I totally missed EastEnders tonight...and...am I bothered? No! Had the BBC News channel on instead. More drama there to be fair.
Why bother announcing that you didn't watch a programme and therefore can't possibly have an informed opinion of it? Seems odd to flaunt your ignorance like that.
I did not not watch the recent ITV series Downton Abbey, so I can't possibly say whether it was good or bad. If only others would realise that ignorance is a bar to expressing an opinion.;)
Why bother announcing that you didn't watch a programme and therefore can't possibly have an informed opinion of it? Seems odd to flaunt your ignorance like that.
I did not not watch the recent ITV series Downton Abbey, so I can't possibly say whether it was good or bad. If only others would realise that ignorance is a bar to expressing an opinion.;)
Hang on buddy, I have seen enough EastEnders recently to form an opinion. I don't need to see every single episode. For me for now, I will keep an eye on what is occurring via the internet and the magazines. I simply can't stomach any more Maz and Jane, Jane and Ian, Ian and Glenda, Glenda and Phil, Janice and Ryan, Ryan and Stacey or DOT & THE CHOIR MASTER! Yuk Yuk!
Well yes...but they need to be different and not just generic stereotypes of what has gone before. If they are, what is the point?
If I was executive producer, I would shake the show up big time. I would combine 'the best of Santer' with a gentle nod to humour, but maintain the shows gritty, hard edged reputation. I would make every single episode...'must-see'. I would also have a mass cast clear out. That is what is needed. The show, in my opinion, is drowning not waving.
All I see now is trashy scenes non stop. Needs more John Yorke era.
Characters like Stacey make me laugh. She was a complete sympathetic wreck last year and one year forward is back to her own usual arrogant gobby self all glammed up again.
Ian and Jane- has been dragging on for months and now I've lost count of whether they still want to be together or not. Loss of Peter and Lucy seems very hard to explain.
Phil- miraculous drug recovery and managing to steal ALL of Roxy's money :rolleyes: Come off it!
Roxy- somebody wake her up! No way she can miss Phil having stolen everything from under her nose.
Masoods- Dull at the moment.
Syed and Christian- no real progress.
Lauren- new version is bloody annoying even if it is only to lead to Stacey's exit.
Janine- only so much soap bitch I can take.
Golds- Vanessa is ok but I can't stand Jodie, especially when she's with Darren.
Moons- I'm glad they're back but do they have to be at the centre of almost every episode?
... and I could go on.
BK just seems to be unsure of decisions.
He's bringing Jean back after getting rid of her.
Scott seems to be killing himself trying to do EE and Strictly, and he's also barely in it which is wrong given the new year baby stuff.
Charlie's exit has been pushed back several times.
Vic fire was impressive but Peggy's exit would have been more memorable with proper dialogue, not big stunts.
Bryan Kirkwood's big chance to change plot development and family trees on the Square was the Vic fire. He could've killed off as many characters as he wanted with the fire - for me that episode is where he decided which direction to take the show. From that moment, the show is his and Diedrick Santer's period in charge has little to do with it.
Phil- miraculous drug recovery and managing to steal ALL of Roxy's money :rolleyes: Come off it!
Roxy- somebody wake her up! No way she can miss Phil having stolen everything from under her nose.
Masoods- Dull at the moment.
Syed and Christian- no real progress.
Lauren- new version is bloody annoying even if it is only to lead to Stacey's exit.
Janine- only so much soap bitch I can take.
Golds- Vanessa is ok but I can't stand Jodie, especially when she's with Darren.
Moons- I'm glad they're back but do they have to be at the centre of almost every episode?
... and I could go on.
BK just seems to be unsure of decisions.
He's bringing Jean back after getting rid of her.
Scott seems to be killing himself trying to do EE and Strictly, and he's also barely in it which is wrong given the new year baby stuff.
Charlie's exit has been pushed back several times.
Vic fire was impressive but Peggy's exit would have been more memorable with proper dialogue, not big stunts.
I agree with a lot of what you say.
Peggy's exit was out of character...the event, underwhelming after all the hype. I felt cheated as a viewer.
