I honestly have no idea.
Why was Bryan Kirkwood made EP of EastEnders?
1 of 2
Believe it or not; although he is ruining it now his first stint at Hollyoaks was very successful. I don't know what happened.
To be fair his first stint at Hollyoaks was amazing. The BBC were chasing a younger demo, god knows why, so they saw Kirkwood as a good bet. On paper he should have been but it became clear the moment he axed several important background characters things were going to go wrong then when the Lucas reveal happened and Chelsea/Libby left within one episode it was apparent the show was in for a dodgy era imho. Then the very bad new set designs came in and some even worse writers that obviously had no clue what EastEnders was about.
I think the facts speaks for itself and that is without mentioning the highly offensive and stupidly implausible baby swap. Oh and of cause killing Pat. Oh jeez the list is endless.
He was in my opinion the worst EP this show ever had.
I think the facts speaks for itself and that is without mentioning the highly offensive and stupidly implausible baby swap. Oh and of cause killing Pat. Oh jeez the list is endless.
He was in my opinion the worst EP this show ever had.
Originally Posted by attitude99:
“Oh god yes - I forgot the Baby Swap, I can't remember how many complaints that got.”
“Oh god yes - I forgot the Baby Swap, I can't remember how many complaints that got.”
20 thousand I think. Most complained about storyline in TV history.
How or why he didn't see that coming is a mystery. It damaged the shows reputation greatly.
He did have a great first stint at Hollyoaks, so I can kind of see why the BBC hired him.
What baffles me, however, is how he stayed in his job at EastEnders so long when it was CLEAR he was a disaster from the off. The show nosedived in late-2010 (ie when he took over) yet he held his position for two whole years. If they'd sacked him after his first massive fail, the baby swap, maybe some of the other dreadful decisions he took (like killing Pat) might never have happened
What baffles me, however, is how he stayed in his job at EastEnders so long when it was CLEAR he was a disaster from the off. The show nosedived in late-2010 (ie when he took over) yet he held his position for two whole years. If they'd sacked him after his first massive fail, the baby swap, maybe some of the other dreadful decisions he took (like killing Pat) might never have happened
Originally Posted by bass55:
“He did have a great first stint at Hollyoaks, so I can kind of see why the BBC hired him.
What baffles me, however, is how he stayed in his job at EastEnders so long when it was CLEAR he was a disaster from the off. The show nosedived in late-2010 (ie when he took over) yet he held his position for two whole years. If they'd sacked him after his first massive fail, the baby swap, maybe some of the other dreadful decisions he took (like killing Pat) might never have happened”
“He did have a great first stint at Hollyoaks, so I can kind of see why the BBC hired him.
What baffles me, however, is how he stayed in his job at EastEnders so long when it was CLEAR he was a disaster from the off. The show nosedived in late-2010 (ie when he took over) yet he held his position for two whole years. If they'd sacked him after his first massive fail, the baby swap, maybe some of the other dreadful decisions he took (like killing Pat) might never have happened
”
I wondered this too. Really he should have been sacked after the Baby Swap went tits up. I think perhaps he was on a fixed two year contract which would have cost the BBC to buy him out of? its the only thing I can think of but then Kathleen Hutchison was sacked after three months. Maybe things were different then.
I think Kirkwood must have left suddenly in 2012 as Newman was never supposed to be producer. I think the only reason she ended up staying is because they had DTC lined up but he wasn't going to be free until the summer of 2013. I don't think she was anything other than a care taker.
Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style:
“I wondered this too. Really he should have been sacked after the Baby Swap went tits up. I think perhaps he was on a fixed two year contract which would have cost the BBC to buy him out of? its the only thing I can think of but then Kathleen Hutchison was sacked after three months. Maybe things were different then.
I think Kirkwood must have left suddenly in 2012 as Newman was never supposed to be producer. I think the only reason she ended up staying is because they had DTC lined up but he wasn't going to be free until the summer of 2013. I don't think she was anything other than a care taker.”
“I wondered this too. Really he should have been sacked after the Baby Swap went tits up. I think perhaps he was on a fixed two year contract which would have cost the BBC to buy him out of? its the only thing I can think of but then Kathleen Hutchison was sacked after three months. Maybe things were different then.
I think Kirkwood must have left suddenly in 2012 as Newman was never supposed to be producer. I think the only reason she ended up staying is because they had DTC lined up but he wasn't going to be free until the summer of 2013. I don't think she was anything other than a care taker.”
