|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Aug 17, 2010 12:48:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Aug 28, 2010 11:41:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Aug 29, 2010 16:07:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Aug 30, 2010 14:00:36 GMT
|
|
*Ishtar*
Cellarman
Live Free, Laugh Loud, Love Longer
Posts: 278
|
Post by *Ishtar* on Aug 30, 2010 14:59:55 GMT
I'm kinda a little insulted that she even said that. I didn't underage drink when I was a 17 year old girl, and lets face it, that was a few months ago. I still don't drink now, I've seen over the years what the stuff has done to my friends. You don't need to drink to have fun.
Her dismissal is far from unfair. If they'd given her numerous warnings and she'd said she wouldn't do it again, they would only axe her if she did do it again. She didn't realise what she had and she lost it, simple as that. If she didn't want to be in the spotlight she could have quit years ago, as she didn't, we have to assume she wants to be there, so she, as a result, has to accept that she is no longer exactly like every other 17 year old girl. The fact that the article says she was in an over 18s club also suggests she has a fake ID, they're illegal to use.
If these are the facts (must take account for the article being in The Sun) then the exec's made the right decision and someone has a little growing up to do.
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Aug 30, 2010 16:52:05 GMT
Or they recognised her and she said she was 18.
I had the same thoughts as you. She should have sorted herself out if she didn't want to be sacked but didn't so it's no good whining now about being hard done to. She made her choice and so did they.
Patsy
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Sept 2, 2010 23:26:34 GMT
Agreed wholeheartedly Ishtar and Pats I admit I drank alcohol when I was 17....Dry Blackthorn cider. But I didn`t get drunk on it. Even at 17 I knew my limits The actress who played Lucy only has herself to blame. She should take responsibility for her own actions. *playing the worlds smallest violin ;D
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Sept 3, 2010 13:08:01 GMT
LOL! Did the strings break as you played it, Wend?
Patsy
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Sept 3, 2010 17:26:59 GMT
LOL Pats... na I was careful ;D
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Sept 3, 2010 20:55:19 GMT
LOL!
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Nov 30, 2010 16:17:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pearly queen on Nov 30, 2010 17:10:16 GMT
I don't mind Jean that much, but I can only really take her in small doses. If she left and never came back I doubt I'll notice. Who is she going to surprise with her sausage anyway if Windy and Charlie are going? Just Mo, I suppose, and she gets her sausage off Fat Elvis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2011 10:40:26 GMT
Don't watch EE, but thought this might be of interest, following all the furore about this particular storyline...
(From DS Thursday 6th Jan)
Samantha Womack has reportedly quit EastEnders after deciding that her recent cot death storyline "went too far".
According to The Sun, the actress resigned last November upon receiving the initial script for the plot, which has seen her Albert Square character Ronnie Mitchell deal with the loss of her baby son which she then switched with that of Kat Slater.
The BBC has now confirmed that Womack is to leave the show at the end of the current baby swap storyline.
"The last couple of months at work have been awful for Sam," a source explained. "The first time she read the script, she thought it was wrong and pushed boundaries too far. It was such a sensitive issue, she knew it would cause a huge backlash.
"She wrote a letter on the day she read it and made it clear to bosses she thought it was wrong. They persuaded her to stay and film the scenes, but she will leave in May. It was draining for her filming the scenes and incredibly difficult emotionally."
The insider continued: "All she could think about was the reaction of parents, especially mothers, who had lost children to cot death."
Show execs are said to have offered Womack a higher salary as well as a promise of lighter storylines in exchange for her continuing on with the show, but the 38-year-old insisted that she made her decision "as a mother first and an actress second" and that things had "gone too far".
An EastEnders spokesman said: "The current storyline allows an exit for Ronnie Branning. Samantha Womack has been a major part of the show's success in recent years and she will continue to work with us until her departure later this year."
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Jan 6, 2011 12:27:39 GMT
I was told this excellent news last night.
Patsy
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jan 6, 2011 13:21:48 GMT
I have just read that Samantha Womack is leaving Eastenders because of the recent baby plot..apparently she complained that the storyline was wrong and had to stop filming scenes because she has found it too harrowing
Good for her for standing by her guns
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jan 6, 2011 18:02:43 GMT
It has even made tonights BBC 6 O'clock news
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Jan 6, 2011 18:50:23 GMT
There isn`t many women who could ever recover from something as traumatic as what Ronnie went through. Ronnie has been through so many harrowing storylines in the past few years that I`m not surprised she`s leaving. Although EE has denied this went on and said her storyline 'came to a natural end' (which propbably means they`ve run out of ideas). I don`t know if Sam would ever want to come back though if she keeps playing the tragic victim time and time again....especially as she has kids of her own. It must be so harrowing for her kids.
|
|
|
Post by Lane Kent on Jan 6, 2011 19:18:13 GMT
I know they are now denying this and saying she isn't going because of the story, but she can't really say otherwise while under contract can she?
However she was meant to be going in May 2012 but is now going in May 2011?
Jessie Wallace and Shane Ritchie were told about this story up to a year before their return and it's what ade them come back. Chances are Sam was and started to think about leaving and then she saw the scripts in November and it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
She has been giving enough subtle hints out there that she wasn't happy for weeks now. Such as being the worst four weeks of her life. Her finding it so distressful that filming had to be stopped, not knowing where they could take Ronnie after this and ultimately she even said somewhere that the producers were happy with it but she wasn't sure what the fans would think and hoped they would be okay with it or words to that affect.
