EastEnders: Was Chrissie Watts a Legendary Character?

13

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    She was also in the best cat-fight in EE history.... chopping off Kate Mitchell's hair (and then throwing a chair threw the window for good measure!!)

    Her revenge plots against Den prior to his death were also good s/l. And I thought her exposure of Vicki's boyfriend was funny too.

    Undoutedly Den's death was her big s/l, but it was a VERY big s/l and revolved entirely around her basically.... she must certainly pack the biggest "concentration" of drama of any character in the show's history.

    And most characters (apart from the truly iconic one) have only 1 or 2 major s/l. Like janine, her one major s/l has basically been killing Barry - despite being in EE for god know's how long... she's had lots of others, but they weren't big and are not remembered on average. A character like Kat, for instance, would be remembered for her revelation to Zoe and her relationship with Alfie - 2 big s/l.
  • scizophonicscizophonic Posts: 1,413
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Filiman wrote: »
    She was also in the best cat-fight in EE history.... chopping off Kate Mitchell's hair (and then throwing a chair threw the window for good measure!!)

    Her revenge plots against Den prior to his death were also good s/l. And I thought her exposure of Vicki's boyfriend was funny too.

    Undoutedly Den's death was her big s/l, but it was a VERY big s/l and revolved entirely around her basically.... she must certainly pack the biggest "concentration" of drama of any character in the show's history.

    And most characters (apart from the truly iconic one) have only 1 or 2 major s/l. Like janine, her one major s/l has basically been killing Barry - despite being in EE for god know's how long... she's had lots of others, but they weren't big and are not remembered on average. A character like Kat, for instance, would be remembered for her revelation to Zoe and her relationship with Alfie - 2 big s/l.
    I loved the catfight when she came out of salon and saw Ian "ah those vandals again" :D

    Was never keen on Vicki/Tommy though. I think they tried too hard to make Vicki like Michelle. Fiercely independent, going out with older college lecturer, pregnant at a young age etc. In the end she became nothing more than a cardboard cutout so her storylines never did interest me.

    Chrissie's scowl was the best the way her face could just switch.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 165
    Forum Member
    I liked Chrissie, And I think she is a unforgettable Character but not a Legend.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    I loved the catfight when she came out of salon and saw Ian "ah those vandals again" :D

    Was never keen on Vicki/Tommy though. I think they tried too hard to make Vicki like Michelle. Fiercely independent, going out with older college lecturer, pregnant at a young age etc. In the end she became nothing more than a cardboard cutout so her storylines never did interest me.

    Chrissie's scowl was the best the way her face could just switch.

    Agree 100% with Vicki.... I hope they bring her back but recast and recharacterised. She doesn't have to be a copy of Den or Michelle but she needs to have their spirit which was completely lacking. Having said that, I actually think if they tried to work with the premise of making Vicki a "female Den" it would be interesting to see and could work if done right.

    And the way Chrissie's face switched.... she was the best at that.

    The Tommy/Vicki s/l was not great - but the way Chrissie caught him out was fun to watch.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 733
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BK. wrote: »
    I'm just going to give my own opinion here but I thought she was completely forgettable. Whenever she's mentioned I'm like "oh yeah. I forgot about her". I don't know, I guess her character just didn't do much for me.

    Ditto. I just couldn't get excited about her. It wouldn't even have occurred to me that anyone would regard her as a legend!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Ditto. I just couldn't get excited about her. It wouldn't even have occurred to me that anyone would regard her as a legend!

    Just goes to show how wrong you can be!:p
  • Ash's ManAsh's Man Posts: 7,165
    Forum Member
    I'm not really sure why they would bring Vicki back. The Fowlers and the Watts are pretty much history now. Unless they were gonna bring in a whole family based around Vicki, maybe Sharon and I can't think who else, then I don't really see it happening. And re-characterising her completely wouldn't be good. It would be admitting how badly they messed up the Watts' return in 2003.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Ash's Man wrote: »
    I'm not really sure why they would bring Vicki back. The Fowlers and the Watts are pretty much history now. Unless they were gonna bring in a whole family based around Vicki, maybe Sharon and I can't think who else, then I don't really see it happening. And re-characterising her completely wouldn't be good. It would be admitting how badly they messed up the Watts' return in 2003.

