|
||||||||
who was worse bryan kikrwood or lorraine newman |
| View Poll Results: ho was worse bryan kikrwood or lorraine newman | |||
| lorraine |
|
11 | 40.74% |
| bryan |
|
16 | 59.26% |
| Voters: 27. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,058
|
who was worse bryan kikrwood or lorraine newman
who was worse bryan kikrwood or lorraine newman
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Newman by far.
Kirkwood did a lot of/far more damage, but at least it was actually worth watching. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
Dame Lorraine Newman
I don't think she was awful. She was just a bit of yawn and anti-climatic. Her work was a lot better compared to Hutchinson and Hardwood. Her only really decent work was with Kat though. Apart of me has never really forgiven her for the way she wrote Zainab in such an out of character way. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The end of time.
Posts: 12,104
|
Kirkwood.
Newman was bad, but I cut her some slack given the mess she had to clear up. She left the show in a better place for when DTC took over. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
Kirkwood.
Newman was bad, but I cut her some slack given the mess she had to clear up. She left the show in a better place for when DTC took over. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 485
|
Newman was what the show needed for DTC to have a great first year - even though the foundations were already in place with Janine killing Michael. Newman was simply damage control who stayed longer than expected, so wasn't really expecting to do anything long-term - hence why all the decent stuff happened near the end. She did wonders redeeming Kat's character and put Roxy in a slightly different direction - something that no one else really did. Her characters were also interesting, but never given a chance to show their potential - Danny Pennant, Kirsty Branning, Jake and Sadie, even the Whites and the Spraggans. It was hit and miss, but there was more potential in those characters than in many of DTC's.
She was the EP that Eastenders needed, but not the one it wanted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North of England
Posts: 14,124
|
Kirkwood and it's not even close. Newman was out of her depth in places but she had little choice as she was forced to clean up his mess which took a long time.
Apart from her last three months on the show, her time was dull but not horrendously abnormal like his. Wish people would understand this instead of blindly attacking her (though I agree that she wasn't right for the role). Kate Harwood was the second worst EP after Kirkwood. Didn't think much of Kathleen Hutchinson either. Newman stablised the show in late 2013 and doing that, she paved the way for DTC to take over and revive EE. Though 2015 and 16, he's been inconsistent in places. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cuddling MyLee
Posts: 4,736
|
To be fair, both were bad - but Kirkwood ruined the show by axing an iconic character in Pat, useless characters like The Moons, and the Branning Overload (anyone who thinks the Carters being on a bit much as bad, the Brannings overtook the show). He's ruined Hollyoaks, but only has his job as they've a very weak controller in Jay Hunt.
Newman's "love and warmth" vision drove me away - that's for Corrie not EE. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cuddling MyLee
Posts: 4,736
|
Kathleen Hutchinson - was she the one in charge when Pauline had that second husband and did the character assassination on her? Boy, that was a bad period for the show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
Quote:
Kathleen Hutchinson - was she the one in charge when Pauline had that second husband and did the character assassination on her? Boy, that was a bad period for the show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cuddling MyLee
Posts: 4,736
|
Quote:
Yeah pretty much. Which is why Wendy jumped ship.
![]() Yes she was very woeful - the way Wendy was treated was unfair. I'd have rather had her go out to live with Michelle in America than be killed off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
I think if Santer had taken over EE several months earlier, I think he would of convinced Wendy to stay and sort Pauline out. But Wendy had handed her notice in before Santer took over and her exit was one of his first things to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cuddling MyLee
Posts: 4,736
|
In fairness Santer did rescue what was an ailing show in my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
Quote:
In fairness Santer did rescue what was an ailing show in my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
Kirkwood.
Newman was bad, but I cut her some slack given the mess she had to clear up. She left the show in a better place for when DTC took over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
Newman was what the show needed for DTC to have a great first year - even though the foundations were already in place with Janine killing Michael. Newman was simply damage control who stayed longer than expected, so wasn't really expecting to do anything long-term - hence why all the decent stuff happened near the end. She did wonders redeeming Kat's character and put Roxy in a slightly different direction - something that no one else really did. Her characters were also interesting, but never given a chance to show their potential - Danny Pennant, Kirsty Branning, Jake and Sadie, even the Whites and the Spraggans. It was hit and miss, but there was more potential in those characters than in many of DTC's.
She was the EP that Eastenders needed, but not the one it wanted. She was the woman who said she wanted to spread the show with love and warmth. That isn't EastEnders. I don't agree her characters were that great at all. Kirkwood's main three successful characters were Vanessa, Michael and Cora, all of whom were much better than the Newman bunch for me. I think Newman's strong points were Janine/Michael, Kat's development and Tanya's exit. Everything else was dreadful. Kirkwood is given a hard time, but the latter half of 2010 wasn't too bad at all, and EastEnders did have a huge popularity surge. The start of 2011 was pretty strong aswell. It all went a bit downhill from that point, but there was always something going on at least. His biggest weakness was destroying the shows families and trying to focus it too much of the younger cast. It didn't help he lost Stacey, Peggy and Ronnie in his first year either (Arguably 3 biggest characters in the Santer era). |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North of England
Posts: 14,124
|
Quote:
Kathleen Hutchinson - was she the one in charge when Pauline had that second husband and did the character assassination on her? Boy, that was a bad period for the show.
Harwood oversaw most of 2005 and virtually all of 2006. The latter was one of the worst years on record. To her credit, she introduced some very good characters a number of whom are still around (Max, when he returns, Denise, Shirley, Jay). |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18.


