Would EE have improved from 2012? The general view is that Bryan Kirkwood and Lorraine Newman were the two worst executive producers in the soap's history (I'd argue that Kate Harwood was actually worse than Newman).

But another belief among some on here - one which I kind of agree with - was that while LN made the show boring and lacked a big vision for it (she was only meant to be a stand in), she had to "clean up" a lot of BK's mess and at least bring some stability back to EE.

With that in mind, do you think if DTC arrived in 2012 and not at the end of 2013, the show would've improved soon after, provided he axed certain rubbish characters, did a better job with Sharon's return, and maybe ended "Who Shagged Kat" quickly? Or would it have been difficult for him as well given what he would be left with?

Do you also reckon that when LN left, DTC was able to pick up where she left off quite easily? Which is why the arrival of the Carters and Janine's arrest during Christmas 2013 were done well.

I think it would've been difficult for him as he would've had to clean up Kirkwoods mess first, something Newman did leaving DTC a good foundation to build upon. Apparently DTC was supposed to be the new EP when Kirkwood left but was unavailable so Newmn stepped in & stayed longer than planned.

Near the end of Newmans time the show was beginning to get good again. Ronnie being released from prison, Kat & Alfie reuniting (cheesy I know but I loved it!), Alice getting in the middle of Michael & Janines games & Michaels murder on Halloween, then David blackmailing Janine was really good. It did take a while to recover from BK's mess & I think the show has only recently recovered, pulling in a strong number of viewers for the 30th, aswell as introducing strong storylines for the majority of 2014 (Lucy Murder, Carols cancer etc). The earlier half of 2014 created a lot of buzz for the show with midnight announcements, character returns & shock twists, plus the new Carter family who were a change from the other families in the square.

Newman was nowhere near as bad as Kirkwood. I can get why some people think she was awful as EP but she was never supposed to stay that long anyway, I'd actually take any of her episodes over the dreadful Kirkwoods anyday.

Honestly think DTC would have struggled a lot too. Maybe he would have done a better job (hard to say) but there's no way there would have been the significant improvement we saw post-LN. The show was an absolute mess when LN came on board. LN gets a ton of flack- and, fair enough, EE was at its absolute worst when she was at the helm- but I really do think the success of DTC's era only came because of her smoothing things out. Unfortunately the smoothing out meant that very little happened onscreen. I think it was short-term pain for long-term gain, though. I mean, DTC isn't perfect, but EE is a different show now and I do think LN deserves some credit for it.

He probably would have stepped in and first thing he would have changed before it aired was done rewrites got the cast to refilm some scenes and changed Pats character from Dying had her go off very much alive he then would have brought her back later

Newman let Sharon rot away as an extra which was incredibly bad in my opinion considering she had worked on the show for twenty years but thankfully she was saved by DTC and she did make some bad plot decisions bringing in Dexter & Sam which ruined Cora's chance to have a relationship with her daughter Ava but one character who did work well under Newman was Kat who under Kirkwood was a mess.
Last edited by vaslav37 : 14-09-2015 at 04:39

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was we wouldnt of got Liam leaving Walford to Little Mix

I feel like I have to repeatedly say this but Newman wasn't half as bad as many people paint her out to be. Like Kathleen Hutchison, she had to oversee a very difficult transition period for the show.

And just like if Diederick Santer had started in 2004, DTC wouldn't have lasted long if he had to follow Kirkwood. Because the fans would have been on their backs (just like they were on Hutchison and Newman's) within six months and they've have parted company with the show long before their stories got rolling. Sometimes it takes a woman to clear up a mess!

The more interesting question is what state would the show be in right now if DTC has succeeded Santer back in 2010?

Would Pat be dead? Would Kathy already be back? Would Sharon have ever wasted her time on Jack Branning? Would the Masood's remained a more established unit throughout? Would Stacey have gone on the run or would she have owned up earlier? Would we have had to tolerate that awful "Whose the Shagger" story? Would Kat and Alfie returned at all!?

