[Filiman]

Originally Posted by MarcoRossi

But she isn't the odd one out. I fully agree, Sharon's return has been shoved in our faces over and over again over the last couple of years, will she wont she...while all along we all knew she would return eventually, because lets face it, it's not like she's achieved miracles since being off EE (oh there was that failed fitness DVD and a semi-OK theatre performance).

I am not looking forward to 100s of upcoming episodes being Sharon centered, in the same way I didn't look forward to loads of them being Alfie+kat centered when they returned few years back. She'll be sticking her fingers into every pie and just generally being her same old same old arrogant pompous self. I bet she's never read a book in her entire life. Oh and that awful pout...

Fact: Sharon is a huge character, one of EE most important, involved in arguably its greatest ever storyline, which brought ratings that only her parents divorce beat. As a newspaper article said, she is one of the biggest faces in british soapdom.

Fact: she is immensely popular

Given the above, how can you NOT expect people to make a big deal and be excited???

I honestly don't get it. How can you expect there not to be hype.

I HATE and LOATHE Grant Mitchell, but if his return were announced I'd expect there to be hype and loads of threads about it.... and I wouldn't bother coming in to threads moaning about said hype.

If this were Billy Mitchell returning or kelvin Carpenter or something, then yes, I can see an arguement for "why the hype", but it is one of EE biggest characters.

All I see is your personal dislike for the character. Great; fine. But that is not a reasonable basis to object to the hype/attention that surrounds her... "because I don't like her".

I don't like half the characters in EE atm, but I'm not going to go into every thread and say how character X is bland, and character y acts like he is in a panto.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by vald

I consider this to be about Shirley above all, yes it's about Phil, Ben and Jay as well but they already know what happened and besides none of them were as close to Heather as Shirley was, and nor was Andrew.

The reveal is going to break her heart. I've loved watching Shirley since the murder happened, I liked her before but this s/l is her best yet.

That's fine, but I don't think the writers share your view.

[MarcoRossi]

Originally Posted by AngelicPrincess

Letitia has done numerous theatre shows. So no idea where you got 1 from and I am not including panto, I went to 2 different performances and she was very good. Even the Daily Mail which hates EE and its actors said she was winning rave reviews for her theatre. People assume just because someone does not do television they have failed. But the same old haters and I disagree with filiman there is about 5 of them are in the minority.
On this very forum she was voted the best character ever, she has had more duff duffs than any female on the show and she was also voted both in Inside Soap and DS as the character they most wanted to return. In media outlet another she came 2nd to Grant.
You have every right not to like her, but like it or not she is very important and is one of the most important females ever. Sharon is Eastenders.

BIB: so if this is what you truly believe, a logical conclusion would be that you didn't bother watching EE over the last 5-6 years since her departure?

As for her theatre performances, I've seen her too, she has only appeared in two proper plays in the last 6 years and she didn't have a major role in neither. Emma Thompson or Helen Mirren count as good actresses, not Laetitia bloomin Dean! IMO obviously.

[Guido9]

It'll be nice to see her back after 6 and a half years absence when her second (or third?) stint came to an end, which was after Dennis Rickman was sadly killed off and the aftermath of Den mark two's death. Actually I can't help feeling that she'll take a shine to Joey Branning as something of a "toyboy" lookie-like replacement for Dennis - as he is basically a younger version of Dennis as others have remarked on this forum already!

[MarcoRossi]

Originally Posted by Filiman

Fact: Sharon is a huge character, one of EE most important, involved in arguably its greatest ever storyline, which brought ratings that only her parents divorce beat. As a newspaper article said, she is one of the biggest faces in british soapdom.

Fact: she is immensely popular

Given the above, how can you NOT expect people to make a big deal and be excited???

I honestly don't get it. How can you expect there not to be hype.

I HATE and LOATHE Grant Mitchell, but if his return were announced I'd expect there to be hype and loads of threads about it.... and I wouldn't bother coming in to threads moaning about said hype.

If this were Billy Mitchell returning or kelvin Carpenter or something, then yes, I can see an arguement for "why the hype", but it is one of EE biggest characters.

All I see is your personal dislike for the character. Great; fine. But that is not a reasonable basis to object to the hype/attention that surrounds her... "because I don't like her".

