|
||||||||
EE: Sharon the gold digger |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,054
|
I hope when Sharon is not around Phil gets Richie to change the will back and then makes a full recovery and then divorces Sharon that would teach the gold-digger a lesson. .
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South West England
Posts: 4,636
|
Quote:
I hope when Sharon is not around Phil gets Richie to change the will back and then makes a full recovery and then divorces Sharon that would teach the gold-digger a lesson. .
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,054
|
Quote:
She'll have to sign the divorce papers if Phil wants a divorce and she may ask for a huge divorce settlement
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 4,644
|
Quote:
Let's get a few things straight.
Firstly, Sharon isn't and has never been a gold digger. If she wanted money she could have married John in 2012, or she could have fleeced Phil in 2014. She did neither. Secondly, Phil leaving his entire estate to a 14 year old girl is thoughtless and irresponsible. He has a son and wife to think of too. Sharon has put up with a hell of a lot of shit from Phil, and has looked after his businesses and his children in the process. It was she that made the Albert a success. Why shouldn't she ensure her own financial security (and Denny's) in the event of Phil's death? Are we all going to pretend that if we were in Sharon's situation we would have said nothing? Ridiculous. But this is DS and it's Sharon, so the faux outrage begin. I completely agree with all this. Same old Sharon-hate on here, same old haters I notice. I was almost WAITING for this thread to turn up - so predictable and boring. If I'd married a man who treated me like dirt, slept with his ex- on the eve of our wedding, left me to run all his businesses and clean up his sh*t after he'd drunk himself into oblivion, disowned his own son and then discovered he'd passed his son over for a 14 year old daughter he barely knew a year ago simply because his son happens to be gay and he feels a pathetic need to 'punish', then I'd be furious too. Louise has extracted more than enough cash from Phil - she accepted the sports-bag full of money that he brought to her school when he re-introduced himself, and also stole from his credit cards - such a loving daughter. I fail to see why this entitled little madam should get it all. IMO she is one of the most unlikeable characters in the show at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,603
|
Sharon is a gold-digger for sure, always has been, Phil should arrange to have her bumped off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,054
|
Quote:
Sharon is a gold-digger for sure, always has been, Phil should arrange to have her bumped off.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,729
|
The Sharon was old was never a gold digger - she was strong and independent and an astute businesswoman. After running The Vic she bought the nightclub on her own Angie's Den and made it a success. When she left the show in 2006 she would have been a millionaire, she had just sold The Vic to Phil and Peggy, her house 5 Albert Square and the Club to Johnny Allen and still owned the Bookies. She would have been a wealthy woman when she moved to America.
However when they brought her back in 2012 Sharon had become a penniless scrounger, she lived in the B&B for more than a year before latching onto Phil and getting her feet under the table at his house. He then gave her a share in the Club (the one she previously owned outright, now reduced to accepting a handout token share in the place from her partner) and he then later bought her The Albert to run. We never did find out what happened to all Sharon's money during her 6 year absence and why she's turned into this pathetic gold digger. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 818
|
Quote:
Sharon and Shirley are both wonderful characters but for some reason Tptb seem to think they are better as enemies when on their recent scenes they have shown they are great sparring buddies.
EE annoys me in their depiction of women at times ![]() And the version Alex Lamb has of Sharon's character is something that she never was. The retconning aside he has shafted her big time. I'm surprised Letitia hasn't quit tbh. HOWEVER I'm even more baffled that people claiming to be long term viewers are buying into it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,533
|
Quote:
The Sharon was old was never a gold digger - she was strong and independent and an astute businesswoman. After running The Vic she bought the nightclub on her own Angie's Den and made it a success. When she left the show in 2006 she would have been a millionaire, she had just sold The Vic to Phil and Peggy, her house 5 Albert Square and the Club to Johnny Allen and still owned the Bookies. She would have been a wealthy woman when she moved to America.
However when they brought her back in 2012 Sharon had become a penniless scrounger, she lived in the B&B for more than a year before latching onto Phil and getting her feet under the table at his house. He then gave her a share in the Club (the one she previously owned outright, now reduced to accepting a handout token share in the place from her partner) and he then later bought her The Albert to run. We never did find out what happened to all Sharon's money during her 6 year absence and why she's turned into this pathetic gold digger. The old Sharon was not a gold digger. The new Sharon most certainly is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,009
|
Quote:
Sharon is a gold-digger for sure, always has been, Phil should arrange to have her bumped off.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
|
Quote:
Same old Sharon-hate on here, same old haters I notice. I was almost WAITING for this thread to turn up - so predictable and boring.
As someone said earlier in the thread people are only reacting to what was shown in the episode. 'Same old haters' like the same few constantly bashing the Carters then. The other day another anti thread sprung up and the first page or 2 was a couple of like-minded posters agreeing with each other and not for the first time. Not that Shirley - who didn't blackmail herself into owning half of the Vic, she got something like a 10% share IIRC - or her family have any relevance here but as it was brought it up. I genuinely don't see it as 'always the same few' with Sharon. Her behaviour has been pretty off at times in this stint and you tend to get a mix of posters in the threads. The infamous 'Mitchell scum' thread pertaining to their vile treatment of a character with bi polar for instance was not started by someone who always bashes Sharon (at least to my knowledge). |
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
Oh give it a rest.
