I'd say Sam, they transformed the character so well during Kim metcalfes time playing her and then when they fought Daniella Westbrook back it was as if the writers had forgotten everything Sam had been through in Kim's time. It was like Kim and Daniella played two completely different characters.
I don't see a difference. He's the same annoying idiot now that he always was. Same reason I left Ricky out of the poll. They're exactly the same in all stints in my opinion.
Agreed, regarding both Alfie and Ricky (who will probably return, yet again:yawn:).
I'm not saying that Sharon hasnt been involved in more iconic stories than Janine, she has been for sure but that doesnt make her a iconic character in my eyes. I forgot about the Sharon/Michelle friendship and yes i agree EE have tried to replicate that with many other female friendships over the years but for me a great character is someone that doesnt need to exist on other people's dramas...Because Sharon was the parents of Den and Angie they have since always thought it necessary to involve her with whoever is the biggest characters on the square at that time so first the Mitchells and now the Brannings and this is because she needs these big characters and the drama they bring to survive . Janine doesnt need that, like i said she is the one that makes other characters more interesting and is the driving force behind that,Janine lights up any scene or episode she appears in, i dont think the same can be said for Sharon. I like Sharon but its for the history that she brings not for her greatness and if i had the choice of who i would want to see stay in the show for the next 20 years for example then my answer would be Janine every time.
Sorry if I sounded like I was objecting to you having an opinion earlier in the thread. I've read my post back and it seems a bit overboard.
If you prefer Janine then so be it. I don't agree Janine lights up every scene she's in. She bored me for most of her last stint, particularly towards the end when she and Michael performed the exact same scene on a loop. I've also tired of her panto revenge plots but that's just me. I did love Janine once upon a time but I always preferred Sharon. Right now I could take or leave both.
Sorry if I sounded like I was objecting to you having an opinion earlier in the thread. I've read my post back and it seems a bit overboard.
If you prefer Janine then so be it. I don't agree Janine lights up every scene she's in. She bored me for most of her last stint, particularly towards the end when she and Michael performed the exact same scene on a loop. I've also tired of her panto revenge plots but that's just me. I did love Janine once upon a time but I always preferred Sharon. Right now I could take or leave both.
Agree entirely. Janine is not the most dynamic of characters; she is just as guilty of repetition as all others.
I think Dazza completely underestimates the extent to which Grant and Phi's success was rooted in Sharon; it was BECAUSE the audience had seen Sharon grow up and was invested in her that Sharongate was such a huge success. There have been numerous articles over the years that have given the critical opinion that this was the reason why Sharongate was as great a storyline as it was; Sharon needed to be torn between two characters who were close, hence they were made brothers; created for HER.
And I dont agree that she relies on other characters. You could just as easily say that Michael has made Janine a far more interesting character than she had been before him. I generally dont understand the logic here??
PS: also when I use caps I am not "shouting" just emphasising as I'm lazy and cant be bothered to bold print.
I'm not saying that Sharon hasnt been involved in more iconic stories than Janine, she has been for sure but that doesnt make her a iconic character in my eyes. I forgot about the Sharon/Michelle friendship and yes i agree EE have tried to replicate that with many other female friendships over the years but for me a great character is someone that doesnt need to exist on other people's dramas...Because Sharon was the parents of Den and Angie they have since always thought it necessary to involve her with whoever is the biggest characters on the square at that time so first the Mitchells and now the Brannings and this is because she needs these big characters and the drama they bring to survive . Janine doesnt need that, like i said she is the one that makes other characters more interesting and is the driving force behind that,Janine lights up any scene or episode she appears in, i dont think the same can be said for Sharon. I like Sharon but its for the history that she brings not for her greatness and if i had the choice of who i would want to see stay in the show for the next 20 years for example then my answer would be Janine every time.
But SHE made the Mitchells big - they were big through her??? It was through her, because she was such a central character, that they became central characters.
And part of her greatness is her history - as it is of Ian, Phil, Dot, Pat, etc.
But then Janine doesnt have a long shelf life - even the actress understands this. You couldn't have Janine in the show for 20 years because of the type of character she is.