I don't like half the characters in EE atm, but I'm not going to go into every thread and say how character X is bland, and character y acts like he is in a panto.

I wont deny it, I don't like the character, never have done and have bene watching EE for yonks. And I do understand the hype and I also understand that historically she has always been a big part of EE. But I don't understand why everyone is banging on about her as if she's the best thing since sliced bread and as if she's the best actress in the world. She is a soap actor, these people mix playing themselves with a bit of what they've learnt along the way. They are NOT world class actors.

[AngelicPrincess]

Originally Posted by MarcoRossi

BIB: so if this is what you truly believe, a logical conclusion would be that you didn't bother watching EE over the last 5-6 years since her departure?

As for her theatre performances, I've seen her too, she has only appeared in two proper plays in the last 6 years and she didn't have a major role in neither. Emma Thompson or Helen Mirren count as good actresses, not Laetitia bloomin Dean! IMO obviously.

It is Letitia. Sorry just so many for whatever reason do not spell her name right. So it was just a note to others.
Well I have no idea why she got such rave reviews considering she was such a minor character. I have seen her in various plays, probably my favourite was not in her last "break" but I did love her in rattle of a simple man which in my view was her best performance to date.

Course I watch when she is not on the show. I have seen every single episode. I like other characters but just like characters I do not enjoy so much I can see their importance. Take Bianca she is very important to the show. Like Filiman I am not a huge fan but I can neither deny her importance or popularity. And unlike PP she has always been gracious when talking about the show and unlike others she is known to be someone who gets on well backstage. A few of the others could learn from that work ethic.

But Sharon has had more duff duffs than any other female and actually if you take into account the ratio of episodes compared to the 2 who have more (Ian and Phil) she has the most. I do not midn you not liking her but lke I can admit other characters are not important, I would say surely those stats speak for themselves.
Or that she is not popular when she has been voted best character ever or most wanted returnee. Now I am not too bothered about popularity I have never needed someone else to tell me what to like.

I am not going to compare her to hollywood, she is not hollywood. This is Eastenders not a blockbuster a listers film. I personally do not rate Helen Mirren but thats another issue. Of course she is not oscar winning material, but I do believe she acts like a professional and does a good performance I have invested in. I did love the fact for example she scratched her face for real at the graveside.

I do not mind the same old haters because I do believe everyone is entitled to their own views. But I am sure you can no deny someone even if you dislike them is not important or popular. Or if anyone wants to start a thread about Sharon it descends into the haters saying the same thing and for some reason Shirley has to be brought into it. I am not really meaning you at this last point. I have seen haters who hate for no other reason by they googled her without seeing a episode or because she is not baywatch material. But EE since the start has been about real looking people not models. LG is not actually that attractive but he was written as charming in the 80s. Had women throwing themselves at him back then and along with Anita Dobson was the 2nd most photographed person in the UK behind Princess Diana.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by MarcoRossi

I wont deny it, I don't like the character, never have done and have bene watching EE for yonks. And I do understand the hype and I also understand that historically she has always been a big part of EE. But I don't understand why everyone is banging on about her as if she's the best thing since sliced bread and as if she's the best actress in the world. She is a soap actor, these people mix playing themselves with a bit of what they've learnt along the way. They are NOT world class actors.

Meh; I've never said LD was a fabulous actress. IMO she plays Sharon well, and is as good as most on the show, and occasionally, such as at Dennis grave, puts in what I would call a tremendous performance, but I would not call her a tremendous actress. She is not in the category of Anita Dobson, Lindsay Coulson (who is a bit limited) or Tracy Ann Oberman and Ann Mitchell who are from the RSC.

But she does what she does well.

And I don't think anyone has every said she is the best thing since sliced bread. Please direct me to a post that says that.

There have been problems with Sharon, not least her over-reliance on male characters in 03-04; what you are getting though is a lot of excitement which I think is perfectly acceptable.

Look at it from my POV. Sharon is one of my favourite characters; combine this with the fact that I HATE how we basically have EE version 2.0; after what Yorke and Harwood did to the show; so to have not only one of my all time favourite characters back, but also one that has a HUGE amount of history with the show (which is sorely lacks), it would be very odd not to be excited.

And I dare say alot of people feel exactly the same way.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by MarcoRossi

BIB: so if this is what you truly believe, a logical conclusion would be that you didn't bother watching EE over the last 5-6 years since her departure?

As for her theatre performances, I've seen her too, she has only appeared in two proper plays in the last 6 years and she didn't have a major role in neither. Emma Thompson or Helen Mirren count as good actresses, not Laetitia bloomin Dean! IMO obviously.

Well tbh, I have struggled VERY much to like EE over the last 6 years. Not just because there has been no Sharon (alothugh I didn't really like the show in the late 90s either and there was no sharon); but because there has been no continuity with its` past.

But Steve McFadden even said himself that when Sharon is in EE, EE is at its best. Even others directly involved in the show recognise that she is intimately connected to it. She embodies it more than pretty much any other character.

[Filiman]

There is also a difference between you, Marco, and a lot of the other Sharon haters.... (well when I say alot, I mean the 3 or 4 other ones)

At least you explain your reasons, and I respect you for doing so even if I disagree with the rationale.

Most of the other hates just pop in with a "She's crap"; "She's a bad actress and has never had a job outside of EE"; "She's over-rated without Mitchelle" (wth does that last one mean anyway???)

So fair dues.

[MarcoRossi]

Originally Posted by AngelicPrincess

It is Letitia. Sorry just so many for whatever reason do not spell her name right. So it was just a note to others.
Well I have no idea why she got such rave reviews considering she was such a minor character. I have seen her in various plays, probably my favourite was not in her last "break" but I did love her in rattle of a simple man which in my view was her best performance to date.

Course I watch when she is not on the show. I have seen every single episode. I like other characters but just like characters I do not enjoy so much I can see their importance. Take Bianca she is very important to the show. Like Filiman I am not a huge fan but I can neither deny her importance or popularity. And unlike PP she has always been gracious when talking about the show and unlike others she is known to be someone who gets on well backstage. A few of the others could learn from that work ethic.

But Sharon has had more duff duffs than any other female and actually if you take into account the ratio of episodes compared to the 2 who have more (Ian and Phil) she has the most. I do not midn you not liking her but lke I can admit other characters are not important, I would say surely those stats speak for themselves.
Or that she is not popular when she has been voted best character ever or most wanted returnee. Now I am not too bothered about popularity I have never needed someone else to tell me what to like.

I am not going to compare her to hollywood, she is not hollywood. This is Eastenders not a blockbuster a listers film. I personally do not rate Helen Mirren but thats another issue. Of course she is not oscar winning material, but I do believe she acts like a professional and does a good performance I have invested in. I did love the fact for example she scratched her face for real at the graveside.

I do not mind the same old haters because I do believe everyone is entitled to their own views. But I am sure you can no deny someone even if you dislike them is not important or popular. Or if anyone wants to start a thread about Sharon it descends into the haters saying the same thing and for some reason Shirley has to be brought into it. I am not really meaning you at this last point. I have seen haters who hate for no other reason by they googled her without seeing a episode or because she is not baywatch material. But EE since the start has been about real looking people not models. LG is not actually that attractive but he was written as charming in the 80s. Had women throwing themselves at him back then and along with Anita Dobson was the 2nd most photographed person in the UK behind Princess Diana.

BIB: I've never denied her popularity. I appreciate that Sharon has been involved in some pretty big story lines and this fact alone assumes plenty of duf duffs etc and she has long history in EE which is not to be acknowldged, and there were times when I did enjoy her character and her acting. But overall, I find her overhyped; people talk of her as this independent strong woman, but I find her everything but; she has always been desperate and relied on having a bloke in her life, and more often than not these blokes gave her stuff, which she then portrayed as her independence.
And she's not alone in this, Janine is one of my all time favourite characters yet she is also one of the laziest, that didn't get anything in life through sheer hard work. But Janine doesn't sit on her high horse and feel herself morally above others.

