The Mitchell's were why I switched OFF years ago! Far too dominant in the stories.
I'm a relatively new viewer now (since DEC 25th) and am loving the Carters, Dot's family and The Beales.
I think the goings-on at the Cottons is quite rivetting at the moment! I hope "Mrs Doyle" confesses in the end to covering up for Nasty Nick!! I can't stand Philth Mitchell - but he doesn't deserve this!
The ratings staying up as the quality maintains itself is a great achievement. I hope the focus stays on the Mitchells and Cottons for a while. The Carters are okay in small doses but they're not interesting enough to dominate constantly.
The Mitchell's were why I switched OFF years ago! Far too dominant in the stories.
I'm a relatively new viewer now (since DEC 25th) and am loving the Carters, Dot's family and The Beales.
I think the goings-on at the Cottons is quite rivetting at the moment! I hope "Mrs Doyle" confesses in the end to covering up for Nasty Nick!! I can't stand Philth Mitchell - but he doesn't deserve this!
Any families who's in the Vic is going to be dominant, the Mitchell's were far more interesting.
Not just the Mitchells but OLD characters. Nick Cotton, Ian Beale, Sharon Mitchell, Dot Branning. We need more of those characters.
I absolutely agree. For years EastEnders lacked a lot of the old guard and underused those it did have. To have Ian, Sharon, Dot and Nick at the centre of huge plots 30 years into the show's history is a real treat. I think it works for old and new viewers too because we all know the history of these characters and it resonates even for casual viewers.
I absolutely agree. For years EastEnders lacked a lot of the old guard and underused those it did have. To have Ian, Sharon, Dot and Nick at the centre of huge plots 30 years into the show's history is a real treat. I think it works for old and new viewers too because we all know the history of these characters and it resonates even for casual viewers.
I want more of it! We should have more of the old guard and give them big storylines as well. Who else from the old, old guard can come back? Could deaths be retconned, if necessary and if it is done in a workable way?
I want more of it! We should have more of the old guard and give them big storylines as well. Who else from the old, old guard can come back? Could deaths be retconned, if necessary and if it is done in a workable way?
Martin technically counts as the old guard and DTC has brought him back too albeit recast. I think what I like most about what DTC has done is that he's built onto the old characters by bringing in more Cottons and integrating Sharon into the Mitchells. It provides all the oldies with new directions and dynamics. Even Ian has reason to be involved with the Mitchells and Cottons in new ways now. Dot is a wonder to still be in the thick of it at her age.
I absolutely agree. For years EastEnders lacked a lot of the old guard and underused those it did have. To have Ian, Sharon, Dot and Nick at the centre of huge plots 30 years into the show's history is a real treat. I think it works for old and new viewers too because we all know the history of these characters and it resonates even for casual viewers.
I think the Who Killed Lucy plot has fulfilled this need to at least some extent. I believe the Cotton/Mitchell story could have done that as well, but Nick's involvement is a weakness in my opinion because he comes off as more comical than anything. The latter has brought Dot and Sharon back into prominence again, and that's a good thing. I really liked Sharon's involvement in yesterday's episode.
I feel that on this board there is almost a push to choose between liking "the Carters" and "everyone else." On the same note, there seems to be an assumption that if you are interested in the Mitchell/Cotton/Branning/Slater stories you can't be interested in the Carters. I don't understand this mindset. I am equally interested in finding out how the Phil/Ronnie thing will work out (minus Nick, who I don't really care about), learning the identity of Lucy's killer and how she died, and seeing how the Carters will emerge from the rape/Stan's cancer/Shirley is Mick's mom fall out. More and more, though, I feel like I have to "choose" for some reason.
I think the Who Killed Lucy plot has fulfilled this need to at least some extent. I believe the Cotton/Mitchell story could have done that as well, but Nick's involvement is a weakness in my opinion because he comes off as more comical than anything. The latter has brought Dot and Sharon back into prominence again, and that's a good thing. I really liked Sharon's involvement in yesterday's episode.
