Options
Was the Baby swap storyline in Eastenders the beginning of the end for the show?
Though i personally think the show is fine and in no danger of being axed recently, i have been thinking about the decline in ratings over the past 10 years or so, and i keep coming back to one storyline and one period of the show, and thats the Babyswap storyline in late 2010 and into 2011, which ultimately led to Sam Womack departing first time around and the show received over 13,000 complaints about the storyline.
Now while other decisions before and after the Babyswap were also exceptionally bad decisions (Killing Pat, Killing Ronnie and Roxy) and also could of led to the decline, The Babyswap seems the most important because i think it caused the BBC to stop doing really hard hitting storylines because they were/are scared that the reaction would be the same. Sure they have been a few storylines since that have been "high risk" (Who Killed Lucy, Mick's Abuse, Ruby's Rape) but i get the feeling the show lost something after the babyswap, it lost its dark, gritty nature that the show was known for, DTC brought some of that back, but it really was never the same again
Now while other decisions before and after the Babyswap were also exceptionally bad decisions (Killing Pat, Killing Ronnie and Roxy) and also could of led to the decline, The Babyswap seems the most important because i think it caused the BBC to stop doing really hard hitting storylines because they were/are scared that the reaction would be the same. Sure they have been a few storylines since that have been "high risk" (Who Killed Lucy, Mick's Abuse, Ruby's Rape) but i get the feeling the show lost something after the babyswap, it lost its dark, gritty nature that the show was known for, DTC brought some of that back, but it really was never the same again
4
Comments
I don't think it was the start of the decline, but it was a disaster for the reputation of the show and a news story that really cut through to the general public. I'm amazed that Bryan Kirkwood kept his job.
The story was of a woman who found her longed for baby dead in his cot, husband was abroad and she suffered some sort of psychotic episode (whether linked to post natal depression was never made clear), she did a stupid thing in swapping the babies, but it was made clear she was not herself, she had been shown in the Joel episodes as becoming obsessed with having a baby and mentally unravelling.
It annoyed me at the time that everyone ignored Kats insistence that she had the wrong baby, including the club foot!
It was a very sad storyline, of a woman who had suffered abuse at the hands of her father (and we later found her mother did nothing), she was not evil, she didn't steal the baby to spite anyone, she did try to tell everyone what had happened once she realised what she had done... (Again no one listened).
So I think the media overreacted a bit, yes it was harrowing but it has happened irl where a woman who has lost a child, takes someone elses.. Not a nice thing or to be condoned, obviously, but it can and does happen.
No, I have to disagree. The Baby Swap was little more than an desperate attempt at sensationalism to entice viewers into tuning in and get "everyone talking about it" - which spectacularly backfired! It was neither gritty nor hard-hitting... it was pure shock value.
The failure of the storyline is not responsible for the show's current problems...
I do not buy this idea at all that it caused the BBC to stop doing hard-hitting storylines. Do you really think the BBC will let a few complaints from the public stop them from chasing ratings?!
There are many factors to EastEnders' decline over the years... you can't put it down to one storyline or one decision.
I don’t think it was the baby swap which was the beginning of the end - I just think the number of options available for viewers through streaming services was the biggest nail in the coffin. The quality of EE has decreased over the past 10 years but even during the 90s and early 00s there was weak points yet the viewing figures remained stable.
For me the show has never truly recovered from Bryan Kirkwood's era.
Agreed. Hiring Kirkwood was the first major misstep; he wasn't the right fit for EastEnders at all.
He took over a show that was experiencing something of a popular revival - they had just scored 17 million viewers for the 2010 live episode - and spent the next two years completely dismantling it.
I agree with that.
The 'who did Kat sleep with?' storyline was shambolic. I thought that Billy Jackson death storyline was well done, but unfortunately on the back of that Carol and his friend hooked up.
And he seemed hell bent on breaking up established, married couples. Were there even any married couples left by the end of his era?
He broke up:
Masood and Zainab
Ian and Jane
Ricky and Bianca
Janine and Ryan
All within months of taking over. As well as bringing Kat back pregnant by Alfie's cousin. By December 2010 there were three affairs happening at the same time. He was a disaster from the off.
I agree. Good post.
I think the decline is much further back. As much as I loved him, and his second coming gave us the fabulous Chrissie, I think Dirty Den returning from the dead - only to be murdered a second time just 18 months later - was the point at which the show became sensationalist rubbish chasing its own better days. In hindsight, 2003 was the last really great year, when no other soap could hope to touch EE. It's been on the slide ever since.
I mean, on paper, that all sounds like great drama. Just like an affair whodunnit seems like a good idea on paper. So you can see why they did it. But in practice it's a nightmare. Doing these things is all very well, but what are you left with when the dust settles? Just disjointed family units, toddlers that are difficult to write around, characters floating around aimlessly and everyone hating each other.
In their favour one of the best Christmas storylines was Linda having trouble with enjoying too many light refreshments,
I loved the Ronnie baby swap storyline. I was a big fan of Ronnie's so really enjoyed that storyline. I still miss her and sister Roxy.
Agreed wasn't 2003 the year of the dreaded kidney storyline?
I'll be shocked if it's still on as often in 5 years time.
I think so, or early 2004. There were some excellent storylines and characters back then and EastEnders was very watchable, but the cracks did start appearing during that era.
They really did. That's when it went off the boil. I actually moved away from the UK in 2004, and I remember joking to a friend 'at least I won't be missing much on EE'. The year before was still good, but by 2004 it had slipped badly, and it's never really recovered. It makes me laugh to see people talking about EE of a decade or so ago as some kind of golden age, and one which merits dead characters from the era being revived like Christ to reign again - they must be very young. Although they can't be all that young - no young person of my acquaintance watches any soap. My son can't get out of the room quick enough when EE comes on.
sorry, that was the beginning of the end of the show for me
I think rating did take a hit and I still believe that the downfall of ratings started when Kirkwood took over and every producer since has tried to sort the mess out unsuccessfully and ultimately damaged the show further. DTC's reign was too much rewriting going on with Den/Gavin and the past. I disliked this and then I quit watching in 2017 as it was just too boring when the producer tried to go back to basics - which nowadays equals boring.
Why was it so bad in 2004?
I have to laugh reading old threads on here from 2008 where fans are claiming the live burial is the worst story the show has EVER done
That's my take on it too . What ruined it was that they scrapped it . I would have loved to see it play out the way it was planned . It really made sense for Ronnie to snap . She was forced to give up her daughter only to find and lose her in the same moment , lost another child and then finally has a living baby only to lose that baby too .