Julie - I completely agree! Couldn't careless. Who is she?
Ian and Jane - just keep them together. Either of them 'playing away' is just not convincing or credible...same goes for Massood, Zainab and Dot!
All the Phil, Roxy and Lauren stuff...totally agree. Rediculous and unbelievable.
For me, the Massoods are EastEnders one and only saviour. I have no interest in the 'dull as' Golds or the Moons.
The trap Kirkwood has fallen into is giving 'big'...and I use that term loosely...stories to characters who aren't established. Major mistake. You should never give big stories to either 1. new characters who aren't established or 2. minor characters like Billy!
Bryan Kirkwood's big chance to change plot development and family trees on the Square was the Vic fire. He could've killed off as many characters as he wanted with the fire - for me that episode is where he decided which direction to take the show. From that moment, the show is his and Diedrick Santer's period in charge has little to do with it.
Absolutely agree...backs up what I was saying earlier. For me, if I was him...I would have killed off key characters associated with Santer...including Stacey.
Just because you had a fire doesn't mean you have to have death, it's all about(for me) what storylines come off the back of it, also the fire itself was pretty good, and all about families trying to save each other etc.
BK has majorly improved on not having people locked into the own stories, and having them talk to different people etc.
I do think - the live episode aftermath and the mess DS made of it, is to do with what we're seeing on screen now - hopefully once Stacey's gone, and Archies storyline finally finishes, we'll be getting somewhere.
Just because you had a fire doesn't mean you have to have death, it's all about(for me) what storylines come off the back of it, also the fire itself was pretty good, and all about families trying to save each other etc.
BK has majorly improved on not having people locked into the own stories, and having them talk to different people etc.
I do think - the live episode aftermath and the mess DS made of it, is to do with what we're seeing on screen now - hopefully once Stacey's gone, and Archies storyline finally finishes, we'll be getting somewhere.
So BK gets the credit for the bits that you do like and Santer gets the blame for bits that you don't?
Just because you had a fire doesn't mean you have to have death, it's all about(for me) what storylines come off the back of it.
What stories have come off the back of it? other than billy's comment to phil.And syed thanking Z last night its almost like it never happened.Absolutely no character was affected by it.Not peggy, she left because she felt unwanted by her family.Not stacey, despite the fact that is where her baby nearly suffocated/she murdered archie & was raped shes working there like its routtine..
Please tell me what stories have come from the fire other than the new occupants who are renting it from the very man that burnt it down while drugged up :rolleyes:
Just because you had a fire doesn't mean you have to have death, it's all about(for me) what storylines come off the back of it, also the fire itself was pretty good, and all about families trying to save each other etc.
BK has majorly improved on not having people locked into the own stories, and having them talk to different people etc.
I do think - the live episode aftermath and the mess DS made of it, is to do with what we're seeing on screen now - hopefully once Stacey's gone, and Archies storyline finally finishes, we'll be getting somewhere.
So who's been affected by the fire? No one. Not one character. It was just an excuse to give Peggy a lame exit.
What Archie storyline are we talking about? Stop living in BK's bubble. The upcoming spoilers are nothing to brag or praise about.
Just because you had a fire doesn't mean you have to have death, it's all about(for me) what storylines come off the back of it, also the fire itself was pretty good, and all about families trying to save each other etc.
BK has majorly improved on not having people locked into the own stories, and having them talk to different people etc.
I do think - the live episode aftermath and the mess DS made of it, is to do with what we're seeing on screen now - hopefully once Stacey's gone, and Archies storyline finally finishes, we'll be getting somewhere.
The fire was a big mistake but the show has gone totally pear shaped since they killed Archie off and Bradley throwing himself off the roof as a by product .Everything seems to have gone stupid and stale /sordid .The show is dying on it feet full of uninteresting unlikeable people bed hopping / swindling each other - Yuk . As for the cot death/ swap - its more horrible misery for Ronnie .They need a cull and more interesting storylines plus a Northern / Scottish new family.Im from the North and everything is too ''London ish ''for me .The new Julie character is disastrously dull
The stories in the fire worked for me - The masoods making sure they where all okay, even if they weren't talking, The stuff with Jodie after her and her mum weren't talking, the Mitchell's sticking together etc - i don't know why this forum thinks that a good stunt is defined by death - it isn't.