    The Watts were the only good thing about EE in the mid-00s... god knows what they would have done without them - three years like 06 could have done some real damage, as it was the departure of all the Watts (Sharon, Chrissie, Dennis) that really did the damage.... Alfie was already showing extreme signs of wear when he left; and Kat had only been back about 5 months or so when she exited at Xmas so had not had that much time to settle completely back into things (aside from Zoe's exit and Molfie she didn't really do that much).

    Vicki was bad - but the rest was good and often great, and if Grantham hadn't stuffed up, Den's return would've been fine (there was bound to be alot of dissapointment, but people would have acclimatised).

    Besides, they've done it before - look at Stephen Beale. There's no reason why they can't bring back Vicki (with Sharon) and just give her a sharper edge. To be quite frank I don't think many people remember Vicki in the first place, so it is not like they are recharacterising a major figure.

    And they can bring back Chrissie.... she could have impregnated herself with some of Den's..... swimmers.... that she had frozen for a rainy day - wasn't there something in the news about this.... after all, EE should reflect reality! ;)

    Alternatively they can always bring in long lost relatives..... jeez louise the Mitchells have done it often enough - if another long lost family relative never mentioned comes out of the Mitchell woodwork I'll scream!:eek:
  • Ash's ManAsh's Man Posts: 7,165
    Forum Member
    Filiman wrote: »
    The Watts were the only good thing about EE in the mid-00s... god knows what they would have done without them - three years like 06 could have done some real damage, as it was the departure of all the Watts (Sharon, Chrissie, Dennis) that really did the damage.... Alfie was already showing extreme signs of wear when he left; and Kat had only been back about 5 months or so when she exited at Xmas so had not had that much time to settle completely back into things (aside from Zoe's exit and Molfie she didn't really do that much).

    Vicki was bad - but the rest was good and often great, and if Grantham hadn't stuffed up, Den's return would've been fine (there was bound to be alot of dissapointment, but people would have acclimatised).

    Besides, they've done it before - look at Stephen Beale. There's no reason why they can't bring back Vicki (with Sharon) and just give her a sharper edge. To be quite frank I don't think many people remember Vicki in the first place, so it is not like they are recharacterising a major figure.

    And they can bring back Chrissie.... she could have impregnated herself with some of Den's..... swimmers.... that she had frozen for a rainy day - wasn't there something in the news about this.... after all, EE should reflect reality! ;)

    Alternatively they can always bring in long lost relatives..... jeez louise the Mitchells have done it often enough - if another long lost family relative never mentioned comes out of the Mitchell woodwork I'll scream!:eek:

    It's true that they could bring in long lost relatives like cousins and stuff, but the difference between the Watts and the Mitchells is that the Mitchells have constantly been in EE since their arrival. Even when Peggy and Phil had to be written out, Sam was there to "rep their endz".

    But anyway, I don't think Grantham stuffed up their return. The writing was so poor for the Watts with lines like "Get Den Watts, he'll know what to do". They completely overhyped the return.

    Chrissie coming back and impregnating herself would be a waste of time. The whole point of the family being in the square is that they are together. If Sharon and Vicki were there and completely ignored her then she may as well not be there.

    I just don't think the writers are going to revisit the Watts or the Fowlers. The Mitchells are the Watts' replacement in a way and the Beales are the Fowlers. Even down to the family feuds.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    One of my favourite Chrissie moments was in the Christmas 2004 episode after Sharon and Dennis revealed they were leaving and they had the big bust up with Zoe. She threw the sprouts onto the floor and screamed "For once in your SELFISH little lives could you not have waited until AFTER DINNER?!"

