|
||||||||
Are there too many "Queens" /big female characters in EastEnders? |
| View Poll 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% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 73. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: I like to singy singy singy...
Posts: 17,667
|
Quote:
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 ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 6,362
|
Quote:
Ssssshh! I'm a good lad at heart I'm only a tart on DS promise
![]() ![]() Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
I really agree with the comment that no actresses should be playing second fiddle to so called "Queens." Other characters are equally as important and I don't think an actor or actress should be labelled as "iconic" simply because they've been there since the 80s. |
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 261
|
Quote:
Scintillating post scintilla. Fantastic username!
![]() Thank you, and right back at ya!Quote:
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. ![]() Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
I'm not suggesting Sharon, Kat, Stacey and Linda should completely dominate or be given every storyline but I think a programme needs a framework, otherwise it becomes a bit of a mess. Sometimes in trying to please everyone you end up failing to fully please anyone. Structuring the programme around four strong, well written, popular leading ladies makes as much sense as anything else to me. Naturally it wouldn't just be those four characters who'd be important, it would be their husbands, boyfriends, family and friends, rivals etc. There'd still be a whole network of significant characters. There would still be leading males too. Good actors such as Diane Parish and Rudolph Walker are already being wasted in the current set up, but good story ideas are being wasted too because they're trying to do too much at times with too many people. As 0...0 pointed out, Sharon, Kat, Shirley, Linda and others have all had potentially interesting stories fail to pack the strongest punch possible on screen because the ideas were never fully developed and stories just withered away without going anywhere. With less leads demanding big stories, there'd be more time and space to fully explore the storylines they do create in a satisfactory manner without anybody feeling short changed. I agree there needs to be a good balance between characters and families and no one person should dominate, but striking that correct balance would be easier with a more streamlined group of leading players. Every character should be utilised well, but I don't think every character should be a lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
All things aren't equal. Until some people realize that they're going to remain frustrated and disappointed with EastEnders. Some characters ARE bigger/more popular and certainly more important than others. Of course it's not a problem if the show revolves around Ian for a while. He's the longest serving actor and character. I'm not his biggest fan but his history and longevity opens up the door for storylines with a lot more scope and reach than most characters. Same thing with Phil, Sharon, Kathy and Dot. These characters may not be your favourites but they're worth a lot more to the writers than newly created ones or those who haven't been around as long.
A character like Shirley with an ever changing backstory is never going to have the same gravitas because even the writers don't know what the hell she got up to until they attach it on 8 years later like Mick being her son. Another thing to remember is that the majority of the characters currently in the cast didn't set foot in Walford until they joined the show. That's something that only a select few can claim fame to and a great example of the writers drawing from this history is the current Kathy/Gavin/Sharon stuff. That story is instantly elevated by the fact it draws from established on screen history as well as off screen history that includes iconic characters like Den. There's no way Les Coker being a transvestite or Stacey having a secret family from another part of the country could ever compare to that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
And another thing while I think of it.
Would I like the show to revolve around my favourites all the time? Of course I bloody would. Why the hell would I want to watch boring Martin, creepy Les and crappy Kim when I could be watching Phil, Sharon and Kathy? It's been a perfect ensemble these past few weeks with Mitchells, Beales, Brannings and Carters having a decent amount of screentime. I don't like every character in those families but that's a lot of characters when you add them all together. The rest of the cast is superflous in my opinion. A distraction of filler until the show returns to the more dynamic characters. That's my honest opinion and I won't apologize for it. If you disagree and love all the other characters then good for you. We all have different tastes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
:
I agree there needs to be a good balance between characters and families and no one person should dominate, but striking that correct balance would be easier with a more streamlined group of leading players. Every character should be utilised well, but I don't think every character should be a lead. |
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
All things aren't equal. Until some people realize that they're going to remain frustrated and disappointed with EastEnders. Some characters ARE bigger/more popular and certainly more important than others. Of course it's not a problem if the show revolves around Ian for a while. He's the longest serving actor and character. I'm not his biggest fan but his history and longevity opens up the door for storylines with a lot more scope and reach than most characters. Same thing with Phil, Sharon, Kathy and Dot. These characters may not be your favourites but they're worth a lot more to the writers than newly created ones or those who haven't been around as long.
A character like Shirley with an ever changing backstory is never going to have the same gravitas because even the writers don't know what the hell she got up to until they attach it on 8 years later like Mick being her son. Another thing to remember is that the majority of the characters currently in the cast didn't set foot in Walford until they joined the show. That's something that only a select few can claim fame to and a great example of the writers drawing from this history is the current Kathy/Gavin/Sharon stuff. That story is instantly elevated by the fact it draws from established on screen history as well as off screen history that includes iconic characters like Den. There's no way Les Coker being a transvestite or Stacey having a secret family from another part of the country could ever compare to that. This is exactly the same reason I resented the Carter invasion in 2014. They turned up and suddenly everything became about them, at the expense of other long-standing characters. I honestly thought "why should I care about these people when they've been here five minutes?" Thankfully, the writers appear to have realised it was overkill and they've toned it down a bit. As much as the show needs new faces and new blood, people can't just expect them to instantly be given equal status with the likes of the Beales or Mitchells, or other characters who have earned their place in the show over a number of years. Imagine if the Cokers or Hubbards were suddenly elevated to 'main family' status; the show would be unwatchable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
Completely agree. Characters like Ian, Kathy, Phil, and Sharon are going to be given top billing from time to time, and that's to be expected. These characters just are more important than some of the others, precisely because they've stood the test of time. Some of them have been through more than 30 years of storylines, and they're still standing. The audience are familiar with these characters, they've seen them go through highs and lows, so they are inevitably going to generate more interest than newer ones. In the case of Ian and Sharon, we've basically seen their entire adult lives played out on screen. Characters like that don't grow on trees. There is a hierarchy, and that's reflected in the fact some actors are paid more than others. People may not like it, but that's just how it is.
