Nothing from Nothing - Review: 17.10.2013

Corrie hit 10 million viewers this week. Emmerdale hit 8 million last night.

These soaps deserve all the success they achieve this year. They've provided the viewing public with interesting storylines, good acting and general entertainment.

EastEnders has done nothing.

Nothing. Nada. Rien. Niente. Sod all.

Most of this year's episodes have been filler stuff of the lowest degree, aimed at the absolute lowest common denominator of viewers - the one brain-cell variety, exemplified by xTonix of infamous DS fame, she who would watch EastEnders if it were no more than paint drying and who had never heard of the word "matriarch."

Dominic Treadwell-Collins has his work cut out for him, and it won't be easy. Long-term viewers have dropped off alarmingly. Casual viewers drop in and walk away. Stunt castings (Danny Dire) quite often end in tears - Michelle Collins on Corrie, anyone? Endless returns of former charaacters have to  have some sort of purpose, rather than swanning around the Square in unbelieveable circumstances or acting totally out of character, essentially, doing nothing.

Sonia's returning. Why? Her character arc was finished, and by the time she left at the beginning of 2007, her character was less than popular.

I despair of EastEnders. I really, really do. It's gone from a gritty, kitchen-sink drama grounded in reality and populated by realistic-looking characters played by good, journeymen actors, to a fashionplate of pretty people and camp caricatures. Unlikeable characters played by untalented and inexperienced actors.

And no storylines.

Alone Again Naturally.

Yes, Ronnie's ruined another life, as she roams Jack's empty apartment, working up a good victim lather. Of course, all's well that ends well by the end of the programme, everything was resolved in a most unrealistic way.

The Mitchells are my favourite family, but I don't like the Mitchells 2.0, and that includes Ronnie. There was one thing consistent here - Ronnie always went against the Mitchell grain, especially if it suited her personally. The entire clan didn't approve of Jack initially, and that only spurred her on to associate with him even more.

For various reasons - disapproving of Roxy's pregnancy or relationships, Jack, Archie, Jack, whatever, Jack - Ronnie's left the Mitchell fold time and time again. And returned whenever it suited her. Whenever it suited her.

Phil was absolutely right in Monday's episode when he said that her relationship with Jack was toxic. She led that man along the primrose path and dumped him, simply because she could. As I said previously, dick tease.

Worse ... entitled dicktease, as she made a beeline for Phil's house to ask for her job back. Yes, she held things together for Phil, didn't she? She couldn't even cope with Carl, as she couldn't in today's episode, without Phil's intervention. The only thing she could do was shout snide remarks from the sidelines.

We're Mitchells. (Big whoopie. An ageing, bald grandad with a heart condition, a babysnatching psychopath, a mouthy chav and a loser. I'm scared.)

I find it both unbelieveable and disturbing that she could swan about the Square and even drink in the pub as if nothing had happened, and that people like Kat, a victim of Ronnie's psychopathic crime, wouldn't even shrug or protest. In the real world, she wouldn't even be allowed to be on the Square. And I defy anyone to tell me that they'd want daily contact with someone who'd dumped their dead child in your baby's crib, taken your child, kept him for four months whilst you grieved in the belief that your child was dead.

Anyone who says that they can live with that is a liar and a fool.

I hate her arrogance, her entitlement, her manipulation and her sick psycho-sexual fixation with her sister. That's unnatural, If EastEnders had balls, they'd properly explore this, but it would reveal Ronnie to be the moral deviant that she is.

The brief scene between her and Michael can only be described as a meeting of two psychopathic minds. It's true. Those two are as alike as two peas in a pod. They recognise each other as functioning psychopaths, although Michael will only identify that to Jack. His and Ronnie's secret word for their psychopathy is "damaged."

Michael knows that Ronnie fucked Jack over, and Ronnie knows that Janine despises Michael. They both know that they hate their own fathers. I want to know how Ronnie knew about Michael's mother. Jack may have known that she committed suicide, but not the intricacies of it. Anyway, in that scene, she proved her psychopathy with that cutting remark to Michael.

An interesting perspective would be to pit these two psychos head-to-head and let them fight or fuck it out. But, again, that would take balls.

Anyway, Ronnie's still the miserable, manipulative mare, brought back simply to appease the Ronnie-shippers. She serves no purpose, and guessing that Roxy will probably fall pregnant by Alfie, then the Myth of Big Bad Alfie being denied access to his son or daughter by the entitled Ice Queen seems to be something on the cards and the sort of sensationalist crap the show would pursue.

The Self-Righteous Slut.

Whitney as a teaching assistant is laughable. Even more laughable is the fact that she seems to be working with every class in the school - not to mention the fact that she's working at a school where her younger brother and sister are pupils. There is such a thing as conflict of interest.

She was totally overdressed for a teaching assistant in a primary school, and you don't wear marital aid shoes in such a position either. She is totally a self-righteous slut.

From her first scene in dealing with Dennis and Morgan, she was totally unprofessional. Kids aren't stupid. They know when people dislike them, and the way Whitney spoke to Dennis oozed chav unprofessionalism and ignorance. Any teacher or teaching assistant who tried to deflect a potential schoolyard confrontation by belligerantly demanding why one chilld didn't go play someplace else, would be put on gardening leave.