DS made a mistake in killing of Archie, he then made the mistake of making Stacey the killer - it makes no sence, we're still paying for the lack of aftermath now - DS just seemed to want the ratings(IMO)
I'm not saying EE is amazing at the moment - but BK storyline team has only been there on screen for about two weeks, stuff has been storylined already in advance, and it does take time for changes and work to be shown on screen, for example;
- When PC took over Corrie, changes where noticed right away.
- When PM took over Hollyoaks, it took about 9 months before the show was "his"
- When GB took over Emmerdale, it took over a year before stuff was noticed etc.
It takes time, some people just think they go to work, film and go, but stuff is planned sometimes year in advance.
You can attack me if you want - but i'm enjoying EastEnders at the moment - i don't think DS did good for the show towards the end, he got very lazy.
The stories in the fire worked for me - The masoods making sure they where all okay, even if they weren't talking, The stuff with Jodie after her and her mum weren't talking, the Mitchell's sticking together etc - i don't know why this forum thinks that a good stunt is defined by death - it isn't.
DS made a mistake in killing of Archie, he then made the mistake of making Stacey the killer - it makes no sence, we're still paying for the lack of aftermath now - DS just seemed to want the ratings(IMO)
I'm not saying EE is amazing at the moment - but BK storyline team has only been there on screen for about two weeks, stuff has been storylined already in advance, and it does take time for changes and work to be shown on screen, for example;
- When PC took over Corrie, changes where noticed right away.
- When PM took over Hollyoaks, it took about 9 months before the show was "his"
- When GB took over Emmerdale, it took over a year before stuff was noticed etc.
It takes time, some people just think they go to work, film and go, but stuff is planned sometimes year in advance.
You can attack me if you want - but i'm enjoying EastEnders at the moment - i don't think DS did good for the show towards the end, he got very lazy.
But BK was involved with things before his storyline team started surely? For example, I read an interview with Babs crediting him with her leaving storyline... Same with the cast members that he axed, he must have been involved with their leaving stories as well and they can't have been planned in advance because he was the one that chose to axe them?
But BK was involved with things before his storyline team started surely? For example, I read an interview with Babs crediting him with her leaving storyline... Same with the cast members that he axed, he must have been involved with their leaving stories as well and they can't have been planned in advance because he was the one that chose to axe them?
I know he was - but various things would of been storylined - and he's only know fully got the team he wants in place - which could prove to be quite a good thing - esp as theres a team of them, and not just one.
The stories in the fire worked for me - The masoods making sure they where all okay, even if they weren't talking, The stuff with Jodie after her and her mum weren't talking, the Mitchell's sticking together etc - i don't know why this forum thinks that a good stunt is defined by death - it isn't.
DS made a mistake in killing of Archie, he then made the mistake of making Stacey the killer - it makes no sence, we're still paying for the lack of aftermath now - DS just seemed to want the ratings(IMO)
I'm not saying EE is amazing at the moment - but BK storyline team has only been there on screen for about two weeks, stuff has been storylined already in advance, and it does take time for changes and work to be shown on screen, for example;
- When PC took over Corrie, changes where noticed right away.
- When PM took over Hollyoaks, it took about 9 months before the show was "his"
- When GB took over Emmerdale, it took over a year before stuff was noticed etc.
It takes time, some people just think they go to work, film and go, but stuff is planned sometimes year in advance.
You can attack me if you want - but i'm enjoying EastEnders at the moment - i don't think DS did good for the show towards the end, he got very lazy.
Saying that the show isn't his yet is fine, but that is no excuse for what I can only describe as very poor, sub-standard material at the moment.
Following your logic, they should have taken the show off the air, bringing it back only when Kirkwood was happy with it.