Anyway, I'm not going to poop up this pro Sharon thread any more, I appreciate I am in minority here so I'll just have to accept that

Originally Posted by Filiman

Meh; I've never said LD was a fabulous actress. IMO she plays Sharon well, and is as good as most on the show, and occasionally, such as at Dennis grave, puts in what I would call a tremendous performance, but I would not call her a tremendous actress. She is not in the category of Anita Dobson, Lindsay Coulson (who is a bit limited) or Tracy Ann Oberman and Ann Mitchell who are from the RSC.

But she does what she does well.

And I don't think anyone has every said she is the best thing since sliced bread. Please direct me to a post that says that.

There have been problems with Sharon, not least her over-reliance on male characters in 03-04; what you are getting though is a lot of excitement which I think is perfectly acceptable.

Look at it from my POV. Sharon is one of my favourite characters; combine this with the fact that I HATE how we basically have EE version 2.0; after what Yorke and Harwood did to the show; so to have not only one of my all time favourite characters back, but also one that has a HUGE amount of history with the show (which is sorely lacks), it would be very odd not to be excited.

And I dare say alot of people feel exactly the same way.

BIB: I never claimed someone stated those exact words, it was more a manner of speech to reflect the way Sharon is talked about on this forum.

[MarcoRossi]

Originally Posted by Filiman

There is also a difference between you, Marco, and a lot of the other Sharon haters.... (well when I say alot, I mean the 3 or 4 other ones)

At least you explain your reasons, and I respect you for doing so even if I disagree with the rationale.

Most of the other hates just pop in with a "She's crap"; "She's a bad actress and has never had a job outside of EE"; "She's over-rated without Mitchelle" (wth does that last one mean anyway???)

So fair dues.

cheers

I will add that one thing about Sharon's return that I am looking forward to, and that' s the fact that she is one of the few female characters that doesn't shout out every single word she utters, such as Kat, Bianca, Zainab, all the teenage chavs and many more.

[tenchgirl]

Originally Posted by Filiman

no sharon); but because there has been no continuity with its` past.

Now that I agree with Fil - also what's your take on the current state of the Beale Clan - I for one am not impressed with the decimation as for me the likes of Sharon & Ian are my links back to what I think were the best days.

P.s Its not that I don't like Sharon its just the Hype that goes with a return mostly on here actually, I just hope they don't destroy her character with shoddy storylines as has happened to other characters recently.

[AngelicPrincess]

Originally Posted by MarcoRossi

cheers

I will add that one thing about Sharon's return that I am looking forward to, and that' s the fact that she is one of the few female characters that doesn't shout out every single word she utters, such as Kat, Bianca, Zainab, all the teenage chavs and many more.

Can I just say I agree with Filiman. I actually enjoy a good debate when there is something to debate about. Its something I love to do at home with my husband so its never personal.
I am worried about how she will get on initally I am certain some Branning brother probably Jack will play some part until the Ben reveal and in that meantime it will be hard for me since I have never hidden my hatred for Jack. But he has been better since Ronnie left. I thought Ronnie was a better character but Jack sucked the life out of her and he was terrible alongside her. I loved Ronnie but not Rack and I hated Jack in this period. So I hope he doesnt start his vampire action on Sharon.

[tenchgirl]

Now you've said that he probably will, and thinking about it they would probably be well suited for a while. I mean when you think back how many said Ronnie was a poor replacement for Sharon.

[AngelicPrincess]

Originally Posted by tenchgirl

Now you've said that he probably will, and thinking about it they would probably be well suited for a while. I mean when you think back how many said Ronnie was a poor replacement for Sharon.

Oh I am sure it will be short term. Which I can just about handle. Sharon wont get with Phil straight away but after the Ben reveal I can see it heading that way. I know Steve McFadden wants them together. So many characters have a backstory of decades but its offscreen we saw them have chemistry onscreen for decades she works so well with the likes of McFadden and Kemp. I believe she will be his redemption after Ben he wll start to be a father figure to her son. He did offer to play the dad to him after Dennis died. And once they are all settled, happy, the boy finally has a father figure and he has bonded with that boy. Then the truth will come out about Dennis.

[enderforever07]

not forgetting the sharongate which saw ratings go high


Apparently some soap magazines are claiming there is going to be a number 2 with Phil&Ian..

I hope not, i hate things that get repeated a few years later...

