EE - Has anyone noticed how drastically the show has changed from mid-2006 onwards?

fawltytowers93fawltytowers93 Posts: 1,872
Forum Member
✭✭✭
For me, the whole feel of EastEnders changed from 2006 onwards and I can't put my finger on what changed. I think it's got something to do with the mass exodus of the cast at the end of 2005.

Does anyone else feel like the show and it's overall feel changed drastically from this point onwards?
«1

Comments

  • dublintvfandublintvfan Posts: 5,074
    Forum Member
    For me, the whole feel of EastEnders changed from 2006 onwards and I can't put my finger on what changed. I think it's got something to do with the mass exodus of the cast at the end of 2005.

    Does anyone else feel like the show and it's overall feel changed drastically from this point onwards?

    its the gripping gritty excitment factor, up until then eastenders was gritty dangerous quite fast paced now adays we get long continous storys about love affairs:rolleyes:
  • CRP2012CRP2012 Posts: 2,080
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    in 2006 - it was dramatic with people slamming doors
    these days,it is just a bore,with kat slater - the local **** :D:D:D
  • cobwebsoupcobwebsoup Posts: 4,852
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As much as I enjoy it these days, Eastenders does feel quite different now and to me it's because...

    - There are no Fowler's in the show. Would be great if Mark hadn't died and Martin was still around.

    - Too many popular characters left at the end of 2005. The only good things about 2006 were Get Johnny Week and the aftermath with Grant and Phil looking after Jake Moon.

    - Very few references to the past and too many long serving characters have gone.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The show did change in 2006 because much of the 2005 cast left. In 2005 the people at the heart of EastEnders, were Den, Sharon, Chrissie, Dennis, and playing supporting roles in this were Danny and Jake Moon, Zoe Slater, and Sam Mitchell. Also remember we were still in the glory period of Kalfie in 2005. The 2005 was the final year of the Slater family's prominence with some of its key original members, and the last year to date of the Watts' family really dominating the show. By the end of 2005, much of the Watts family had left, and in 2006, the Moons had left, in 2005 Kalfie left also.

    2006 was pretty much a transition period of EE due to these departures which changed the structure of the show and who was focused upon. Now, back in the frame was a smaller Mitchell unit - and without any female (mainly Sharon) to build storyline material for Phil, the introduction of Ben occurred. Plus we had the introduction of the Foxes, and the Brannings. 2010 was arguably a transition period as well. Peggy left, which has left an almighty whole in the Mitchell family as the strength of EE and it has never recovered.

    Ronnie's character began to really float through the motions after a successful two years, Stacey's character became incredibly boring and redundant without Bradley, and 2010 really was the year when the decline started. One of the good things about 2006 was that at least TPTB identified it as a transition year to help deal with the amount of departures from 2005. TPTB didn't even recognise 2010 as a transition year and tried to compensate the important departures from EE by adding more Brannings and Moons, rather than new families.
  • RadicalNatureRadicalNature Posts: 5,104
    Forum Member
    The show did change in 2006 because much of the 2005 cast left. In 2005 the people at the heart of EastEnders, were Den, Sharon, Chrissie, Dennis, and playing supporting roles in this were Danny and Jake Moon, Zoe Slater, and Sam Mitchell. Also remember we were still in the glory period of Kalfie in 2005. The 2005 was the final year of the Slater family's prominence with some of its key original members, and the last year to date of the Watts' family really dominating the show. By the end of 2005, much of the Watts family had left, and in 2006, the Moons had left, in 2005 Kalfie left also.

    2006 was pretty much a transition period of EE due to these departures which changed the structure of the show and who was focused upon. Now, back in the frame was a smaller Mitchell unit - and without any female (mainly Sharon) to build storyline material for Phil, the introduction of Ben occurred. Plus we had the introduction of the Foxes, and the Brannings. 2010 was arguably a transition period as well. Peggy left, which has left an almighty whole in the Mitchell family as the strength of EE and it has never recovered.

    Ronnie's character began to really float through the motions after a successful two years, Stacey's character became incredibly boring and redundant without Bradley, and 2010 really was the year when the decline started. One of the good things about 2006 was that at least TPTB identified it as a transition year to help deal with the amount of departures from 2005. TPTB didn't even recognise 2010 as a transition year and tried to compensate the important departures from EE by adding more Brannings and Moons, rather than new families.

