There's a cracker of a thread on Walford Web Kindergarten entitled "Will Things Improve?"
It's prompted some very good observations - most notably from the incredibly astute long-term viewer Jay Lee, the better Antipodean representative Mama Purps (also a long-term viewer) and - incredibly, for a second time - Jark.
The points these three commentators make are concise, valid, to the point and, most importantly, true, regarding the current, poor state of the show.
If you're interested, you can read the entire thread here.
I would maintain that all is not happy and gay behind the scenes at EastEnders at the moment, for all the positive spin Lorraine Newman might be putting on things. Newman is, of course, the Executive Producer; but more importantly, she's a company person, having come up through the ranks at EastEnders. Her remit is to present as positive a picture as possible to the punters. Spin, in other words.
Crisis, what crisis? Kat's going to be saved (which means we'll spend a year of Alfie with Roxy, when suddenly something will happen that will necessitate a reunion of Alfie with Kat, probably next Christmas), the youngsters are the "staple" of the show and its future, yadda yadda. Same old same old. Same shit different day.
She's hardly going to tell the truth, is she? And I would bet any money that, after Thursday's poor performance only garnered 5.4 million viewers, in the middle of November, on the run up to Christmas, with the departure of two main characters, and with The Sun nabbing the fact that Emmerdale handed EastEnders its ass on Thursday night, you can bet your bottom dollar that the production people, and Newman in particular, are chewing nails and shitting rust.
They should be.
Most of the people commentating on the sad state of affairs on Walford Web Kindergarten recognise the problem, even if Newman can't articulate it, herself.
And then, there's *Betty*.
*Betty* is Walford Web Kindergarten's answer to Digital Spy's dan2008. In fact, if they're not the same people, someone should introduce them to each other. That would be a match made in heaven, especially since both of them are burgeoning passive-aggressive bullies. But in this particular instance on this particular thread, I kept hoping someone - Jay Lee or even Jark - would reach through cyberspace and smack the living shit out of *Betty*'s smug Ian Beale avatar, because not only do his observations reek of total ignorance, they are the epitome of ignorant arrogance.
First, *Betty* pronounces as fact that Coronation Street is not known for having talented actors. Well, *Betty*, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. And facts state, categorically, that there have been more than a fair few talented actors attached to Coronation Street.
For example, Johnny Briggs (Mike Baldwin) was a RADA graduate, in the same illustrious company as Sir Michael Caine and Terence Stamp. William Roache was also a RADA man. A close RADA friend of his even agreed to do a six-week guest stint on Corrie, as a favour to him ... Sir Ian McKellan, knight of the realm. When has a theatrical knight ever graced EastEnders?
The late Betty Driver was a noted singer and performer of some sixty years. Coronation Street has seen and is seeing the likes of Eileen Atkins, Stephanie Cole, Roy Hudd, Davy Jones, Peter Noone, and Sue Johnston. Robert Vaughan recently did a guest stint as well.
Years ago, EastEnders could attract Sheila Hancock, Susan George, Anthony Newley, Nicky Henson and Edward Woodward. None of those still living would touch the thing today, and even David Essex, who was finally lured for a stay of six months, phoned in his role for the most part.
EastEnders has had Mike Reid, Barbara Windsor and Wendy Richard; Sue Nicholls, who plays Audrey Roberts in Corrie, was Reggie Perrin's fantasy woman and secretary, Joan, in The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin in the 1970s. Trust me, Nicholls's Joan was as iconic a character as Wendy Richard's Miss Brahms or any of the Carry On girls played by Barbara Windsor.
More recently, Corrie alumni have included Sarah Lancashire and Suranne Jones, who haven't looked back. And even more recently, Rob James-Collier, who played Liam Connor on Corrie (a Mancunian version of Dennis Rickman with just as tragic an end) graduated to the role of the slimy-ish gay footman, Thomas Barrow, in Downton Abbey, a character who finished the third series in very sympathetic form. James-Collier is a big British name now in the US ... it all started on Corrie.
So *Betty*'s assertion that Corrie has never been known for attracting talented folk is - shall we say - a blatant falsehood. What the hell, let's call it what it is: a lie. Worse, it's the desperate lie of a desperate fanboi shipper, intent on moving the goalposts of a formerly good programme, to which he is devoted, in order to try, unconvincingly, to justify its current shittiness.
*Betty* will try to tell you that the fact that the highest number of bums on seats EastEnders can currently attract, in late autumn in the run up to Christmas, is only 7 milliion, when last year and the year before November was seeing 9 million punters, is par for the course. Normal. Not to worry. Don't panic.
Let's see. Where have we heard that one? Oh yes ...
Oh, and *Betty* is wrong to pull the wah-wah-whine that the tabloids and the media always focus on EastEnders' shortcomings and criticise it unfairly, accusing them of having a "pick" on EastEnders, is unjust as well.
