Eastenders has never recovered from the decline in 2003. It's faced 10 years of a drop in quality, bad press and declining ratings.
Hasn't eastenders been in decline since 2003
1 of 2
Agreed. It picked up in quality for short periods of time and even the ratings went up at various intervals but the poor public perception and bad press never went away. How do you recover from 10 years of decline? You don't.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“Agreed. It picked up in quality for short periods of time and even the ratings went up at various intervals but the poor public perception and bad press never went away. How do you recover from 10 years of decline? You don't.”
“Agreed. It picked up in quality for short periods of time and even the ratings went up at various intervals but the poor public perception and bad press never went away. How do you recover from 10 years of decline? You don't.”
Are you saying Eastenders won't ever get better and won't ever be good again?
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“Agreed. It picked up in quality for short periods of time and even the ratings went up at various intervals but the poor public perception and bad press never went away. How do you recover from 10 years of decline? You don't.”
“Agreed. It picked up in quality for short periods of time and even the ratings went up at various intervals but the poor public perception and bad press never went away. How do you recover from 10 years of decline? You don't.”
I've dipped in and out over the years. Watching it last night, one of the main problems is its lost it's history in such a way that its a whole different drama
Another problem which they addressed on screen this week is there's characters like Ronnie and Jean who have no friends. Watching Corrie you get the sense of community, everyone knows everyone etc
Originally Posted by mintbro:
“I've dipped in and out over the years. Watching it last night, one of the main problems is its lost it's history in such a way that its a whole different drama”
“I've dipped in and out over the years. Watching it last night, one of the main problems is its lost it's history in such a way that its a whole different drama”
It feels like a spin off. I've thought that for years. Sharon doesn't feel at home in this ''spin off'' despite the fact she as good as ruled the show (along with a few others) in the early to mid 90's and early to mid 2000's.
Originally Posted by Mormon Girl:
“Are you saying Eastenders won't ever get better and won't ever be good again?”
“Are you saying Eastenders won't ever get better and won't ever be good again?”
Im not saying that at all. It was great for an episode a few weeks back with the Whitney and Kat episode. The problem is they can't keep the quality up beyond an episode, a couple of episodes or a week. The decline is never truly halted.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“Im not saying that at all. It was great for an episode a few weeks back with the Whitney and Kat episode. The problem is they can't keep the quality up beyond an episode, a couple of episodes or a week. The decline is never truly halted.”
“Im not saying that at all. It was great for an episode a few weeks back with the Whitney and Kat episode. The problem is they can't keep the quality up beyond an episode, a couple of episodes or a week. The decline is never truly halted.”
Well we just need to keep our fingers crossed and hope DTC will pull some good storylines out of the bag that we haven't seen before
Originally Posted by mintbro:
“Another problem which they addressed on screen this week is there's characters like Ronnie and Jean who have no friends. Watching Corrie you get the sense of community, everyone knows everyone etc”
“Another problem which they addressed on screen this week is there's characters like Ronnie and Jean who have no friends. Watching Corrie you get the sense of community, everyone knows everyone etc”
It's more realistic that everyone doesn't have friends. IRL everyone isn't living in each others pockets and know each other like in soaps.
2007-2010 was the last time the show was in a fairly stable state. Since 2011 the filler weeks have shot up and the lack of storylines well too felt. It has been great this week, but for how long!?
Originally Posted by Mormon Girl:
“Are you saying Eastenders won't ever get better and won't ever be good again?”
“Are you saying Eastenders won't ever get better and won't ever be good again?”
Well, that depends on whether viewers lower their expectations. Eastenders, like most soaps, was better in the past because of nostalgia; they were radical and thought out of the box.
Now it seems Eastenders is a soap that is happy to play safe, not offend the wider audience and can pull in the ratings for the BBC.
Eastenders may get better, it may improve, but currently there is nothing to turn me into a regular viewer. It is too inconsistent.
I'd rather have 2003-2010 any day of the week compared to the rubbish we get now. Pingu is more exciting.
Really since Peggy left it has been in a continuous rut (not saying it is because of Peggy leaving). Wouldn't say it has been in decline for 10 years, 2005, 07, 08, 09 and the first half of 2010 were decent enough years, 2005 being fantastic.
The horrible kidney transplant storyline we had ages ago would probably seem like Who Shot Phil compared to the Branning saga we have now.
No. It's been in a rut since 2010 but it hasn't been a ten year decline. The gangster era which really kicked off in 2003 was my favourite period of the show. The Stax saga that followed was also great to watch and other highlights including Jean and Stacey's mental health battle, the entrance of the Mitchell sisters, Peggy's exit, Pat's death etc...
In truth, it's been in real decline since the baby swap which killed any ambition Eastenders had. Since then, the BBC has seemingly forced showrunners to play it safe and avoid controversy forgetting that the same kind of controversy and it's willingness to tackle taboos and serious social issues is what made it so great in the first place.
In truth, it's been in real decline since the baby swap which killed any ambition Eastenders had. Since then, the BBC has seemingly forced showrunners to play it safe and avoid controversy forgetting that the same kind of controversy and it's willingness to tackle taboos and serious social issues is what made it so great in the first place.
