? Some of them could take over the cafe - Branning's Burgers. Or the B and B - Branning's B and B. The Brannings are sleazebag, scrubbed-up poor white trash masquerading as middle class. Their women are drunks. Their men are lazy losers.
Forget about a Sharon-Jack relationship - it ain't gonna happen. A Roxy-Jack relationship will happen before then, and Sharon shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep that original woodenhead Jack Branning as a viable part of the programme. Besides, there's no chemistry. And as for all those people who simply, for some reason, can't see why Sharon or any woman would want to be with Phil Mitchell, then you obviously haven't been around long enough to understand why some women overlook the looks department when it comes to a man knowing what to do in bed. Think about that in two weeks when you find out skanky Kat's shagger was Derek Branning.
The Brannings need paring down, and I hope with Bouncy Tan's departure (and hopefully non-return), the rats will desert the sinking ship. Really, the show could be sustained with a Branning family consisting only of Max, Abi, Carol and possibly Alice.
Some DS commentators are still insisting that Sharon will run the Vic with her mother, Cora. Yep, dumbass fever is rife still about Sharon being Cora's long-lost daughter. vaslav37 started that shit, and I have a special blog all reserved for his stupidity. So for one last time, please note this:
Sharon is not Cora's fucking long-lost daughter so STFU.
Why? Here's why, assholes ... and all of this is documented.
His latest offering is this: asking if fans think a new family should take over the Vic.
Another commentator, whose single braincell seemed to be on re-charge, asserted that of course, a new family would work, reasoning that such a move worked on Corrie, and "if it works on Corrie, it'll work on EastEnders."
But will it?
It's been proven time and again that what necessarily is good for Corrie is toxic for EastEnders and vice versa. For example, Corrie is brilliant with humour; EastEnders falls flat. Corrie makes use of its older characters to their fullest extent; EastEnders houses all theirs in one house, when they aren't killing them off.
And, anyway, has this new owner of the Rovers, known in another life as Cindy Beale, been the unmitigated success this numpty thinks it has? I've heard otherwise - especially that all sorts of contingency plans have gone into overdrive because "Stella" just wasn't working ... from the contrived Mancunian accent to having her revealed as Leanne's mother (think Cindy Beale having sex with Les Battersby ... eeeeeuuuwww) to having her presented as sympathetic victim in her husband's sordid affair with Sunita. Not to mention everyone whining how she's been shoehorned into every storyline and interaction with every character.
Stella sounds like Corrie's Derek.
Also, the Rover's Return has been passed around literally everybody on the Street until there was no choice - a new family had to be brought in to run it.
For what it's worth all those Brains of Britain and Ireland on Digital Spy knowing, EastEnders actually did introduce an entirely new character as landlord of the Vic - Eddie Royle, who bought the Vic from Frank and Pat Butcher back in the early 1990s.
Eddie was an ex-copper, who ran the Vic with his elderly father until Nick Cotton killed him (and got away with it).
Eddie bombed. And that's when the then powers-that-be decided to land the Vic right in the hands of the Mitchells - of whose family Sharon was then a part.
Maybe EastEnders is shy about introducing someone or some people entirely new to run the Vic, after the Eddie fiasco. Or maybe it's just the tradition of the Vic's landlord or landlady having something of a history in Walford - the Wattses, the Butchers (through Pat), the Mitchells (through Sharon and later through Phil), even the Moons (and Alfie was a new face brought in to manage the pub) were linked by employment and emotion to the Mitchells.
joy of pat, yet another DS commentator, is being silly-borderline-stupid ... no, just stupid ... when she proposes the Masoods taking over the Vic. They are teetotaling Muslims; Zainab holds her nose every time she enters the Vic, and there was a major family discussion about serving alcohol at the restaurant. Then, there's the problem with Ramadan, the season which prohibits eating or drinking - and even working with food or drink - during proscribed periods of the day.
Do grow up.
As for those people inkling about the Brannings or one of their creatures taking over, to paraphrase a newly-departed character, you need slapping down.
