Originally Posted by Aaron_Silver:
“He must just be a couple of years younger than me, about 40 or so?
”
“He must just be a couple of years younger than me, about 40 or so?
”
Just Google it he's 39
Results:Which big female character should be dropped in EEs crowded field?
LINDA CARTER
12 (16.44%)
SHARON MITCHELL
13 (17.81%)
STACEY SLATER
24 (32.88%)
KATHY SULLIVAN /BEALE
16 (21.92%)
SHIRLEY CARTER
26 (35.62%)
RONNIE MITCHELL
40 (54.79%)
Voters: 73. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?
Are there too many "Queens" /big female characters in EastEnders?
4 of 7
Originally Posted by Aaron_Silver:
“He must just be a couple of years younger than me, about 40 or so?”
“He must just be a couple of years younger than me, about 40 or so?
”
He looks fantastic for his age and frankly is still a handsome devil! I think he was born 1975,1976?
Originally Posted by Hildaonpluto:
“He looks fantastic for his age and frankly is still a handsome devil! I think he was born 1975,1976?”
“He looks fantastic for his age and frankly is still a handsome devil! I think he was born 1975,1976?”
He's 39
Originally Posted by Hildaonpluto:
“He looks fantastic for his age and frankly is still a handsome devil! I think he was born 1975,1976?”
“He looks fantastic for his age and frankly is still a handsome devil! I think he was born 1975,1976?”
Yes he's lovely, always did have a bit of a thing for him he's cute
Perhaps the problem isn't so much about having too many strong females, but a lack of strong males.
For the girls we have: Linda, Sharon, Jane, Denise, Shirley, Kathy, Ronnie, Stacey
For the guys there's: Phil, Max (who is leaving), Ian, Mick..... erm.....
EastEnders really needs to build up its male cast, because at the moment it's the women who are largely carrying the show.
For the girls we have: Linda, Sharon, Jane, Denise, Shirley, Kathy, Ronnie, Stacey
For the guys there's: Phil, Max (who is leaving), Ian, Mick..... erm.....
EastEnders really needs to build up its male cast, because at the moment it's the women who are largely carrying the show.
Originally Posted by wizardt:
“Some of the younger fans clearly don't care about the originals but they are very relevant IMO. I know some older fans don't care too but there are lots of older fans who do care. My friends and my parents care a lot about the iconic characters.”
“Some of the younger fans clearly don't care about the originals but they are very relevant IMO. I know some older fans don't care too but there are lots of older fans who do care. My friends and my parents care a lot about the iconic characters.”
I don't think that is strictly true. I understand why some viewers hold original characters in high regard however I tend to form my opinion on a character for the character itself rather than the longevity of the character. I would agree with vald about quality over quantity. And remember all of the original characters started off like the characters we have now, as just regulars. They gained iconic status as the years went on, and the newer characters or the more recent longer-term characters should be given the chance to shine just as much. Just because some of the characters are original, I don't think that should make them immune to criticism. A lot of my family who have watched the show from the very beginning prefer some of the later characters to the originals so I think it just depends on the viewer and what they get from a character rather than just not caring about original characters.
Originally Posted by vald:
“I think there was also much more of a community feel. There was the odd row, but generally the ladies got on and interacted. Now they all have to be at each other's throats or just ignore each other. Add in that they all have to fight for the attention of the same few sleazy males and we end up with these pathetic fan wars. You're right about the flow as well. I've been able to switch off for a couple of weeks because there's no one I want to watch ATM...surely that isn't healthy for the programme.”
“I think there was also much more of a community feel. There was the odd row, but generally the ladies got on and interacted. Now they all have to be at each other's throats or just ignore each other. Add in that they all have to fight for the attention of the same few sleazy males and we end up with these pathetic fan wars. You're right about the flow as well. I've been able to switch off for a couple of weeks because there's no one I want to watch ATM...surely that isn't healthy for the programme.”
