• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Soaps
EastEnders: Shirley Carter offers to disown Dean - spoiler pictures
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
Keeki
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by vald:
“BIB 1 She didn't tell Phil, he guessed. even half the viewers didn't work that one out.

BII She shot her mouth off to Ronnie when she was drunk. Yes she threatened to tell Sharon as well but she had nothing to gain from that....he would have hated her for it, and she didn't demand money to keep her mouth shut. Phil was just vindictive by demanding the money back straight away, he knew there was no way she or Mick could get hold of it, and then he threatened her entire family.

Maybe he should have kept his mouth shut about setting those thugs on Sharon...never tell a drunk you're secrets.

BIB 2 No way should she have told Dean that she is Mick's mother before she had told Mick himself.”

1. After he guessed Shirley told him the whole story. All she had to do was keep quiet and Phil would have had nothing on her but a half baked suspicion with nothing to back it up. However she couldn't resist a chance to get closer to him. Shirley knows exactly what Phil is like. She even encouraged this type of behaviour.

2. Shirley has a history of sabotaging other people's relationships out of pure spite and jealousy. She was jealous about the engagement and hurt and furious that Phil wouldn't abandon his injured girlfriend to live boozily ever after with her. Disrupting Phil and Sharon's relationship would have been a satisfying gain.

3. Shirley's no threat to Phil. She's all bark and no bite. She had the chance to implicate him for the cover up of her best friend's murder and still didn't do it. Anyway what Phil told Shirley does not excuse Shirley blabbing and causing problems for her sons.

4. Shirley could have been honest with Mick as soon as Phil threatened to reveal her secret. She could have asked Dean to meet her somewhere more private and told him she was being blackmailed over a personal matter.
vald
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Keeki:
“1. After he guessed Shirley told him the whole story. All she had to do was keep quiet and Phil would have had nothing on her but a half baked suspicion with nothing to back it up. However she couldn't resist a chance to get closer to him. Shirley knows exactly what Phil is like. She even encouraged this type of behaviour.

2. Shirley has a history of sabotaging other people's relationships out of pure spite and jealousy. She was jealous about the engagement and hurt and furious that Phil wouldn't abandon his injured girlfriend to live boozily ever after with her. Disrupting Phil and Sharon's relationship would have been a satisfying gain.

3. Shirley's no threat to Phil. She's all bark and no bite. She had the chance to implicate him for the cover up of her best friend's murder and still didn't do it. Anyway what Phil told Shirley does not excuse Shirley blabbing and causing problems for her sons.

4. Shirley could have been honest with Mick as soon as Phil threatened to reveal her secret. She could have asked Dean to meet her somewhere more private and told him she was being blackmailed over a personal matter.”

1 If Phil hadn't been hanging about the Vic to give his thugs the chance to trash the Albert she wouldn't have and confided in him, he refused to leave until she told him. She then got the wrong message because it appeared that he preferred being with her than going home to his girlfriend and was giving her lingering looks.

2 This is very strange. He's been with Sharon for months and this is the second time they've been engaged, and suddenly she's bothered. Terrible writing. Shirley turned him down at the new year and Sharon was his second choice...now suddenly Shirley's all angst ridden.

4 That would be too sensible for a soap . The writers want the reveal to be a big drama.
Keeki
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by vald:
“1 If Phil hadn't been hanging about the Vic to give his thugs the chance to trash the Albert she wouldn't have and confided in him, he refused to leave until she told him. She then got the wrong message because it appeared that he preferred being with her than going home to his girlfriend and was giving her lingering looks.

2 This is very strange. He's been with Sharon for months and this is the second time they've been engaged, and suddenly she's bothered. Terrible writing. Shirley turned him down at the new year and Sharon was his second choice...now suddenly Shirley's all angst ridden.

4 That would be too sensible for a soap . The writers want the reveal to be a big drama.”

She told Phil because he was there? She could have told him to mind his own business.
vald
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Keeki:
“She told Phil because he was there? She could have told him to mind his own business.”

Where's the drama in that.

I can only think they wanted Phil to have a s/l, he's had nothing in yonks. So they give him a love triangle Ludicrous.
Ell_Ren
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Keeki:
“She told Phil because he was there? She could have told him to mind his own business.”

Initially she did tell him to mind his own business, several times in that episode and episodes before that infact, he took it upon himself to help her prior to him finding out and then he told her he wouldn't leave until she told him the truth, maybe at that point, it would have be nice for her to share it with someone, even Phil!
Surely that's the reasonable explanation here, at that point they were getting along, so why couldn't she confide in him?, he is probably the only person outside of the family to have become privy to that information.