As I alluded to earlier, companies change their staff all the time, but you never hear "he/she is just bedding in...wait until April" uttered in defence of poor performance...why, because quite simply, said company would go bust. The same should apply to the entertainment industry, but more specifically, Eastenders right about now, especially as it is BBC1's flagship show.
Saying that the show isn't his yet is fine, but that is no excuse for what I can only describe as very poor, sub-standard material at the moment.
Following your logic, they should have taken the show off the air, bringing it back only when Kirkwood was happy with it.
As I alluded to earlier, companies change their staff all the time, but you never hear "he/she is just bedding in...wait until April" uttered in defence of poor performance...why, because quite simply, said company would go bust. The same should apply to the entertainment industry, but more specifically, Eastenders right about now, especially as it is BBC1's flagship show.
Well that's your opinion it's poor - i enjoy some of the stuff, not other parts, but that's normal for me not to enjoy everything.
I never said that - it takes time to settle in, storylines to be there own etc - it can't happen over night - like some people seem to think, it took GB over a year before the show became his(in Emmerdale)
Soaps are different to normal company though Miles - they plan sometimes up till two years in advance, scripts can be written up to 6/8 weeks in advance, whether you like it or not - it takes time.
You haven't actually ever said how you would improve the show, maybe you can reply to this and say.
Comments
Yeah that had me reaching for a bucket allright!
Really fed up with stacy and ryan now could not care less!
As if anyone would get their kit off in that barrell store, is there nowhere in that pub where stacy and ryan havnt been to....you know....!!
Good to see Syed finally thank zaineb for saving him!
Golly how long did that take!!!:D
I did not not watch the recent ITV series Downton Abbey, so I can't possibly say whether it was good or bad. If only others would realise that ignorance is a bar to expressing an opinion.;)
Hang on buddy, I have seen enough EastEnders recently to form an opinion. I don't need to see every single episode. For me for now, I will keep an eye on what is occurring via the internet and the magazines. I simply can't stomach any more Maz and Jane, Jane and Ian, Ian and Glenda, Glenda and Phil, Janice and Ryan, Ryan and Stacey or DOT & THE CHOIR MASTER! Yuk Yuk!
Well yes...but they need to be different and not just generic stereotypes of what has gone before. If they are, what is the point?
If I was executive producer, I would shake the show up big time. I would combine 'the best of Santer' with a gentle nod to humour, but maintain the shows gritty, hard edged reputation. I would make every single episode...'must-see'. I would also have a mass cast clear out. That is what is needed. The show, in my opinion, is drowning not waving.
Characters like Stacey make me laugh. She was a complete sympathetic wreck last year and one year forward is back to her own usual arrogant gobby self all glammed up again.
Problems include:
Julie- totally uninterested by her.
Ian and Jane- has been dragging on for months and now I've lost count of whether they still want to be together or not. Loss of Peter and Lucy seems very hard to explain.
Phil- miraculous drug recovery and managing to steal ALL of Roxy's money :rolleyes: Come off it!
Roxy- somebody wake her up! No way she can miss Phil having stolen everything from under her nose.
Masoods- Dull at the moment.
Syed and Christian- no real progress.
Lauren- new version is bloody annoying even if it is only to lead to Stacey's exit.
Janine- only so much soap bitch I can take.
Golds- Vanessa is ok but I can't stand Jodie, especially when she's with Darren.
Moons- I'm glad they're back but do they have to be at the centre of almost every episode?
... and I could go on.
BK just seems to be unsure of decisions.
He's bringing Jean back after getting rid of her.
Scott seems to be killing himself trying to do EE and Strictly, and he's also barely in it which is wrong given the new year baby stuff.
Charlie's exit has been pushed back several times.
Vic fire was impressive but Peggy's exit would have been more memorable with proper dialogue, not big stunts.
I agree with a lot of what you say.
Peggy's exit was out of character...the event, underwhelming after all the hype. I felt cheated as a viewer.
Julie - I completely agree! Couldn't careless. Who is she?
Ian and Jane - just keep them together. Either of them 'playing away' is just not convincing or credible...same goes for Massood, Zainab and Dot!
