DS Forums

 
 

Eastenders .... Is it time for a new Era


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-05-2016, 20:37
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200

I have been thinking about this for a while, but with Peggy dying and it being an end of an era so to speak I wondered what overs thought so...

Is it time Eastenders looked to the future and create new legacy families, new characters and new storylines that are not connected to the past.

Is it time to stop with the over reliance on bringing back old characters, re-playing old stories and bringing back dead people (all things this forum is obsessed with)

Like with wanting to watch old episodes on a repeat loop, the past is the past, but in 30 years are people going to want to watch the last ten years again?
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-05-2016, 20:52
Joe_H11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 992
I think the whole "era" thing isn't really that much of a thing anymore.
Joe_H11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 21:13
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
I think the whole "era" thing isn't really that much of a thing anymore.
course it is. fresh start, new direction whatever you want to call it
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 21:30
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
I'm never sure what people mean by eras. Peggy has been gone for years and until recently Phil has done nothing but shuffle around grunting at people and wielding a tyre iron from time to time. That's unless you count his on off relationship with his missus. Even Ronnie and Roxy have long lost their shine. Then their is his wimpy son who gets punched from time to time and has daddy issues. I'd say that their 'era' was already long behind them.

They seem to struggle to create strong families...look at the Cokers, Hubbards and Kasims ? They're never going to be memorable. The Carters are the only family that have been a success, but they've already exhausted them.

I imagine the focus is going to shift back to the Fowlers, Slaters and Brannings, which is fine by me. Better the devil you know. But don't get me wrong, if they can come up with a fabulous new family I'll be thrilled and I'd love to see the show more forward looking.

I think there is a problem getting actors to commit to soaps these day, which means we get the likes of the fabulous Tim West and Michael French for a year....and that's just not long enough.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 21:53
sw2963
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,261
2010 was the end of an era
sw2963 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 21:59
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
I'm never sure what people mean by eras. Peggy has been gone for years and until recently Phil has done nothing but shuffle around grunting at people and wielding a tyre iron from time to time. That's unless you count his on off relationship with his missus. Even Ronnie and Roxy have long lost their shine. Then their is his wimpy son who gets punched from time to time and has daddy issues. I'd say that their 'era' was already long behind them.

They seem to struggle to create strong families...look at the Cokers, Hubbards and Kasims ? They're never going to be memorable. The Carters are the only family that have been a success, but they've already exhausted them.

I imagine the focus is going to shift back to the Fowlers, Slaters and Brannings, which is fine by me. Better the devil you know. But don't get me wrong, if they can come up with a fabulous new family I'll be thrilled and I'd love to see the show more forward looking.

I think there is a problem getting actors to commit to soaps these day, which means we get the likes of the fabulous Tim West and Michael French for a year....and that's just not long enough.
era is how you define a certain time, person/people or events, Like the victorian era refers to the reign of Queen Victoria 1. Like you could say the dtc period of producing is one era, socks a new one, kirkwood the prior era. end of a family ciuld be end of an era like if ian, jane and bobby left

agree with what you are saying, most of what is being churned out is not memorable, in 30 years time where is the angie v den divorce papers moment .

agree re actors, even young actors with hardly any/no experience are only sticking around a year, it seems a real problem esp in eastenders
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 22:13
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
era is how you define a certain time, person/people or events, Like the victorian era refers to the reign of Queen Victoria 1. Like you could say the dtc period of producing is one era, socks a new one, kirkwood the prior era. end of a family ciuld be end of an era like if ian, jane and bobby left

agree with what you are saying, most of what is being churned out is not memorable, in 30 years time where is the angie v den divorce papers moment .

agree re actors, even young actors with hardly any/no experience are only sticking around a year, it seems a real problem esp in eastenders
I get what you mean, but I don't see how it works in soaps because there is always an overlap, a flow of stories and families from one EP to the next. I suppose you could say the Butcher era is over, but it didn't happen all of a sudden, it was more a slow bleed of characters over a period of time.