From the reveal episode, up until she explained to Phil, they were on good terms so how would she know that he would threaten to expose her secret? I mean, unless she had read the script or happened upon a copy of inside soap that week.

Phil sending thugs to 'scare' his girlfriend because he wanted more control is far worse imo.

Also on a side note: If she just took Mick aside to tell him, where would the drama of a 'big reveal' be? That would've been boring tbh.
jamesc_715
01-07-2014
I think Phil will tell Mick that Shirley is his mother. Really can't see how Mick will find out the truth if it isn't Phil.
Ell_Ren
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by jamesc_715:
“I think Phil will tell Mick that Shirley is his mother. Really can't see how Mick will find out the truth if it isn't Phil.”

I think Phil will be involved somehow but surely Shirley could just say it was nonsense or just tell threaten to tell Sharon the truth, then again, Phil could just deny that too? Hmm.
Aunt Babe may have a hand the reveal along with Sylvie or Andy? (I'm hoping to see the castings of Sylvie and Andy! )
vald
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“I think Phil will be involved somehow but surely Shirley could just say it was nonsense or just tell threaten to tell Sharon the truth, then again, Phil could just deny that too? Hmm.
Aunt Babe may have a hand the reveal along with Sylvie or Andy? (I'm hoping to see the castings of Sylvie and Andy! )”

I'm hoping it will come from Sylvie, or even Stan (he might already suspect). Anyone but damned Phil. He hardly wanted to know her when she was alone last year, but since she's had her family there he's been hanging around like a bad smell.
Ell_Ren
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by vald:
“I'm hoping it will come from Sylvie, or even Stan (he might already suspect). Anyone but damned Phil. He hardly wanted to know her when she was alone last year, but since she's had her family there he's been hanging around like a bad smell.”

Oh I agree, I can him being a part of the reveal but I hope it isn't him who instigates it. Yep, he has been following Shirley around but she still gets the blame for it on here! Baffling, I tell you, baffling.

I'd like it to come from Sylvie ideally or Babe? I don't really want Stan to already suspect because the drama from the reveal would be much greater if he didn't know and Stan's reaction upon finding out the truth would be immense, however I wouldn't be opposed to him finding out before Mick and trying to keep hush hush.
jamesc_715
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“I think Phil will be involved somehow but surely Shirley could just say it was nonsense or just tell threaten to tell Sharon the truth, then again, Phil could just deny that too? Hmm.
Aunt Babe may have a hand the reveal along with Sylvie or Andy? (I'm hoping to see the castings of Sylvie and Andy! )”

Yes you're right. I guess Phil will be the one who will comfort Shirley when the truth is out. I totally forgot about Sylvie. I think she will make her appearance eventually. Aunt Babe knows about Shirley and Mick. But she needs to come back to the show ASAP. I think the Shirley/Mick reveal will be on Christmas Day and there will be lots of drama! I can see Mick chucking Shirley out of the Vic. Stan will be so disgusted with her and Phil will take pity on her and take her back to his house. If he is still with Sharon at Xmas time, she won't be happy
SULLA
01-07-2014
Why would I be interested in this vile woman.
vald
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by jamesc_715:
“Yes you're right. I guess Phil will be the one who will comfort Shirley when the truth is out. I totally forgot about Sylvie. I think she will make her appearance eventually. Aunt Babe knows about Shirley and Mick. But she needs to come back to the show ASAP. I think the Shirley/Mick reveal will be on Christmas Day and there will be lots of drama! I can see Mick chucking Shirley out of the Vic. Stan will be so disgusted with her and Phil will take pity on her and take her back to his house. If he is still with Sharon at Xmas time, she won't be happy ”

I can't see that. she was a 13 year old, still a child herself when she had Mick. He isn't the sort to condemn her for that. her mum made her keep it secret and she's the one who lied to Stan.
Ell_Ren
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by vald:
“I can't see that. she was a 13 year old, still a child herself when she had Mick. He isn't the sort to condemn her for that. her mum made her keep it secret and she's the one who lied to Stan.”

Agreed.
lola_skye
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Keeki:
“When being a mother gets tough Shirley walks away from her child. Again.”

That's 4 kids now. I wonder if I all comes down to what happen to her eldest?
D.DotA
01-07-2014
Lol at the way the title is worded 'offers to disown her son'!
Marcus_Smith
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by D.DotA:
“Lol at the way the title is worded 'offers to disown her son'!”

