|
||||||||
EE Does Sharon no longer have any direction as a character? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,713
|
EE Does Sharon no longer have any direction as a character?
It seems this way
And no, I'm not just talking about recent times It seems to have been this way since her return in 2001 Back in her 1985-1995 stint she seemed to have a lot more direction She was an actual character that was developing. Since 2001 it's as if they don't have any actual direction for the character or seelopment plans, and just throw at EE any plot they see fit. They're not moving her forward as a character and just give her any SL that will make TV. Is she no longer a strong character moving forward? She seems like a victim of 'hype' now, someone they're keeping going and giving SLs for the sake of her being a popular character rather than what is actually best for her. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Problem is the first era you mentioned she was a main and original character the likes of the Mitchells was very much secondary but as time has gone on other they've outgrown her and are now the main player and the longer she was away other characters have become prominent.
Sharon 2001-2002 imo had direction but it was 2003-2006 that it started to go sour and I think a lot of ppl pin point that as a very bad time for the show and a lot of characters in general. 2012-2013 was possibly the worst years for Sharon as a character that was down to producers and writing, it didn't work and was disastrous. 2014 has very much been about repairing her character, she a lot better then the last two years but sometimes damage is done, the problem with this current storyline is it never seems it's about her. it's always about Phil and feels like other characters are being shoehorned into it aswell, tbh the spoilers so far don't seem like it's gonna go in her favour and the worry is the outcome is gonna take her back to where she was last year, no job and stuck in a b'nb plus she is suffering from a lack of family. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
As a soap character Sharon is pure soap gold-a treasure box gift for any soap writer so for me its not the character without direction but the writers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
Quote:
As a soap character Sharon is pure soap gold-a treasure box gift for any soap writer so for me its not the character without direction but the writers.
It's these newish EE 2.0 writers that are to blame, not the character. She IS soap gold. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,011
|
I posted in the other thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Walford/TARDIS
Posts: 8,620
|
Quote:
I posted in the other thread
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,713
|
Quote:
I posted in the other thread
![]() Quote:
Me too - thought I had a bad case of de jevu.
What happened was I made auto-spelling mistakes on this thread so I tried editing it but it ended up making another thread |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,011
|
Quote:
I'm using a phone with poor wifi so this forum keeps glitching for me
What happened was I made auto-spelling mistakes on this thread so I tried editing it but it ended up making another thread |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Online
Posts: 1,107
|
Quote:
She seems like a victim of 'hype' now, someone they're keeping going and giving SLs for the sake of her being a popular character rather than what is actually best for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
The hurricane/tornado promo video billing her 2012 return was a big mistake and a good example of soapstyle over soapsubstance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,066
|
I really hate all these questioning the brilliance of sharon!
shes great, she has potential, she just needs better story lines and more focus, we had one great ep the other week where i though here we go, then nothing really since, now next weeks spoilers say shes going to have second thoughts about ripping off phil. zzz |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
As a soap character Sharon is pure soap gold-a treasure box gift for any soap writer so for me its not the character without direction but the writers.
With that said, her first stint was the best one. But that is because it comprised the first 10 glorious years of EastEnders when the writing and direction of the show and the characters was at its best. It's a different show nowadays and all the poorer for it. Sharon's character went on a complete journey from 1985 to 1995. She's just floating about now like pretty much every other character. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,927
|
Quote:
I really hate all these questioning the brilliance of sharon!
shes great, she has potential, she just needs better story lines and more focus, we had one great ep the other week where i though here we go, then nothing really since, now next weeks spoilers say shes going to have second thoughts about ripping off phil. zzz |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,629
|
Sharon character is limited by the acting. Sharon relies on being in storylines carried by far more able actors. She was the weakest of the youngsters when EE started and times haven't really changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,066
|
Quote:
I think a lot of characters need decent storylines LOL not just sharon, Ian's getting all the storylines ATM, it isn't fair on the other characters, fair enough ian should take centre stage as he's been in the show since 1985 and they're coming up to their 30th, I just feel after the 30th, the soap really need to have a good think about their storylines for characters, their are a lot of couples on EE who just don't match, lola/peter, Denise/ian, they should split then all up and give every single character a new direction, and also visit old ones, the whole cast need a fresh start, dtc has done this quite well so far, and he's built up a lot of characters, however once they character are built back up they should focus more on storylines, storylines since about 2010 have been really bad structured, their either too rushed/too slow/aren't really storylines...
Then there's this Lucy killer storyline, I have said it befor I think they have no plans of who the killer is yet and there just waiting to see how it pans out, somthing needs to happen soon tho as it's getting old fast, As for Sharon, she needs splitting from phil and I genuinely think they should bring in a family for her. They could have her meet a new man, bring back Vicky and co, or re write her birth family into fitting with her. Then build her some storylines It can't be that hard to write decent stuff for a character who's been around this long! |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,687
|
Quote:
Problem is the first era you mentioned she was a main and original character the likes of the Mitchells was very much secondary but as time has gone on other they've outgrown her and are now the main player and the longer she was away other characters have become prominent.
