DS Forums

 
 

Did you prefer the EastEnders in the early 00's over the 80's/90's?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-05-2016, 14:00
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927

Sorry for another thread today, but this is the last one.

A lot of people on here say 2000/2001 was the shows peak, but a lot of people also say the show was at its best in the 80's/90's.

Which did you prefer and why?
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-05-2016, 14:18
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
$y favorite (which aren't necessarily the best but my favourites) were

85-89 - the original years when it was fresh, new, challenging and aside from a few necessary changes (principally writing Mark out and introducing Wicksy earlier than intended) had the benefit of having been planned out in detail before the show started and not having to be made up as they went along.

94-96. What I tend to refer to as the David Wicks era although that is not the only reason i loved it. I do think he was a fairly wonderful character, with strong storylines (relationship with Pat, finding out his daughter was dead and son mentally ill, finding out he had another daughter, affair with Cindy) who didn't overstay his welcome of become repetitive we also had the Jacksons at their peak, Sharongate, Tiffany coming in, Cindy trying to kill Ian, Arthur being framed, imprisoned, then dying, a great villain in Tricky Dicky, Frank's breakdown, departure, then return. Even the weaker characters round that time like Sanjay and Gita, the Hills and George and Annie Palmer were bearable.

1999-2003. Yes, it was Slater overload, often at the expense of other characters but there is no denying that they were very strong dramatically with Kat and Little Mo's stories especially standing out. And it's not as though nobody else got a look in, we had Steve Owen plots with the Valentines Day murder, rivalry with Phil and death, Who Shoot Phil, Ian's bankruptcy, Sharon's return, Sonia having the baby, romance with Jamie, his death and 'secondary' characters like the Trueman being introduced - plus Janine taking centre stage as an adult character.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:19
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,629
No.....
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:22
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
I was barely out of my nappies when EastEnders started and only started watching properly when I was around ten (early ’90s) but nothing will ever beat the sheer quality of the first few years from what I have caught up with (the majority). Julia Smith and Tony Holland were extraordinarily talented and it goes without saying that without them there’d be no EastEnders at all.

I know a lot of people like to gloss over the past at large with rose-tinted spectacles but it’s worth mentioning that the ’90s had their own ups and downs. 1990 and 1997 in particular were monumentally shit years, at least for their then very high standards.

2000 wasn’t all that great, either. It did get loads better towards the end (Nick’s return, Dot/Ethel, arrival of the Slaters, Sonia’s surprise pregnancy, Ian’s bankruptcy, Pat/Peggy/Frank reveal) but I don’t think there’s a single person who can remember that much from the first half of the year save for the god-awful Di Marco clan being shoved into literally every episode.

2001 and 2002 (esp. the first half) were brilliant years don’t get me wrong but the latter particularly was too Slater-heavy and it’s no coincidence they were completely and utterly burned out by 2004/05. And John Yorke’s storytelling, while mostly sublime at the time, set in motion a growing cancer (sensationalism) that would only be ranked up to the ninth gear with the addition of the fourth episode. And while we’re on the topic of the Slaters I know a fair few blokes who gave up on the show around 2002 on account of it being too female-led; the arrival of the 2003—05 gangsters actually gave it a shot of much-needed testosterone, whatever the Daily Fail would have us believe.

I’d have to rank 1985—88 at the very topic, followed by 1991—1995 and then the other good years (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 2002, 2000). 2007's probably between them and the weaker years given the fact that it was good in terms of story pacing and writing quality (from June onwards) but was only really the best of a bad bunch in other terms since it's been essentially EE 2.0 from 2006 onwards.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:23
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
$y favorite (which aren't necessarily the best but my favourites) were

85-89 - the original years when it was fresh, new, challenging and aside from a few necessary changes (principally writing Mark out and introducing Wicksy earlier than intended) had the benefit of having been planned out in detail before the show started and not having to be made up as they went along.

94-96. What I tend to refer to as the David Wicks era although that is not the only reason i loved it. I do think he was a fairly wonderful character, with strong storylines (relationship with Pat, finding out his daughter was dead and son mentally ill, finding out he had another daughter, affair with Cindy) who didn't overstay his welcome of become repetitive we also had the Jacksons at their peak, Sharongate, Tiffany coming in, Cindy trying to kill Ian, Arthur being framed, imprisoned, then dying, a great villain in Tricky Dicky, Frank's breakdown, departure, then return. Even the weaker characters round that time like Sanjay and Gita, the Hills and George and Annie Palmer were bearable.

