DS Forums

 
 

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?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-09-2015, 21:38
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
How do I begin?

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.
Shirley wasn't shoehorned into either of those, she was a part of them. She was involved with Phil/Sharon because of the Phil/Sharon/Shirley triangle had been going on for ages. You could easily then say that Phil was shoehorned into Shirley's story with Mick because he was the first to find out, when it could easily have been Denise? Shirley, Phil and Sharon had a long involvment before that. However I would have preferred that they didn't suddenly do a u-turn and make Shirley chase Phil after she had been disinterested for so long and had previously turned him down.

Shirley did play a huge role in the rape story as the mother of the rapist, it is natural she would. That isn't shoehorning, imo. However I think it would have been better to have explored Shirley's reaction over what Dean did rather than having her backing him.

I've missed Shirley, she has been quiet since June. However I think that latter statement about being used enough but not too much works for every character. I think storyblocking is the problem. I have enjoyed the Lucy story but it has been constantly on our screens now for weeks and taking up so much of the episodes that I have become quite disillusioned with it. If that makes sense?

The Mitchell's look set to dominate until Christmas so it will be interesting to see if anything is said about that come next year.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-09-2015, 21:53
The_abbott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
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.
I totally agree with this - although I've been watching since 1985 so I could add Kathy, Melanie, Angie etc.. to the list

Shirley is not a queen and still does not have a single legendary storyline that will be remembered in years to come.

Its werid that we have "queens" from all eras of the show at the moment from Kathy to Sharon through to Kat, Ronnie and Stacey and yet things just don't seem to work. There not enough room in walford for all of them
The_abbott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2015, 21:55
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
Most of my favorite characters may not be considered Kings or Queens of the square but it doesn't mean I like them any less.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2015, 21:55
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
Shirley wasn't shoehorned into either of those, she was a part of them. She was involved with Phil/Sharon because of the Phil/Sharon/Shirley triangle had been going on for ages. You could easily then say that Phil was shoehorned into Shirley's story with Mick because he was the first to find out, when it could easily have been Denise? Shirley, Phil and Sharon had a long involvment before that. However I would have preferred that they didn't suddenly do a u-turn and make Shirley chase Phil after she had been disinterested for so long and had previously turned him down.

Shirley did play a huge role in the rape story as the mother of the rapist, it is natural she would. That isn't shoehorning, imo. However I think it would have been better to have explored Shirley's reaction over what Dean did rather than having her backing him.

I've missed Shirley, she has been quiet since June. However I think that latter statement about being used enough but not too much works for every character. I think storyblocking is the problem. I have enjoyed the Lucy story but it has been constantly on our screens now for weeks and taking up so much of the episodes that I have become quite disillusioned with it. If that makes sense?

The Mitchell's look set to dominate until Christmas so it will be interesting to see if anything is said about that come next year.
EastEnders nearly always does brilliantly when it's premium family the Mitchells are pretty close to center stage.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2015, 22:04
The_abbott
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
EastEnders nearly always does brilliantly when it's premium family the Mitchells are pretty close to center stage.
I agree - the Mitchells have form and when they dominate EE is 99% on top. There dominating Christmas have been the best in modern times.

The focus on Derek in 2012 was utter garbage and last years Carter fest was a complete and utter bore.

The evidence is etched in history. The Beales and Mitchells (and Watts) rule. Plain and simple!
The_abbott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 02:03
Broken_Arrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
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.
Max is important. He's got Stax under his belt. If he never does anything noteworthy again he'll always have that storyline as a point of reference. He's also been one of the biggest characters of the past decade and is intertwined with some of the biggest and most popular characters.

Denise and Shirley may be good actresses but their characters have spent the majority of their time as secondary characters. They have no classic storylines to their names and even though they have their fans I seriously doubt they're as popular as Max, Stacey, Ian, Phil, Sharon, Kathy, Carol and Dot. The fact is Shirley and Denise are also rans who the writers can't even be fussed with most of the time. It took 8 years before anything substantial was done with Shirley while Denise has floundered around for years apart from the odd moment of glory.
Broken_Arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 09:13
boxer1988
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: London
Posts: 797
Personally, I'm just glad there are strong female characters like these in EastEnders.

