Many people on this forum and elsewhere believe 2004 is one of the shows worst ever years.

Whilst I agree that the structure of the show was fairly poor, and the storylines weren't fantastic, I don't agree it was as bad as some make it out to be.

There was a lot of problems behind the scenes, and even still I think the show managed to perform quite well. Not to mention we still had the likes of Kat, Alfie, Dennis, Pat, Pauline, Sam, Zoe, Den, Dennis, etc... so many legends who are now sadly gone.

How would you rate 2004?

It was no where near as bad as the press made out and id take that year, with all its faults, over the current dross.

I guess the low points was the introduction of the ferrariahs and that god awful kidney plot. Then there was Den sleeping with Zoe, and that silly fairground disaster.

However it had some real shining moments too. My personal favourite was the Sharon and Dennis romance. We got some brilliant two handers out of it (Dennis/Sharon and Den/Dennis). This was the last time Sharon was truely a decent character. Janine and Paul trying to fleece Barry deserves a mention. That story was gripping. Kat and Alfie were also at their prime and Andy hunter was a decent villian. That was the same year we saw the arrival of Chrissie and who can forget her chopping Kate's hair? Also we saw Stacey and Jane arrive and look how established they are 12 years later?


Overall I think berridge did a decent job, when you consider what she was up against.

It was hit and miss rather than outright poor.

Kidneygate, the fairground disaster and Andy/Alfie/Kat stand out as low points but it wasn't an entirely bad year. We still had Janine killing Barry (and the aftermath), Shannis, Chrissie vs Kate, and the fantastic Marcusgate. 2004 also saw the introduction of Stacey, Jane, and Chrissie who all went on to become significant characters. And obviously we still had Pauline and Pat, and the Watts had taken over as top dog family from the Mitchells by this point.

I don't think it was as bad as some people claimed at the time.

Absolutely. I'd take 2004 over any post-2006 year if I'm honest.

I do think 2007, 2009 and most of 2010 were better than 2004, but I would definitely take it over any year post 2010.

"Get Den Watts, he'll know what to do!"

I quite enjoyed this era. Some very good bits and the bad bits were largely a result of issues beyond the producer's control.

There was some lovely moments and episodes from that year, one of my favourites is the two hander episode between Den and Dot in the Launderette, where Den gets Dot to tell Jim about her cancer. Another one is Chrissie vs Kate and Chrissie throwing a chair through the salon window, but there's lots of good moments from that year and the show felt like old EastEnders, a feeling which was lost post 2006 and lots of characters left. There was some dross too but nowhere near as much as the media made out, plus it didn't help that the cast were dropping like flies and Berridge was dealing with a stalker.

2004 was atrocious. Very bad. But i have a lot of sympathy for Berridge. Although her idea to bring back Den is something i can't let her off the hook for.

Those years all had their moments but none really came close to matching 1985-2005 quality. EE had its ups and downs, but the show was generally of good quality for the first twenty years. There was a noticeable decline from 06 onwards.


Chrissie vs Kate was a real standout moment. It showed EE could still produce classic episodes in the midst of the off-screen drama that was engulfing the show. Chrissie throwing the chair through the window, followed by the "those vandals again!" quip had me in hysterics.

I enjoyed Janine killing Barry, Janine's exit, Chrissie vs Kate (only that showdown not Den's gross affair with Kate), Marcusgate, and Ian and Jane's budding relationship that year.

The Kat/Alfie/Andy saga, cardboard funfair disaster, kidneygate and the Ferreiras in general, the OTT introduction of the Millers (at their worst here), and the yoof contingent were all awful.

Shannis came and went for me. Both characters were watered down somewhat by it and Sharon did interact with Dennis as a brother initially which marred it somewhat. Then there was the creepy Den/Sharon angle with Den appearing to fancy Sharon and speculation, based on odd moments in the show, that she was only with Dennis because he reminded her of Den who she couldn't have. Rank.

