Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Ronnie - is she past her sell by date?
Topic Started: 8 Sep 2015, 16:32 (7,040 Views)
McFudd
Member Avatar

Ronnie is a controversial character in this forum and whilst I appreciate she has lots of fans, I feel she is no longer needed on the show. She is ruining other characters and I don't see how she is still relevant. She needs to get her comeuppance for killing Carl White.

Do you think there's more they can do with Ronnie or do you think she needs to be arrested and leave for good? I don't think Samantha Womack's acting performances are convincing because she seems to be bored of playing Ronnie now.

Thoughts? :)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jill-Sandwich
Member Avatar

I thought the her becoming a Killer might make her more interesting, it hasn't.
Honestly, I haven't really cared for Ronnie since 2009, Womack is a good actress but recently shes been pretty bad.

The relationship with Charlie was actually good and fun to watch at first, however Womack's numerous breaks have made it difficult to show interest in it.

I wouldn't care if she left.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

I don't feel as though she's ruined any other characters. What characters do you think she's ruined McFudd?

If there is a problem with Ronnie it's the writing. I don't see anything wrong with Sam's performances. She's better than most that recieve heaps of praise on here.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Cam
Member Avatar

Possibly one of the most overrated characters to ever grace the show, so I'm glad to see a lot of people fed up with her recently.

I can't remember the last time Sam Womack put in a decent performance either. Let her kill Dean and/or Vincent and get life in jail.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Bad Wolf
Member Avatar

I don't think she is, I just HATE her current storylines! I hate her and Vincent together and it needs to be ended straight away!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Local Butcher
Member Avatar

Ronnie should have died in the car crash. I don't know why she didn't. She needed the karma and it would have been the perfect tragic irony for her to die the one time her child survives. We could have spent the last 9 months watching Roxy going in a completely new direction as she struggles to raise Ronnie's child. Instead she herself is stuck being Ronnie's child. AGAIN. God give me strength.
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.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
Yes, Ronnie's sell-by date was New Years. I've said it for a while now: Ronnie shouldn't have survived the car crash. I rewatched the episode that ended with Ronnie smashing the photograph of her and Charlie the other day, and there was a brief scene of Roxy, Charlie, Amy and Matthew downstairs getting a pizza in. That is what we should be seeing right now - them building up as a family unit, with the tragedy of Ronnie's death simmering away in the background as they start their life together as a family.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

Roxy starting a family with Charlie would not be an interesting story to move forward with. Roxy would be in worse position I think as she'd then be the slag that even went after her sister's men beyond the grave.
Edited by MrSunshine, 8 Sep 2015, 18:19.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
MrSunshine
8 Sep 2015, 18:18
Roxy starting a family with Charlie would not be an interesting story to move forward with. Roxy would be in worse position I think as she'd then be the slag that even went after her sister's men beyond the grave.
Not at all. She'd be free from Rancid Ronnie's grip and able to develop into the fantastic character she could be if Ronnie were to leave; Charlie would also gain some development and may have had more of a place in the show to stick around; Ronnie's story would have been brought full circle (she's wanted a child for so long, but dies giving birth); and Roxy would gain a family out of it. Not only that, but seeing a young family cope with such a big loss that affects all of them in different ways is just the character-driven melodrama EastEnders should be exploring. If it was done properly and sensitively, Roxy and Charlie's tentative feelings for one another would have been a brilliant story to tell.
Edited by Ross, 8 Sep 2015, 18:40.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

Ross
8 Sep 2015, 18:39
MrSunshine
8 Sep 2015, 18:18
Roxy starting a family with Charlie would not be an interesting story to move forward with. Roxy would be in worse position I think as she'd then be the slag that even went after her sister's men beyond the grave.
Not at all. She'd be free from Rancid Ronnie's grip and able to develop into the fantastic character she could be if Ronnie were to leave; Charlie would also gain some development and may have had more of a place in the show to stick around; Ronnie's story would have been brought full circle (she's wanted a child for so long, but dies giving birth); and Roxy would gain a family out of it. Not only that, but seeing a young family cope with such a big loss that affects all of them in different ways is just the character-driven melodrama EastEnders should be exploring. If it was done properly and sensitively, Roxy and Charlie's tentative feelings for one another would have been a brilliant story to tell.
I would have preferred to see Ronnie struggle as a mother rather than the shit with Vincent we're seeing but having Ronnie die sends the wrong message to viewers (something DTC states in the big producers interview struck me - if a character suffers and suffers only to die horrifically at the end what does that say to viewers?)

Ronnie has had a horrendous life and I think a death would be almost unfair.

I'd like to see Ron seek therapy and acknowledge her issues. I'd hate to see her meeta grissly end because she accidentally killed a monster.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Ross
Member Avatar
I'm in the kitchen eating a biscuit
Whether Carl was a "monster" or not has no meaning in this discussion. Ronnie killed him - she ended his life. Carl may have been a vile creep, but he was somebody's son, somebody's brother. Ronnie ended his life and has shown very little remorse for it. She's pulled a lot of people into the aftermath - thinking solely about herself and how she wants to stay out of prison - and has as such risked their own freedom. Phil, Sharon, Roxy, etc are accessories to murder. If found out, they would go to prison. Ronnie needs to pay for this. Forget her poor old life of abuse, loss and abandonment - she is a killer and killers should not walk our streets. If Ronnie were a real person, would you be happy for her to stay unpunished for killing somebody? I highly doubt it. Ronnie dying would have been the perfect exit: the final tragedy in her tragic life, some much-deserved karma for ending a life, and it would have paved the way for some strong story material with other characters close to Ronnie.
Massive thanks to NickM for this wonderful signature! :)