The only thing I would say is that I wish TPTB knew what they were doing with Ronnie so that I could love her again.
boxer1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 09:27
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
Personally, I'm just glad there are strong female characters like these in EastEnders.

The only thing I would say is that I wish TPTB knew what they were doing with Ronnie so that I could love her again.
Too true.

It's a shame about Ronnie ATM, she can be such a good character. Be reassured that she's not the first to be badly written...three that come to mind, that went through long bad patches are Bianca, Kat and Sharon. Stacey was another who was nigh on ruined.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 17:59
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
Personally, I'm just glad there are strong female characters like these in EastEnders.

The only thing I would say is that I wish TPTB knew what they were doing with Ronnie so that I could love her again.
It's great that there's lots of strong female characters in the show but if they get the ratio wrong then some end up neglected and wasted while others have big stories curtailed /ended too soon while others stories are rushed.
I think it's actually detrimental to good storytelling.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:17
Aaron_Silver
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,756
It's great that there's lots of strong female characters in the show but if they get the ratio wrong then some end up neglected and wasted while others have big stories curtailed /ended too soon while others stories are rushed.
I think it's actually detrimental to good storytelling.
I think they can cope with the amount of strong female characters they have, as was pointed out earlier there were a lot at the beginning, the issue once again comes down to block story telling.
Aaron_Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:22
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
Nobody is bigger than Big Sharon
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:27
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
I think they can cope with the amount of strong female characters they have, as was pointed out earlier there were a lot at the beginning, the issue once again comes down to block story telling.
Yes, they managed perfectly well when we only had two episodes a week, I'm sure they can get it right with four.
To have a variety of s/ls you need a variety of characters, otherwise you end up with the same couple bogged down in endless drama.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:34
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
I think they can cope with the amount of strong female characters they have, as was pointed out earlier there were a lot at the beginning, the issue once again comes down to block story telling.
I'm not sure tbh as some brilliant characters like Denise have been neglected?
I draw a comparison with the royal family there's only so much attention and limelight to go around? Princess Margaret always used to be in the papers but once Diana and Fergie came on the scene then her level of press attention was drastically cut -because in truth I think when it comes to momentum, storylines and attention, focus -numbers do matter after all there's only so much you can fit in to 16 hours of drama a month!
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:37
Aaron_Silver
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,756
I'm not sure tbh as some brilliant characters like Denise have been neglected?
I draw a comparison with the royal family there's only so much attention and limelight to go around? Princess Margaret always used to be in the papers but once Diana and Fergie came on the scene then her level of press attention was drastically cut -because in truth I think when it comes to momentum, storylines and attention, focus -numbers do matter after all there's only so much you can fit in to 16 hours of drama a month!
I think they have rested Denise after a big year last year but I think with the expansion of the Hubbards she is about to figure a lot more soon.
Aaron_Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:37
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,009
Nobody is bigger than Big Sharon
You need to see me.
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:39
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
I think they have rested Denise after a big year last year but I think with the expansion of the Hubbards she is about to figure a lot more soon.
I can think of others I'd prefer they'd rest for a bit! Denise is fab!
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:53
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
I'm not sure tbh as some brilliant characters like Denise have been neglected?
I draw a comparison with the royal family there's only so much attention and limelight to go around? Princess Margaret always used to be in the papers but once Diana and Fergie came on the scene then her level of press attention was drastically cut -because in truth I think when it comes to momentum, storylines and attention, focus -numbers do matter after all there's only so much you can fit in to 16 hours of drama a month!
But that's something that happens naturally, not something that's planned, and it does happen in EE all the time. Bianca gradually took the limelight from Carol, Sharon from Den, Janine from Pat etc. We are now seeing the Branning girls becoming more dominant, and I suspect that one day Ben will be the main Mitchell.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 18:53
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
Good idea
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 19:07
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
But that's something that happens naturally, not something that's planned, and it does happen in EE all the time. Bianca gradually took the limelight from Carol, Sharon from Den, Janine from Pat etc. We are now seeing the Branning girls becoming more dominant, and I suspect that one day Ben will be the main Mitchell.
Yes I'm aware that the limelight shifts naturally and rightly my point wasn't to critique that but to highlight how overcrowding in any field in this case the Queen field makes a natural phenomenon into a problem.