Agree entirely. Janine is not the most dynamic of characters; she is just as guilty of repetition as all others.
I think Dazza completely underestimates the extent to which Grant and Phi's success was rooted in Sharon; it was BECAUSE the audience had seen Sharon grow up and was invested in her that Sharongate was such a huge success. There have been numerous articles over the years that have given the critical opinion that this was the reason why Sharongate was as great a storyline as it was; Sharon needed to be torn between two characters who were close, hence they were made brothers; created for HER.
And I dont agree that she relies on other characters. You could just as easily say that Michael has made Janine a far more interesting character than she had been before him. I generally dont understand the logic here??
PS: also when I use caps I am not "shouting" just emphasising as I'm lazy and cant be bothered to bold print.
I agree, Filiman. Sharongate wouldn't have been half as epic as it was if it had been anyone other than Sharon at the heart of it. I just can't imagine the story working in the critically acclaimed way it did with any other female character of the time. There were a lot of factors that went into making that story what it was and it relied a lot on Sharon's characterisation as much as it did the Mitchell brothers. To say Sharon was integral to EastEnders biggest storyline is an understatement.
As far as Sharon needing other characters to prop her up I just don't buy that. We could say Pauline was only iconic because Arthur was her husband and Michelle her daughter, we could say Dot is only iconic because of Nasty Nick, Den is only iconic because of Angie, and so on. The relationships characters have with other characters defines them. Sharon just happened to be involved with most of the dramatic characters. She is (or was) a dramatic character herself so it makes sense.
I agree, Filiman. Sharongate wouldn't have been half as epic as it was if it had been anyone other than Sharon at the heart of it. I just can't imagine the story working in the critically acclaimed way it did with any other female character of the time. There were a lot of factors that went into making that story what it was and it relied a lot on Sharon's characterisation as much as it did the Mitchell brothers. To say Sharon was integral to EastEnders biggest storyline is an understatement.
As far as Sharon needing other characters to prop her up I just don't buy that. We could say Pauline was only iconic because Arthur was her husband and Michelle her daughter, we could say Dot is only iconic because of Nasty Nick, Den is only iconic because of Angie, and so on. The relationships characters have with other characters defines them. Sharon just happened to be involved with most of the dramatic characters. She is (or was) a dramatic character herself so it makes sense.
Agree entirely. Part of what makes Sharon so iconic is the fact that she HAS ties to so many other iconic characters. It is also why Janine is not as iconic because she is only really tied to Pat and Frank as icon legends, and has otherwise been rather isolated. To be iconic is to be represenative; Janine was a fantastic character in the early 00s, but she was one that was always very isolated.
Agree entirely. Part of what makes Sharon so iconic is the fact that she HAS ties to so many other iconic characters. It is also why Janine is not as iconic because she is only really tied to Pat and Frank as icon legends, and has otherwise been rather isolated.
Agreed again. Sharon is in the exclusive group of characters who have many ties to many icons. She is the natural successor to Pat, who was arguably the most well connected character in the show's history. The writers have short changed Sharon and the fans with this return.
Agreed again. Sharon is in the exclusive group of characters who have many ties to many icons. She is the natural successor to Pat, who was arguably the most well connected character in the show's history. The writers have short changed Sharon and the fans with this return.
Honestly I wouldnt really worry about it.... if the writing continues to be as poor as it has been EE will be off air within the next decade. I was excited for Sharon to return because I had hoped a third (and probably final) golden age was coming around the 30th; but if it never does then fewer and fewer people will watch. As it is, few people watch today - Sharon's legacy is pretty safe. When they write the annals of British soap history, she'll be in there (all the other characters of the show atm bar Phil, Ian, and Dot, won't be); and unless another golden age happens, never will.
Janine I think has past her prime to (u get a sense of that from Brooks most recent interview). Her heyday was the early 00s. That was her chance; she will never be as iconic as Den, Angie, Sharon, Pat, etc. now.