1999-2003. Yes, it was Slater overload, often at the expense of other characters but there is no denying that they were very strong dramatically with Kat and Little Mo's stories especially standing out. And it's not as though nobody else got a look in, we had Steve Owen plots with the Valentines Day murder, rivalry with Phil and death, Who Shoot Phil, Ian's bankruptcy, Sharon's return, Sonia having the baby, romance with Jamie, his death and 'secondary' characters like the Trueman being introduced - plus Janine taking centre stage as an adult character.
I pretty much agree but Paul was an amazing character in his own right, IMO. Anthony and Audrey were secondary at best (probably Patrick, too, initially) but Paul always stood out as head and shoulders above the rest.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:28
Luner13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,806
Nope my fave era was 1993 - 2000
Luner13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:29
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
No, I did not.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:30
Stacey_Barlow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 622
It was good until 2002, then it start becoming rubbish around late 2002/early 2003. 2005 was a great year. Then it became watchable between 2007 to 2010.
Stacey_Barlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:35
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
Precisely. There's no denying 2001 was a good year but I do think it's overrated the way people talk about every episode being truly remarkable and the cast being flawless (Derek, Asif, Anthony, Barry, and Robbie being particular weak links). I actually probably preferred 2003 (Ferreiras/Shirley and Gavin aside) and 2005. At least heavy screen dominance was justified with the Watts.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:38
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
I pretty much agree but Paul was an amazing character in his own right, IMO. Anthony and Audrey were secondary at best (probably Patrick, too, initially) but Paul always stood out as head and shoulders above the rest.
I agree and actually think Patrick shone from the moment he arrived - I also liked Yolande. What I meant more by 'secondary' is that there does seem to be something of a hierachy at EE (well all of the Soaps to a certain extent) where some characters are seen as more important than others and get given the majority of high profile storylines (and award nominations) whereas others are more background - even if the actor is very, very good. And during that period, the Slaters, Steve, Mel, Mitchell's were given more storylines and prominence than the Truemans in my opinion - hence my listing as 'secondary'. I'd say the same about the Kapoors during 94-96 or even Andy and Debbie or the Carpenters compared to the Beales, Watts and Fowlers when the show started.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:38
Stacey_Barlow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 622
2000-2002 wasn't classic compared 1985-1988
Stacey_Barlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:38
ManOfEast
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 542
since it's been essentially EE 2.0 from 2006 onwards.
I think once you treat 2006 onwards EE as a different show it makes a lot more sense. And frankly, EE 2.0 isn't anywhere near the same quality in spite of having an excellent cast.

Some of those characters that were introduced in 2006 as part of the fresh batch are still around and part of the fabric of the show. They would be absolute legends if they'd been written consistently well.
ManOfEast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:41
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
In fairness it's had its ups and downs but I thought it was generally fine until 2006 began. Then it was a great big steaming pile of crap for me until 2014. I can't believe I stayed watching through all that shit. It didn't even feel like EastEnders most of the time.

I'd put in this order

1st Place - 1980's to 1990's (85, 89 to 90, and 97 not great but the rest amazing)
2nd Place - 2000 to 2005 (2004 appalling for the most part)
3rd Place - 2014 to Present (hit and miss but enjoyable mostly)
4th Place - 2006-2013 (a shit spin off)
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 14:47
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
I think once you treat 2006 onwards EE as a different show it makes a lot more sense. And frankly, EE 2.0 isn't anywhere near the same quality in spite of having an excellent cast.

Some of those characters that were introduced in 2006 as part of the fresh batch are still around and part of the fabric of the show. They would be absolute legends if they'd been written consistently well.
Absolutely, ManOfEast. It's more or less a matter of making the best of a bad bunch when it comes down to EastEnders post-2005. It went out with a bang after the last of the Watts (Chrissie and Dennis) left for good.
In fairness it's had its ups and downs but I thought it was generally fine until 2006 began. Then it was a great big steaming pile of crap for me until 2014. I can't believe I stayed watching through all that shit. It didn't even feel like EastEnders most of the time.