This is a massive problem. There are so many more opportunities for actors today and young actors have learnt that it is a mistake to get type cast. Besides they all want to challenge themselves...you can't blame them,
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 23:52
Danny_Francis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Emmerdale
Posts: 4,290
IMO, the show hasn't successfully been able to step into a new era with effort. Who knows why? It will continue to look back because that's when EE was really good.
Danny_Francis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:00
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
IMO, the show hasn't successfully been able to step into a new era with effort. Who knows why? It will continue to look back because that's when EE was really good.
what do you think it needs to do to step forward.

I think a large proportion of the fans are stuck in the past of the glory days and so will be resistant to changes
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:13
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
For me, EastEnders is at its best when it mixes the old with the new.

I think what the show could do with is a few axings (Lee, Tina, Buster, Donna, etc... To name a few), and for some old popular faces to return. Returns from David Wicks, Janine Butcher and Grant Mitchell for example would easily help sprinkle a bit of Classic EastEnders into a new era of the show, and THEN you can start introducing new families and characters. I just want a really dynamic family to join and I don't think we've had this in years. The Carters are way too OTT and forced in my opinion, and if we were going to enter a new era of the show, I wouldn't have them in The Vic. I'd have a more Classid character behind the bar, so it felt more like EastEnders. Sharon would be a great idea. Especially now she doesn't have much of a family.

I think if you get the foundations right, you allow a new era of the show to be created with ease, but if you try to introduce too many new things at once, which I think DTC has done, it begins to feel less like EastEnders, and it's not until recently (When he is leaving), that things have started to settle down a bit. There were a lot of moments in 2014/2015 where it felt like a completely different show.
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:20
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
what do you think it needs to do to step forward.

I think a large proportion of the fans are stuck in the past of the glory days and so will be resistant to changes
I don't mind change, but if I had to say what I think would work to create a new era, I would say.

1) Put somebody in The Vic that the Nation are familiar with. Peggy, Angie, Pat, Kat are all familiar characters. Mick and Linda aren't. I think it's important that the show has somebody behind the bar with a lot of history. The Vic is the show's main meeting point, and having someone like Sharon or Kathy behind the bar would give it much more of an 'EastEnders' feel.

2) Introduce characters with charisma and screen presence. Characters like Lee Carter and Donna Yates lack this. Remember in the late 90's, when we were introduced to characters like Lisa, Mel and Steve? The show needs to introduce new characters like this. The likes of Shirley Carter an Max Branning in 2006 were great additions also.

3) Balance out storylines. There are too many storylines going on sometimes and too many are often dropped. EE has had some good storylines under DTC, but none of them have been outstanding in my opinion. I want to see the show produce a big, exciting storyline that doesn't feel forced, contrived or silly.
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:35
Guido9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,307
I personally feel that apart from the vintage 80s era that EastEnders next 'came of age' when 2007 dawned under the strong partnership of Diedrick Santer and DTC. EastEnders was then far more 'must watch' for the next two years thereafter (for me at least) than anything that has been served up since. On the plus side 2016 has been pretty good on the whole to date (despite the 'harking back' vibes mentioned about or alluded to in this thread) and promises much to come for the remainder of the year with regard to surprises and twists. There'll always be nostalgic wishes and throwbacks in a soap, such is the nature of the trade!
Guido9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:43
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
I personally feel that apart from the vintage 80s era that EastEnders next 'came of age' when 2007 dawned under the strong partnership of Diedrick Santer and DTC. EastEnders was then far more 'must watch' for the next two years thereafter (for me at least) than anything that has been served up since. On the plus side 2016 has been pretty good on the whole to date (despite the 'harking back' vibes mentioned about or alluded to in this thread) and promises much to come for the remainder of the year with regard to surprises and twists. There'll always be nostalgic wishes and throwbacks in a soap, such is the nature of the trade!
Great post. 2016 has been a very good year so far, and promises to get stronger as it goes on. I really hope Max's return is good later in the year.
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:49
Guido9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,307
Great post. 2016 has been a very good year so far, and promises to get stronger as it goes on. I really hope Max's return is good later in the year.
I sense that's what this past week has been building up to re Bobby's inherent violence being unearthed at last, for somebody not even in his teens as yet......while the Beales as a whole have been in denial ever since an innocent man was sent down for 15 years plus, despite Jane's brave attempts at trying to battle her conscience re Max. All remains to be seen but it should make for good viewing later on this year.
Guido9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:59
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
what do you think it needs to do to step forward.

