Spoiler Discussion - EastEnders

[justinate]

Ben, don't encourage the crazy (Abi)!

I knew their friendship was leading up to this moment. Ben is gonna kiss her just to fake being straight, whereas Abi'll believe he is genuinely interested. The girl just tried to drown her own sister ... I'd watch out if I were you!

[buja]

Well, he didn't make it very far, did he? Surely he must have known what he was getting himself into when he took the job.

[Zathras]

Bah. I suppose they won't re-cast the role, so that means it'll just be Ben. Sigh.

[trini]

To bad the actor who plays Johnny is leaving just went it seems that his character was going to be placed more in the spotlight.

However,I don't think it will be just Ben for long, with Peter suddenly visiting Steven I won't be surprise if he returns.

Plus, I think the producer wants to explore Ben's sexuality so I doubt he'll be with out a love interest for long, maybe Pam and Les grandson might be gay.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Difficult Diva]

Nov 15, 2014 13:44:39 GMT -5 trini said:

To bad the actor who plays Johnny is leaving just went it seems that his character was going to be placed more in the spotlight.

However,I don't think it will be just Ben for long, with Peter suddenly visiting Steven I won't be surprise if he returns.

Plus, I think the producer wants to explore Ben's sexuality so I doubt he'll be with out a love interest for long, maybe Pam and Les grandson might be gay.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I wonder if by the end of 2015, Johnny will come back home with a new face? Johnny's an okay character, so maybe TPTB just need more time in finding another actor and rebooting his presence on the show.

[justinate]

Nov 14, 2014 16:29:53 GMT -5 buja said:

Well, he didn't make it very far, did he? Surely he must have known what he was getting himself into when he took the job.

I take it you're referring to the speculation that Sam resigned because he couldn't take the online trolling for playing a gay character anymore? I don't know if that's true, but it would really be a terrible shame if it is. I don't think Sam necessarily knew the level of homophobic abuse he would get - remember, he wasn't even out of his teens yet when he signed on to the show. Yes, actors need to have a thicker skin when dealing with detractors but the sheer volume of trolling he's been subjected to really is beyond the pale. There are some truly disturbed individuals on social media.

I wonder how Johnny will be written out. It's my hope that the character will be recast. Johnny fit nicely into the Carter family dynamics (and Sharon), plus I thought he and Ben would have been a good romance. It would be another shame to let that all go to waste. I don't feel it'd be realistic for Johnny to disappear when his family has a series of crises to resolve, so they either have to kill him, put him in a coma, or recast. I really hope it won't be Johnny's death that spurs Linda to keep her baby, even if it's fathered by her rapist brother-in-law.

Regardless of whether or not Johnny leaves the canvas, we should have Steven back - as long as it's not to reveal him as Lucy's murderer. The introduction of a third gay/bi character is never unwelcome. The Cokers' grandson would do in a pinch, too.

[anthonyl]

This is when I wish UK soaps were like US soaps. They'd just recast quickly and move on.

[penguino]

We don't really know why Sam decided to leave the show, maybe he didn't like something or maybe he got hinted tha this role won't be developed/they have no idea what to do with Johnny.

[Zathras]

Yeah, we probably should refrain from speculating on why Sam decided to leave.

I do hope the show recasts Johnny right away. The Johnny/Ben (potential pairing) story is interesting so far. They recast Ben, after all (even though he was off screen for a while).

[mrfixit477]

[penguino]

Ben tries to kiss Johnny. Again. So next week we'll probably see a scene from a spoiler clip released over a month ago. After a couple of failures he may go ballistic. Sounds fun

[trini]

I think this produce is more open to recast that others, so he might be willing to recast Johnny if he believe it is necessary. Also I don't know if this is true but I read that the producer based the Carters on his family and Johnny on itself, if that is the cast I can see him completely writing the character off because the actor chose to leave.


What is also interesting is that even though it was know for a while that Sam would be leaving the role of Johnny the show have not back off building a relationship between Johnny and Ben.

[kevvoi]

I suspect the easiest way to have Johnny leave would be to have him go on a study abroad program -- have him go to the states for a semester, and when he gets back, he miraculously has a new face.

A semester would be about ~3.5-4 months depending on the university.

