I don't know what's turning Digital Spy Soaps Forum into NumptieVille. Suffice it to say, that there are some peculiar opinions forming about certain characters. I can only imagine that the majority of posters are either people who've started watching the programme from either 2006 or 2000, or who haven't paid attention beforehand, if they're long-term viewers, or else they simply are incapable of thinking critically.
Or maybe they think themselves relevant like ...
Just to clarify a view things:-
Janine: Let's disabuse ourselves of the "Evil Janine" myth that's been floating around for sometime. It really is just as untrue as the other great myth certain people have developed about EastEnders, that being "Phil-Is-a-Mindless-Thug-Who-Always-Wins."
Anyone who's watched EastEnders since the Butchers arrived in 1989, will realise, via her various permutations and via dialogue she's had since her third return in the shape of Charlie Brooks in 1999, that Janine has major daddy, abandonment, trust and self-esteem issues. Anywone who can't see that hasn't been watching. It doesn't mean she's evil; but the supreme difference between her and the likes of Kat, Whitney, Tanya or Bianca, all of whom have issues to some degree and who use these issues from their past to excuse inappropriate behaviour, is that Janine is a bitch and owns it, whilst the rest of these madams look down their nose at her and think themselves her betters.
As well, Janine did not kill Barry. Barry's death was an accident. He got too close, she shoved him away instinctively, he lost his balance and fell. He was dead within minutes and nothing she could have done would have saved him.
The Insipidity That Is Peter Beale: Most everyone agrees that there are too many teens/older adolescents in the programme at the moment; yet most of the people who harp on about this pine for the insipid Peter Beale to return.
Why?
Peter, as played by the talentless Thomas Law, was the original limp biscuit. Even if he returns recast, he'll probably be some underwear model wannabe with no acting training or experience, but a full six-pack and a lunchbox to boot. We have two of those, and one of them is already going to fat.
Some rather unwise soul wants Peter to return and rescue Lauren from the evils of alcoholism, but why call for the return of someone suffering from tall poppy syndrome to give more airtime to another who's trying out for the title of "Worst Actress EVER" in EastEnders.
Why beef up the Beales? Peter and Lucy are getting older, and - surprise surprise - young people move on. Besides, we've only seen the dynamic new all-singing-all-dancing Bobby Beale once since his arrival was announced.
Let's work on the Beales we have for the moment.
Michael Moon: People liking a psychopath who punches down. Wonders never cease. People screamed blue murder for the way he wantonly targeted Jean, who is a vulnerable character, even if she is unlikeable to many. But what he did to Janine was unforgiveable. Who allows their wife to sit, alone and unsupported, 24/7 by the bedside of a seriously ill premature baby, who happens to be his daughter? Who lies, manipulates and chips away at the self-esteem of his wife in the aftermath of that premature birth, when she's hormonal and suffering from post-natal depression?
Michael bonding with Scarlett? Half the time, he didn't cope. He was either palming her off on Jean or Whitney or he had to convince Roxy to move in to look after the child. Now he's entrusting her to the inexperienced Alice, just so he can swan around and look debonair, whilst not having a pott in which to piss.
Whenever Michael's got to punch his own weight - as with Max or Jack or Alfie - he runs a mile.
However popular he is, Michael is not a positive character. He's not a hero nor even an anti-hero. He's the worst kind of conman - a sponger and a psychological manipulator and bully.
Besides, there's been no indication that he'll leave on a so-called high as someone who thinks herself relevant has so confidently declared ...
Update for the Benefit of the Bullies on Walford Web: First of all, the club won't be "Michael's" to leave to Kat. Kat with a boxing club? That slut can't even manage the stall ALFIE bought for her. Honestly, pay attention. The club is in Jack's name. Michael is just someone he allows to believe is a partner and whom he subs from time to time. When Jack departs, that club will be sewn up lock, stock and barrel, and probably sold to Phil.