[AngelicPrincess]

Originally Posted by enderforever07

not forgetting the sharongate which saw ratings go high


Apparently some soap magazines are claiming there is going to be a number 2 with Phil&Ian..

I hope not, i hate things that get repeated a few years later...

The most unreliable mag which claimed Sharon had Grants secret baby. It was put on the front so people would buy it only to speculate it their own minds. Inside Soap is usually your best bet for reliable spoilers in magazines but even they have been dodgy. They and it is a prediction, predict Jack and I in this case think they are dead on.

[tands]

Originally Posted by Filiman

There is an expectation on the part of some that it should be Shirley's storyline, but quite clearly it isn't.

Meh; triple-a grade sums it up; she's in the top category; I can't see a higher grade than the one she is in and shares with den, angie, phil, etc. can't get higher.

That's interesting as I clearly feel that this is very much Shirley's storyline and that this 'b grade' actor is doing it justice; perhaps the writers feel otherwise. If it isn't Shirley's storyline then I'm not quite sure how it could ever be Sharon's.

I do agree that Sharon is a large part of Eastenders past, so I'll be trying to keep an open mind on her return.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by tenchgirl

Now that I agree with Fil - also what's your take on the current state of the Beale Clan - I for one am not impressed with the decimation as for me the likes of Sharon & Ian are my links back to what I think were the best days.

P.s Its not that I don't like Sharon its just the Hype that goes with a return mostly on here actually, I just hope they don't destroy her character with shoddy storylines as has happened to other characters recently.

Fair enough - hype is always annoying. But what I would take away from the hype regarding Sharon is that it is a good sign that her return will bring viewers back. It would be far worse in many ways had her return not generated any buzz and it would pretty much mean that any former fans, and those fans hanging on, are done with EE.

I also am concerned about the storylines. In contrast to a few years ago when I was very adamant that should Sharon come back it should only be for proper quality storylines; I am now far more resigned to the fact that her characterisation will probably not be as good as I would wish it, and the storylines not as well written. This is probably because, if I am being tremendously honest, Sharon is EE last chance for me. They have made such a dreadful mess of their continuity (the problem with the Beales being a part of that), that I really feel far less attachment to the show than ever before. Sharon brings so much history that it is like a huge shot of adrenaline in the arm for someone like me who wants continuity, not a drama that re-invents itself every 6 odd years.

RE the Beales. It is a very sad state of affairs. But I do not blame BK SOLELY for it. Santer is just as much responsible, if not more so imo. It was under him that the whole pairing with jane began to unwind, which was silly. jane was perfect for Ian. It was also under him that the character of Stephen was wrecked, which to this day annoys me because he is at just the right age to have led a new Beale vanguard.

What BK inherited was a mess already. I can see why Jane was jetisoned, though I personally would';ve tried to save that. I also agreed with recasting Lucy as the previous actress was only good at being "bitchy" and they need to flesh out Lucy's character if she is to survive. Otherwise, by 21 she will be washed out. Peter leaving was unfortunate, but if the actor did decide to leave there was nothing that could be done. If BK axed him, when that was stupid.

I hope that a Beale relative is introduced.... but the long-lost relative thing has been done to death that I don't know if that can save the family really. It would be like a Beale family in name but not spirit. The problem with the Mitchells gen2 and the Brannings gen 2 is that it was so contrived. These relatives that the existing families had barely mentioned suddenly all come to live together as though they have known each other for ages. In contrast, the Watts second generation made no attempt to hide the fact that that Dennis and Chrissie were foreign and "new", and that was part of the dynamic.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by tands

That's interesting as I clearly feel that this is very much Shirley's storyline and that this 'b grade' actor is doing it justice; perhaps the writers feel otherwise. If it isn't Shirley's storyline then I'm not quite sure how it could ever be Sharon's.

I do agree that Sharon is a large part of Eastenders past, so I'll be trying to keep an open mind on her return.

B-grade character, NOT actress. Never said Henry was a poor actress. Ever.

Nor did I say that it was Sharon's. What I am saying is that IF, and I stress IF, Sharon becomes involved it would not surprise me.

