Originally Posted by welshfoxy:
“I've never been able to watch it consistently myself - even when the 'quality' is good, the basic formula of negativity and woe is me has never filled me with joy. Maybe a family like the Mitchells was as close as it got - you got a bit of action into the mix but now it's just Phil and he's the most miserable of the whole square. Other soaps of course vary in quality dramatically also, but there's far more light and shade and after half an hour you remember it's just TV rather than have been lulled into depression.”
“I've never been able to watch it consistently myself - even when the 'quality' is good, the basic formula of negativity and woe is me has never filled me with joy. Maybe a family like the Mitchells was as close as it got - you got a bit of action into the mix but now it's just Phil and he's the most miserable of the whole square. Other soaps of course vary in quality dramatically also, but there's far more light and shade and after half an hour you remember it's just TV rather than have been lulled into depression.”
This just feels like EastEnders bashing for the sake of EastEnders bashing. It has little to do with the current state of the show and the recent viewing figures - it's clearly going through a transitional phase from the sensationalism and twists and turns of Dominic Treadwell-Collins' tenure to the more grounded, quieter realism of Sean O'Connor's work. O'Connor is yet to prove himself and the show is clearly a work-in-progress currently under him.
When EastEnders has more community-focused, lighter moments, it's disregarded as "dull" and "boring". When EastEnders features darker, dramatic storylines, it's regarded as "depressing" and a chore to watch. It's nothing personal but I find such criticism typical of the tabloids whenever they need to reel off another dig at EastEnders. The reason why figures are modest at the moment is basically because it's very quiet with a lack of "big" storylines.





”