Sharon 2001-2002 imo had direction but it was 2003-2006 that it started to go sour and I think a lot of ppl pin point that as a very bad time for the show and a lot of characters in general. 2012-2013 was possibly the worst years for Sharon as a character that was down to producers and writing, it didn't work and was disastrous. 2014 has very much been about repairing her character, she a lot better then the last two years but sometimes damage is done, the problem with this current storyline is it never seems it's about her. it's always about Phil and feels like other characters are being shoehorned into it aswell, tbh the spoilers so far don't seem like it's gonna go in her favour and the worry is the outcome is gonna take her back to where she was last year, no job and stuck in a b'nb plus she is suffering from a lack of family. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
Sharon character is limited by the acting. Sharon relies on being in storylines carried by far more able actors. She was the weakest of the youngsters when EE started and times haven't really changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cell Block H
Posts: 11,878
|
If Sharon had come back under any producer but Kirkwood and then not suffered at the hands of the Newman/Kirkwood handover she would have been OK. Instead her return story was daft and for some reason Kirkwood had her paired off with Jack. Either this came about because the show viewed Sharon like Ronnie as a tragic heroine and thought with Ronnie gone Sharon would work with Jack or they just didn't really have any idea who to pair her with but the Jack romance was wrong on so many levels. Then once all of Kirkwood's material was over Newman subjected her to a pill popping storyline and a demon child plot. Both of which were crap but at least they were a step up from being a Branning satellite.
DTC has at least tried to fix some of what went wrong by giving her The Albert but the problem is we never see it. While putting the Carters in the Vic was a good decision I do wonder if its Sharon and Phil who should have been put back in there with the Carters just being a new family on the Square. Sharon is Mrs Queen Vic and I think saving her character will only happen if she gets her pub back. That's Sharon's blood and the key to her success is being landlady. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
If Sharon had come back under any producer but Kirkwood and then not suffered at the hands of the Newman/Kirkwood handover she would have been OK. Instead her return story was daft and for some reason Kirkwood had her paired off with Jack. Either this came about because the show viewed Sharon like Ronnie as a tragic heroine and thought with Ronnie gone Sharon would work with Jack or they just didn't really have any idea who to pair her with but the Jack romance was wrong on so many levels. Then once all of Kirkwood's material was over Newman subjected her to a pill popping storyline and a demon child plot. Both of which were crap.
DTC has at least tried to fix some of what went wrong by giving her The Albert but the problem is we never see it. While putting the Carters in the Vic was a good decision I do wonder if its Sharon and Phil who should have been put back in there with the Carters just being a new family on the Square. Sharon is Mrs Queen Vic and I think saving her character will only happen if she gets her pub back. Sharon should have been brought back with her own storyline like in 2001 when she bought The Vic rather than being a plot device during the climax of Heather's murder storyline. 7 episodes went out that week and I think Sharon appeared for about 15 minutes. It was a bloody joke. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
|
Sharon should have been put back in The Vic. People say Sharon wouldn't live there after its where Den was killed but forget she lived in the pub for 3 months after his body had been dug up and had no issue living there then.
Sharon running The Vic is how it should be. The Carters are a good family but that pub only works best if Sharon or Peggy is running it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Quote:
I have to disagree with some of your comments. I think from 2003-2005 Sharon had a very good direction and was written well. The Watts family at that time were big in comparison to the Mitchells as Peggy and Phil had both left, leaving just Sam and Billy. I do agree though that her 2012-2013 time on the show wasn't good but this year she's feeling like old Sharon again. What she needs is some of her own family, I'm suprised DTC hasn't introduced Vicki back or something. I know she has her son but that isn't the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
Quote:
Sharon should have been put back in The Vic. People say Sharon wouldn't live there after its where Den was killed but forget she lived in the pub for 3 months after his body had been dug up and had no issue living there then.
Sharon running The Vic is how it should be. The Carters are a good family but that pub only works best if Sharon or Peggy is running it. Had Linda not arrived I think Sharon should slowly have regained The Vic over time rather than straight away like in 2001. Of course the best way to have given The Vic back to its rightful owner (the one who was obsessed with it long before Peggy) would have been to make The Carters Sharon's family and not Shirley's. A case of DTC picking his favourite over what would have been best for the show and Sharon. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
|
Quote:
I like Linda Carter as the landlady, to be fair. I wouldn't be in a hurry to remove her from that position but the rest of her family needs to take a backseat for a while.
Had Linda not arrived I think Sharon should slowly have regained The Vic over time rather than straight away like in 2001. Of course the best way to have given The Vic back to its rightful owner (the one who was obsessed with it long before Peggy) would have been to make The Carters Sharon's family and not Shirley's. A case of DTC picking his favourite over what would have been best for the show and Sharon. Sharon's real family are best left forgotten. She has Vicky, thats all she needs and in a few years Dennis will be old enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
I don't think Sharon should be back in the Vic. No offence but Letitia Dean isn't the greatest actress and just because she was in the show early on doesn't mean she should take priority over any other characters. I think after Den being killed there, it wouldn't work for Sharon to be back in the pub.
I also think that bringing the Carters in as Sharon's family would have been a wrong move, Sharon is a WATTS and that is how it should stay imo. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,180
|
Quote:
I don't think Sharon should be back in the Vic. No offence but Letitia Dean isn't the greatest actress and just because she was in the show early on doesn't mean she should take priority over any other characters. I think after Den being killed there, it wouldn't work for Sharon to be back in the pub.
I also think that bringing the Carters in as Sharon's family would have been a wrong move, Sharon is a WATTS and that is how it should stay imo. All these new viewers of 2006 would know Letitia was great if they had watched her in the show previously. Some of the domestic abuse scenes between Sharon and Grant are the best EastEnders have ever done. Letitia and Ross were excellent and not many in the current cast could match the skill of those two today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CVnN-e8mN4 |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:15.


