Jump to content

EastEnders: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

Yeah the show overall has it's moments here and there but it's lacking big time.

 

Janine adds familiarity and Charlie Brooks is very much checked in and it was nice to see Jessie Wallace come alive around her. Kat vs. Janine over Scarlett isn't the worst but I do see them going for cartoon villain Janine. We shall see.

 

I don't necessarily have high hopes but I'm still happy to see her.

 

And to add, a lot of the characters just feel ... tired

 

I notice some more humor which has been nice but it's still misery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The show feels so directionless. I don't want it as dark and depressing as it once became but man gimme something. It's time to start amping things up and wrapping up some things.

 

As someone who dislikes Phil (though Kat helps lessen that truthfully, which is bizarre to say), it was fun to see him be bashed over the head with a baseball bat by Shirley and then Janine traipsing over his unconscious body, giving no care to him. LOL.

 

I don't think the writing is too bad for Janine yet. We will see. 

 

It's strange because I do find some things enjoyable, the majority of cast/characters aren't bad, but the show as a whole feels ... lost? To be fair, the show has had far worse periods.

 

They were going in a really bad direction (the Ian stuff, even if I could kinda buy it; but they really made everything about him ugly and toxic) but things seemed to be in a holding pattern for a while and they couldn't rely on their stunts during the pandemic and filming protocols. I'd argue the show benefited from that even if it's not very interesting. I'll take Jean with a garage full of marijuana and Janine starting a fire in the Mitchell house over Denny drowning to death and Ian being poisoned by Sharon

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Based on the overnights, the show so far didn't get any ratings bounce from the Janine's return or all the promotion they spent money on. I think the show reputation and brand is so damaged at this point, it's going to take a miracle to turn around this show. 

 

The show is slightly better lately, but that's not nearly enough, nor do I think it's going to last. None of the spoilers or stories coming up sound all that good or interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't have any specific story ideas. I do have some general suggestions to help improve the show. 

 

First off, the crown jewels of any soap opera is it characters. That's why people tune in every day, week after week. We've seen these characters be born and grow up on our screens. The show has forgotten that. There are so many characters that have been damaged by the writing, trying to fix the ones you can, should be first priority.  There also a lot of deadweight that needs to go. There's also too many new characters and they keep adding more. If you haven't watched EE in 5-10 years, you wouldn't recognize half the cast. 

 

I wouldn't necessarily bring back a ton of characters, because trying to relive or recreate the past won't work either and returns don't spike ratings anymore, but bringing back a few, could help in the long run, make the show familiar again. 

 

Way less stunts. One every once in a while is fine, but it has to be something you've been building up for a long while and will have long term aftermath. Viewers aren't idiots and no longer fooled by cheap tricks. Viewers want substance. The show needs to be character driven again. The stories should fit the characters, not the other way around. 

 

I know that Christmas season has always been big for EastEnders and is tradition, but the show needs to recognize, the TV landscape and viewer habits have changed. Having 1 or 2 big stories for Christmas is fine, but dragging nearly every story out to Christmas and New Years needs to stop. Stories should be climaxing all year round. You need to give viewers a reason to watch all year, not just 2 weeks in December. 

 

More balance. Either everyone is miserable and nobody happy, or there's nothing going on at all. Need to try to stay in between. Not stretching out stories, like I mentioned above, would help with this. 

 

The one story suggestion I would make is, drop or drastically reduce the gangster/mobster element of the show. Yes, there was always a crime element to EastEnders, but it was never supposed to be a Soprano's rip off (which ended over 10 years ago, so it not even a new show to copy). Watching Phil Mitchell who is in his 60s and has a heart condition, almost every month, take down some new villain  (who are sometimes half his age) knowing that he'll always win, escape jail, or whatever life threatening situation he's in, is boring and lazy. Gone are the days where a football match is going to stop so that people can watch to see who shot Phil.  And turning his son Ben into a younger, less competent version of Phil is one of the worst decisions the show has done. 

 

The misogyny on this show needs to be addressed. I don't mind one or two misogynistic characters, especially if they get called out, because there are people like that is real life, but of the soaps I watch, this has one of the most anti-woman tone. 

 

Issue stories. I do think soaps have an advantage. In theory, you have way more time to play out all the story beats compared to a show that only puts out 10-15 episodes a year, but EastEnders has gone way overboard. At one point, I feel like there was 3 or 4 going on at once. They are rarely written well and they never show long term commitment. 

Edited by wingwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

All of this

 

The majority of the cast is fine though (definitely some dead weight and I'd swap a few folks out for familiar faces). It has potential. But there's no real direction currently. No one seems to have much of a purpose. Some dangling story threads. It's all very empty. Some energy would be nice. I felt that with the fire but the camera work was annoying ....

 

And I think some of that has to do with many of the characters being ... worn out. Kinda like Corrie. You have so many characters just ... around and it's likely because they were damaged in the writing and played out. 

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
    • Oh, really? I think we're really getting close.  What does "apparently" mean to you? To me, it means that this is something I think has happened but not something I absolutely positively know to have happened. When I use a word like "apparently" as I have here, I am doing so by intent. Can you think of a better way to communicate that?
    • Wow...I was not expecting a montage.   I know SilkPress did not!!! Poor Eva.  Lol. Funnily enough I missed that.     
    • For the record, VW thought having the twins at their ages was absurd & who wanted that story, was some group of fans, who wanted her & Carl to have a chance at having children together. Not any fans that I knew of, but supposedly they existed. 
    • Brandon Tartikoff saved NBC primetime. Brandon Stoddard got ABC Tuesday to rebound and put an end to the Aaron Spelling hit factory.
    • Awwwww Brad. I know I shouldn't, but I feel bad for him 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And yeah, agreed that Dante having animosity towards Gio is very forced and contrived. And it also has me concerned that it means the reveal won't be happening anytime soon.
    • God, I love that woman. Another amazing interview!!
    • We can only guestimate based on other characters. Chelsea was said to be 23 in the first episodee and based on Marttin wanting to run for President in the next election, he's about 30/31. Eva and and Kat are somewhere between that  so Id say closer to 25 or 26
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy