She has absolutely no reason to be there and the writers have not done anything to convince me as a viewer that Sharon has a place in the show today.
I personally don't think putting her with Phil permanently or putting her back in the Vic would necessarily fix that. It's more fundamental to me and I think (as I said on another thread) that her time is past and she should be left there.
This. She could potentially be better than she is now but I think she only has about 2 or 3 more years left on the show. Her character is being desperately dragged out by the writers.
This. She could potentially be better than she is now but I think she only has about 2 or 3 more years left on the show. Her character is being desperately dragged out by the writers.
The stench of desperation has been depressing. Carol has not had a lot of worthwhile material either, but at least her family give her a reason to be there. Denny does not fulfil that role with Sharon.
They need to fix the writing of the character and find her a compelling and viable reason to be in the show. Without either she is a disaster
As we know, Jack is leaving soon and the Branning family is slowly starting to fall apart. All we have left now is Max (Can't stand him), Kirsty (Yawn), Alice, Joey, Lauren, Abi and Dot.
Carol is more of a Branning than Dot, as is her clan.
She has absolutely no reason to be there and the writers have not done anything to convince me as a viewer that Sharon has a place in the show today.
I personally don't think putting her with Phil permanently or putting her back in the Vic would necessarily fix that. It's more fundamental to me and I think (as I said on another thread) that her time is past and she should be left there.
Sharon is a huge name for EastEnders. She has every reason to be there. The writers are at fault for not getting her character and not providing her with the type of storylines she excels at. Letitia Dean has proven time and time again she will rise to the challenge when given the right material. Jessie Wallace was very poor as Kat Slater when she returned. Now she has material better suited to her character and has stepped up her game. If they give up on Sharon this soon then that shows how little they value history. I for one got into EastEnders in a big way because of characters like Sharon, Den, Angie, Pauline and many of the 80's originals. I don't care if Sharon doesn't fit into 2013 EastEnders because it is terrible and an insult to Julia Smith's premise. If they spent less time ramming the Brannings and the teens down our throats they could rectifiy the Sharon situation quickly.
Sharon is a huge name for EastEnders. She has every reason to be there. The writers are at fault for not getting her character and not providing her with the type of storylines she excels at. Letitia Dean has proven time and time again she will rise to the challenge when given the right material. Jessie Wallace was very poor as Kat Slater when she returned. Now she has material better suited to her character and has stepped up her game. If they give up on Sharon this soon then that shows how little they value history. I for one got into EastEnders in a big way because of characters like Sharon, Den, Angie, Pauline and many of the 80's originals. I don't care if Sharon doesn't fit into 2013 EastEnders because it is terrible and an insult to Julia Smith's premise. If they spent less time ramming the Brannings and the teens down our throats they could rectifiy the Sharon situation quickly.
I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments. But! Sharon 2013 is a disaster - as is much of the show. But focussing on fixing Sharon at this stage is a complete joke when the show is falling apart. If that character is a casualty of sorting the show out then so be it. History is history - its important but it's the past. EastEnders has made an abysmal job of moving on and part of that has been the huge number of returns and more to come. The past should be protected by ensuring the show has a great future.
Sorting the show in general out will fix the ratings issue. Focussing on Sharon will not. If I was in charge I would insist that no-one is indispensable and all decisions should be for the good of the show and not massaging the ego of an apparent "icon".
Sharon has no believable place in the show so the character should go. If in the future there is a believable place for her they should then consider a return. But having her in the cast because she was there on day one is stupid. Her name alone is not a reason - as this stint has proven!
The Dirty Den return proved that big names do not in themselves justify a place in the show!
I like all the Brannings except from Joey, Alice and Kirsty. Hopefully Alice and Kirsty will be axed, I can't imagine Joey will be axed though they will just use him to collect "Sexiest Male" awards.
She has absolutely no reason to be there and the writers have not done anything to convince me as a viewer that Sharon has a place in the show today.
