DS Forums

 
 

What do you think a really radical EP of EastEnders would do?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-08-2014, 22:42
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726

An EP who not only takes most of the less antagonistic decisions like axing the low hanging fruit eg Poppy,AJ etc but whos prepared to axe either popular characters or actors who are popular with the cast or viewers but who have reached the end of the road/better axed but it would take courage and balls to do it as youd be taking on strong vested interests.
What would a radical OP do storyline wise ,which couple in a comfy but ultimately stagnant rut would they break up,who would they put together?

What kind of daring storylines would they do without being cowed by a press or social media backlash?

When I say radical I dont mean stupid.Killing off Pat was imo stupid not radical.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 23-08-2014, 23:04
sw2963
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,261
You've touched on it in your opening post but one man's radical is another man's stupid.

Radical - Have a popular character (who has undergone a lot of heartache) lose a child and then snatch another one and pretend that is your baby.

Have a very popular character killed off because the actress wanted time off
Bring back a very popular legacy character advertise her return as a hurricane and then do jack all with her

Bring back two characters that had a lovely send off and embroil them in the baby swap plot

Now we all know that these were stupid.
sw2963 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2014, 23:08
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
I'd say Kirkwood was pretty radical. His ideas might have been crap but he had the conviction to put his stamp on Eastenders. His production style was distinctive to say the least. Compare that to bland and pedestrian Lorraine Newman.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2014, 23:10
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
You've touched on it in your opening post but one man's radical is another man's stupid.

Radical - Have a popular character (who has undergone a lot of heartache) lose a child and then snatch another one and pretend that is your baby.

Have a very popular character killed off because the actress wanted time off
Bring back a very popular legacy character advertise her return as a hurricane and then do jack all with her

Bring back two characters that had a lovely send off and embroil them in the baby swap plot

Now we all know that these were stupid.
True but Id hate OPs to lose their bottle because other EPs dared and failed due to calling it badly incompetently wrong.The price of wanting an EP to be brave is that they will sometimes get it wrong.My personal feeling was Pat being killed off had a tinge of EP malice behind it and that being brave and radical didnt really come into it as much but thats just my view.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2014, 23:40
dd68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Posts: 16,810
A properly radical EP would make no announcements for at least two weeks and study the form of the show, its actors and planned story lines
dd68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2014, 23:40
Stube
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 15,389
An EP who not only takes most of the less antagonistic decisions like axing the low hanging fruit eg Poppy,AJ etc but whos prepared to axe either popular characters or actors who are popular with the cast or viewers but who have reached the end of the road/better axed but it would take courage and balls to do it as youd be taking on strong vested interests.
What would a radical OP do storyline wise ,which couple in a comfy but ultimately stagnant rut would they break up,who would they put together?

What kind of daring storylines would they do without being cowed by a press or social media backlash?

When I say radical I dont mean stupid.Killing off Pat was imo stupid not radical.
Include gritty storylines like anorexia (Abi), HIV/AIDS (Max?), child death (Tiffany?), male rape (??), racist bullying (Tamwar), transexuality. Kill off someone like Alfie Moon who was once loved by viewers but has fast become stale and tedious. Put Denise and Fatboy together and make Denise pregnant.

That would certainly be radical.
Stube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 00:01
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 16,045
Radical would be axing favourites or classic characters like : Kat & alfie, Phil, Dot, Ian.

Radical would be something controversial like a Muslim extremeist story for the Masoods (which would be insensitive & possibly culturally offensive). But it would be radical.

A happy marriage that lasted- both radical & impossible in EE.

A pedophile in the show (Id feel pity for whichever actor got lumbered with THAT role)

A character who made racist remarks about say, Aleks. EE lives in a very PC world, on the streets of Britain people are not so polite. Esp behind closed doors.

A under-aged teen (say Cindy) getting romantically involved with a person much older than themselves (and not played from an "abuse" angle)
boddism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 00:05
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
It would be much easier for an Emmerdale EP to be radical. They could just kill off a perfectly good sheep or something, like a nutter.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 00:43
walford-e20
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 6,339
Killing off Lucy Beale was pretty radical, as was installing a brand new family at the Vic and withholding huge storyline twists from the press.
walford-e20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 00:54
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,236
Kill off the cesspool of Philth or actually have him lose a fight or a feud to a bloke for once.

http://www.holland.com/upload_mm/5/3...ig_560x350.jpg
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 00:56
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
Killing off Lucy Beale was pretty radical, as was installing a brand new family at the Vic and withholding huge storyline twists from the press.
Agree about The Vic but not sure about killing Lucy being radical?I think it was more drastic remedy to a poor casting decision of Bryan Kirkwoods.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 01:49
BringBackZsaZsa
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 301
An EP who not only takes most of the less antagonistic decisions like axing the low hanging fruit eg Poppy,AJ etc but whos prepared to axe either popular characters or actors who are popular with the cast or viewers but who have reached the end of the road/better axed but it would take courage and balls to do it as youd be taking on strong vested interests.
What would a radical OP do storyline wise ,which couple in a comfy but ultimately stagnant rut would they break up,who would they put together?

