[vaslav37]

I dont remember much about 2004 but according to many it was a terrible year for EE.

Sharon was there then as was Dirty Den and Dennis but I cant recall whether she was in the Vic then or at the club.

It was the year that the awful Ferreira's were part of the show and the year that Phil was out of it...

was it really a very bad year and worse than 2011 under BK?

[Rose-Addict]

Although it was mediocre, I'd still rate 2004 above 2011 and 2012 personally.

[dublintvfan]

Originally Posted by vaslav37

I dont remember much about 2004 but according to many it was a terrible year for EE.

Sharon was there then as was Dirty Den and Dennis but I cant recall whether she was in the Vic then or at the club.

It was the year that the awful Ferreira's were part of the show and the year that Phil was out of it...

was it really a very bad year and worse than 2011 under BK?

wasent 2004 the year of little mo and alfie and andy and sam ect i think it was more of a filler year not alot happened

[JR_THELEGEND]

Originally Posted by Rose-Addict

Although it was mediocre, I'd still rate 2004 above 2011 and 2012 personally.

I rate watching paint dry above 2011 and 2012!

[Rose-Addict]

Originally Posted by JR_THELEGEND

I rate watching paint dry above 2011 and 2012!

I don't blame you!

[bass55]

I'd say 2004 was very hit and miss, but nowhere near as bad as 2006 or 2011.

The cast was pretty solid; Kat and Alfie were running the Vic, the Watts and the Fowlers were still around, we also saw the introduction of Chrissie, Jane and Stacey - three of the greatest characters of the 2000s.

In terms of storylines, it was a very mixed bag.
The good: Barry's death, Shannis, Janine's exit, Peggy's return at Sam's wedding, Marcusgate, Chrissie vs Kate...

The bad: Martin's stalker, Kidneygate, Kat/Alfie/Andy, the laughable fairground disaster... and all that nonsense with 'Jack'. If you don't remember this, Jack was a random old man who used to drink in the Vic (he only appeared a couple of times, but apparently lived in Walford all his life); he suddenly died and we basically had a whole week of episodes devoted to it. It was totally bizarre!

And Sonia was just bloody everywhere that year, and I could not STAND her.

[Smash_Ireland]

if someone here can remeber 2004 i salute you i cannot remeber last week

[vaslav37]

2012 is better than 2011 I think, hopefully after the brilliance of the past week and a few more axings the show is going in the right direction...

[benbenalen]

Originally Posted by Smash_Ireland

if someone here can remeber 2004 i salute you i cannot remeber last week

Lool Me too

[vald]

Originally Posted by vaslav37

2012 is better than 2011 I think, hopefully after the brilliance of the past week and a few more axings the show is going in the right direction...

Axings don't cure anything.

If they've learnt anything from the last couple of weeks it should be that they have the talent and they're wasting it. Why have they had the likes of Linda Henry sitting in a burger van or washing Phil's socks when she has so much more to offer. Why had they reduced Denise to Kim's side kick. Why has Jay spent the last year gazing into Abi's eyes. And why can't they think of anything better for Kat than another damned affair.

I could go on , but I'll stop there.

Edit: Forgot to reply to the original question. As far as I can remember 2004 was OK. Like any year it had it's ups and downs. The cast was on the whole OK.
I don't think there's been any year that hasn't had it's highs, lows and middlings.

[Doctor Bench]

You shouldn't let what people say form your views. 2004 wasn't that bad. It was far from stellar but it wasn't that bad. The only reason a lot of people keep banging on about how 2004 was (supposedly) so bad is because of the media and having the press ramming down our throats how 'bad' the show was and I think a lot of people bought into it, which is a shame.

2004 was no worse than 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 so far (and I don't see the rest of 2012 making the whole year better than 2004). In fact, it was a lot better than all those years. Yes, 2004 had bad storylines but it had a lot of great ones and classic characters.

It always makes me laugh when people, in an attempt to justify their aversion of the year, list the five or six dodgy storylines from that era when the exact same criticsms can be applied at every year, particularly the years I listed above. In fact, I could list three times as many bad storylines as there were in 2004 from, say, the second half of 2008.

And to save anyone the tired argument that the ratings that year were bad, 2004 averaged 11.32 million, despite all the clashes with Emmerdale - and obviously 2004's yearly average was much better than anything since then, including 2005, which could only muster a yearly average of 10.2 million, despite it being a much better year in terms of quality.

Incidentally, 2003, which people also say was crap, had the highest viewing figures since the records began in 2002, with 12.57m, higher than both 2002 and 2004, which only had 11.95m and 11.32 million respectively.

So, uhh...yeah.

[Mattehhhftw]

2012 has been a much better year than 2011.. but 2004 was better than both from what I can remember of that year

[FusionCosme]

Originally Posted by bass55

I'd say 2004 was very hit and miss, but nowhere near as bad as 2006 or 2011.

The cast was pretty solid; Kat and Alfie were running the Vic, the Watts and the Fowlers were still around, we also saw the introduction of Chrissie, Jane and Stacey- three of the greatest characters of the 2000s.

In terms of storylines, it was a very mixed bag.
The good: Barry's death, Shannis, Janine's exit, Peggy's return at Sam's wedding, Marcusgate, Chrissie vs Kate...

