The Early (First half if you like), or Late (Second half)?

I ask because for me, Santer's era is by far my favourite era (I only started watching in 2007), however I find that the first half of his reign and the second half are for some reason, completely different!

His first half seemed more original, but his second half seemed more 'Old school EastEnders'.

Which part do you think was better?

Early Santer:

• Stax.
• Ben/Stella.
• Mad May/Dawn.
• Introduction of Ronnie & Roxy.
• Max being buried alive.
• The reintroduction of Ricky/Janine/Bianca/Diane, etc.
• Frank's funeral.
• Jase's death.
• Ronnie/Roxy/Jack/Sean.
• Billy & Honey.

Late Santer:

• Whitney/Tony.
• Janine's full time return.
• Nick Cotton's 2009 return.
• Danielle 'The secret Mitchell'.
• Jean & Stacey's bipolar.
• Lucas serial killer.
• Ricky/Bianca/Sam.
• Heather's 'Who's the Daddy?' storyline.
• Chryed.
• Pat & Peggy.
• Pat's heart condition.
• Who killed Archie?
• 25th anniversary.
• Ricky & Bianca's wedding.
• Bradley's death.
• Live episode.
• Aftermath of the 25th (Max/Stacey two hander, Jack's shooting, etc...).

IMO, Santer's era was unstoppable. Ok, it wasn't exactly John Yorke material, but it was definitely one of the best eras of the show.

I just find that sometimes it feels like the era itself is split into two completely different halfs and I was jw if it's just me who sees this? If I absolutely had to choose, I'd say the second half, as I found it more addictive.

What does everybody else think?.

The first half was far better. The second half was very hit and miss for me.

I find the second half much more character driven for some reason.

Ironically most of that was conceived by DTC as he was the story producer.

I know! That's why I expect so much more from DTC at times. Idk if it Alex Lamb as story producer, but most of the storylines these days are just going over old storylines, with different characters.

Both (2007, 2009 very strong years), it was the middle that wasn't so good (2008), but even that had more highlights than either of the BK/LN eras provided.

I didn't find 2008 great. The first few months, but not really much else. I still found it very good though and it didn't stop me watching.

Early Santer:

• Stax.
• Ben/Stella.
• Mad May/Dawn.
• Introduction of Ronnie & Roxy.
• Max being buried alive.
• The reintroduction of Ricky/Janine/Bianca/Diane, etc.
• Frank's funeral.
• Jase's death.
• Ronnie/Roxy/Jack/Sean.
• Billy & Honey.

Late Santer:

• Whitney/Tony.
• Janine's full time return.
• Nick Cotton's 2009 return.
• Danielle 'The secret Mitchell'.
• Jean & Stacey's bipolar.
• Lucas serial killer.
• Ricky/Bianca/Sam.
• Heather's 'Who's the Daddy?' storyline.
• Chryed.
• Pat & Peggy.
• Pat's heart condition.
• Who killed Archie?
• 25th anniversary.
• Ricky & Bianca's wedding.
• Bradley's death.
• Live episode.
• Aftermath of the 25th (Max/Stacey two hander, Jack's shooting, etc...).

.



BIB..... Liked

Others ...okayish to poor

They were pretty much my favourites aswell.

We agree on something Still it's interesting considering there is 50 years between us that we enjoyed the same s/ls back then.

We do. But yes, there were some gripping storylines back then!

I loved all the storylines from the first half. The things like Mad May and Ben/Stella were so original and thoroughly gripping. The entire era was memorable.

I even remember that "boys day out" Phil and Ian had with Ben and Peter, where Phil had to give Peter the kiss of life.

I remember that.

It's a shame it was one of the lowest rating episodes ever. It was against a very strong Emmerdale, if I remember rightly.

Really? I thought it would've been quite high up. You had the drama with the car crash and then the car going into the lake, and hilarity that was Phil and Ian.

I know it was brilliant! However, it only got 4 million viewers and a 19% share or something like that.

Ah.

All of it was hit and miss, and all of it was 'new-EastEnders', the show Kate Harwood crafted following the hype the media created and fans bought into that the show was on it's last legs. Good show, but not real EastEnders for me.

Early was much better, late was ok i t had its moments but I so much of it had far to much sensationalism. Mid ie 2008 was for the most part utterly tedious.

Overall people have quite big rose tinted specs viewing his era.

It went down hill after the live episode as if they didn't bother trying and had no scripts ready so everyone was walking around all shifty until they had caught up with the live episode.

I understand his era had a lot of filler, but there are reasons why I preferred his era to what we have now:

1) I think the cast was a bit better. It's a shame he never had Kat, Sonia and Sharon, but he did have Pat (), Peggy, Ricky, Janine & Bianca.

2) The big storylines always delivered. For me, the big storylines don't always deliver these days, especially after being hyped up so much. Oh yes, they're great, but I don't think they deliver as much as Santer's. That's why, whenever a storyline reached it's climax in his era, the viewing figures would automatically shoot up, without them bringing a lot of publicity to the show.

3) His ordinary episodes were far better. They can be very tedious these days, but even the ordinary episodes for me back then had better flow and continuity and were more enjoyable.

That's exactly what's happened after the 30th, but IMO even worse!

I think it was quite balanced. It had lots of 'Real EastEnders' injected into it, but the show evolved really well, before doing a U - Turn in 2010/2011. It's started evolving again now, but just not as well IMO.

1. Disagree entirely, I'd say now we have the strongest cast in years, Pat is the only one who is missing and lack of presence can actually be felt. Janine was awful under Santer and not much better under DTC, surprisingly Kirkwood and Newman did well with her. Ricky and Bianca were ok just boring after a while. I don't care much for Peggy, id be happy if she would never return.

2. Dont know about that, for his first year (2007) ratings weren't great, it wasn't until Stax reveal did ratings actually do well, after that I suppose the ratings did increase, but it could argued the same has happened for a few major points under DTC, not as much but he has only been there for 17 months.

3. Some ordinary episodes were good, others were awful. Guess its the case with every producer.

June 2007 - May 2008 were brilliant.

Things became a little stale after that, but things picked up again around the Autumn of 2008 with the Whitney/Tony storyline. But it was around this time when we had Lauren running over Max and Roxy/Sean who's-the-daddy, which IMO were terrible.

Things picked up hugely in 2009 however, which was a fantastic year for the show. Ronnie/Danielle, Chryed, Stacey's bipolar, Lucas killing Trina and Owen were awesome, and then the year culminated with Archie's murder, which was one of the shows best Christmas episodes.

So I'd say he got 2007 and 2009 spot on, but 2008 was very mixed.

2010 was brilliant also, up until around July 2010, when Kirkwood took over. Then things just became s***

Yeah you do make some fair points. I just find his ordinary episodes more enjoyable and I really piss Pat & Peggy so that's just something we'll have to disagree on haha.