What kind of daring storylines would they do without being cowed by a press or social media backlash?

When I say radical I dont mean stupid.Killing off Pat was imo stupid not radical.
Killing off Lucy Beale, cancer storyline for Carol Jackson, bringing in the Carters - with a big Carter storyline, return of Sharon Watts (I mean, Watts not Rickman), bringing back Nick Cotton, ensuring that the Lucy Beale storyline effects almost every single character on the show. DTC is the most radical EP in years. Certainly as radical as Diederick Santer - who I'd like to come back too.
BringBackZsaZsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 02:17
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
Killing off Lucy Beale, cancer storyline for Carol Jackson, bringing in the Carters - with a big Carter storyline, return of Sharon Watts (I mean, Watts not Rickman), bringing back Nick Cotton, ensuring that the Lucy Beale storyline effects almost every single character on the show. DTC is the most radical EP in years. Certainly as radical as Diederick Santer - who I'd like to come back too.
In what way was Carols cancer storyline radical?Theyve done cancer stories before with Tanya,Dot,Pat and one of Sharons husbands died from brain cancer.MS,ME,bowel disease,some form of muscle wasting disease,a character going deaf ?They would have been radical as theyd have been a departure from an illness thats been done before.Carols has been done better than the others but that in itself doesnt make it radical.Also didnt Ethel die from cancer?
Bringing back Sharon Watts is good and desirable but its really only a correction of the characters poor characterisation upon return.Thats not brave or radical thats putting right a longstanding wrong.
Im also not convinced that Lucys murder is having a major ripple effect where its effecting every other character in a noteworthy way.
Bringing in a new family to The Vic at longlast and booting out the moons now that I agree was very radical and much needed.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 02:32
BringBackZsaZsa
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 301
In what way was Carols cancer storyline radical?Theyve done cancer stories before with Tanya,Dot,Pat and one of Sharons husbands died from brain cancer.MS,ME,bowel disease,some form of muscle wasting disease,a character going deaf ?They would have been radical as theyd have been a departure from an illness thats been done before.Carols has been done better than the others but that in itself doesnt make it radical.Also didnt Ethel die from cancer?
Bringing back Sharon Watts is good and desirable but its really only a correction of the characters poor characterisation upon return.Thats not brave or radical thats putting right a longstanding wrong.
Im also not convinced that Lucys murder is having a major ripple effect where its effecting every other character in a noteworthy way.
Bringing in a new family to The Vic at longlast and booting out the moons now that I agree was very radical and much needed.
I'm sorry but the previous cancer storylines involving Tanya, Dot and Pat were very poor. Sharon's fiance, Tom, didn't die of brain cancer. He was dying so they agreed to marry but he attempted to rescue Trevor Morgan in a fire but died with Trevor in the fire. They could have done another illness, you're right, but Carol's cancer storyline was a very good and much needed one which included a masectonomy which is a quite controversial. Lucy's murder is having a major ripple effect - it's affected the Brannings, the Mitchells, the Carters, the Cokers, the Masoods, the Butchers, major characters who have been unrelated to Lucy have had been affected (for eg. Cora Cross or Linda Carter), it's quite big. I agree re. Sharon and the Carters.
BringBackZsaZsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 11:13
0...0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: I like to singy singy singy...
Posts: 17,667
You've touched on it in your opening post but one man's radical is another man's stupid.

Radical - Have a popular character (who has undergone a lot of heartache) lose a child and then snatch another one and pretend that is your baby.