{A small (and very shallow) part of me though, wishes that he gets carried off in the arms of Peter Beale as they both exit the show and ride off into the sunset together }

[justinate]

So DTC has said he does not plan to recast Johnny. I suspect he must be heartbroken and disappointed at the way Sam Strike just left him and the rest of the cast and the audience high and dry. Obviously he had every right to leave, but for a show that launched his career, you'd hope Sam would have some loyalty. DTC had set up a great many storylines where Johnny's presence was necessary, if not integral ... and having the character waltz off just as those stories come to a boil must be extremely frustrating for everyone. Poor Harry Reid (Ben) is left in limbo, while the Carters are going to play out all their big stories (Stan's cancer, Mick's parentage, Linda's rape and pregnancy) without Johnny. These were carefully crafted stories months in the planning and they're going to ring just a little bit hollow because Johnny isn't there.

Well, there's a rumour that DTC is casting Paul Coker, Pam and Les's gay grandson, so he might be Ben's next love interest. Of course we won't have the drama of a Carter dating a Mitchell, Shirley's grandson with her best friend's killer ... but who knows, the Cokers are keeping a sordid secret of their own. They may be no more thrilled than Shirley to have Ben dating their grandson!

DTC did say Ben will have more to do next year (I suspect some of Johnny's plots handed to him) and he sounds impressed by Harry Reid, so I feel a bit better than gay characters won't drop off the screen with Johnny's exit. While I do think Harry Reid is good, and I enjoy his delivery of banter, it doesn't ring perfectly true to the Ben we knew. That's my only issue with Ben.

[anthonyl]

Did I miss the part where Johnny Carter was a long running character played by a legendary, iconic actor? This is a newbie actor who barely played a role a year. I think the notion of 'leaving the door open' for him under these circumstances is ridiculous. Recast and move on. The show and the story is the thing, not any one actor. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

[Difficult Diva]

Dec 22, 2014 8:08:36 GMT -5 anthonyl said:

Did I miss the part where Johnny Carter was a long running character played by a legendary, iconic actor? This is a newbie actor who barely played a role a year. I think the notion of 'leaving the door open' for him under these circumstances is ridiculous. Recast and move on. The show and the story is the thing, not any one actor. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

I think that the series producer needs time to come up with a "new direction" for that character and is saying this thing about not looking to recast right now or the near future.

I give it 8 months to a year's time and Johnny will return with a new face, 5 more inches on him and turned into a gym buddy, just in time to visit his family on Boxing Day 2015.

[trini]

Dec 22, 2014 7:15:14 GMT -5 justinate said:

So DTC has said he does not plan to recast Johnny. I suspect he must be heartbroken and disappointed at the way Sam Strike just left him and the rest of the cast and the audience high and dry. Obviously he had every right to leave, but for a show that launched his career, you'd hope Sam would have some loyalty. DTC had set up a great many storylines where Johnny's presence was necessary, if not integral ... and having the character waltz off just as those stories come to a boil must be extremely frustrating for everyone. Poor Harry Reid (Ben) is left in limbo, while the Carters are going to play out all their big stories (Stan's cancer, Mick's parentage, Linda's rape and pregnancy) without Johnny. These were carefully crafted stories months in the planning and they're going to ring just a little bit hollow because Johnny isn't there.

Well, there's a rumour that DTC is casting Paul Coker, Pam and Les's gay grandson, so he might be Ben's next love interest. Of course we won't have the drama of a Carter dating a Mitchell, Shirley's grandson with her best friend's killer ... but who knows, the Cokers are keeping a sordid secret of their own. They may be no more thrilled than Shirley to have Ben dating their grandson!

DTC did say Ben will have more to do next year (I suspect some of Johnny's plots handed to him) and he sounds impressed by Harry Reid, so I feel a bit better than gay characters won't drop off the screen with Johnny's exit. While I do think Harry Reid is good, and I enjoy his delivery of banter, it doesn't ring perfectly true to the Ben we knew. That's my only issue with Ben.

I think DTC leaving room for Sam Strike to return is more about giving Sam space to change his mind.

As soon as some of these soap actors get a little bit of popularity they want to move on to bigger and better things and I don't fault them their ambitions. However,upon leaving a lot of them do realise that even if it can be a time consuming job soaps offer them job security, a steady pay check which is hard to find in the acting world and they soon want to return.

I won't be surprise if DTC will put the plans that he had for Johnny on hold for a year and if it looks like Sam won't return at all ,then in 18 months Johnny would be recast.