    Loved it. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Ash's Man wrote: »
    It's true that they could bring in long lost relatives like cousins and stuff, but the difference between the Watts and the Mitchells is that the Mitchells have constantly been in EE since their arrival. Even when Peggy and Phil had to be written out, Sam was there to "rep their endz".

    But anyway, I don't think Grantham stuffed up their return. The writing was so poor for the Watts with lines like "Get Den Watts, he'll know what to do". They completely overhyped the return.

    Chrissie coming back and impregnating herself would be a waste of time. The whole point of the family being in the square is that they are together. If Sharon and Vicki were there and completely ignored her then she may as well not be there.

    I just don't think the writers are going to revisit the Watts or the Fowlers. The Mitchells are the Watts' replacement in a way and the Beales are the Fowlers. Even down to the family feuds.

    Not too sure what that has to do with distant relatives.... I mean, let's face it we are talkling about relatives which the family has never seen/barely heard of.... no reason why they can't still think Sharon is in Walford given that is the fictional place where her family lived for 30 years; just as plausible R&R turning up for their cousines third marriage - why they didn't appear at the other 2 (ok, maybe not the Polish immigrant one) is beyond me.... again, we've had this discussion before, but you seem to make alot of allowances for the Mitchells, but won't make the same "leap of faith" for others.

    As far as I'm concerned what is good for one is good for the other.

    And they'll bring SHaron back, sooner or later, and they'll want to give her a family, so I have little doubt that they will revisit the issue of the Watts at some point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    One of my favourite Chrissie moments was in the Christmas 2004 episode after Sharon and Dennis revealed they were leaving and they had the big bust up with Zoe. She threw the sprouts onto the floor and screamed "For once in your SELFISH little lives could you not have waited until AFTER DINNER?!"

    Loved it. :D

    Oh yes - that was a great line - completely forgot about it. lol Fantastic.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really liked her and think she was one of the few who carried Eastenders during that time.

    I did feel they ruined the character by having her kill Den, though. But everything before that was fantastic. I'd love to see her return.
  • GothamGotham Posts: 1,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't remember many of her storylines, the only thing I can remember is how flabbergasted I was in relation to just how many women Den got into bed. :confused::confused::confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Gotham wrote: »
    I can't remember many of her storylines, the only thing I can remember is how flabbergasted I was in relation to just how many women Den got into bed. :confused::confused::confused:

    You don't remember her killing Den?:confused:

    And he only got 2.... Kate/Zoe - only 1 better than Archie (not counting those he "forced" himself on).
  • GothamGotham Posts: 1,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Filiman wrote: »
    You don't remember her killing Den?:confused:

    Obviously I remember the climax of her time in the square, I just can't remember all the crap that drove her to murder him. Am I right in saying that he swindled Sam and blackmailed Zoe into bed?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Gotham wrote: »
    Obviously I remember the climax of her time in the square, I just can't remember all the crap that drove her to murder him. Am I right in saying that he swindled Sam and blackmailed Zoe into bed?

    There you go.... you do remember!!! ;)
  • Ash's ManAsh's Man Posts: 7,165
    Forum Member
    Filiman wrote: »
    Not too sure what that has to do with distant relatives.... I mean, let's face it we are talkling about relatives which the family has never seen/barely heard of.... no reason why they can't still think Sharon is in Walford given that is the fictional place where her family lived for 30 years; just as plausible R&R turning up for their cousines third marriage - why they didn't appear at the other 2 (ok, maybe not the Polish immigrant one) is beyond me.... again, we've had this discussion before, but you seem to make alot of allowances for the Mitchells, but won't make the same "leap of faith" for others.

    As far as I'm concerned what is good for one is good for the other.

    And they'll bring SHaron back, sooner or later, and they'll want to give her a family, so I have little doubt that they will revisit the issue of the Watts at some point.