I feel that on this board there is almost a push to choose between liking "the Carters" and "everyone else." On the same note, there seems to be an assumption that if you are interested in the Mitchell/Cotton/Branning/Slater stories you can't be interested in the Carters. I don't understand this mindset. I am equally interested in finding out how the Phil/Ronnie thing will work out (minus Nick, who I don't really care about), learning the identity of Lucy's killer and how she died, and seeing how the Carters will emerge from the rape/Stan's cancer/Shirley is Mick's mom fall out. More and more, though, I feel like I have to "choose" for some reason.
Good point. I think maybe some people feel like they're being forced to like The Carters due to all the screentime and hype. Personally I don't mind most of The Carters but their screentime has been ridicullously over the top and I'm afraid I don't find them that interesting. With a more even spread of the screentime I don't think anyone would be forced into picking "sides". There's room for all but we didn't see a lot of that in 2014. Hopefully 2015 will give all the families a chance to take centre stage.
I feel that on this board there is almost a push to choose between liking "the Carters" and "everyone else." On the same note, there seems to be an assumption that if you are interested in the Mitchell/Cotton/Branning/Slater stories you can't be interested in the Carters. I don't understand this mindset. I am equally interested in finding out how the Phil/Ronnie thing will work out (minus Nick, who I don't really care about), learning the identity of Lucy's killer and how she died, and seeing how the Carters will emerge from the rape/Stan's cancer/Shirley is Mick's mom fall out. More and more, though, I feel like I have to "choose" for some reason.
It's daft isn't it. I love the Carters, but don't want to see them in every episode. I'm also loving the Cottons, especially now that Ronnie's involved. The Lucy Beale murder is becoming interesting again, and I'm looking forward to the Kat/Alfie s/l and Shabnam's secret.
TBH I'm not that fussed about Phil, Sharon and Ben or the Brannings, but each to their own.
I think the Who Killed Lucy plot has fulfilled this need to at least some extent. I believe the Cotton/Mitchell story could have done that as well, but Nick's involvement is a weakness in my opinion because he comes off as more comical than anything. The latter has brought Dot and Sharon back into prominence again, and that's a good thing. I really liked Sharon's involvement in yesterday's episode.
I feel that on this board there is almost a push to choose between liking "the Carters" and "everyone else." On the same note, there seems to be an assumption that if you are interested in the Mitchell/Cotton/Branning/Slater stories you can't be interested in the Carters. I don't understand this mindset. I am equally interested in finding out how the Phil/Ronnie thing will work out (minus Nick, who I don't really care about), learning the identity of Lucy's killer and how she died, and seeing how the Carters will emerge from the rape/Stan's cancer/Shirley is Mick's mom fall out. More and more, though, I feel like I have to "choose" for some reason.
Agreed. There is a noticable cabal on here who think it matters them 'better' EE fans by supporting the past. They prefer pantomime to drama if it is coming from a long term character. Ignore it. EE was always about good family/community drama and the Carters are the new family in the block providing it. Enjoy the drama whoever provides it. As for increased ratings its linked to Lucy whodunit. Funnily enough many of said cabal have done nothing but moan about storyline for months.
I want more of it! We should have more of the old guard and give them big storylines as well. Who else from the old, old guard can come back? Could deaths be retconned, if necessary and if it is done in a workable way?
I personally think Cindy or in particular Kathy could return, as their deaths were offscreen. So really it is possible to make something up, such as witness protection. But i have said this before and it did not seem to meet with a great deal of approval so maybe not :D
I do hope the block story telling is evened out a bit and we get to see a bigger mix of characters in each episode. Like vald, I like the Carters and have really enjoyed their presence, but don't want to see them dominate every episode. I can understand why we saw so much of them being that they were new to the Vic and the show and we needed to get to know them. I think enough material has been introduced for them that will carry them through for quite awhile. Actually, I think that is true for most of the families on the Square right now.
The show is seeing strong ratings because it's actually engaging right now. The story that currently centres around the Mitchells/Brannings is one of those reasons.
However I disagree that the Mitchells, as a family until, are the result. They have proven to pull in the ratings for sure but so have most families on the show. They have also been part of some low rated episodes in the show. Again, this applies to most families.
At the crux of it, the show relies on decent storytelling, writing and solid drama, which we have had this week - coupled with some great performances.
This week has been excellent and it's nice to see the Mitchells finally getting some spot light after months in the background but I have no interest in Mitchell dominance or any family dominance.
I also agree with others that the Carters have dominated too much and it's nice to have a breather. I do find them interesting and likable but they are not the only family who can deliver high drama and this past week has reminded us why the Mitchells are one of the shows greats.
The point is that no episode should be boring and overdominated. However, you can be pro-Carter and pro-past at the same time. The Carters are actually an evolution of the past - they're an extension of the Wicks family, who were an extension of Pat's family and Pat is an extension of the Beales and the Fowlers. The show does need to modernise with new characters, new dynamics etc. but you do need popular old characters like Ian, Dot, Sharon, Nick, Phil. I have mates who don't watch EastEnders but they know who these characters are. That's why it was a terrible mistake to kill off characters like Pat Butcher, Den Watts and Kathy Beale who could have made appearances. I take the unpopular view that writers should look at one or two characters who died off screen and see what could be done but that's controversial and may not work.
As I've said before, there is a noticeable rise in quality (and even ratings) when the show focuses on the Mitchells. Indeed, with the 80s being the clear exception, EastEnders' most successful eras have coincided with with the Mitchells being front and centre. When there were no Mitchells around in 2004, the show suffered. When the Brannings became the main focus in 2011-13 the show fell to pieces.
The last three episodes have been the best I've seen in quite some time, and that's because the Mitchells, Sharon, Dot, Nick and Ian have been at the heart of the action. Plenty of people tune in to EastEnders to see the characters they've grown up watching (myself included); it's why I didn't care much for the show between 2010-2013. Of course, I do enjoy new characters like the Carters, but I'm not interested in watching a show ALL about a new family for which I have no reason to care about.
I hate that EastEnders' success is being used to fuel fan wars; a competition between 'Who is more popular than who'. Any true fan of the show would just be pleased that it is doing well.
I don't follow the logic of the Mitchells vs. Carters argument anyway. Viewers tune in for engaging drama, not the surnames of those fronting it.
Sharon dominated the 03-04 era, which is commonly regarded as EE's weakest, 2m viewers switched off between January 04 and December 04. However, I wouldn't for one second suggest that was her fault. The poor storylines that year were to blame.
On Christmas Day the show pulled in 7.5m, a million more than preceding episodes, you could say NYD would not have got 8m+ if Christmas Day and Boxing Day hadn't already brought back some casual viewers. 8m watched on 29/12 only 300k fewer than NYD and that was another Carter-centric episode.
When the Brannings became the main focus in 2011-13 the show fell to pieces.
It did but I don't think the crappy ratings back then were mainly to do with the Brannings. 2011 was actually Moon dominance with crap like Eddies boxing story. The Brannings came to the fore in 2012 with the injection of Derek, Joey, Alice and Cora. It was overkill and they were completely uninteresting too. However it wasn't just the characters, it was also their stories. And not just their stories too - the stories that centrered on the Masoods, Moons, Mitchells and Beales were tripe too. Character assassinations were happening left right centre and every family on the show suffered. The writing suffered, as did the drama or you could say lack of. Point being is that the show being at a crappy state wasn't solely down to one family. As insufferable as the Brannings were, if it were the Mitchells at the centre with THAT kind of writing and THOSE kind of stories, they wouldn't have been enough to bring in the ratings either. We should also remember the Stax reveal pulled in 15 million viewers (Branning centric). That was down to the execution of the story, writing and drama, not because the Brannings were rating grabbers. I say the same for every family.