Of course, we will never actually know but I suspect the answer to most of those questions is a resounding "no". Pat would still be alive; had Sharon returned I VERY much doubt she would have been involved with the Brannings; I doubt Kat and Alfie would have even returned, so we would have been spared the baby swap and "Who's the shaggerman?". Bryan Kirkwood was absolutely the wrong choice to succeed Diederick Santer, but then in hindsight everything is 20/20.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. Newman had a huge mess to clean up after Kirkwood's departure, and she inherited a job that nobody really wanted to do. However, it should not be forgotten that Newman was partly responsible for creating that mess as she was the Series Producer during Kirkwood's entire run on the show. She would have signed off everything we saw on screen.

Now, I do have a lot of sympathy for Newman, and I do genuinely believe she listened to criticism of the show and tried to change it for the better. But she was massively out of her depth. After 16 months in charge Newman only started to deliver the goods in her final few weeks as EP. The remainder of 2012/13 was really awful; probably the worst period of EastEnders I have ever seen. So while I appreciate that she had a huge task on her hands to rebuild the show, it really took a lot longer than it should have done.

That's an interesting comparison to Kathleen Hutchinson. Unlike Lorraine Newman she was well and truly a transitional EP. I think she was only in the job for just a few months. 2005 was stabilised and delivered an amazing year because of the post-Den Watts murder storyline which dominated. Sam and Chrissie's feud, the return of the Mitchells, Sharon and Dennis' wedding, the introduction of Johnny Allen, Nana Moons' death (such a sad moment), and Dennis' death.

Hutchinson certainly paved the way particularly by axing the likes of the Ferreiras and Andy Hunter. She was wrong to get rid of Kate Mitchell though...I think she could've played a big role in the Den murder plot.

But 2006 was appalling. Most big characters had left, the storylines were terrible, there were a load new characters who needed establishing, and Pauline's death was handled extremely poorly. Kate Harwood should've never killed off Kathy, instead letting Gillian finish Footballers' Wives first. I suppose DTC corrected that this year.

I've always been of the impression that DTC WAS bought in to replace BK, but he wasn't available. Hence LN just keeping things ticking and not really investing in long term story arcs or dramatic plots. She handed over a nice clean slate, which was perfect for DTC. Of course this was to the detriment of the show, but I still believe that LN helped DTC become the instant saviour of EE, because he didn't half half of the mess to sort out, which was because LN did it for him.

Interesting responses so far!

I hope as time goes by, Newman will be thought of less negatively when you consider what she had to do. When she left EE it wasn't in a dire state the same way that Kirkwood left it in.

I do too. Bass55 makes a very good point that she herself has to bare some responsibility for how the show unravelled before our eyes but the more I hear and read of Bryan Kirkwood, the more certain I become that he's a nasty piece of work. At Fringe he basically called his viewers idiots with short attention spans and claimed the poor quality of Hollyoaks was a reflection of it's audience...if that was true, why did he use exactly the same formula at Eastenders? It's all just an excuse! The man's a hack and if he comes across to his peers as badly as he does to us at home, Newman perhaps did voice her concerns at the time but was shot down.

His logic is ridiculous because Hollyoaks under previous executive producers (including him in his first stint) was very engaging and didn't insult viewers' intelligence. HO has always meant to cater for a teenage/young adult audience since it started in 1995. He runs a ton of storylines each week. There only a handful of decent characters at the moment and perhaps two interesting plots. He made jokes out of topical issues like HIV, male rape and bipolar disorder. He makes gay characters look promiscuous and at least two characters have randomly switched sexuality with absolutely no background or build up.

This has been infuriating and insulting.

The way that he is currently portraying the gay characters again is a disgrace. There's promiscuous Ste who has proposed to a woman, and then there's psychotic Kim (they always seem to portray lesbians as nutcases) Then John Paul who seems to have lost all of his morals and Lockie who sleeps with anything that moves.

I think Cindy's bi-polar has been the worst, portraying her as an insane sex pest.

Embarrassing.