I personally don't think putting her with Phil permanently or putting her back in the Vic would necessarily fix that. It's more fundamental to me and I think (as I said on another thread) that her time is past and she should be left there.
I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments. But! Sharon 2013 is a disaster - as is much of the show. But focussing on fixing Sharon at this stage is a complete joke when the show is falling apart. If that character is a casualty of sorting the show out then so be it. History is history - its important but it's the past. EastEnders has made an abysmal job of moving on and part of that has been the huge number of returns and more to come. The past should be protected by ensuring the show has a great future.
Sorting the show in general out will fix the ratings issue. Focussing on Sharon will not. If I was in charge I would insist that no-one is indispensable and all decisions should be for the good of the show and not massaging the ego of an apparent "icon".
Sharon has no believable place in the show so the character should go. If in the future there is a believable place for her they should then consider a return. But having her in the cast because she was there on day one is stupid. Her name alone is not a reason - as this stint has proven!
The Dirty Den return proved that big names do not in themselves justify a place in the show!
All the Sharon haters on here seem to forget that Kat was hated for two years after her comeback.
Letitia Dean has just signed a new contract - she is going nowhere.
Other rubbish actors, playing Tyler, AJ, Joey and Fatboy and yes the unpopular Brannings have all in the past signed contracts. That doesn't mean it was good for the show. I think signing up Letitia Dean for another year is a mistake. I've just read a Daily Mail article about Letitia Dean and there are many, many comments saying she is an awful actress.
I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments. But! Sharon 2013 is a disaster - as is much of the show. But focussing on fixing Sharon at this stage is a complete joke when the show is falling apart. If that character is a casualty of sorting the show out then so be it. History is history - its important but it's the past. EastEnders has made an abysmal job of moving on and part of that has been the huge number of returns and more to come. The past should be protected by ensuring the show has a great future.
Sorting the show in general out will fix the ratings issue. Focussing on Sharon will not. If I was in charge I would insist that no-one is indispensable and all decisions should be for the good of the show and not massaging the ego of an apparent "icon".
Sharon has no believable place in the show so the character should go. If in the future there is a believable place for her they should then consider a return. But having her in the cast because she was there on day one is stupid. Her name alone is not a reason - as this stint has proven!
The Dirty Den return proved that big names do not in themselves justify a place in the show!
I never said they should concentrate solely on fixing Sharon and neglect the rest of the show. That's the kind of stupid decision that has EastEnders in the Brannings/teens obsessed state it's in. There's no reason they can't repair Sharon as they go along. She has nothing on the horizon so it's not as if she's in our faces all the time. She can quietly be returned to her old characterisation while they fix the mess they've made of the series.
The reason EastEnders has so many returnees is because the cast turnover is greater than Coronation Street. By 1990 the majority of the original cast of EastEnders had left. By late 1995 only Pauline, Arthur, Ian and Kathy remained of the originals. By 2000 only Pauline and Ian. Before Sharon's return Ian had been the only member of the original cast since late 2006. CS doesn't have the same issues with holding onto cast members which is likely why it has prospered for so long. Its historical links are strong. They replaced departing big names with new ones. EastEnders rarely achieves this which is why they need Sharon and other returnees. They're identifiable with the brand and draw in lost viewers. But only if the quality is there and right now it isn't.
I like all the Brannings except from Joey, Alice and Kirsty. Hopefully Alice and Kirsty will be axed, I can't imagine Joey will be axed though they will just use him to collect "Sexiest Male" awards.
I loathe Max. And Lauren is an obnoxious little madam. I don't see the point of Abi, and as for Cora, well, less said the better.
All the characters could be killed off in a fire and I wouldn't give a damn. Horrible, egotistic family.
Max and his repetitive affairs (how someone so unlikeable can keep pulling woman just beggers belief), and his grunt,shout,shuffle acting are a big reason Eastenders is on in the background for me now.
Very rarely does it hold my attention.
I'd be made up if he and a few of the other Brannings were written out for good in a major explosion or something equally final.