Have a very popular character killed off because the actress wanted time off
Bring back a very popular legacy character advertise her return as a hurricane and then do jack all with her

Bring back two characters that had a lovely send off and embroil them in the baby swap plot

Now we all know that these were stupid.
Great post sw.
0...0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 11:20
mo mouse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,152
Let's face it. Soaps have a wide audience and almost every aspect of them is loved by someone and hated by another. They haven't changed much over the years. If you look back at "vintage" episodes from years ago, you can be pretty sure that people still made the same remarks as they do now. Today's characters will also be viewed as "legends" in 30 years time no matter how poor they are because that is what nostalgia does. Pointless doing anything radical. Soaps serve up a certain diet and always will do. They are cheap entertainment.
mo mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 11:45
Aaron1995
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,686
Let's face it. Soaps have a wide audience and almost every aspect of them is loved by someone and hated by another. They haven't changed much over the years. If you look back at "vintage" episodes from years ago, you can be pretty sure that people still made the same remarks as they do now. Today's characters will also be viewed as "legends" in 30 years time no matter how poor they are because that is what nostalgia does. Pointless doing anything radical. Soaps serve up a certain diet and always will do. They are cheap entertainment.
I definitely agree with that statement. People, including myself, have a habit on looking back on past episodes with rose-tinted glasses. For example, the 2004-2006 era of EastEnders was ridiculed and slaughtered by fans and critics due to the questionable quality of the show back then. Now it seems to be referred back too as some sort of golden era of the show.

I will give it five/six years until the Kirkwood era is fondly remembered by fans on here when the quality once again takes a nosedive .
Aaron1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 11:55
james_killroy
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
Matthew Robinson was radical. He killed of Tiffany and Cindy as well as axing almost 40 characters and brought in the likes of Mel, Lisa, Steve, Dan, Jamie and got Frank, Janine, Natalie, Dot and Jim all back as full time characters. Matthew being trained by Julia Smith is why he knew what needed to be done.

DTC is not as good as Santer maybe because Santer had alot more experience but he is better than Kirkwood and Newman although Newman deserves credit for her major, and overlooked part, in restoring the show after the mess Kirkwood left it in.
james_killroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 11:57
james_killroy
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
I definitely agree with that statement. People, including myself, have a habit on looking back on past episodes with rose-tinted glasses. For example, the 2004-2006 era of EastEnders was ridiculed and slaughtered by fans and critics due to the questionable quality of the show back then. Now it seems to be referred to as some sort of golden era of the show.

I will give it five/six years until the Kirkwood era is loved by fans on here when the quality once again takes a nosedive .
2003/2004 is but 2005 has always been regarded as one of the best years of the show and any fan will say that. Its no coincidence that EastEnders won every major award, including the BAFTA and RTS, in 2006 as a result of the huge success 2005 was.
james_killroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 12:20
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
As has been said already there's a difference between radical and stupid. It's a fine line that Robinson sometimes got right and sometimes got wrong. DTC seems unwilling to let go of any of his own creations even though many of them have now become pointless such as Whitney and her recycled relationship dramas, Fatboy (!) and the Masoods. Certainly the axe should have been swung at more than just Newman's creations when he took over. As for the storylines, we were promised new songs to sing but there's been nothing but standard soap fare. EastEnders is still a warm bath and not a dangeous beast or however he described it.

Perhaps the problem is EastEnders can't afford to be radical anymore. When you're left with Ian Beale as the only option to focus the 30th anniversary around and Shirley Carter as the poster child for a new era clearly someone was a bit too radical in the past.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 12:30
Hit Em Up Style
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cell Block H
Posts: 11,878
EastEnders of old is now long gone. Its a sad fact that we now have to deal with. However this change didn't happen in 2006 as many like to suggest. It happened in 2010 - that is when the make up and DNA of EastEnders started to change & not for the better either. By mid 2011 it was a completely different show.

I sometimes wonder if the BBC have so much red tape around EastEnders the producers are unable to be as free as they would like. There are still moments when EastEnders is amazing but they are so few and far between thesedays. I also have to agree with Broken Arrow. Don't get me wrong I like Shirley but making her the heart of the show at The Vic was a big mistake. The Carter's themselves are just too large now and I think once you strip everything away they aren't as good as perhaps we would like to think. I mean all their storylines so far have been pretty undistinguished. Have we been seduced by hype to hide the cracks I wonder?? without Danny Dyer this family would be nothing. That's a major problem.

If Julia Smith was alive today I bet she would demand her name isn't on the credits because EastEnders is no longer the show she created it to be.
Hit Em Up Style is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 12:40
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
EastEnders of old is now long gone. Its a sad fact that we now have to deal with. However this change didn't happen in 2006 as many like to suggest. It happened in 2010 - that is when the make up and DNA of EastEnders changed & not for the better either.