Agreed, there was a real community feel then, now everyone seems assigned to their family groups and there isn't all that much interaction outside of those units. It does appear that all the ladies are fighting it out for the spotlight, instead of sharing it. I would much rather their relationships were developed throughout the square. Even Pat and Peggy who fought all the time, had a warmth to their relationship too. That is seriously lacking in EastEnders recently. And then there is these ridiculous fan wars on top of it all. There are periods of time where I don't watch because there is nothing of interest to me, and it is the same for many others, on the good side, at least you can drop in and out and know you haven't missed anything.
Originally Posted by bass55:
“Perhaps the problem isn't so much about having too many strong females, but a lack of strong males.
For the girls we have: Linda, Sharon, Jane, Denise, Shirley, Kathy, Ronnie, Stacey
For the guys there's: Phil, Max (who is leaving), Ian, Mick..... erm.....
EastEnders really needs to build up its male cast, because at the moment it's the women who are largely carrying the show.”
“Perhaps the problem isn't so much about having too many strong females, but a lack of strong males.
For the girls we have: Linda, Sharon, Jane, Denise, Shirley, Kathy, Ronnie, Stacey
For the guys there's: Phil, Max (who is leaving), Ian, Mick..... erm.....
EastEnders really needs to build up its male cast, because at the moment it's the women who are largely carrying the show.”
This is one of those odd occasions where we are in agreement!
I think there is room for each of them, there are certain characters I don't like as much as others, and vice versa, like everyone but there is room for them all because different viewers like different characters. I would prefer the balance to be better and for there to be some development between them rather than constant cattiness, but I guess the cattiness is more fun to write.
They really need to address/build up the male cast. In addition to Phil, Mick and Ian (I haven't included Max because like you say, he is leaving), we have Vincent, Buster and potentially Gavin (if he is a regular) but they all need more development.
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“I don't think that is strictly true. I understand why some viewers hold original characters in high regard however I tend to form my opinion on a character for the character itself rather than the longevity of the character. I would agree with vald about quality over quantity. And remember all of the original characters started off like the characters we have now, as just regulars. They gained iconic status as the years went on, and the newer characters or the more recent longer-term characters should be given the chance to shine just as much. Just because some of the characters are original, I don't think that should make them immune to criticism. A lot of my family who have watched the show from the very beginning prefer some of the later characters to the originals so I think it just depends on the viewer and what they get from a character rather than just not caring about original characters.
They really need to address/build up the male cast. In addition to Phil, Mick and Ian (I haven't included Max because like you say, he is leaving), we have Vincent, Buster and potentially Gavin (if he is a regular) but they all need more development.”
“I don't think that is strictly true. I understand why some viewers hold original characters in high regard however I tend to form my opinion on a character for the character itself rather than the longevity of the character. I would agree with vald about quality over quantity. And remember all of the original characters started off like the characters we have now, as just regulars. They gained iconic status as the years went on, and the newer characters or the more recent longer-term characters should be given the chance to shine just as much. Just because some of the characters are original, I don't think that should make them immune to criticism. A lot of my family who have watched the show from the very beginning prefer some of the later characters to the originals so I think it just depends on the viewer and what they get from a character rather than just not caring about original characters.
They really need to address/build up the male cast. In addition to Phil, Mick and Ian (I haven't included Max because like you say, he is leaving), we have Vincent, Buster and potentially Gavin (if he is a regular) but they all need more development.”
BIB 1 Oh I do agree. Being an original or giving them a label doesn't give them a get out of jail free card. Nor does being part of a certain family. No one would suggest that Robbie Jackson or Sonia are a patch on their mother and the actress playing her. Same with Ricky Butcher and Pat. They are all individuals and are judged as such.
BIB 2 This has been a problem with EE for years. I actually thought that DTC was addressing it when he brought in Aleks and Charlie. They were charismatic, with bags of potential, and I was pretty excited. They were also the right age to fill the gap in the mid age group...not too old, not too young. To get rid of them was folly.
Originally Posted by The_abbott:
“Stacey and Ronnie have been ruined recently which is ironic because in 09 they were the only queens of the square under DTC's storylines.