I'd put in this order

1st Place - 1980's to 1990's (85, 89 to 90, and 97 not great but the rest amazing)
2nd Place - 2000 to 2005 (2004 appalling for the most part)
3rd Place - 2014 to Present (hit and miss but enjoyable mostly)
4th Place - 2006-2013 (a shit spin off)
2004's an odd one. It started on a brilliant note in the wake of Janine/Barry and the aftermath of Little Mo's second rape (albeit not the rape itself). It also ended well in the run up to Christmas with Marcusgate and Paul Trueman's exit. It was just the whole middle period (from May to October) that I think makes 2004 sound bad on paper but even then it was still more watchable than a lot of the drivel we've had to entertain since then.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 15:10
ManOfEast
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 542
In fairness it's had its ups and downs but I thought it was generally fine until 2006 began. Then it was a great big steaming pile of crap for me until 2014. I can't believe I stayed watching through all that shit. It didn't even feel like EastEnders most of the time.
It really doesn't.

It is interesting that we do continue watching even when the quality probably doesn't warrant it. I find myself now dipping in and out where I would've watched consistently.

Absolutely, ManOfEast. It's more or less a matter of making the best of a bad bunch when it comes down to EastEnders post-2005. It went out with a bang after the last of the Watts (Chrissie and Dennis) left for good.
There's been nuggets of quality but nothing consistent. The fan fiction-esque writing of late has been particularly bad. Eastenders makes you suffer through a lot of dross to get to episodes like Friday.
ManOfEast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 15:57
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
I don't think 2007-2010 should be regarded as a shit spin off.

By Mid 2007, the show had really picked itself up again. It had a whole new batch of strong characters, and exciting storylines, such as Max/Stacey, Ian/Steven, Ben/Stella and May/Dawn. 2008 was a bit hit and miss in the second half, but the aftermath of Stax was great, and the returns of Ricky, Bianca and Janine, along with Frank week helped inject Classic EastEnders into Santer's era.

2009/2010 was the show's biggest peak since the early 00's in my opinion, especially is terms of popularity. The shows 25th anniversary gave the show its biggest ratings since 2003. Stacey, The Mitchell's and many other characters/families also excelled during this time. The whole Archie/Ronnie/Janine/Danielle stuff was gripping! It all slowly went downhill as soon as Peggy left in my opinion. Kalfie's return helped stabilise things a little, but by mid 2011, it's safe to say EastEnders had become a different show, which is why I think it's fair to say 2011-2013 was a shit spin off, rather than 2007-2010.
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2016, 20:33
Luner13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,806
In fairness it's had its ups and downs but I thought it was generally fine until 2006 began. Then it was a great big steaming pile of crap for me until 2014. I can't believe I stayed watching through all that shit. It didn't even feel like EastEnders most of the time.

I'd put in this order

1st Place - 1980's to 1990's (85, 89 to 90, and 97 not great but the rest amazing)
2nd Place - 2000 to 2005 (2004 appalling for the most part)
3rd Place - 2014 to Present (hit and miss but enjoyable mostly)
4th Place - 2006-2013 (a shit spin off)
1997 was fantastic.
Luner13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 10:50
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
I don't think 2007-2010 should be regarded as a shit spin off.

By Mid 2007, the show had really picked itself up again. It had a whole new batch of strong characters, and exciting storylines, such as Max/Stacey, Ian/Steven, Ben/Stella and May/Dawn. 2008 was a bit hit and miss in the second half, but the aftermath of Stax was great, and the returns of Ricky, Bianca and Janine, along with Frank week helped inject Classic EastEnders into Santer's era.

2009/2010 was the show's biggest peak since the early 00's in my opinion, especially is terms of popularity. The shows 25th anniversary gave the show its biggest ratings since 2003. Stacey, The Mitchell's and many other characters/families also excelled during this time. The whole Archie/Ronnie/Janine/Danielle stuff was gripping! It all slowly went downhill as soon as Peggy left in my opinion. Kalfie's return helped stabilise things a little, but by mid 2011, it's safe to say EastEnders had become a different show, which is why I think it's fair to say 2011-2013 was a shit spin off, rather than 2007-2010.
There were some good stories in the late noughties but most of them were surrounded by pure filler. For every Tony/Whitney or Ronielle reveal was Heather visiting *George Michael* or Nick and Dotty trying to poison Dot. That's the difference between Santer's era and a year like 2001 when (almost) everything was on form.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 11:36
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
I'm a little too young to fully appreciate the 80s, so the 90s and early 00s was always the best EastEnders period for me.