As someone said earlier in the thread people are only reacting to what was shown in the episode. 'Same old haters' like the same few constantly bashing the Carters then. The other day another anti thread sprung up and the first page or 2 was a couple of like-minded posters agreeing with each other and not for the first time. Not that Shirley - who didn't blackmail herself into owning half of the Vic, she got something like a 10% share IIRC - or her family have any relevance here but as others brought it up. Of course people are entitled to slate Sharon as much as they want, but it's frustrating some posters are not interested in engaging in discussion at all. It's just "Sharon is a bitch" on repeat and this thread is an example of that. Had this been any other character I very much doubt it would have generated this reaction. Quote:
I genuinely don't see it as 'always the same few' with Sharon. Her behaviour has been pretty off at times in this stint and you tend to get a mix of posters in the threads. The infamous 'Mitchell scum' thread pertaining to their vile treatment of a character with bi polar for instance was not started by someone who always bashes Sharon (at least to my knowledge).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
|
Quote:
But they're not. There have been a number of posts in this thread asserting that Sharon has always been a gold digger despite all evidence to the contrary. She has never been portrayed as a gold digger but this falls on deaf ears to some posters, which is why I posted earlier that having a reasoned debate about Sharon on here is like getting blood out of a stone. Some people only see what they want to see.
However, in this stint there's been recurring signs of her being a gold digger. Either it's OOC writing or we're supposed to believe her character has shifted somewhat in light of being poor for a couple of years prior to her return in 2012. It was said John picked her out of the gutter IIRC. She obviously didn't love him or she'd have married him. Rather than that proving she wasn't with him for money, walking out on their wedding suggests to me she was with him for some reason other than love even if she ultimately couldn't go through with it in the end. Quote:
Of course people are entitled to slate Sharon as much as they want, but some posters are not interested in engaging in discussion at all. It's just "Sharon is a bitch" on repeat and this thread is an example of that. Had this been any other character it would not have generated the reaction that it has.
There's a few others that are subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Shirley and Kathy are and Kat and Alfie were. It'll be Kathy's turn tonight I wouldn't worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
As I said in the ep thread I don't think she's always been a gold digger. She was genuinely in love with Grant when he helped her buy the Vic in the early 90s. I don't think she saw it as financial security either. She wanted the Vic out of a love for the place. Also IIRC they each owned a third so Sharon put in for a stake herself.
However, in this stint there's been recurring signs of her being a gold digger. Either it's OOC writing or we're supposed to believe her character has shifted somewhat in light of being poor for a couple of years prior to her return in 2012. It was said John picked her out of the gutter IIRC. She obviously didn't love him or she'd have married him. Rather than that proving she wasn't with him for money, walking out on their wedding suggests to me she was with him for some reason other than love even if she ultimately couldn't go through with it in the end. There's a few others that are subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Shirley and Kathy are and Kat and Alfie were. It'll be Kathy's turn tonight I wouldn't worry. I know that you have your reservations about the way Sharon is portrayed and your points are reasoned and well-argued (even if sometimes I might disagree), but unfortunately this thread is full of the usual "Sharon has always been a gold digging cow" stuff despite the fact that I and other posters have pointed out that she hasn't. We had the same bizarre rubbish when Peggy died, despite nothing being shown on screen to suggest Sharon was after Peggy's money - or indeed that Peggy had any money to leave. It's really quite tedious. It's true that Sharon is more dependent in this stint than she has been previously, but I don't see her trying to secure her financial security (and her son) as gold-digging. Ultimately, this comes back to the bad continuity of her 2012 return. By the time of Sharon's exit in 2006 she had built a rather lucrative business empire and realistically she would have been a millionaire. Then it all vanished overnight and we had her begging for scraps from Phil's table. She has put up with plenty from Phil during their marriage and he was going to leave her with nothing. I doubt many wives would take kindly to that. If she really wanted Phil's money she could have gone through with her revenge plan two years ago and taken everything, but she didn't. If she truly was a gold-digger she'd be out for all of Phil's money and ensure that Louise and Ben were completely written out of the will, but again she hasn't. The facts in this case have been wilfully ignored by people who are only interested in getting in a dig at a character they don't like, sadly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Like this thread was ever suppose to be constructive, falls into the same old tired arguments, you can't have a decent debate on here anymore, first people have to engage and most just ignore or argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69,009
|
Quote:
Oh give it a rest.