Posted Image
Online Profile Goto Top
 
luisgarcia
Member Avatar

Do bears poo in the woods?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Desdemona
Member Avatar

The very fact that Ronnie (still) invites extreme reactions among viewers proves that she is a unique female soap character who continues to question 'appropriate' femininity. That is enough reason to keep her around in my opinion.
I have high expectations of Ronnie in her new role as phallic female but would like to see some development or at least a bit of variation in the repetitive sibling dynamic.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dave Sullivan
Default Avatar

Ronnie is clearly a case of a character who has no real character to invest in; she's obsessed to the nth degree with her sister and has the most melodramatic story: There was no reason to make Archie both a child abuser and rapist on top of his manipulative nature in order to make Ronnie a 'victim'. Her murder of Carl White was a over extreme reaction to a bloke who was dating her sister, drug dealer or not. There's nowhere to go with her, take her away and the characters linked to her will thrive.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ChrissieW
Member Avatar

What worries me about Ronnie is that she is floundering under DTC of all people. We've seen characters struggle before, that's nothing new, but have we ever seen a character struggle so much under the person who actually created them?

I actually think people can write characters off too easily sometimes. My usual stance is that any character who has ever been good in the past and is portrayed by a competent actor can be good again. A little investment from the producers and a good storyline can work wonders for anybody. Characters in soaps aren't really written to have end points or completion dates, they can complete an arc but then a new arc can begin. People don't just "stop" in life they keep on going until they die and soaps represent a heightened version of real life, the characters are built to just keep on going.

The exception to this is the 2-D villain and I think this is where the problem now lies with Ronnie. She's been turned into a disposable villain. The car crash was the perfect opportunity to steer Ronnie back on track, to breathe some humanity back into her and make her real and relatable again. Instead of humanising the character with struggles and feelings of frustration and inadequacy, they threw all of that story potential away and now we've got Psycho Barbie instead. I feel like that one chance to restore a sense of longevity back to Ronnie has been and gone, and they'll never be as good an opportunity again. Now she seems to be on borrowed time and I can't see what can be done at this point to restore my faith in her as a vital character.

To make matters worse, as far as 2-D villains go, she isn't even proving a particularly entertaining one. I used to love Ronnie a lot, and I've never given up on a character before, and I certainly wasn't expecting to give up on her under DTC, but I think I've reached that point with her.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MrSunshine
Member Avatar

Ross
8 Sep 2015, 18:52
Whether Carl was a "monster" or not has no meaning in this discussion. Ronnie killed him - she ended his life. Carl may have been a vile creep, but he was somebody's son, somebody's brother. Ronnie ended his life and has shown very little remorse for it. She's pulled a lot of people into the aftermath - thinking solely about herself and how she wants to stay out of prison - and has as such risked their own freedom. Phil, Sharon, Roxy, etc are accessories to murder. If found out, they would go to prison. Ronnie needs to pay for this. Forget her poor old life of abuse, loss and abandonment - she is a killer and killers should not walk our streets. If Ronnie were a real person, would you be happy for her to stay unpunished for killing somebody? I highly doubt it. Ronnie dying would have been the perfect exit: the final tragedy in her tragic life, some much-deserved karma for ending a life, and it would have paved the way for some strong story material with other characters close to Ronnie.
It's not for you to decide what has meaning in this discussion.

Real life shouldn't matter when discussing characters as they are CHARACTERS.

I have already stated why I disagree with your view and won't be shamed into agreeing.

Looking at the story, Ronnie killed someone, yes. Other characters got involved but free will would suggest these characters have chosen to keep the secret. Reasons differ but one reason I believe is because Carl was a monster.

In fact if it WAS real life and a woman killed a man who attempted to rape her she would serve little, if any, time. Ronnie's guilt lies in the disposal of the body.

The murder seems to have changed Ron into some gangster wannabe but a quick change in the writing would fix this problem. I view how the character is written as the only problem with her.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Christina
Member Avatar

In answer the original post, and I never thought I'd say this, but yes Ronnie is past her sell by date. And Roxy too for that matter.
I liked tonight's episode and the only scenes that dragged it down were the ones with Ronnie in it!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Walford Wonder
Member Avatar
My son is in the kitchen eating a biscuit.
I agree. Before 2013, Ronnie was one of my all time favourite characters. She just isn't working and if Womack was planning on taking that many breaks, I'd rather Ronnie stayed in prison.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Holly
Member Avatar

I don't think she is. Ronnie is my favourite character in EE, I don't know why but she is. Her storylines aren't great at the minute, but if she was given another great dramatic storyline, then she could definitely deliver. I can understand some of the hatred she gets for people wanting justice for the crimes she has commited, but this is fiction, so to me, karma and punishment doesn't really factor in my liking for a character. Personally, i love her (and the Mitchell sisters in general) so I think there's plenty more places that she could be taken as a character, and I'd definitely miss her if she left. I'd almost go as far as to say I could stop watching EE altogether if neither she nor Roxy was in it.
Edited by Holly, 8 Sep 2015, 21:19.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ian
Member Avatar

Ronnie and Roxy don't feel like they belong in the show anymore. It's like they exist in their own little merry-go-round soap, serving merely as a diversion from everything else that's happening. I'm fed up with both of them tbh; Roxy can probably be salvaged but Ronnie needs to go.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · EastEnders Current & Future · Next Topic »
Locked Topic