We're lucky right now the show, although not in excellent shape, is a lot stronger giving all the families to shine. I do think the Mitchells, Carters and Beales have executed some solid drama this year and given us stories that we can invest in. Even though some have dragged too long, some have dominated too much etc, I think most of us can agree that they have some appeal and there is drama there, as oppose to the Kirkwood years. ^_^
I hate that EastEnders' success is being used to fuel fan wars; a competition between 'Who is more popular than who'. Any true fan of the show would just be pleased that it is doing well.
I don't follow the logic of the Mitchells vs. Carters argument anyway. Viewers tune in for engaging drama, not the surnames of those fronting it.
I have to agree. I had a rant about this last week. It's really getting on my wick if I'm honest. Can't stand this Carter vs Mitchell popularity contest and a constant need for one to be proven as viewer winners.
Both families have their merits and shortcomings, however the show doesn't depend on EITHER of them to bring in the viewers IMO.
The Slaters had some of their best ratings in 2001-03 with their stories (though I understand that ratings back then can't be compared to what it is now). Point being is that it had nothing to do with the Mitchells. Just like the success of Who Shot Phil had nothing to do with the Slaters. The show back then was at the strongest its EVER been. All the cast and crew were involved in driving the show to its best. The Masoods also had some fantastic ratings at the height of the Syed story during the Santer years, which saw the "revealed" show as the second highest revealed show of that year beating the secret Mitchell reveal and Archies exit reveal. Does that make the Masoods more popular than the Mitchells? No but I think this does reinforce my point that storylines and drama are main vehicles to the success of a soap.
If a casual viewer finds a story interesting and compelling enough they will emotionally invest themselves in that story, regardless of who is fronting it but can just as easily turn of if the same character/family is fronting a story that they have no desire to watch.
It did but I don't think the crappy ratings back then were mainly to do with the Brannings. 2011 was actually Moon dominance with crap like Eddies boxing story. The Brannings came to the fore in 2012 with the injection of Derek, Joey, Alice and Cora. It was overkill and they were completely uninteresting too. However it wasn't just the characters, it was also their stories. And not just their stories too - the stories that centrered on the Masoods, Moons, Mitchells and Beales were tripe too. Character assassinations were happening left right centre and every family on the show suffered. The writing suffered, as did the drama or you could say lack of. Point being is that the show being at a crappy state wasn't solely down to one family. As insufferable as the Brannings were, if it were the Mitchells at the centre with THAT kind of writing and THOSE kind of stories, they wouldn't have been enough to bring in the ratings either. We should also remember the Stax reveal pulled in 15 million viewers (Branning centric). That was down to the execution of the story, writing and drama, not because the Brannings were rating grabbers. I say the same for every family.
We're lucky right now the show, although not in excellent shape, is a lot stronger giving all the families to shine. I do think the Mitchells, Carters and Beales have executed some solid drama this year and given us stories that we can invest in. Even though some have dragged too long, some have dominated too much etc, I think most of us can agree that they have some appeal and there is drama there, as oppose to the Kirkwood years. ^_^
The Slaters had some of their best ratings in 2001-03 with their stories (though I understand that ratings back then can't be compared to what it is now). Point being is that it had nothing to do with the Mitchells. Just like the success of Who Shot Phil had nothing to do with the Slaters. The show back then was at the strongest its EVER been. All the cast and crew were involved in driving the show to its best. The Masoods also had some fantastic ratings at the height of the Syed story during the Santer years, which saw the "revealed" show as the second highest revealed show of that year beating the secret Mitchell reveal and Archies exit reveal. Does that make the Masoods more popular than the Mitchells? No but I think this does reinforce my point that storylines and drama are main vehicles to the success of a soap.
I think you've made some very valid points, Katrina, though I would disagree that storylines are the key to the success or failure of a soap. Having strong, believable characters is absolutely essential, otherwise the storylines and drama just falls flat. The Mick/Shirley reveal was a clear example of this. I have no reason to 'care' about Shirley as a character, so I didn't care about this reveal at all.