Why not just rename the programme Branningville? Some of them could take over the cafe - Branning's Burgers. Or the B and B - Branning's B and B. The Brannings are sleazebag, scrubbed-up poor white trash masquerading as middle class. Their women are drunks. Their men are lazy losers.
Forget about a Sharon-Jack relationship - it ain't gonna happen. A Roxy-Jack relationship will happen before then, and Sharon shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep that original woodenhead Jack Branning as a viable part of the programme. Besides, there's no chemistry. And as for all those people who simply, for some reason, can't see why Sharon or any woman would want to be with Phil Mitchell, then you obviously haven't been around long enough to understand why some women overlook the looks department when it comes to a man knowing what to do in bed. Think about that in two weeks when you find out skanky Kat's shagger was Derek Branning.
The Brannings need paring down, and I hope with Bouncy Tan's departure (and hopefully non-return), the rats will desert the sinking ship. Really, the show could be sustained with a Branning family consisting only of Max, Abi, Carol and possibly Alice.
Some DS commentators are still insisting that Sharon will run the Vic with her mother, Cora. Yep, dumbass fever is rife still about Sharon being Cora's long-lost daughter. vaslav37 started that shit, and I have a special blog all reserved for his stupidity. So for one last time, please note this:
Sharon is not Cora's fucking long-lost daughter so STFU.
Why? Here's why, assholes ... and all of this is documented.
- Sharon was born in 1969, making her 43 (in October); Ava was born in 1964, making her almost 48.
- Cora said Ava had brown eyes; Sharon's eyes are blue.
- Sharon got a copy of her birth certificate, which listed her mother as "Carol Stretton." She later found Carol, who'd married and become "Carol Hanley." Carol was not Cora. She didn't even pretend to be Cora. To make Sharon Ava would mean making her five years older than all her contemporaries. Besides, we met Carol Hanley, who told us that Sharon's birth father was a boy named "Gavin," who worked part-time as a shoe clerk.
- Based on Cora's reminscences and her reaction to Patrick's advances, it's a pretty safe bet that Cora's daughter was mixed race. And if she wasn't ...
- And if her daughter is someone on the Square, that person (by age) could only be Shirley.
Sharon and Cora are nothing to each other, and based on Lorraine Newman's moving Patrick to the fore as a patriarch figure, it's obvious she's taken umbrage at Kirkwood's endeavor to force the ASBO granny down our throats. She's got it right.
Nix also the Foxes and Patrick running the pub. Kim, like the Branning women, has a drinks' issue. It simply wouldn't work.
Alfie and Kat - both of whose names are on the licence - when they're working well do work well as landlords of the pub. The problem is, because of Kirkwood and his merry men and maids in his writing room, have ensured that Alfie and Kat aren't working well.
I agree with all those people calling for Kat to go. The character is spent, and even when her writing has been half-decent, Jessie Wallace can'g seem to find the groove for the character this time around. However, because TPTB recognise that they, themselves, are only to blame for the wanton destruction of a formerly iconic character, they're hardly going to throw in the towel until they've tried everything to rescue her character.
Splitting the couple up will only work if Katshit leaves, but since it's obvious that both characters are important to TPTB, maybe somehow Lorraine Newman will try to paper over the cracks, unless she invests a lot of time and a major storyline in re-establishing Alfie and Kat as a viable couple, as they were - solid, positive, in love and one couple which should never break up. I don't know if that's possible now.
Sharon in the Vic again? I don't know. In the past two weeks, we've only seen her in the Vic twice, and she's shown precious little emotion about being there - ne'mind the fact that she grew up there, her father was murdered and buried there. She's shown as little emotion as Daniella Westbrook's Sam Mitchell did when she returned, and that's another fluke in writing for Sharon this time. If she's in the Vic at some point in the future, I'll be a Luddite and say I'd like to see her fronting it with Phil, because the Mitchells were made for Sharon, and Sharon was made forever to be associated with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment