So far no one has managed to convince me of this sudden decline. People are good at pointing out problems "X is bad", "I don't like Y", "Z is boring" and for the most part I absolutely agree with those problems.
But what is with this sudden decline stuff? Someone please clearly explain to me how poor writing, sloppy scripts and bad characterisation weren't problems before BK took over?
At the moment I'm thinking people were just blinded by the hype and sensationalism, but I'd like to give members here more credit than that, and get an explanation.
What substantial issues does the show have now that it didn't under Santer?
* the mess of a storyline that saw Barbara leave the show
* ryans affair with Stacey
* the return of Kat and Alfie
*changing Laurens head
* axing Melissa
* Ian having his way with Glenda and him paying her rent? Please!!!!
*Jane trying to secretly steal money from Ian so she can leave him
* Phils laughable drug addiction
*Phil and Shirl stealing Rox's money
*Billy's new storyline and his weird girlfriend
* Stacey always being the poor innocent party in all her self inflicted anguish
* bringing in Zainab's ex only to send him off again without them sorting out their differences, why can't they allow Tamwar to be happy without the drama. It would have made more sense if his new relationship healed old wounds. But no, another affair in the making.
* Peter Beale and Whitney.
Those are just things that popped into my head. I am sure there are a lot more things that are dire.
Oh and more trauma for Ronnie, why???? I don't even what to think about the Mitchell name change and all this fake stuff for sale.
Good God, Simon Danby, it sounds like you've got a hell of a lot of hate in you. It must take quite a lot of effort to spew this much bile.
People are not 'fanbois' for having an opinion which differs to yours. There is no basis whatsoever for your claims about these so-called 'rumours' of low morale. There are no 'facts' when it comes to someone's opinion of a producer. Grow up, you're embarassing yourself.
While said poster was wrong to use the word 'fanboi' i disagree with you calling his posts full of bile, cut him some slack and politely correct him as he is a newby, we all have differing opinions and its great to hear them all. While there may be no basis for the rumour of low moral on the show we cannot dismiss it out of hand to be honest.
There are still many good things about EastEnders at the moment:
- the Masoods are strong characters, supported by credible acting
- the Vic fire *was* well done, and I thought Peggy's departure was handled well
- Billie's death and Carol's reaction to it was EastEnders at its best
- the oldies (Pat, Dot etc) still continue to provide good entertainment
- Glenda is turning out to be an interesting character (played by a good actress)
- the complex relationship between Janine, Ryan and Stacey shows potential.
However, there are negatives:
- the Golds just haven't worked well enough: great potential as characters, especially the excellent Zoe Lucker, but she's simply playing a watered-down version of Tanya Turner from FW
- the whole Darren-circumcision storyline was cringingly bad to watch
- Ian and Glenda: I just don't buy it
- Phil's sudden drug addiction, and overnight recovery from it, lacked any credibility
- the new Lauren is *awful*
- Roxy, who has developed into a brilliant and complex character (always slightly over-shadowed by her older sister) is being sidelined
- the Billy/Julie storyline *should* be interesting, but instead I find myself unable to care
Unfortunately, I've never been a fan of Kat and Alfie, so I'm slightly biased when it comes to any criticism levelled at these 2 characters - and I do feel there's a danger of EastEnders turning into "The Kat and Alfie Show".
Do the negatives outweigh the positives? Perhaps. But I don't think EastEnders is finished yet - the show's recovered from fallow periods before and doubtless will again.
* the mess of a storyline that saw Barbara leave the show
* ryans affair with Stacey
* the return of Kat and Alfie
*changing Laurens head
* axing Melissa
* Ian having his way with Glenda and him paying her rent? Please!!!!
*Jane trying to secretly steal money from Ian so she can leave him
* Phils laughable drug addiction
*Phil and Shirl stealing Rox's money
*Billy's new storyline and his weird girlfriend
* Stacey always being the poor innocent party in all her self inflicted anguish
* bringing in Zainab's ex only to send him off again without them sorting out their differences, why can't they allow Tamwar to be happy without the drama. It would have made more sense if his new relationship healed old wounds. But no, another affair in the making.
* Peter Beale and Whitney.
Those are just things that popped into my head. I am sure there are a lot more things that are dire.
