|
|
Post by CAEF on Nov 2, 2015 22:59:25 GMT
Now for one, I will not accept any "Its a show" or "it doesn't matter" comments.
First of all when the Mitchells arrived in Feb 1990 they were new to the area, it was an area where no one knew them, and they knew no one. The Mitchells are NOT from Walford originally and that was said many times in the 1990s and Noughties. In 2007 Phil mentioned a Polish butcher in Whitechapel so they were from down that way originally I think. In 1993 they went to their childhood flat, nowhere near Walford.
When Den returned in 2003 he did not have the faintest idea who the Mitchells were so asked around, and had to find out from Dot Branning. Yet that photo taken of Den, Gavin, Mr Hubbard, Ted and Eric was when Phil was at least 4 or 5 years old. Surely the penny would have dropped when Phil and Den met in the street in 2003 when Phil dropped his mobile? Going by that photo it would seem Eric lived nearby and knew Den for years and Phil and Grant would have known Den as they grew up if Eric hung around with Den, Ted, Mr Hubbard and Gavin.
The adoption of Sharon has been totally rewritten as well. Sharon was not born in London but Southend, and was adopted out. She was never traded by Gavin to Den. I have watched EE for 25 years and can smell a retcon like a fart in a wardrobe and there is NO explanation for these deliberate retcons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Holey on Nov 2, 2015 23:14:37 GMT
EE is now being made for a different younger audience who were not even a fetus in 1985, so will not realise why older EE fans like myself are so cross! The show is nothing more than fanfix now and is fast becoming a laughing stock in the industry.
How flamming dare DTC re write the history of this show. We always remember Den saying to Sharon 'Ello Princess.' It was his catch phrase to a daughter he adored and loved, it had NOTHING to do with Gavin. This changes everything and for us viewers who have invested in this show from day one is a bloody insult!
Julia Smith and Tony Holland will be spinning in their graves. DTC F**K OFF YOU B****RD!
|
|
|
|
Post by CAEF on Nov 2, 2015 23:34:54 GMT
EE is now being made for a different younger audience who were not even a fetus in 1985, so will not realise why older EE fans like myself are so cross! The show is nothing more than fanfix now and is fast becoming a laughing stock in the industry. How flamming dare DTC re write the history of this show. We always remember Den saying to Sharon 'Ello Princess.' It was his catch phrase to a daughter he adored and loved, it had NOTHING to do with Gavin. This changes everything and for us viewers who have invested in this show from day one is a bloody insult! Julia Smith and Tony Holland will be spinning in their graves. DTC F**K OFF YOU B****RD! This. 100% concur. |
|
|
|
Post by Charley Says... on Nov 2, 2015 23:54:38 GMT
EE is now being made for a different younger audience who were not even a fetus in 1985, so will not realise why older EE fans like myself are so cross! The show is nothing more than fanfix now and is fast becoming a laughing stock in the industry. How flamming dare DTC re write the history of this show. We always remember Den saying to Sharon 'Ello Princess.' It was his catch phrase to a daughter he adored and loved, it had NOTHING to do with Gavin. This changes everything and for us viewers who have invested in this show from day one is a bloody insult! Julia Smith and Tony Holland will be spinning in their graves. DTC F**K OFF YOU B****RD! I think... Holey my old mucker... You have quit the wrong show...
That BLT chappy sure has got right on your goat...
Although in all seriousness, even though I don't watch it now... I have to agree about it pandering to a younger audience... Next thing you'll know there will be a vote at the end of each episode as to which way the storylines should go...
[Geordie Accent] You decide...
|
|
|
|
Post by Holey on Nov 3, 2015 0:01:51 GMT
EE is now being made for a different younger audience who were not even a fetus in 1985, so will not realise why older EE fans like myself are so cross! The show is nothing more than fanfix now and is fast becoming a laughing stock in the industry. How flamming dare DTC re write the history of this show. We always remember Den saying to Sharon 'Ello Princess.' It was his catch phrase to a daughter he adored and loved, it had NOTHING to do with Gavin. This changes everything and for us viewers who have invested in this show from day one is a bloody insult! Julia Smith and Tony Holland will be spinning in their graves. DTC F**K OFF YOU B****RD! I think... Holey my old mucker... You have quit the wrong show...
