Les Petits Princes.
With apologies to the great Bert Lahr and the even greater Cowardly Lion. Here's to le petit prince le plus grand du tout ... Dominic Treadwell-Collins and all who cream their briefs at what hehasn't can't won't wants to accomplish with EastEnders.
It's such an exciting time, don't you think? I mean, if we talk about all the wondeful things he's done and about to do for EastEnders - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - and all the wonderful storylines and how original they are - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - and how breathtakingly excited we all are - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - and shout down all those pesky old naysayers (you know, the ones who've actually watched this showbefore the internet was common before the Golden Age of John Yorke or the even more Golden Age of Diederick Santer - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - the ones who actually still believe in boring, boring history and who have compassion for dirty, smelly poor people (poor people are such losers and struggling is so boring, we sure are glad we still live at home with our parents, who don't charge us rent and who pay all the bills so that we can have the latest electronic toy to boost our self-esteem, but anyway poor people are all so much cleaner on EastEnders and have expensive manicures) - if we get rid of all the people who criticise the show, then no one will notice that it really isn't that different from when Bryan Kirkwood or Lorraine Newman was at the helm. OMIGOD, did I really say that? I mean, last week saw some pretty poor episodes, but if we get snarky with anyone who says the show is bad, then we can just pretend that the show is good and people will listen to us, right? I mean, Mum and Dad always listen to us, because if they don't we'll throw a temper tantrum and ruin their peaceful lives. It's not that we're spoiled. We're just complex, like Tina.
And after all, we understand what DTC is trying to do, and besides, the show is much more entertaining now that it's about affluent people and not those dirty, grey, unemployed benefits' scroungers it used to feature.
Do you think DTC supports UKIP?
However, truth is ... DTC, like a lot of his abject and craven followers, is a coward. As pointed out last autumn in a Guardian article, where soaps like the now-defunct Brookside and EastEnders paved the way for issue-led storylines, now we have the big two, each, with sensationalist murder mysteries clogging up the cobblestones in Weatherfield and the Square in Walford until the year's end. It's so much easier and fun to write murder, make cancer trivial and give the world court jesters as a substitute for Lorraine's love and warmth, rather than address issues like poverty, racial hatred, immigration or even sexual and age harassment (something with which the DTC fanbois would certainly want to avoid, practicing this every day).
The soap genre, like the lazy concept that surrounds reality television, is the new coward. Maybe it's time to take a stand.
The "Complex Character" Is Just a Euphemism for Bitch.
No, wait ... that song's too good for the bitch. Here's her speed:-
Let's be brutally honest. Any forty year-old woman you'd see with their hair in bunches and wearing a tutu, you'd think was a bona fide retard. And I mean to use that word to describe Tina, the armpit of the Carters.
I'm not sure what the aim of DTC is, here, in this storyline - and, mark me, this storyline, this love triangle (remember, fanbois, how you detested those things when Lorraine Newman employed them incessantly? different kettle o'fish now, yermon's using the same technique) is set to run the summer. Why? Because Luisa Bradshaw-White, the posh girl and very nice lady who plays the evil idiot Tina, has been doing the rounds of all the morning talk shows, plugging this. It's publicity, darling!
Yes, yes, we know it's supposed to illustrate domestic abuse amongst the gay community - really, domestic abuse is domestic abuse. It doesn't need a sexual label, but what's a bit of political correctness amongst friends? On the surface, you'd think that DTC would want the wicked (as in hiss-boo, fanbois), evil Tosh to be found out to be beating and banging on sweet, pure, little free-spirited Tina (ne'mind, she's a liar, a thief and an abysmal mother who couldn't find it within herself to love her daughter in the right way), but the more I watch this dynamic, the more Tosh, actually comes across as the more reasonable, mature and grounded person, who's becoming increasingly frustrated with a feckless and dishonest partner.
Tina would try the patience of a saint.
So, you can understand her frustration at sitting down to breakfast after a weekend of hard graft (something Tina doesn't grasp) and worry about finding out her partner's infidelity, to find her face-to-face with two-thirds of the ageing dollybird population of Walford - Tina cringeing and Roxy, mingeing after a night spent bonking Aleks.
Absolute line of the night goes to Tosh, to Roxy's astounded face:-
Do you EVER see your child? You're always here.
Very true. Roxy's 36, acts as though she's sixteen and never remembers Amy until she has to do so. Right now, she's happy to bonk about with Aleks as long as she can find some mug to take Amy off her hands for awhile. (Funny, how both Corrie and EastEnders have little Amys whose mothers haven't matured past the age of sixteen ... Ah well, at least Roxy isn't a murderer. Yet). Tina's 40, and the most she can muster for her daughter, after watching her raise herself, is to wish her well. Tosh must wonder what she did to deserve this madhouse.
