Author |
Message |
starburst
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:33 pm |
|
|
Firefighter |
|
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 3:28 pm Posts: 6631
|
|
|
|
|
Aruu
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:58 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:12 pm Posts: 1090
|
Seems like it, though it's hard to tell, given how melodramatic Sienna tends to be.
All we know is that;
The twins are absolutely fine. Sienna lied to Warren about the surgeon 'getting all of the cancer'. The cancer is more advanced than the doctors originally thought. Sienna seems to believe that it's advanced to such a degree, that she won't live to see the twins grow up.
However Sienna says 'advanced' rather than saying that the cancer has spread, it's likely that she could receive further treatment. They might continue down the line of Sienna choosing her twins over herself, ie any treatment she could have would end up potentially harming her children.
Or the cancer will end up killing her, and we'll get a storyline similar to Jade's. It might be that Sienna passes away shortly after giving birth, before meeting her twins, or just after, because that is the kind of angst that the Hollyoaks writers would eagerly lap up.
I have to ask, why is Kim of all people tied into this storyline? It would make much more sense to have the "nurse" role taken by Teegan, given that she's proving her worth as a nurse lately. Or have that role taken by Nancy, linking it to their past together, and the fact they're both mothers who were/are worried that they won't see their children grow up.
Kim just seems like she's there because there's nothing else for her to do.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Hollyoaks Fan
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:17 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:30 pm Posts: 33714
|
I feel really bad I read the topic title and planned on just posting "Hopefully" then Aruu has done a detailed post haha!
Kim and Sienna have the craziness in common for so maybe that's why she was there. I don't see how another 2 babies on the show is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Aruu
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:48 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:12 pm Posts: 1090
|
Hollyoaks Fan wrote: I feel really bad I read the topic title and planned on just posting "Hopefully" then Aruu has done a detailed post haha! It's what we're all thinking You're right though, we hardly need two more babies on the show. Though I assume they'll end up being sent away to stay with someone when Sienna dies, rather than Warren trying to raise them by himself. Maybe Dodger could come back and take them in?
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
RNC80
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:08 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:34 pm Posts: 26148
|
I doubt it, a holocaust wouldn't kill off Sienna
|
|
|
|
|
tamspam
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:09 am |
|
|
Left for dead |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:26 pm Posts: 6218
|
I think Kim could obsess over Sienna and her babies and try off Warren or maybe obsess over Warren like she did with Joe and off Sienna
Last edited by tamspam on Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
Aruu
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:16 am |
|
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:12 pm Posts: 1090
|
^ A very good point. I can easily see this happening with Kim.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
RNC80
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:27 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:34 pm Posts: 26148
|
Kim needs to get on a bus to London with Maxine and Sienna (hope you all get that reference)
|
|
|
|
|
Hollyoaks Fan
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:18 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:30 pm Posts: 33714
|
|
|
|
|
RNC80
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:54 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:34 pm Posts: 26148
|
LOL - if only
That was a reference to the stupid exit they gave Jake back in 2010, getting on a bus with two people he wasn't friends with to go to London...wtf?
Kevin Sacre deserved a better exit, f**k Paul Marquess!
|
|
|
|
|
|