It recovered really well from the gangster years, but big mistakes were made - notably sacrificing brilliant characters for single storylines, either by ruining them or killing them off.
I can remember when I actually stopped caring about EE - Nina Wadia announcing she was leaving. After that, I didn't care. So many bad decisions - bringing in Derek, Sharon's awful return, nearly ruining Kat. Though after the last couple of days, there are glimmers of hope now, a sign that the producers have finally realised what they threw away.
I can remember when I actually stopped caring about EE - Nina Wadia announcing she was leaving. After that, I didn't care. So many bad decisions - bringing in Derek, Sharon's awful return, nearly ruining Kat. Though after the last couple of days, there are glimmers of hope now, a sign that the producers have finally realised what they threw away.
The rot set in during the baby swap gate, the show ran scared and sadly apart from a few stories...Heather's murder, Janine and Lydia, Janine/Michael and Lola the show hasnt really recovered. I always said that once DTC left EE lost its creative spark so having him now run the show makes me confident, looking forward to an interview with him on here at some point, I wonder if we may get it before Christmas?
This isn't directed at anyone in particular but I've noticed a lot of people make excuses for certain eras because their favoured characters were prominent. 2004 - Sharon, Den, Chrissie and Dennis at the centre of the show - total crap. I loved those characters as well as Pauline and Pat who were still around at that time. It doesn't make that year a golden one. Similarly, I don't think 2006 to present has been anything special no matter which characters have been in it. The series did indeed enter a downward spiral towards the end of 2003 and despite picking itself up for brief intervals the decline continues to this day. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 are part of the decline and not the beginning of it. Just because someone's favourite characters or storylines happened in any given year it doesn't excuse the overall low quality. I happened to enjoy Janine's exit and Den swindling Sam out of The Vic. It doesn't make 2004 a good year. I'd say the same about 2006 to present and whatever flavour of the month character or storyline were popular at the time. The quality has been poor for a decade. 2005 is a gem in the rough of a bad decade and even that had big problems.
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“This isn't directed at anyone in particular but I've noticed a lot of people make excuses for certain eras because their favoured characters were prominent. 2004 - Sharon, Den, Chrissie and Dennis at the centre of the show - total crap. I loved those characters as well as Pauline and Pat who were still around at that time. It doesn't make that year a golden one. Similarly, I don't think 2006 to present has been anything special no matter which characters have been in it. The series did indeed enter a downward spiral towards the end of 2003 and despite picking itself up for brief intervals the decline continues to this day. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 are part of the decline and not the beginning of it. Just because someone's favourite characters or storylines happened in any given year it doesn't excuse the overall low quality. I happened to enjoy Janine's exit and Den swindling Sam out of The Vic. It doesn't make 2004 a good year. I'd say the same about 2006 to present and whatever flavour of the month character or storyline were popular at the time. The quality has been poor for a decade. 2005 is a gem in the rough of a bad decade and even that had big problems.”
“This isn't directed at anyone in particular but I've noticed a lot of people make excuses for certain eras because their favoured characters were prominent. 2004 - Sharon, Den, Chrissie and Dennis at the centre of the show - total crap. I loved those characters as well as Pauline and Pat who were still around at that time. It doesn't make that year a golden one. Similarly, I don't think 2006 to present has been anything special no matter which characters have been in it. The series did indeed enter a downward spiral towards the end of 2003 and despite picking itself up for brief intervals the decline continues to this day. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 are part of the decline and not the beginning of it. Just because someone's favourite characters or storylines happened in any given year it doesn't excuse the overall low quality. I happened to enjoy Janine's exit and Den swindling Sam out of The Vic. It doesn't make 2004 a good year. I'd say the same about 2006 to present and whatever flavour of the month character or storyline were popular at the time. The quality has been poor for a decade. 2005 is a gem in the rough of a bad decade and even that had big problems.”
Really? Seriously?
You might as well just say the whole show has been sh*t if you're just going to say particularly storylines or character doesn't equal a good year!
What is so brilliant about 2001? Who Shot Phil & You're Not My Mother! Take those away, bad year. 1986, take out the divorce papers, bad year! 1994, no Sharongate, bad year!
Seriously, by your explanation the whole show has been bad.
Originally Posted by dantay24uk:
“Really? Seriously?
You might as well just say the whole show has been sh*t if you're just going to say particularly storylines or character doesn't equal a good year!
What is so brilliant about 2001? Who Shot Phil & You're Not My Mother! Take those away, bad year. 1986, take out the divorce papers, bad year! 1994, no Sharongate, bad year!
Seriously, by your explanation the whole show has been bad.”
“Really? Seriously?
You might as well just say the whole show has been sh*t if you're just going to say particularly storylines or character doesn't equal a good year!
What is so brilliant about 2001? Who Shot Phil & You're Not My Mother! Take those away, bad year. 1986, take out the divorce papers, bad year! 1994, no Sharongate, bad year!
