Is this statement really true? Its been said a lot that soap producers would get rid of any character if they wanted to, that no character is bigger than the show I think in the case of some characters they do become bigger than the show, or at least they become so big that theres no way they would be axed. I can't imagine Prisoner would have got rid of Joan Ferguson in a hurry or Dallas JR Ewing. Corrie would never have axed Hilda or Brookie Jimmy Corkhill. I don't think EastEnders would have got rid of Dirty Den (original run, something did go wrong on that second run) or Grant Mitchell. Sometimes a character does become so big that people are tuning in to watch that character and that character becomes the centre of the show.

What sensible soap producer would wish to get rid of that character!

a character can be big and central but not as big as the show, imo

There are some characters immune from getting axed, and those characters might get some special treatment [June Brown and Patsy Palmer come to mind] but I don't think there's any character so big that the show would never be the same again if they left.

All the soaps have lost key or long serving characters yet all the soaps still remain, Brookie for example being axed had nothing to do with losing characters but more because of the bonker storylines and C4's treatment of the show. I remember when Martin Kemp left EE he was asked about how his exit would effect the show and he replied saying Eastenders can survive the loss of any character apart from one...The Queen Vic!

I think that's true. It's the same with football teams. You have players that are invaluable and represent the ethos of the club, are fan favourites and repeatedly produce quality. They may pull the team to victory on a number of occasions and constantly be man-of-the-match.

However, good they are though, they didn't do it alone. The team was there before them and will be there after them.

Exactly, its the fans that make a football club and its the same with the soaps.

The biggest lie ever told.

Some characters ARE bigger than their respective shows. J.R. Ewing is the perfect example. Dallas (the original series) wouldn't have survived without him.

A great way to prove ''No character is bigger than the show'' is a crock of shit is to take the example of EastEnders. They've killed off or ruined practically all of their big name characters and now it's crawling towards its slow, painful death. The BBC considered axing EastEnders following the departures of Den and Angie in the late 80's so there's even more proof that some characters are bigger than the show. Would EastEnders have survived without the introduction of the Mitchells? I'm not so sure.

I think some are as big as the show, ie Soap icons such as Pauline fowler, Peggy, Pat, Dot, Ian and before this last stint, Sharon.

Wendy Richard was a big success before EE, same with Barbra Windsor who's "fammmmilly...get outta my pub!!!" is a huge part of british catchphrase culture, as much as pat's earrings and Dot's "im not one to gossip" as she lights up a cigarette. Ian has been with the show so long I doubt they'd ever axe him

Say if EastEnders axed all the good actors and kept the the deadwoods, the show will go straight down hill,

Usually, no

But that's not ONE character is it, which is how the saying goes.

There are some characters who are untouchable in all shows- but being untouchable is not being bigger than the show.

William Roache / Ken Barlow was untouchable (possibly a bad turn of phrase), in that no one would ever axe him, but the show will and is surviving without him...

I think each soap in the past or present has had at least one character who really was bigger than the show itself at some point... Corrie and Eastenders have both had quite a few characters that left a massive void after they left. Corrie had Richard Hillman, Hilda Ogden and Bet Lynch, all of whom caused the show to seriously reshift the character balances after they left due to the hole that needed filling. Becky McDonald is also arguable given how heavily she featured during her final two years.

EastEnders has tons. I think it's clear at the moment that the show never really got over the departure of Ronnie Mitchell. Kat and Alfie (first time), Peggy and Stacey also left very big holes in the show when they left. I also believe that as much as I hate the character (to be fair, I now hate the show and have stopped watching regularly), Phil Mitchell is one of the very few characters carrying the show at the moment and it would collapse without him.

If any show axed all their good characters and were left with Deadwood then it wouldn't survive, it's not exclusive to EE.

The thread is about No One character being bigger than the show anyway which is true.

The only time I've genuinely thought a character was to big for the show and the show would suffer when the person left is Brendan in hollyoaks. For 2 years he WAS the soap and the show also lost Mitzeee Cheryl and jackie at the same time but its bounced back. It is true, no character is bigger than the show.

