There's a thread on Digital Spy Soaps' forum wondering whether Sharon should choose Jack or Phil as her next victim husband.
Some of the answers are hilarious, exhibiting the shallowness, the youth or both of the commenters, since most of them prefer the wooden-headed sperminator to Phil.
Either these people are too young to remember or choose not to remember the history between Sharon and Jack. As someone said, "As if you'd sleep with (or marry) your brother-in-law."
Tanya, anyone? She moved Jack into the framework and household almost as soon as Max had left (at her request), then proceeded to lie like a dog to her daughters about Max's whereabouts and sought to slot Jack right into being babydaddy. Jack, on the other hand, dropped contact with his disabled daughter like the proverbial hot potato, and not only openly participated with dumbass Tanya in publically castigating and humiliating Max, but also was prepared to assist Tanya in illegally removing Max's children from the country in order to swan off with Jack to live in France.
Be that as it may, Sharon has been the love of Phil's life for the better part of twenty years, even if his brother was and probably still is the love of Sharon's life. (Look, forget Dennis. If he'd stayed around and Grant had returned, it would only be a matter of minutes before she was in bed with Grant.)
In point of fact, the Grant-Dennis dynamic was the reason Class A EastEnders' writer Tony Jordan left. With Grant and Dennis both on the scene in 2005, and with Tony Jordan mindful of the fact that there were spades of unfinished business between Grant and Sharon (and an infinite amount of sexual chemistry stronger than the trickle which flowed between Sharon and fey Dennis), Jordan sought a storyline where Sharon was unfaithful to Dennis with Grant. After all, the attraction was still there - and anyone who says Sharon has moved on from Grant needs to remember that the first person after whom she asked when Phil rescued her was Grant. No other than Kate Harwood nixed the idea of a Sharon-Grant affair simply because the resident tweenies creaming their knickers at the idea of Shannis, found Grant "ugly."
(For the record, people on EastEnders' Facebook page are pissing themselves wondering why in the world two lush-haired beauties like Tanya and Kirsty would get themselves in a lather of a fight over a bald-headed ginger minger like Max).
People, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there is such a thing as being good in bed and knowing what to do with it. This is how Max and Phil both attract such varied and attractive women like Tanya, Kirsty, Sharon, Mel, Kate, Kathy Beale, Stacey Slater and Dawn Swann.
It's also why a lumpen load of timber like Jack cannot manage more than a one-night stand with anything more than a mental case.
To me, the Sharon-Jack affiliation is wrong on many different levels. First of all, Sharon - and I've watched Sharon since she was a teenager - wouldn't jump into bed with a man she'd only met a couple of hours before. Nor would she subject her young son into spending the night in the house of such a person who could, for all intents and purposes, be a serial killer.
There is simply no chemistry, which isn't surprising, because there was no chemistry between Jack and Tanya or Jack and Ronnie. Funny enough, the last time Jack's and Roxy's paths crossed sexually was the only time Jack showed sufficient sexual chemistry with any woman in the show.
The Jack-Sharon connection still is total evidence that this crop of EastEnders' writers have the character of Sharon totally and utterly wrong. Sharon has always been an independent, stand-alone character. The fact that she had secured a good-paying job for herself would normally mean she would move from the B and B to a flat of her own for herself and her son; instead, she prostitutes herself to Jack for a roof over her head.
Everything about the Cack relationship is wrong, but chiefly the parody of Miss-Piggy-crossed-with-Marilyn-Monroe which Sharon becomes every time she's around Jack - the sexual innuendos, the moue-ed pouting lips, the breathy voice. It reminds me too much of another relationship she had which did absolutely nothing for me - the doomed relationship with Fireman Tom, even to the point of dressing as Marilyn on the night that he died.
From sexual predator with Tom, she went into maternal mode with Dennis Rickman. Listen to the way Sharon speaks with her son. It's exactly the same tone of voice and manner of speaking she used with her husband-brother.
Sharon is just natural with Phil, and why not? They've known each other for twenty years. They've survived a lot - including Sharon's father stitching him up for armed robbery. Still Phil returned to help Sharon suss out the real murderer of her father, and in return, Sharon gave Peggy the Vic.
When Letitia Dean's return was announced, one of the things she said she was looking forward to was snogging the divine Steve McFadden (her words). McFadden, himself, was looking forward to a Phil-Sharon romantic reunion. And why not? Sharon was meant for the Mitchells, who were created for her.
