Jake & Danny Moon AXED!!! - NOW CONFIRMED

I find this very disapointing and shocking really.

I'm not a Moon fan but I liked the new energy that Jake and Danny bought to the show and feel it was it was unfair to axe them as such a early stage. I mean look at the Ferrarahs -they have been on the show for almost 2 years and yet (to me) Danny and Jake have been more appealing in the past three months than they have in 2 years. What a waste!

I also find the 'too many gangsters' excuse a bit lame. Personally, I dont see them as gangsters. Johnny and Andy yes but the new moons -no. Fair enough they have done a few errands for Johnny but I dont think they fit that criteria. I think Danny's ok but if anyone, Jake should stay. To me, he can act and I love his chemistry with Chrissie.

I think this is also a huge part of ee's problem. They focus too much on axeing than the scripts. I do think its unfair to judge the moons soley for the past three months. Thier character haven't been given a chance to develope or evolve. Since they arrived we have had a few slanging matches with Andy, Danny and Sam and thier rapport with Johnny. I also think it's too soon to judge them on thier acting too. Many characters (also depending on scripts) improve over time. If you compare Nigel Harman from his first three months to now -I think that he has much improved (feel free to disagree).

There is loads that can be developed from them. It's obvious that they are on the run from someone or something. I find Johnny and Jake's relationship a bit sinister. I'm guessing that there is a bit of history there. I got the impression that they had a few skeletons in thier closet too. I do feel it's wrong for ee to axe them so early in the year.

can some one please define what a gangster is as i'm terribly confussed, there are some many different po1eeple that have been classed as gangsters and i'm just wondering whether anyone can be a gangster or there is a type?

first there was Phil and Grant Mitchell, gangsters?
Billy Mitchell, gangster?
Den Watts, gangster?
Andy Hunter, gangster?
Johnny Allen, gangster?
Jake and Danny Moon, gangsters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossbird

i have already emailed the bbc - everybody needs to do this !!!!

---

where did u go to email was it the complaints department

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUSHLOOKE69

Theres no point emailing the BBC tjey don't actually listen to what their viewers want look how many people wanted to keep Den.

---

I agree there's no point writing to the bbc,i was 1 of those that complained about dens departure,but do it any way if it makes you feel better,the thing that annoys me is the bbc should listen to veiwers cos the veiwers are the ones who pay their wages,and veiwers have a right to complain,i'm not saying they'l listen but it's eorth a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angeldelight

can some one please define what a gangster is as i'm terribly confussed

first there was Phil and Grant Mitchell, gangsters?
Billy Mitchell, gangster?
Den Watts, gangster?
Andy Hunter, gangster?
Johnny Allen, gangster?
Jake and Danny Moon, gangsters?

---

I know what you mean. It seems that ee put the gangster lable on anyone these days. I suppose next they will be saying that Billy is now a gangster just because he is working for Johnny. Also Dennis Rickman who I don't define as a ganster did have some contacts with so-called gansters Andy and Dalton. I find it all quite stupid really. What was the point of introducing Johnny if they wanted to cut down on gangsters? :confused:

I think EE are stupid to axe them! If they thinks that they are too many gangsters there then they could have keep Jake and Danny Moon there and keep them as good boys not gangsters they could have wrriten sstorylines about Jake and Danny Moon settling down and are no longer gangsters simple.

I think that if Jake and Danny are people's ideas of gangsters they must be watching a different show to me Johnny Allen and especially Jack Dalton are gangsters being associated or working for one does not make you a gangster and I'm disappointed in John Yorke's decision making

i totally i agree i mean we all know JY loves the Mitchells but come on what can you do with that family now that hasn't all ready been done? they WERE a great family in the time they had on the show.

you can't do any of the Mitchell bro's stroylines as Grant isn't back. Sam will be leaving in November (do we have to wait that long?), so they're will only be Phil when he get's out of prison and his mum.

with all the 'Mitchell empire' now in ruins what is left for the family? and how can they help the show that Jake and Danny can't do?

Feel free to disagree

I know what you mean bout Sam the quicker the better the Mitchells are a has been they can't do anyhting for the show that's not already been done wot they need is fresh ideas

I do not disagree at all if you ask me they are axing the wrong characters there are plently of dead wood that needs clearing but not them I really like them

EXACTLY ee needs to focus on storylines and developing the characters they all ready have, you have 2 new characters that need more exploring (JAKE AND DANNY) and instead of changing the storylines a little they're axing them with EXPLOSIVE exit lines? how is that a remedy to the violent gangster stroylines?

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR SOAP?????