The other half of this noxious storyline is that it concerns that original mouthbreather, Honker ...
who's lusting after Tina, even on her 10th wedding anniversary, to the unseen Martin, who gets trash-talked at every opportunity. For someone who likes to brag about how much he appreciates the history of the show, Dominic Treadwell-Collins is talking bullshit. Because he's totally assassinated the character of Martin Fowler, the first child born on the show, the son of Arthur and Pauline, brother of Mark and Michelle, grandson of Lou, and unborn subject of one of the very first storylines - not to mention the hatchet job he's continued to do on Sharon Watts, the iconic Princess of the Square, preferring the wrinkled booze-and-fag-breathed old whore known as Shirley Queen of Scrotes.
Sonia's delicate sensitivities are offended by Martin burping at the table. I guess she must prefer tongueing the vomit-flavoured mouth of Tina, after she's thrown up all over Sonia's clothes and breathing her puke-scented breath.
Sonia likes a bit of rough.
And I want to work in a place where, if my partner shows up, upset, I can just down tools and run after them, sod the work.
Tosh is upset with Tina, and rightly so. As much as the lamebrained slut (because that's what she is - who remembers the sly look she gave Bianca when she found out about Sonia's past?) can protest that "it was only a kiss" and "I was drunk," the truth is this: that Tina was unfaithful to Tosh and that maybe she's drunk a little too often. Tosh was right to turf her out. She has family in Walford, and Tosh doesn't. Tosh does have a room for which she pays and Tina doesn't. Tina lied and deceived her.
For all the rubbish going around about how "needy" Tosh is, the word "need" only featured, and several times, in Tina's vocabulary last night, and she was arrogant enough to believe all she had to do was tell Tosh that she loved her, and Tosh would allow her back into her life. Tosh pushed Tina to prevent her from entering what was now Tosh's room, after Tina had been entitled enough to think otherwise. Tina fell against the doorframe. That was an accident, as opposed to Shirley, Queen of Scrotes beating Glenda's head against the counter at the chippy.
Spot the violent one.
Oh, and as for Roxy not seeing her kids, what about Aleks not seeing his? Because I'll bet you anything that there are children lurking somewhere in his woodwork and that that was the reason he gave the tablet to Honey.
If we're meant to be Team Tina, I'm not; if, however, DTC is hoping to show the complexities which result in someone being simply driven to "violence" by sheer frustration, then it's an intriguing concept ... but since this EP knows the mental incapabilities of his core audience (Millennial self-hating males using the computer screen as an aggressive weapon and not being able to think critically), this is all about Team Tina and Shirley, Queen of Scrotes.
Those Who Are Ignorant of the Past Simply Make It Up as They Go Along.
A intolerant band for an intolerant generation ...
I know the Millennials really hate to hear it, but Sharon and Phil do have a long history, and I'm not talking about this "love of each other's life" shit being pushed by DTC right now because he can't be arsed to explore the real core of Phil's attraction to Sharon and her involvement with him.
I'm talking about this: yes, Sharon has had most of the businesses she's owned bought for/given to or inherited from men. Phil should remember from twenty years ago, that when the Bruvs presented Sharon with the pub, she totally invested all of her interest into the Vic. She was raised there, and the daughter of the show's first iconic landlord. She had a legacy to fulfill. This was the core conflict between her and Grant - the fact Sharon preferred the Vic to starting a family. The Vic was her baby. If he doesn't remember that, perhaps he'll remember his mother's totally-encompassing passion for the Vic, which she really loved, possibly, more than Phil, himself.
So he shouldn't feel surprised that Sharon's intent on making this venture work and pay dividends, unlike Shirley, Queen of Scrotes, who ran the caff into the ground. He shouldn't be surprised that Sharon might, just might expect him to do the odd school run with Denny.
But all that is for nowt. History is bunk. History is this: Phil loves the idea of Sharon, whilst Sharon will settle for Phil, as long as Grant's not around and now that fey Dennis is dead. Besides, in DTC's mind, most of his viewers won't even remember Sharon and Grant and weren't watching during the age of Shannis. The truth is that DTC lied. He had no intention of redeeming Sharon the way Lorraine Newman went out of her way to redeem Kat. Why? Because Sharon wasn't his creation, and the whiskey-scented, fag-breathed old crone in the mini-skirt (mutton dressed as lamb, and the call Sharon "Miss Piggy") was - so Shirley will always best Sharon to the point that Sharon's impending "big storyline" will only feature her comatose in the background whilst Mr PotatoHead confesses he has "feelings" for Shirley - nausea, I should imagine.