ROTFLMAO
Ell_Ren
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by lola_skye:
“That's 4 kids now. I wonder if I all comes down to what happen to her eldest?”

It's interesting how she struggled to be a mum to her own kids but built up a strong motherly bond with Ben and Jay. I'm interested in how they will explain why she left her kids.
big dan
01-07-2014
Don't look a gifthorse in the mouth Deano!
Broken_Arrow
01-07-2014
I'm tired of looking at this miserable old trout. It's clear she was never meant to be a leading character. It wouldn't have taken 7 years for it to happen if anyone ever intended it. Scratch the surface with Shirley and all you get is more poison. She was better in small does propping up other characters and delivering one liners. The character is too unappealing to be at the forefront all the time. The writers made the same mistake with the Brannings.
SULLA
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“I'm tired of looking at this miserable old trout. It's clear she was never meant to be a leading character. It wouldn't have taken 7 years for it to happen if anyone ever intended it. Scratch the surface with Shirley and all you get is more poison. She was better in small does propping up other characters and delivering one liners. The character is too unappealing to be at the forefront all the time. The writers made the same mistake with the Brannings.”

Even better it would be best if we never saw her again.
mintchocchip
01-07-2014
Oh this is tiring, Shirl gets it wrong with him every time. No wonder he seems to be losing it.
Ell_Ren
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Broken_Arrow:
“I'm tired of looking at this miserable old trout. It's clear she was never meant to be a leading character. It wouldn't have taken 7 years for it to happen if anyone ever intended it. Scratch the surface with Shirley and all you get is more poison. She was better in small does propping up other characters and delivering one liners. The character is too unappealing to be at the forefront all the time. The writers made the same mistake with the Brannings.”

Shirley is pretty popular with me, my friends and family. She is flawed but real and I for one, find her fascinating. I would must prefer to watch a multi layered, interesting character than a boring, well behaved one. I believe there is a lot more too Shirley and we are just at the tip of it. I hope Shirley sticks around!


Side note: I wish they would curb the drinking and allow her to get it right now and again, you know, so she can progress.
vald
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“Shirley is pretty popular with me, my friends and family. She is flawed but real and I for one, find her fascinating. I would must prefer to watch a multi layered, interesting character than a boring, well behaved one. I believe there is a lot more to Shirley and we are just at the tip of it. I hope Shirley sticks around!


Side note: I wish they would curb the drinking and allow her to get it right now and again, you know, so she can progress.”

Too true. Some like their romantic heroines that have hearts of gold but give me a flawed character every time. Den, Steve and Janine are a few of my other favourites. All spiteful and unpleasant in their own way, but hugely watchable.

Then we have the dreadful and neglectful parents...Pat, David, Max, Patrick and Glenda to name a few.

As for her 7 years in the wilderness, all I can say is, what a shameful waste.

Having said all that, if there is no progress in her character in the next year, I'll be giving up on her.
Keyser_Soze1
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“Shirley is pretty popular with me, my friends and family. She is flawed but real and I for one, find her fascinating. I would must prefer to watch a multi layered, interesting character than a boring, well behaved one. I believe there is a lot more too Shirley and we are just at the tip of it. I hope Shirley sticks around!


Side note: I wish they would curb the drinking and allow her to get it right now and again, you know, so she can progress.”

Good post.

Give me Shirley over that evil, repulsive, invincible, cartoon super-thug Philth any day of the week
big dan
01-07-2014
Originally Posted by vald:
“Too true. Some like their romantic heroines that have hearts of gold but give me a flawed character every time. Den, Steve and Janine are a few of my other favourites. All spiteful and unpleasant in their own way, but hugely watchable.

Then we have the dreadful and neglectful parents...Pat, David, Max, Patrick and Glenda to name a few.

As for her 7 years in the wilderness, all I can say is, what a shameful waste.

Having said all that, if there is no progress in her character in the next year, I'll be giving up on her.”

I like flawed characters too... but personally I just see Shirley as a bitter, twisted self-centred old hag who is beyond help and redemption. Don't see any real warmth from her, other than to people it suits her to be warm to whether that be to satisfy her own needs emotionally, financially or physically. Each to their mind. But then I do agree, Linda Henry has been wasted on this awful character I just cannot bring myself to root for.

But then I guess the fact we all still discuss her good or bad is a testament of sorts... could be worse, she could be Tosh... :yawn:
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map