The fact that the current writing crew, led by Simon-the-Brannings-are-up-my-arse Ashdown, have literally turned Sharon's return into ensconcing her as a B-List player, there only to validate the Brannings as a proper Walford family - sleeping with Jack the Peg and paying homage to the court of Queen Tanya - is a joke. Sharon would never be attracted to a man like Jack, nor would she ever form a friendship so solid so quickly with someone as shallow as Tanya to the point that she was actually, at one time, begging to be Tanya's maid of honour.
That is not only an insult to the character, it's an insult to anyone who's watched the programme long enough to remember Sharon was with Grant long before Dennis was even dreamed up as a character.
The fact that Jack never proposed to Sharon, instead issued her an ultimatum to marry him speaks volumes about Jack's character - she's a Ronnie substitute; a one-time blonde Mitchell whose life he can control abundantly, and make himself feel better by being a babydaddy to a fatherless boy, rather than concentrating on the three children he already has - one of whom happens to be Phil Mitchell's nephew. Fancy the thought of Sharon being stepmother to Sam Mitchell's son!
Sharon is the trophy toy another bald brother from a different mother claims as his own and with a viable history. Where Jack pursued Tanya as a means of getting something Max had that he wanted temporarily, now changes to Jack pursuing Sharon because Phil Mitchell wants and loves her.
Jack sucks the life from every woman with whom he's romantically involved. As nice a man as he is, Scott Maslen is a piss poor actor, and as a romantic lead, he's bloody hopeless. Maslen always raises his game when he performs opposite the likes of Jake Wood or Lindsey Coulsen. If the writers wanted to be really clever, they'd explore Jack's dark past as a bent copper without the involvement of the ubiquitous blonde Mitchell. There would even be scope for re-introducing Jesse Birdsall as Sharon's ex John, making him the drugs baron with whom Jack cohorted during his time on the force and whom he grassed.
At any rate, Sharon shouldn't end up with Jack. She'll get so far before she realises that she's always loved Phil (or Phil as a substitute for Grant), and then she'll dump poor pitiful Jack, who'll become a victim again.
There's still hope for Jack in the Mitchell stakes, however. One blonde Mitchell satellite is still prowling around the streets and alleways of Walford ... Jack could always sleep with Shirley.
Some of the answers are hilarious, exhibiting the shallowness, the youth or both of the commenters, since most of them prefer the wooden-headed sperminator to Phil.
Either these people are too young to remember or choose not to remember the history between Sharon and Jack. As someone said, "As if you'd sleep with (or marry) your brother-in-law."
Tanya, anyone? She moved Jack into the framework and household almost as soon as Max had left (at her request), then proceeded to lie like a dog to her daughters about Max's whereabouts and sought to slot Jack right into being babydaddy. Jack, on the other hand, dropped contact with his disabled daughter like the proverbial hot potato, and not only openly participated with dumbass Tanya in publically castigating and humiliating Max, but also was prepared to assist Tanya in illegally removing Max's children from the country in order to swan off with Jack to live in France.
Be that as it may, Sharon has been the love of Phil's life for the better part of twenty years, even if his brother was and probably still is the love of Sharon's life. (Look, forget Dennis. If he'd stayed around and Grant had returned, it would only be a matter of minutes before she was in bed with Grant.)
In point of fact, the Grant-Dennis dynamic was the reason Class A EastEnders' writer Tony Jordan left. With Grant and Dennis both on the scene in 2005, and with Tony Jordan mindful of the fact that there were spades of unfinished business between Grant and Sharon (and an infinite amount of sexual chemistry stronger than the trickle which flowed between Sharon and fey Dennis), Jordan sought a storyline where Sharon was unfaithful to Dennis with Grant. After all, the attraction was still there - and anyone who says Sharon has moved on from Grant needs to remember that the first person after whom she asked when Phil rescued her was Grant. No other than Kate Harwood nixed the idea of a Sharon-Grant affair simply because the resident tweenies creaming their knickers at the idea of Shannis, found Grant "ugly."
(For the record, people on EastEnders' Facebook page are pissing themselves wondering why in the world two lush-haired beauties like Tanya and Kirsty would get themselves in a lather of a fight over a bald-headed ginger minger like Max).
People, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there is such a thing as being good in bed and knowing what to do with it. This is how Max and Phil both attract such varied and attractive women like Tanya, Kirsty, Sharon, Mel, Kate, Kathy Beale, Stacey Slater and Dawn Swann.