I think a large proportion of the fans are stuck in the past of the glory days and so will be resistant to change
s
For me, EastEnders is at its best when it mixes the old with the new.

I think what the show could do with is a few axings (Lee, Tina, Buster, Donna, etc... To name a few), and for some old popular faces to return. Returns from David Wicks, Janine Butcher and Grant Mitchell for example would easily help sprinkle a bit of Classic EastEnders into a new era of the show, and THEN you can start introducing new families and characters. I just want a really dynamic family to join and I don't think we've had this in years. The Carters are way too OTT and forced in my opinion, and if we were going to enter a new era of the show, I wouldn't have them in The Vic. I'd have a more Classid character behind the bar, so it felt more like EastEnders. Sharon would be a great idea. Especially now she doesn't have much of a family.

I think if you get the foundations right, you allow a new era of the show to be created with ease, but if you try to introduce too many new things at once, which I think DTC has done, it begins to feel less like EastEnders, and it's not until recently (When he is leaving), that things have started to settle down a bit. There were a lot of moments in 2014/2015 where it felt like a completely different show.
I don't mind change, but if I had to say what I think would work to create a new era, I would say.

1) Put somebody in The Vic that the Nation are familiar with. Peggy, Angie, Pat, Kat are all familiar characters. Mick and Linda aren't. I think it's important that the show has somebody behind the bar with a lot of history. The Vic is the show's main meeting point, and having someone like Sharon or Kathy behind the bar would give it much more of an 'EastEnders' feel.

2) Introduce characters with charisma and screen presence. Characters like Lee Carter and Donna Yates lack this. Remember in the late 90's, when we were introduced to characters like Lisa, Mel and Steve? The show needs to introduce new characters like this. The likes of Shirley Carter an Max Branning in 2006 were great additions also.

3) Balance out storylines. There are too many storylines going on sometimes and too many are often dropped. EE has had some good storylines under DTC, but none of them have been outstanding in my opinion. I want to see the show produce a big, exciting storyline that doesn't feel forced, contrived or silly.
BIB 1 Spot on. Although I don't think that is a large proportion. You see it on DS but I don't think they're representative of the majority of viewers.

BIB 2 You can't drag actors back to the show kicking and screaming. They've gone and that's that.

BIB 2They were all new in their time and had to earn their stripes. New characters/landlords have to be given a fair chance. We can't keep harping back to the past. The Carters are pretty popular. I don't remember viewers refusing to accept the Mitchells and Butchers in the Vic and demanding Den back.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 01:14
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
BIB 1 Spot on. Although I don't think that is a large proportion. You see it on DS but I don't think they're representative of the majority of viewers.

BIB 2 You can't drag actors back to the show kicking and screaming. They've gone and that's that.

BIB 2They were all new in their time and had to earn their stripes. New characters/landlords have to be given a fair chance. We can't keep harping back to the past. The Carters are pretty popular. I don't remember viewers refusing to accept the Mitchells and Butchers in the Vic and demanding Den back.
I didn't say drag them back kicking and screaming. I was giving some examples of characters that could help inject some Classic EastEnders into the show.

You make a good point on the Carters, but for me I would prefer someone behind the bar with a bit more history on the show. You have to remember when the Mitchell's ran the place in the 90's, the show was in a better place in general, so they were easier to warm to. Each to their own I suppose
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 01:16
lou_123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
I'm never sure what people mean by eras. Peggy has been gone for years and until recently Phil has done nothing but shuffle around grunting at people and wielding a tyre iron from time to time. That's unless you count his on off relationship with his missus. Even Ronnie and Roxy have long lost their shine. Then their is his wimpy son who gets punched from time to time and has daddy issues. I'd say that their 'era' was already long behind them.

They seem to struggle to create strong families...look at the Cokers, Hubbards and Kasims ? They're never going to be memorable. The Carters are the only family that have been a success, but they've already exhausted them.

I imagine the focus is going to shift back to the Fowlers, Slaters and Brannings, which is fine by me. Better the devil you know. But don't get me wrong, if they can come up with a fabulous new family I'll be thrilled and I'd love to see the show more forward looking.

