Hasn't eastenders been in decline since 2003

2 of 2

enderforever07

14-09-2013

Eastenders was great in 2005

Along with
kat return with finding Alfie and little mo secret
Zoe chrissie and Sam dismiss den
Sharon's wedding to Dennis
Kat finds out the truth
Grant and phil return
Zoe exit
Chrissie exit
Sam exit
Jake exit
Sharon pregnant
Dennis exit

It needs to be like this again.

dantay24uk

14-09-2013

Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“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.”

What my point is that by your mantra, the whole show is awful if you take away the key storylines.

2007 for example had Stax, the Mitchell sisters, Mad May (which I admit was hit and miss), Steven and the Beales, Queen Vic raid, Stella and a few other smaller storylines.

I frankly think saying people choose the years/era with their favourites is ridiculous. Two of my favourite characters are Ronnie and Kathy, neither were in my favourite era which was the gangster years.

Mani_Bhangra

14-09-2013

Originally Posted by Mormon Girl:
“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”

I totally agree with this, I've started watching the beginning of Eastenders on YouTube and there was a community feel to the show, the storylines were omg gripping and was well planned out, there is no planning what so ever. The likes of Sharon pill popping addiction or Lauren's recovery is done off screen where the drama is in watching how they battle their demons, like when Dot locked Nick in his room when he was addicted to crack. I also feel too many characters have left the sinking ship like Zainab and when characters do, the EP should think of a believable reason for why they have left and what impact does that leave the characters that they interacted with ie Massood and decide if they still belong to the show or not.

John Dough

14-09-2013

Originally Posted by Mormon Girl:
“Are you saying Eastenders won't ever get better and won't ever be good again?”

It never has been and after nearly 30 years won't be.........

kingcnut

14-09-2013

I agree, it's totally lost its way and the cast numbers are way too high. I can't watch it any more but tune in every now and then and hang around on here in the hope it will improve. For me, bringing Den back and the almost incest storyline was the beginning of the end.

hetty100

14-09-2013

Originally Posted by king****:
“I agree, it's totally lost its way and the cast numbers are way too high. I can't watch it any more but tune in every now and then and hang around on here in the hope it will improve. For me, bringing Den back and the almost incest storyline was the beginning of the end.”

what incest sl???

Broken_Arrow

15-09-2013

Originally Posted by dantay24uk:
“What my point is that by your mantra, the whole show is awful if you take away the key storylines.

2007 for example had Stax, the Mitchell sisters, Mad May (which I admit was hit and miss), Steven and the Beales, Queen Vic raid, Stella and a few other smaller storylines.

I frankly think saying people choose the years/era with their favourites is ridiculous. Two of my favourite characters are Ronnie and Kathy, neither were in my favourite era which was the gangster years.”

That's not what I meant. The storylines you referened from 2007 (some were good, others okay) were surrounded by pure filler and the stories themselves were dragged out to the point of tedium. That's the difference between a year like 2007 and a year like 2001 where everything was on point.

cooler

15-09-2013

Originally Posted by hetty100:
“what incest sl???”

Shannis??

Newcastle

15-09-2013

I agree. For me the show has been in decline since then too. I always think that ultimately the fourth episode killed it. Shame.

2 of 2