Oh and more trauma for Ronnie, why???? I don't even what to think about the Mitchell name change and all this fake stuff for sale.
You have pointed out X,Y and Z. And I agree with those, but you've missed the point of the question I asked. I asked what substantial issues point to sudden decline.
In response to that can just post a list of things I think Santer did wrong:
*Heather
*Clare Bate's personality transplant - being ruined and unlikeable
*Steven Beale's rubbish story arc
*Teens in the woods
*Live Episode and subsequent destruction of Stacey's character
*Who Killed Archie was dull and contrived
*Who ran over max was dull and contrived
*Mitchell/Beale car crash was pointless
*Syed/Christian dragged out for ages
*Tanya's character being ruined
*Dotty
*Nick Cotton wondering around the square aimlessly
*A crumbly, panto Nick holding an entire cafe hostage with a bat just for a pointless explosion
*Archie being a cardboard cutout villain
*Lucas' story being drawn out and quickly becoming utterly ridiculous
*The way Peggy became a parody of herself
*Janine, Carol, Pat and other cast used poorly
*crappy characters like Danny, Adam, Callum etc.
*Sonia's return
*The Jack/Ronnie/Roxy tedium
*Jack sleeping with Tania
*Sam's terrible return stint being completely unlikeable
*The ridiculous, fast-abandoned gangster takeover of the Vic
*Sean's ridiculous exit and the overall waste of his character.
As you can see from the list above, there was crap during Santer's era too.
So I return the original question, please explain this notion of a substantial and sudden decline.
Yawn. ManofEast and this Filiman are singing from the same hymn sheet me thinks.
They keep listing Santer's weak plots as a way of explianing all of Kirkwood's weak plots.
I think some of these users on here want EE in a big slump. They certainly don't seem to want it to improve.
Actually, your the one who wants EE to stay in its rut. We want EE to be the hard-hitting, wonderfully written show it was until the mid-00s. We don't want to settle for average, which is what you want, and then you'll wonder why Corrie and EM steamrail over EE when they get their act together.
We want EE to address the underlying problems that is has suffered for years so we can finally get back to watching a programme that is well written, well produced, character driven and doesn't rely solely on sensationliasm and hype. That is obviously all you are interested in and that is not what is in the interest of EE which is a serial show and cannot forever live of the borrowed time that you would give it.
Yawn. ManofEast and this Filiman are singing from the same hymn sheet me thinks.
They keep listing Santer's weak plots as a way of explianing all of Kirkwood's weak plots.
I think some of these users on here want EE in a big slump. They certainly don't seem to want it to improve.
Yet all you seem to want to do is moan about it highlight the problems over and over again in duplicate threads and instead of actually having a constructive discussion about it accusing other members of being the same person because they don't agree, sad.
if thats the case why are so many people saying they are going to stop ?? the ratings will soon fall. i doubt xmas day will be anymore than 11m if it gets that at least
You have pointed out X,Y and Z. And I agree with those, but you've missed the point of the question I asked. I asked what substantial issues point to sudden decline.
In response to that can just post a list of things I think Santer did wrong:
*Heather
*Clare Bate's personality transplant - being ruined and unlikeable
*Steven Beale's rubbish story arc
*Teens in the woods
*Live Episode and subsequent destruction of Stacey's character
*Who Killed Archie was dull and contrived
*Who ran over max was dull and contrived
*Mitchell/Beale car crash was pointless
*Syed/Christian dragged out for ages
*Tanya's character being ruined
*Dotty
*Nick Cotton wondering around the square aimlessly
*A crumbly, panto Nick holding an entire cafe hostage with a bat just for a pointless explosion
*Archie being a cardboard cutout villain
*Lucas' story being drawn out and quickly becoming utterly ridiculous
*The way Peggy became a parody of herself
*Janine, Carol, Pat and other cast used poorly
*crappy characters like Danny, Adam, Callum etc.
*Sonia's return
*The Jack/Ronnie/Roxy tedium
*Jack sleeping with Tania
*Sam's terrible return stint being completely unlikeable
*The ridiculous, fast-abandoned gangster takeover of the Vic
*Sean's ridiculous exit and the overall waste of his character.
As you can see from the list above, there was crap during Santer's era too.
