DS Forums

 
 

Den Watt's return


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-11-2006, 18:10
Chrissy 2005
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Charity Shop
Posts: 9,541

I WANT Den Watts Back

Please, Please, Please The Wicks where great interest but not without him, Den, Chrissie, Vikki and Sharon could have been dynamic if still there. Shame
Chrissy 2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-11-2006, 18:12
ben93
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Central Perk
Posts: 1,591
i do agree the soap was so bood with lesley grantham back!!!!

BTW whatever happened to vikki i forgot did she go back to America or die or something
ben93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2006, 18:22
smokey_rick
 
Posts: n/a
I must say since Tracy ann-Oberman left exactly a year ago this month the soap has gone right downhill. Im sure that ongoing storyline running xmas 2004- this time last year and the lead up to it with leslie grantham's murder was the only thing keeping the soap strong as since its been a joke

Last edited by smokey_rick : 14-11-2006 at 18:24.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2006, 18:53
union_jak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Wherever Team Evo takes me
Posts: 4,089
The very moment EastEnders began to go downhill was when Vicki (and her accent) and Dennis were introduced and Sharon started her relationship with her brother. It was obvious to all that they were gearing towards Dirty Den's return and everything just centred around that.

Other characters and storylines suffered as a result, and Leslie Grantham blew it when he had his scandal.
The best thing about that whole period was when Chrissie turned up.
union_jak is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2006, 21:08
Eternal Life
 
Posts: n/a
The downhill was when he came back in the first place.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2006, 21:14
iloveeastenders
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,723
Originally Posted by Chrissy 2005
I WANT Den Watts Back

Please, Please, Please The Wicks where great interest but not without him, Den, Chrissie, Vikki and Sharon could have been dynamic if still there. Shame
Watch the UKGold episodes
iloveeastenders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 02:31
jimmya1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 810
The downhill was when Den left the first time
jimmya1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 02:56
tfox6
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 454
Most soaps and cyclical; Eastenders is no exception. The arrival of Vicky, Dennis and Den began a new cycle, in which some of the old characters (Alfie, Peggie) were sidelined in favour of the Watts family. This was a mistake for the show, because it changed the good dynamics in the Vic, which is the centre of the action.
tfox6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 03:09
Hippyste
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,814
EE has never been the same since Grant left...
Hippyste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 03:26
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
Originally Posted by Hippyste
EE has never been the same since Grant left...
It's never been the same since Reg Cox died
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 07:13
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by tfox6
Most soaps and cyclical; Eastenders is no exception. The arrival of Vicky, Dennis and Den began a new cycle, in which some of the old characters (Alfie, Peggie) were sidelined in favour of the Watts family. This was a mistake for the show, because it changed the good dynamics in the Vic, which is the centre of the action.
I disagree - the dynamics in the Vic had not been good for a long time. The Mitchells were in control of it for far too long, and the fact that it was given back to them after Chrissie's time as landlady was just a giant joke.

Chrissie behind the bar was a great breath of fresh air and they should've given it to someone other than Peggy when Chrissie went down. Now its back to boredom city.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 07:16
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by smokey_rick
I must say since Tracy ann-Oberman left exactly a year ago this month the soap has gone right downhill. Im sure that ongoing storyline running xmas 2004- this time last year and the lead up to it with leslie grantham's murder was the only thing keeping the soap strong as since its been a joke
I agree entirely... and 2006 is EE's worst year ratings wise (check out the soap ratings thread for 2006 and you will see the show is consistently down on last year), so its clear things are still not right by any objective standards.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 08:42
grant.mitchell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,425
I think you'll find that the majority of viewers wanted the mitchells back behind the bar, and as such thats why the writers wrote in that dodgy handing over of the pub post-chrissie. They were trying to win back ratings!
grant.mitchell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:01
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by grant.mitchell
I think you'll find that the majority of viewers wanted the mitchells back behind the bar, and as such thats why the writers wrote in that dodgy handing over of the pub post-chrissie. They were trying to win back ratings!
It didn't quite work did it... the ratings for 2006 are consistently down on 2005 (albeit marginally) and have reached an all time low. Its about time the Mitchells were shipped out of the Vic altogether.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:08
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by grant.mitchell
I think you'll find that the majority of viewers wanted the mitchells back behind the bar, and as such thats why the writers wrote in that dodgy handing over of the pub post-chrissie. They were trying to win back ratings!
Dodgy doesn't even cover it.... I think it was probably the sloppiest piece of soap writing I have ever had the misfortune to witness. I dare anyone to find a more asinine and implausible resolution to a plotline.

It was that (more than the fact that they were getting rid of one of the show's few remaining assets[ie Chrissie]) that made me feel, for the first time ever, that EE was breaking down. Up until then I probably would have defended EE to the grave (well almost!).

Last edited by Filiman : 15-11-2006 at 13:11.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:10
Basic_Alan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by grant.mitchell
I think you'll find that the majority of viewers wanted the mitchells back behind the bar, and as such thats why the writers wrote in that dodgy handing over of the pub post-chrissie. They were trying to win back ratings!

