Emmerdale Special beats EastEnders

MA

mansoor 18 February 2006 11:58pm

ohwhatanight posted:

LONDON posted:

Eastenders is also repeated the same night on BBC3, and normally when Emerdale and Eastenders go head to head the later repeat gets a surge in viewers. Also Eastenders has an omnibus on Sundays on BBC 1, when you get the viewing figures for this you can judge if Eastenders is failing again.

OOooooo..... BBC Three must be the highest rated digital channel if it expects to gain the 2 million viewers that didn't watch Eastenders earlier on BBC1! I'm sure there may be a slight increase but nothing that significant and nothing to take it away from Emmerdale actually beating Eastenders in the first place.

Out of all the soaps Emmerdale is now my favourite. Eastenders (followed by Corrie) used to be my favourite but I feel Emmerdale have got the soap formula spot-on. Each episode of Emmerdale is totally enjoyable and doesn't seem as long as an episode of Corrie.

A normal EastEnders epsiode on BBC3 gets anywhere between 400,000 to 600,000 but when the BBC1 episode goes head to head with Emmerdale, the BBC3 episode normal goes over the 1million mark.

JE

Jez Founding member 19 February 2006 10:38am

Banksoriginal posted:

Other soap fans are just trying to have some fun over there rivial soap and its sad

Like you do with Corrie you mean

I hate EE but I rarely make negative posts about it because I dont watch it.

MD

Mr D'Arcy 19 February 2006 7:32pm

Brekkie Boy posted:

BBC LDN posted:

Brekkie Boy posted:

It shows how crap EE is by the lengths a couple of members will go to defend it here!

It's crap - and been crap for getting on for four years now!

I was wondering how long it would be until you chimed in - now the trio is complete. Andrew starts the ball-rolling with another "here's one more reason that ITV is better than the BBC" thread, then ohwhatanight throws his hat in the ring, and Brekkie Boy shows up to fart in the BBC's direction. Predictable, if a little tedious.

I'm not going to argue that EastEnders suffered a pretty poor year in 2005, and this was largely due to some dismal storylines, but the quality has picked up significantly in recent weeks. It's a shame that you feel the need to constantly berate EE in order to create the illusion that because it went through a poor patch that it will forever be poor. .

Three years ago the excuse of the soap going through a "poor patch" was viable - but this "poor patch" hasn't ended!

All they've done is have short term boosts by bringing back characters (which were past it when they left) for a couple of weeks!

EE just hasn't moved on in the way the other soaps have - and it shows!

For the record I've not watched Emmerdale for months either (since E4 came to Freeview with first look Hollyoaks!) and it's obvious Emmerdale has an advantage in starting earlier.

What it does show though is when EastEnders is challenged, a significant number of viewers will switch off - but until ITV tackle EastEnders agressively rather than defensively, it'll still attract 10m idiots a night!

I really don't see you problem with EastEnders, if you don't like it, don't watch it. It works with me for any of the ITV soaps.

JC

JCB 19 February 2006 8:24pm

Quote:

What it does show though is when EastEnders is challenged, a significant number of viewers will switch off - but until ITV tackle EastEnders agressively rather than defensively, it'll still attract 10m idiots a night!

I really can't see how anyone who's such a huge fan of Big Brother - a show that's "Highlights" include people sitting in boxes, a woman w*nking with a bottle and 2 men competing to see who can p*ss themselves first - can have the nerve to call anyone an idiot

And you're a Hollyoaks fanatic. A show that makes Eastenders look like Shakespeare with acting worthy of an Oscar

This thread is quite funny though - if not a tad sad. All you're doing is arguing over which is the least worst soap.

SG

Such Great Heights 19 February 2006 11:51pm

7 Network posted:

Banksoriginal posted:

Facts-

# In 2001 EastEnders went head to head with Coronation Street for the first time, EastEnders won the battle with 8.4 million viewers (41%) while Coronation Street attracted 7.3 million (36%).

That's not actually true. On at least 2 occasions prior to this, Coronation Street has been pitted head to head agains EastEnders.

In April 1994, just after EastEnders launched it's third weekly episode, Coronation Street had a double episode, which comfortably beat EastEnders, and in December 1997, a Monday one hour special of Coronation Street, saw EastEnders ratings sink to about 4-5 million on that occasion. ** Edit ** - I stand corrected, The EastEnders episode on 15/12/97 got 7.13 million viewers, as opposed to the Coronation Street one hour special got 17.4 million viewers. That's quite a difference.

You can call it dirty tricks on all sides really, they all do it at some point, whether it's right or not really won't concern them.

No, actually you are wrong. 2001 was the first time they went head to head i.e. both started at the same time. Previous to that it was just Corrie starting half an hour earlier like Emmerdale. This gives it a clear advantage.

DA

David_02 20 February 2006 2:00pm

Such Great Heights posted:

7 Network posted:

Banksoriginal posted:

Facts-

# In 2001 EastEnders went head to head with Coronation Street for the first time, EastEnders won the battle with 8.4 million viewers (41%) while Coronation Street attracted 7.3 million (36%).

That's not actually true. On at least 2 occasions prior to this, Coronation Street has been pitted head to head agains EastEnders.

In April 1994, just after EastEnders launched it's third weekly episode, Coronation Street had a double episode, which comfortably beat EastEnders, and in December 1997, a Monday one hour special of Coronation Street, saw EastEnders ratings sink to about 4-5 million on that occasion. ** Edit ** - I stand corrected, The EastEnders episode on 15/12/97 got 7.13 million viewers, as opposed to the Coronation Street one hour special got 17.4 million viewers. That's quite a difference.

You can call it dirty tricks on all sides really, they all do it at some point, whether it's right or not really won't concern them.

No, actually you are wrong. 2001 was the first time they went head to head i.e. both started at the same time. Previous to that it was just Corrie starting half an hour earlier like Emmerdale. This gives it a clear advantage.

Indeed that is true. And as far as I know, wasn't the EastEnders episode a 15 minutes special? Or is that something else I'm thinking of. I'm sure that there was a 15 minute installment of EastEnders which only gained 4 million viewers againts an hour edition of Corrie.I did read that on MediaGuardian so I haven't made it up.

(February 2006)