That BLT chappy sure has got right on your goat...
Although in all seriousness, even though I don't watch it now... I have to agree about it pandering to a younger audience... Next thing you'll know there will be a vote at the end of each episode as to which way the storylines should go...
[Geordie Accent] You decide...
Thinking about it Charley they are both as bad. EastEnders is beyond repair now and with Corrie you know the saying, 'you can't polish a turd.'  |
|
|
|
Post by Lotty27 on Nov 3, 2015 1:08:19 GMT
I can't agree any more with the above posts, I am literally speechless tonight at what DTC and his cohorts have done. I don't mind things being bent a bit but this is MASSIVE. We can remember things that Sharon's said about always knowing she was adopted, not needing to be told, how she remembered her children's home etc. We remember Den not having an effing clue who the Mitchell's were when he was resurrected. I could go on but TBH it's been covered MUCH better on Walford Web tonight and I've enjoyed reading the fallout from this travesty, episode thread being closed for a while et al!!
I am only hoping that somewhere down the line Kathy has told Gavin about Den calling Sharon his Princess and that bad ass Gavin is using it to hurt her and spoil the memory of her and Den as he's supposed to enjoy playing nasty, evil, twisted psychological games. It's the only way I'll let them off with trashing the Den, Angie and Sharon memories. Bastards (apologies for the language but I'm still feeling het up about it!)
|
|
|
|
Post by amber jade on Nov 3, 2015 10:31:11 GMT
I don't remember back then but I do agree with the fact things shouldn't be retconned. I still enjoy watching it but don't take it as seriously as I used to unfortunately
|
|
|
|
Post by Holey on Nov 3, 2015 11:07:03 GMT
I can't agree any more with the above posts, I am literally speechless tonight at what DTC and his cohorts have done. I don't mind things being bent a bit but this is MASSIVE. We can remember things that Sharon's said about always knowing she was adopted, not needing to be told, how she remembered her children's home etc. We remember Den not having an effing clue who the Mitchell's were when he was resurrected. I could go on but TBH it's been covered MUCH better on Walford Web tonight and I've enjoyed reading the fallout from this travesty, episode thread being closed for a while et al!! I am only hoping that somewhere down the line Kathy has told Gavin about Den calling Sharon his Princess and that bad ass Gavin is using it to hurt her and spoil the memory of her and Den as he's supposed to enjoy playing nasty, evil, twisted psychological games. It's the only way I'll let them off with trashing the Den, Angie and Sharon memories. Bastards (apologies for the language but I'm still feeling het up about it!) I know what you mean Lotty, I have got to stop watching for now, because of my blood pressure. I may return if DTC buggers off!!! m1323 |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat1971 on Nov 3, 2015 13:34:08 GMT
Different production team but after the way they mutated Den in 2003_2005, especially his relationship with Sharon, nothing surprises me. Gavin being Sharon's Dad i can cope with, even though it doees go against Sharon's history as we knew it but having 'Princess' only ever having been Den's way of honoring Gavin is ridiculous. Even besides his return, I remember Den calling her Prncess Xmas Day 1986 when she was preparing to walk out with Angie. So, in the middle of the divorce saga, Den was thinking about Gavin?  I do also hate the retconning of Den having known Eric. |
|
|
|
Post by Lotty27 on Nov 3, 2015 19:21:45 GMT
It's just too much. I thought I might have calmed down about it today but instead of anger I just feel a crushing disappointment that they could do this.
I wonder how many hours of my life have been spent watching this programme? Rather a lot I would imagine and as such I refuse to take the attitude of "oh it's just a soap" - no it's not, it's a drama which I've been investing in since I was 19 and I'm 50 now! (yes I AM that old lol! My b/day is in may so it started the feb before my 20th birthday) and it took itself incredibly seriously back then striving to be more realistic and down-to-earth.