Don't get me wrong, I thought Kirkwood's storylines were terrible, but they key reason the 2010-13 Branningdom was such a failure was because the Brannings were awful as individual characters. The audience had no reason to 'believe' in them as a family, all they did was jump from one sensationalist crisis to the next: affairs, murders, attempted murders, drugs, alcoholism. And it didn't help that literally all of them were vile, self-obsessed, and morally reprehensible. Putting an un-likeable and unrealistic family at the heart of the show was a huge error of judgement..
I don't want any family to dominate the show, but I feel the Carters dominated far too much in 2014 at the expense of other families. I couldn't help but notice the huge jump in quality when the spotlight was taken off the Carters and the Cottons/Mitchells took centre stage.
I hate that EastEnders' success is being used to fuel fan wars; a competition between 'Who is more popular than who'. Any true fan of the show would just be pleased that it is doing well.
I don't follow the logic of the Mitchells vs. Carters argument anyway. Viewers tune in for engaging drama, not the surnames of those fronting it.
Sharon dominated the 03-04 era, which is commonly regarded as EE's weakest, 2m viewers switched off between January 04 and December 04. However, I wouldn't for one second suggest that was her fault. The poor storylines that year were to blame.
On Christmas Day the show pulled in 7.5m, a million more than preceding episodes, you could say NYD would not have got 8m+ if Christmas Day and Boxing Day hadn't already brought back some casual viewers. 8m watched on 29/12 only 300k fewer than NYD and that was another Carter-centric episode.
I think you've made some very valid points, Katrina, though I would disagree that storylines are the key to the success or failure of a soap. Having strong, believable characters is absolutely essential, otherwise the storylines and drama just falls flat. The Mick/Shirley reveal was a clear example of this. I have no reason to 'care' about Shirley as a character, so I didn't care about this reveal at all.
Don't get me wrong, I thought Kirkwood's storylines were terrible, but they key reason the 2010-13 Branningdom was such a failure was because the Brannings were awful as individual characters. The audience had no reason to 'believe' in them as a family, all they did was jump from one sensationalist crisis to the next: affairs, murders, attempted murders, drugs, alcoholism. And it didn't help that literally all of them were vile, self-obsessed, and morally reprehensible. Putting an un-likeable and unrealistic family at the heart of the show was a huge error of judgement..
I don't want any family to dominate the show, but I feel the Carters dominated far too much in 2014 at the expense of other families. I couldn't help but notice the huge jump in quality when the spotlight was taken off the Carters and the Cottons/Mitchells took centre stage.
I won't disagree that decent characters and characterisation are essential to making a soap work. Can you imagine the show with 50 Tylers and Dexters? :eek: No amout of excellent storylines would save EE then. Like you said, we need people we can care about and root for. However you could have a very strong cast and the show still suffer if it had crap stories. This is especially true for 2010-13. Kirkwood had inherited a very strong cast. The show, albeit the mess Santer made from EE live aftermarth, was in strong shape. Ratings were on the up and they had just won 10 gongs at the BSA's. However Kirkwoods injection of bile meant the show dropping in viewing figures. No family could save that car crash - not the Mitchells, not the Beales, not the Brannings. No one. The Brannings, I agree on a whole were terrible but their storylines, like you pointed out were also just that. Even if all that was played by decent characters, it still wouldn't have bought in the viewers. When Sharon returned in 2012, it did nothing to increase the ratings. Neither did the crappy love triangle involving Jack and Phil simply because it made rubbish TV. That's a long list of many. Amira's return, Kat's infidelity, Michaels daddy issues, Whitney/Tylers love story, Christians overnight baby obsession, Roxy and Jacks custody battle are just a very few of rubbish storylines being played out by decent characters (lets just forget Tyler for a second ) . Even characters I loved, I grew sick of purely because of how they were behaving - which was a direct result of how how they were written and the stories they were involved in.