I DON"T want Sharon involved. I don't really like the storyline tbh; but I'm afraid that the writers will get carried away with Sharon. As I have said elsehwere, she is a character a tv writers LOVES to write for.

Why? Because so much of her history is on-screen and she is so iconic. All those new writers, who have only been working on EE for a few years, are going to be dying for the chance to write for her because they will see it as their chance to have a crack at an EE legend. It will be the same feeling that had when they first started working and got to write phil or something. Only now, you will have them ALL feeling that way and all wanting to do it, not just the new one. So she will be crammed in like there is no tomorrow with every writer wanting a piece. The inevitable outcome will be Sharon probably becoming a part of storylines that she doesn't necessaarily have to be a part of.

The problem then is that she is not a "small" character. This is not an insult, but some characters are "small" in scope - these are often (though not always) the better realised characters. You can insert Shirley into a storyline, for instance, and her engagement can be fairly self-contained. That is, she is supporting. It is difficult to insert Sharon into a storyline in a supporting role.

That is NOT Shron's fault. it is the writing. In the 90s, Sharon had plenty of supporting roles. But writers don't write the way they used to. They cannot write her as a supporting figure because they all want to be part of the big-iconic legend. The same way as they don't write Phil in as a support. When was the last time Phil had a supporting role?

Anyway; it is a snowballing effect. It will never become Sharon's storyline; she has come to late into it, but I can easily see her coming to dominate it, as the writers use her involvement to highlight Phil's entanglement, blah, blah, blah.

[tands]

Originally Posted by Filiman

B-grade character, NOT actress. Never said Henry was a poor actress. Ever.

Nor did I say that it was Sharon's. What I am saying is that IF, and I stress IF, Sharon becomes involved it would not surprise me.

I DON"T want Sharon involved. I don't really like the storyline tbh; but I'm afraid that the writers will get carried away with Sharon. As I have said elsehwere, she is a character a tv writers LOVES to write for.

Why? Because so much of her history is on-screen and she is so iconic. All those new writers, who have only been working on EE for a few years, are going to be dying for the chance to write for her because they will see it as their chance to have a crack at an EE legend. It will be the same feeling that had when they first started working and got to write phil or something. Only now, you will have them ALL feeling that way and all wanting to do it, not just the new one. So she will be crammed in like there is no tomorrow with every writer wanting a piece. The inevitable outcome will be Sharon probably becoming a part of storylines that she doesn't necessaarily have to be a part of.

The problem then is that she is not a "small" character. This is not an insult, but some characters are "small" in scope - these are often (though not always) the better realised characters. You can insert Shirley into a storyline, for instance, and her engagement can be fairly self-contained. That is, she is supporting. It is difficult to insert Sharon into a storyline in a supporting role.

That is NOT Shron's fault. it is the writing. In the 90s, Sharon had plenty of supporting roles. But writers don't write the way they used to. They cannot write her as a supporting figure because they all want to be part of the big-iconic legend. The same way as they don't write Phil in as a support. When was the last time Phil had a supporting role?

Anyway; it is a snowballing effect. It will never become Sharon's storyline; she has come to late into it, but I can easily see her coming to dominate it, as the writers use her involvement to highlight Phil's entanglement, blah, blah, blah.

Ah, I'm glad we agree that Linda Henry is far from a poor actor, Filiman. I really do enjoy your enthusiasm for this subject!

[PrincessPerfect]

I agree with Filiman, that if Sharon does take centre-stage in the aftermath of Heather's murder, it'll be largely down to the fact that Sharon is far more synonymous with EastEnders and its history than Shirley is. Shirley, is a fairly new character, who although showed much promise in the earlier period of her stint (2006 - 2008) her characterisation was let-down by her association with Phil. Shirl, was billed to us as tough as old boots, yet overnight became a doormat to Phil, plying him with alcohol just to get him to find her attractive enough to sleep with, and even sticking by him despite various signs he doesn't love her.

I've never seen a girlfriend of Phil's show so much concern over exes that aren't even on the square, as Shirl does over Kathy and Sharon especially. There's a difference between an enduring insecurity, to a plain old doormat who takes out the bitterness of her own life and how it's ended up on everyone, not least her long suffering best friend Heather. Still, after this if TPTB put the effort in, Shirl has the makings to become an evolved matriarch, to learn from her past and become a wiser and warmer person. We saw glimpses of a warmer Shirl on Monday, and Linda Henry can exude that warmth well; it comes off far better than the idle threats Shirl throws about from time to time.