Secondly, there is no way TPTB will allow Michael to leave with Janine's money and Janine's daughter. Those elements were added to her developing personality for a reason, and one has to remember - love her or loathe her - Janine is the representative of an old established Eastenders' family and the last real link to Pat, in influence and personality, the show has. Michael Moon is a pejorative presence. Janine is staying. He'll leave in disgrace.
Or maybe they think themselves relevant like ...
Just to clarify a view things:-
Janine: Let's disabuse ourselves of the "Evil Janine" myth that's been floating around for sometime. It really is just as untrue as the other great myth certain people have developed about EastEnders, that being "Phil-Is-a-Mindless-Thug-Who-Always-Wins."
Anyone who's watched EastEnders since the Butchers arrived in 1989, will realise, via her various permutations and via dialogue she's had since her third return in the shape of Charlie Brooks in 1999, that Janine has major daddy, abandonment, trust and self-esteem issues. Anywone who can't see that hasn't been watching. It doesn't mean she's evil; but the supreme difference between her and the likes of Kat, Whitney, Tanya or Bianca, all of whom have issues to some degree and who use these issues from their past to excuse inappropriate behaviour, is that Janine is a bitch and owns it, whilst the rest of these madams look down their nose at her and think themselves her betters.
As well, Janine did not kill Barry. Barry's death was an accident. He got too close, she shoved him away instinctively, he lost his balance and fell. He was dead within minutes and nothing she could have done would have saved him.
The Insipidity That Is Peter Beale: Most everyone agrees that there are too many teens/older adolescents in the programme at the moment; yet most of the people who harp on about this pine for the insipid Peter Beale to return.
Why?
Peter, as played by the talentless Thomas Law, was the original limp biscuit. Even if he returns recast, he'll probably be some underwear model wannabe with no acting training or experience, but a full six-pack and a lunchbox to boot. We have two of those, and one of them is already going to fat.
Some rather unwise soul wants Peter to return and rescue Lauren from the evils of alcoholism, but why call for the return of someone suffering from tall poppy syndrome to give more airtime to another who's trying out for the title of "Worst Actress EVER" in EastEnders.
Why beef up the Beales? Peter and Lucy are getting older, and - surprise surprise - young people move on. Besides, we've only seen the dynamic new all-singing-all-dancing Bobby Beale once since his arrival was announced.
Let's work on the Beales we have for the moment.
Michael Moon: People liking a psychopath who punches down. Wonders never cease. People screamed blue murder for the way he wantonly targeted Jean, who is a vulnerable character, even if she is unlikeable to many. But what he did to Janine was unforgiveable. Who allows their wife to sit, alone and unsupported, 24/7 by the bedside of a seriously ill premature baby, who happens to be his daughter? Who lies, manipulates and chips away at the self-esteem of his wife in the aftermath of that premature birth, when she's hormonal and suffering from post-natal depression?
Michael bonding with Scarlett? Half the time, he didn't cope. He was either palming her off on Jean or Whitney or he had to convince Roxy to move in to look after the child. Now he's entrusting her to the inexperienced Alice, just so he can swan around and look debonair, whilst not having a pott in which to piss.
Whenever Michael's got to punch his own weight - as with Max or Jack or Alfie - he runs a mile.
However popular he is, Michael is not a positive character. He's not a hero nor even an anti-hero. He's the worst kind of conman - a sponger and a psychological manipulator and bully.
Besides, there's been no indication that he'll leave on a so-called high as someone who thinks herself relevant has so confidently declared ...
Secondly, there is no way TPTB will allow Michael to leave with Janine's money and Janine's daughter. Those elements were added to her developing personality for a reason, and one has to remember - love her or loathe her - Janine is the representative of an old established Eastenders' family and the last real link to Pat, in influence and personality, the show has. Michael Moon is a pejorative presence. Janine is staying. He'll leave in disgrace.
Well said. There are too many girlies on DS going all gooey-eyed over Michael Moon (why???) and who are happy to overlook what a nasty piece of work he is. Or even worse see his vindictiveness as a positive point in his favour.