Can't stand the character of Max any longer and wish he'd go and take Kirsty with him. His default position is grunt,shout,shuffle,shout,repeat over and over. It's become so boring.
Again its lazy scriptwriting. Max is always but with a woman and they are his sole storyline. They could have focussed more on the relationship with his dad but they haven't.
I like Max Lauren, Joey, Abi is warming to me now.
I hope they make a Lauren and Joey a couple who are on the square for at least a few years before leaving as there is potential there.
Comments
The stench of desperation has been depressing. Carol has not had a lot of worthwhile material either, but at least her family give her a reason to be there. Denny does not fulfil that role with Sharon.
They need to fix the writing of the character and find her a compelling and viable reason to be in the show. Without either she is a disaster
Carol is more of a Branning than Dot, as is her clan.
Sharon is a huge name for EastEnders. She has every reason to be there. The writers are at fault for not getting her character and not providing her with the type of storylines she excels at. Letitia Dean has proven time and time again she will rise to the challenge when given the right material. Jessie Wallace was very poor as Kat Slater when she returned. Now she has material better suited to her character and has stepped up her game. If they give up on Sharon this soon then that shows how little they value history. I for one got into EastEnders in a big way because of characters like Sharon, Den, Angie, Pauline and many of the 80's originals. I don't care if Sharon doesn't fit into 2013 EastEnders because it is terrible and an insult to Julia Smith's premise. If they spent less time ramming the Brannings and the teens down our throats they could rectifiy the Sharon situation quickly.
I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments. But! Sharon 2013 is a disaster - as is much of the show. But focussing on fixing Sharon at this stage is a complete joke when the show is falling apart. If that character is a casualty of sorting the show out then so be it. History is history - its important but it's the past. EastEnders has made an abysmal job of moving on and part of that has been the huge number of returns and more to come. The past should be protected by ensuring the show has a great future.
Sorting the show in general out will fix the ratings issue. Focussing on Sharon will not. If I was in charge I would insist that no-one is indispensable and all decisions should be for the good of the show and not massaging the ego of an apparent "icon".
Sharon has no believable place in the show so the character should go. If in the future there is a believable place for her they should then consider a return. But having her in the cast because she was there on day one is stupid. Her name alone is not a reason - as this stint has proven!
The Dirty Den return proved that big names do not in themselves justify a place in the show!
Letitia Dean has just signed a new contract - she is going nowhere.
I never said they should concentrate solely on fixing Sharon and neglect the rest of the show. That's the kind of stupid decision that has EastEnders in the Brannings/teens obsessed state it's in. There's no reason they can't repair Sharon as they go along. She has nothing on the horizon so it's not as if she's in our faces all the time. She can quietly be returned to her old characterisation while they fix the mess they've made of the series.
The reason EastEnders has so many returnees is because the cast turnover is greater than Coronation Street. By 1990 the majority of the original cast of EastEnders had left. By late 1995 only Pauline, Arthur, Ian and Kathy remained of the originals. By 2000 only Pauline and Ian. Before Sharon's return Ian had been the only member of the original cast since late 2006. CS doesn't have the same issues with holding onto cast members which is likely why it has prospered for so long. Its historical links are strong. They replaced departing big names with new ones. EastEnders rarely achieves this which is why they need Sharon and other returnees. They're identifiable with the brand and draw in lost viewers. But only if the quality is there and right now it isn't.
All the characters could be killed off in a fire and I wouldn't give a damn. Horrible, egotistic family.
I quite agree. The sooner Eastenders gets back to being an ensemble show and not 'The Brannings' with a large supporting cast, the better.
Very rarely does it hold my attention.
I'd be made up if he and a few of the other Brannings were written out for good in a major explosion or something equally final.
I'm praying to all of my gods for this to happen;)
I like Max Lauren, Joey, Abi is warming to me now.
I hope they make a Lauren and Joey a couple who are on the square for at least a few years before leaving as there is potential there.