I'd ditch Shirley personally.”
“Stacey and Ronnie have been ruined recently which is ironic because in 09 they were the only queens of the square under DTC's storylines.
I'd ditch Shirley personally.”
This is true but I wonder if that was only because the original queens Sharon and Kathy weren't in the show at the time. There was a void to be filled and they did so. EastEnders in the Ronnie/Stacey era was open season for new characters to dominate. In the last few years it seems to have gone back to its roots somewhat. Sharon was completely out of place in the Branning era playing backup to Tanya but now she's in her element again with the Mitchells and Beales. Old school EastEnders as far as the characters themselves are concerned has made a comeback and the Ronnie/Stacey era now seems a bit irrelevant in comparison. At least to me.
This is an interesting thread, I've actually wondered myself if there are too many female leads, or "Queens" as you put it.
Looking at this millennium because I think that's more relevant to now, there were two Queens: Kat and Sharon and I mostly loved that time period when they reigned supreme. Just below them was Little Mo, not quite a Queen but the third important female.
The departures of Kat and Sharon in succession led to a difficult transition period but then they rebooted with Stacey and Ronnie in the "Queen" roles with Tanya Branning as the third female and this was another enjoyable, successful time period.
Now there does seem to be an abundance of female leads; Sharon, Kathy, Jane, Shirley, Linda, Ronnie and Stacey (and then Kat when she returns).
Having just two Queens worked well but I don't think they need to go back to that, instead if I was EP I'd build the show around four Queens: Sharon, Kat, Stacey and another new Queen
Sharon, Kat and Stacey are all proven as very popular female leads and are three of the all time great EastEnders characters. All three should constantly be receiving good stories and screen time. I'd make them the backbone of the show. They are characters worth investing in. Then there should be a rotating fourth Queen, a new character to bring freshness: right now that should be Linda. I think this would make a very a strong Quartet of Queens: good characters with mass audience appeal and something for everyone.
In the poll I voted Kathy because I don't think she should have been brought back in the first place, Shirley because I'm bored of her and I don't consider her a Queen anyway: she worked better in a secondary role in the Shirl 'n' Hev double act and Ronnie because I think her character was good once but has had her day.
Looking at this millennium because I think that's more relevant to now, there were two Queens: Kat and Sharon and I mostly loved that time period when they reigned supreme. Just below them was Little Mo, not quite a Queen but the third important female.
The departures of Kat and Sharon in succession led to a difficult transition period but then they rebooted with Stacey and Ronnie in the "Queen" roles with Tanya Branning as the third female and this was another enjoyable, successful time period.
Now there does seem to be an abundance of female leads; Sharon, Kathy, Jane, Shirley, Linda, Ronnie and Stacey (and then Kat when she returns).
Having just two Queens worked well but I don't think they need to go back to that, instead if I was EP I'd build the show around four Queens: Sharon, Kat, Stacey and another new Queen
Sharon, Kat and Stacey are all proven as very popular female leads and are three of the all time great EastEnders characters. All three should constantly be receiving good stories and screen time. I'd make them the backbone of the show. They are characters worth investing in. Then there should be a rotating fourth Queen, a new character to bring freshness: right now that should be Linda. I think this would make a very a strong Quartet of Queens: good characters with mass audience appeal and something for everyone.
In the poll I voted Kathy because I don't think she should have been brought back in the first place, Shirley because I'm bored of her and I don't consider her a Queen anyway: she worked better in a secondary role in the Shirl 'n' Hev double act and Ronnie because I think her character was good once but has had her day.
Originally Posted by scintilla:
“This is an interesting thread, I've actually wondered myself if there are too many female leads, or "Queens" as you put it.
Looking at this millennium because I think that's more relevant to now, there were two Queens: Kat and Sharon and I mostly loved that time period when they reigned supreme. Just below them was Little Mo, not quite a Queen but the third important female.
The departures of Kat and Sharon in succession led to a difficult transition period but then they rebooted with Stacey and Ronnie in the "Queen" roles with Tanya Branning as the third female and this was another enjoyable, successful time period.