I'm past caring about Sharon now. She's a spent character, ruined by a succession of three Executive Producers, whose heads were so far up their own arses, I'm surprised they haven't got constipation. I just want her to go. Get over this, take her child and leave. Or die. Maybe they could have Ronnie kill Sharon and Denny - that would be phenomenal, since Brookside wasn't afraid to kill off children - and then there could be a big party in the Vic.
Walford will never be the same. Queen Shirley rules.
Peter the Prat: Entitled Millennial
Yeah, I know. His sister died. Boo-hoo. She was a bitch, who manipulated her father, despised him and disdained her brother. She was a petty criminal, a liar and a vicious bully, as well as being a horny little slut. She didn't deserve to die, but she certainly doesn't deserve to be canonised either.
We seem to have laid off police involvement in this murder enquiry, which is being backburnered for the trials and tribulations of Tina, Tosh and Sonia's tits; instead, we're being fed The Hardy Boy and ...
THE. WORST. ACTRESS. EVER. TO. APPEAR. IN. EASTENDERS.
EastEnders presents ... Millenniallllllllllllll Detectives! (Or Pricks Can Be Dicks).
Lauren, the very walking embodiment of Millennial self-absorption, takes it on herself to storm off in single pursuit of the elusive tattooed taxi driver, intent on proving Jake's innocence, totally after having convinced the police that he needed to be questioned again, and that's all Peter's worried about.
Let's cut to the chase. Peter's been getting a stiffy after Lauren for weeks now. He's kissed her - awful lot of cheating kissing going on at the moment. He thinks she "cares" because Lucy was her friend. I mean, they shared a bloke together. Lauren is more socially acceptable than chavvy little Cockney Sparrow Lola, who genuinely does love Peter.
The heroes of this piece tonight were Jay, Abi the Dough-Faced Girl and Cora - yes, the old bat, herself. It's plain to see that Jay, himself, is straying a bit in his mind re Abi, because he does have feelings for Lola, actually set Peter straight about what a pillock he was being, incurring the standard Tim-Nice-but-Dim, self-obsessed remark:-
Wha?
He was shamed into going back to Tina, whose graciousness and understanding made him look like the pithy, privileged son of a pithy, privileged little man. Roxy called Aleks a prat. She's wrong. It's Peter.
Two other observations:- Max sounding off in the Vic - I thought he was banned and barred from every business establishment but his own, thanks to Sheriff Phil and Deputy Alfie. Don't the writers and the EP confer? Continuity, who cares? Change what's been established to suit the storyline.
As for Lauren accusing her father of selishness, she's right; but she should also take a long look in the mirror.
Finally, Cora. If DTC has got something right, it's the characterisation of Cora. She's a hypocrite and a drunk, but who's perfect? Besides, she's been made into something and someone we never saw under the aegis of Kirkwood or Newman - a grandmother, and one who cares about the grandchildren in her charge. And who gets an expanding tardis flat, to boot.
Apart from Cora, dull as dishwater.
With apologies to the great Bert Lahr and the even greater Cowardly Lion. Here's to le petit prince le plus grand du tout ... Dominic Treadwell-Collins and all who cream their briefs at what he
It's such an exciting time, don't you think? I mean, if we talk about all the wondeful things he's done and about to do for EastEnders - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - and all the wonderful storylines and how original they are - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - and how breathtakingly excited we all are - and Stacey and Shirley and Ronnie - and shout down all those pesky old naysayers (you know, the ones who've actually watched this show
And after all, we understand what DTC is trying to do, and besides, the show is much more entertaining now that it's about affluent people and not those dirty, grey, unemployed benefits' scroungers it used to feature.
Do you think DTC supports UKIP?
Gee, it's almost like a new religion, the amount of DTC-love fuming up the cybernet, but ...
However, truth is ... DTC, like a lot of his abject and craven followers, is a coward. As pointed out last autumn in a Guardian article, where soaps like the now-defunct Brookside and EastEnders paved the way for issue-led storylines, now we have the big two, each, with sensationalist murder mysteries clogging up the cobblestones in Weatherfield and the Square in Walford until the year's end. It's so much easier and fun to write murder, make cancer trivial and give the world court jesters as a substitute for Lorraine's love and warmth, rather than address issues like poverty, racial hatred, immigration or even sexual and age harassment (something with which the DTC fanbois would certainly want to avoid, practicing this every day).
The soap genre, like the lazy concept that surrounds reality television, is the new coward. Maybe it's time to take a stand.
The "Complex Character" Is Just a Euphemism for Bitch.