Just as a house can be overcrowded or a poorly written novel can have too many class a characters vying for attention ruining the story so can a Soap.

The problem isn't shifting limelight but too many big characters or Queens vying for a finite limelight.

The limelight can and will shift in a Soap that has less "big " (or treated as big) characters and it isnt as problematic for good storytelling imo.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 19:24
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
Yes I'm aware that the limelight shifts naturally and rightly my point wasn't to critique that but to highlight how overcrowding in any field in this case the Queen field makes a natural phenomenon into a problem.

Just as a house can be overcrowded or a poorly written novel can have too many class a characters vying for attention ruining the story so can a Soap.

The problem isn't shifting limelight but too many big characters or Queens vying for a finite limelight.

The limelight can and will shift in a Soap that has less "big " (or treated as big) characters and it isnt as problematic for good storytelling imo.

If that's the case, and I still don't agree, then they need to stop employing so many class actors that all deserve their time in the limelight. It's not like a book where you have one story and one heroine. They can easily run half a dozen stories at the same time, and do it without the block storytelling.

As you say, it's frustrating enough seeing Denise wasted. To see even more characters twiddling their thumbs while the queens (I hate that expression) strut their stuff would have me switching off and looking for a Soap that isn't obsessed with icons and originals.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 19:52
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
If that's the case, and I still don't agree, then they need to stop employing so many class actors that all deserve their time in the limelight. It's not like a book where you have one story and one heroine. They can easily run half a dozen stories at the same time, and do it without the block storytelling.

As you say, it's frustrating enough seeing Denise wasted. To see even more characters twiddling their thumbs while the queens (I hate that expression) strut their stuff would have me switching off and looking for a Soap that isn't obsessed with icons and originals.
Well I read a lot of Tartan Noir and I assure you that simple stories with one one hero or heroine they aint and they have multiple stories within the book rather than a single story /narrative 😁
I don't think it's about top quality actors it's more about not having an overabundance of characters brimming with the potential of top tier big characters or Queens at the sametime! Yes cast top quality actors worthy of lots of screentime in these big roles but just limit the number of big characters in the shows cast at the sametime.

I happen to think a few of the originals like Kathy are Queens or big characters but my point would still stand even without any originals in the list of Queens.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 20:10
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
Well I read a lot of Tartan Noir and I assure you that simple stories with one one hero or heroine they aint and they have multiple stories within the book rather than a single story /narrative 😁
I don't think it's about top quality actors it's more about not having an overabundance of characters brimming with the potential of top tier big characters or Queens at the sametime! Yes cast top quality actors worthy of lots of screentime in these big roles but just limit the number of big characters in the shows cast at the sametime.

I happen to think a few of the originals like Kathy are Queens or big characters but my point would still stand even without any originals in the list of Queens.
BIB I thought she was a dull character played by a mediocre actress.

I see Linda is faring well on the poll.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 20:29
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
BIB I thought she was a dull character played by a mediocre actress.

I see Linda is faring well on the poll.
Yup Linda seems to be a strong position in viewers affections but Ronnie on the other hand has fared worse than I thought.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 20:33
wizardt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,744
When EastEnders first started, the Queens were Angie, Pauline, Sandy, etc so it's nothing new. We will always have Queens and the rightful Queens should always be Kathy and Sharon because they are the originals and two of the most important characters ever. Dot, Ian and Phil are also extremely important. Nobody else is that important IMO Linda is excellent and I'm glad she is the modern Queen

They really should resurrect Angie. She was probably the best ever Queen
wizardt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2015, 20:43
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
Yup Linda seems to be a strong position in viewers affections but Ronnie on the other hand has fared worse than I thought.
Ronnie has had a dreadful couple of years...the same happened to Kat and Sharon for a good couple of years after their returns.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:15.