|
||||||||
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 |
|
|
#126 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
|
Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#127 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
|
Quote:
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. 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#130 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ronnie's bed
Posts: 20,574
|
Quote:
EastEnders nearly always does brilliantly when it's premium family the Mitchells are pretty close to center stage.
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Suck it
Posts: 7,777
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#132 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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. I think it's actually detrimental to good storytelling. |
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,756
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
Nobody is bigger than Big Sharon
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
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.
![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
#138 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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 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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#139 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,756
|
Quote:
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#141 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#142 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
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! |
|
|
|
|
#143 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#144 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#145 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
#146 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
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. I see Linda is faring well on the poll.
|
|
|
|
|
#148 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,726
|
Quote:
BIB I thought she was a dull character played by a mediocre actress.
I see Linda is faring well on the poll. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#149 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#150 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
|
Quote:
Yup Linda seems to be a strong position in viewers affections but Ronnie on the other hand has fared worse than I thought.
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:15.







but she's not a current character at the moment so you're forgiven 
