Her failure to even tweek effectively might be what they as a viewer are basing their personal opinion on.
Their post history tells a different story. I know you have some sort of problem with Newman but even you should have noticed that the poster I was quoting is nothing more than a Corrie fanboy on a wind-up.
Their post history tells a different story. I know you have some sort of problem with Newman but even you should have noticed that the poster I was quoting is nothing more than a Corrie fanboy on a wind-up.
I am relatively new and i am not aware of that posters post history as you describe it to me.
Sorry but ratings do reflect. I'm sick of EE fans on here shouting from the roof tops when EE gets a massive rating yet when it gets a small rating its brushed off as ''ratings don't matter''. You have to laugh at it.
The Friday repeat is barely hitting 0.5m . Thats terrible. The BBC Three episodes have also started to shed viewers since it was pushed back 30 minutes. Its down across ALL networks. Not just BBC One.
Overnights aren't a big deal any more, big or small.
Patrick Trueman
Denise Fox
Jean Slater
Abi Branning
Masood
Sharon Watts
You hardly see these characters and yes they are caring but there caring side is not featured as much as it should be. Sharon should be doing more for ian for example
I take it then, that all those shouting down the importance of catch-up ratings would argue that it was EastEnders that won the Christmas Day ratings last year, and beat Downton Abbey? When in fact the official ratings with those figures added show the opposite?
Overnights may be the majority, but they don't always tell the full story. The example above is perfect evidence of this.
I take it then, that all those shouting down the importance of catch-up ratings would argue that it was EastEnders that won the Christmas Day ratings last year, and beat Downton Abbey? When in fact the official ratings with those figures added show the opposite?
Overnights may be the majority, but they don't always tell the full story. The example above is perfect evidence of this.
It isnt so much people talking down the importance of catch up ratings but trying to stop others artifically talk them up and counter strange foolish talk of the overnights dont matter at all.
You hardly see these characters and yes they are caring but there caring side is not featured as much as it should be. Sharon should be doing more for ian for example
Showing and exploring Ians friendship with Sharon at this difficult time would have been much more interesting as drama than this storyline with Jack Branning in my opinion.
I said it yesterday whilst watching the Omnibus on Iplayer, I miss the Sunday afternoon Omnibus(and I can't be the only one). I don't care about the BBC3 10pm or whatever time it is now repeats or Friday night Omnibus(stupid idea moving it to that time if you ask me and I can never find it on the planner anyway) I can't be arsed to stay up until the small hours just to watch Eastenders but when it was on on a Sunday I could catch up in one go. Now I just don't bother watching and don't care if I miss an episode. I don't stay up to watch the BBC3 repeats as I have to be up at 5.30am to get ready for work and at 10pm I want to watch the news, if I Sky+ it I never watch it as I never find the time.
I said it yesterday whilst watching the Omnibus on Iplayer, I miss the Sunday afternoon Omnibus(and I can't be the only one). I don't care about the BBC3 10pm or whatever time it is now repeats or Friday night Omnibus(stupid idea moving it to that time if you ask me and I can never find it on the planner anyway) I can't be arsed to stay up until the small hours just to watch Eastenders but when it was on on a Sunday I could catch up in one go. Now I just don't bother watching and don't care if I miss an episode. I don't stay up to watch the BBC3 repeats as I have to be up at 5.30am to get ready for work and at 10pm I want to watch the news, if I Sky+ it I never watch it as I never find the time.
Why don't you record it and then watch it in it's old Omnibus slot on Sunday afternoons?...
Why don't you record it and then watch it in it's old Omnibus slot on Sunday afternoons?...
I record so much that something has to go and inevitably it turns out to be Eastenders. I only watched the omnibus yesterday as we have Virgin in the bedroom and I can get iplayer on that tv and the grand prix was on so I needed something to watch for a couple of hours whilst the main tv was on that.
Why is it struggling? Because it's dark, depressing and doesn't have anything remotely in common with normal life. It lacks humour and lacks believable characters, in fact - it's lacking.
Her failure to even tweek effectively might be what they as a viewer are basing their personal opinion on.
That's what has surprised me most; Kirkwood and Beedles may have laid the foundations for what's on screen now, but all the scripts and finer details will have been written and approved under Lorraine Newman. Also the minor subplots like Fatboy's Halloween tour almost certainly wouldn't have been planned over 6 months ago under Kirkwood.
That's what has surprised me most; Kirkwood and Beedles may have laid the foundations for what's on screen now, but all the scripts and finer details will have been written and approved under Lorraine Newman. Also the day to day minor subplots like Fatboy's Halloween tour almost certainly wouldn't have been planned over 6 months ago under Kirkwood.
