I have seen a lot of criticism towards Lorraine Newman. Lorraine Newman didn't improve the show. She created boring characters and boring storylines.

Having said this, I think Bryan Kirkwood ruined the show more than Lorraine Newman did.

What are your thoughts?

Kirkwood really had no idea how to run Eastenders and the rot set in. Newman was just keeping and playing it safe with character development but no real story or any drama or action at all (until now which is ironic that she was replaced!)

Bryan Kirkwood. He overhauled the show to a level it didn't need overhauling to. Then there was all his stop and start storyline policy. So nothing ever moved forward and the characters all had their personalities changed to suit whatever storyline they were playing out on the day. That sort of thing might work on Hollyoaks but it didn't on EE. Half of the writers he brought in had no idea what this show was and they certainly had no history of the characters they were writing for.

This is without the recasts, axings of important background characters and weird, yet vile, set revamps he did. That jungle of Phil's living room is still a wtf moment. It distracted from everything else taking place. Likewise with the sea and palm tree wall in Kat and Alfie's front room. Your eyes were on that. Not those two or the scenes they were playing out. The show changed completely under BKs term in charge and still hasn't recovered. Ratings don't drop overnight. Its always a gradual drop off. Where EE is at today is because of 3 and a half long years of mismanagement.

Newman gets stick but she has taken characters back to a pre 2010 state and has changed all of the sets he introduced apart from the downstairs of The Vic. I suspect a change there will happen once Dominic has his feet under the table. Storylines could be better but its getting there slowly.

This basically.

In 2010 the show was in a relatively healthy state - passed it's best days but still capable of great things. Kirkwood came from behind and slit its throat. Newman tried to her best to save the patient from dying and just about managed to stabilise things. It just needs an adrenaline boost of good stories, which will hopefully come from DTC.

1.Harwood (then and now)
2.Yorke (as controller of BBC drama 2005-2013)
3.Santer (papered over the cracks instead of fixing things)
4.Ashdown (obsessed with Branning domination)
5.Kirkwood/Newman (equally crap)

In that order.

I think it's unfair to blame one person. It's writers, storyliners, even some of the actors that should all share the blame. I think eastenders will come good eventually. They will need to realise that it'll be a few months before viewers will return though as its been poor for ages.

Kirkwood came in 2010

Kirkwood get's too much flack on here... He did some great episodes and introduced some good characters... Much better then Newman

Newman gets a lot of unfair stick on here, the work we're seeing at the minute is hers and it's absolutely fantastic. I really do think that she's gone too soon, she took charge of the show when it was in a really bad state and had to fix all of that before she could move the show forward.

They were both JUST AWFUL in there own unique, wonderful ways:sleep:

I'd say Kirkwoods.

Although his era, in comparison to Newmans, was technically the lesser of two evils, I do think he assasinated so many characters during his time. So when Newman took over she had to repair alot of damage and also she inherrited a cast with a lot of broken families - all thanks to him IMO.

I'd say his stories were better than Newmans but thats very few and in between. Where there was gold dust it was usually followed by three piles of shit. :sleep:


Nail on head.

I think Bryan Kirkwood got the show in a corner when he left, and Lorraine Newman hasn't been brave enough to get it out. Dominic Treadwell Collins is all about sensationalism, so you may get shocked by his story lines, but we don't want another Brookside...

The only good characters he created is Michael, Lola and Vanessa IMO. Most of his new characters have been flops. While he did create great episodes, the majority of his episodes were terrible.

Most of his creations are gone now, shows how good his creations were.

I disagree that DTC is ALL about sensationalism. How he got this reputation on DS, I'll never know. I mean sure he had his moments.

Tanya buring Max, who's the father of Heathers baby, Who killed Archie's, Stax, Lucy's rebellion/Ian getting stalked/kidnapped and Lucas's mass murdering spree

but he also gave us...

Whitney's abuse by Tony
Ronnie/Danielle/Archie
Syed's struggle with his sexuality
Stacey's bi-polar
Stella abusing Ben.

I'd say that's pretty much a mixed bag of stories but at least for ALL of them, he got the nation talking.

I'm not suggesting he now inject the show with OTT stories but I do think something needs to happen to get "everyone talking about it", while also giving us that dark gritty kitchen sink drama. DTC in the past has shown that he can deliver a range of different stories - some pulling on the emotional heartstrings, some dark and controversial but true to life subjects and some there for the shock factor.

I really do think that he's the man for the job.

Bryan Kirkwood, he's an absolutely horrendous producer and an unpopular opinion on here but I've found his time on Hollyoaks this year just as bad

that was Santer not Treadmill

Santer was the EP

but DTC was his right-hand man.

He was the brains behind the stories. He created them.

Is this the first time a thread like this has been posted or the 50,000th? I think the latter. Sorry, I'm not trying to be nasty but this topic has been discussed several times.

Kirkwood. As so many have said Newman gets so much flack on here for doing exactly what I believe she was instructed to do which was recompose, restablise and leave the show for her successor to come in and rejuvenate the show.

She had to redeem countless characters that Kirkwood had assassinated, namely Kat who I think DSers have unanimously agreed is back to her former self. She had to end awful stories such as Kat's affair.

She hasn't been spectacular but after a decent stream of storylines over the last few weeks I think we can say she has done a satisfactory job.

I also disagree that Kirkwood created decent characters - only Vanessa, Lola and Michael have been successful and I would say that's more to do with the actors than Kirkwood's stories.

Agreed and none of them will go down as icons - not even Michael, who I really like and don't want to see leave.

Robinson gave us Steve Owen
York gave us the Slaters
Berridge gave us Dennis Rickman and Stacey Slater.
Santer - The Mitchell sisters and the Masoods

Kirkwoods succesful characters, though likable, are rather tame compared to the blockbuster characters (and stories) that other EP's have produced.

I think it all went downhill after he introduced the goon brothers.

Vanessa had potential if they stuck to her story and not ended up as a pawn in the cycle that is Max and Tanya love life (or the new Den and Angie as Kirkwood called them )

I totally agree but I did like Vanessa regardless of the misguided route they went down. But that was purely down to Zoe Lucker, not Bryan Kirkwood.

I'd also argue that Newman has created better characters than Kirkwood even if some were only guests. The likes of Carl, Tara and Sadie as well as the reintroduction of Peter.

What have these characters done? Sadie (I'll admit is a breath of fresh air) but has only come on 5 minutes ago. And who the hell is tara? The one that scammed billy? She's not even a proper character