    I don't make more allowances for the Mitchells, it's just that their presence has been constantly on the square since their arrival. The Watts was Sharon in the 90s before they were reintroduced when the show was at its all time low and still they did not generate as much interest as Phil Mitchell did just two years before with 'Who Shot Phil?' Take the Mitchells out of it. Let's use the Slaters. If the Slaters was literally just Stacey and all the other members of the clan were dead, and Stacey had left the show, would there be much point to bringing her back, introducing cousins etc. when they could just introduce a whole new family and lay the Slaters to rest? It's not a leap of faith, it's a waste of time to bring them back. They've had their day.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Ash's Man wrote: »
    I don't make more allowances for the Mitchells, it's just that their presence has been constantly on the square since their arrival. The Watts was Sharon in the 90s before they were reintroduced when the show was at its all time low and still they did not generate as much interest as Phil Mitchell did just two years before with 'Who Shot Phil?' Take the Mitchells out of it. Let's use the Slaters. If the Slaters was literally just Stacey and all the other members of the clan were dead, and Stacey had left the show, would there be much point to bringing her back, introducing cousins etc. when they could just introduce a whole new family and lay the Slaters to rest? It's not a leap of faith, it's a waste of time to bring them back. They've had their day.

    You'll find that the episode in which Phil was shot.... the episode that centred around the character of Phil, was a bomb at the time and under-performed.... it was the reveal that garnered all the interest the *Who* in who shot Phil - not the Phil part - which, as I said, actually rated lower than an episode on at the same time the previous weak - EE execs had to come out and say they weren't disappointed. Whereas 17m tuned in just to see 10 secs of Den... 2 years later Grant's return could barely muster 14m - more people watched Chrissie bump of Den than Grant returning.

    And the importane of the Watts is the same as the Butchers or Fowlers or beales.... it is the same reason Santer has brought back so many past characters - connection with the show's history. They'll bring back Sharon because she is one of the show's most popular and endearing characters - and when they do they may well give her a family.... calling up long distant relatives, ala the Mitchells.... with Peggy going the only character that connects the Mitchells to their past will be Phil (Billy is a nonentity) - if he were to go the Mitchells might as well be an entirely different family, or what is left of them... Danny, R&R, Glenda.... I mean Grant, the other central pillar, has never had any interaction with these characters... the notion of this long-lived Mitchell family extending from 1990 to the present falls apart given that all but 1 of them will soon have no history prior to 2007 (save Billy). It is a familial contrivance designed to extend and longevity of the Mitchell family.... and why? Because they are an important family, with connections to a few of the show's most memorable storylines - exactly the same reasoning behind reworking the Watts or Fowlers or Butchers for that matter.

    Lack of history was the prime reason was 2006 was such a failure, with all these new "families" having to fill the void. New families requier far longer to establish identities and connect to families.... whereas, creating long lost cousins can play on existing or historical identities - ie: the Mitchell sisters, which very specifically played on the identity of the Mitchell family to establish them as characters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I loved Chrissie one of my all time faves. Great chracter.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 15,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Filiman wrote: »
    Absolutely fantastic. Loved those looks too.... I loved the scene where she was practising to cry in the mirror - crying one minute, the next instant she stoped to adjust her hair!!!:D

    Haha I Loved that to it actually made me laugh I just uploaded it :)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTC_tOXa_UU
  • SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes I think she's legendary, she made more of an impact in one year than many characters have in longer.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 2,096,970
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lauren__ wrote: »
    Haha I Loved that to it actually made me laugh I just uploaded it :)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTC_tOXa_UU

    Not related to the clip you posted but can I just say THANK YOU for putting the infamous "slip-on shoes" line up. Love, love, LOVE it. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,836
    Forum Member
    Lauren__ wrote: »
    Haha I Loved that to it actually made me laugh I just uploaded it :)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTC_tOXa_UU

    Thanks for uploading that! Love it!

    For those who are interested, it seems that Wikipedia have quite a good page (for a change?) on Chrissie Watts, pretty interesting read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrissie_Watts
  • DanslinkDanslink Posts: 8,365
    Forum Member
    Tracy-Ann Oberman is a legend. Full stop.
Sign In or Register to comment.