I agree with BA that the show was generally of good quality, despite the occasional lapse, until 2006. People often slate 1997, 2004 but they were like a golden era compared with 2006 onwards. I didn't mind some of Santer's reign but there was an awful lot of crap from his era which gets overlooked. The show was unwatchable for weeks on end during his tenure. And then Kirkwood came along and, well, the less said the better.

I've criticised him for plenty of things but I'll give him his dues, DTC really 'gets' the EastEnders formula. He's made the show feel like EastEnders again for the first time since 2005. He evidently cares about the show's history, (hence the restoration of Kathy, Sharon, Kat) unlike Kate Harwood and Bryan Kirkwood who tried to confine the show's history to the scrap heap and turn it into something entirely different.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 11:39
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
There were some good stories in the late noughties but most of them were surrounded by pure filler. For every Tony/Whitney or Ronielle reveal was Heather visiting *George Michael* or Nick and Dotty trying to poison Dot. That's the difference between Santer's era and a year like 2001 when (almost) everything was on form.
I agree there was a lot of filler, however I think it was more tolerable, if that makes sense. The show was a bit more stable in them days, with a few more 'long termers', such as Pat and Peggy, therefore it made the filler episodes easier to watch than the ones of today, which can be quite frankly dreadful!
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 11:43
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
I agree there was a lot of filler, however I think it was more tolerable, if that makes sense. The show was a bit more stable in them days, with a few more 'long termers', such as Pat and Peggy, therefore it made the filler episodes easier to watch than the ones of today, which can be quite frankly dreadful!
Actually I think one of the worst aspects of Santer's era was the lack of classic characters. That's what made it feel like a spin-off. There were hoards of newbies, no Watts or Fowlers, Peggy had become a screeching caricature, and we had a poor Sharon substitute in Ronnie. In fact, the whole bloody show was focused around Stacey and Ronnie for about two years. It was nauseating.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 11:47
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
I agree there was a lot of filler, however I think it was more tolerable, if that makes sense. The show was a bit more stable in them days, with a few more 'long termers', such as Pat and Peggy, therefore it made the filler episodes easier to watch than the ones of today, which can be quite frankly dreadful!
I get what you're saying but at least we've got the likes of Sharon and Kathy in the show now. That can't be said for Santer.

One thing I'm grateful to DTC for is raising awareness of the long-term history of the show to younger viewers even if some of it is badly rectonmed. Whereas a couple of years ago barely anyone under 25 would've heard of Grant or Kathy they're fan favourites to a lot of teens from what I can see.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 11:51
bass55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
One thing I'm grateful to DTC for is raising awareness of the long-term history of the show to younger viewers even if some of it is badly rectonmed. Whereas a couple of years ago barely anyone under 25 would've heard of Grant or Kathy they're fan favourites to a lot of teens from what I can see.
Indeed. In fact, a friend of mine who started watching EastEnders in the late 00s was puzzled by my excitement at the news Sharon was returning in 2012. She actually asked me "Who's Sharon again?" If you had only started watching EE in the last decade you'd never have known the Watts or Fowlers had ever existed. At least DTC has brought this sense of continuity back.
bass55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 12:09
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
Indeed. In fact, a friend of mine who started watching EastEnders in the late 00s was puzzled by my excitement at the news Sharon was returning in 2012. She actually asked me "Who's Sharon again?" If you had only started watching EE in the last decade you'd never have known the Watts or Fowlers had ever existed. At least DTC has brought this sense of continuity back.
Yeah I get that too. I can't imagine EE will ever top 2005 but the best of DTC's stuff is by far the best of a bad bunch. It's just a shame he can't sustain that consistently high quality but then the exact sand could be said for Santer. There's no excuse for the diabolical drivel we got in the weeks after the 25th anniversary. They made Berridge's last few months look like 1986 standards.
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2016, 12:17
Doctor Bench
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
1997 was fantastic.
It's practically golden compared to most of 2006 onwards but it still stands as one of the worst of the first twenty years (save for Joe's paranoid schizophrenia and Cibdy hiring the hitman to shoot Ian).
Doctor Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.