Getting back to Sharon, I personally don't want her to take centre-stage in Heather's murder aftermath; mainly because it'll be rather contrived, and Shirley, as someone who actually knew Heather, should be more involved. I don't actually think we've seen Phil's plight, or indeed Ben's that much; indeed what goes on in Ben's mind is a subject of mystery; we only see a surface regarding Ben. Phil has disappeared for days on end, and we only really saw his true struggle back in March. If anyone struggle has been depicted it has been Jay's most consistently.

The audience has also been brought back to Shirl's grieving in a far more intense manner, than for Phil, so I don't agree with views expressed that Phil, and Ben's POVs have been depicted more so, than Shirl's. Realistically, I can only see Sharon getting into first gear, in regard to her relationship with Phil, once Phil and Shirl have ended; which whether anyone likes it or not, is inevitable for Shirley to retain a modicum of credibility, especially if anyone reads the spoilers. Sharon will be the only person there for Phil, at time when it's highly likely he'll be alienated in Walford once the killer secret is revealed, ala back in 2001, after Who Shot Phil? I agree with the view that Phil's involvement in Dennis' death will only come out, at the worst time possible.

Although, I don't know about Phil being a father figure to Dennis Jr. Phil has go through his own reflection regarding the mistakes he made with Ben, and his own life in general before he starts taking care, of what is in effect someone else's kid, regardless of whether Dennis is dead. It, in a way is like Phil's guardianship over Jay; because Phil treated Jase like shite, yet his is playing daddy to his son. The last thing Dennis would have wanted, I suspect is Phil daddying his son, in the same way Jase is probably turning in his grave now especially in light of recent events.

If we were dealing with writers twenty years ago, I doubt Sharon's coming back storyline would be some heavily contrived damsel-in-distress storyline, and the possibility of her being inserted as some big figure into The Murder, over other crucial characters; however we aren't dealing with the calibre of writers of yesteryear. We are dealing with people desperate in hope Sharon's return will bring the ratings back up to where they were on average in January 2010, so will make it the Sharon show as much as possible; although in the process Sharon better not be contrived.

She's an iconic character, Den and Angie's daughter, the former partner of both Mitchell brothers, etc. You mess with Sharon, you in effect mess with EastEnders itself, in the same way messing with Phil, or Ian or Dot would qualify as that. They're the only long-termers stretching back to 'golden days' of the show. Still, Sharon's return deserves to be hyped, and I look forward to it. The show is in desperate need of some familiarity; and Sharon is it. We need a strong woman in the show; and Sharon is it; not Tanya, not any of the teens, and certainly not Kat, but Sharon. Even what Martin Kemp called, ''the star of the show'' the Queen Vic, is not what she used to be; destroyed in the Queen Vic Fire, and never recovered to her former glory, due to Kat and Alfie taking over the place; there is no dynamic in that place at all, with their misery all over. The Mitchells, aren't in a fit state to take it over at the moment, with many due to depart the clan; they need initial re-strengthening (Peggy) and re-generating; with actual blood Mitchells. I'd like Sharon to run the Vic now, temporarily, although it's as unrealistic as Roxy being the bar right now is, and Ronnie Mitchell returning. In the near future, I'd like Shirl to own the Vic, but that's later.

As for the Beales, they don't need to be a massive clan to be strong. The Mitchells were perfectly strong and dominate as a four person family, initially in the 90s. The Watts’, were also strong as a three-person family (unless you include also Roly, as that makes it four). The Beales can return to prominence with Ian, Lucy, and re-casting of Peter Beale, and Bobby. And as Stephen didn't kill anyone, he can return to shake things up a bit. Janine as done all hell; been a working girl, tried to scam several husbands; Barry, the Jewish guy etc, attempted to kill Ryan, kidnapped baby Lily, and look at her now, lots of people find her a compelling, interesting character - some may argue she's already iconic. However, the Fowlers are dead in the water, and so are the Slaters.