Now there does seem to be an abundance of female leads; Sharon, Kathy, Jane, Shirley, Linda, Ronnie and Stacey (and then Kat when she returns).
Having just two Queens worked well but I don't think they need to go back to that, instead if I was EP I'd build the show around four Queens: Sharon, Kat, Stacey and another new Queen
Sharon, Kat and Stacey are all proven as very popular female leads and are three of the all time great EastEnders characters. All three should constantly be receiving good stories and screen time. I'd make them the backbone of the show. They are characters worth investing in. Then there should be a rotating fourth Queen, a new character to bring freshness: right now that should be Linda. I think this would make a very a strong Quartet of Queens: good characters with mass audience appeal and something for everyone.
In the poll I voted Kathy because I don't think she should have been brought back in the first place, Shirley because I'm bored of her and I don't consider her a Queen anyway: she worked better in a secondary role in the Shirl 'n' Hev double act and Ronnie because I think her character was good once but has had her day.”
“This is an interesting thread, I've actually wondered myself if there are too many female leads, or "Queens" as you put it.
Looking at this millennium because I think that's more relevant to now, there were two Queens: Kat and Sharon and I mostly loved that time period when they reigned supreme. Just below them was Little Mo, not quite a Queen but the third important female.
The departures of Kat and Sharon in succession led to a difficult transition period but then they rebooted with Stacey and Ronnie in the "Queen" roles with Tanya Branning as the third female and this was another enjoyable, successful time period.
Now there does seem to be an abundance of female leads; Sharon, Kathy, Jane, Shirley, Linda, Ronnie and Stacey (and then Kat when she returns).
Having just two Queens worked well but I don't think they need to go back to that, instead if I was EP I'd build the show around four Queens: Sharon, Kat, Stacey and another new Queen
Sharon, Kat and Stacey are all proven as very popular female leads and are three of the all time great EastEnders characters. All three should constantly be receiving good stories and screen time. I'd make them the backbone of the show. They are characters worth investing in. Then there should be a rotating fourth Queen, a new character to bring freshness: right now that should be Linda. I think this would make a very a strong Quartet of Queens: good characters with mass audience appeal and something for everyone.
In the poll I voted Kathy because I don't think she should have been brought back in the first place, Shirley because I'm bored of her and I don't consider her a Queen anyway: she worked better in a secondary role in the Shirl 'n' Hev double act and Ronnie because I think her character was good once but has had her day.”
Scintillating post scintilla. Fantastic username!
Great post scintilla.
Sharon and Kat were the 'Queens' of the 2001-05 era, though Chrissie was undoubtedly the principal character of the entire show in 2005. Everything revolved around her.
In 2006 there was a dearth of leading females, and these roles were eventually taken up by Stacey and Ronnie in 2007-2010, with Zainab and Tanya as secondary Queens. Peggy was also very prominent in this era.
I can't decide who the leading ladies of the early 2010s were (possibly Janine?), but it's clear that in this era we have loads. Sharon, Linda, Stacey, Ronnie, Jane, Denise, and Shirley are all dominant personalities. Given how she was presented in her original stint, I would not call Kathy a 'Queen', but she will undoubtedly play a big part in the next few years.
Sharon and Kat were the 'Queens' of the 2001-05 era, though Chrissie was undoubtedly the principal character of the entire show in 2005. Everything revolved around her.
In 2006 there was a dearth of leading females, and these roles were eventually taken up by Stacey and Ronnie in 2007-2010, with Zainab and Tanya as secondary Queens. Peggy was also very prominent in this era.
I can't decide who the leading ladies of the early 2010s were (possibly Janine?), but it's clear that in this era we have loads. Sharon, Linda, Stacey, Ronnie, Jane, Denise, and Shirley are all dominant personalities. Given how she was presented in her original stint, I would not call Kathy a 'Queen', but she will undoubtedly play a big part in the next few years.