Sharon also acted like a prize bitch when Dennis was with Zoe - barging into their flat and sneering to Zoe about what good sex she'd been having with Dennis. Still there were some good moments but for me most of them came after Den and Vicky had left the show and there was less emphasis on Dennis and Sharon being related.

Poor Barry didn't have to die, if only Berridge had given him time off to do panto

I'd take any era over the crap that's airing at the moment.... Not that I'm watching mind you.

Such amazing scenes, it showed a little insight into unhinged Chrissie as she hacked off Kate's hair too! But the script was great too, brilliant one liners like the tar and feathers line and 'I bet you don't even know how to spell the word no' before a backhander from Kate It's just great to watch.

The Millers were pure trash, I thought the Ferreiras were bad but that lot....christ!!

2004 was the start of Pauline becoming a bitter, twisted old bag.

Still, easily better than anything I remember during 2011-13.

Loved Chrissie vs Kate, fantastic scenes!

I was on my phone when I first saw this thread and knew who started it.

So who says it was bad and why?

EastEnders was absolutely slated in the press that year and it was being regularly beaten by Emmerdale in the head-to-heads. During the summer I remember the Daily Mirror ran an "EastEnders in crisis" special on their front page for a whole week, detailing the on and off screen problems EE was currently suffering. And of course Louise Berridge resigned from her post as exec producer, and her successor was sacked within just four months. There were even rumours that the show would be taken off air for up to two weeks. For a while it did genuinely feel like the show was in serious trouble.

It was OK but I didn't like what they did with the friendship between Zoe and Kelly in 2004:

First they fell out after their kiss in Scotland, then they fell out again when they were both after Ronny Ferreira and then Kelly left in June of that year.

I remember hating it at the time, skipping episodes and wishing the producers would get thier act together, However when you have lived through 2011-2013 and 2016 It now looks like bafta winning gold lol.

At the time many aspects of it seem like one of the worse years but after I read Louise Berridge interview about all the shit that was going on, you can understand why things went pair shaped.

However 2015 and even most of 2016 are easily one of EE worse year even beats 2011-2013 in my book.

2016 has been mostly abysmal when it comes to EastEnders. On par with 2013 in my opinion.

I'll agree with most on here - it was nowhere near as bad as made out and given the back screen problems, it's a minor miracle they managed to get anything on air at all, let alone some actually quite good stuff.

I think the main problem was that it came straight after a couple of very strong years, dominated by the Slaters so the problems, especially with that family (losing Lynne, Little Mo, Kat temporarily) seemed more pronounced.

Plus of course Grantham's suspension, Dan Tulip leaving causing that plot to be completely changed, Windsor being sick...

I do think that Kat had become so central by that stage that her storyline that year being thankfully woeful caused a lot of damage. Even once she went we had the start of the I'll advised Little Mo/Alfie romance.

As also mentioned, I found the chipping away at Den with the overtones of him fancying Sharon (the one thing that had always been 'pure' about Den was his paternal love for Sharon) and manipulating Zoe into bed (or was that 2005) were quite horrible to watch. Also didn't care for the affair with Kate.

Overall I thought it was okay though but then i'm one of the few people that didn't mind the Ferraira's as characters. Yes, the kidney plot dragged but i understood why even at the time so gave it leeway and i actually thought the characters were okay. The Miller's less so, but again i didn't think they were as dreadful as most viewers.

The aftermath of Janine killing (sort of) Barry with Pat and Natalie determined to get her for it with Paul stuck in the middle and it finally playing into Laura's death was actually very good. As was Andy's manipulation of Sam leading up to Den taking the Mitchell empire and regaining the Vic.

Finally we had the wonderful Chrissie.

I think I'd rather watch it than anything since except for that wonderful 18 months from Sept 13 to February 15 which I really do think was very good, although it has unfortunately led to huge problems with the plots it started.

Pretty much this.

I don't even think the period of 2007-2010 was that great, unlike most people. It was okay, but far from great.

It was as good as anything you are are going to get out of EastEnders or a primetime soap opera in general.