Someone with balance and commonsense!Nice to meet you! The way some portray everyything from march 2012 to january 2013 as set in stone actually diminshes the role of EP.Crazy,-she should have tweeked and refined more.
That's what has surprised me most; Kirkwood and Beedles may have laid the foundations for what's on screen now, but all the scripts and finer details will have been written and approved under Lorraine Newman. Also the minor subplots like Fatboy's Halloween tour almost certainly wouldn't have been planned over 6 months ago under Kirkwood.
The scripts for now would have been written in May/possibly early June time - she was only an acting Exec Producer and only in the job for 4-5 weeks or something like that, as she started in April.
The Halloween tour was a sub plot and basically filler. You get a lot of these filler storylines during transitional change, and especially in a time where she was only acting exec producer. What would be the part of trying to impose your stamp on the show when it wasn't a certainty you had the job? It's like a temp coming into a company and trying to change the entire landscape of the company, when they only have the job for a few months.
Just read this blog from Carey Andrews, one of the script writers...
How do you write an episode?
The writer is offered an episode, a document sent late on a Friday night. On Monday, they must pitch the episode back to the story department, script editors, producers etc. It is then a two to three month process to produce the script, which will go through many drafts.
One script for one 30 minute episode takes two to three months to produce.
Then take into account the planning time to even create the episode commissioning document and the storyline etc.
You can't just change things easily.
The commission document for an episode is two A4 sides, and will have five or six story strands. The central strand will have a starting point A, and an ending point B with a ‘Ca Ha’ (cliff hanger).
How the writer takes the journey between A and B is the thrill. The other story strands will follow a similar pattern and must be interweaved around the central strand.
And some more bits...
Interesting bits:
writers are under huge constrictions with what sets they can include, dependant on what other sets are being used the same week
they also don’t get allocated all of the characters, and, for reasons unknown, if a character has a speaking part in an episode, they must always have lines in two scenes, never one.
Just read this blog from Carey Andrews, one of the script writers...
One script for one 30 minute episode takes two to three months to produce.
Then take into account the planning time to even create the episode commissioning document and the storyline etc.
You can't just change things easily.
And some more bits...
Yet another expert on here credited Lorraine with axing Anthony Moon and Rose Cotton and when i pointed out the times didnt fit and this would contradict their point that things were planned way in advance and couldnt be changed they said oh im sure they could put one episode aside for Anthonys exit.Total about turn when it suited their argument.The logic of their argument was that Kirkwood axed Rose and anthony but they wanted to credit Lorraine Newman with this in order to bolster her!
Scripts can be tweeked -Did they not tweek after Shona was suspended?They said they rewrote scripts to accomodate this and i dont believe it caused chaos.
If they did an episode today with flashbacks, people would be on here complaining it was like Hollyoaks and how Kirkwood has killed the show.
I remember an episode earlier on this year that used a camera that panned across scenes with some music in the background. The melodramatics on this forum was quite frankly shocking.
But that was done for the sake of it..
When they 'earn' a reflective moment it's powerful, when done for the sake of it it can leave it looking very OTT
Badly written, badly acted with pathetic unrealistic, inconsistent characters and plots may have something to do with it. 30 million people will only put up with having their intelligence insulted for so long before they react.
Why do you think no one in Eastenders can act? Jake Wood, Jo Joyner, Danielle Harold, Steve McFadden, Steve John Shepherd, Ann Mitchell, Nina Wadia, Nitin Ganatra, Lorna Fitzgerald, Jacqueline Jossa and Lindsey can act and even though people think Scott Maslen can't act I think he can and Rick Norwood can act imo and I think Hetti Bywater, Shona McGarty and Jessie Wallace can act imo.
They don't have any decent storylines at the moment, plus they are taking too long over the ones they do have. Also, they are struggling to give Jamie Foreman's character things to do.
I also think that Kat's affair is dragging along too slowly. We need to get this over and done with. As I said in another thread, I think Christian and Syed and the whole Danny storyline is boring. I just think that the sooner John and Marc are out of it, the better. Maybe we will get some better storylines.
Come on Lorraine! You can get them out there. Diedrick Santer was good with those. The Queen Vic explosion, Stacey and Max, and so on.
Janine's Jewish wedding when she came back was good too. I saw a clip of that on YouTube the other day. When Pat came in and said that Janine is as Jewish as a bacon sandwich, that made me laugh!! That was during Diedrick's reign too, I believe.
