|
||||||||
EastEnders, the All Time Low: 10 Years On |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 327
|
EastEnders, the All Time Low: 10 Years On
No-one is in any disagreement. EastEnders 2004 has slipped far below the standard the show has carved for itself over it's near-20 year history. When EastEnders was good, it was far and away the best. When EastEnders is bad, it's the worst. And the first half of this year saw the BBC Soap reach the pits of ratings and quality. I think it hit rock bottom a while back and is starting to up-tick, but that's incidental and perhaps a little optimistic.
Anyway, back in the early 90s, there was an eerily similar era where EE was heavily criticised by press and people, it was written off, and people thought it was a lost cause. People didn't take to Eddie Royle at all (a la Andy Hunter), people didn't take to the Taverniers (a la the Feirerras) at all, and it was only when they were cut out, that the show found enough drive, through the Mitchell family, to sail on stronger than ever, and stronger than all the rest, through the rest of the decade. I think that it will only be when these weak links are cut, the show might feel, structurally character wise, less bloated, and might pick up it's heels again. People forget how bad it got back then, as it was immediatley justified by the absolutle massivness of SharonGate, which sparked EE back into high-gear. But it did happen. On top of Andy and the Feirerras, I think Gus & Juley, Vicky and Derek ought to be cut out. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Its not that i dont agree, its just all this has been said, many times throughout this forum, its boring and dull.
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Co. Down Northern Ireland
Posts: 3,800
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrlaming
Its not that i dont agree, its just all this has been said, many times throughout this forum, its boring and dull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Atlantis
Posts: 4,671
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alan45
Yet again we agree James. EE is boring and dull. Well said
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 327
|
Well, I know there is alot about the State of EastEnders around right now, but I thought this would put a different spin on it - looking at how the soap was once in a terrible condition, and managed to sort itself out and become better than ever. I didn't want to start another thread about pro/nay current EE, and instead bring an element of retrospect into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by msf
I'm not trying to be funny but was James talking about EE ?
But i agree, you did look at it from another point of view, which was different from how other people have explained it. |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWalfordOne
Well, I know there is alot about the State of EastEnders around right now, but I thought this would put a different spin on it - looking at how the soap was once in a terrible condition, and managed to sort itself out and become better than ever. I didn't want to start another thread about pro/nay current EE, and instead bring an element of retrospect into it.
And yes, who cares if it isnt what James meant, EE is dull and boring ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocopop
Has EE EVER had a low as bad as this? Its agony to even watch it anymore!
And yes, who cares if it isnt what James meant, EE is dull and boring ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,078
|
I was thinking exactly the same chocopop - I don't know what's happened to you tonight!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,643
|
LOL me neither! God I was shocked to see my post! DAMN YOU LB! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ME?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocopop
And yes, who cares if it isnt what James meant, EE is dull and boring
![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrlaming
Well excuse me for posting what i thought, its not like ive ever said anything about your posts, you rude person.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
well ok, lol, i wasnt offended anyways.
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,643
|
Phew, geez im getting very worried today
I havent made any enemies on DS (yet lol) so I don't wanna start now
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 327
|
choco, at the turn of the 90s EE dropped in peoples/critics estimations: they heavily disliked characters like Eddie Royle and the Tavernier family, and the show was heavily written off by the press (I remember Chris Evans, who was very popular and even influential then, starting a "save EastEnders" campaign on his radio or tv show, or something like that). I'm not sure whether the viewing numbers were effected as they are now, but in terms of pop culture, it was the only period in the show's history which is comparable to the current state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,078
|
What was not a problem back then but is now, is that there is basically nothing left of the cast.
Back in the early 90s the main foundation and fabric of the show still remained. The Fowlers/Beales were nearly all still alive, or in Walford, the Mitchells had begun to grow and flourish and the likes of Frank and Pat Butcher were still popular, and more importantly, reliable characters. Back then, the show always had the heavy foundation to fall back on, it is very rare that in a soap the whole backbone is removed, but it seems that that’s what’s happened to EastEnders. The show’s main family the Fowlers/Beales have been reduced to a collection of 3 or 4, who to all intents and purposes are boring and dated. Pat Butcher is now a stand-alone character. The Mitchells comprise Sam and Billy. This is the big difference between EastEnders then and EastEnders now. Going through a rough patch with a strong and established cast (like Corrie did a couple of years ago) is nothing at all like going through a bad patch where the entire cast of your show are essentially washed up and have had their time. Over the years EastEnders have been too concerned with issues and sensational drama, rather than conserving and maintaining their long-standing families. With no fabric, it is no wonder that EastEnders is in such a mess. Mistakes made during the high points, probably even from as far back as Sharongate are starting to cost EastEnders dearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North
Posts: 628
|
I remember an awful period where the big story was something to do with Pat having a crush on the lecturer that Michelle was going out with. That was a dire period. Carried on watching it then though so it can't have been as bad as now.
I saw some of the omnibus on Sunday and this whole basketball ting is just embarrassing, are there SO few children in the London area who can act? |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 327
|
That is a very good point Ben. The cast has frayed and disintergrated no end. I'd like to see the 'bedrock' families (over the three decades, the Fowlers, Mitchells & Slaters) bolstered, but always dislike it when the spring any long-lost relatives from left-field. Still, I wonder how the proposed plans for the next few weeks - the Millers, the new Slater girl - will actually work out. A fresh help or a bloating hinderance. My heart says the former, but my head says.... hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,371
|
The main problem with EE now is that it is trying to be too much like an amalgamam of Hollyoaks (the allegedly 'fit' characters like Spencer, Dennis etc) and Corrie (Derek, Patrick, Yolande). Where it fails is that it fails to reach either of these potential audiences. The storylines are weak, the characterisation is pathetic and there's no sense of continuity. I disagree wholeheartedly that threads such as these are 'dull' or 'boring', lets not forget that our license fee i s paying for this claptrap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 40
|
If you were to watch an episode of EE dated four years back I doubt there'd be a single character (aside from Dot, Pauline, Ian or Pat) who is still in it now.
They appear to have had a mass spate of axings - but they're axing the wrong characters - they need to focus their attention on the people the public loathe such as the insufferable Ferrieras and the moon-faced Vicky. Also the reintroduction of some old characters may be of benefit - Perhaps Pauline & Dot could exhume Lou Beale. That would make for interesting viewing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Co. Down Northern Ireland
Posts: 3,800
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prumeister
. I disagree wholeheartedly that threads such as these are 'dull' or 'boring', lets not forget that our license fee i s paying for this claptrap.
Apparently the threads are only dull and boring if you criticise EE. However if you praise it no matter how poor it is you are wonderful |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,371
|
Exactly Alan, we are speaking up for quality and integrity and not just watching a programme 'cos gus and juley iz well fit'.
Berridge and Young should be sacked, bring in some experienced producers who care about the programme and start again. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:56.



