• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Soaps
EastEnders: Early Santer vs Late Santer: Which was better?
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
lou_123
13-04-2015
Originally Posted by fawltytowers93:
“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***”

2008 was probably his weakest year I agree with that. 2007 was supported by some very strong stories and 2009, along with the start of 2010 were unstoppable IMO. There was a gripping storyline everywhere. I can't say I saw a difference in the show until Peggy left. It just felt like the exact same show IMO, so I'd say Kirkwood didn't do too bad in his first few months. Even after that, it wasn't terrible... It was only around the time when the baby swap storyline came to an end and Ronnie left that the show really started to slip and slide. Even when Pat was still there late 2011, it was horrific and unengaging. Which tells me that even if Pat would have been there for most of 2012 & most of 2013, she wouldn't have made a difference which is an utter shame. Dot didn't really make a difference to 2013, so Idk if Pat would have either.
fawltytowers93
13-04-2015
Originally Posted by lou_123:
“2008 was probably his weakest year I agree with that. 2007 was supported by some very strong stories and 2009, along with the start of 2010 were unstoppable IMO. There was a gripping storyline everywhere. I can't say I saw a difference in the show until Peggy left. It just felt like the exact same show IMO, so I'd say Kirkwood didn't do too bad in his first few months. Even after that, it wasn't terrible... It was only around the time when the baby swap storyline came to an end and Ronnie left that the show really started to slip and slide. Even when Pat was still there late 2011, it was horrific and unengaging. Which tells me that even if Pat would have been there for most of 2012 & most of 2013, she wouldn't have made a difference which is an utter shame. Dot didn't really make a difference to 2013, so Idk if Pat would have either.”

I do get what you're saying about Pat and Dot not making a difference during Kirkwood and Newman's eras, but this is mainly down to the fact they were very underused.

Throughout 2011, Pat barely did anything, apart from accuse Janine of murdering Lydia, and that brief romance with Norman. There was no build up to her death, she only discovered she was dying a few episodes before her exit.

Dot was extremely underused in 2013 under Newman. I can't think of a single thing she actually did! Apart from falling out with Sharon when Denny was a brat to her.

If they'd been given big storylines, they probably could've made a difference. Not a huge difference though, as Kirkwood and Newman were very poor producers

Dot has been used well under DTC, and has been given some big storylines.
VIP101
13-04-2015
You see I found 2007 a lot like how EE is these days. It's watchable TV but nothing outstanding. Mid 2008 - 2009 was brilliant. Of course it wasn't as good as it was before but it was much better then the late 2005/2006 era of the show.

I really thought DTC would have EE back to being like 2008-2009 but it hasn't really worked out has it.

From Franks funral in 2008 to the live episode in 2010 EE was must see TV for me. It did feel very old school EE with exiting SL's and good character development.
lou_123
13-04-2015
Originally Posted by VIP101:
“You see I found 2007 a lot like how EE is these days. It's watchable TV but nothing outstanding. Mid 2008 - 2009 was brilliant. Of course it wasn't as good as it was before but it was much better then the late 2005/2006 era of the show.

I really thought DTC would have EE back to being like 2008-2009 but it hasn't really worked out has it.

From Franks funral in 2008 to the live episode in 2010 EE was must see TV for me. It did feel very old school EE with exiting SL's and good character development.”

Pretty much agree with this. It does feel like Santer used 2007 to build the show back up and get a bit of a hype around it, sometimes going away from what the show is all about, but from Frank's funeral in 2008, I think he really kind of got his mark on the show, and brought back some fantastic characters. The cast was very stable in his years, so he must have been doing something right if the actors/actress's were enjoying their jobs.
lou_123
13-04-2015
Originally Posted by fawltytowers93:
“I do get what you're saying about Pat and Dot not making a difference during Kirkwood and Newman's eras, but this is mainly down to the fact they were very underused.

Throughout 2011, Pat barely did anything, apart from accuse Janine of murdering Lydia, and that brief romance with Norman. There was no build up to her death, she only discovered she was dying a few episodes before her exit.

Dot was extremely underused in 2013 under Newman. I can't think of a single thing she actually did! Apart from falling out with Sharon when Denny was a brat to her.

If they'd been given big storylines, they probably could've made a difference. Not a huge difference though, as Kirkwood and Newman were very poor producers

Dot has been used well under DTC, and has been given some big storylines.”

Yes. Dot is ALWAYS watchable!.

The thing is with Pat though is I've noticed that she didn't appear much throughout Santer's era. She didn't play a big part in the 25th either. Pat was underused from the mid 00's IMO. If it wasn't for Ricky/Bianca/Janine returning, I wonder her they would have done with Pat, after Kevin, Carly and Dean left? Tbf though Pat did have so many connections to the Square and I found her scenes with Peggy TV gold. I know others disagree, but I thought they were brilliant. They were the definition of frenemies and it's a shame we'll never get a scene with the two of them again. That scene with them in the ice cream van was genius! Who said EastEnders can't and shouldn't do a bit of comedy?.
Bathsheba
13-04-2015
Second. But there was far too much emphasis on the boring Brannings so I don't rate either era at all.
VIP101
13-04-2015
Originally Posted by lou_123:
“Pretty much agree with this. It does feel like Santer used 2007 to build the show back up and get a bit of a hype around it, sometimes going away from what the show is all about, but from Frank's funeral in 2008, I think he really kind of got his mark on the show, and brought back some fantastic characters. The cast was very stable in his years, so he must have been doing something right if the actors/actress's were enjoying their jobs.”

Yes I agree. I also think in 2007 he was trying to build the show up and it had that weird producer change over period. But once he did that the show was on fire.

I think from Franks funeral in 2008 to EE live episode in 2010 was the last time EE was in its golden years.
bass55
14-04-2015
Santer's early work (everything from about May 2007 until early 2008) was brilliant. In fact, the latter half of 2007 was probably the last consistently good period the show had. Mad May kidnapping Dawn, Stella's death, Ian's stalker, the raid on the Vic, the Stax reveal - all great storylines.

I actually found his later work quite hit and miss. 2008 was a weak year for the show (Frank's funeral and the Whitney story excepted), and while 2009 was an improvement, there were plenty of dud storylines that year too (Who Shagged Heather, I mean come on). Sam Mitchell's return in Sept 09 was diabolical, and I thought the Lucas story was farfetched nonsense. 2010 started off very well (Syed and Amira's wedding was amazing) but things took a nosedive after the live ep.
<<
<
2 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map