I truly believe the success of this year has been down to the consistent level of drama, writing coupled with the characters involved. The bulk of the stories have been character-driven, as oppose to plot-driven.
I agree the Mick/Shirely reveal was a let down but I think that was more to do with the 'plot' decision to make Micks brother a rapist. Not that I care for Shirley but I do think the family on a whole are engaging and interesting enough but I respect not everyone will feel that way.
I do agree that the Carters have been overkill last year and have featured more than they should have. Unfortunately it's swings and round abouts on EE. There is usually one family that dominates more than the rest and it's usually the one fronting the Vic. I am actually pleased we're having a break and seeing the Mitchells after a few quiet months. I also agree that NYD episodes and the aftermath have been more interesting than the stuff we've seen over Christmas. However, IMO, any family could have pulled that level of drama of. At present EE does have a very strong cast. I personally like all the families (though I understand not everyone will). The bulk of the actors are strong and most of the characters are interesting enough to make the connection with the viewers IMO.
The ratings staying up as the quality maintains itself is a great achievement. I hope the focus stays on the Mitchells and Cottons for a while. The Carters are okay in small doses but they're not interesting enough to dominate constantly.
Comments
I'm a relatively new viewer now (since DEC 25th) and am loving the Carters, Dot's family and The Beales.
I think the goings-on at the Cottons is quite rivetting at the moment! I hope "Mrs Doyle" confesses in the end to covering up for Nasty Nick!! I can't stand Philth Mitchell - but he doesn't deserve this!
Any families who's in the Vic is going to be dominant, the Mitchell's were far more interesting.
I absolutely agree. For years EastEnders lacked a lot of the old guard and underused those it did have. To have Ian, Sharon, Dot and Nick at the centre of huge plots 30 years into the show's history is a real treat. I think it works for old and new viewers too because we all know the history of these characters and it resonates even for casual viewers.
Im hoping that we see a few figures over 8 Million this month and next.
Martin technically counts as the old guard and DTC has brought him back too albeit recast. I think what I like most about what DTC has done is that he's built onto the old characters by bringing in more Cottons and integrating Sharon into the Mitchells. It provides all the oldies with new directions and dynamics. Even Ian has reason to be involved with the Mitchells and Cottons in new ways now. Dot is a wonder to still be in the thick of it at her age.
I think the Who Killed Lucy plot has fulfilled this need to at least some extent. I believe the Cotton/Mitchell story could have done that as well, but Nick's involvement is a weakness in my opinion because he comes off as more comical than anything. The latter has brought Dot and Sharon back into prominence again, and that's a good thing. I really liked Sharon's involvement in yesterday's episode.
I feel that on this board there is almost a push to choose between liking "the Carters" and "everyone else." On the same note, there seems to be an assumption that if you are interested in the Mitchell/Cotton/Branning/Slater stories you can't be interested in the Carters. I don't understand this mindset. I am equally interested in finding out how the Phil/Ronnie thing will work out (minus Nick, who I don't really care about), learning the identity of Lucy's killer and how she died, and seeing how the Carters will emerge from the rape/Stan's cancer/Shirley is Mick's mom fall out. More and more, though, I feel like I have to "choose" for some reason.
Good point. I think maybe some people feel like they're being forced to like The Carters due to all the screentime and hype. Personally I don't mind most of The Carters but their screentime has been ridicullously over the top and I'm afraid I don't find them that interesting. With a more even spread of the screentime I don't think anyone would be forced into picking "sides". There's room for all but we didn't see a lot of that in 2014. Hopefully 2015 will give all the families a chance to take centre stage.
It's daft isn't it. I love the Carters, but don't want to see them in every episode. I'm also loving the Cottons, especially now that Ronnie's involved. The Lucy Beale murder is becoming interesting again, and I'm looking forward to the Kat/Alfie s/l and Shabnam's secret.
TBH I'm not that fussed about Phil, Sharon and Ben or the Brannings, but each to their own.