They definitely could have got him out sooner if they'd wanted to. As you said, Hutchison was sacked after 3/4 months. Kirkwood's exit in early 2012 was also very swift - they hadn't even lined up a replacement for him, so it's pretty obvious to me he didn't leave of his own accord.
The baby swap was a PR nightmare for the BBC; if that isn't a sackable offence I really don't know what is.
Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style:
“I wondered this too. Really he should have been sacked after the Baby Swap went tits up. I think perhaps he was on a fixed two year contract which would have cost the BBC to buy him out of? its the only thing I can think of but then Kathleen Hutchison was sacked after three months. Maybe things were different then.
I think Kirkwood must have left suddenly in 2012 as Newman was never supposed to be producer. I think the only reason she ended up staying is because they had DTC lined up but he wasn't going to be free until the summer of 2013. I don't think she was anything other than a care taker.”
“I wondered this too. Really he should have been sacked after the Baby Swap went tits up. I think perhaps he was on a fixed two year contract which would have cost the BBC to buy him out of? its the only thing I can think of but then Kathleen Hutchison was sacked after three months. Maybe things were different then.
I think Kirkwood must have left suddenly in 2012 as Newman was never supposed to be producer. I think the only reason she ended up staying is because they had DTC lined up but he wasn't going to be free until the summer of 2013. I don't think she was anything other than a care taker.”
I think Newman became producer because she had worked on EE since 1997 as a Storyliner so everyone was 'confident' because she 'knew EastEnders inside & out'.
I think he let everything get away with him. Yes Eastenders is known for being "gritty" but Hollyoaks and Eastenders are two very different soaps with different demographics and agendas. I can't help but think if the baby swap happened on Hollyoaks the reaction form some people might have been "oh well it's Hollyoaks" but with Eastenders you can't do that. He broke up all the married couples and it wasn't Eastenders anymore.
He got 'away' with the baby swap because the powers that be backed him with it. They could and should have put their foot down then and there but allowed him to continue. They're as much to blame for that but I think Kirkwood lost confidence afterwards anyway.
Originally Posted by redrose89:
“I think he let everything get away with him. Yes Eastenders is known for being "gritty" but Hollyoaks and Eastenders are two very different soaps with different demographics and agendas. I can't help but think if the baby swap happened on Hollyoaks the reaction form some people might have been "oh well it's Hollyoaks" but with Eastenders you can't do that. He broke up all the married couples and it wasn't Eastenders anymore.”
“I think he let everything get away with him. Yes Eastenders is known for being "gritty" but Hollyoaks and Eastenders are two very different soaps with different demographics and agendas. I can't help but think if the baby swap happened on Hollyoaks the reaction form some people might have been "oh well it's Hollyoaks" but with Eastenders you can't do that. He broke up all the married couples and it wasn't Eastenders anymore.”
I have no doubt that if that story had been done on Oaks rather than EE it would have continued to it's ultimate conclusion rather than ended early. Was never going to work with EE, more viewers means more complaints!! The EP for Oaks can be more experimental and braver with stories than the other soaps in my opinion because of the lesser viewing figures and media spotlight.
His first Oaks stint was brave and amazing!! He tried to take this approach to EE but was like a fish out of water and didn't realise EE is a very different beast to Oaks. His second stint is very hit and miss, and seems as though people on here are very split about how they perceive it. I think there are some good stories being told but then get interrupted by Roscoe/Grace nonsense and it just gets so frustrating!!
Originally Posted by kjg1995:
“I have no doubt that if that story had been done on Oaks rather than EE it would have continued to it's ultimate conclusion rather than ended early. Was never going to work with EE, more viewers means more complaints!! The EP for Oaks can be more experimental and braver with stories than the other soaps in my opinion because of the lesser viewing figures and media spotlight.
!”
“I have no doubt that if that story had been done on Oaks rather than EE it would have continued to it's ultimate conclusion rather than ended early. Was never going to work with EE, more viewers means more complaints!! The EP for Oaks can be more experimental and braver with stories than the other soaps in my opinion because of the lesser viewing figures and media spotlight.
!”
The baby swap would have flopped no matter which soap it was on. It wasn't the swap in general which people objected to. It was a dead baby being swapped with a live one that caused outrage because as any parent would tell you its implausible to think that would happen. Even Sam Womack said as much. If the lead actress can't believe in the story you have a problem.
It was brave but it was also foolish. Someone at the BBC should have known what would happen. I agree with the post above. The blame for that cannot be dumped on Kirkwood alone.
Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style:
“The baby swap would have flopped no matter which soap it was on. It wasn't the swap in general which people objected to. It was a dead baby being swapped with a live one that caused outrage because as any parent would tell you its implausible to think that would happen. Even Sam Womack said as much. If the lead actress can't believe in the story you have a problem.
It was brave but it was also foolish. Someone at the BBC should have known what would happen. I agree with the post above. The blame for that cannot be dumped on Kirkwood alone.”
“The baby swap would have flopped no matter which soap it was on. It wasn't the swap in general which people objected to. It was a dead baby being swapped with a live one that caused outrage because as any parent would tell you its implausible to think that would happen. Even Sam Womack said as much. If the lead actress can't believe in the story you have a problem.
It was brave but it was also foolish. Someone at the BBC should have known what would happen. I agree with the post above. The blame for that cannot be dumped on Kirkwood alone.”
No I agree, don't read into my post as me agreeing with the story, it was very distasteful. I just think if the BBC allowed it to get to air and for as long as it did then Channel 4 would have probably have let it get to air for longer I believe. Channel 4 were all set to air that Loretta child murderer story until huge huge protest from viewers and support groups forced their hand on that one.
Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style:
“To be fair his first stint at Hollyoaks was amazing. The BBC were chasing a younger demo, god knows why, so they saw Kirkwood as a good bet. On paper he should have been but it became clear the moment he axed several important background characters things were going to go wrong then when the Lucas reveal happened and Chelsea/Libby left within one episode it was apparent the show was in for a dodgy era imho. Then the very bad new set designs came in and some even worse writers that obviously had no clue what EastEnders was about.
I think the facts speaks for itself and that is without mentioning the highly offensive and stupidly implausible baby swap. Oh and of cause killing Pat. Oh jeez the list is endless.
He was in my opinion the worst EP this show ever had.”
“To be fair his first stint at Hollyoaks was amazing. The BBC were chasing a younger demo, god knows why, so they saw Kirkwood as a good bet. On paper he should have been but it became clear the moment he axed several important background characters things were going to go wrong then when the Lucas reveal happened and Chelsea/Libby left within one episode it was apparent the show was in for a dodgy era imho. Then the very bad new set designs came in and some even worse writers that obviously had no clue what EastEnders was about.
I think the facts speaks for itself and that is without mentioning the highly offensive and stupidly implausible baby swap. Oh and of cause killing Pat. Oh jeez the list is endless.
He was in my opinion the worst EP this show ever had.”
Never watched HO but I do agree with you on the noticeable difference when he came in. The climax to Lucas with Chelsea and Libby swanning off after finding out their mum was alive and their dad a serial killer was a huge insult to the intelligence. I lost interest then.
I can't work out whether Kirkwood was arrogant/refused to listen, or was just plain incompetent. Probably both, actually.
He came in when EastEnders was in a relatively healthy position; the show was riding on a wave of popularity and media interest it hadn't seen for years, following the live episode. For apparently no reason, Kirkwood decided the entire show needed a revamp: he cut the Lucas storyline short and axed all the characters involved, axed several other key characters, broke up every couple in the show, changed all of the sets, stuffed the writing room with Hollyoaks-rejects, and then stuffed the cast full of Hollyoaks wannabes.
The man was a disaster from day one.
He came in when EastEnders was in a relatively healthy position; the show was riding on a wave of popularity and media interest it hadn't seen for years, following the live episode. For apparently no reason, Kirkwood decided the entire show needed a revamp: he cut the Lucas storyline short and axed all the characters involved, axed several other key characters, broke up every couple in the show, changed all of the sets, stuffed the writing room with Hollyoaks-rejects, and then stuffed the cast full of Hollyoaks wannabes.
The man was a disaster from day one.
Hard to believe but his first stint on Hollyoaks was good, he did transform the show into one that people was talking about and watching and it did very well at the awards show for the first time in ever this was around 06-08, his storylines was very much character/issue driven, the introduction of the McQueen, John Paul's coming out and relationship with Craig and Hannah's eating disorder storyline to name a few.
he had darker storylines but they was no where near as terrible as what we have now but then we had characters like Warren Fox being the bad boy, Claire the bitch, Nial the nutter but they was watchable and exciting, not like now, this was pre-brendan of course, he did have a few stinkers but it wasn't half as obvious as now, this why he got the job because he went through a successful period.
But it went down hill from there, the problem is EE was too big and a different kettle fish too HO, his Ideas just didn't transpire on screen.
he had darker storylines but they was no where near as terrible as what we have now but then we had characters like Warren Fox being the bad boy, Claire the bitch, Nial the nutter but they was watchable and exciting, not like now, this was pre-brendan of course, he did have a few stinkers but it wasn't half as obvious as now, this why he got the job because he went through a successful period.
