This this this this this.

Agree. As soon as you question the source of information they ignore you and pretend they can't see the post.

They like to think someone such as Letitia Dean is fuming backstage and giving the producers a piece of her mind. That she's as upset as they are.

When the reality, although she'd be well in her right to be disappointed with the writing, is that she probably goes into work enjoys working with the people, banks her cheque and happily goes home with the money.

Yeah but Sharon Watts is a much bigger character than Peggy Mitchell, so surely it would make more sense to sacrifice Peggy for Sharon?

As for OP: Great post, completely agree. Writing isn't great anyway but it is definitely to do with her characterisation and i can see a story coming up involving Denny's misdeeds that would break Sharon's heart. Plus she is raising Denny the same way Den and Angie raised her (as a spoiled brat) so it shows continuity; its learned behaviour.

Disagree, she is pretty well known, particularly for Sharongate and being Den and Angie's spoiled brat of a daughter. She received so much focus during that story and she really came into her own then. Sharon is very well known (hence the Miss Piggy comments) and an impressionist recently did one of her on Britain's Got Talent (she only did impressions of people/characters of whom people were familiar with).

Add to that list Ian, Pauline, Mitchell brothers and Kalfie

Sharon may be a more iconic character to some of us (and more deserving of such a title in my opinion) but Peggy is more iconic to the general public due to being played by Barbara Windsor and having all those catchphrases. People are shallow like that.

As for Letitia criticising Sharon's direction, she made the comments in an interview with Inside Soap magazine. Many people read the issue and have confirmed it. There was a thread a few weeks ago where this was argued back and forth. Please feel free to do the same once again but don't expect me to jump into it a second time.

Another day another Sharon thread with words like "icon" and "disgrace" being bandied as if it or she matters. She hasn't worked – get rid. Simples.

I remember that thread and I do remember the DS article that implied her unhappiness- which is very out of character for LD so it must be serious

Its not that she hasn't worked, its more that she is in the process of working. As pointed out above, its deliberate writing as its giving Sharon a new direction

Maybe... time will tell. However nothing Dean has done since her return has touched the emotion of Jessie Wallace's Kat when Alfie put his arm around her tonight. There just isnt the depth of characterisation there.

I hope that Sharon and Ronnie become friends eventually... Afterall they do have similarities:

Their fathers were both murdered in the Queen Vic
They both have been with Jack Branning

It would make great TV is there was a two-hander with Ronnie and Sharon. Sharon tells Ronnie her ex-husband and father were both murdered. Ronnie asks her what happened and Sharon says Dennis died outside of the pub and Den was killed inside and buried in the cellar. Ronnie then tells her that Archie was murdered in the Vic too... I hope this is remembered as it would be a huge miss if the writers overlooked this! (NOTE EE). Would be nice for them to rekindle this odd 'feud' with each other and become friends.

A few holes do have to be filled, they should explain some of her characterisation which they probably will do

I am confident that Sharon will be around for the 30th anniversary of EE.

You didn't take the "tear script up" literally did you?

It's a figure of speech, it just means she can improvise more because she's so familiar with the character, add things in, change a line around. As actors it's their job to contribute in some ways to the creation of characters, they're not going to be told off for it.

Adam Woodyatt sometimes says he changes some of Ian's lines.

It makes sense when you have relatively new writers writing for a character the actor has played for nearly 30 years, the actor will understand the character more.

No need to roll your eyes. I wasn't under the impression she literally tore her script up. My point is she wasn't happy with the material so changed it.

Nothing suggested she wasn't happy with it. Perry Fenwick just mentioned she likes to add her own spin to things, a line here and there, or some other element. Part of an actor's job along with the director.

Everything here suggests she wasn't happy with the script.

She improvised in her scenes, not uncommon. As I said when they've been playing characters so long, its natural.

Adam Woodyatt says he does it, doesnt automatically reflect on the writing.

Mountain out of a molehill.

Exactly. She is probably more interested in her paycheck than anything else.

I agree with you Auntie Soap. I don't think she's an icon in the way Barbara Windsor / Peggy is. As for saying her storylines are a "disgrace" I think posters need to realise things have moved on. It's true that she hasn't worked and it's time for her to be got rid of.

She didn't just improvise her lines. She asked Perry to improvise his too. That's got to be a sizeable chunk of the writing she wasn't happy with.

I think we can both accept the tearing up of the script is hyperbole but the fact remains they changed, in part, the script they were given. Where's the mountain?

Yeah, they'd make good friends once Sharon recovers

Not necessarily. The writers are the professionals after all. Any new writer could write older characters very well if they study the character

I actually liked the sound of the story - on paper.

On screen, it was awful. Absolutely awful.

It's a shame none of them appear to be working on Eastenders.

Yes, they could. But judging by the last 2-3 years none of the writers working on the show are studying the characters.

Either way, the actors would know far more than the writer's given they've played the character for decades.