So I return the original question, please explain this notion of a substantial and sudden decline.
As far as I can tell, people are tuning out, flicking over to other channels, oh your list re santers storylines, interesting yes, however you forget that Santer had been with the show a lot longer than BK has been, give him more time and you'll get a longer list of uh oh's from yourself.
Some of your points about Santers storylines make no sense whatsoever. I used to read on here how fabulous EE is, now all I see is how bored people are, that in itself tells a big story. EE is entirely missable.
Yet all you seem to want to do is moan about it highlight the problems over and over again in duplicate threads and instead of actually having a constructive discussion about it accusing other members of being the same person because they don't agree, sad.
I agree that only one thread is required, and the repetitive arguement regarding loss of viewers is also tiresome now.
It's pretty plain to see that DS posters are starting to jump ship and no doubt the general public will too, although with the baby swap death nonsense, I am sure a fair few 'strange' people will tune in and enjoy the cough ' drama' :cool:
As far as I can tell, people are tuning out, flicking over to other channels, oh your list re santers storylines, interesting yes, however you forget that Santer had been with the show a lot longer than BK has been, give him more time and you'll get a longer list of uh oh's from yourself.
Some of your points about Santers storylines make no sense whatsoever. I used to read on here how fabulous EE is, now all I see is how bored people are, that in itself tells a big story. EE is entirely missable.
Not really. In 2006 this forum was awash in praise for EE.... but 2006 is widely regarded as the show's worst year. Forum sentiment means pretty little.
No one here is saying that BK is doing a good job. What we are trying to say is that the problems EE faces are more than just an EP. And just blaming it all on an EP is not going to help. We have ended up in a silly Santer vs BK debate because we have been trying to demonstrate that these are long-standing problems that were evident during Santer's time and before him. No one is blaming Santer for these problems because he isn't to blame, we are saying that things weren't rosy under him either and that we need to address the problems that have afflicted all EPs since Berridge.
But, for some reason, people find that hard to understand. I don't care if BK goes tomorrow or in 2 years.... if the underlying problems aren't fixed then this problem which just continue to rear its head.
As far as I can tell, people are tuning out, flicking over to other channels, oh your list re santers storylines, interesting yes, however you forget that Santer had been with the show a lot longer than BK has been, give him more time and you'll get a longer list of uh oh's from yourself.
That was only a small sampling of his rubbish. If you want I could post a LOT more problems, in a lot more detail. And I could argue the converse, Kirkwood has only been in a few months and some people are comparing him to Santer's entire era.
And where is the evidence of these people tuning out? The best (and still not 100% reliable) indicator of viewer interest and viewership is the ratings, and the ratings are excellent.
Some of your points about Santers storylines make no sense whatsoever.
Tell me which ones "don't make sense" and I'll clarify them. Let's have an actual constructive discussion about this rather than all this ranting and raving that 90% of the thread has become.
I used to read on here how fabulous EE is, now all I see is how bored people are, that in itself tells a big story. EE is entirely missable.
It means some people on this forum have created a lot of threads saying it's bad and all agree with each other. That's pretty much all it means.
These forums aren't a great gauge of popular opinion nor are they a particularly useful indicator of quality. 10 threads from the same three or four people can make something appear a lot worse than it actually is.
BK is getting alot of stick here. I guess the so called transition excuse dosen't wash anymore.
Under his reign EE has gone from pretty promising stuff (Phil's drugs was a new thing for the charactor and gave SM something decent to act) to pretty bad (Kat's back yay! oh wait... no please not another baby plot) to just awful (Stacey/Ryan).
I truley honestly think BK thinks that the only thing you can do on EE is have affairs. The gritty storylines that he came up with in Hollyoaks which I've seen bits of and were very impressed with are just not there. It's almost like he obviously had ideas like this but then thought EE's audience wouldn't accept them. Maybe, as Hollyoaks has less viewers, he feels he can afford to do the less believable storylines on there as opposed to EE, I don't know. All in all, I don't think he really knows what to do. He's been in the job for 8 months now and his work is really shining through. It's shocking. No disrepect for the guy. I just think he's in the wrong job. Let's see how he does at Xmas.
