I didn’t realise she was such a horrible person. Cracked a remark about her best friend’s inability to have children, surely a cruel massive no-no in real life. And then bonks him, gets preggers and never reveals who the father of Mark junior is. It has to be the only pub in Britain without a condom machine. Dirrrrty buggers, yuk! I would never sit down in that grubby little pub.
siany-sian davies lol! All very well observed by you. What I didn't like about Michelle was how judgemental and sanctimonious she was towards everyone else's two timing affairs or fuck ups when she has a catalogue of them to choose from! Aborting Lofty's child behind his back without his consent and then trying to lecture Wicksy for keeping quiet about his fathering then-baby Steven and letting Ian assume he was the father springs to mind! I'm glad she didn't she come back for the storyline of Mark Junior's return. She would just have pissed me off lol!
@@Eurafrican ''What I didn't like about Michelle was how judgemental and sanctimonious she was towards everyone else's two timing affairs or fuck ups when she has a catalogue of them to choose from!'' usually people like this who are sanctimonious have a string of bad records to their name yet magically forget when they point the finger at others.....
If they want to make EastEnders even more like trashy Neighbours, Home and Away and Hollyoaks with far too many younger characters, then yeah, they probably should.
I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about having younger characters. I am talking about the odd flashback so younger VIEWERS will be aware of what occurred. It's not just about doing it for younger characters. In fact, if they brought back some old characters, like say Willmott Brown, they should do it then also. Be class if he showed back up in the square after all these years now Kathy is back.
I didn't misunderstand you. I just think flashbacks would make the style of the programme very similar to the style of those I mentioned. I think flashbacks for the reasons you mentioned may make it look like they are spoonfeeding the viewer and these programmes work best when the viewer has the responsibility of finding out what's going on, like eavesdropping on a conversation or catching something on the fly. I remember one time EastEnders used a flashback sequence and that was when Kat took an overdose and had a near-death experience, remembering the abuse from her childhood. I think this only worked because it was showing something newly-filmed and not an old excerpt. Regarding your point re. old characters coming back, interestingly enough, Colin Russell is coming back on Thursday's episode, and he hasn't been seen since 1989. I doubt they'll show a flashback sequence to explain who he is when they can just leave it up to the writing. This is what they did when Mandy Salter and Lorna Cartwright came back, and they had been away for about 17 and 18 years respectively. As far as I see, if the viewer doesn't know their backstories, tough.
...but I would like to see Wilmott-BRAAAHHHN come back, just so Phil and Grant could beat the crap out of him after originally seeing him out of the Square in the first place.
Watching through all the parts leading to this, it just reminds me of how far EastEnders has fallen in the 20 odd years since. They used to do these double headers a lot back then, usually a pub lock in. Always on the Friday edition so that it story arc'd up to it throughout the week. The writing was good, but the acting was gripping. They try to do this kind of thing now, but it somehow just doesn't work the same anymore. In some respects it's hard to put your finger on why they don't produce the same intense atmosphere from similar scenes today. Even the modern day sporadic Grant Mitchell comeback scenes don't have the same impact anymore.
if i remember right, eastenders only used to be on twice a week back then. I think that gave them a chance to do a better job and not draw out the storylines so much. I stopped watching it about 10 years ago. I still like it but 4 times a week is too much. I realy miss the 90's era stuff. Also I think the grant character was very much part of that era when it was grimier and more old fashioned.
It had not long gone to three times a week. They were on a good run, but it started to decline when it hit four times a week. Grant Mitchell's recent comeback has been a right washout. All his scenes feel rushed, unfocused, missing the potential and his character is all over the place. It's like Eastenders just can't hit the mark anymore, no matter how hard they try.
@@97channel I think the big problem with Eastenders in recent years is funding. Even Bill Treacher [arthur] acknowledged in interviews that the show went into decline because it was now done on the cheap. In the 90s Eastenders was BBCs bread and butter and they would have put huge money, resources, and effort into making it perfect, the audiences would have to be much bigger too. So they would have had the best writers and directors in the industry working on it-this of course was an expensive game. Even listen to the dialogue here and it is much sharper and better written than what you'd get today and look at the fantastic lighting here and camera direction and compare it to today which is significantly lesser quality, as well as the pace and timing of the episode-it all, fits perfectly. Good tv requires plenty of hard work, experience, and effort which costs a lot of money, cheaper tv on the other hand does not offer the same good results which are that you are seeing today. With the rise of the internet and digital tv in the 2000s, Eastenders and all soaps don't have half the audience share or popularity they had back in the 90s when audiences were limited to 5-6 channels for their entertainment. Therefore with the big decline in popularity BBC no longer pump the money or resources into the show which is why you see a significant decline between the 90s and now. Of course, the oversupply of episodes doesn't help either. Emmerdale was the same, if you watch it in the 90s when there were just 2 eps a week in the Kym Tate era the quality of the writing and direction was significantly better and improved than today when it is a different show lacking much of the greatness and quality it had back then. Again I am thinking that this comes down to funding as well as the increase in episodes which diminishes quality. Audiences and critics say the same happened to Corrie. The day of the soap in Britain really has gone forever sadly and they will continue to decline with time.