Truth is, the media - as will the public - will always judge EastEnders and anything produced by the BBC more harshly than anything coming from the ITV coven because the BBC is a corporation funded by the taxpayers' money. *Betty* may not appreciate that his parents are charged a stealth tax by the government which funds the BBC and which, if they refuse to pay, can result in a fine and/or a jail sentence. So when people pay good money and get served shit rubbish, they have the right to complain.
When your licence fee is used to employ inexperienced young people with precious little talent, who then act in public as if they are entitled to behave inappropriately, then you have remit to complain. When the writing is shoddy, continuity non-existent, retconning the word of the day and poor research is abandoned in the belief that sensationalism is more important than reality, then expect complaints. You pays your money and so forth.
And, finally, *Betty* would like to believe that EastEnders has always been a soap which appealed to and depended upon young people's viewing. It simply isn't.
I remember when EastEnders began in 1985. It was the third soap on the totem pole after Corrie and, yes, Brookside, who would be celebrating 30 years this year, had it survived. In fact, it was Brookside which proved the innovative soap back in the 80s and for most of the 90s. Brookside showed and tackled storylines other shows shied away from showing. It was the first to show domestic abuse, the first to feature a Downs Syndrome child and the first to deal with real drug abuse. Brookside captured the younger demographic.
EastEnders was a southern version of Corrie, with a staple of older characters and a few youngsters, but the main action centred around people between the ages of 25 and 50 - the way Corrie is doing at the moment. The fact that most of their featured demographic are people who started out as adolescents and very young people on the show is a testament to its staying power.
The fact that it's now becoming utterly dependent not only on a late adolescent contingent, but also because this contingent can be hired on the cheap - even cheaper if they've no acting experience - is evidence that something isn't right on board the S S EastEnders.
As Mama Purps points out, many people started watching the show in the 1980s when they were adults in their 20s and 30s. These people are part of the Boomer generation and the largest demographic in the country at the moment. Are they to be totally ignored? Maybe *Betty* needs to work on his ageism and intolerance whilst he's boning up on differentiatingn between opinion and fact.
The fact at the moment says that EastEnders is in a dire state, that it's been sinking slowly for the past ten years and has gone into freefall this past one.
Someone needs to apprise *Betty* that shippers should stick to the Shipping Forecast and stop making excuses for shit.
It's prompted some very good observations - most notably from the incredibly astute long-term viewer Jay Lee, the better Antipodean representative Mama Purps (also a long-term viewer) and - incredibly, for a second time - Jark.
The points these three commentators make are concise, valid, to the point and, most importantly, true, regarding the current, poor state of the show.
If you're interested, you can read the entire thread here.
I would maintain that all is not happy and gay behind the scenes at EastEnders at the moment, for all the positive spin Lorraine Newman might be putting on things. Newman is, of course, the Executive Producer; but more importantly, she's a company person, having come up through the ranks at EastEnders. Her remit is to present as positive a picture as possible to the punters. Spin, in other words.
Crisis, what crisis? Kat's going to be saved (which means we'll spend a year of Alfie with Roxy, when suddenly something will happen that will necessitate a reunion of Alfie with Kat, probably next Christmas), the youngsters are the "staple" of the show and its future, yadda yadda. Same old same old. Same shit different day.
She's hardly going to tell the truth, is she? And I would bet any money that, after Thursday's poor performance only garnered 5.4 million viewers, in the middle of November, on the run up to Christmas, with the departure of two main characters, and with The Sun nabbing the fact that Emmerdale handed EastEnders its ass on Thursday night, you can bet your bottom dollar that the production people, and Newman in particular, are chewing nails and shitting rust.
They should be.
Most of the people commentating on the sad state of affairs on Walford Web Kindergarten recognise the problem, even if Newman can't articulate it, herself.
And then, there's *Betty*.
*Betty* is Walford Web Kindergarten's answer to Digital Spy's dan2008. In fact, if they're not the same people, someone should introduce them to each other. That would be a match made in heaven, especially since both of them are burgeoning passive-aggressive bullies. But in this particular instance on this particular thread, I kept hoping someone - Jay Lee or even Jark - would reach through cyberspace and smack the living shit out of *Betty*'s smug Ian Beale avatar, because not only do his observations reek of total ignorance, they are the epitome of ignorant arrogance.
First, *Betty* pronounces as fact that Coronation Street is not known for having talented actors. Well, *Betty*, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. And facts state, categorically, that there have been more than a fair few talented actors attached to Coronation Street.
For example, Johnny Briggs (Mike Baldwin) was a RADA graduate, in the same illustrious company as Sir Michael Caine and Terence Stamp. William Roache was also a RADA man. A close RADA friend of his even agreed to do a six-week guest stint on Corrie, as a favour to him ... Sir Ian McKellan, knight of the realm. When has a theatrical knight ever graced EastEnders?