Not really. In 2006 this forum was awash in praise for EE.... but 2006 is widely regarded as the show's worst year. Forum sentiment means pretty little.
No one here is saying that BK is doing a good job. What we are trying to say is that the problems EE faces are more than just an EP. And just blaming it all on an EP is not going to help. We have ended up in a silly Santer vs BK debate because we have been trying to demonstrate that these are long-standing problems that were evident during Santer's time and before him. No one is blaming Santer for these problems because he isn't to blame, we are saying that things weren't rosy under him either and that we need to address the problems that have afflicted all EPs since Berridge.
But, for some reason, people find that hard to understand. I don't care if BK goes tomorrow or in 2 years.... if the underlying problems aren't fixed then this problem which just continue to rear its head.
Well, only BK can make the changes, which he won't he'll come along with that baby nonsense, people (not me) will be sucked into watching it, then he'll have done his wonder work and forget the rest that needs improving. So it is in his hands, and someone else may have the sense to bring us something worth watching, instead of the dross that's on the screens now. Gavin (rest his soul) did a fabulous job over at emmerdale, he did have some (few) stinkers amongst his legacy, but I dread to think what his replacement will do with all his hard work.
BK is getting alot of stick here. I guess the so called transition excuse dosen't wash anymore.
Under his reign EE has gone from pretty promising stuff (Phil's drugs was a new thing for the charactor and gave SM something decent to act) to pretty bad (Kat's back yay! oh wait... no please not another baby plot) to just awful (Stacey/Ryan).
I truley honestly think BK thinks that the only thing you can do on EE is have affairs. The gritty storylines that he came up with in Hollyoaks which I've seen bits of and were very impressed with are just not there. It's almost like he obviously had ideas like this but then thought EE's audience wouldn't accept them. Maybe, as Hollyoaks has less viewers, he feels he can afford to do the less believable storylines on there as opposed to EE, I don't know. All in all, I don't think he really knows what to do. He's been in the job for 8 months now and his work is really shining through. It's shocking. No disrepect for the guy. I just think he's in the wrong job. Let's see how he does at Xmas.
I thought Phil's drug addiction was going to be a massive thing. I'm still not even sure if he is over it yet. None of its been very clear.
I thought i was the only one who thought that. People on here yesterday were saying that eastenders is far better than corrie. What the hell? Even emmerdale is better than eastenders now and thats saying something.
It means some people on this forum have created a lot of threads saying it's bad and all agree with each other. That's pretty much all it means.
These forums aren't a great gauge of popular opinion nor are they a particularly useful indicator of quality. 10 threads from the same three or four people can make something appear a lot worse than it actually is.
The multiple threads about the same thing needs to stop, have one and stick with it.
EE bores me and I don't know many off forum that don't share that sentiment.
Not really. In 2006 this forum was awash in praise for EE.... but 2006 is widely regarded as the show's worst year. Forum sentiment means pretty little.
No one here is saying that BK is doing a good job. What we are trying to say is that the problems EE faces are more than just an EP. And just blaming it all on an EP is not going to help. We have ended up in a silly Santer vs BK debate because we have been trying to demonstrate that these are long-standing problems that were evident during Santer's time and before him. No one is blaming Santer for these problems because he isn't to blame, we are saying that things weren't rosy under him either and that we need to address the problems that have afflicted all EPs since Berridge.
But, for some reason, people find that hard to understand. I don't care if BK goes tomorrow or in 2 years.... if the underlying problems aren't fixed then this problem which just continue to rear its head.
I thought 2004 was regarded as EE worst year. We had awful plots such as the Ferreira kidney, Shirley's dead cat, Zoe sleeping with Den, Andy gangster/sleeping with Kat, infamous fairground etc. It also had the worst family ever....Ferreiras.
2005 was actually a very good year in some months. Then fell flat again in 2006. But imo, I class 2004 as the worst.
I have watched EE since it began and have found 06-10 the worst years in its history; absolutely dreadful to the previous 20. Does that mean those years must be bad?
One of us is wrong.
You can't base judgement on the quality of a show on your personal response. Too many people on these forums do. I don't like it, therefore it must be crap. Maybe it is crap but maybe it isn't. Until you flesh out exactly why you believe that, it will remain just a personal opinion.