The biggest double header must have been the one with Den and Angie where Ang lies and tells Den that she's got "6 months to live" so that he won't leave her.
Totally forgot about this! Wow, the human memory isn’t that great , is it. I would’ve seen this at the time and chatted to friends at school about it… But I don’t remember any of it now. I need to watch the 35 years of Eastenders again 😅
Some best friend having kids with your best friend's father and then with her ex-husband! Wow...
I didn’t realise she was such a horrible person. Cracked a remark about her best friend’s inability to have children, surely a cruel massive no-no in real life. And then bonks him, gets preggers and never reveals who the father of Mark junior is. It has to be the only pub in Britain without a condom machine. Dirrrrty buggers, yuk! I would never sit down in that grubby little pub.
siany-sian davies lol! All very well observed by you. What I didn't like about Michelle was how judgemental and sanctimonious she was towards everyone else's two timing affairs or fuck ups when she has a catalogue of them to choose from! Aborting Lofty's child behind his back without his consent and then trying to lecture Wicksy for keeping quiet about his fathering then-baby Steven and letting Ian assume he was the father springs to mind! I'm glad she didn't she come back for the storyline of Mark Junior's return. She would just have pissed me off lol!
@@Eurafrican ''What I didn't like about Michelle was how judgemental and sanctimonious she was towards everyone else's two timing affairs or fuck ups when she has a catalogue of them to choose from!''
usually people like this who are sanctimonious have a string of bad records to their name yet magically forget when they point the finger at others.....
@@Eurafrican yeah michelle a vile cow
Yea michelle and kaff were just slags too. Despite judging and preaching to sharon and cindy.
Prefer the old Michelle then that new one
Laney Lydon me too!
Has she kids
and this is where mark junior fowler came from lol
Bbc
michelle looked much better here than in her earlier years
Agreed
Agree x2
I suppose the mid 80s when it started weren't a terribly forgiving time for fashion.
Does nothing for me
wonder what she looks like nowadays?
Wish Michelle Fowler Would Come Back In Eastenders.
And this is how mark junior came to life
Eastenders should show these scenes as brief flashbacks.
If they want to make EastEnders even more like trashy Neighbours, Home and Away and Hollyoaks with far too many younger characters, then yeah, they probably should.
I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about having younger characters. I am talking about the odd flashback so younger VIEWERS will be aware of what occurred. It's not just about doing it for younger characters. In fact, if they brought back some old characters, like say Willmott Brown, they should do it then also.
Be class if he showed back up in the square after all these years now Kathy is back.
I didn't misunderstand you. I just think flashbacks would make the style of the programme very similar to the style of those I mentioned. I think flashbacks for the reasons you mentioned may make it look like they are spoonfeeding the viewer and these programmes work best when the viewer has the responsibility of finding out what's going on, like eavesdropping on a conversation or catching something on the fly. I remember one time EastEnders used a flashback sequence and that was when Kat took an overdose and had a near-death experience, remembering the abuse from her childhood. I think this only worked because it was showing something newly-filmed and not an old excerpt. Regarding your point re. old characters coming back, interestingly enough, Colin Russell is coming back on Thursday's episode, and he hasn't been seen since 1989. I doubt they'll show a flashback sequence to explain who he is when they can just leave it up to the writing. This is what they did when Mandy Salter and Lorna Cartwright came back, and they had been away for about 17 and 18 years respectively. As far as I see, if the viewer doesn't know their backstories, tough.
...but I would like to see Wilmott-BRAAAHHHN come back, just so Phil and Grant could beat the crap out of him after originally seeing him out of the Square in the first place.
