EastEnders

I've never been sure if soaps are supposed to simulate real-life. If they are meant for this purpose, that's got to be the biggest waste of time in history. Why simulate real-life? We can all admit that most of our lives are repetitive and dull, so why would anyone want to watch a simulation of that, played out by people who don't even exist?

Eastenders is unconvincing to the extreme. Nobody seems to own a computer, washing machine or car. People seem to buy shares in local businesses within a matter seconds, with someone owning "half the Arches" or "half the Vic". Sam walks around with "the books", which really are books! Most business managers have computers and accountants to do that for them. Those who run stalls on the market like to leave their livelihoods with friends, simply handing over their money pouches. They're the lucky ones - a lot of the cast don't have jobs at all so how they manage to survive in east London is beyond me.

The "gangsters" are so unrealistic it's hard to watch. The scripts are terrible, mainly down to watershed restrictions, so the writers cannot include most swear-words and are forced to use words like "moron", "idiot" and "wally" which don't really work on the same scale.

Strangely enough, soaps are the shows that are watched the most in the UK, and I don't understand this. Numerous soap magazines are on the shelves, and these tell us what's going to happen in the coming weeks, so nobody really needs to watch at all.

I don't understand the concept of soaps, why anyone feels the need to watch and why there are so many.

Where to begin? Where to end? I never miss an episode of Eastenders. But is that saying it's so good that I can't bear to miss it? Not at all. It's not as good as it used to be, obviously. Gone are the days of truly shocking and scandalous story lines. We were hooked on "Who Shot Phil?" We were hooked on Max and Stacey's affair behind Bradley's back. Countless more mentions can be made, but I can't be bothered to write anymore haha. Hooked and shocked. That was once the magic Eastenders had on us. Now, where has it all gone? But, I will say, there is still hope for this once beloved soap. Lucy's murder wasn't all that, and the wait they are keeping us on is a bit much. However, it's the performances of it's actors that will keep me coming back for more. Adam Woodyatt has been particularly brilliant in the unfolding storyline. The writers would be wise to keep focus on him rather than anybody else at the moment, and to surround him by the best actors around.

And that's the point. Eastenders has been a hit and miss over the recent years. But I feel, if they can play their cards right, they can bring it back to top form. Never to the heights of several years ago, that's impossible. But it can be repaired.

6 out of 10, for that little bit of brighter future.

The only reason this isn't less than 2, or 2 & a half stars out of 5 is because this isn't one of those poorly made mockbusters where the acting is non-existent, the same can not be said about the writing.

It's a shame to see Phil Mitchell as the one last true great. Ian Beale is past it and we are missing true greats such as Pat and Grant

Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.

The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.

The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.

1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"

That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"

The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.

The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.

What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.

How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'

Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.