Honestly I wouldnt really worry about it.... if the writing continues to be as poor as it has been EE will be off air within the next decade. I was excited for Sharon to return because I had hoped a third (and probably final) golden age was coming around the 30th; but if it never does then fewer and fewer people will watch. As it is, few people watch today - Sharon's legacy is pretty safe. When they write the annals of British soap history, she'll be in there (all the other characters of the show atm bar Phil, Ian, and Dot, won't be); and unless another golden age happens, never will.
Janine I think has past her prime to (u get a sense of that from Brooks most recent interview). Her heyday was the early 00s. That was her chance; she will never be as iconic as Den, Angie, Sharon, Pat, etc. now.
This is exactly how I see it though I'm not optimistic that another golden age is around the corner. I think EastEnders has entered its endgame now. I'll be surprised if it's still on in a decade. I often hear people saying they're shocked the media aren't reporting about the cast walkouts and drop in viewers. But the media reports about things people know about and are interested in. How many people know who Jack Branning, Michael Moon and Tanya Cross are? ''Jo Joyner Quits EastEnders As Ratings Plummet'' isn't quite the headline grabber that ''Letitia Dean Quits EastEnders'' was back in the day. And with the drop of 3 million viewers in 3 years there's a dwindling interest in EastEnders. Why would the media waste the paper it takes to print about EastEnders current woes? The lack of interest from fans and the media are in unison.
Kat. I think the problem with Sharon is that she simply hasn't been given much to do since her return. Whereas Kat has been dragged through the gutter and suffered almost irreparable damage, I don't think Sharon is quite at that level at the moment. She just isn't being given anything of any substance to do. I think it would be fairly easy for them repair audience opinion in regards to Sharon by actually starting to give her storylines. Kat, on the other hand, would take a hell of a lot more effort.
They've made Sharon look utterly ridiculous. When she was first introduced she had jilted her man at the alter and now not even a year later, she is marrying someone else again:o
What kind of numpty would even consider doing that?!
They've made Sharon look utterly ridiculous. When she was first introduced she had jilted her man at the alter and now not even a year later, she is marrying someone else again:o
What kind of numpty would even consider doing that?!
we still have no idea what the John thing was even about.
I just think the writing has improved for her somewhat, her personality seems to be more sharon of old ie feisty and straight talking rather than the tanya clone she was a few months ago
I just think the writing has improved for her somewhat, her personality seems to be more sharon of old ie feisty and straight talking rather than the tanya clone she was a few months ago
I wouldnt necessarily disagree with this... but I think the writers are so inconsistent that this may just be a blip.
We will see. But I agree her characterisation is better now than at any time since she returned.
Honestly I wouldnt really worry about it.... if the writing continues to be as poor as it has been EE will be off air within the next decade. I was excited for Sharon to return because I had hoped a third (and probably final) golden age was coming around the 30th; but if it never does then fewer and fewer people will watch. As it is, few people watch today - Sharon's legacy is pretty safe. When they write the annals of British soap history, she'll be in there (all the other characters of the show atm bar Phil, Ian, and Dot, won't be); and unless another golden age happens, never will.
Janine I think has past her prime to (u get a sense of that from Brooks most recent interview). Her heyday was the early 00s. That was her chance; she will never be as iconic as Den, Angie, Sharon, Pat, etc. now.
You keep making this point and you're right nothing can change her classic moments but it doesnt mean we should just ignore or accept what she is now. The show itself being in a bad state doesnt change anything I thought the whole idea with returning characters was that they lift the show and bring back a sense of better times?
Sharon's present poor characterisation will become a part of her legacy if it goes on for much longer - if they sort it out soon then it can be classed as a blip.
This is exactly how I see it though I'm not optimistic that another golden age is around the corner. I think EastEnders has entered its endgame now. I'll be surprised if it's still on in a decade. I often hear people saying they're shocked the media aren't reporting about the cast walkouts and drop in viewers. But the media reports about things people know about and are interested in. How many people know who Jack Branning, Michael Moon and Tanya Cross are? ''Jo Joyner Quits EastEnders As Ratings Plummet'' isn't quite the headline grabber that ''Letitia Dean Quits EastEnders'' was back in the day. And with the drop of 3 million viewers in 3 years there's a dwindling interest in EastEnders. Why would the media waste the paper it takes to print about EastEnders current woes? The lack of interest from fans and the media are in unison.