Is EE good now? No. But is hasn't been good for years. If you think EE was fine under Santer then you have given no real consideration to the quality of the show. EE has been in decline since 03; it has long-term problems afflicting it; it's writing now is not as good as under Santer, which was not as good as under Harwood, which was not as good as under Berridge. The underlying problems with writing need to be addressed. Since 2006 and all through Santer's time there have been problems with poor characterisation, poor storylines, etc. Under Harwood and Santer EE had a 50/50 ratio of good and bad storylines.... for as many good storylines Santer had, he had some absolutely dire ones; for the good returns that worked, there were matching bad ones. So YES, there were plenty of problems under Santer. And these problems have continued under BK. The problems need to be removed and addressed and should be blamed.
I'm sorry...Filiman..I simply can't let this go. I know quality when I see it. I am a good barometer. I know when I am enjoying something and when I am not. I know when something is good and when it isn't. Santer's period was the period when I watched Eastenders the most. Why? Must-see, well written story lines and interesting characters. EastEnders, since the fire has been dire. Anyone who says any different either works for Team Eastenders or the BBC.
You say '06-'10 is the worst...well I do not buy that. I think you are motivated more by political correctness than anything else. Do you work for the BBC? Do you work under Kirkwood? During the most recent years, I have been addicted to Eastenders. I have not wanted to miss an ep...total truth. Since the fire, I couldn't care less. That is not me being whatever...it is fact. Eastenders has been shit.
I thought 2004 was regarded as EE worst year. We had awful plots such as the Ferreira kidney, Shirley's dead cat, Zoe sleeping with Den, Andy gangster/sleeping with Kat, infamous fairground etc. It also had the worst family ever....Ferreiras.
2005 was actually a very good year in some months. Then fell flat again in 2006. But imo, I class 2004 as the worst.
I put 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the same quality bracket, with 2007 marginally above it.
I can't decide which one was the most awful, they were all pretty bad. From the laughable Get Johnny Week to the Who Killed Archie junk the show has just been a mess.
The show really is a bit of a disaster at the moment. In the build-up to Christmas it feels more like one of those stop-gap periods where not much good is happening because it's the transition between big storyline setups (that's sometimes how it feels in the summer).
The Masoods are still great but only because they haven't been onscreen too much. The short bursts of them has worked really well. Any more and they probably would have been ruined like many others, e.g. Stacey (so 5 years of character development have led to her having a brain transplant just before she leaves...), all the young cast, Dot, Phil, Shirley, Glenda, Carol, Bianca and family (whenever we see any of them other than Bianca, which is a bloody miracle if we do).
Comments
* the mess of a storyline that saw Barbara leave the show
* ryans affair with Stacey
* the return of Kat and Alfie
*changing Laurens head
* axing Melissa
* Ian having his way with Glenda and him paying her rent? Please!!!!
*Jane trying to secretly steal money from Ian so she can leave him
* Phils laughable drug addiction
*Phil and Shirl stealing Rox's money
*Billy's new storyline and his weird girlfriend
* Stacey always being the poor innocent party in all her self inflicted anguish
* bringing in Zainab's ex only to send him off again without them sorting out their differences, why can't they allow Tamwar to be happy without the drama. It would have made more sense if his new relationship healed old wounds. But no, another affair in the making.
* Peter Beale and Whitney.
Those are just things that popped into my head. I am sure there are a lot more things that are dire.
Oh and more trauma for Ronnie, why???? I don't even what to think about the Mitchell name change and all this fake stuff for sale.
While said poster was wrong to use the word 'fanboi' i disagree with you calling his posts full of bile, cut him some slack and politely correct him as he is a newby, we all have differing opinions and its great to hear them all. While there may be no basis for the rumour of low moral on the show we cannot dismiss it out of hand to be honest.
I met Patsy last year, well bumped into her and she was apologetic to me.
- the Masoods are strong characters, supported by credible acting
- the Vic fire *was* well done, and I thought Peggy's departure was handled well
- Billie's death and Carol's reaction to it was EastEnders at its best
- the oldies (Pat, Dot etc) still continue to provide good entertainment
- Glenda is turning out to be an interesting character (played by a good actress)
- the complex relationship between Janine, Ryan and Stacey shows potential.