[carld2]

Dec 22, 2014 8:08:36 GMT -5 anthonyl said:

Did I miss the part where Johnny Carter was a long running character played by a legendary, iconic actor? This is a newbie actor who barely played a role a year. I think the notion of 'leaving the door open' for him under these circumstances is ridiculous. Recast and move on. The show and the story is the thing, not any one actor. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

I think DTC heavily identified, perhaps a little too much, with Strike as Johnny, and that clouds his view. He's repeatedly said Johnny is supposed to be based on him. I wonder if the same was also supposed to be true for Christian, who also had mother issues and also had lots of crying scenes, was dressed very fashionably, was treated by the writers and most of Walford as the expert on gay issues and when it is or isn't suitable to come out, etc. DTC did a horrendous job writing for Christian, and he didn't do much better with Johnny.

I think DTC overegged the Carter basket so heavily on the tedious face-scrunching misery of Linda, Shirley's laughable history rewrites where TPTB actually thought people would love her for trying to drown a baby, and Mick's endless "wot's wong L?" Mockney schtick, that he just assumed Sam Strike would be fine waiting around to actually have a story. Clearly he wasn't, or maybe he always wanted to leave and that's why the character vanished. Either way, they screwed up. And knowing the only story ahead was a likely "shocking" and "forbidden" affair with recloseted Ben makes me even happier Strike left.

Now DTC is saying 2015 will be a big year for Ben and viewers will be bowled over, etc. All I keep thinking is - with what? Does anyone care about Ben coming out yet again? Does anyone care about seeing Phil try to accept a gay son yet again? And will we get another rushed romance with another guy Harry Reid has no chemistry with?

The Mitchells are depleted as a family. Their dramas aren't interesting, nor are their interactions. Ben just feels like a played out character. He needs a lot of work to become a real character and not a series of 3-4-5-6 year old tropes other actors already exhausted.

Harry Reid's a good actor stuck in a non-part. There's no reason for Ben to even be on the show at this point.

[justinate]

Well, I find the Mitchells one of the more interesting and entertaining families on the Square, and I don't see how they are "depleted" when there are quite a few of them still on screen? In fact, in sheer numbers I think they are probably the biggest family today:

• Mitchells: Phil, Sharon, Ben, Jay, Billy, Lola, Roxy, Ronnie, Janet, Amy, Lexi (a double Mitchell!) and now baby Matthew = 12
• Beales: Ian, his two sons (Peter's on his way out), Jane (only if she manages to remarry Ian next month), Liam, Cindy and baby Beth (neither of the last two are Beales by blood or adoption though) = 7 (soon to be 6)
• Brannings: Dot, Max, his two daughters (Lauren's on her way out too), Carol, Sonia, Rebecca and Liam (who also appears on the Beale list) = 8 (soon to be 7)
• Carters: Stan (on his way out), Sylvie (short term), Shirley, Tina, Mick, Linda, Dean, Lee, Nancy and Aunt Babe = 10 (soon to be 8)
• Cottons: Dot (who also appears on the Branning list), Nick, Yvonne, Charlie, Ronnie and Matthew (both of whom also appear on the Mitchell list) = 6
  

The Fowlers, Masoods and Foxes are so depleted they hardly bear listing out. I do acknowledge that the Carters would win in terms of characters capable of carrying their own stories, since there are no small children in their ranks (yet), of which the Mitchells have 4.

I personally am enjoying Ben Mitchell a lot more this time around - it helps that the role's been recast with Harry Reid - and I believe the character has always had great potential. He's the gay son of Phil Mitchell and brother to Ian Beale, damn it. But I am not confident DTC can/will deliver on that potential, any more than the previous writers did. Heather's murder is like an albatross around Ben's neck, and similar outright villainy (attempting to murder his own grandmother!) taints Steven Beale, too. At least Ben's served his time behind bars, so he has that in his favour, considering how many of the Square's residents have never seen the inside of a prison cell for their far worse crimes committed as adults.

The upcoming plot of Ben kissing Jay is a poor move, IMO. After years of Ben treating Jay as his brother and never once in all that time displaying a romantic interest in him, for Ben to suddenly make a move on Jay is just out of character. I half-jokingly asked if Steven, who's legally Ben's nephew but biologically unrelated, could be a love interest for him, but even those two homicidal homosexuals together would be preferable to this! I know DTC was left scrambling by Sam Strike's untimely departure, but is this the best he could come up with? I could see Jay wanting Ben to acknowledge that he's gay, so that he doesn't hurt Abi (any more than Jay already hurt her) and for Ben's own sake, then perhaps giving him false signals to lead him to that recognition, but for Ben to initiate the kiss is beyond the pale. A new lad - one who's been successfully chem tested with Harry Reid - would still be a better bet. Or what about that boxer who Ben was macking on the last time he was on - Duncan? They could leverage on their history if Ben happened to bump into him, and the Duncan actor was quite pretty, too.