I think there is a problem getting actors to commit to soaps these day, which means we get the likes of the fabulous Tim West and Michael French for a year....and that's just not long enough.
Some great points there.

I particularly agree with what you say about their inability to create strong new families and then exhausting the Carters.
lou_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 01:20
TheGraduate2012
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 10,722
For me, I definitely think they need to introduce a new family. The Carters have been good but sometimes they feel, to me anyway, a bit like a caricature of an EastEnders family. It feels like we're watching 'Danny's Dyer's Propa East End Giraffe' sometimes. They had some fantastic moments during Linda's rape storyline, but they still need to build the family up to qualify them for future "classic" status. This is what they did this with the Slaters in the 2000s - there were so many memorable storylines surrounding the family; Trevor and Little Mo, Kat and Zoe, Jean and Stacey etc.

They should develop the Carters more and introduce another new family that won't be immediately absorbed into the Branning/Slater/Fowler mess or splintered into a collection of pointless characters (Donna, Kush, Paul, Vincent, Carmel).
TheGraduate2012 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 01:26
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
I didn't say drag them back kicking and screaming. I was giving some examples of characters that could help inject some Classic EastEnders into the show.

You make a good point on the Carters, but for me I would prefer someone behind the bar with a bit more history on the show. You have to remember when the Mitchell's ran the place in the 90's, the show was in a better place in general, so they were easier to warm to. Each to their own I suppose
When Den and Angie were behind the bar they had no history at all, in fact none of the characters did. Too much importance is given to history. I honestly don't think the show is in a bad place now. TBH it was in much worst shape in the late '80s.

I do understand nostalgia, it's heady stuff. I'd like to turn the clock back to the 60s when I was young and beautiful and friends and family were still alive. But real life dictates that we live in the present and keep moving forward.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 07:26
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
I don't mind change, but if I had to say what I think would work to create a new era, I would say.

1) Put somebody in The Vic that the Nation are familiar with. Peggy, Angie, Pat, Kat are all familiar characters. Mick and Linda aren't. I think it's important that the show has somebody behind the bar with a lot of history. The Vic is the show's main meeting point, and having someone like Sharon or Kathy behind the bar would give it much more of an 'EastEnders' feel.

2) Introduce characters with charisma and screen presence. Characters like Lee Carter and Donna Yates lack this. Remember in the late 90's, when we were introduced to characters like Lisa, Mel and Steve? The show needs to introduce new characters like this. The likes of Shirley Carter an Max Branning in 2006 were great additions also.

3) Balance out storylines. There are too many storylines going on sometimes and too many are often dropped. EE has had some good storylines under DTC, but none of them have been outstanding in my opinion. I want to see the show produce a big, exciting storyline that doesn't feel forced, contrived or silly.
1. I completely and utterly disagree, that is not moving forward it is clinging to the past with a vengence.

3. agree
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 07:47
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
For me, EastEnders is at its best when it mixes the old with the new.

I think what the show could do with is a few axings (Lee, Tina, Buster, Donna, etc... To name a few), and for some old popular faces to return. Returns from David Wicks, Janine Butcher and Grant Mitchell for example would easily help sprinkle a bit of Classic EastEnders into a new era of the show, and THEN you can start introducing new families and characters. I just want a really dynamic family to join and I don't think we've had this in years. The Carters are way too OTT and forced in my opinion, and if we were going to enter a new era of the show, I wouldn't have them in The Vic. I'd have a more Classid character behind the bar, so it felt more like EastEnders. Sharon would be a great idea. Especially now she doesn't have much of a family.

I think if you get the foundations right, you allow a new era of the show to be created with ease, but if you try to introduce too many new things at once, which I think DTC has done, it begins to feel less like EastEnders, and it's not until recently (When he is leaving), that things have started to settle down a bit. There were a lot of moments in 2014/2015 where it felt like a completely different show.
you can't move to a new era, if you are firmly rooted in the past and relying on old characters being brought back to make it "classic"

classic characters come from the show runners producing them and if no one ever gives a new character a chance there will be no more classic characters and the show will die.