    Completely agree. I watched EE yesterday for the first time since Stacey left and it just feels flat and empty. There's no spark excitement, or anything fresh and new to draw me in. New families have been needed for absolutely ages. We need a fresh new Max & Tanya, and family like the Slaters, The Brannings need to go, or at least be in the background for the next few years.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    It's always up & down. For me, round that time was dull.
  • MattehhhftwMattehhhftw Posts: 8,680
    Forum Member
    The show had a turning point in 2006 as it saw a lot of great characters go but it also created new great characters too. I
  • rick182rick182 Posts: 11,092
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It was crap the day Kirkwood took over!.and the damage will take years to repair!...
  • los.kavlos.kav Posts: 8,053
    Forum Member
    CRP2012 wrote: »
    in 2006 - it was dramatic with people slamming doors
    these days,it is just a bore,with kat slater - the local **** :D:D:D

    Epic! :D
  • Dr K NoisewaterDr K Noisewater Posts: 11,550
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    2006 saw the arrival of the Wicks family, the Fox family and the Branning family who all dominated the show. Because they hadn't been given a chance to settle in and were thrust straight into the lime light 2006 felt a bit flat for me because i didn't care about the characters involved because they were so new.
  • Broken_ArrowBroken_Arrow Posts: 10,637
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's a very different soap these days. I agree with the OP about it changing from 2006 onwards. I don't think it ever really recovered from the mass exodus and crisis it went through in 2004, 2005 and 2006. As well as the change of tone there's also been an almost entirely new cast brought in. It now jars when old characters come back because everything has changed so much.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Funnily enough, I think EastEnders recovered well from 2005. The Branning family, in their orginal form (Max, Tanya, Bradley, Jim etc) were genuinely interesting family who produced good television - 2006, was a fairly good Christmas. The introduction of the Mitchell sister revived a Mitchell family, still reeling from the loss of Grant. Stax was the affair story of the decade - and Mad May, was the highlight of the Miller family's stay on EastEnders. The Fox family/Wicks family drama was also fantastic; it was Shirley at her strongest and it was when Denise character had more to do than just prop Kim up. The problem is, EE doesn't seem to know when they've got a good thing.

    2008 made Max and Tanya's simply beyond believable. I cannot believe that Max would entertain a relationship with a woman who tried to kill him. I cannot believe Tanya, would actually see killing Max as a genuine solution to all her woes. I cannot believe that Max breaking up Lauren/Peter would be the catalyst for Lauren's attempt on his life. Ronnie became a character with a good backstory, to just a parody. Seeing her self-destruct and pity herself became quite jarring after a while. Her character was essentially in the same mood forever. Mad May's return seemed a bit pointless tbh as well. The Live ep, in reality was a let-down. - the Brannings in a manic state, with one of their more tolerable members dying branded a murder and the Stacey sympathy story continuing. The 20th edition, in 2005 was far better.
  • SMIDSYmk2SMIDSYmk2 Posts: 7,799
    Forum Member
    Funnily enough, I think EastEnders recovered well from 2005. The Branning family, in their orginal form (Max, Tanya, Bradley, Jim etc) were genuinely interesting family who produced good television - 2006, was a fairly good Christmas. The introduction of the Mitchell sister revived a Mitchell family, still reeling from the loss of Grant. Stax was the affair story of the decade - and Mad May, was the highlight of the Miller family's stay on EastEnders. The Fox family/Wicks family drama was also fantastic; it was Shirley at her strongest and it was when Denise character had more to do than just prop Kim up. The problem is, EE doesn't seem to know when they've got a good thing.

    2008 made Max and Tanya's simply beyond believable. I cannot believe that Max would entertain a relationship with a woman who tried to kill him. I cannot believe Tanya, would actually see killing Max as a genuine solution to all her woes. I cannot believe that Max breaking up Lauren/Peter would be the catalyst for Lauren's attempt on his life. Ronnie became a character with a good backstory, to just a parody. Seeing her self-destruct and pity herself became quite jarring after a while. Her character was essentially in the same mood forever. Mad May's return seemed a bit pointless tbh as well. The Live ep, in reality was a let-down. - the Brannings in a manic state, with one of their more tolerable members dying branded a murder and the Stacey sympathy story continuing. The 20th edition, in 2005 was far better.