I sometimes wonder if the BBC have so much red tape around EastEnders the producers are unable to be as free as they would like. There are still moments when EastEnders is amazing but they are so few and far between thesedays. I also have to agree with Broken Arrow. Don't get me wrong I like Shirley but making her the heart of the show at The Vic was a big mistake. The Carter's themselves are just too large now and I think once you strip everything away they aren't as good as perhaps we would like to think. I mean all their storylines so far have been pretty undistinguished. Have we been seduced by hype to hide the cracks I wonder??

If Julia Smith was alive today I bet she would demand her name isn't on the credits because EastEnders is no longer the show she created it to be.
Great post. EastEnders still feels glossy and unrealistic even though we were promised a return to form. Don't get me wrong, I won't be giving up watching it (unless the Brannings start dominating again) but it is nowhere near the quality it used to be.

I do think spin and hype have been used to hide the cracks. The Carters are okay but the constant focus on them has become boring. If they were so interesting that wouldn't be the case. Similarly, all the storylines DTC has hyped up have been disappointing. I think Sharon Vs. Phil will even end up a damp squib. It has hardly featured for weeks anyway.

Interesting point about 2010 being the point EastEnders changed for good. I always said 2006 but I think that's because of the loss of so many classic characters around that time. Looking back there were still gritty storylines like Denise's domestic abuse, Stella abusing Ben and Jay's dad being beaten to death. I'd probably say the baby swap is the turning point. They've played it very safe since then.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 13:21
eaststreetlover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leeds
Posts: 604
Isn't this Paul Marquess all over
eaststreetlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 15:27
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
EastEnders of old is now long gone. Its a sad fact that we now have to deal with. However this change didn't happen in 2006 as many like to suggest. It happened in 2010 - that is when the make up and DNA of EastEnders started to change & not for the better either. By mid 2011 it was a completely different show.

I sometimes wonder if the BBC have so much red tape around EastEnders the producers are unable to be as free as they would like. There are still moments when EastEnders is amazing but they are so few and far between thesedays. I also have to agree with Broken Arrow. Don't get me wrong I like Shirley but making her the heart of the show at The Vic was a big mistake. The Carter's themselves are just too large now and I think once you strip everything away they aren't as good as perhaps we would like to think. I mean all their storylines so far have been pretty undistinguished. Have we been seduced by hype to hide the cracks I wonder?? without Danny Dyer this family would be nothing. That's a major problem.

If Julia Smith was alive today I bet she would demand her name isn't on the credits because EastEnders is no longer the show she created it to be.
Great post. EastEnders still feels glossy and unrealistic even though we were promised a return to form. Don't get me wrong, I won't be giving up watching it (unless the Brannings start dominating again) but it is nowhere near the quality it used to be.

I do think spin and hype have been used to hide the cracks. The Carters are okay but the constant focus on them has become boring. If they were so interesting that wouldn't be the case. Similarly, all the storylines DTC has hyped up have been disappointing. I think Sharon Vs. Phil will even end up a damp squib. It has hardly featured for weeks anyway.

Interesting point about 2010 being the point EastEnders changed for good. I always said 2006 but I think that's because of the loss of so many classic characters around that time. Looking back there were still gritty storylines like Denise's domestic abuse, Stella abusing Ben and Jay's dad being beaten to death. I'd probably say the baby swap is the turning point. They've played it very safe since then.
As has been said already there's a difference between radical and stupid. It's a fine line that Robinson sometimes got right and sometimes got wrong. DTC seems unwilling to let go of any of his own creations even though many of them have now become pointless such as Whitney and her recycled relationship dramas, Fatboy (!) and the Masoods. Certainly the axe should have been swung at more than just Newman's creations when he took over. As for the storylines, we were promised new songs to sing but there's been nothing but standard soap fare. EastEnders is still a warm bath and not a dangeous beast or however he described it.

Perhaps the problem is EastEnders can't afford to be radical anymore. When you're left with Ian Beale as the only option to focus the 30th anniversary around and Shirley Carter as the poster child for a new era clearly someone was a bit too radical in the past.
Thank you both for your high quality thoughtful posts.

I think in a nutshell for a combination of reasons the benchmark their using for quality has changed and shifted permanently.With some margin for improvement perhaps now this is as good as it gets and high watermark /peak/zenith quality wise is more or less ovee.Its still watchable and more so this year than in recent times but what the BBC or EastEnders team class as high quality is different from 10 years ago and only an unlikely miracle will change that.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 16:09
sally_bowles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,264
Kill off the cesspool of Philth or actually have him lose a fight or a feud to a bloke for once.

http://www.holland.com/upload_mm/5/3...ig_560x350.jpg
i would love mick to knock the red tomato silly.
sally_bowles is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:33.