Phil Mitchell
Created | Updated Mar 27, 2003
Why?
Why am I still forced to watch this man on my favourite soap? What is the strange hold this character has over the writing staff of other-wise top TV prog EastEnders?
Now don't get me wrong, there was a time when Phil was still an interesting character. Sharongate, the battles with Grant, his relationship with Kathy, the struggle to stay on the wagon, all solid gold to viewers. But please EE writers - stop. He's been shot, abandoned, stolen his love child, had a man blow up in front of him, beaten his loved ones into the ground, and that's just the stuff from the last couple of years that I can remember off the top of my head. Even more improbably, the writers keep introducing us to female characters who all seem intelligent, but just can't wait to swoon into his arms, even though his idea of sophisticated entertaining is buying them a fish supper from Ian Beale. Enough is enough - just admit that you've done all you can with the character and get rid of him.
Now, I can understand why the writers don't want to lose Phil - the Mitchell era was a classic EastEnders period, but then again, so was the of Den and Angie. Move on, and just admit that nowadays, the 'enders is deep in the heart of the Slater era, and I don't see them giving up their place in the hearts of all the best plotlines anytime soon.
And PLEASE stop making him cry, it makes the viewers suffer far more then the character.
Why am I still forced to watch this man on my favourite soap? What is the strange hold this character has over the writing staff of other-wise top TV prog EastEnders?
Now don't get me wrong, there was a time when Phil was still an interesting character. Sharongate, the battles with Grant, his relationship with Kathy, the struggle to stay on the wagon, all solid gold to viewers. But please EE writers - stop. He's been shot, abandoned, stolen his love child, had a man blow up in front of him, beaten his loved ones into the ground, and that's just the stuff from the last couple of years that I can remember off the top of my head. Even more improbably, the writers keep introducing us to female characters who all seem intelligent, but just can't wait to swoon into his arms, even though his idea of sophisticated entertaining is buying them a fish supper from Ian Beale. Enough is enough - just admit that you've done all you can with the character and get rid of him.
Now, I can understand why the writers don't want to lose Phil - the Mitchell era was a classic EastEnders period, but then again, so was the of Den and Angie. Move on, and just admit that nowadays, the 'enders is deep in the heart of the Slater era, and I don't see them giving up their place in the hearts of all the best plotlines anytime soon.
And PLEASE stop making him cry, it makes the viewers suffer far more then the character.
