|
||||||||
Could Johnathan Young take over EastEnders? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,591
|
Could Johnathan Young take over EastEnders?
He's produced The Bill from 2005-2010, Casualty and Holby City during acclaimed times - and recently left the medical soaps as producer. He also produced Family Affairs during 2005. See here for full credits.
Perhaps he should take over from Lorraine Newman and try and retool EastEnders? The BBC are seriously, seriously running out of time now and need to take action very quickly. There are deep, deep issues with the show which militant fans will ignore but need to be addressed and a change of leadership and vision is required to rekindle viewers' affections with the show. EDIT: I see he apparently has already worked on EastEnders, in '97, producing 26 episodes...
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 16,468
|
I'd take anybody at this point. As long as it's not Paul Marquess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 10,674
|
Anyone who can do gritty and scary!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 15,938
|
I'd love Tony McHale to exec produce the show. He knows what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,591
|
Quote:
Anyone who can do gritty and scary!
The baby swap was gritty. Doesn't mean it wasn't a horrendous decision. I'll never understand why Charlie Slater was dropped. There have been two seriously bad eras in the last decade or so, this current one being one of them. The show's not been consistently "good" for two weeks or more since 2007, and not for longer than 6 months since around 2002... Going slightly further back we had the Ferreira's, their horrendous kidney storyline, the questionable Johnny Allen gangster era, cardboard fairground disaster. Louise Berridge and Bryan Kirkwood both did serious damage. Under Berridge we lost Mark Fowler, Lynne Slater, Barry, Roy, Laura, Lisa... plus saw the Ferreira's. To her credit she did introduce some good characters. But also awful ones. Jake and Danny Moon... :yawn: As for Kirkwood, where do I start? Awful baby swap plot, terrible handling of Peggy and Pat's exits, Ben killing Heather, Tyler Moon and all the other retrobate young characters, unnecessary recasts, Branning madness, I could go on... Kate Harwood assisted by John Yorke laid foundations which allowed Dierdrick Santer to essentially save EastEnders from its worst ever period (under Berridge), producing an awesome 25th anniversary week, Stax reveal etc, then ballsed up the show by not recovering from the live episode and Kirkwood literally inherited a wobbly show then shat all over it, ripped it into a billion pieces and spat on its grave. Berridge's era pales in comparison to Kirkwood's. Also think of how many good characters have come and gone. No one's stuck around who's joined ... Stacey for example. Then we've lost veterans like Pauline Fowler, Pat Butcher, Peggy Mitchell, nearly all the Slaters, and many more. Other great established characters like Mark Fowler, Mel, Lisa, etc, all were good but buzzed off, either voluntarily (due to being bored no doubt) or by a clueless exec at the time. And let's face it there's been loads. Compare this to Corrie's cast where characters have established over 10, 20, 30, 40 years. Even young characters - the equivelant of Stacey's and Bradleys and Mels and Lisas of EE - like Maria, Fiz, Tyrone, David, Sophie, Leanne, and more have all stayed on Corrie and kept a consistency. Then the middle-ages like Sally, Gail, Eileen etc, all there, always. Not to mention all the oldies, Rita, Norris, Emily, Deirdre, Ken, Dennis Tanner. It just feels like it's one enduring legacy of very well established characters. On EastEnders only Dot, Ian, Phil, Janine and a very small number more really make you feel like you're watching the classic show. It's lost most of its heritage. Seems working for Corrie is a privilege, and EastEnders merely a job for most. EastEnders is a revolving door! And now, Lorraine Newman is out of touch. She inherited a bad show and can't quite get it right. She can't pull it off and the whole thing is just a farce. The show has not been as good as Corrie is now and has been since 2010 since 2002 under John Yorke who inherited a great show from Matthew Robinson. Not wanting to start a flame war, it's just IMO that EE hasn't been as good as it should really be on a consistent basis for 10 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,721
|
Somebody new to EastEnders would be good for the show I think, might inject some fresh thinking and direction.
The problem is never created or solved by one person though, there's a massive team of people behind EastEnders so if change happens it has to come from everyone, the writers, directors, story liners and editors. I think some people may have become too comfortable in their positions at the top, maybe some are inexperienced or just don't think the 'soap' genre is worth working hard on and are waiting to move up the ladder. It feels like little to no effort is put into it these days, some people say the Santer era of the show was bad for it but at least an effort was put in, it was topical and always changing, we discussed the quality of individual storylines and not discussing how dire it is overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 15,938
|
Quote:
And Lorraine Newman is out of touch. She inherited a bad show and can't quite get it right. She can't pull it off and the whole thing is just a farce. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 10,674
|
Quote:
It needs more than a bit of grit mate.
