Just a word about EastEnders winning the Christmas ratings' war.
It means nothing.
Most people, apart from the two obvious shippers on Digital Spy forum who always cream their knickers at the mention of the title of the programme, will readily agree that the show has been, mostly bad-borderline-mediocre for the better part of the year.
Most people, again, apart from the EastEnders' shipping forecast duo, will readily admit that the poor quality of the programme resulted in a combination of too many Brannings, too many unlikeable teens, the monster that had become Kat, Derek and generally poor writing, even poorer continuity and lazy research.
Yet EastEnders got enough bums on seats on Christmas Day and Christmas Eve to win the ratings' war.
How?
Simples.
There was no big build-up to anything happening at Christmas - not the Branning wedding, not the Shaggerman reveal, and we all knew Derek was leaving. Still, as late as a week ago, we were being subjected to meaningless dross and boring, badly acted filler episodes, with Ian Beale largely non-existent, the Mitchell baby custody storyline reduced to irrelevance and Sharon gagging to be Tanya's BFF and Jack's shagbuddy.
However, TPTB let it be known that not only was the most unpopular character in Walford history to be rendered toast on Christmas Day, but also two secrets were to be revealed - Shaggerman's identity (we'd already guessed) and Max's secret activity during the three months he was away from Walford in 2011 (we guessed that too). We wanted to see if Alfie had the balls to humiliate Kat with her deception. We wanted to see if we really were right that Max's secret involved some involvement - i.e., marriage - with another woman. And, since TPTB were keeping it close to their chests how Derek would croak, we wanted to see what novel idea the writing room developed.
He died of a heart attack.
As the great P T Barnum once said, there's a sucker born every minute.
So EastEnders have won the ratings' war. Here's one in the eye for Emmerdale's live episode, and another for that upstart Katherine Kelly winning best actress when we all should have been voting for that eminent thespian Jessie Wallace.
It. Means. Nothing.
It means nothing if the show, it's EP and her writers cannot sustain the quality writing, developing characterisation and sustained interest in the aftermath emanating from Alfie and Kat's split, Max's new wife's arrival on the Square and Derek's death.
Already the beginning of the year is heralding the departure of a major EastEnders' character (Zainab), and January is chokka with too many Brannings and too many teens.
The actress who's just arrivedi in the role of Kirsty Branning is a vastly experienced serious actress who has a couple of BAFTA nominations under her belt and who has worked with Ken Loach. This can only be good for the show. However, it can only be the reverse, when watching her obvious experience and talent against the catalogue artiste and WildBoyz alumnus that is David Witts, the desperate wannabe poor man's Jennifer Lawrence that is Jacqueline Jossa and the unbearable lightness of being that is Hetti Bywater.
Compare and contrast.
EastEnders is not an actors' studio or an actors' workshop. it's the flagship programme of the BBC funded by remit of the stealth tax known as the licence fee. I've no objection to my licence fee funding the appearances of such talent as Ms Wareing's Kirsty Branning. I have every objection to my licence fee funding money for nothing when no-marks and talentless youth get paid five figures to portray themselves.
EastEnders winning the Christmas ratings' war means its work is cut out for it in 2013.
It better provide.
It means nothing.
Most people, apart from the two obvious shippers on Digital Spy forum who always cream their knickers at the mention of the title of the programme, will readily agree that the show has been, mostly bad-borderline-mediocre for the better part of the year.
Most people, again, apart from the EastEnders' shipping forecast duo, will readily admit that the poor quality of the programme resulted in a combination of too many Brannings, too many unlikeable teens, the monster that had become Kat, Derek and generally poor writing, even poorer continuity and lazy research.
Yet EastEnders got enough bums on seats on Christmas Day and Christmas Eve to win the ratings' war.
How?
Simples.
There was no big build-up to anything happening at Christmas - not the Branning wedding, not the Shaggerman reveal, and we all knew Derek was leaving. Still, as late as a week ago, we were being subjected to meaningless dross and boring, badly acted filler episodes, with Ian Beale largely non-existent, the Mitchell baby custody storyline reduced to irrelevance and Sharon gagging to be Tanya's BFF and Jack's shagbuddy.
However, TPTB let it be known that not only was the most unpopular character in Walford history to be rendered toast on Christmas Day, but also two secrets were to be revealed - Shaggerman's identity (we'd already guessed) and Max's secret activity during the three months he was away from Walford in 2011 (we guessed that too). We wanted to see if Alfie had the balls to humiliate Kat with her deception. We wanted to see if we really were right that Max's secret involved some involvement - i.e., marriage - with another woman. And, since TPTB were keeping it close to their chests how Derek would croak, we wanted to see what novel idea the writing room developed.
He died of a heart attack.
As the great P T Barnum once said, there's a sucker born every minute.
So EastEnders have won the ratings' war. Here's one in the eye for Emmerdale's live episode, and another for that upstart Katherine Kelly winning best actress when we all should have been voting for that eminent thespian Jessie Wallace.
It. Means. Nothing.
It means nothing if the show, it's EP and her writers cannot sustain the quality writing, developing characterisation and sustained interest in the aftermath emanating from Alfie and Kat's split, Max's new wife's arrival on the Square and Derek's death.
Already the beginning of the year is heralding the departure of a major EastEnders' character (Zainab), and January is chokka with too many Brannings and too many teens.
The actress who's just arrivedi in the role of Kirsty Branning is a vastly experienced serious actress who has a couple of BAFTA nominations under her belt and who has worked with Ken Loach. This can only be good for the show. However, it can only be the reverse, when watching her obvious experience and talent against the catalogue artiste and WildBoyz alumnus that is David Witts, the desperate wannabe poor man's Jennifer Lawrence that is Jacqueline Jossa and the unbearable lightness of being that is Hetti Bywater.
Compare and contrast.
EastEnders is not an actors' studio or an actors' workshop. it's the flagship programme of the BBC funded by remit of the stealth tax known as the licence fee. I've no objection to my licence fee funding the appearances of such talent as Ms Wareing's Kirsty Branning. I have every objection to my licence fee funding money for nothing when no-marks and talentless youth get paid five figures to portray themselves.
EastEnders winning the Christmas ratings' war means its work is cut out for it in 2013.
It better provide.
The Idiots in Charge (so much more apt than the Powers That Be) would be wise to make the most of Ms Wareing and not throw her down the pan as a sacrifice for the sake of their little favourites, which is quite likely when you take account of some of their severe misjudgments in creative discretion in the past few years.
ReplyDeleteThey are lucky to have her on board and they'd be idiots to make her another Vanessa and have her saunter about the Square until her contract's up and then give her the boot in favour of their chosen few.