This is exactly the same reason I resented the Carter invasion in 2014. They turned up and suddenly everything became about them, at the expense of other long-standing characters. I honestly thought "why should I care about these people when they've been here five minutes?" Thankfully, the writers appear to have realised it was overkill and they've toned it down a bit. As much as the show needs new faces and new blood, people can't just expect them to instantly be given equal status with the likes of the Beales or Mitchells, or other characters who have earned their place in the show over a number of years. Imagine if the Cokers or Hubbards were suddenly elevated to 'main family' status; the show would be unwatchable. |
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
But that wouldn't happen. But the fact is that some families do come in with top billing from the start...the Mitchells, the Butchers, the Slaters, the Brannings and, yes, the Carters. Just as when the show first hit our screens in '85, some families are destined to be central to the show, whilst others will never be more than supporting characters/families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
Quote:
No, it wouldn't happen. But it's precisely the argument some people seem to be making when they complain that the show is centred around longer-serving characters and others have to play 'second fiddle'. Pam and Les just aren't as important as Kathy or Ian. They don't even come close. The writers are going to put their biggest and most popular characters on screen as much as they can, because they bring the viewers in. That's just how it is. EastEnders has never been a truly 'ensemble piece' and that's probably a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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, Shkirley 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. Thank you! Good thoughtful post that gets precisely were I'm coming from although I disagree with you about Kathy as I think she should be the fourth Queen! I think too many Soap Queens is akin to too much of a good thing really can spoil things /be counterproductive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,756
|
Quote:
Thank you! Good thoughtful post that gets precisely were I'm coming from although I disagree with you about Kathy as I think she should be the fourth Queen!
I think too many Soap Queens is akin to too much of a good thing really can spoil things /be counterproductive. ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
Hilda you are always interesting I wish you'd post more, You are a fabulous lad
![]() ![]() I find it interesting that Ronnie is leading this poll -She's seemingly more unpopular on here than I'd appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 98
|
Kat is one of the "Queens" and she's not in the list
but she's not a current character at the moment so you're forgiven ![]() Kat and Sharon have always been "Queens" since I started watching in 2000 but when they left in 2005, we had the magnificent Chrissie Watts. We had modern "queens" like Ronnie and Stacey. Shirley is not a "queen" and she will never be one. I detest her so much and wish she would take a long break. She's not an "icon" as described by DTC. |
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
No, it wouldn't happen. But it's precisely the argument some people seem to be making when they complain that the show is centred around longer-serving characters and others have to play 'second fiddle'. Pam and Les just aren't as important as Kathy or Ian. They don't even come close. The writers are going to put their biggest and most popular characters on screen as much as they can, because they bring the viewers in. That's just how it is. EastEnders has never been a truly 'ensemble piece' and that's probably a good thing.
I sort of disagree that history and earning their stripes is that important. By that logic I should have stayed loyal to CS in 1985, a show I'd been watching for 25 years, and not abandoned it for a new show and a whole new bunch of families. You can get tired of the same old characters going round in circles...affairs, marriages, more affairs, the odd death etc. |
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
I think characters like Max, Shirley, Denise etc..and those who have been there for almost a decade should be considered long-serving and important characters as well as the likes of Ian, Phil, Sharon and Dot.
Compare Denise and Shirley with somebody like Kat - who has only been around 5/6 years longer - and there is a clear difference. Kat had two massive storylines (the Zoe story, and her relationship with Alfie) which arguably elevated her to iconic status. She is a massively popular character because of this. Denise and Shirley, while they have their fans, just aren't on the same level. If they left tomorrow, what storylines would they be remembered for? |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
Quote:
In theory, yes. The problem is that Shirley and Denise were massively underused for years (Denise still is) and Shirley in particular suffers from inconsistent writing. So they have never quite reached the prominence that they could have done. I always wanted Shirley and Denise to become the next Pat and Kathy, especially as they also married the same man, but there we go.
Compare Denise and Shirley with somebody like Kat - who has only been around 5/6 years longer - and there is a clear difference. Kat had two massive storylines (the Zoe story, and her relationship with Alfie) which arguably elevated her to iconic status. She is a massively popular character because of this. Denise and Shirley, while they have their fans, just aren't on the same level. I would have loved Denise and Shirley to have been a modern Pat and Kathy, it is a true shame that their friendship is only remembered when a storyline requires it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
In theory, yes. The problem is that Shirley and Denise were massively underused for years (Denise still is) and Shirley in particular suffers from inconsistent writing. So they have never quite reached the prominence that they could have done. I always wanted Shirley and Denise to become the next Pat and Kathy, especially as they also married the same man, but there we go.
