|
||||||||
EE: Why Hasn't The £1 Million Humpty Dumpty Man Bumpty Uppy Viewer Numbers?? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 189
|
EE: Why Hasn't The £1 Million Humpty Dumpty Man Bumpty Uppy Viewer Numbers??
So it's all about the £1 million car crash for at least a week or two, although I really don't believe it cost that much, but I'm sure it was expensive enough to stage. I have to say I just don't get the whole Carl/Phil/Max menage a trois thing going on. Okay, Carl wants Kirsty back and Max out of the picture and he also wants to be king of the square and wants Phil out of the picture, but to me, there was no need to have those goals so intertwined, they could have been completely separate s/l's without the need for one of the stupidest car crash stunts I've seen. Not so much stupid in the physical execution of it, but the idea that Carl (who obviously isn't the sharpest tool in the box otherwise he would never have ended up in prison), decides to buy an old banger of a car, takes Phil for a drive and thinks, oh I know, I'll drive like a lunatic, lose control and kill or at least badly injure Phil, but I'll be fine of course. The whole idea of it was just silly to me and IMO the writers thought of the stunt first then backtracked from there about how and why Carl and Phil would be involved rather then the other way around.
For the life of me, why would it be all that difficult to usurp Phil anyway? When you actually look at his character objectively, he is supposed to be king of the square, all 200 square metres of it, seriously?? Carl is fresh out of prison and is bound to have some contacts that can play hard ball, but Phil is basically on his own, you never see him with any "associates" so how well connected could he be at this stage? He makes the odd dodgy car deal with someone at the other end of the phone and that's really about it nowadays. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about gangs or criminals, but would it really be that hard to just beat Phil up once or twice and show him whose boss? He's getting on, and as I said doesn't seem to be well connected and now he is running low on funds, which is about time by the way!! So, to me this car crash stunt was just that, a stunt to pull in more viewers and unsurprisingly IMO, it has failed dramatically to achieve this. EE seems to have dropped a lot of viewers over the past year or so and this "spectacular" stunt should have given it some "bump" in the viewer numbers, but it doesn't seem to have achieved this at all. And as far as the whole Kirsty/Max/Carl thing goes, for the life of me, I just don't get what Kirsty would have seen in him anyway! Not that Max is any great cop either, but Carl is about as charming as a cardboard box, there just isn't anything there for a woman to be attracted to. He's not ugly, but he isn't handsome either, he's just average, and that is precisely the problem I have with this s/l, he just doesn't have anything going for him in any way, he's just another low life criminal scrambling around for cash in any way he can get without any redeeming features. Compare him to say the likes of Steve Owen and there is just no comparison IMO. So herein lies the crux of the matter, while EE imports new characters that are basically shadows of previous iconic ones, with even poorer s/l's, viewer numbers will not be "bumpty uppy" by pointless car crash stunts, no matter how expensive they are! |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Middleton
Posts: 13,839
|
Can't be bothered reading that, the title played a key factor.
Not a fan then? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
So it's all about the £1 million car crash for at least a week or two, although I really don't believe it cost that much, but I'm sure it was expensive enough to stage. I have to say I just don't get the whole Carl/Phil/Max menage a trois thing going on. Okay, Carl wants Kirsty back and Max out of the picture and he also wants to be king of the square and wants Phil out of the picture, but to me, there was no need to have those goals so intertwined, they could have been completely separate s/l's without the need for one of the stupidest car crash stunts I've seen. Not so much stupid in the physical execution of it, but the idea that Carl (who obviously isn't the sharpest tool in the box otherwise he would never have ended up in prison), decides to buy an old banger of a car, takes Phil for a drive and thinks, oh I know, I'll drive like a lunatic, lose control and kill or at least badly injure Phil, but I'll be fine of course. The whole idea of it was just silly to me and IMO the writers thought of the stunt first then backtracked from there about how and why Carl and Phil would be involved rather then the other way around.
For the life of me, why would it be all that difficult to usurp Phil anyway? When you actually look at his character objectively, he is supposed to be king of the square, all 200 square metres of it, seriously?? Carl is fresh out of prison and is bound to have some contacts that can play hard ball, but Phil is basically on his own, you never see him with any "associates" so how well connected could he be at this stage? He makes the odd dodgy car deal with someone at the other end of the phone and that's really about it nowadays. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about gangs or criminals, but would it really be that hard to just beat Phil up once or twice and show him whose boss? He's getting on, and as I said doesn't seem to be well connected and now he is running low on funds, which is about time by the way!! So, to me this car crash stunt was just that, a stunt to pull in more viewers and unsurprisingly IMO, it has failed dramatically to achieve this. EE seems to have dropped a lot of viewers over the past year or so and this "spectacular" stunt should have given it some "bump" in the viewer numbers, but it doesn't seem to have achieved this at all. And as far as the whole Kirsty/Max/Carl thing goes, for the life of me, I just don't get what Kirsty would have seen in him anyway! Not that Max is any great cop either, but Carl is about as charming as a cardboard box, there just isn't anything there for a woman to be attracted to. He's not ugly, but he isn't handsome either, he's just average, and that is precisely the problem I have with this s/l, he just doesn't have anything going for him in any way, he's just another low life criminal scrambling around for cash in any way he can get without any redeeming features. Compare him to say the likes of Steve Owen and there is just no comparison IMO. So herein lies the crux of the matter, while EE imports new characters that are basically shadows of previous iconic ones, with even poorer s/l's, viewer numbers will not be "bumpty uppy" by pointless car crash stunts, no matter how expensive they are! Anyway, ratings have increased but only by a tiny bit! A car-crash is not going to get viewers switching back on. It'll take pace, edgy and gripping storylines for ratings to surge. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Anglesey
Posts: 1,916
|
Well I've took the time to read it and it was a brilliant a piece of literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 675
|
They haven't increased that much because the 'trying to usurp Phil as king' story has been done too often before for us to care, because Max has been onscreen too much this year - and for me personally, because all I can see is the hand of the production team. I just don't believe in the community anymore. Fixing EE is going to be an uphill climb, because many viewers just can't suspend their disbelief anymore and are bored.