If they built the the show around solely around Sharon, Kat and Stacey, I would be tuning out. I think there is a good mix of 'Queens.' There is something for everyone right now and although I may not like all of them, others do and vice versa. Personally as is well known, I prefer Ronnie, Shirley and Kathy.
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“If they built the the show around solely around Sharon, Kat and Stacey, I would be tuning out. I think there is a good mix of 'Queens.' There is something for everyone right now and although I may not like all of them, others do and vice versa. Personally as is well known, I prefer Ronnie, Shirley and Kathy.”
“If they built the the show around solely around Sharon, Kat and Stacey, I would be tuning out. I think there is a good mix of 'Queens.' There is something for everyone right now and although I may not like all of them, others do and vice versa. Personally as is well known, I prefer Ronnie, Shirley and Kathy.”
Good grief, me too. Much as I like Kat and Stacey I don't want them to dominate the show, and certainly not Sharon. We don't need queens, we don't need leading ladies. And what an insult to our many fine actors to have to play second fiddle.
The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 years now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.
Originally Posted by vald:
“Good grief, me too. Much as I like Kat and Stacey I don't want them to dominate the show, and certainly not Sharon. We don't need queens, we don't need leading ladies. And what an insult to our many fine actors to have to play second fiddle.”
“Good grief, me too. Much as I like Kat and Stacey I don't want them to dominate the show, and certainly not Sharon. We don't need queens, we don't need leading ladies. And what an insult to our many fine actors to have to play second fiddle.”
Completely agree. I think there is a good mix of characters now, and although there is a lot of empasis on the originals/iconic characters on here, I do think there are many current characters who could become iconic. It's an ensemble show and I think a good mix of characters is best.
Originally Posted by wizardt:
“The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 yesrs now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.”
“The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 yesrs now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.”
I guess its a question of balance. I stopped watching when it was Shirley heavy, but that could be others ideas of heaven. I look forward to Sharon/Kathy/Gavin but appreciate others won't.
Originally Posted by wizardt:
“The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 yesrs now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.”
“The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 yesrs now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.”
The show hassn't focused on Shirley for two years. She has been utilized better, thankfully, and been given a family, but most other characters already had that. Many other characters have also been at the forefront, Ian and Jane in particular as they are at the front of the biggest story running, and the Mitchell's have had their fair share of drama too. I don't think the show needs 'leading ladies.' It needs balance that's all, it is an ensemble.
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“The show hassn't focused on Shirley for two years. She has been utilized better, thankfully, and been given a family, but most other characters already had that. Many other characters have also been at the forefront, Ian and Jane in particular as they are at the front of the biggest story running, and the Mitchell's have had their fair share of drama too.”
“The show hassn't focused on Shirley for two years. She has been utilized better, thankfully, and been given a family, but most other characters already had that. Many other characters have also been at the forefront, Ian and Jane in particular as they are at the front of the biggest story running, and the Mitchell's have had their fair share of drama too.”
She had lots of storylines last year and she dominated the show from January-June this year and I'm sure she will be back to the forefront in a few weeks time. The Mitchells have been absent quite a lot this year but it's only recently that they're back in the forefront. Ian and Jane have been very prominent but that's because "Who Killed Lucy" is one of the biggest storylines ever.
Originally Posted by 0...0:
“I guess its a question of balance. I stopped watching when it was Shirley heavy, but that could be others ideas of heaven. I look forward to Sharon/Kathy/Gavin but appreciate others won't.”
“I guess its a question of balance. I stopped watching when it was Shirley heavy, but that could be others ideas of heaven. I look forward to Sharon/Kathy/Gavin but appreciate others won't.”
Good post, I really enjoy Shirley and love watching her so I always tune into her episodes, however when the likes of Stacey are at the forefront who I don't really enjoy, it's not as interesting for me. It's the same for everyone I think, everyone watches for different reasons and balance is the key.
Originally Posted by 0...0:
“I guess its a question of balance. I stopped watching when it was Shirley heavy, but that could be others ideas of heaven. I look forward to Sharon/Kathy/Gavin but appreciate others won't.”