However, there are negatives:
- the Golds just haven't worked well enough: great potential as characters, especially the excellent Zoe Lucker, but she's simply playing a watered-down version of Tanya Turner from FW
- the whole Darren-circumcision storyline was cringingly bad to watch
- Ian and Glenda: I just don't buy it
- Phil's sudden drug addiction, and overnight recovery from it, lacked any credibility
- the new Lauren is *awful*
- Roxy, who has developed into a brilliant and complex character (always slightly over-shadowed by her older sister) is being sidelined
- the Billy/Julie storyline *should* be interesting, but instead I find myself unable to care
Unfortunately, I've never been a fan of Kat and Alfie, so I'm slightly biased when it comes to any criticism levelled at these 2 characters - and I do feel there's a danger of EastEnders turning into "The Kat and Alfie Show".
Do the negatives outweigh the positives? Perhaps. But I don't think EastEnders is finished yet - the show's recovered from fallow periods before and doubtless will again.
You have pointed out X,Y and Z. And I agree with those, but you've missed the point of the question I asked. I asked what substantial issues point to sudden decline.
In response to that can just post a list of things I think Santer did wrong:
*Heather
*Clare Bate's personality transplant - being ruined and unlikeable
*Steven Beale's rubbish story arc
*Teens in the woods
*Live Episode and subsequent destruction of Stacey's character
*Who Killed Archie was dull and contrived
*Who ran over max was dull and contrived
*Mitchell/Beale car crash was pointless
*Syed/Christian dragged out for ages
*Tanya's character being ruined
*Dotty
*Nick Cotton wondering around the square aimlessly
*A crumbly, panto Nick holding an entire cafe hostage with a bat just for a pointless explosion
*Archie being a cardboard cutout villain
*Lucas' story being drawn out and quickly becoming utterly ridiculous
*The way Peggy became a parody of herself
*Janine, Carol, Pat and other cast used poorly
*crappy characters like Danny, Adam, Callum etc.
*Sonia's return
*The Jack/Ronnie/Roxy tedium
*Jack sleeping with Tania
*Sam's terrible return stint being completely unlikeable
*The ridiculous, fast-abandoned gangster takeover of the Vic
*Sean's ridiculous exit and the overall waste of his character.
As you can see from the list above, there was crap during Santer's era too.
So I return the original question, please explain this notion of a substantial and sudden decline.
They keep listing Santer's weak plots as a way of explianing all of Kirkwood's weak plots.
I think some of these users on here want EE in a big slump. They certainly don't seem to want it to improve.
Actually, your the one who wants EE to stay in its rut. We want EE to be the hard-hitting, wonderfully written show it was until the mid-00s. We don't want to settle for average, which is what you want, and then you'll wonder why Corrie and EM steamrail over EE when they get their act together.
We want EE to address the underlying problems that is has suffered for years so we can finally get back to watching a programme that is well written, well produced, character driven and doesn't rely solely on sensationliasm and hype. That is obviously all you are interested in and that is not what is in the interest of EE which is a serial show and cannot forever live of the borrowed time that you would give it.
Yet all you seem to want to do is moan about it highlight the problems over and over again in duplicate threads and instead of actually having a constructive discussion about it accusing other members of being the same person because they don't agree, sad.
11 million...you are hopeful!
As far as I can tell, people are tuning out, flicking over to other channels, oh your list re santers storylines, interesting yes, however you forget that Santer had been with the show a lot longer than BK has been, give him more time and you'll get a longer list of uh oh's from yourself.
Some of your points about Santers storylines make no sense whatsoever. I used to read on here how fabulous EE is, now all I see is how bored people are, that in itself tells a big story. EE is entirely missable.
I agree that only one thread is required, and the repetitive arguement regarding loss of viewers is also tiresome now.
It's pretty plain to see that DS posters are starting to jump ship and no doubt the general public will too, although with the baby swap death nonsense, I am sure a fair few 'strange' people will tune in and enjoy the cough ' drama' :cool:
Not really. In 2006 this forum was awash in praise for EE.... but 2006 is widely regarded as the show's worst year. Forum sentiment means pretty little.