I understand that continuing dramas have to change and adapt over the years or they'll risk not attracting new audiences but surely not to such an extent that they disrespect, twist and change established history? That they contrive a group of men knowing each other where it's ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED that they couldn't have done? I wouldn't care but Gavin kind of dismissed the Hubbard man as not really being a part of 'them' but he's the one that no one would have been bothered about being involved as they're a new family and they can give them any back story they want! But Eric Mitchell was part of their group? Really? Eric who wasn't known in Walford or knew Walford previously? I suppose he was one of Pat's clients too eh? free-rolleye-smileys-323 And now Den knew this Gavin who was never mentioned back in the day by Den, Pete (who through Den might have known him) etc. Stupid, stupid, stupid and someone is guilty of trying to be too clever by half. He can stick his 'coincidence' where the sun don't shine.
And don't even get me started on the "hello Princess" debacle! smiley-angry I'm not even sure that us finding out later that it was untrue and was Gavin manipulating Sharon as (like a heat seeking missile) he'd found her weak spot and played on it, is worth feeling like they've pissed all over the memory now, at this minute!
I don't even know if I want to watch tonight to see what other established facts they're going to put through the shredder.
I've read many posts from younger people (like our own lovely Amber Jade) who don't remember all this but still don't think that programme's histories should be tampered with but there's other ones who don't see what all the fuss is about? Well what happens if this programme is still going in 20 years time and they twist some of Stacey and Bradley's history for example? Or piss all over the memory of e.g. "you're not my mother!" and say, no, as a matter of fact Kat wasn't Zoe's mother, the babies were mixed up or whatever. Bet they wouldn't be so nonchalant about it then eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts Made: 0
Likes Received:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 19:34:42 GMT
It's just too much. I thought I might have calmed down about it today but instead of anger I just feel a crushing disappointment that they could do this. I wonder how many hours of my life have been spent watching this programme? Rather a lot I would imagine and as such I refuse to take the attitude of "oh it's just a soap" - no it's not, it's a drama which I've been investing in since I was 19 and I'm 50 now! (yes I AM that old lol! My b/day is in may so it started the feb before my 20th birthday) and it took itself incredibly seriously back then striving to be more realistic and down-to-earth. I understand that continuing dramas have to change and adapt over the years or they'll risk not attracting new audiences but surely not to such an extent that they disrespect, twist and change established history? That they contrive a group of men knowing each other where it's ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED that they couldn't have done? I wouldn't care but Gavin kind of dismissed the Hubbard man as not really being a part of 'them' but he's the one that no one would have been bothered about being involved as they're a new family and they can give them any back story they want! But Eric Mitchell was part of their group? Really? Eric who wasn't known in Walford or knew Walford previously? I suppose he was one of Pat's clients too eh? free-rolleye-smileys-323 And now Den knew this Gavin who was never mentioned back in the day by Den, Pete (who through Den might have known him) etc. Stupid, stupid, stupid and someone is guilty of trying to be too clever by half. He can stick his ' coincidence' where the sun don't shine. And don't even get me started on the "hello Princess" debacle! smiley-angry I'm not even sure that us finding out later that it was untrue and was Gavin manipulating Sharon as (like a heat seeking missile) he'd found her weak spot and played on it, is worth feeling like they've pissed all over the memory now, at this minute! I don't even know if I want to watch tonight to see what other established facts they're going to put through the shredder. I've read many posts from younger people (like our own lovely Amber Jade) who don't remember all this but still don't think that programme's histories should be tampered with but there's other ones who don't see what all the fuss is about? Well what happens if this programme is still going in 20 years time and they twist some of Stacey and Bradley's history for example? Or piss all over the memory of e.g. "you're not my mother!" and say, no, as a matter of fact Kat wasn't Zoe's mother, the babies were mixed up or whatever. Bet they wouldn't be so nonchalant about it then eh? Bib - That's one of the biggest problems for me atm, we're expected to swallow far too many 'coincidences'. The show has just become too far-fetched. |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat1971 on Nov 3, 2015 19:56:30 GMT
Oh i think the ship has already sailed on pissing over the Slaters history with the secret son and ruddy key. I do,'t know how it all fits in together yet, but I'm sure the surprise will go against their history as we know it. Plus I judt know that we are going to be told that Stacey had sex with Kush, Max, ANOTHER off screen so Martin isn't the father.