No, wait ... that song's too good for the bitch. Here's her speed:-
Let's be brutally honest. Any forty year-old woman you'd see with their hair in bunches and wearing a tutu, you'd think was a bona fide retard. And I mean to use that word to describe Tina, the armpit of the Carters.
I'm not sure what the aim of DTC is, here, in this storyline - and, mark me, this storyline, this love triangle (remember, fanbois, how you detested those things when Lorraine Newman employed them incessantly? different kettle o'fish now, yermon's using the same technique) is set to run the summer. Why? Because Luisa Bradshaw-White, the posh girl and very nice lady who plays the evil idiot Tina, has been doing the rounds of all the morning talk shows, plugging this. It's publicity, darling!
Yes, yes, we know it's supposed to illustrate domestic abuse amongst the gay community - really, domestic abuse is domestic abuse. It doesn't need a sexual label, but what's a bit of political correctness amongst friends? On the surface, you'd think that DTC would want the wicked (as in hiss-boo, fanbois), evil Tosh to be found out to be beating and banging on sweet, pure, little free-spirited Tina (ne'mind, she's a liar, a thief and an abysmal mother who couldn't find it within herself to love her daughter in the right way), but the more I watch this dynamic, the more Tosh, actually comes across as the more reasonable, mature and grounded person, who's becoming increasingly frustrated with a feckless and dishonest partner.
Tina would try the patience of a saint.
So, you can understand her frustration at sitting down to breakfast after a weekend of hard graft (something Tina doesn't grasp) and worry about finding out her partner's infidelity, to find her face-to-face with two-thirds of the ageing dollybird population of Walford - Tina cringeing and Roxy, mingeing after a night spent bonking Aleks.
Absolute line of the night goes to Tosh, to Roxy's astounded face:-
Do you EVER see your child? You're always here.
Very true. Roxy's 36, acts as though she's sixteen and never remembers Amy until she has to do so. Right now, she's happy to bonk about with Aleks as long as she can find some mug to take Amy off her hands for awhile. (Funny, how both Corrie and EastEnders have little Amys whose mothers haven't matured past the age of sixteen ... Ah well, at least Roxy isn't a murderer. Yet). Tina's 40, and the most she can muster for her daughter, after watching her raise herself, is to wish her well. Tosh must wonder what she did to deserve this madhouse.
The other half of this noxious storyline is that it concerns that original mouthbreather, Honker ...
Sonia's delicate sensitivities are offended by Martin burping at the table. I guess she must prefer tongueing the vomit-flavoured mouth of Tina, after she's thrown up all over Sonia's clothes and breathing her puke-scented breath.
Sonia likes a bit of rough.
And I want to work in a place where, if my partner shows up, upset, I can just down tools and run after them, sod the work.
Tosh is upset with Tina, and rightly so. As much as the lamebrained slut (because that's what she is - who remembers the sly look she gave Bianca when she found out about Sonia's past?) can protest that "it was only a kiss" and "I was drunk," the truth is this: that Tina was unfaithful to Tosh and that maybe she's drunk a little too often. Tosh was right to turf her out. She has family in Walford, and Tosh doesn't. Tosh does have a room for which she pays and Tina doesn't. Tina lied and deceived her.
For all the rubbish going around about how "needy" Tosh is, the word "need" only featured, and several times, in Tina's vocabulary last night, and she was arrogant enough to believe all she had to do was tell Tosh that she loved her, and Tosh would allow her back into her life. Tosh pushed Tina to prevent her from entering what was now Tosh's room, after Tina had been entitled enough to think otherwise. Tina fell against the doorframe. That was an accident, as opposed to Shirley, Queen of Scrotes beating Glenda's head against the counter at the chippy.
Spot the violent one.
Oh, and as for Roxy not seeing her kids, what about Aleks not seeing his? Because I'll bet you anything that there are children lurking somewhere in his woodwork and that that was the reason he gave the tablet to Honey.
If we're meant to be Team Tina, I'm not; if, however, DTC is hoping to show the complexities which result in someone being simply driven to "violence" by sheer frustration, then it's an intriguing concept ... but since this EP knows the mental incapabilities of his core audience (Millennial self-hating males using the computer screen as an aggressive weapon and not being able to think critically), this is all about Team Tina and Shirley, Queen of Scrotes.
Those Who Are Ignorant of the Past Simply Make It Up as They Go Along.
A intolerant band for an intolerant generation ...
I know the Millennials really hate to hear it, but Sharon and Phil do have a long history, and I'm not talking about this "love of each other's life" shit being pushed by DTC right now because he can't be arsed to explore the real core of Phil's attraction to Sharon and her involvement with him.