No one here is saying that BK is doing a good job. What we are trying to say is that the problems EE faces are more than just an EP. And just blaming it all on an EP is not going to help. We have ended up in a silly Santer vs BK debate because we have been trying to demonstrate that these are long-standing problems that were evident during Santer's time and before him. No one is blaming Santer for these problems because he isn't to blame, we are saying that things weren't rosy under him either and that we need to address the problems that have afflicted all EPs since Berridge.
But, for some reason, people find that hard to understand. I don't care if BK goes tomorrow or in 2 years.... if the underlying problems aren't fixed then this problem which just continue to rear its head.
That was only a small sampling of his rubbish. If you want I could post a LOT more problems, in a lot more detail. And I could argue the converse, Kirkwood has only been in a few months and some people are comparing him to Santer's entire era.
And where is the evidence of these people tuning out? The best (and still not 100% reliable) indicator of viewer interest and viewership is the ratings, and the ratings are excellent.
Tell me which ones "don't make sense" and I'll clarify them. Let's have an actual constructive discussion about this rather than all this ranting and raving that 90% of the thread has become.
It means some people on this forum have created a lot of threads saying it's bad and all agree with each other. That's pretty much all it means.
These forums aren't a great gauge of popular opinion nor are they a particularly useful indicator of quality. 10 threads from the same three or four people can make something appear a lot worse than it actually is.
Under his reign EE has gone from pretty promising stuff (Phil's drugs was a new thing for the charactor and gave SM something decent to act) to pretty bad (Kat's back yay! oh wait... no please not another baby plot) to just awful (Stacey/Ryan).
I truley honestly think BK thinks that the only thing you can do on EE is have affairs. The gritty storylines that he came up with in Hollyoaks which I've seen bits of and were very impressed with are just not there. It's almost like he obviously had ideas like this but then thought EE's audience wouldn't accept them. Maybe, as Hollyoaks has less viewers, he feels he can afford to do the less believable storylines on there as opposed to EE, I don't know. All in all, I don't think he really knows what to do. He's been in the job for 8 months now and his work is really shining through. It's shocking. No disrepect for the guy. I just think he's in the wrong job. Let's see how he does at Xmas.
Well, only BK can make the changes, which he won't he'll come along with that baby nonsense, people (not me) will be sucked into watching it, then he'll have done his wonder work and forget the rest that needs improving. So it is in his hands, and someone else may have the sense to bring us something worth watching, instead of the dross that's on the screens now. Gavin (rest his soul) did a fabulous job over at emmerdale, he did have some (few) stinkers amongst his legacy, but I dread to think what his replacement will do with all his hard work.
I thought Phil's drug addiction was going to be a massive thing. I'm still not even sure if he is over it yet. None of its been very clear.
EE bores me and I don't know many off forum that don't share that sentiment.
2005 was actually a very good year in some months. Then fell flat again in 2006. But imo, I class 2004 as the worst.
I'm sorry...Filiman..I simply can't let this go. I know quality when I see it. I am a good barometer. I know when I am enjoying something and when I am not. I know when something is good and when it isn't. Santer's period was the period when I watched Eastenders the most. Why? Must-see, well written story lines and interesting characters. EastEnders, since the fire has been dire. Anyone who says any different either works for Team Eastenders or the BBC.
You say '06-'10 is the worst...well I do not buy that. I think you are motivated more by political correctness than anything else. Do you work for the BBC? Do you work under Kirkwood? During the most recent years, I have been addicted to Eastenders. I have not wanted to miss an ep...total truth. Since the fire, I couldn't care less. That is not me being whatever...it is fact. Eastenders has been shit.
I put 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the same quality bracket, with 2007 marginally above it.
I can't decide which one was the most awful, they were all pretty bad. From the laughable Get Johnny Week to the Who Killed Archie junk the show has just been a mess.
Or maybe y'know... it's just their... opinion. :rolleyes:
The Masoods are still great but only because they haven't been onscreen too much. The short bursts of them has worked really well. Any more and they probably would have been ruined like many others, e.g. Stacey (so 5 years of character development have led to her having a brain transplant just before she leaves...), all the young cast, Dot, Phil, Shirley, Glenda, Carol, Bianca and family (whenever we see any of them other than Bianca, which is a bloody miracle if we do).
I hope to god the New Year brings a fresh start.