Compare Denise and Shirley with somebody like Kat - who has only been around 5/6 years longer - and there is a clear difference. Kat had two massive storylines (the Zoe story, and her relationship with Alfie) which arguably elevated her to iconic status. She is a massively popular character because of this. Denise and Shirley, while they have their fans, just aren't on the same level. . However Shirley hasn't had a memorable storyline that viewers identify her with. When people think of Kat, they automatically think of "You Ain't My Mother" etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
Quote:
Brilliant post Bass55 especially the BIB. Denise has sadly been very underused and always has been for years. Shirley was never a leading lady until 2014. She had a big year in 2012 but the show wasn't all about her. When DTC took over in 2013, he made Shirley the leading lady and boy that really showed. This year, she was very prominent but she's taking a backseat for now. Everytime she is in an episode, she hogs a lot of screentime. Ramsgate/the Shirley/Carol episode, the Buster/Carol episodes. the Dean/Mick/Shirley episodes and many more. I know I always repeat myself that she's overused but it's how I feel. It was really strange that Shirley was an extra in 2013 but suddenly she was the "heart and soul" of EastEnders as they introduced her family that she has NEVER mentioned before. They made her landlady of the Vic and shoehorned into other people storylines
. However Shirley hasn't had a memorable storyline that viewers identify her with. When people think of Kat, they automatically think of "You Ain't My Mother" etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
All things aren't equal. Until some people realize that they're going to remain frustrated and disappointed with EastEnders. Some characters ARE bigger/more popular and certainly more important than others. Of course it's not a problem if the show revolves around Ian for a while. He's the longest serving actor and character. I'm not his biggest fan but his history and longevity opens up the door for storylines with a lot more scope and reach than most characters. Same thing with Phil, Sharon, Kathy and Dot. These characters may not be your favourites but they're worth a lot more to the writers than newly created ones or those who haven't been around as long.
A character like Shirley with an ever changing backstory is never going to have the same gravitas because even the writers don't know what the hell she got up to until they attach it on 8 years later like Mick being her son. Another thing to remember is that the majority of the characters currently in the cast didn't set foot in Walford until they joined the show. That's something that only a select few can claim fame to and a great example of the writers drawing from this history is the current Kathy/Gavin/Sharon stuff. That story is instantly elevated by the fact it draws from established on screen history as well as off screen history that includes iconic characters like Den. There's no way Les Coker being a transvestite or Stacey having a secret family from another part of the country could ever compare to that. Perhaps I should start a thread on the difference between Soap SUPER QUEENS, Soap Queens, Soap Princess's and all other inferior underlings! Seriously though there's always an element of natural hierarchy in soaps and some of that is based on history. Gillian Taylforth and Letitia Dean are such brilliant natural Soap Queens that it's almost ingrained in their DNA -that cannot be bottled and replicated at will -it simply is what it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,744
|
Quote:
Shirley was sidelined for so long that I am pleased she finally has a proper place in the show. However again, I fail to see how she has been shoehorned into any story. Any story she has been involved with has been where there is a prior connection. Shoehorned would be, or example, if she was suddenly a major part of the Lucy Beale case where there is no connection, but she hasn't been.
![]() I will state a few examples. When Sharon was attacked, Shirley took it upon herself to seek out Phil and she fell in love with him. She tried to kiss him when Sharon was in a coma. Sharon's attack week was all about Shirley as she did a sob story about Mick when it really should have been Sharon's week. At that time, Sharon was so underused and I don't know why they had to include Shirley. Sharon and Phil's wedding day = Shirley overload. It was supposed to be their special day, why include Shirley when she already has her own demons with the Carters. Shirley shot Phil ![]() Then we have the rape storyline and it really should have been about Linda/Mick but sadly it was all about her and Dean. This is just to name a few ![]() I agree that Shirley should be better used but not used too much. But now I think it's getting better because she's not on our screens a lot now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Martin Fowler
Posts: 11,362
|
Quote:
Thank you! Good thoughtful post that gets precisely were I'm coming from although I disagree with you about Kathy as I think she should be the fourth Queen!
I think too many Soap Queens is akin to too much of a good thing really can spoil things /be counterproductive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Martin Fowler
Posts: 11,362
|
[quote=wizardt;79744984]How do I begin?
![]() I will state a few examples. Then we have the rape storyline and it really should have been about Linda/Mick but sadly it was all about her and Dean. This is just to name a few ![]() /QUOTE] The rape storyline started out well written IMO and was well acted by Kellie Bright but I agree that it became too much about Shirley and Dean later on and the focus shifted away from the effect it had on Linda. Also throwing the whole whos the daddy Mick or Dean thing in there wasnt necessary in my opinion. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:15.









but she's not a current character at the moment so you're forgiven
. However Shirley hasn't had a memorable storyline that viewers identify her with. When people think of Kat, they automatically think of "You Ain't My Mother" etc.