    I agree with all of this^
  • Tom-Bennett.Tom-Bennett. Posts: 2,558
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That was when the gangster side of EE ended
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CRP2012 wrote: »
    in 2006 - it was dramatic with people slamming doors
    these days,it is just a bore,with kat slater - the local **** :D:D:D

    LMAO this!! :D:D
  • KaylaLKaylaL Posts: 1,627
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The demise started with the arrival of the Mitchell sisters...never before mentioned and suddenly at the heart of the Mitchell clan. And they were/are both dreadful. Then the Brannings escallated...with stories more and more unbelievable...Tanya trys to kill Max ditto Lauren...Max & Stacys affair...Bradley killing himself...then woe of woes...Along came Derek....result the ruination of EE. They need to bring back all the Slaters...or a family just like them. There was always something exciting going on with one of them and the show was never ever dull like it has been lately.
  • performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That was when the gangster side of EE ended

    ...and is now back with Derek! :p

    I heard they're bringing in Matt Dalton (Dalton's nephew/son) who kidnaps Denny as revenge for what Dennis did to his dad/uncle.

    Phil smashes up the Imperial Rooms (which Matt now owns) then burns it down, not realising that Denny was locked up in the office. Phil and Sharon find out and they go inside the burning building to get him out (Joey is there for some reason, maybe cause he reminds Matt of what Dalton told him of Dennis and there's some kind of connection which later leads to an affair, but that's later...). Joey pulls Denny to safety but Denny's inhaled too much smoke, leaving him brain damaged (Joey, already being damaged goods through shacking up with his sister, isn't affected).

    Phil tries to pin the fire on Joey but Jay grasses him up, sending him down for however many years Steve McFadden wants off. He ends up in the same nick as Ben and the last we see of Phil is him being beaten to a pulp by five hardened crims as Ben (played by Charlie Jones) looks on.

    That's what I heard, at least...:cool:
  • Claire-001Claire-001 Posts: 1,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I apologise for being ignorant but could someone remind me what stories kirkwood was responsible for that ruined the show.... Genuine question not a joke?
  • IzzyInTheHouseIzzyInTheHouse Posts: 4,348
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deadhead wrote: »
    I apologise for being ignorant but could someone remind me what stories kirkwood was responsible for that ruined the show.... Genuine question not a joke?

    Ones that come to mind for most people I guess: Baby Swap (though I didn't think it was that bad tbh),
    Kat's recent shagger story,
    Introduction of more and more Brannings

    Just some there.
  • Claire-001Claire-001 Posts: 1,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thanks. Would rather watch baby swap every day of the year over the branning shagger rubbish.
  • IzzyInTheHouseIzzyInTheHouse Posts: 4,348
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deadhead wrote: »
    Thanks. Would rather watch baby swap every day of the year over the branning shagger rubbish.

    Your welcome :)

    I really liked Ronnie, so I didn't mind the sl that much. People went OTT (imo).
  • SalomeSalome Posts: 816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    its the gripping gritty excitment factor, up until then eastenders was gritty dangerous quite fast paced now adays we get long continous storys about love affairs:rolleyes:

    Yes indeed, from 2006 onwards EE degenerated considerably and tipped over into melodrama (American style) with an emphasis on caricatural types and sensational storylines revolving around paternity and romance.
    From what I have read about the European soap landscape, this 'dumbing down' (synonymous with Americanisation) is a general trend (national soaps losing their cultural identity).
    A very sad development, particularly since I always admired EE for engaging elaborately with social issues and the complexity of its characters.
  • hetty100hetty100 Posts: 4,873
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ones that come to mind for most people I guess: Baby Swap (though I didn't think it was that bad tbh),
    Kat's recent shagger story,
    Introduction of more and more Brannings

    Just some there.


    bib you forgot the introduction of more moons aswell, the god awful eddie and his 2 twit sons who were and I quote "suppose to be the new alpha males lol:D" all shoved down our throats during the majority of 2011.
  • O-JO-J Posts: 18,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CRP2012 wrote: »
    in 2006 - it was dramatic with people slamming doors
    these days,it is just a bore,with kat slater - the local **** :D:D:D

    I think those years were the Gangster years,
    the last of the hard men got killed off in that year, so thats what you probably are thinking of.

    Dennis, Johnny, Andy, Grant, made 2003-6
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,246
    Forum Member
    I miss the gangster years :(:o
Sign In or Register to comment.