I personally am not offended by the story. I am finding the Kat and Alfie stuff very moving. It seems really realistic and it is clear that the SIDS charity advised on this aspect of the story. Monday and Tuesday's episodes were so moving and upsetting. Poor Alfie, poor Kat and poor Slaters. Jessice Wallace and Shane Ritchie were amazing.
However the Kat and Alfie angle of the story is contrasted with the total ludicrous rubbish and countless plotholes in the Ronnie story. I am finding every scene with Ronnie becominng more and more frustrating and even cringe-worthy when Jack pipes up that their baby won't die.
Sam Womack has been excellent and I have total sympathy for Ronnie losing her child, and I even feel sorry for her guilt. However she does know what she is doing and the more the story goes on the more obvious that however ill she is, she is fully aware of the consequences of her actions. She wasn't at first but she was from moments before Jack returned. Any sympathy I have for Ronnie is countered with the pure horror of what she is doing to Kat, Alfie and particularly Jack!
Poor Jack, he is the real victim in all of this. Eventually Kat and Alfie will get their Tommy back. While Jack will not only mourn the loss of Tommy, but also the loss of the real James. It is devestating to think that out of the four lead characters in this story, Jack will be the only one who won't of seen or held his son either dead or alive.
I can see why people are offended. I don't think anyone is bothered that EE have covered cot death. That isn't the issue and never was. Afterall they did it before, in fact one of EE first major storylines was cot death. I remember it as a teenager. Very moving, very harrowing and very educational. The problem is that they pretended to do a serious story on cot death, then claimed they were advised on the storyline by the leading charity etc. When in reality the storyline was a ficticious, cobled together, sensational, unlikely to happen baby swap.
Even if Ronnie kidnapped a baby at a later date, I don't think people would of minded so much - it does happen afterall. It is the whole switching her dead baby with a live one, that people are finding in poor taste. Any sympathies we have for her character are outweighed by the whole sickening horror she is inflicting on an inncent family and most of all her husband who is going to end up grieving twice. Ronnie is going to just sit there and let her baby be buried and not let her own family grieve for him.
So yes I can see why for some people this storyline is tasteless. And unlike most storylines, you do not need to of watched it to have strong views. It is obvious that the cot death was used to trigger the bigger storyline of the baby swap.
Despite them saying the door is being left open for Ronnie and that she is taking a break. I can't see any come back for Ronnie after this for a very long time, unless she hands the baby back in the next couple of weeks.
It pains me to say it afterall the parents loosing children in EE these days, but I think the most poetic thing for Ronnie, would be for her to leave in a coffin. A tragic heroine to the bitter end. Re-united with her beloved children in death! Only in death can she be finally happy.
The consequences for Glenda, Jack and Roxy would also be interesting. Especially as one of these three could be the whistle blower on Ronnie, if she doesnn't own up herself.
Roxy has her own storyline coming up, so how would losing her sister and nephew impact that?
Jack would probably be still angry at the time of the death for what she did over James, denying him a chance to see and grieve for his dead son. Then he finds out about her role in keeping Richard away from him. Jack's emotions would be very conflicted.
Then there is Glenda, Selfish on the outside but really does care about her daughters. Re-united with her daughters for barely a year, only to have her favourite daughter die. It would also give her a bond with Carol.
|
|
|
Post by pearly queen on Jan 6, 2011 20:48:10 GMT
No big loss. She's no great shakes as an actress, and is far far too posh for EastEnders. They have tortured her character beyond what anyone could bear, and IMO she has never really worked that well.
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Jan 6, 2011 21:05:01 GMT
Brilliantly stated and wonderfully said Lane. It pains me to say it also, but leaving in a coffin would be tragic - but kind of fitting too. And with Ronnies state of mind as tragic as it is....suicide looks likely. Out of the 2 sisters I prefer Ronnie....Roxie is just a slag who prefers partying rather than look after her daughter. She has the morals of an alley cat. I`ve never liked her. She`s too selfish a character to ever think about anyone but herself.
|
|
|
Post by Lane Kent on Jan 6, 2011 23:58:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Jan 7, 2011 15:51:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Jan 9, 2011 14:28:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pearly queen on Jan 9, 2011 15:21:29 GMT
If this is true then I'm glad that Samantha has come to this conclusion, and has spoken out over her very strong opinion on how this has affected her life. She must have had some idea of how this storyline would be received when she received the scripts - I wonder if she made any objections then?
If only Charlie Brooks would do the same. What must she think when she receives her scripts and reads that Gangrene is going to act like a maniac or try to kill someone AGAIN? Surely it must occur to her to say 'Enough is enough - I can't pull this off any more. Please calm down a bit with this character, or I'm going'.
Of course I don't condone viewers attacking actors in the street over the parts they play - but I can see why people get worked up. If I ever saw Charlie Brooks in the street I'd be inclined to have a go at her. Not aggressively or menacingly, but I'd tell her that I thought her character was almost singlehandedly ruining one of the nation's favourite programmes, and that she should think about leaving. Pronto. Or possibly using any influence she might have to get them to stop writing that claptrap for Gangrene. Other people, sadly, get nasty when they see an actor, and let them have both barrels, so I can see why Samantha Womack is feeling intimidated. So now she's got to go, because the Beeb went too far, and given her a horrendous storyline and some members of the public are taking it out on her. It's not fair that she has to go for these reasons. She should be written out however, IMO, because her acting is wooden, and her character is in desperate need of a happy ending. But that's not going to happen now: no sailing off happily into the sunset with a smile on her face for her, not now.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jan 9, 2011 15:21:36 GMT
I had to laff when he said he was brought in to inject more comedy to Eastenders !!!!!
|
|