Anyway, it looks like it's going to be a rough couple of weeks for Ben with Max and Charlie ganging up to swindle him. I find Max and Charlie to be rather despicable, conspiring against a teenager and then Charlie beating him up, all for revenge on the boy's dad whom they (wrongly) suspect of being behind the car crash that killed Max's girlfriend and put Charlie's wife in a coma. Wait till it comes out that Charlie's father was the real culprit behind the crash - although the spoilers indicate he'll worm his way out of the accusation somehow. Now there's a character I can't stand - I don't find his portrayer's pantomime acting enjoyable at all, and he's gotten away with killing way too many people - including his other son.

[carld2]

Jan 6, 2015 6:44:42 GMT -5 justinate said:

Well, I find the Mitchells one of the more interesting and entertaining families on the Square, and I don't see how they are "depleted" when there are quite a few of them still on screen? In fact, in sheer numbers I think they are probably the biggest family today:

I'm talking about in terms of story potential, not numbers. There are wide swathes of barely used or poorly used Mitchells on the show at all times. Of the current group, the only one I'd say can drive story is Ronnie. I think Phil is well past his sell by date - he's laughable as a "hard man," his relationships with his family are uninteresting and unpleasant (it's telling that most of them refuse to believe he didn't try to murder his cousin and her unborn child), and I cringe at him. Billy and Roxy haven't led stories in eons, and Roxy's current story is just strung together filler. I have always thought Billy could, but I doubt DTC agrees with me, given that he's always marginalized Billy.

I think Harry Reid is a more than decent actor who has consistently been given repetitive, somewhat absurd material that plays out themes that weren't very interesting to begin with (being Phil Jr, trying to be straight, etc.), now with the added idiocy of Ben making a move on Jay, which, as you said, makes no sense, as he has never seen Jay in that light. I think Jay's a hot piece, so if a new gay or bi character hit on him, I wouldn't be shocked, but Ben? No. Ben's stories are so wrapped up in material that has no impact on anyone. He's going to come out again at some point and who on the Square will care? What then? Where is his actual storyline? Are we just going to see him harass or beat up some random guy unlucky enough to be his boyfriend? Or will his boyfriend just be a cipher with poor characterization, the way DTC wrote Syed? Why was he brought back? Is it for another laughable merry-go-round of who will run the garage or various clubs no one really goes to, or the cafe?

DTC has always only cared about the "big" or "iconic" moments with the Mitchells, instead of giving them proper care. As a result you mostly have husks being propped up for the latest shooting or car crash. I just don't care.

[justinate]

Jan 7, 2015 7:23:09 GMT -5 carld2 said:

I'm talking about in terms of story potential, not numbers. There are wide swathes of barely used or poorly used Mitchells on the show at all times. Of the current group, the only one I'd say can drive story is Ronnie. I think Phil is well past his sell by date - he's laughable as a "hard man," his relationships with his family are uninteresting and unpleasant (it's telling that most of them refuse to believe he didn't try to murder his cousin and her unborn child), and I cringe at him. Billy and Roxy haven't led stories in eons, and Roxy's current story is just strung together filler. I have always thought Billy could, but I doubt DTC agrees with me, given that he's always marginalized Billy.

I think Harry Reid is a more than decent actor who has consistently been given repetitive, somewhat absurd material that plays out themes that weren't very interesting to begin with (being Phil Jr, trying to be straight, etc.), now with the added idiocy of Ben making a move on Jay, which, as you said, makes no sense, as he has never seen Jay in that light. I think Jay's a hot piece, so if a new gay or bi character hit on him, I wouldn't be shocked, but Ben? No. Ben's stories are so wrapped up in material that has no impact on anyone. He's going to come out again at some point and who on the Square will care? What then? Where is his actual storyline? Are we just going to see him harass or beat up some random guy unlucky enough to be his boyfriend? Or will his boyfriend just be a cipher with poor characterization, the way DTC wrote Syed? Why was he brought back? Is it for another laughable merry-go-round of who will run the garage or various clubs no one really goes to, or the cafe?