I used to watch EE religiously, now haven't seen back to back episodes for about a year. Its listening to the fans that do the show damage since they (the fans) don't know what's good for the show in the long term. I do hope scriptwriters don't reference forums such as this as an indication of what the viewing public want.
Basic_Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:13
SussexSteph
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Filiman
I agree entirely... and 2006 is EE's worst year ratings wise (check out the soap ratings thread for 2006 and you will see the show is consistently down on last year), so its clear things are still not right by any objective standards.
LOL from reading your post it's clear to me that you don't understand the "ratings".
SussexSteph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:15
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by SussexSteph
LOL from reading your post it's clear to me that you don't understand the "ratings".
Why? In what way was I erroneous?
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:20
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
I'll admit I didn't undertake a comprehensive survey. I looked at the ratings for early 2005 and then for 2006, flipped to mid-year, did the same, and then again for about September/October.

But if I'm wrong, and someone has done a comprehensive comparison, then please point out my mistakes.

I also took into account, that as most people believe 2004 was EE worst year, I simple compared the worst performing episode of that year (which was around 6m if memory serves) and the worst performing episodes of 2006, which were 3/4m.

Its selective, I'll admit, but please challenge my statements and point to my errors.

However, a self-smug chuckle and a patronising "you don't understand ratings" hardly qualifies as a sustained rebuttal.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:24
SussexSteph
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Filiman
Why? In what way was I erroneous?
Well for a start you're not looking at the bigger picture. The ratings for EastEnders are down on previous years there is no denying that but then so are the ratings for nearly every other programme. All of the soaps are getting less and and less viewers every year but they're still remaining the most watched shows on British TV and EastEnders is actually still doing really well in the ratings when you look at the bigger picture.

It's easy to say EastEnders ratings in 2006 are consistently the worst ever and that's a true fact so you're quite welcome to state it however you make it sound like EastEnders is doing appallingly in the ratings when it really isn't. Look at the bigger picture that's all I'm saying. Your fact wasn't erroneous but using it to try and make out that EastEnders is in a bad position in the ratings is indeed erroneous IMO.
SussexSteph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:25
SussexSteph
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Filiman
I'll admit I didn't undertake a comprehensive survey. I looked at the ratings for early 2005 and then for 2006, flipped to mid-year, did the same, and then again for about September/October.

But if I'm wrong, and someone has done a comprehensive comparison, then please point out my mistakes.

I also took into account, that as most people believe 2004 was EE worst year, I simple compared the worst performing episode of that year (which was around 6m if memory serves) and the worst performing episodes of 2006, which were 3/4m.

Its selective, I'll admit, but please challenge my statements and point to my errors.

However, a self-smug chuckle and a patronising "you don't understand ratings" hardly qualifies as a sustained rebuttal.
Sorry I didn't mean to come across as "smug" and I've just posted some more information for you.
SussexSteph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:27
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by SussexSteph
Sorry I didn't mean to come across as "smug" and I've just posted some more information for you.
Fair enough... I didn't mean to be rude or curt in my reply. Sometimes one types in the heat of the moment.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:29
SussexSteph
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 309
The average audience for an ep of EastEnders this year is more like between 8 and 10 million viewers. That 3 million viewers in the middle of summer which was circumstantial was the exception and not the rule. I didn't mean to come across as rude though.

Last edited by SussexSteph : 15-11-2006 at 13:33.
SussexSteph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:30
SussexSteph
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Filiman
Fair enough... I didn't mean to be rude or curt in my reply. Sometimes one types in the heat of the moment.
I should have initially replied with more info and because I didn't my post did come across as being slightly rude. Sorry I was in the middle of eating my dinner.
SussexSteph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2006, 13:36
Filiman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
Originally Posted by SussexSteph
Well for a start you're not looking at the bigger picture. The ratings for EastEnders are down on previous years there is no denying that but then so are the ratings for nearly every other programme. All of the soaps are getting less and and less viewers every year but they're still remaining the most watched shows on British TV and EastEnders is actually still doing really well in the ratings when you look at the bigger picture.

It's easy to say EastEnders ratings in 2006 are consistently the worst ever and that's a true fact so you're quite welcome to state it however you make it sound like EastEnders is doing appallingly in the ratings when it really isn't. Look at the bigger picture that's all I'm saying. Your fact wasn't erroneous but using it to try and make out that EastEnders is in a bad position in the ratings is indeed erroneous IMO.
I agree - its not the end of the world... but I do disagree that EE's decline in the ratings is the soap trickle effect. It is a truism that all soaps loose a trickling amount of viewers year-on-year. But I would maintain, and again point to the ratings thread (which is my only source) that the decline in viewers for EE is more than just the trickle effect. I would sustain this argument by point out that Coronation Street has constantly maintained its position relative to the other soaps and to the wider picture. I would also argue that Emerdale has *gradually* being improving its position. This is not to say that EM outperforms EE; it may occasionally, but usually EE beats EM. But EM is getting much better ratings that it did four or five years ago, so this demonstrates that viewers *are there* for the taking, and keeping. The gap between EE and EM is considerably narrower than it used to be. Again, a quick browse through the ratings thread attests to this. Thus, I argue that 2006 is EE worst year ratings wise. This, taken together with the fact that, relatively, CS has maintained its position, and EM has gradually increased its, that EE is not that healthy.

Its not the end of the world, but it does make my point that EE could be doing ALOT better. Perhaps that what I should have said. I don't expect EE to be rating like it used to in the 1999/2000, but the difference between 2005 and 2006 is more than can simply be attributed to the trickling of viewers.

And one certainly can't claim that the 3/4m ratings EE got for a couple of episodes was a trickle. And even if there were extenuating circumstances, it doesn't change the fact that even in 2004 (EE supposed worst year), the show never went that low.
Filiman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20.