As someone said earlier in the thread people are only reacting to what was shown in the episode. 'Same old haters' like the same few constantly bashing the Carters then. The other day another anti thread sprung up and the first page or 2 was a couple of like-minded posters agreeing with each other and not for the first time. Not that Shirley - who didn't blackmail herself into owning half of the Vic, she got something like a 10% share IIRC - or her family have any relevance here but as it was brought it up. I genuinely don't see it as 'always the same few' with Sharon. Her behaviour has been pretty off at times in this stint and you tend to get a mix of posters in the threads. The infamous 'Mitchell scum' thread pertaining to their vile treatment of a character with bi polar for instance was not started by someone who always bashes Sharon (at least to my knowledge). but there are people who are also in agreement that Sharon isn't a gold digger so obviously it's not just a reaction to the episode itself.I find the writing for Sharon on particular abysmal. More so than anyone else in the show |
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
|
Saying things like "But Sharon isn't a gold digger, fact" isn't constructive.
Please try to make reasoned arguments rather than talking in absolutes. Personally I prefer to go by what is evidenced in the scripts, buts that's just me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,533
|
As someone who always loved Sharon I am genuinely sad at her character development since her 2012 return.
She has not done one thing for herself instead looking to men to take care of her and her vile offspring. Last night was just the absolute end for me. She threw a hissy fit because she was not in Phil's will. Fair enough but she kept at him till he put her in and didnt give a stuff about Ben. She has turned into a selfish b*tch. And she is a dreadful mother. I dont know how she can be redeemed or if they even want to. I hate seeing a once great character reduced to this but there you go. |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 818
|
Quote:
Not that Shirley - who didn't blackmail herself into owning half of the Vic, she got something like a 10% share IIRC - or her family have any relevance here but as it was brought it up. Quote:
Like this thread was ever suppose to be constructive, falls into the same old tired arguments, you can't have a decent debate on here anymore, first people have to engage and most just ignore or argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
|
Quote:
As someone who always loved Sharon I am genuinely sad at her character development since her 2012 return.
She has not done one thing for herself instead looking to men to take care of her and her vile offspring. Last night was just the absolute end for me. She threw a hissy fit because she was not in Phil's will. Fair enough but she kept at him till he put her in and didnt give a stuff about Ben. She has turned into a selfish b*tch. And she is a dreadful mother. I dont know how she can be redeemed or if they even want to. I hate seeing a once great character reduced to this but there you go. |
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
Saying things like "But Sharon isn't a gold digger, fact" isn't constructive.
Saying things like "Sharon has always been a gold-digger" without anything to back that up, as many posters have done in this thread and others, is not constructive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Quote:
Nobody has done that, as far as I can see. There have been claims that Sharon has "only ever" been a gold-digger, and that has been refuted by myself and others with evidence that she hasn't. That's constructive discussion.
Saying that Sharon has always been a gold-digger without anything to back that up, as many posters have done in this thread and others, is not constructive. She paid Gavin of with the 100k she got from the sale of The Albert. Phil agreed to a divorce settlement, enough that she was going to buy a house with, so where has that gone, did she give it back? She apparently still working at the vic, but hasn't been seen at the bar for months, so what was the point in that? Phil's assets total a house, the arches and we presume the land and holdings of R&R and the car lot, both not mentioned in yonks and are sitting disused. So where is his money coming from, what left of his businesses are being run by Ben and Sharon and his been out of action for months so is bringing nothing in, he claimed he couldn't pay Grant back the money he owed him. |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 9,412
|
Quote:
The writing is abysmal as is the finer details,
She paid Gavin of with the 100k she got from the sale of The Albert. Phil agreed to a divorce settlement, enough that she was going to buy a house with, so where has that gone, did she give it back? She apparently still working at the vic, but hasn't been seen at the bar for months, so what was the point in that? Phil's assets total a house, the arches and we presume the land and holdings of R&R and the car lot, both not mentioned in yonks and are sitting disused. So where is his money coming from, what left of his businesses are being run by Ben and Sharon and his been out of action for months so is bringing nothing in, he claimed he couldn't pay Grant back the money he owed him. I still don't understand where all of Sharon's money went and why they decided to bring her back completely broke. That was arguably the start of all of her problems in this stint, and the reason she has been so dependent on Phil. I still think there is a huge difference between ensuring financial stability and gold-digging, however. |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Quote:
The writers' attention to detail when it comes to the Mitchell finances has pretty much always been ropey. Phil getting over his crack addiction and finding the cash to buy a house, all within a matter of weeks, was utterly ludicrous. See also Roxy blowing her entire £3million fortune within a year. No explanation for where it all went.
I still don't understand where all of Sharon's money went and why they decided to bring her back completely broke. That was arguably the start of all of her problems in this stint, and the reason she has been so dependent on Phil. I still think there is a huge difference between ensuring financial stability and gold-digging, however. That nugget was BK's era at its best. |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Down Saaf
Posts: 10,376
|
Quote:
As Philth's widow, wouldn't Sharon be entitled to his estate anyway?
I think id R and R were not leaving, i think it would have been written Ronnie may take control till the kids got older. I guess for Phil it was about legacy. Mitchells pride themselves on it. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39.





but there are people who are also in agreement that Sharon isn't a gold digger so obviously it's not just a reaction to the episode itself.