Agreed. There is a noticable cabal on here who think it matters them 'better' EE fans by supporting the past. They prefer pantomime to drama if it is coming from a long term character. Ignore it. EE was always about good family/community drama and the Carters are the new family in the block providing it. Enjoy the drama whoever provides it. As for increased ratings its linked to Lucy whodunit. Funnily enough many of said cabal have done nothing but moan about storyline for months.
I personally think Cindy or in particular Kathy could return, as their deaths were offscreen. So really it is possible to make something up, such as witness protection. But i have said this before and it did not seem to meet with a great deal of approval so maybe not
Well every time there is a Mitchell drama ratings rises
However I disagree that the Mitchells, as a family until, are the result. They have proven to pull in the ratings for sure but so have most families on the show. They have also been part of some low rated episodes in the show. Again, this applies to most families.
At the crux of it, the show relies on decent storytelling, writing and solid drama, which we have had this week - coupled with some great performances.
This week has been excellent and it's nice to see the Mitchells finally getting some spot light after months in the background but I have no interest in Mitchell dominance or any family dominance.
I also agree with others that the Carters have dominated too much and it's nice to have a breather. I do find them interesting and likable but they are not the only family who can deliver high drama and this past week has reminded us why the Mitchells are one of the shows greats.
The last three episodes have been the best I've seen in quite some time, and that's because the Mitchells, Sharon, Dot, Nick and Ian have been at the heart of the action. Plenty of people tune in to EastEnders to see the characters they've grown up watching (myself included); it's why I didn't care much for the show between 2010-2013. Of course, I do enjoy new characters like the Carters, but I'm not interested in watching a show ALL about a new family for which I have no reason to care about.
I don't follow the logic of the Mitchells vs. Carters argument anyway. Viewers tune in for engaging drama, not the surnames of those fronting it.
Sharon dominated the 03-04 era, which is commonly regarded as EE's weakest, 2m viewers switched off between January 04 and December 04. However, I wouldn't for one second suggest that was her fault. The poor storylines that year were to blame.
On Christmas Day the show pulled in 7.5m, a million more than preceding episodes, you could say NYD would not have got 8m+ if Christmas Day and Boxing Day hadn't already brought back some casual viewers. 8m watched on 29/12 only 300k fewer than NYD and that was another Carter-centric episode.
It did but I don't think the crappy ratings back then were mainly to do with the Brannings. 2011 was actually Moon dominance with crap like Eddies boxing story. The Brannings came to the fore in 2012 with the injection of Derek, Joey, Alice and Cora. It was overkill and they were completely uninteresting too. However it wasn't just the characters, it was also their stories. And not just their stories too - the stories that centrered on the Masoods, Moons, Mitchells and Beales were tripe too. Character assassinations were happening left right centre and every family on the show suffered. The writing suffered, as did the drama or you could say lack of. Point being is that the show being at a crappy state wasn't solely down to one family. As insufferable as the Brannings were, if it were the Mitchells at the centre with THAT kind of writing and THOSE kind of stories, they wouldn't have been enough to bring in the ratings either. We should also remember the Stax reveal pulled in 15 million viewers (Branning centric). That was down to the execution of the story, writing and drama, not because the Brannings were rating grabbers. I say the same for every family.
We're lucky right now the show, although not in excellent shape, is a lot stronger giving all the families to shine. I do think the Mitchells, Carters and Beales have executed some solid drama this year and given us stories that we can invest in. Even though some have dragged too long, some have dominated too much etc, I think most of us can agree that they have some appeal and there is drama there, as oppose to the Kirkwood years. ^_^
I have to agree. I had a rant about this last week. It's really getting on my wick if I'm honest. Can't stand this Carter vs Mitchell popularity contest and a constant need for one to be proven as viewer winners.
Both families have their merits and shortcomings, however the show doesn't depend on EITHER of them to bring in the viewers IMO.