All the Phil, Roxy and Lauren stuff...totally agree. Rediculous and unbelievable.
For me, the Massoods are EastEnders one and only saviour. I have no interest in the 'dull as' Golds or the Moons.
The trap Kirkwood has fallen into is giving 'big'...and I use that term loosely...stories to characters who aren't established. Major mistake. You should never give big stories to either 1. new characters who aren't established or 2. minor characters like Billy!
Absolutely agree...backs up what I was saying earlier. For me, if I was him...I would have killed off key characters associated with Santer...including Stacey.
BK has majorly improved on not having people locked into the own stories, and having them talk to different people etc.
I do think - the live episode aftermath and the mess DS made of it, is to do with what we're seeing on screen now - hopefully once Stacey's gone, and Archies storyline finally finishes, we'll be getting somewhere.
So BK gets the credit for the bits that you do like and Santer gets the blame for bits that you don't?
Please tell me what stories have come from the fire other than the new occupants who are renting it from the very man that burnt it down while drugged up :rolleyes:
So who's been affected by the fire? No one. Not one character. It was just an excuse to give Peggy a lame exit.
What Archie storyline are we talking about? Stop living in BK's bubble. The upcoming spoilers are nothing to brag or praise about.
The fire was a big mistake but the show has gone totally pear shaped since they killed Archie off and Bradley throwing himself off the roof as a by product .Everything seems to have gone stupid and stale /sordid .The show is dying on it feet full of uninteresting unlikeable people bed hopping / swindling each other - Yuk . As for the cot death/ swap - its more horrible misery for Ronnie .They need a cull and more interesting storylines plus a Northern / Scottish new family.Im from the North and everything is too ''London ish ''for me .The new Julie character is disastrously dull
Changed my mind about posting that but it looks like your little witch hunt may have worked.
care to expand on this?
DS made a mistake in killing of Archie, he then made the mistake of making Stacey the killer - it makes no sence, we're still paying for the lack of aftermath now - DS just seemed to want the ratings(IMO)
I'm not saying EE is amazing at the moment - but BK storyline team has only been there on screen for about two weeks, stuff has been storylined already in advance, and it does take time for changes and work to be shown on screen, for example;
- When PC took over Corrie, changes where noticed right away.
- When PM took over Hollyoaks, it took about 9 months before the show was "his"
- When GB took over Emmerdale, it took over a year before stuff was noticed etc.
It takes time, some people just think they go to work, film and go, but stuff is planned sometimes year in advance.
You can attack me if you want - but i'm enjoying EastEnders at the moment - i don't think DS did good for the show towards the end, he got very lazy.
But BK was involved with things before his storyline team started surely? For example, I read an interview with Babs crediting him with her leaving storyline... Same with the cast members that he axed, he must have been involved with their leaving stories as well and they can't have been planned in advance because he was the one that chose to axe them?
I know he was - but various things would of been storylined - and he's only know fully got the team he wants in place - which could prove to be quite a good thing - esp as theres a team of them, and not just one.
Saying that the show isn't his yet is fine, but that is no excuse for what I can only describe as very poor, sub-standard material at the moment.
Following your logic, they should have taken the show off the air, bringing it back only when Kirkwood was happy with it.
As I alluded to earlier, companies change their staff all the time, but you never hear "he/she is just bedding in...wait until April" uttered in defence of poor performance...why, because quite simply, said company would go bust. The same should apply to the entertainment industry, but more specifically, Eastenders right about now, especially as it is BBC1's flagship show.
Well that's your opinion it's poor - i enjoy some of the stuff, not other parts, but that's normal for me not to enjoy everything.
I never said that - it takes time to settle in, storylines to be there own etc - it can't happen over night - like some people seem to think, it took GB over a year before the show became his(in Emmerdale)
Soaps are different to normal company though Miles - they plan sometimes up till two years in advance, scripts can be written up to 6/8 weeks in advance, whether you like it or not - it takes time.
You haven't actually ever said how you would improve the show, maybe you can reply to this and say.