The bad: Martin's stalker, Kidneygate, Kat/Alfie/Andy, the laughable fairground disaster... and all that nonsense with 'Jack'. If you don't remember this, Jack was a random old man who used to drink in the Vic (he only appeared a couple of times, but apparently lived in Walford all his life); he suddenly died and we basically had a whole week of episodes devoted to it. It was totally bizarre!

And Sonia was just bloody everywhere that year, and I could not STAND her.

Chrissie=YES.... jane and stacey=LOOOOL are you having a laugh?

[Identity]

Originally Posted by FusionCosme

Chrissie=YES.... jane and stacey=LOOOOL are you having a laugh?

Chrissie was to me a very two-dimensional bitch, nothing round about her character.

Jane was a good constant, someone who was there all the time, she had good chemistry with Ian and his kids, could support storylines, do drama ad the odd comed moment, I don't mean ehr stand up comedy, but like when she was racign in the golf cart and some one liners. Her big secret was stupid, but other than that, good, relatable character, I felt do bad for her with the shooting!!

Stacey has portrayed mental illness in a great way, showing savvy, pretty young people are not immune to it or anything. Some people did not get that some of her crazy stuff was down to her disorder, that's not her fault, that is people just wanting to judge others, much like sid, who knew a lot about bipolar, yet blamed Stacye for half the worlds problems and more, as if she made them on purpose.

I would say Chrisse made the smallest impact on me, but that could be because it was mainly about the murder (and sprouts), all the Watts have gone, so have Sam and Zoe, Sam came back, with a reference to the murder, but Chrissie and Zoe were gone, so that was that. Jane was part of the Beale clan and her departure is still felt, Ian would have had somebody to lean on when things got bad, she'd have sorted Ben out ages ago, not like Mandy, who was more concerned about her dress and ring than her almost-husband's mental state.

Stacey was part of the Slaters, Jean is still here, mentioning here, Kat and Alfie too adn the story was so powerfull and ongoing, it could be put on the backburner, but come out again at any time.

I still think: O if Jane/Stace were here, things would have been like this or that instead, I don't think that wth Chrissie, as she has no people she's interact with left in all of Albert Square.

[cuza]

In 2004 Nigel Harman was in it. So that made every episode unmissable as far as I'm concerned

[Benllech]

I didn't mind 2004 looking back at some old episodes on Youtube, waay better than 2011.

[jamesisace]

2004 wasn't that bad as far as I'm concerned. I'm not getting the hate for 2012 so far either, the odd dodgy episode aside I think it's been a stellar year so far

[los.kav]

Originally Posted by JR_THELEGEND

I rate watching paint dry above 2011 and 2012!

Bingo!

[never say never]

i dont think i watched it back then, i remember not watching ee for a few yrs when i was younger. when i watched it again, i remember seeing chrissie and she was with den i think, and then there was the dennis/zoey/den thing and dens murder. but from then i watched it all thr time till now. but i didnt watch it when andy was around or really when chrissie came in to it or some woman called kate? lol

[Belligerence]

There was a point between 2005 and 2006 when Eastenders was awful. 2004 by today's standards was better than the stuff now we see.

[Fudd]

Originally Posted by Belligerence

There was a point between 2005 and 2006 when Eastenders was awful. 2004 by today's standards was better than the stuff now we see.

It felt like it lost momentum when Chrissie was caught and the murder plot came to the end. After investing so much time into that storyline it suddenly drifted. If I remember correctly there wasn't even a court case which was a mistake in my opinion as it would have given some closure to the main storyline.

I know Chrissie admitted she was guilty in the end but they could've had her fight it.

[jamesisace]

Originally Posted by Fudd

It felt like it lost momentum when Chrissie was caught and the murder plot came to the end. After investing so much time into that storyline it suddenly drifted. If I remember correctly there wasn't even a court case which was a mistake in my opinion as it would have given some closure to the main storyline.

I know Chrissie admitted she was guilty in the end but they could've had her fight it.

That would've been brilliant but it would've resulted in so many people being punished for perverting the cause of justice, half the square bloody knew by the end:

Chrissie, Sam, Zoe, Sharon, Dennis, Jake, Grant, Phil, Peggy, Billy, Pat, Kat, Stacey, The rest of the Slaters, Johnny Allen and Ruby all knew before Chrissie was caught and I'm pretty sure I've missed someone out

[lordo350]

It was much more enjoyable than 2011. Then again, anyone else feel like EE has significantly improved now that Kirkwood is out of the picture?

[hetty100]

I think people have really short memorys, 2004 was a really terrible, don't people remember...
martin having that girl obseesed with him, why? I dunno was he good looking? no, was he rich? no, did he have a kind gentle personality? no did he have any personality at all? no it was just bemusing
the fairground disaster with Jack???? dying and everyone banging on about how sad it was for ages
the ferrairies, need I say more
Den having a mystery shagger( yer thats right Kat wasn't the first) and it turning out to be Kate, even though Den got Phil banged up and she was heart broken over it
andy paying £20,000 to sleep with kat even though he had a woman like sam (the KM one)
The Zoe, Dennis, sharon love triangle, stupid and dragged on for like ever
Den trying to get Zoe pregnant to trick Dennis err
martin and sonia having this massive love story, even though he ran Jamie (the love of her life) over

I'm sure theres more, granted it seems like shakespear compared to now, but it was bad.

[NickJordan]

I quite enjoyed 2004, apart from the odd ridiculous plots involving kidneys.

It had the Watts in, that made it gold for me.