It's also why a lumpen load of timber like Jack cannot manage more than a one-night stand with anything more than a mental case.
To me, the Sharon-Jack affiliation is wrong on many different levels. First of all, Sharon - and I've watched Sharon since she was a teenager - wouldn't jump into bed with a man she'd only met a couple of hours before. Nor would she subject her young son into spending the night in the house of such a person who could, for all intents and purposes, be a serial killer.
There is simply no chemistry, which isn't surprising, because there was no chemistry between Jack and Tanya or Jack and Ronnie. Funny enough, the last time Jack's and Roxy's paths crossed sexually was the only time Jack showed sufficient sexual chemistry with any woman in the show.
The Jack-Sharon connection still is total evidence that this crop of EastEnders' writers have the character of Sharon totally and utterly wrong. Sharon has always been an independent, stand-alone character. The fact that she had secured a good-paying job for herself would normally mean she would move from the B and B to a flat of her own for herself and her son; instead, she prostitutes herself to Jack for a roof over her head.
Everything about the Cack relationship is wrong, but chiefly the parody of Miss-Piggy-crossed-with-Marilyn-Monroe which Sharon becomes every time she's around Jack - the sexual innuendos, the moue-ed pouting lips, the breathy voice. It reminds me too much of another relationship she had which did absolutely nothing for me - the doomed relationship with Fireman Tom, even to the point of dressing as Marilyn on the night that he died.
From sexual predator with Tom, she went into maternal mode with Dennis Rickman. Listen to the way Sharon speaks with her son. It's exactly the same tone of voice and manner of speaking she used with her husband-brother.
Sharon is just natural with Phil, and why not? They've known each other for twenty years. They've survived a lot - including Sharon's father stitching him up for armed robbery. Still Phil returned to help Sharon suss out the real murderer of her father, and in return, Sharon gave Peggy the Vic.
When Letitia Dean's return was announced, one of the things she said she was looking forward to was snogging the divine Steve McFadden (her words). McFadden, himself, was looking forward to a Phil-Sharon romantic reunion. And why not? Sharon was meant for the Mitchells, who were created for her.
The fact that the current writing crew, led by Simon-the-Brannings-are-up-my-arse Ashdown, have literally turned Sharon's return into ensconcing her as a B-List player, there only to validate the Brannings as a proper Walford family - sleeping with Jack the Peg and paying homage to the court of Queen Tanya - is a joke. Sharon would never be attracted to a man like Jack, nor would she ever form a friendship so solid so quickly with someone as shallow as Tanya to the point that she was actually, at one time, begging to be Tanya's maid of honour.
That is not only an insult to the character, it's an insult to anyone who's watched the programme long enough to remember Sharon was with Grant long before Dennis was even dreamed up as a character.
The fact that Jack never proposed to Sharon, instead issued her an ultimatum to marry him speaks volumes about Jack's character - she's a Ronnie substitute; a one-time blonde Mitchell whose life he can control abundantly, and make himself feel better by being a babydaddy to a fatherless boy, rather than concentrating on the three children he already has - one of whom happens to be Phil Mitchell's nephew. Fancy the thought of Sharon being stepmother to Sam Mitchell's son!
Sharon is the trophy toy another bald brother from a different mother claims as his own and with a viable history. Where Jack pursued Tanya as a means of getting something Max had that he wanted temporarily, now changes to Jack pursuing Sharon because Phil Mitchell wants and loves her.
Jack sucks the life from every woman with whom he's romantically involved. As nice a man as he is, Scott Maslen is a piss poor actor, and as a romantic lead, he's bloody hopeless. Maslen always raises his game when he performs opposite the likes of Jake Wood or Lindsey Coulsen. If the writers wanted to be really clever, they'd explore Jack's dark past as a bent copper without the involvement of the ubiquitous blonde Mitchell. There would even be scope for re-introducing Jesse Birdsall as Sharon's ex John, making him the drugs baron with whom Jack cohorted during his time on the force and whom he grassed.
At any rate, Sharon shouldn't end up with Jack. She'll get so far before she realises that she's always loved Phil (or Phil as a substitute for Grant), and then she'll dump poor pitiful Jack, who'll become a victim again.
There's still hope for Jack in the Mitchell stakes, however. One blonde Mitchell satellite is still prowling around the streets and alleways of Walford ... Jack could always sleep with Shirley.
Sharon and Jack are enjoyable. But it makes no sense to have them get married so soon. And I think she loves Phil not Jack. Which is more interesting.
ReplyDelete