They retconned Shirley, especially her marriage to Kevin, how and when she left and paternity of the kids. I know loads of people claim thet didn't but they did.
As if Pete wouldn't know Gavin and Eric as well if they were part of a gang Den was in. Pete may have taken a back seat re The Firm compared to Den but it was made clear that they'd grown up together and Pete was aware of those elements from his youth. So, even aside from Den not mentioning the connection all through his and Phil's fued, Pete didn't when Phil and Grant turned up in 1990? Never mentioned Eric having been a mate of Den's when sharon married Grant? Plus, did Kathy know Gavin back then? He was knocking round with Den, who we know already had the Vic as Margaret mentioned it re where they'd meet to discuss the adoption after Sharon's birth, which was when Ian was a few months old so she was married to Pete and would have known him socially. Not to mention her brother of course. One thing to say she met Gavin in SA because Ted introduced them, quite another to say she knew him from London when they were young.
The Hubbard thing - if you ask me that is a set up for them wanting revenge on the rest of the Gang (or offspring) - they never included him, perhaps let him take the fall for something? Oh and yes, Phil knew Vincent, his Dad used to talk about Henry was it? But apparently he didn't talke about Den or Ted or Gavin - again Ted never mentioned having known Phil's dad all the time they were in-laws?
The whole thing is a bloody mess. Frankly the 'Hello Princess' is the least offensive part of it - at least they can explain it away by saying that Gavin saw Den with Sharon, heard him use the pet name and used it to manipulate Sharon so he could escape. But they can't get out of this incredibly convoluted back story they've invented for the Watts/Mitchells/Hills/Hubbards/Sullivans which by extension must also include the Beales and even characters like Jonny Allen through the Eric who knew Pat who knew Mo Harris and the Brannings who knew the Moons - god where will it end?
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat1971 on Nov 3, 2015 20:07:02 GMT
I'm loathe to say this as i hate people that say "I Told You So" but I did always say that there was no plausible way of bringing Kathy back and any attempt to do so would be a dreadful mistake which might result in me switching off. I've been trying to hold off judgement as I really don't want to give up in a show I have watched for over 30 years and feel I've almost grown up and them middle aged with (especially in relation to characters like Ian) but i do feel we wouldn't be jumping through any where near these hoops, with the necessary betrayals of character and history if they hadn't made the decision to bring her back and it isn't worth it and may result in me giving up on the show.
And I suspect I won't be the only one. Which i predicted when it used to be talked about online. There would be a huge rise in interest and probably ratings to find out who they were explaining it, then most would leave once the novelty wore off and more would go because it has jumped the shark.
But i hate to say "I Told You So".
|
|
|
|
Post by CAEF on Nov 3, 2015 21:29:09 GMT
When Phil and Grant arrived in 1990 not anyone knew them, they were treated with disdain by locals due to their dodgy ways and were firmly seen as outsiders. They said no one knows them round here. When they started drinking in the Vic they asked who Den was and was told he was the father of the blonde girl Sharon. One night Phil drove into the Square just randomly when Rod Norman and Harry Osbourne were in the Square Gardens and he noticed The Vic and said he had found a great place, and it is ripe. In 1994, Pauline Fowler said that since they arrived in this area they have been trouble. And in 2003, Den Watts returned after 14 years away and had not a clue in hell who the Mitchells were. He had to ask many locals, he asked "Who is this Phil Mitchell fella"?.
Yet in 2015, Phil and Grant are both from Walford and lived near Albert Square, their father was a friend of Den Watts. Eric and Den appeared in the same photo together with Gavin, Henry and Ted. Also, Den and Ted hated each other, Ted once tried to frame Pete. So Den must have known Phil and Grant when they were youngsters. If so, then the penny would have dropped when in 2003, Den first heard of Phil. A total, total retcon of history, and there is nothing that can be explained in all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat1971 on Nov 3, 2015 21:34:11 GMT
Something Marxist has just reminded me of was they've radically changed Eric as well. When they first arrived Phil said he was a nice man who had barely any money when he died - indeed he was nice to Arthur because he reminded him of his Dad. Little different to the violent, criminal thug he is portrayed as now. So i guess retconning has always been part of the show but not to this extent.
|
|