Agree entirely. It just isn't newsworthy. The media like to beat up on EE, but it is very telling that when they REALLY went for it (2004), it came after an extremely successful period for the show 00-03; they just wanted to tear it down and it was newsworthy. It doesnt really interest people now.
You keep making this point and you're right nothing can change her classic moments but it doesnt mean we should just ignore or accept what she is now. The show itself being in a bad state doesnt change anything I thought the whole idea with returning characters was that they lift the show and bring back a sense of better times?
Sharon's present poor characterisation will become a part of her legacy if it goes on for much longer - if they sort it out soon then it can be classed as a blip.
I don't really see that - because far fewer people will remember this "Sharon" than the one of Sharongate or her 01 return, or Den's death. Her legacy will be that because that was when more people were interested and more people watched.
If EE recovers (starts having great s/l, interests ppl, increases ratings) and Sharon remains immune to this and is still writen poorly, then yes, I'd agree. But if the show recovers I'd hope it is because of good writing and production, which should affect Sharon for the better.
If the show continues to sink then fewer and fewer people will watch, and when people say "Sharon Watts'" hardly anyone will remember her final stint.
Kat Moon by a mile. Five years of character progression-from being a mouthy slapper to a happily married woman with her "man in the moon"- has been ruined beyond belief.
I'm not a huge fan of EE, saw the end of it tonight, haven't watched it in a while. Could somebody tell me... Why or how is Jack marrying Sharon if he is already married to Ronnie and why didn't anyone tell Sharon he was married? Where is Ronnie anyway?
I'm not a huge fan of EE, saw the end of it tonight, haven't watched it in a while. Could somebody tell me... Why or how is Jack marrying Sharon if he is already married to Ronnie and why didn't anyone tell Sharon he was married? Where is Ronnie anyway?
Ronnie got sentenced to 3 years for swapping her dead baby with Kat/Alfie's. She is being released soon, so I guess that she's not serving the full 3 years.
I thought Ronnie filed for divorce a couple of years ago?
Comments
Agreed, regarding both Alfie and Ricky (who will probably return, yet again:yawn:).
Sorry if I sounded like I was objecting to you having an opinion earlier in the thread. I've read my post back and it seems a bit overboard.
If you prefer Janine then so be it. I don't agree Janine lights up every scene she's in. She bored me for most of her last stint, particularly towards the end when she and Michael performed the exact same scene on a loop. I've also tired of her panto revenge plots but that's just me. I did love Janine once upon a time but I always preferred Sharon. Right now I could take or leave both.
Agree entirely. Janine is not the most dynamic of characters; she is just as guilty of repetition as all others.
I think Dazza completely underestimates the extent to which Grant and Phi's success was rooted in Sharon; it was BECAUSE the audience had seen Sharon grow up and was invested in her that Sharongate was such a huge success. There have been numerous articles over the years that have given the critical opinion that this was the reason why Sharongate was as great a storyline as it was; Sharon needed to be torn between two characters who were close, hence they were made brothers; created for HER.
And I dont agree that she relies on other characters. You could just as easily say that Michael has made Janine a far more interesting character than she had been before him. I generally dont understand the logic here??
PS: also when I use caps I am not "shouting" just emphasising as I'm lazy and cant be bothered to bold print.
But SHE made the Mitchells big - they were big through her???
And part of her greatness is her history - as it is of Ian, Phil, Dot, Pat, etc.
But then Janine doesnt have a long shelf life - even the actress understands this. You couldn't have Janine in the show for 20 years because of the type of character she is.
I agree, Filiman. Sharongate wouldn't have been half as epic as it was if it had been anyone other than Sharon at the heart of it. I just can't imagine the story working in the critically acclaimed way it did with any other female character of the time. There were a lot of factors that went into making that story what it was and it relied a lot on Sharon's characterisation as much as it did the Mitchell brothers. To say Sharon was integral to EastEnders biggest storyline is an understatement.