DTC has always only cared about the "big" or "iconic" moments with the Mitchells, instead of giving them proper care. As a result you mostly have husks being propped up for the latest shooting or car crash. I just don't care.

Different strokes I guess. For me, I think the Mitchells, both the characters and their actors - with the possible exception of Phil (on that we are agreed!) and the little ones - are more than capable of carrying story, as long as they're given the right stories. The problem is the lack of those stories, not that the characters themselves are played out. Like all characters, they have the potential to grow and evolve, and to be fair to the writers, we do see that in rare glimpses, e.g. Phil sitting with Ronnie in the car even as it catches fire. He was angry with her for robbing him, but he wasn't about to leave her alone in a car-wreck, injured while in labour with her fourth child (when all the others had died).

It's those moments that hint at the growth potential of these characters, which even the writers acknowledge, but unfortunately they wind up going back to the same old well of "hardman Phil", just like "closeted Ben", "criminal Jay" or "sleazy Billy". It's not that people can't regress, but viewers should be given a plausible reason for the regression. Why has Ben retreated into the closet? Was he abused in prison? It would be plausible - he tries to be "hard" like his father but he was never cut out for that. Adding that on top of his childhood abuse would make for a compelling story and perhaps even draw audience sympathy for a "murderer". Whatever it is, it needs to be consistent. Ben flirting very effectively and charmingly with Johnny when he wants to be seen as straight is not. Ben should be awkward around cute gay boys, not confident. Where's the consistency?

And for God's sakes, trim the cast or rotate their story-time. Leaving story threads dangling for MONTHS (e.g. Shabnam's big dark secret - still unrevealed after the actress has been here a full year) makes them lose momentum and the final payoff lose meaning. DTC's storytelling for the Carters over the past year has been fairly effective, IMO, but that's probably down to them being his pets and also characters he created from scratch. The thing is, this proves he can do it when he puts his mind to it. He just needs to care about those other characters, not just trot them out, as you say, for the big events and then shove them back in the closet. I really hope that Sam Strike's departure means he will start to care about Ben as more than just Johnny's love interest and give this Mitchell-Beale the stories he deserves.

[Zathras]

How many characters do they have on EE these days? I'm wondering how many other people Ben will have to contend with for screen time. At the moment, I just hope he has a story that moves forward at a reasonable pace. I stopped watching Christian & Syed completely because they would vanish for months at a time with no explanation. It just destroyed any interest I had the storyline and left me with a bad impression of how EE runs things. A decently written storyline for Ben would be icing on that cake .

[carld2]

EE does block storytelling, which means people vanish for long stretches of time. As Ben is one of the core Mitchells, he'll probably be shown more than Christian and Syed were. I think one of the reasons DTC was pushing Johnny/Ben is because the Carters suck up endless airtime and this would be a way to have Ben in both worlds. Now that won't happen (thankfully...) but I'm sure you'll still see Ben more often than not.

[justinate]

Why does DTC constantly portray the gays as cowardly crybabies on EE? Johnny hid as Sharon was battered half to death, and just about every bloke on the square has beaten up Ben without him getting so much as a punch in. They did later have Johnny run into the burning Slater house to rescue Kat Moon but that didn't ring true at all by that point. And now we have weepy Ben being manhandled by his dad to look forward to. Honestly, how did this lad even survive his time in young offenders?

[carld2]

DTC has very...old-fashioned views of gay men (I do realize he's also gay). He made sure Christian was repeatedly gay-bashed just so we'd get the point about how miserable it is being gay and that gay men are inherently weak.

I am hoping it's a fakeout and Phil is going to tell Ben they have to con Max into thinking Phil blames him, but Phil is such a truly vile human being, I have to assume the worst of him.

And as always, many viewers will cheer as Ben is beaten up, because the writing for him has just been that poor for such a long, long period of time, and because a lot of viewers get the horn when they see wheezer Phil get tough with his fists like the big bad pensioner he is.

I saw someone say the show "needs" these scenes because it "needs" violence because that is the essence of Eastenders. Maybe when the show actually had an edge. Not when it's produced like a cutrate primetime soap circa 1989. I had a good laugh over how absolutely terrible everything about Lee's "out of control rage" toward Ben was - Wellard was more frightening when he had a steak dinner.