|
Post by I Hate Lana Lang on Jan 28, 2005 11:05:16 GMT
Never in the whole history of the soap has public confidence in it been so low and deservedly so. The scripts are weak, the characters vapid and the gangster storyline can't be done justice pre watershed so why so many of them?
POINT ONE:
Dirty Den's reintroduction was fab at the time but it undermined the soap and Jumped The Shark (or ten sharks) to the point of possible no return.
POINT TWO:
Characters behaving badly and strangely. Zoe gets the same storylines constantly: she robs a boyfriend that isn't hers and moans when he leaves her. Yawn. The Dirty Den sex storyline turned my stomach too. Also, why the hell did Patrick Trueman go all miserable for his son for a whole week and then suddenly *cheer up* just before the police informed him his son had been found dead? It's lazy scripting. It doesn't heighten tension.
POINT THREE:
The Ferrerias. Don't blame them for the soap's downfall. They only read the lines they were given and I actually feel sorry for the actors that were demonised as a result and who will never work again. The Liver storyline was shit though.
POINT FOUR:
Vicki Fowler.
POINT FIVE:
Sam Mitchell doing a Brookside.
It's the end.
|
|
|
Post by klee on Jan 28, 2005 11:36:03 GMT
Has it jumped the shark or is it another lull?
I remember Corrie coming in for a load of flack around about the time of Toyah's rape and Leanne's "two snorts and she's hooked" drug addiction.
Soaps go through peaks and troughs and are lambasted by the Red Tops for it. It's the price of tabloid journalism and celebrity culture.
Mind you, Eastenders has been on a downer for much longer than I thought it'd be. The beginning of the end was definitely all those tedious gangsta storylines which sucked the life out of the programme. It rapidly went from being an (albeit often grim) show about ordinary peoples' lives with a touch of the East End crime thing about it to a poor man's Guy Ritchie film.
Another way in which the programme must be finding it difficult to keep viewers lies, I think, in the way it treats its women characters. For a genre which depends on the loyalty of female viewers it has a funny way of portraying them. More or less every female cast member is systematically beaten down by their storylines, usually transforming them from "sparky career woman who knows what she wants" to "weeping barmaid drudge" in the space of six months.
Contrast this with Corrie, where however implausible the storylines may be, they emerge from the characters themselves. (It's interesting to note that Corrie was at its nadir when [see above] it tried to do 'issue' rather than character-based storylines.) Furthermore, life may beat them down, but at least they emerge from that with dignity. That's far more than your average snivelling black cab 'Enders exit accomplishes.
Whether it's the true end is another matter. The Beeb won't want to ditch a flagship show this close to Charter renewal and it would be expensive to replace in the schedules. They'll probably ditch the producer, poach a few writers from better shows and go for a long-term overhaul. Watch this space.
|
|
|
Post by Cherubic on Jan 28, 2005 12:02:28 GMT
Isn't the point though that even when it was a bit crap Corronation still got decent viewing figures, whereas Eastenders at the moment doesn't. Mind you the BBC is probably less motivated by viewing figures, at least in the imediate term, so may want to fix it rather than dispose of it.
I've never really liked it much though. Anyway, didn't 'Corrie's nadir' feature Janet Battersby in a bin bag impersonating Debbie Harry before having a cat fight with Margie Clarke? If Eastenders could pull that off I'm sure people would watch again.
|
|
|
Post by Steven on Jan 28, 2005 13:16:51 GMT
More or less every female cast member is systematically beaten down by their storylines, usually transforming them from "sparky career woman who knows what she wants" to "weeping barmaid drudge" in the space of six months. This is actually the thing about EastEnders that bothers me the most. Whenever they introduce a new female character, there always tend to be interviews, either with the producer or with the actress, saying about how she's "feisty", "spirited", "gives as good as she gets", "doesn't take any crap from anyone" etc etc, which tends to be true for the first few weeks, but then inevitably she ends up homeless, penniless, and pregnant with Ian Beale's child. Incidentally, Kathleen Hutchison, the executive producer who took over when Louise Berridge resigned, is leaving now as well.