I completely disagree re putting an old character in the vic, this needs to remain as the carters or another new family/couple, it is the best way to bed them into the community.

plus Peggy wasn't a classic character when she went into the vic, Alfie moon wasn't either
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 07:53
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,200
For me, I definitely think they need to introduce a new family. The Carters have been good but sometimes they feel, to me anyway, a bit like a caricature of an EastEnders family. It feels like we're watching 'Danny's Dyer's Propa East End Giraffe' sometimes. They had some fantastic moments during Linda's rape storyline, but they still need to build the family up to qualify them for future "classic" status. This is what they did this with the Slaters in the 2000s - there were so many memorable storylines surrounding the family; Trevor and Little Mo, Kat and Zoe, Jean and Stacey etc.

They should develop the Carters more and introduce another new family that won't be immediately absorbed into the Branning/Slater/Fowler mess or splintered into a collection of pointless characters (Donna, Kush, Paul, Vincent, Carmel).
I agree. with this, how do folk expect new dynasty families to be created when no one wants to give them a chance, I think the carters have the makings of being a legacy family.

I do also think another family needs introucing and kept away from the almost insular and incestuous mess that has been created in recent years.

People forget that the mitchells, slaters and brannings were all new families at one point, some don't really accept them but they are now very much part of the history and fabric of the show. the carters are the only family since that time that has been created and stuck it out.

you can no longer counts the masoods cos there is only Mas
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 08:24
Adrian_Ward1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
I guess we will see when the new man Takes over
Adrian_Ward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 09:22
robjames69
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,187
I think that this year is one of the best for a long time, its been gripping and despite the whining on here, DTC has been a terrific EP, his work has been nothing short of amazing. Who Killed Lucy was a massive storyline and for EE Live, the show was being talked about by everyone, much like 2001. In fact, I'd say no other soap has had that much buzz in recent years.

The show has been firing on all cylinders (with few exceptions) since Boxing Day and the past 5 episodes have been incredible.

I think Peggy's death is a sad soap loss, but because she has been absent for six years anyway, I don't think her departure will effect the show too much. What will be interesting now is where SOC takes the show. DTC's vision was very much the Beale story (Lucy) and then the development and storylines of the Carters (which IMO was needed after such a dire few years). Obviously storylines for The Mitchells and The Slaters have been great, but the focal families in his reign were Carter and Beale.

With Kellie Brights news, I'd imagine SOC would need to create a short break (which Danny Dyer could use) for both landlords of the Vic, perhaps with Sharon taking over in their absence?

I'd hope he would
* rebuild the Slaters and have them as his central family
* perhaps introducing a new family with no family connections
* develop the fowlers
* make Phil healthy and the patriarch of the Mitchells
* axe Ben
* axe Donna, Vincent

I
robjames69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 09:34
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
I think that this year is one of the best for a long time, its been gripping and despite the whining on here, DTC has been a terrific EP, his work has been nothing short of amazing. Who Killed Lucy was a massive storyline and for EE Live, the show was being talked about by everyone, much like 2001. In fact, I'd say no other soap has had that much buzz in recent years.

The show has been firing on all cylinders (with few exceptions) since Boxing Day and the past 5 episodes have been incredible.

I think Peggy's death is a sad soap loss, but because she has been absent for six years anyway, I don't think her departure will effect the show too much. What will be interesting now is where SOC takes the show. DTC's vision was very much the Beale story (Lucy) and then the development and storylines of the Carters (which IMO was needed after such a dire few years). Obviously storylines for The Mitchells and The Slaters have been great, but the focal families in his reign were Carter and Beale.

With Kellie Brights news, I'd imagine SOC would need to create a short break (which Danny Dyer could use) for both landlords of the Vic
, perhaps with Sharon taking over in their absence?

I'd hope he would
* rebuild the Slaters and have them as his central family
* perhaps introducing a new family with no family connections
* develop the fowlers
* make Phil healthy and the patriarch of the Mitchells
* axe Ben
* axe Donna, Vincent

I
Danny has said that he won't be taking a break, but they should just have him as the landlord of the Vic for a while, a family man. No big drama and definitely no more secrets. I think we've had enough Carter secrets to last us a few years. He makes a really good landlord and doesn't need wall to wall drama to make his presence known.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46.