Watching through all the parts leading to this, it just reminds me of how far EastEnders has fallen in the 20 odd years since. They used to do these double headers a lot back then, usually a pub lock in. Always on the Friday edition so that it story arc'd up to it throughout the week. The writing was good, but the acting was gripping. They try to do this kind of thing now, but it somehow just doesn't work the same anymore. In some respects it's hard to put your finger on why they don't produce the same intense atmosphere from similar scenes today. Even the modern day sporadic Grant Mitchell comeback scenes don't have the same impact anymore.
if i remember right, eastenders only used to be on twice a week back then. I think that gave them a chance to do a better job and not draw out the storylines so much. I stopped watching it about 10 years ago. I still like it but 4 times a week is too much. I realy miss the 90's era stuff. Also I think the grant character was very much part of that era when it was grimier and more old fashioned.
It had not long gone to three times a week. They were on a good run, but it started to decline when it hit four times a week. Grant Mitchell's recent comeback has been a right washout. All his scenes feel rushed, unfocused, missing the potential and his character is all over the place. It's like Eastenders just can't hit the mark anymore, no matter how hard they try.
@@97channel I think the big problem with Eastenders in recent years is funding. Even Bill Treacher [arthur] acknowledged in interviews that the show went into decline because it was now done on the cheap. In the 90s Eastenders was BBCs bread and butter and they would have put huge money, resources, and effort into making it perfect, the audiences would have to be much bigger too. So they would have had the best writers and directors in the industry working on it-this of course was an expensive game.
Even listen to the dialogue here and it is much sharper and better written than what you'd get today and look at the fantastic lighting here and camera direction and compare it to today which is significantly lesser quality, as well as the pace and timing of the episode-it all, fits perfectly.
Good tv requires plenty of hard work, experience, and effort which costs a lot of money, cheaper tv on the other hand does not offer the same good results which are that you are seeing today. With the rise of the internet and digital tv in the 2000s, Eastenders and all soaps don't have half the audience share or popularity they had back in the 90s when audiences were limited to 5-6 channels for their entertainment.
Therefore with the big decline in popularity BBC no longer pump the money or resources into the show which is why you see a significant decline between the 90s and now. Of course, the oversupply of episodes doesn't help either. Emmerdale was the same, if you watch it in the 90s when there were just 2 eps a week in the Kym Tate era the quality of the writing and direction was significantly better and improved than today when it is a different show lacking much of the greatness and quality it had back then.
Again I am thinking that this comes down to funding as well as the increase in episodes which diminishes quality. Audiences and critics say the same happened to Corrie. The day of the soap in Britain really has gone forever sadly and they will continue to decline with time.
The biggest double header must have been the one with Den and Angie where Ang lies and tells Den that she's got "6 months to live" so that he won't leave her.
@@97channel Sounds like my job
she slept with Sharon dad and than her ex husband. Friends like that who needs enemies lol xx
Jenny Bacon All that hate they had for each other was just sexual tension. smh
Yeah I see what you mean. xx
Jenny Bacon But Grant tho, for how he much he claimed to love Sharon his actions did not show it.
Yes also agree he treated most of his women like crap. He ex army and that does tend to change the person personality xx
Jenny Bacon 😐. I think he did love her tho, he would have never cheated on Sharon the same way he cheated throughout his marriage to Tiffany.
Grant Mitchell is the Best Soap Bad Guy in British Soap History (10/09/2022)
Oh I prefer her as Michelle ☺
Yes Grant :D
I didn't realise this was the conversation they had... The irony 😂😂😂
He wanted a kid with Sharon and never got one and had one with her best friend instead also got pregnant by Sharon's dad lol 😂😂
Totally forgot about this! Wow, the human memory isn’t that great , is it. I would’ve seen this at the time and chatted to friends at school about it… But I don’t remember any of it now.
I need to watch the 35 years of Eastenders again 😅
What the hell was Michelle thinking?
Has she ever other than herself?
Who would have thought it ‘eh❓ Grant and Michelle 🫢
Sue Tully please come back 🤞🏼🤞🏼🤞🏼
in fairness she did but only to direct. I remember seeing pictures of her on the set directing.
Michelle conceived both her kids at the QV. One by her best mates dad and the other by her best mates husband.
Have you got the bit where he mentioned Den to her, from that same episode? Would love to see that again :)
+CanadianMaster1 It is mentioned in this clip :-)ua-cam.com/video/UP-fO8roxLg/v-deo.html
There was one episode where he sang 16 going on 17 on a wind up 🤣🤣
Why after all the did to mark
This is what u call acting kids Michelle and grant
What a man had his brothers wife his wifes mother and his ex wifes best friend. No shame.
is there any woman on that show grant didnt sleep with lol what a bastard. classic
Dot Cotton
Pauline Fowler! 😆😆😆😆😆
BUT GRANT ONCE HIT HER!!!!
Yes he did. 25 March 1993, he smacked her on the face in an angry rage
Po