Seriously, by your explanation the whole show has been bad.”
Really? Seriously?
That's what you got out of that post?
You can take Who Shot Phil and You Ain't My Mother out of 2001. That year would still be great because the writing was so brilliant back then. It was a series firing on all cylinders. The same cannot be said for any year since 2003. Especially not for any year since 2006.
2001 was the single best year of EE hands down!!! I was 16 then. I remember, but I was absolutely hooked. This was also the year that EE picked up something like 10 awards.
We had
You aint my muvva
Trevor and Little Mo's domestic violance story
Sonia's shock birth and the identiy of the father
Who Shot Phil
Sharon's return and her sparring with Peggy
Steve vs Phil, leading to his epic exit.
Characterisation back then was also flawless. None of the clap trap that we have now. :sleep: Friendships were stronger (Lisa/Mel) continuity was there and the Vic was on fire - not just in terms of reveals and drama but also day to day interaction.
None of my personal favourite stories stemmed from this era but they were the best, no doubt.
Personally, I think 2009 was the last good year that we had. I thought EE was excellent during 1999-2003, hit and miss between 2004-05, terrible in 2006, very good between 2007-2010. Awful between 2011-present (minus last week).
We had
You aint my muvva
Trevor and Little Mo's domestic violance story
Sonia's shock birth and the identiy of the father
Who Shot Phil
Sharon's return and her sparring with Peggy
Steve vs Phil, leading to his epic exit.
Characterisation back then was also flawless. None of the clap trap that we have now. :sleep: Friendships were stronger (Lisa/Mel) continuity was there and the Vic was on fire - not just in terms of reveals and drama but also day to day interaction.
None of my personal favourite stories stemmed from this era but they were the best, no doubt.
Personally, I think 2009 was the last good year that we had. I thought EE was excellent during 1999-2003, hit and miss between 2004-05, terrible in 2006, very good between 2007-2010. Awful between 2011-present (minus last week).
If only..... 
I'd love to see it back to the 2001 standard...but with the writers employed these days...I can never see it happening. They seem to have lost all sense of continuity and history...which is what the show was based on at the beginning...and what made it so interesting.
The Watts...the Beales and Fowlers were all so close and we were always getting glimpses of their past history.
Even the Mitchells were good until they started bringing in long lost relatives...like Glenda and the awful Ronnie and Roxy....the only good Micthell additions were Auntie Sal and Archie!
But..whoever invented the Brannings???? They were awesome when it was just Bradley Jim and Dot...then along came the addons...Max and family...Jack....then Cora....her long lost daughter and grandson...the druggie daughter.
THAT was the downfall of all downfalls for EE.
As many people said...it became Branning square and lost so many viewers who had stood by the show even though it had really lost its sparkle...
I'd love to see it back to the 2001 standard...but with the writers employed these days...I can never see it happening. They seem to have lost all sense of continuity and history...which is what the show was based on at the beginning...and what made it so interesting.
The Watts...the Beales and Fowlers were all so close and we were always getting glimpses of their past history.
Even the Mitchells were good until they started bringing in long lost relatives...like Glenda and the awful Ronnie and Roxy....the only good Micthell additions were Auntie Sal and Archie!
But..whoever invented the Brannings???? They were awesome when it was just Bradley Jim and Dot...then along came the addons...Max and family...Jack....then Cora....her long lost daughter and grandson...the druggie daughter.
THAT was the downfall of all downfalls for EE.
As many people said...it became Branning square and lost so many viewers who had stood by the show even though it had really lost its sparkle...
Originally Posted by mintbro:
“I've dipped in and out over the years. Watching it last night, one of the main problems is its lost it's history in such a way that its a whole different drama
Another problem which they addressed on screen this week is there's characters like Ronnie and Jean who have no friends. Watching Corrie you get the sense of community, everyone knows everyone etc”
“I've dipped in and out over the years. Watching it last night, one of the main problems is its lost it's history in such a way that its a whole different drama
Another problem which they addressed on screen this week is there's characters like Ronnie and Jean who have no friends. Watching Corrie you get the sense of community, everyone knows everyone etc”
That's something I don't like about Corrie.
I like community feel, but the whole thing that everyone knows everyone and all their business and history just pulls you out of it and makes it seem less realistic.
Not everyone will have close friends and in Ronnie's case it all fits in with her characterisation.
As an ex-viewer ( I just dip in occasionally now ) I'm starting to question if it was ever really any good. Den and Angie were hammy, panto characters. Peggy was pretty bad with her 3 mantras 'we're family', 'gerout of my pub' and 'the drinks are on the house'. Phil with his hard man image but has only ever really confronted women and children ( Ian doesn't count 
) The dreadful Max and Tanya with their one revolving story and so on. I vaugely remember enjoying the Tricky Dicky charachter but can't think of any of the storylines. I think it's long past it's sell by date.
) The dreadful Max and Tanya with their one revolving story and so on. I vaugely remember enjoying the Tricky Dicky charachter but can't think of any of the storylines. I think it's long past it's sell by date.
1 of 2