|
|
|
Post by klee on Jan 28, 2005 13:48:29 GMT
Incidentally, Kathleen Hutchison, the executive producer who took over when Louise Berridge resigned, is leaving now as well. I saw that too. Aren't they bringing back the bloke who brought us the Sla-ers? Just what we need - even more female characters to get abused, raped, cheated, involved with organised crime, jilted at the altar and so on. In fact, it's just struck me what's going on here. Every single Albert Square woman is based on Shelly Unwin.
|
|
Jonny
Jane Asher
the difference between me + you is that im not on fire
Posts: 238
|
Post by Jonny on Jan 28, 2005 15:57:44 GMT
I mean really. What absolute nonsense. The very suggestion that a soap that resurrected a character from the bottom of a river AND had a different character raped twice in less than two years is running short of ideas really does beggar belief.
Shame on you all.
I'm waiting for the storyline where everyone in Albert Square buys a washing machine leaving Dot + Pauline to sabotage them all in order to keep their business afloat. It would keep me gripped.
A few questions: 1. How long should you leave a character recover before they're raped again? 2. Who hasn't Sam Mitchell shagged? 3. Who is going to kill Andy The Baddest Muthafuckin Gangstarr In Tha West? 4. Can they please hurry up and get on with it? 5. Has Pauline Fowler stopped wearing that bloody daffodil yet?
|
|
|
Post by klee on Jan 28, 2005 16:16:31 GMT
Has Pauline Fowler stopped wearing that bloody daffodil yet? Just be grateful she gave that cardigan away to the Cancer Research shop. And her old wig to Big Mo by the looks of things.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jan 28, 2005 18:30:18 GMT
And Tony Jordan apparently is going back to Eastenders for a bit. I thought he was doing a big money thing for Simon Fuller at the moment.
I feel sorry for Eastenders as I know that it can be so much better but I feel that all the characters are so boring now. It was very strong for about three years though when it had who shot phil, sonia pregnant, Ethel dying, Slaters coming+Mo+Trevor.
|
|
|
Post by toby3000 on Jan 31, 2005 13:01:48 GMT
They seem to have a disregard for reality. While I'll happily accept this from Neighbours, somhow it doesn't sit so happily in Eastenders. They also seem highly fond of personality switches (Laura Beale, Billy Mitchel, Phil). And WHY do they all have to work in the Square?? I know this is a general soap rule but it grates when Sam goes and works in the chippy for example. And all the tedious Gangster storylines.
I feel they need a big clear out and a clear 'new start' a la the Emmerdale Plane Crash/ Family Affairs Boat explosion etc
|
|
|
Post by I Hate Lana Lang on Jan 31, 2005 13:37:37 GMT
I've just heard about Grant Mitchell returning. This shows the confidence of the team is at an all time low...why can't they just invent good, decent characters we all like and relate to instead of bringing in the Mitchells again? Bloody hell just cancel the show and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Robbing the Dead on Jan 31, 2005 14:39:55 GMT
I think there should be some terror cell secretly living in the Square plotting a terrorist attack, but they end up accidently blowing up part of the square, killing a large proportion of the cast.
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 1, 2005 16:06:18 GMT
No matter how crap people say it is at least it's better than Corrie in my eyes - I can't stand that! All it ever seems to be is that group of girls drinking in the pub with their parents
|
|
|
Post by I Hate Lana Lang on Feb 5, 2005 11:00:39 GMT
No matter how crap people say it is at least it's better than Corrie in my eyes - I can't stand that! All it ever seems to be is that group of girls drinking in the pub with their parents As opposed to every cast member drinking in the Queen Vic every second scene. Or working in the Queen Vic. Or trying to take over the Queen Vic.
|
|
|
Post by toby3000 on Mar 2, 2005 22:10:26 GMT
So a mere 6 million to Emmerdale's 9 million when they went head to head. Not good for them.
|
|
|
Post by raspberry on Mar 5, 2005 9:00:55 GMT
Didn't Cathy and Pete Beal live in a tower block at some point? Is that not more realistic than having all these poor families unrealisticly crowded in to old terraced houses? I reckon they should start with the geography of the whole place and hopefully the characters would lead marginally more believable lives.