Yet another expert on here credited Lorraine with axing Anthony Moon and Rose Cotton and when i pointed out the times didnt fit and this would contradict their point that things were planned way in advance and couldnt be changed they said oh im sure they could put one episode aside for Anthonys exit.Total about turn when it suited their argument.The logic of their argument was that Kirkwood axed Rose and anthony but they wanted to credit Lorraine Newman with this in order to bolster her!
Scripts can be tweeked -Did they not tweek after Shona was suspended?They said they rewrote scripts to accomodate this and i dont believe it caused chaos.
Rose and Andrews exits were so basic, no leaving storyline, just a few lines and them walking out the square. As I've said before, they could add that to any script. Anthony's was basic as well. What you can't do, and a lot of people think this can happen is scrap entire storylines (e.g Kat's affair storyline). If you did end it earlier what will happen is you'll get loads of sub plots like Billy stealing the post or the upcoming Kim storyline with problems at the B&B. I've said these points before, but you are obviously stuck in your thought process that Newman is useless etc. That's fine
Also, Kirkwood would have never axed Anthony. He was touting him and Tyler and the new Mitchell brothers.
R What you can't do, and a lot of people think this can happen is scrap entire storylines (e.g Kat's affair storyline).
It depends, it seems they can do that on Hollyoaks. A large amount of material was scrapped over the Summer, re-written, re-shot and the result was an improvement which was visible within a few weeks rather than 6 months or more. It meant the spoilers were wrong for a while but that's a small price to pay.
Presumably EE has a good reason not to do that, but it just means the poor storylines seem to be going on for much longer than need be.
It depends, it seems they can do that on Hollyoaks. A large amount of material was scrapped over the Summer, re-written, re-shot and the result was an improvement which was visible within a few weeks rather than 6 months or more. It meant the spoilers were wrong for a while but that's a small price to pay.
Presumably EE has a good reason not to do that, but it just means the poor storylines seem to be going on for much longer than need be.
Hollyoaks is a much smaller production than EastEnders, even though they have 30 minutes more output a week.
Historically, EastEnders has a bad record of storyline and episode re-writes, not to mention the money side of doing those things.
Things aren't great at the moment, but they aren't that bad. Seeing things out is the best thing to do, and most logical.
Also, I find it strange that a few people have commented on how good Hollyoaks has become recently under Kirkwood and Kathleen Beedles, considering they were both responsible for the dire 2011/2012 we had for EastEnders. I think their style is obviously more suited to Hollyoaks. I can't comment any more than that because I don't watch the show anymore.
Rose and Andrews exits were so basic, no leaving storyline, just a few lines and them walking out the square. As I've said before, they could add that to any script. Anthony's was basic as well. What you can't do, and a lot of people think this can happen is scrap entire storylines (e.g Kat's affair storyline). If you did end it earlier what will happen is you'll get loads of sub plots like Billy stealing the post or the upcoming Kim storyline with problems at the B&B. I've said these points before, but you are obviously stuck in your thought process that Newman is useless etc. That's fine
Also, Kirkwood would have never axed Anthony. He was touting him and Tyler and the new Mitchell brothers.
Roses exit was basic but not Anthonys.His exit was crap but there was a 6 week build up to it.If that can be tweaked then other things should have been also.I really feel your trying to have the best of both worlds.How do you actually know Lorraine axed Anthony bar the fact you wish it was her?
Comments
Their post history tells a different story. I know you have some sort of problem with Newman but even you should have noticed that the poster I was quoting is nothing more than a Corrie fanboy on a wind-up.
I am relatively new and i am not aware of that posters post history as you describe it to me.
Overnights aren't a big deal any more, big or small.
Overnights arent the be all and end all but their hardly no big deal when over 90% of people watch the episode on first transmission.
You hardly see these characters and yes they are caring but there caring side is not featured as much as it should be. Sharon should be doing more for ian for example
Overnights may be the majority, but they don't always tell the full story. The example above is perfect evidence of this.
It isnt so much people talking down the importance of catch up ratings but trying to stop others artifically talk them up and counter strange foolish talk of the overnights dont matter at all.
Showing and exploring Ians friendship with Sharon at this difficult time would have been much more interesting as drama than this storyline with Jack Branning in my opinion.
Why don't you record it and then watch it in it's old Omnibus slot on Sunday afternoons?...
I record so much that something has to go and inevitably it turns out to be Eastenders. I only watched the omnibus yesterday as we have Virgin in the bedroom and I can get iplayer on that tv and the grand prix was on so I needed something to watch for a couple of hours whilst the main tv was on that.