I'm talking about this: yes, Sharon has had most of the businesses she's owned bought for/given to or inherited from men. Phil should remember from twenty years ago, that when the Bruvs presented Sharon with the pub, she totally invested all of her interest into the Vic. She was raised there, and the daughter of the show's first iconic landlord. She had a legacy to fulfill. This was the core conflict between her and Grant - the fact Sharon preferred the Vic to starting a family. The Vic was her baby. If he doesn't remember that, perhaps he'll remember his mother's totally-encompassing passion for the Vic, which she really loved, possibly, more than Phil, himself.
So he shouldn't feel surprised that Sharon's intent on making this venture work and pay dividends, unlike Shirley, Queen of Scrotes, who ran the caff into the ground. He shouldn't be surprised that Sharon might, just might expect him to do the odd school run with Denny.
But all that is for nowt. History is bunk. History is this: Phil loves the idea of Sharon, whilst Sharon will settle for Phil, as long as Grant's not around and now that fey Dennis is dead. Besides, in DTC's mind, most of his viewers won't even remember Sharon and Grant and weren't watching during the age of Shannis. The truth is that DTC lied. He had no intention of redeeming Sharon the way Lorraine Newman went out of her way to redeem Kat. Why? Because Sharon wasn't his creation, and the whiskey-scented, fag-breathed old crone in the mini-skirt (mutton dressed as lamb, and the call Sharon "Miss Piggy") was - so Shirley will always best Sharon to the point that Sharon's impending "big storyline" will only feature her comatose in the background whilst Mr PotatoHead confesses he has "feelings" for Shirley - nausea, I should imagine.
I'm past caring about Sharon now. She's a spent character, ruined by a succession of three Executive Producers, whose heads were so far up their own arses, I'm surprised they haven't got constipation. I just want her to go. Get over this, take her child and leave. Or die. Maybe they could have Ronnie kill Sharon and Denny - that would be phenomenal, since Brookside wasn't afraid to kill off children - and then there could be a big party in the Vic.
Walford will never be the same. Queen Shirley rules.
Peter the Prat: Entitled Millennial
Yeah, I know. His sister died. Boo-hoo. She was a bitch, who manipulated her father, despised him and disdained her brother. She was a petty criminal, a liar and a vicious bully, as well as being a horny little slut. She didn't deserve to die, but she certainly doesn't deserve to be canonised either.
We seem to have laid off police involvement in this murder enquiry, which is being backburnered for the trials and tribulations of Tina, Tosh and Sonia's tits; instead, we're being fed The Hardy Boy and ...
THE. WORST. ACTRESS. EVER. TO. APPEAR. IN. EASTENDERS.
EastEnders presents ... Millenniallllllllllllll Detectives! (Or Pricks Can Be Dicks).
Lauren, the very walking embodiment of Millennial self-absorption, takes it on herself to storm off in single pursuit of the elusive tattooed taxi driver, intent on proving Jake's innocence, totally after having convinced the police that he needed to be questioned again, and that's all Peter's worried about.
Let's cut to the chase. Peter's been getting a stiffy after Lauren for weeks now. He's kissed her - awful lot of cheating kissing going on at the moment. He thinks she "cares" because Lucy was her friend. I mean, they shared a bloke together. Lauren is more socially acceptable than chavvy little Cockney Sparrow Lola, who genuinely does love Peter.
The heroes of this piece tonight were Jay, Abi the Dough-Faced Girl and Cora - yes, the old bat, herself. It's plain to see that Jay, himself, is straying a bit in his mind re Abi, because he does have feelings for Lola, actually set Peter straight about what a pillock he was being, incurring the standard Tim-Nice-but-Dim, self-obsessed remark:-
Wha?
He was shamed into going back to Tina, whose graciousness and understanding made him look like the pithy, privileged son of a pithy, privileged little man. Roxy called Aleks a prat. She's wrong. It's Peter.
Two other observations:- Max sounding off in the Vic - I thought he was banned and barred from every business establishment but his own, thanks to Sheriff Phil and Deputy Alfie. Don't the writers and the EP confer? Continuity, who cares? Change what's been established to suit the storyline.
As for Lauren accusing her father of selishness, she's right; but she should also take a long look in the mirror.
Finally, Cora. If DTC has got something right, it's the characterisation of Cora. She's a hypocrite and a drunk, but who's perfect? Besides, she's been made into something and someone we never saw under the aegis of Kirkwood or Newman - a grandmother, and one who cares about the grandchildren in her charge. And who gets an expanding tardis flat, to boot.
Apart from Cora, dull as dishwater.
No comments:
Post a Comment