The baby swap was gritty. Doesn't mean it wasn't a horrendous decision. I'll never understand why Charlie Slater was dropped. There have been two seriously bad eras in the last decade or so, this current one being one of them. The show's not been consistently "good" for two weeks or more since 2007, and not for longer than 6 months since around 2002... Going slightly further back we had the Ferreira's, their horrendous kidney storyline, the questionable Johnny Allen gangster era, cardboard fairground disaster. Louise Berridge and Bryan Kirkwood both did serious damage. Under Berridge we lost Mark Fowler, Lynne Slater, Barry, Roy, Laura, Lisa... plus saw the Ferreira's. To her credit she did introduce some good characters. But also awful ones. Jake and Danny Moon... :yawn: As for Kirkwood, where do I start? Awful baby swap plot, terrible handling of Peggy and Pat's exits, Ben killing Heather, Tyler Moon and all the other retrobate young characters, unnecessary recasts, Branning madness, I could go on... Kate Harwood assisted by John Yorke laid foundations which allowed Dierdrick Santer to essentially EastEnders from its worst ever period (under Berridge), then ballsed up the show by not recovering from the live episode and Kirkwood literally inherited a wobbly show then shat all over it, ripped it into a billion pieces and spat on its grave. Berridge's era pales in comparison to Kirkwood's. And Lorraine Newman is out of touch. She inherited a bad show and can't quite get it right. She can't pull it off and the whole thing is just a farce. The show has not been as good as Corrie is now and has been since 2010 since 2002 under John Yorke who inherited a great show from Matthew Robinson. Not wanting to start a flame war, it's just IMO that EE hasn't been as good as it should really be on a consistent basis for 10 years. I was scared of him when I was little! He was pretty convincing! I thought he was great and memorable! Jake and Danny were much much better than Anthony and Tyler! |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,664
|
I think Kirkwood gets a lot of unfair criticism on these forums. Yes he made some bad decisions, but the show has never recovered from the mess post the live episode. It almost seemed like everything was put into making that the best episode ever, then they forgot about having to write an aftermath. Then Kirkwood inherited the show losing so many of the shows best characters which was beyond his control: Pat, Peggy, Stacey, Ronnie, Jane to name a few.
Lorraine has just turned the show into quite frankly a British Home & Away with short mini plots and romance plots here there and everywhere, just to fit the storyline. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,591
|
Quote:
I think Kirkwood gets a lot of unfair criticism on these forums. Yes he made some bad decisions, but the show has never recovered from the mess post the live episode. It almost seemed like everything was put into making that the best episode ever, then they forgot about having to write an aftermath. Then Kirkwood inherited the show losing so many of the shows best characters which was beyond his control: Pat, Peggy, Stacey, Ronnie, Jane to name a few.
Lorraine has just turned the show into quite frankly a British Home & Away with short mini plots and romance plots here there and everywhere, just to fit the storyline. ![]() I know I'd jump ship if I thought the rot was sinking in. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,664
|
Quote:
You have to wonder how many of those cast members left because they thought the show sucked...
![]() I know I'd jump ship if I thought the rot was sinking in. I think it's more likely that the characters leaving now are leaving because of the poor quality and characters going round in circles: Zainab, Tanya, Jack and Michael. The amount of six months breaks floating around last year was very odd too. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 10,674
|
Quote:
Obviously we'll never know, but from interviews from those stars it seemed like they left for reasons not to do with the quality of the show. Sam Womack apparently handed in her notice before the baby swap, it was obvious Lacey Turner was going to quit sooner or later, Barbara Windsor has said the show was becoming too much for her with a heavy schedule and it seemed Laurie Brett wanted to return to her Scottish roots considering she is now in Waterloo Road.
I think it's more likely that the characters leaving now are leaving because of the poor quality and characters going round in circles: Zainab, Tanya, Jack and Michael. The amount of six months breaks floating around last year was very odd too. When they say "I want to try other things" "See what else is out there" "Find more challenges" They really mean, I quit! the show is shite, and its repetitive, boring with no challenges to express there full acting potential! |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,672
|
Quote:
I'd take anybody at this point. As long as it's not Paul Marquess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17,148
|
Quote:
Obviously we'll never know, but from interviews from those stars it seemed like they left for reasons not to do with the quality of the show. Sam Womack apparently handed in her notice before the baby swap, it was obvious Lacey Turner was going to quit sooner or later, Barbara Windsor has said the show was becoming too much for her with a heavy schedule and it seemed Laurie Brett wanted to return to her Scottish roots considering she is now in Waterloo Road.
I think it's more likely that the characters leaving now are leaving because of the poor quality and characters going round in circles: Zainab, Tanya, Jack and Michael. The amount of six months breaks floating around last year was very odd too. Womack's interviews suggested the swap story and subsequent backlash was the final straw that made her quit. She was exhausted by playing Ronnie's constant misery. So, I think it's safe to say she did quit due to the material she was performing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,591
|
Quote:
I doubt Womack quit before the swap as that was planned as a much longer running storyline. Interviews from the cast suggested that it would run and run.
Womack's interviews suggested the swap story and subsequent backlash was the final straw that made her quit. She was exhausted by playing Ronnie's constant misery. So, I think it's safe to say she did quit due to the material she was performing. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57.