To be fair, Ava seemed to have had an epiphany tonight. She was tactful in describing Dennis as "challenging." Educational professionals are only human, and there are children that they like better than others; but you simply cannot show favouritism or take sides, especially when dealing with children who are your relatives. She actually acknowledged that Dennis had mitigating problems which might influence his behaviour and propensity to act out.

She should have followed up Whitney's insensitive remark about that "background" not giving Dennis the right to be a bully, but then she never stints to use her "background" to explain her inappropriate behaviour and deflect blame from herself. She's like that with her siblings as well.

I recall episodes airing around Christmas 2009, with a brief storyline about Bobby bullying Tiffany. Whitney tore out into the street, cornered Bobby. grabbed him by the arm and started shaking and threatening him, only to be stopped by Ian. Turned out that Bobby was acting out because Jane had left Ian after finding out about his affair with Janine. Bobby was missing his mother.

Bullying isn't acceptable at all, but Dennis's form of bullying is physical and a symptom of innate anger and frustration he feels at his circumstances. It's his way of articulating it, and the kid is only seven years old. Yes, he probably tore the card up one class made for Whitney's enormous ego, but he now feels that Whitney is targeting him in a particular way.

What kind of educator allows an assistant to tell a parent that their child is poisonous within earshot of the child, himself? The fact that she even ventured that inexperienced and profoundly personal opinion to a parent at all would, in normal circumstances, result in her losing her job.

The other observation about this vignette is that tonight we got to see Sadie's daughter, and surprise! She's another stageschool kid.

Also, it's nice to see that the sexualisation of children continues on this show. Tiffany's now wearing adult perfume as well as make-up. Cindy the Greek in a skin-tight dress, Tiff in make-up and perfume. Natural follow-ons to Ruby Allen in fishnets and a basque. Is EastEnders trying to attract paedophiles now?

Lairy Perv.

Speaking of which, that's exactly how Jamie Lomas comes across - as an unhygenic, lairy, lardy Manc perv, interested in a girl whom TPTB are now trying to ship as the Lolita-esque girl next door.

This is the latest attempt for TPTB to force us to like ...

THE. WORST. ACTRESS. EVER. TO. APPEAR. IN. EASTENDERS.

The gurning is back. So is the windmill arm syndrome. And the funny inflections. And the weird screeching voice.

But that's acting to pikey Jacqueline Jossa, graduate of a failed fame academny financed by the funds embezzled by her father from the Enfield taxpayer. The only talent she's got is the big fat gypsy variety, toned down and scrubbed up from that other traveller, Shona McGarty.

They both suck.

We know where Lauren is going - she's going to be the Tanya to Lardy's and Sadie's Max and Rachel, the teenager who busts their marriage up. And there's a child involved also, who happens to be the friend of Lauren's cousin.

This is the new project of TPTB - move Lauren and Lucy onto "adult" relationships, rather than sack their sorry arses, because it then gives them justification to fill up the show with more teenagers, rather than these entitled few.

She and Lomas exude absolutely no chemistry, and if he's eye candy, then I'm a Dutchman. Allegedly, he's lost a lot of weight. He must have been bloody huge, because he's still lardy.

The Newman Negroes, Kidney Colds and the Hag with a Fag.

Sam and Dexter had their respective surgeries when? Friday? Monday of this week? 

What a load of ripe bullshit!

I thought Tanya's cancer cold was an insult to anyone who's ever suffered from the disease, but this storyline not only beggars belief, it is wholly indicative of the total lack of research done by the production team as well as being another insult - this time to transplant patients.

A transplant - any transplant - is a serious operation. And it necessitates more than a week's stay in hospital. Dexter, as the donor, would be expected to spend about ten days in hospital - allowing time for relevant stitches to be removed or to dissolve, Never EVER less than a week, especially after his diastalic episode on Monday.

As for Sam, he wouldn't even be walking upright or moving comfortably at this stage - not a man in his fifties, certainly. Besides, he would be in even longer, as doctors would be observing him for signs of rejection by his body or any other sorts of infection, and he'd be being instructed about the course of anti-rejection drugs he's going to have to take for the rest of his life as well as how they would interact with his diabetic condition.

But nooooo ... Sam's strutting around that hospital like Step'n Fetchit, trading words and threats with the rotten old fagshit, who's imposed herself on her favourite "grandson," whom she didn't know from Adam this time last year.

Where are Dexter's REAL grandparents? The ones who helped him confront gang members, the grandmother who made his shirts?

That's ingratitude for you. They do all the hard work, and Cora-Bitch takes the credit.

As for the old trout, where the hell does she get off dictating to Kirsty? Kirsty knows she is not the Branning girls' mother, but she is, for the time being, Max's wife, and she's doing her utmost to keep body and soul together for them - working at the pub and on the stall with Kat, making sure they eat and have food - something Cora never did whenever she was left in charge. Kirsty's doing the evening meal, when the first thing the old boot does is reach for a glass of wine.

