EastEnders - General Discussion Thread

Ian's son is Peter Beale. He spends so little time actually physically on the square (about five minutes in the last six months) I'm surprised he's still classed as a regular character. They changed the actor last August, might have well have had the character run over by a bus.

I read on Walford Web that on Friday 9th March (when the god awful Kevin Wicks returns) that EastEnders is turning to high definition.

Is this true?

It says in today's Mirror that Ian is to move into Pauline's old house.

I'm sorry, but what is the point in Ian moving to an house that is only 12 metres away from the house he already lives in? Why the hell can't they just bring in a new family??

Because it fits in logically with the entire warped logics of the square as it stands now, most characters work literally over the road. Anyway it would mean Ian lives right next door to the cafe, save all that irksome walking in the morning.

Is EastEnders in danger of becoming too gripping?

In last night's masterpiece, Stella took Ben out for the day, Bert went for an eye test, and found out he might go blind, and Abi's pet rat died (a character viewers had grown to know so fondly, and could connect with even in times of hardship).

But seriously though, I think saying this show has gone to the dogs is too nice. In 2006, 19 characters were introduced. Plots including Dawn/Rob/May, Kevin Bricks going missing, cocaine addict lookalike Jay and his Frank Gallagher wannabe grandad Bert storyline, and the Max/Stacey gruesome affair saga haven't exactly set the world on fire.

If this soap goes to five nights a week (like Ally Ross said, just two and a half hours of people shouting at each other without a comedy break), I will have to do the inevitable and stop watching

IMO EastEnders is ok at the moment. It's not fantastic, but its bearable. The Max/Stacy affair i've enjoyed - i'm now wanting Tanya to find out and let them two have a big showdown.

But look on the bright side, if this was Home and Away - Johnny Allen never died and went into witness protection because he grassed up himself and his associates. Stella would have drugged Ben as punishment for disrespecting her. After finally getting back with Martin, Sonia was stabbed in the Square. She died, and Martin and Rebecca left. Mickey tells Li he wants Preeti, but Mickey confesses he can't have sex as he is impotent. Chrissie escapes from prison and takes residents hostage in the Queen Vic during Phil and Stellas wedding reception.

Actually - that does not sound so bad

Oh come on, even EastEnders isn't that bad!

Infact, the only reason I watch Home and Away is to laugh at it's ridiculous, over the top, daft storylines!

I've got to admit i do like Home and Away, i don't know why i just do. I know it can go over board on stuff, but it can feel really gripping sometimes.

So will Stacy be announcing she's pregnant soon? That's what normally happes. Now, if i was EE Execs, i would let us the public know that Stacy is pregnant, and she decides to move in with her mum for a strange reason known to the Square. Then come back months later with a baby in tow, and her mum Jean.

And to confirm members of the cast have died over Wiki?

I agree with Onetrickpony EastEnders isn't at all bad at the moment no worse then the other soaps and hasn't been for a fair few months agreed its not what it used to be but its watch-able.

EastEnders was great last night even Ben become good for once

Louise, it's time you stopped posting here. You no longer produce EastEnders, which leaves the TVF community baffled as to why you continue to pledge your support.

I agree! Oh how exciting! Bert's put up a shelf. A guinea pig died. Gripping!

EastEnders is horrifically bad I'm afraid.

Exactly. But it hasn't always been like this. Let me split the show into eras (if you don't agree then that's fine):

1985-1989 : Absolutely brilliant era. With Den and Angie at the helm, the Fowlers, the Beales, the Osmans, the Cottons and punk Mary, EastEnders was hard to beat. The setting was realistic of the 1980s Thatcher Britain, the acting couldn't have been better, and storylines were supersonical. Den/Angie divorce, the rape of Kathy, Arthur's breakdown, Den's death, Michelle pregnancy. These were the sort of things that kept EastEnders right at the top in the '80s.

1990-1995 Again, good era, but a very slight downturn in quality I thought. Overall these years were pretty well thought out, but it did have weaknesses. Weaknesses such as Arthur's affair, and the show going to 3 nights a week, which I didn't like at first, but got used to. But these weaknesses were overlooked by the number of strengths. The arrival of the Mitchells, Sharongate, Mandy Salter, Pat running over the girl, and many more. Like I've said, a good era, but going to three nights a week in May 1994 did signal a bit of a downturn for me.

1996-1999 Not brilliant, but certainly not the worst. Saskia's death, Carol/Bianca/Dan, Tiffany's death, Joe Wicks going mental, Phil/Grant plunge into the Thames. All good storylines, but it did have bad points. Terry and Irene were two characters I didn't like much. Sarah Hills was another one I couldn't take to. Overall good, but compared to the 80s, not brilliant.

2000-2003 Into the new millennium, and we have the arrival of the Slaters. Good family at first, but too much screen time during their first two years got the better of them. Aside from the Slaters though, and in 2000/01 we had some pretty good action. Ethel's death, Kat/Zoe mother/daughter story, Trevor/Little Mo, Who Shot Phil?, Nick Cotton getting pushed by Mark Fowler, Sharon's return. But 2002 saw the arrival of the witch Louise Berridge, where quality REALLY went downhill. Storylines were dragged out, acting went toshy, writing went AWOL, and directing became atrocious. It really did prove that going four nights a week in 2001 was just too much for the soap. 2003 wasn't such a great year either, with the arrival of the God damn Ferreiras, Den's stupid return, the long drawn out saga of Kat and Alfie, and Lisa attempting to shoot Phil again. This era, overall, was not so good, especially in 2002 and 2003.

2004-2007 Worst era ever. Let's start with 2004, the year that the rot was well and truly established. We had the longest drawn out storyline ever with Ronny's kidney, the fairground disaster (surprised I can remember it), Kat/Alfie/Andy, Shannis etc. Writing was poor beyond belief. Acting was gruesome. 2005 wasn't much better, despite Louise Berridge leaving in the September of 2004. Den's pathetic death, Kat/Alfie/Little Mo, Johnny Allen. Infact the only high point was the Mitchells' return. Also, two executive producers in one year was shown in the episodes, in terms of writing and direction. 2006 was just an embarrassment. 20 odd characters introduced in total, DIRE plotlines, and poor scripts. Nothing memorable happened, apart from Pauline's death, because it was so daft. And 2007 is shaping up so far to just be like 2006. And, oh yeah, we have the third executive producer in three years (Diederick Santer). So overall, a terrible era, which will go down in EastEnders history as the worst.

And that's it (sorry about the essay!)