Carl's cut-price 'Taxi Driver' routine is wearing on me a bit. He's the new Andy Hunter - substitute Kat for Kirsty, and it's exactly the same storyline. As to the original post - really long posts can be interesting, but you have to use shorter sentences within them or they are tough to read. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,270
|
EE bringing back all these old characters - even for one day - just proves how desperate the current team are. They couldn't come up with an interesting storyline if their life depended on it. The writing for EE is completely exhausted. So they do stunts and bring back popular characters. A lot of hype but zero substance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,726
|
I could defeat Philth with my Mum's potato masher .
But in the micro world of the square he is indestructible Viewing figures wise I don't think will will see an improvement until we are fully rid of Newman's half baked ideas . The show needs to be taken by the scruff of the neck . Something in my mind is telling me that they are going to screw up Ronnie's return . Just like they have done to with Shazza . A big problem is the writers . Too many , no originality and no continuity. Shirley and Shazza for example, mortal enemies one minute and best buddies the next . Slapdash is the best word I can think of . |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,257
|
Quote:
Can't be bothered reading that, the title played a key factor.
Not a fan then? Op I agree. The stunt has failed and does indeed lack logic. I don't believe that Carl would risk his own life, none of it adds up. Quite liked the twist of Ian being the witness but that just brings us back to weasel Beale territory. Not overly impressed so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 56,123
|
Quote:
I could defeat Philth with my Mum's potato masher .
But in the micro world of the square he is indestructible Viewing figures wise I don't think will will see an improvement until we are fully rid of Newman's half baked ideas . The show needs to be taken by the scruff of the neck . Something in my mind is telling me that they are going to screw up Ronnie's return . Just like they have done to with Shazza . A big problem is the writers . Too many , no originality and no continuity. Shirley and Shazza for example, mortal enemies one minute and best buddies the next . Slapdash is the best word I can think of . ![]() ![]() Great post! |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,981
|
Because viewers don't just increase dramatically in the middle of the year just because they hear Phil Mitchell was in a car crash.
Once Eastenders becomes consistently good again, then we will see viewing figures getting gradually better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35,274
|
Quote:
Because viewers don't just increase dramatically in the middle of the year just because they hear Phil Mitchell was in a car crash.
Once Eastenders becomes consistently good again, then we will see viewing figures getting gradually better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N.Ireland!
Posts: 42,119
|
i think its pretty simple..
carl is a complete nutter!! he doesnt think like a normal human being. |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Albert Square
Posts: 10,674
|
Quote:
i think its pretty simple..
carl is a complete nutter!! he doesnt think like a normal human being. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,919
|
Quote:
Exactly....Minus Fridays episode (which was shown against a England Football Match on ITV1) The ratings remained consistent and the share was up...I expect next week will be the same (Minus Tuesday where again goes out against England on ITV1)
As for the rubbish about being against the football usually when Eastenders is up against the football BBC3 repeat used to get over million viewers how times has changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Quote:
So it's all about the £1 million car crash for at least a week or two, although I really don't believe it cost that much, but I'm sure it was expensive enough to stage. I have to say I just don't get the whole Carl/Phil/Max menage a trois thing going on. Okay, Carl wants Kirsty back and Max out of the picture and he also wants to be king of the square and wants Phil out of the picture, but to me, there was no need to have those goals so intertwined, they could have been completely separate s/l's without the need for one of the stupidest car crash stunts I've seen. Not so much stupid in the physical execution of it, but the idea that Carl (who obviously isn't the sharpest tool in the box otherwise he would never have ended up in prison), decides to buy an old banger of a car, takes Phil for a drive and thinks, oh I know, I'll drive like a lunatic, lose control and kill or at least badly injure Phil, but I'll be fine of course. The whole idea of it was just silly to me and IMO the writers thought of the stunt first then backtracked from there about how and why Carl and Phil would be involved rather then the other way around.
