|
||||||||
Did anyone else find EastEnders poor in the first half of 2000? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,918
|
Did anyone else find EastEnders poor in the first half of 2000?
I'm watching a lot of the episodes from the first half of 2000 again on Dailymotion, and even though the early 00's are considered the shows peaks.
I'm finding the era didn't get off to the best of starts. There seemed to be a lot of secondary characters receiving poor storylines, and characters such as Irene and the DiMarco's appearing in almost every episode. It's no surprise most of them characters have been forgotten! Did anyone else find this period a bit dull or is it just me? A far cry from the second half of that year and 2001/2002/most of 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,918
|
For me, 2000 & 2007 are very similar, with that they were poor in the first half, but the second half of those years saw the show on top form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,996
|
It's no different to any other TV show, everyone remembers them with a hint of rosy glow nostalgia but when you actually look back and actually view them you just see how bad they actually were, very few have stood the test of time that well especially the production methods and values, with soaps they have moved on in the types of stories they cover, but otherwise they are no better or worse than what they used to be it's only in some peoples minds that they have actually improved or worsened when actually in realty are still the same..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
|
I'm pretty much behind you, lou. Save for the aftermath of Mel/Ian and the Matthew/Steve stuff it had literally nada going for it until Nick's return/Anthony's reappearance (not that I particularly liked him). It went from strength to strength after that point (Ethel/Dot, Slaters' arrival, Sonia's surprise pregnancy, Pat/Peggy/Frank climax, start of Little Mo/Trevor). I will say though that Xmas Day 2000 was nothing special. All in all though it was a massive improvement on the forgettable first half of the year.
I think 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 (to a certain extent) are all similar in that the latter half was invariably much stronger than the first whereas years like 2002 and 2004 are the opposite (brilliant first half, weaker second). We all know about the disaster of mid-2004 but the last few months of 2002 weren't anything to write home about either (relative to the very high standard of the show at that time) and that's how it stayed until Dennis Rickman arrived in spring 2003. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,918
|
Quote:
It's no different to any other TV show, everyone remembers them with a hint of rosy glow nostalgia but when you actually look back and actually view them you just see how bad they actually were, very few have stood the test of time that well especially the production methods and values, with soaps they have moved on in the types of stories they cover, but otherwise they are no better or worse than what they used to be it's only in some peoples minds that they have actually improved or worsened when actually in realty are still the same..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,918
|
Quote:
I'm pretty much behind you, lou. Save for the aftermath of Mel/Ian and the Matthew/Steve stuff it had literally nada going for it until Nick's return/Anthony's reappearance (not that I particularly liked him). It went from strength to strength after that point (Ethel/Dot, Slaters' arrival, Sonia's surprise pregnancy, Pat/Peggy/Frank climax, start of Little Mo/Trevor). I will say though that Xmas Day 2000 was nothing special. All in all though it was a massive improvement on the forgettable first half of the year.
I think 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 (to a certain extent) are all similar in that the latter half was invariably much stronger than the first whereas years like 2002 and 2004 are the opposite (brilliant first half, weaker second). We all know about the disaster of mid-2004 but the last few months of 2002 weren't anything to write home about either (relative to the very high standard of the show at that time) and that's how it stayed until Dennis Rickman arrived in spring 2003. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,179
|
I can't remember last week never mind 2000!
but given the year I think I spent most my of it either in the pub or socialising at friends ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,918
|
Quote:
I can't remember last week never mind 2000!
but given the year I think I spent most my of it either in the pub or socialising at friends ![]() ![]() ![]() I don't blame you. Last week will never be forgotten with that hilarious Kathy/Gavin 'showdown' (Circus) for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
|
Quote:
I'm glad someone agrees. I do however think 2003 started off quite well, but went quite poor April - September. Den's return helped boost the show again, but soon after it became quite dull again, until the Christmas period.
As far as 2003 goes at least. I'm one of the few who actually defend 2004 to an extent but there's no denying it was a crock of shit for weeks on end. Especially around the May/June period. We went from the kidney bollocks to the fairground disaster to Gus and Juley fighting over a gun. It was a mush of continuous shite until the autumn. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,089
|
To be honest, I wouldn't imagine that most people even remember EE in the first half of 2000. IMO, it's been utterly shit since about 2009. I stopped watching it about 6 years ago. I have caught the odd 5-10 episodes from time to time since, (to kind of try and get back into it,) but I never did, as it's just that little extra bit shit each time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 370
|
Amazed that people can remember what was happening during specific months over so many years. Impressive recall!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 3,298
|
Quote:
Amazed that people can remember what was happening during specific months over so many years. Impressive recall!
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:39.

A far cry from the second half of that year and 2001/2002/most of 2003.
