| Welcome to Walford Web, the online home of EastEnders' discussion since 1997. We cover EastEnders news, discussion and spoilers. Join the discussion and make your voice heard! We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're wondering what EastEnders is, click here to see what all the fuss is about. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Important Legacy Babies; Stacey's and Lauren's Babies | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 28 Jun 2015, 14:10 (6,109 Views) | |
| The Local Butcher | 1 Jul 2015, 18:12 Post #41 |
![]()
|
Characters can be acknowledged as being more important than others whilst still being judged on their own merits. Peter Beale is hardly the best character in the world or the most interesting but he is Ian's son and that definitely makes him more important than say a Paul Coker who may turn out to be a great character but will never last more than a year or two and become utterly irrelevant soon after. |
| Warning: Posts made by The Local Butcher may contain sarcasm, frustrated expressions of fatigue in the face of Eastenders' neverending insanity, desperate and ill-conceived attempts to be funny, controversial opinions and nuts. Not necessarily in that order. | |
![]() |
|
| Blades' receptionist | 1 Jul 2015, 18:33 Post #42 |
![]()
|
You can never tell how important characters will end up being. Just look at Dean and Shirley. Dean could possibly have been seen as an "utterly irrelevant" character, and three years ago Shirley was walking around begging for a storyline. Look at them both now. |
| "They don't know that we know that they know" | |
![]() |
|
| Shamelessness | 1 Jul 2015, 19:00 Post #43 |
![]()
|
People forget that Mark Fowler and Peggy Mitchell were recast. Lauren's another I always forget about as well - does anyone associate Madeline Duggan with the role anymore? I doubt it. The hardest recasts for me to get used to have been Lucy and Martin. |
| |
![]() |
|
| DirtyDen | 1 Jul 2015, 19:27 Post #44 |
|
DirtyDen(ise)
|
I think the hardest recast was Sam Mitchell to be honest. Kim was okay but I think the original actress Daniella Westbook is the definitive version. |
| |
![]() |
|
| WalfordCommon | 1 Jul 2015, 19:35 Post #45 |
|
I think 'legacy babies' is something that's nice for us diehards but general viewers don't really care about. I thought Lucy was the legacy character with the most potential and she's been killed off. |
![]() |
|
| Shamelessness | 1 Jul 2015, 20:27 Post #46 |
![]()
|
How could I forget that one!? I suppose because they corrected the mistake in 2009/10. Kim's certainly the stronger actress, but Danniella is Sam. Edited by Shamelessness, 1 Jul 2015, 20:28.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Mrs Peel | 1 Jul 2015, 23:14 Post #47 |
|
No one is saying that they are, or that they have ever been. Some, however, overstay their welcome. |
![]() |
|
| Ginger | 2 Jul 2015, 09:54 Post #48 |
|
I think that IS what's being said; that certain characters bring something to the show solely because of who they're related to. As a longstanding viewer, I'm as guilty as anyone of liking it when a nod is given to a past character or event. But I'm still missing the point of the so-called "legacy characters". "Coronation Street" doesn't seem to consider them as important as EE does. They now have only one original character, Ken Barlow. If his progeny are "legacy characters", they're not revered in the same way as some viewers revere EE's legacies. Peter Barlow was a successful character, not because of a blood link to an original, but because he had such an interesting storyline of his own, and was played by a very competent actor. Other than him, the only "legacy" is Simon, whose storylines are limited because he's a child. Other Corrie stalwarts, eg, Rita and Emily, don't even have children. A previously unknown niece and nephew of Emily's have turned up over the years, as have Rita's various foster children, but there doesn't seem to be any importance attached to that. However, if some people get a kick out of being able to say "I remember her grandma!" then fair enough. It certainly proves the theory that we get so involved in soaps that we see them as our own friends and neighbours. There's no harm in that as long as it doesn't cross the line into weirdness.