That's what has surprised me most; Kirkwood and Beedles may have laid the foundations for what's on screen now, but all the scripts and finer details will have been written and approved under Lorraine Newman. Also the minor subplots like Fatboy's Halloween tour almost certainly wouldn't have been planned over 6 months ago under Kirkwood.
Someone with balance and commonsense!Nice to meet you! The way some portray everyything from march 2012 to january 2013 as set in stone actually diminshes the role of EP.Crazy,-she should have tweeked and refined more.
The scripts for now would have been written in May/possibly early June time - she was only an acting Exec Producer and only in the job for 4-5 weeks or something like that, as she started in April.
The Halloween tour was a sub plot and basically filler. You get a lot of these filler storylines during transitional change, and especially in a time where she was only acting exec producer. What would be the part of trying to impose your stamp on the show when it wasn't a certainty you had the job? It's like a temp coming into a company and trying to change the entire landscape of the company, when they only have the job for a few months.
One script for one 30 minute episode takes two to three months to produce.
Then take into account the planning time to even create the episode commissioning document and the storyline etc.
You can't just change things easily.
And some more bits...
Yet another expert on here credited Lorraine with axing Anthony Moon and Rose Cotton and when i pointed out the times didnt fit and this would contradict their point that things were planned way in advance and couldnt be changed they said oh im sure they could put one episode aside for Anthonys exit.Total about turn when it suited their argument.The logic of their argument was that Kirkwood axed Rose and anthony but they wanted to credit Lorraine Newman with this in order to bolster her!
Scripts can be tweeked -Did they not tweek after Shona was suspended?They said they rewrote scripts to accomodate this and i dont believe it caused chaos.
But that was done for the sake of it..
When they 'earn' a reflective moment it's powerful, when done for the sake of it it can leave it looking very OTT
Why do you think no one in Eastenders can act? Jake Wood, Jo Joyner, Danielle Harold, Steve McFadden, Steve John Shepherd, Ann Mitchell, Nina Wadia, Nitin Ganatra, Lorna Fitzgerald, Jacqueline Jossa and Lindsey can act and even though people think Scott Maslen can't act I think he can and Rick Norwood can act imo and I think Hetti Bywater, Shona McGarty and Jessie Wallace can act imo.
I also think that Kat's affair is dragging along too slowly. We need to get this over and done with. As I said in another thread, I think Christian and Syed and the whole Danny storyline is boring. I just think that the sooner John and Marc are out of it, the better. Maybe we will get some better storylines.
Come on Lorraine! You can get them out there. Diedrick Santer was good with those. The Queen Vic explosion, Stacey and Max, and so on.
Janine's Jewish wedding when she came back was good too. I saw a clip of that on YouTube the other day. When Pat came in and said that Janine is as Jewish as a bacon sandwich, that made me laugh!! That was during Diedrick's reign too, I believe.
Rose and Andrews exits were so basic, no leaving storyline, just a few lines and them walking out the square. As I've said before, they could add that to any script. Anthony's was basic as well. What you can't do, and a lot of people think this can happen is scrap entire storylines (e.g Kat's affair storyline). If you did end it earlier what will happen is you'll get loads of sub plots like Billy stealing the post or the upcoming Kim storyline with problems at the B&B. I've said these points before, but you are obviously stuck in your thought process that Newman is useless etc. That's fine
Also, Kirkwood would have never axed Anthony. He was touting him and Tyler and the new Mitchell brothers.
It depends, it seems they can do that on Hollyoaks. A large amount of material was scrapped over the Summer, re-written, re-shot and the result was an improvement which was visible within a few weeks rather than 6 months or more. It meant the spoilers were wrong for a while but that's a small price to pay.
Presumably EE has a good reason not to do that, but it just means the poor storylines seem to be going on for much longer than need be.
Hollyoaks is a much smaller production than EastEnders, even though they have 30 minutes more output a week.
Historically, EastEnders has a bad record of storyline and episode re-writes, not to mention the money side of doing those things.
Things aren't great at the moment, but they aren't that bad. Seeing things out is the best thing to do, and most logical.
Also, I find it strange that a few people have commented on how good Hollyoaks has become recently under Kirkwood and Kathleen Beedles, considering they were both responsible for the dire 2011/2012 we had for EastEnders. I think their style is obviously more suited to Hollyoaks. I can't comment any more than that because I don't watch the show anymore.
Roses exit was basic but not Anthonys.His exit was crap but there was a 6 week build up to it.If that can be tweaked then other things should have been also.I really feel your trying to have the best of both worlds.How do you actually know Lorraine axed Anthony bar the fact you wish it was her?