The late Betty Driver was a noted singer and performer of some sixty years. Coronation Street has seen and is seeing the likes of Eileen Atkins, Stephanie Cole, Roy Hudd, Davy Jones, Peter Noone, and Sue Johnston. Robert Vaughan recently did a guest stint as well.
Years ago, EastEnders could attract Sheila Hancock, Susan George, Anthony Newley, Nicky Henson and Edward Woodward. None of those still living would touch the thing today, and even David Essex, who was finally lured for a stay of six months, phoned in his role for the most part.
EastEnders has had Mike Reid, Barbara Windsor and Wendy Richard; Sue Nicholls, who plays Audrey Roberts in Corrie, was Reggie Perrin's fantasy woman and secretary, Joan, in The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin in the 1970s. Trust me, Nicholls's Joan was as iconic a character as Wendy Richard's Miss Brahms or any of the Carry On girls played by Barbara Windsor.
More recently, Corrie alumni have included Sarah Lancashire and Suranne Jones, who haven't looked back. And even more recently, Rob James-Collier, who played Liam Connor on Corrie (a Mancunian version of Dennis Rickman with just as tragic an end) graduated to the role of the slimy-ish gay footman, Thomas Barrow, in Downton Abbey, a character who finished the third series in very sympathetic form. James-Collier is a big British name now in the US ... it all started on Corrie.
So *Betty*'s assertion that Corrie has never been known for attracting talented folk is - shall we say - a blatant falsehood. What the hell, let's call it what it is: a lie. Worse, it's the desperate lie of a desperate fanboi shipper, intent on moving the goalposts of a formerly good programme, to which he is devoted, in order to try, unconvincingly, to justify its current shittiness.
*Betty* will try to tell you that the fact that the highest number of bums on seats EastEnders can currently attract, in late autumn in the run up to Christmas, is only 7 milliion, when last year and the year before November was seeing 9 million punters, is par for the course. Normal. Not to worry. Don't panic.
Let's see. Where have we heard that one? Oh yes ...
Oh, and *Betty* is wrong to pull the wah-wah-whine that the tabloids and the media always focus on EastEnders' shortcomings and criticise it unfairly, accusing them of having a "pick" on EastEnders, is unjust as well.
Truth is, the media - as will the public - will always judge EastEnders and anything produced by the BBC more harshly than anything coming from the ITV coven because the BBC is a corporation funded by the taxpayers' money. *Betty* may not appreciate that his parents are charged a stealth tax by the government which funds the BBC and which, if they refuse to pay, can result in a fine and/or a jail sentence. So when people pay good money and get served shit rubbish, they have the right to complain.
When your licence fee is used to employ inexperienced young people with precious little talent, who then act in public as if they are entitled to behave inappropriately, then you have remit to complain. When the writing is shoddy, continuity non-existent, retconning the word of the day and poor research is abandoned in the belief that sensationalism is more important than reality, then expect complaints. You pays your money and so forth.
And, finally, *Betty* would like to believe that EastEnders has always been a soap which appealed to and depended upon young people's viewing. It simply isn't.
I remember when EastEnders began in 1985. It was the third soap on the totem pole after Corrie and, yes, Brookside, who would be celebrating 30 years this year, had it survived. In fact, it was Brookside which proved the innovative soap back in the 80s and for most of the 90s. Brookside showed and tackled storylines other shows shied away from showing. It was the first to show domestic abuse, the first to feature a Downs Syndrome child and the first to deal with real drug abuse. Brookside captured the younger demographic.
EastEnders was a southern version of Corrie, with a staple of older characters and a few youngsters, but the main action centred around people between the ages of 25 and 50 - the way Corrie is doing at the moment. The fact that most of their featured demographic are people who started out as adolescents and very young people on the show is a testament to its staying power.
The fact that it's now becoming utterly dependent not only on a late adolescent contingent, but also because this contingent can be hired on the cheap - even cheaper if they've no acting experience - is evidence that something isn't right on board the S S EastEnders.
As Mama Purps points out, many people started watching the show in the 1980s when they were adults in their 20s and 30s. These people are part of the Boomer generation and the largest demographic in the country at the moment. Are they to be totally ignored? Maybe *Betty* needs to work on his ageism and intolerance whilst he's boning up on differentiatingn between opinion and fact.
The fact at the moment says that EastEnders is in a dire state, that it's been sinking slowly for the past ten years and has gone into freefall this past one.
Someone needs to apprise *Betty* that shippers should stick to the Shipping Forecast and stop making excuses for shit.
Thank you for the nice words, I feel quite honored. Also thanks to Jark, if he hadnt of mentioned this site in a hissy fit some months back, I would never have known of its existance.
ReplyDeleteMama Purps/Professor Plum
LOL, Purple ... Jark won't thank you. I was actually quite nice to him recently, because he spoke words of sense. Ah well ...
DeleteBetty has hundreds of multiple accounts on DS. She uses the chrissy2005 one most
ReplyDelete