But it went down hill from there, the problem is EE was too big and a different kettle fish too HO, his Ideas just didn't transpire on screen.
Because of his good work at Hollyoaks, I suppose his reward was a promotion to one of the 'top-two' soaps in the country being Eastenders.
He had previously worked as a storyliner on Corrie, then his first stint on Oaks was amazing so I guess on that basis they gave him the job. I think he is more suited to Oaks then EE, his ideas didn't work on EE, but I don't know why the people at EE who had probably been working there for yrs or the top boss didn't try and stop these sls from happening.
Originally Posted by priscilla:
“He had previously worked as a storyliner on Corrie, then his first stint on Oaks was amazing so I guess on that basis they gave him the job. I think he is more suited to Oaks then EE, his ideas didn't work on EE, but I don't know why the people at EE who had probably been working there for yrs or the top boss didn't try and stop these sls from happening.”
“He had previously worked as a storyliner on Corrie, then his first stint on Oaks was amazing so I guess on that basis they gave him the job. I think he is more suited to Oaks then EE, his ideas didn't work on EE, but I don't know why the people at EE who had probably been working there for yrs or the top boss didn't try and stop these sls from happening.”
You make an interesting point.
Are there are any stories that the top bods have ever stopped? There's plenty we could name that they should have.
Originally Posted by priscilla:
“He had previously worked as a storyliner on Corrie, then his first stint on Oaks was amazing so I guess on that basis they gave him the job. I think he is more suited to Oaks then EE, his ideas didn't work on EE, but I don't know why the people at EE who had probably been working there for yrs or the top boss didn't try and stop these sls from happening.”
“He had previously worked as a storyliner on Corrie, then his first stint on Oaks was amazing so I guess on that basis they gave him the job. I think he is more suited to Oaks then EE, his ideas didn't work on EE, but I don't know why the people at EE who had probably been working there for yrs or the top boss didn't try and stop these sls from happening.”
I guess they just wanted to give him a chance. The same went for LN, methinks. Otherwise neither of them would have lasted as longs they did. BK working wonders for Hollyoaks showed he was more than capable, so it was a huge shame he couldn't grow in the way he needed to take on the larger scope of EE.
Originally Posted by 0...0:
“You make an interesting point.
Are there are any stories that the top bods have ever stopped? There's plenty we could name that they should have.”
“You make an interesting point.
Are there are any stories that the top bods have ever stopped? There's plenty we could name that they should have.”
It's likely there are several storylines that have been vetoed by top BBC controllers, without us ever hearing about them. Maybe they let the baby swap through because they thought (rightly) that it would be a headline-generating controversial sl that would be good for the soap. That was a slight misjudgement...
Originally Posted by 0...0:
“You make an interesting point.
Are there are any stories that the top bods have ever stopped? There's plenty we could name that they should have.”
“You make an interesting point.
Are there are any stories that the top bods have ever stopped? There's plenty we could name that they should have.”
Lots of the cast quit or took breaks under Kirkwood's leadership. You have to wonder if they were unhappy at the material. Sam Womack said she quit over the baby swap so we know that for definite. I think the main problem was perhaps Danny Cohen. I don't think he cared for EE so never got involved. The new boss of BBC One Charlotte Moore seems to be just as big a fan as Dominic Treadwell Collins is so I suppose that makes all the difference too.
Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style:
“Lots of the cast quit or took breaks under Kirkwood's leadership. You have to wonder if they were unhappy at the material. Sam Womack said she quit over the baby swap so we know that for definite. I think the main problem was perhaps Danny Cohen. I don't think he cared for EE so never got involved. The new boss of BBC One Charlotte Moore seems to be just as big a fan as Dominic Treadwell Collins is so I suppose that makes all the difference too.”
“Lots of the cast quit or took breaks under Kirkwood's leadership. You have to wonder if they were unhappy at the material. Sam Womack said she quit over the baby swap so we know that for definite. I think the main problem was perhaps Danny Cohen. I don't think he cared for EE so never got involved. The new boss of BBC One Charlotte Moore seems to be just as big a fan as Dominic Treadwell Collins is so I suppose that makes all the difference too.”
Yes I think Danny Cohen was all about the Voice wasn't he?
I wish there was someone who had the ability to veto things like bumping off Den/Pat/Kathy/Pauline etc. I suppose whinging about EE's daft decisions is just as much part of its foklore now as all its iconic stories.
1 of 2