The Slaters had some of their best ratings in 2001-03 with their stories (though I understand that ratings back then can't be compared to what it is now). Point being is that it had nothing to do with the Mitchells. Just like the success of Who Shot Phil had nothing to do with the Slaters. The show back then was at the strongest its EVER been. All the cast and crew were involved in driving the show to its best. The Masoods also had some fantastic ratings at the height of the Syed story during the Santer years, which saw the "revealed" show as the second highest revealed show of that year beating the secret Mitchell reveal and Archies exit reveal. Does that make the Masoods more popular than the Mitchells? No but I think this does reinforce my point that storylines and drama are main vehicles to the success of a soap.
If a casual viewer finds a story interesting and compelling enough they will emotionally invest themselves in that story, regardless of who is fronting it but can just as easily turn of if the same character/family is fronting a story that they have no desire to watch.
I think you've made some very valid points, Katrina, though I would disagree that storylines are the key to the success or failure of a soap. Having strong, believable characters is absolutely essential, otherwise the storylines and drama just falls flat. The Mick/Shirley reveal was a clear example of this. I have no reason to 'care' about Shirley as a character, so I didn't care about this reveal at all.
Don't get me wrong, I thought Kirkwood's storylines were terrible, but they key reason the 2010-13 Branningdom was such a failure was because the Brannings were awful as individual characters. The audience had no reason to 'believe' in them as a family, all they did was jump from one sensationalist crisis to the next: affairs, murders, attempted murders, drugs, alcoholism. And it didn't help that literally all of them were vile, self-obsessed, and morally reprehensible. Putting an un-likeable and unrealistic family at the heart of the show was a huge error of judgement..
I don't want any family to dominate the show, but I feel the Carters dominated far too much in 2014 at the expense of other families. I couldn't help but notice the huge jump in quality when the spotlight was taken off the Carters and the Cottons/Mitchells took centre stage.
Great post, some good observations here.
I won't disagree that decent characters and characterisation are essential to making a soap work. Can you imagine the show with 50 Tylers and Dexters? :eek: No amout of excellent storylines would save EE then. Like you said, we need people we can care about and root for. However you could have a very strong cast and the show still suffer if it had crap stories. This is especially true for 2010-13. Kirkwood had inherited a very strong cast. The show, albeit the mess Santer made from EE live aftermarth, was in strong shape. Ratings were on the up and they had just won 10 gongs at the BSA's. However Kirkwoods injection of bile meant the show dropping in viewing figures. No family could save that car crash - not the Mitchells, not the Beales, not the Brannings. No one. The Brannings, I agree on a whole were terrible but their storylines, like you pointed out were also just that. Even if all that was played by decent characters, it still wouldn't have bought in the viewers. When Sharon returned in 2012, it did nothing to increase the ratings. Neither did the crappy love triangle involving Jack and Phil simply because it made rubbish TV. That's a long list of many. Amira's return, Kat's infidelity, Michaels daddy issues, Whitney/Tylers love story, Christians overnight baby obsession, Roxy and Jacks custody battle are just a very few of rubbish storylines being played out by decent characters (lets just forget Tyler for a second
I truly believe the success of this year has been down to the consistent level of drama, writing coupled with the characters involved. The bulk of the stories have been character-driven, as oppose to plot-driven.
I agree the Mick/Shirely reveal was a let down but I think that was more to do with the 'plot' decision to make Micks brother a rapist. Not that I care for Shirley but I do think the family on a whole are engaging and interesting enough but I respect not everyone will feel that way.
I do agree that the Carters have been overkill last year and have featured more than they should have. Unfortunately it's swings and round abouts on EE. There is usually one family that dominates more than the rest and it's usually the one fronting the Vic. I am actually pleased we're having a break and seeing the Mitchells after a few quiet months. I also agree that NYD episodes and the aftermath have been more interesting than the stuff we've seen over Christmas. However, IMO, any family could have pulled that level of drama of. At present EE does have a very strong cast. I personally like all the families (though I understand not everyone will). The bulk of the actors are strong and most of the characters are interesting enough to make the connection with the viewers IMO.
That's roughly my opinion as well.