Quote:
For the life of me, why would it be all that difficult to usurp Phil anyway? When you actually look at his character objectively, he is supposed to be king of the square, all 200 square metres of it, seriously?? Carl is fresh out of prison and is bound to have some contacts that can play hard ball, but Phil is basically on his own, you never see him with any "associates" so how well connected could he be at this stage? He makes the odd dodgy car deal with someone at the other end of the phone and that's really about it nowadays. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about gangs or criminals, but would it really be that hard to just beat Phil up once or twice and show him whose boss? He's getting on, and as I said doesn't seem to be well connected and now he is running low on funds, which is about time by the way!! So, to me this car crash stunt was just that, a stunt to pull in more viewers and unsurprisingly IMO, it has failed dramatically to achieve this. EE seems to have dropped a lot of viewers over the past year or so and this "spectacular" stunt should have given it some "bump" in the viewer numbers, but it doesn't seem to have achieved this at all.
Phil is still connected, he has many friends and contacts, they pop up occasionally for instance his friend who purchased the car from him. Plus Phil's reputation at being a hardman is still intact, he's not someone you would easily mess with. Quote:
And as far as the whole Kirsty/Max/Carl thing goes, for the life of me, I just don't get what Kirsty would have seen in him anyway! Not that Max is any great cop either, but Carl is about as charming as a cardboard box, there just isn't anything there for a woman to be attracted to. He's not ugly, but he isn't handsome either, he's just average, and that is precisely the problem I have with this s/l, he just doesn't have anything going for him in any way, he's just another low life criminal scrambling around for cash in any way he can get without any redeeming features. Compare him to say the likes of Steve Owen and there is just no comparison IMO.
Kirsty seems to have one heck of a backstory that we've only skimmed the surface of. There is no reason why she can't be attracted to badboys, especially as she seems to have been a bit of a wildchild in her youth. Quote:
So herein lies the crux of the matter, while EE imports new characters that are basically shadows of previous iconic ones, with even poorer s/l's, viewer numbers will not be "bumpty uppy" by pointless car crash stunts, no matter how expensive they are!
But at least the show is taking risks, sure it wasn't as spectacular as it could potentially have been, but I still saqy the point of the stunt was not to have an amazing event but to start the ball rolling for the stories which will come after it.
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35,274
|
Quote:
Ratings were like that before the hyped up Car Crash stunt happened nothings changed.
As for the rubbish about being against the football usually when Eastenders is up against the football BBC3 repeat used to get over million viewers how times has changed. And actually no they wasn't. Monday,Tuesday,Thursday figures remained at 6.9 very consistent and much more than it has been. The shares on Tues and Thurs were higher also. These days Official figures matter much more and whether EastEnders gets beaten by Emmerdale or not. Over all EastEnders time shifts more and comes out way above. (Not including I Player,BBC3 or Omnibus) |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Quote:
Times have changed and so has the slot...How many of the younger demo viewers will stay in until 10:30pm on a Friday night to catch EastEnders on BBC3? when they can see the whole episode on Sunday afternoon or when they feel like on I player and of course YouTube.
And actually no they wasn't. Monday,Tuesday,Thursday figures remained at 6.9 very consistent and much more than it has been. The shares on Tues and Thurs were higher also. |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35,274
|
Quote:
I don't even think the BBC were naïve enough to think that one big episode would pull in millions more viewers. It's going to take time to get back to acceptable viewership. You need word of mouth, when people start talking about ee amongst their family and friends it will pull in the viewers. It used to be such a hot topic at work, me and the girlies would spend most mornings talking about the episode from the night before. Now most of them have stopped watching it.
The stunt was just to have something happening ,a way for Peggy to return and leads the way to the up and coming Phil,Max,Carl storyline. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Quote:
Exactly. it has gathered chat once again. Even on Twitter it hasn't trended and last week it was number 1 trend 2 nights running. It takes time just like everything. Word of mouth does help....I still talk to people at work about EastEnders (and in fact the other two big soaps too).
The stunt was just to have something happening ,a way for Peggy to return and leads the way to the up and coming Phil,Max,Carl storyline. The things I wasn't completely happy with was that I wasn't totally convinced by the acting from Carl and I thought the Bianca plot was misplaced as it didn't fit in with the drama going on elsewhere. The million pound stunt was not really hyped up by the BBC, it was the papers that reported it was a million and I'm not sure it was given the right context. Once you have paid the salaries of all the actors, writers, directors, filmcrew, make up crew and then paid for the extras and the actual stunt itself it's going to add up to a lot of money. It doesn't mean the actual stunt cost £1mil, there are other added extras to consider. |
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,609
|
Quote:
I don't even think the BBC were naïve enough to think that one big episode would pull in millions more viewers. It's going to take time to get back to acceptable viewership. You need word of mouth, when people start talking about ee amongst their family and friends it will pull in the viewers. It used to be such a hot topic at work, me and the girlies would spend most mornings talking about the episode from the night before. Now most of them have stopped watching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Quote:
Yep it's a decline that a single stunt or storyline will not repair!
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35,274
|
Quote:
No it will take a damn lot of hardwork, but I have faith its quality can be restored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
|
Quote:
I was never in doubt..
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 13,401
|
I think next week will see a ratings increase, I will be amazed if it doesnt break 7M in the overnights with Ronnie's return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,177
|
Quote:
No it will take a damn lot of hardwork, but I have faith its quality can be restored.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21.