Why is Cora even there? Yes, she's Abi's and Lauren's grandmother, but all she seems to care about is her black grandson, pointedly reminding Lauren that "Dexter's coming home tomorrow"- not that Lauren cares, mind you, because she's had no interaction with the little spiv. But Lauren and Abi live there as part of Max's dynamic, and the family is Max, Kirsty and the girls. Cora has no place. It's not as if she doesn't have other options - there's her rainbow family (living with the Magic Negro means she could dote on her spoiled brat grandson and keep and eye on his father) or she could go shack up with Patrick and drink Kim out of house and home.

I thought she was abysmal tonight. I want Dexter and Cora to bugger off with Ava and Sam.

Cry Me a Moon River.

Now that we know Alice is going, it's nice to see that EastEnders are at least striving to show some form of continuity - making the departing character thoroughly despicable before she leaves. Alice is so totally stupid that she thinks Janine must be even more stupid.

I mean, does she seriously think Janine will give her her job back? In the real world, what Alice has done is called "gross misconduct" and the penalty for that, in any job, is instant dismissal. Any nanny who sleeps with her employer's husband is up for the sack out of the sack for being found in the sack.

Buying a stupid toy and offering to pick Scarlett up from nursery scores nul point. Besides, Alice would only sneak the baby over to Michael, and when Janine inevitably found out, then we'd have the pleasure of seeing Michael arrested and silly Alice as well.

I do wish Janine would confide in someone - Whitney or Billy - about what Michael did, but then that's a continuity error also.

When Scarlett was born, Whitney caught Michael trying to leave Walford with a load of money rather than own up to his responsibilities and Billy was certainly aware of his psychological abuse of Janine. The fact that Michael went out of his way to describe Janine's phobia about excessive security should have sent alarm bells ringing in Billy's pea brain.

As for Michael's soliloquy about contemplating suicide, calm down, Luddites. That was a manipulative manoeuvre. Remember Eddie's description of Michael's mother - she used suicide attempts to control Eddie. She'd take an overdose and call him up, causing him to rush home and get her to a hospital. It was her means of keeping him on a tight lead. The one time she intended for her son to find her, he stayed out playing until dark, she miscalculated and died.

Psychopaths are narcissists. They don't do suicide. If they kill themselves, it's an accident. And people who are genuinely suicidal, don't articulate it, the way Michael expounded on the subject to that buck-toothed gimp. That was a play for sympathy to get her even more firmly onside,

Anyone sympathising with Michael should be calling Cameron on Emmerdale a hero and wanting to bed him as well, because he's a psychopath too. Aren't they so cuddly and loveable?

All in the Family.

So they brought David back just so he could wind Ian up and interfere with the budding romance of Bobby and Tiffany, two ten year-olds?

So Ian's keeping Bobby out of school for two days in a row "to revise" rather than have him associate with Tiffany? That's against the law, you know.

Don't these fucking writers know anything? Or do they make up stories and facts as they go along?

David is Ian's brother. Ian is David's brother. Bianca has identified Ian as her uncle. Ian has identified Bianca as his niece. Why, why has no one thought to apprise Tiffany and/or Bobby of the fact that they are, in fact, related?

David could inform Tiffany. Ian should inform Bobby. Bobby is the first cousin of Tiffany's mother. Bobby is David's nephew. Tiffany is Ian's great-niece.

Jesus, it's not rocket science.

And I cannot believe that David Wicks, on his uppers and without a pot in which to piss, is needling his brother like this - not when he went out of his way to apologise contritely and sincerely for ruining Ian's life in 1997 and not when he couldn't even meet his eyes in 2012 out of on-going shame.

This was tripe. Pure, unadulterated tripe.

Memo to Grade A ArseHole Zack06 on Digital Spy: Sunshine, stop calling people liars who understand the programme better than you. It's rude.

Now please allow me to hand you your arse. When Phil decided to give Sharon a share of the R and R, he legally transferred 19% of the total shares of the club to her ownership. Prior to that, he owned 60% (bought from Ronnie and Jack) and Janine owned 40% (bought from Roxy). Phil explained to Sharon that 19% was the most he could give her from his share of the club because anything more than 19% would make Janine the majority shareholder.

That was actually from a scene in the programme earlier in the year, prior to the aborted wedding between Sharon and Jack.

The only thing Ronnie is doing is looking after Phil's interest in the club in a managerial capacity. She owns nothing. Not even a pot.

Do pay attention.

For the record, originally the club was owned by Ronnie and Jack with a minority share held by Roxy. Ronnie sold her share of the club to Jack to stump Sam's bail when she returned to Walford. This was lost when Sam skipped bail. After "James's" birth, Jack sold his share of the club to Phil, and subsequently, Janine bought Roxy's 40 per cent. Ronnie SOLD her share of the club in 2009.

Wikipedia is not infallible,and whoever edited the article to show Ronnie still owning 20 per cent of the club did it as a means of coming back at the poster on Digital Spy who was correct in citing the episode in question.

Grow the fuck up.