Why are houses/pubs/shops passed around like hot potatoes? Why aren't there more outside influences on the Square and the rubbish looking market?
I would start by making the market into appearing to be something worth visiting. Perhaps let someone open a few more shops around the place, other than Ian that is. Perhaps a bar or club could open that is a slightly bigger size and would feasibly have customers other than Pat Butcher and the Fowlers.
|
|
|
Post by I Hate Lana Lang on Mar 5, 2005 11:45:11 GMT
Yup, Eastenders much vaunted storyline about Chrissie is now officially a flop. I have to say the whole WhoDENit stuff doesn't make sense at all. I keep expecting Den to come back from the dead like he did before...death has no validity in the soap anymore due to his untimely return.
Also, Chrissie started out as a slightly cold business woman who happened to be Den's wife and now (inexplicably) her character has degenerated into a vicious killer. How? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense at all. There's no development. She just became a murderer.
What a load of crap. If EastEnders was cancelled, would anyone here genuinely care?
|
|
|
Post by JellyShoos on Apr 1, 2005 19:36:22 GMT
Oh I did chuckle this eve though
Stacey: Nan, why do bad things always happen to me Mo: Cos you're a nasty little mare that goes around spoiling people's lives
Priceless!
|
|
|
Post by MoondialSlater on Apr 2, 2005 20:35:44 GMT
Stacey Slater is the only reason to watch Eastenders.
Stacey Slater is the only reason to watch television in general.
And anyone that disagrees can naff off and go and poke themselves.
|
|
|
Post by raspberry on Apr 4, 2005 12:57:05 GMT
She is great, a Janie Mark II in many ways. Hopefully she'll get a better crop of plot lines than Mark I. I like her irratting mob-daughter friend too. They are a nice wee double act, the kind soaps have been missing for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Carrotline on Apr 4, 2005 13:35:01 GMT
My opinion on the girl was swayed when she said a couple of weeks back that she'd always wanted to be an ice skater.
And thus, Stacey Slater- Ice Skater, was born.
I think its just a really good example of what a lot of girls her age today are actually like. They all have Jane Torvil aspirations obviously.
|
|
|
Post by MoondialSlater on Apr 4, 2005 23:06:04 GMT
My opinion on the girl was swayed when she said a couple of weeks back that she'd always wanted to be an ice skater. And thus, Stacey Slater- Ice Skater, was born. Thank God her dad died, she's much better at being a gobby cow. Its the tried and tested Janine method- have a character who's a total bitch for a few weeks, have her behaviour explained by something that happened in her past, have her get the audience's sympathy for about a day, then let her be a total bitch again for a few more weeks. She endeared herself to me early on when she was the only person on the Square to spot how irritating "Princess" Zoe was. Having said that I did enjoy Demi tipping a bucket of water over her head.
|
|
loot
Slabface
Posts: 16
|
Post by loot on Jul 21, 2005 15:10:34 GMT
Janine was so brilliant (please please xmas storyline pat goes to visit the little mynx in jail or better still she moves back in and terrorises Ian for a bit) - it must have been really difficult for her to do Stace and she really does have it. Great to see talent like that. They should give her a bit more depth like you know perhaps a helter skelter accident and then Stacey saves everyone. Always a last resort but you gotta do what you gotta do
|
|
|
Post by MoondialSlater on Jul 22, 2005 23:37:45 GMT
They should give her a bit more depth like you know perhaps a helter skelter accident and then Stacey saves everyone. Always a last resort but you gotta do what you gotta do As much as I love Stacey never again must they do a helter-skelter accident. Never.
|
|
|
Post by Steven on Jul 23, 2005 0:40:12 GMT
Perhaps it would be helpful for the writers/producers of EastEnders if we, the viewers, compile a list of things that must never happen again?
1. Fairground accidents of any kind 2. Resurrection of characters presumed to be dead
|
|
|
Post by MoondialSlater on Jul 23, 2005 6:50:26 GMT
3. Storylines involving kidneys that drag on far longer than they should.
|
|