As far as Sharon needing other characters to prop her up I just don't buy that. We could say Pauline was only iconic because Arthur was her husband and Michelle her daughter, we could say Dot is only iconic because of Nasty Nick, Den is only iconic because of Angie, and so on. The relationships characters have with other characters defines them. Sharon just happened to be involved with most of the dramatic characters. She is (or was) a dramatic character herself so it makes sense.
Agree entirely. Part of what makes Sharon so iconic is the fact that she HAS ties to so many other iconic characters. It is also why Janine is not as iconic because she is only really tied to Pat and Frank as icon legends, and has otherwise been rather isolated. To be iconic is to be represenative; Janine was a fantastic character in the early 00s, but she was one that was always very isolated.
Agreed again. Sharon is in the exclusive group of characters who have many ties to many icons. She is the natural successor to Pat, who was arguably the most well connected character in the show's history. The writers have short changed Sharon and the fans with this return.
Honestly I wouldnt really worry about it.... if the writing continues to be as poor as it has been EE will be off air within the next decade. I was excited for Sharon to return because I had hoped a third (and probably final) golden age was coming around the 30th; but if it never does then fewer and fewer people will watch. As it is, few people watch today - Sharon's legacy is pretty safe. When they write the annals of British soap history, she'll be in there (all the other characters of the show atm bar Phil, Ian, and Dot, won't be); and unless another golden age happens, never will.
Janine I think has past her prime to (u get a sense of that from Brooks most recent interview). Her heyday was the early 00s. That was her chance; she will never be as iconic as Den, Angie, Sharon, Pat, etc. now.
This is exactly how I see it though I'm not optimistic that another golden age is around the corner. I think EastEnders has entered its endgame now. I'll be surprised if it's still on in a decade. I often hear people saying they're shocked the media aren't reporting about the cast walkouts and drop in viewers. But the media reports about things people know about and are interested in. How many people know who Jack Branning, Michael Moon and Tanya Cross are? ''Jo Joyner Quits EastEnders As Ratings Plummet'' isn't quite the headline grabber that ''Letitia Dean Quits EastEnders'' was back in the day. And with the drop of 3 million viewers in 3 years there's a dwindling interest in EastEnders. Why would the media waste the paper it takes to print about EastEnders current woes? The lack of interest from fans and the media are in unison.
Sharon on the other hand, is slowly but surely becoming more like her old self (imo)
They've made Sharon look utterly ridiculous. When she was first introduced she had jilted her man at the alter and now not even a year later, she is marrying someone else again:o
What kind of numpty would even consider doing that?!
I just think the writing has improved for her somewhat, her personality seems to be more sharon of old ie feisty and straight talking rather than the tanya clone she was a few months ago
I wouldnt necessarily disagree with this... but I think the writers are so inconsistent that this may just be a blip.
We will see. But I agree her characterisation is better now than at any time since she returned.
Sharon's present poor characterisation will become a part of her legacy if it goes on for much longer - if they sort it out soon then it can be classed as a blip.
Agree entirely. It just isn't newsworthy. The media like to beat up on EE, but it is very telling that when they REALLY went for it (2004), it came after an extremely successful period for the show 00-03; they just wanted to tear it down and it was newsworthy. It doesnt really interest people now.
Phew
I don't really see that - because far fewer people will remember this "Sharon" than the one of Sharongate or her 01 return, or Den's death. Her legacy will be that because that was when more people were interested and more people watched.
If EE recovers (starts having great s/l, interests ppl, increases ratings) and Sharon remains immune to this and is still writen poorly, then yes, I'd agree. But if the show recovers I'd hope it is because of good writing and production, which should affect Sharon for the better.
If the show continues to sink then fewer and fewer people will watch, and when people say "Sharon Watts'" hardly anyone will remember her final stint.
I'm not a huge fan of EE, saw the end of it tonight, haven't watched it in a while. Could somebody tell me... Why or how is Jack marrying Sharon if he is already married to Ronnie and why didn't anyone tell Sharon he was married? Where is Ronnie anyway?
Ronnie got sentenced to 3 years for swapping her dead baby with Kat/Alfie's. She is being released soon, so I guess that she's not serving the full 3 years.
I thought Ronnie filed for divorce a couple of years ago?