“I guess its a question of balance. I stopped watching when it was Shirley heavy, but that could be others ideas of heaven. I look forward to Sharon/Kathy/Gavin but appreciate others won't.”
I hated the Shirley/Dean/Buster stuff that was dragging on for months and months. Last year was awful when she was shoehorned in Sharon and Phil's storylines when she actually had her own storylines. Eg: Shirley/Mick.
Same I can't wait for Sharon/Kathy/Gavin. Gavin is going to be involved with 2 original queens and I'm thrilled for Letitia Dean and Gillian Taylforth. 2015 have been a brilliant year for Sharon and Kathy and long may it continue
Originally Posted by wizardt:
“She had lots of storylines last year and she dominated the show from January-June this year and I'm sure she will be back to the forefront in a few weeks time. The Mitchells have been absent quite a lot this year but it's only recently that they're back in the forefront. Ian and Jane have been very prominent but that's because "Who Killed Lucy" is one of the biggest storylines ever.”
“She had lots of storylines last year and she dominated the show from January-June this year and I'm sure she will be back to the forefront in a few weeks time. The Mitchells have been absent quite a lot this year but it's only recently that they're back in the forefront. Ian and Jane have been very prominent but that's because "Who Killed Lucy" is one of the biggest storylines ever.”
Ian and Jane are central in the biggest story and therefore propelled into the limelight so how come you aren't suggesting that the show is built around them? Mick and Linda were heavily used the last few years so is the show then built around them? It can't be one rule for one character and different for another. It looks like the Mitchells particularly Phil and Sharon will be at the forefront through until Christmas, so by this logic, the show during those months will be built around them? Of course not, it is an ensemble, I think storyblocking is what gives that impression.
Originally Posted by Ell_Ren:
“Good post, I really enjoy Shirley and love watching her so I always tune into her episodes, however when the likes of Stacey are at the forefront who I don't really enjoy, it's not as interesting for me. It's the same for everyone I think, everyone watches for different reasons and balance is the key.”
“Good post, I really enjoy Shirley and love watching her so I always tune into her episodes, however when the likes of Stacey are at the forefront who I don't really enjoy, it's not as interesting for me. It's the same for everyone I think, everyone watches for different reasons and balance is the key.”
Yes, I guess we are all loyal subjects to our particular queens and republican to others.
Originally Posted by wizardt:
“I hated the Shirley/Dean/Buster stuff that was dragging on for months and months. Last year was awful when she was shoehorned in Sharon and Phil's storylines when she actually had her own storylines. Eg: Shirley/Mick.
Same I can't wait for Sharon/Kathy/Gavin. Gavin is going to be involved with 2 original queens and I'm thrilled for Letitia Dean and Gillian Taylforth. 2015 have been a brilliant year for Sharon and Kathy and long may it continue”
“I hated the Shirley/Dean/Buster stuff that was dragging on for months and months. Last year was awful when she was shoehorned in Sharon and Phil's storylines when she actually had her own storylines. Eg: Shirley/Mick.
Same I can't wait for Sharon/Kathy/Gavin. Gavin is going to be involved with 2 original queens and I'm thrilled for Letitia Dean and Gillian Taylforth. 2015 have been a brilliant year for Sharon and Kathy and long may it continue
”
Shirley wasn't shoehorned into Phil and Sharon's story. The story was about the three of them. Shirley's involvement was to add drama and I guess put an ending on Phil and Shirley? A huge majority of viewers on SM were calling for them to reunite so maybe that's why it was done that way.
Originally Posted by wizardt:
“The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 years now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.”
“The show heavily focused on Shirley for 2 years now so Stacey, Sharon, Kat, Linda, etc deserve to be leading ladies.”
No character should be overused, it's tedious for those who don't like them. That goes for all of them, not just Shirley. They need to make good use of all their talent.
BTW it's about time Denise got a turn at being leading lady and that they stopped using Stacey as a glorified extra.
4 of 7