We will all be dead before Eastenders will be.

There's characters immune from axing (Ian Beale, Deidre Barlow, Tony Hutchinson, Andy Sudgen come to mind from each of the big shows) but these are just icons, they're not actually bigger than the show itself.

Then you get the characters who aren't really icons (Ronnie Mitchell, Stacey Slater, Tina McIntyre, Nick Tilsley, Debbie Dingle, Chas Dingle, Mercedes McQueen, Theresa McQueen come to mind) who dominate the show and for a brief time are so overrused that they are involved in every story line and the show wouldn't know what to do with themselves for a few days if any of them departed.

So in a sense, many characters have become bigger than the show itself, even when they aren't favored by the viewers. Ronnie Mitchell (her first stint), Stacey Slater, Mercedes McQueen, Debbie Dingle and Tina McIntyre are all recent examples.

I remember reading a quote about Noel Gordon and Crossroads which stated that while no character was bigger than the show Noel Gordon was Crossroads. With EastEnders I'm not sure there was ever one character that was bigger than the show however it seems to me that whatever made EastEnders the show it once was has gone. It's quite sad to watch it now really because while it was never my favourite soap I genuinely feel EastEnders produced some of the best acting, writing and drama in television when it was in it's prime. Julia Smith once said that she hoped they would axe EastEnders before letting into decline into rubbish. I think she'd agree it might be time to put the show out of it's misery.

Very rare but true in some cases. I always felt Bea was bigger than Prisoner: Cell Block H for example. The show still remained strong after her exit but there was always that hole there... a hole which just couldn't be recovered.

I think, sometimes, character(s) can carry a show, especially if it's going through a rough patch. However I am disbeliever of characters being bigger than shows themselves.

Popular characters come and go all the time - Den, Angie, Tiffany, Kat (first exit), Sharon, Dennis, Chrissie, Grant, Stacey - but the show does go on and it does.

I've watched many of my favs go over the years and when that happen(ed), I usually have a period of not watching - especially if there is nothing much to watch - but once quality picks up, I'm back there in front of the box.

It's what producers always say when an extremely popular and important character leaves. They have to say that, of course. I don't think it's always true, though. Some shoes are just too big to fill. The show will continue, but it might be a shadow of its former self.

It's not just soaps either.

The classic series of Doctor Who never recovered from Tom Baker's departure. It thrashed around trying to find a new personality but just never got there and entered terminal decline a few years later. Some say David Tennant has done the same to the new series, but I disagree. There are loads of other non-soap examples - Lost, Life On Mars/Ashes to Ashes, Glee, and 24 all have/had an ensemble cast but with one or two cast members the shows utterly depended on from episode to episode.

There's no reason why that doesn't apply to soaps. It's not uncommon for soaps to find themselves with a "main character" or two if they let it happen - Becky, Karen, Richard, and David all featured as the main character of Corrie at one point.

I'd say that in 2010ish, if Karl, Susan or to a lesser degree Paul had left "Neighbours' it might actually have killed the show, but then it was going through a particularly poor patch at the time.

Stacey Slatter is one of the best characters ever ever ever, whether it's TV or film. She was so much better, complex and more interesting than Ian Beele as well as Diedre Barlow, Tony Hutchinson and Andy Sudgen (who is dull and overused).

Brendan Brady was only in Hollyoaks for 2 and a half years, and I only really started liking him after Lynsey died. I don't think Emmett, or anyone else say that he was bigger than Hollyoaks, as it's been on since 1995 and may it remain on our screens for a few years yet.

I don't think Eastenders will ever go back to being the must not missed..most talked about show on tv that it was in the Den & Angie days...they were true icons and they WERE Eastenders in the beginning.

yes it has had long patches of being ok or even good since then...but has never reached the pinnical like back then.

I don't think that any one character is bigger than any show...but to be fair...some characters always leave an unfillable hole...like Blanche in CS being the most recent I can think of.