ReplyDeleteManipulating the simple-minded and desperate is not clever or something to be admired in any human being.
I really hope that Janine kicks Michael to the kerb and sends him on his way with nothing.
I completely agree by what you say about the myths of Janine and Phil- because they appear 'evil' etc. Phil was actually the less impulsive brother at first- I do wish that this would be mentioned to remind older views and tell newer viewers that Phil wasn't always this way. I wish Sharon would say something- not at all pleased with her being a part of the Brannings. I'm hoping Jack and Tanya's exits will allow us to see Sharon Watts, not Sharon Rickman of 2012+.
ReplyDeleteAnother myth is the belief that, before last year, Ian has always been a weaselly, sneaky, manipulative businessman. He wasn't at all like that when he was younger but Cindy ruined him- but like with Phil, his real personality is deep down.
As for the Beales, I think they do need to be rebuilt (though not with bringing back Peter, we don't need another teen.) From such a prominent family, its a shame that they have been reduced to three. I think if another Beale came back to support Ian (maybe Jane or even Mandy, a female member), it could complete and stabalise the family unit. Its good that Ian will buy the restaurant as it will allow him to add another item to the Beale empire (and one not owned by his daughter)
Sharon actually did reference what Phil used to be like, when Lola left. Twice. The first time, she reminded him that he wasn't Grant, and then later told him that he'd become just like Grant.
DeletePhil, Janine and Ian were all ruined by their circumstances. EastEnders have done wonderful jobs in tracking the extent of damage done by generational alcohol and physical abuse in the Mitchell men - from mentionings of Grandpa Mitchell's and his brother's drunkenness and violence toward Eric, Archie and Clive; then the various permutations of that legacy with Eric and Archie, and how that tradition went onto affect Phil, Billy and Ronnie. Now we have its manifestation in Ben. Billy's side of the family has a tradition of kids being dumped in care.
They have also done a great job in highlighting the abandonment issues suffered generationally by the Butcher family. Janine perceived Frank to have abandoned her when she was a small child. Then he abandoned his family as a whole. Diane did a flit whilst a teenager, and later handed her small son over to Ricky and Bianca. Ricky has a history of dumping Liam on Bianca and then he took off for Dubai without consulting Carol or Pat about caring for the kids. Janine was driven to abandon Scarletty by systematic psychological abuse suffered under her husband. Now we have Liam, speaking out about Bianca's feckless behaviour, resulting in her imprisonment twice, affecting his situation.
If TPTB were perspicacious enough, they'd see what everyone else sees with the Cross women - Cora, Tanya, Rainie and Lauren: that there is generational alcohol dependency that has to be explored if the show is going to do justice to Lauren's problem.
I like the fact that Ian is buying a restaurant with Janine. Two established families starting a concern, and probably two of the best business brains, bar Phil, on the Square. They should work with the Beales they have at the moment, and I'm not that keen on Denise joining the dynamic. Ian needs to be single awhile.
Lorraine said she was planning to conclude Lauren's binge drinking and I agree, they should address the generational alcohol abuse. I think what could be good is if Cora mentioned her own parents- maybe she had similar parents to Sharon: father who went off with any woman he could get her hands on and mother turning to the drink (or even vice versa) It would certainly highlight the issue with the cross women.
ReplyDeleteThe Beales and Butchers are two of EastEnders oldest families so to unite them over the restaurant would be a good move- and I like watching Ian/Janine conflicts which are bound to occur (made more watcahable that they are played by two incredibly strong actors).
Plus about Ian/Denise- I think they worked well as friends but a relationship will completely change that dynamic. Either keep Ian single and have him focus on his business or family (I wanted Sharon to stay single when she returned but she was stuck with Walford's answer to Frankenstein) or bring Mandy back. I wish TPTB had spent more time developing their relationship as they could have worked in the long run- and Mandy was a character with lots of issues in her past that she eventually overcame (a better role model than the likes of Kat)
ReplyDelete