|
![]() |
|
| Mrs Peel | 2 Jul 2015, 11:06 Post #49 |
|
Re Corrie, there's Tracey Barlow and her child. There are Gail's children and their children. Steve McDonald and the child he shares with Tracey. We're not talking about legacies being associated with original characters, but, rather anyone familialy connected with a long-serving or established character. In that respect, Corrie has a lot of legacies. I think EastEnders is economical with its legacy characters. At the moment, we have only Bobby Beale, Dennis Rickman Jnr, Ben Mitchell, Rebecca Fowler and Amy and Lexi Mitchell, all of whom are children, young adolescents and not seen as much. Martin Fowler is certainly an important legacy character in that he was the first child born on the show. His presence was needed now as having the sole representative of the Fowlers as Sonia, his putrid wife, was really an insult to that family because Sonia did nothing but trashmouth and Martin, himself. On the other hand, you have, for the moment, the demise of the Butchers, with Liam's departure. That's sad, because Janine is one of the most missed characters in the programme. The show would be very shallow if it ignored continuity and sloughed off characters in favour of new and unfamiliar ones. She show's identity would be affected. |
![]() |
|
| DirtyDen | 2 Jul 2015, 11:15 Post #50 |
|
DirtyDen(ise)
|
I completely disagree. Why is Martin so important and needed just because he was the first born on EE? I don't care about that (and this is from someone who has seen every single episode since the show started). I would rather the writers created a well thought out character that brings a fresh perspective to the show than stick with characters that are only there because they are related to an original family. I look at the people who live in the road where I grew up and none are from the original families there when I was a child so it just isn't important IMO. |
| |
![]() |
|
| MrJames | 2 Jul 2015, 16:48 Post #51 |
|
I keep seeing 'Important Lucy Beale' every time I see the title if this thread. |
![]() |
|
| Jin | 13 Jul 2015, 02:09 Post #52 |
|
I thank you all for a really interesting thread and I can see both sides. Its interesting to see families link and continue down the line and I like the idea of a Slater Fowler baby. But I equally see the point that legacy characters can be damp squibs - Vicky Fowler should have been amazing and for me Denny is the ultimate legacy child for the reasons Christina has said above. I do hope he evolves into a Janine rather than a Liam! |
![]() |
|
| Kim | 31 Jul 2015, 02:44 Post #53 |
|
While Martin's status as the first born on the show is often mentioned, I do think his importance has been heightened by the fact that he is now the only surviving son of Pauline and Arthur, and the only child of theirs that we will see again. Legacy should not be everything, but it does help. The show is built on family and familiarity. I find it easier to get on board with legacy characters if they are introduced, rather than new ones. New characters are so often made or not with their initial storylines and after 30 years, there's a struggle to give them anything original to help viewers really warm to and identify with the character. Over on Corrie, legacy children do seem to be seen more often than the others. I personally am usually a fan of legacy babies, as it's better than characters returning down the line with never before mentioned children or off screen hook ups between past characters. There's usually a point to them rather than pregnancies that are done for the sake of it (Kim and Linda spring to mind,) poorly planned (Cindy) or short-termist decisions made about who the father is for the drama, only for a subsequent producer to have to make the woman pregnant again a few years down the line to produce a child with better blood links (Stacey and Kat.) There are just too many babies in too short a period under this producer and he should have been a bit more selective. While Santer was baby crazy too, it wasn't this bad and he also had some variation on how the pregnancies ended (abortion/miscarriage.) DTC has so far had three trips to abortion clinics but live births and healthy babies all the way, despite two premature births within months of each other. Oh, and we also have two secret children popping up... Cindy's pregnancy added nothing given that TJ was the father, especially now that the Lauren/Peter baby is on the way. Had the father been Liam however, then I'd have said Beth did add something, regardless of the superior Baby Beale-Branning; she would have given Cindy an actual reason (though remote) to be with the Beales. The child would have been Ian's great-great-great niece, rather than Cindy being just the half-sister of Ian's twins who he didn't raise and who just happens to have got her feet under the table. I don't mind Baby Beale-Branning as we aren't having to watch another pregnancy, but I have surprised myself in that I just don't care for Baby Slater-Fowler right now. It should have been saved for a year or two down the line, when Stacey and Martin have been together for a while and viewers have had a break from pregnancy storylines. Should it transpire that James Bye has decided to leave after a year, then my opinion on the pregnancy will probably change. Rebecca is unique in that her younger half sibling doesn't trump her in the heritage stakes or make her seem unnecessary. Had Lily been Bradley's, she'd have been in the same boat, but instead we live in fear of the return of her father and poor Rachel Branning has no family left. Tommy has been usurped twice; his half-brothers are the product of a power couple and any purpose his Michael link might have served is filled by Scarlett, who is an infinitely more interesting prospect as she is also the child of Janine. With regards to the lack of Louise mentions, I think it was bound to happen as Ben is currently in the show. She is the sibling with the least heritage. Like Bobby, her mother was basically a nobody. Bobby has only ranked up because we no longer have Peter and Lucy and he is up against Cindy, who is not Ian's and whose father was a minor character. Steven had a lot of heritage despite not being Ian's because of his link to Pat. On recasts, I don't think they really count until the character is a teenager. Babies/young children are presumably cast on the basis that their parents look similar to the actors playing the child's on screen parents. If the child is uncomfortable, they're taken out (Amy Mitchell.) Children also appear less/leave at the request of the parents (I guess that was why there was the other child(ren) in the role of Tommy in the last few months) or because the child themselves wants to concentrate on their schooling (Alex Francis.) Eventually, the show want the child to look their age if not older so they can start maturing the character's storylines without it looking odd. This was why Lucy and Peter were recast in 2004, and I'd guess it was behind the Lauren recast. Unless the window is there to get an child a few years older than the character (Tiffany, Lily) young children are a gamble as to whether they will take to acting as they progress through childhood. Then you have the great child actors who aren't so great as adults (Cassidy.) I found James Forde good when he started, as I saw a very strong likeness to Ricky; even Charlie Jones as Ben until after the Stella storyline. He was particularly convincing as the shy Ben who first came to the UK. It really depends on the character's storylines and whether the previous actor has made the character their own, but in general I think 3 heads that actually count. Some legacy characters will return, some won't. Some will flop, some won't. It's better to have them there than not, as long as they're not overdone. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic » |











7:50 PM Jul 11