I ran across the following thread opening on Digital Spy, always the home of intelligent discussion regarding EastEnders. I suspect the "89" in dazza89's screen name refers to the year in which this charming bloke was born, which explains his narrow-minded take on EastEnders and its most iconic characters:-
Let's examine some of dazza89's imperceptions of Sharon:-
As yet, we don't know her backstory for the past six years she's lived in Florida, and long-term viewers are quick to recognise that her behaviour this time around is nothing like the character we've watched since the 1980s. Were dazza89 intelligent and open-minded enough to watch some YouTube episodes from the 1990s, he'd easily see that the Sharon from that period is vastly different person from the current Sharon. In fact, one could accurately say that the Sharon we currently have is Simon Ashdown's version of a Sharon as BranningLite.
Sharon was a very family-oriented person, who kept her friends (Ian, Phil and Dot) near and her enemies at arm's length. The Sharon of old would never have jumped into bed with a man she'd only known a few hours, nor would she have prostituted herself to a virtual stranger just for a roof over her head. The Sharon of old would have disdained Tanya and defended Kirsty, not the other way around. In fact, the Sharon of old would rather have died than beg for crumbs from Tanya's table. They would never have been best friends.
But slut? Hardly. And not in comparison to the likes of Tanya, Kat, Lauren or even Carol Jackson, who - last night - accurately described herself as a four-by-four.
Come again?
Sharon was the original Walford ingenue. Without Sharon, you wouldn't have had a teenager named Bianca, or Tiffany Raymond Mitchell ... or Sonia or even the overrated Lauren. She was the daughter of the first and very iconic landlord of the Vic. In fact, in terms of legendary couples, any of the lot you have now on EastEnders - Alfie and Kat, Max and Tanya - would pale before Den and Ange, the original co-dependent duo.
She survived the departure of her mother and the "first" death of her father to establish herself as a viable businesswoman and manager of the Vic, before she met the Mitchells, who were actually created for Sharon. So without Sharon, there would have been no Grant or Phil. No Peggy. No Ben. No Billy. No Ronnie and Roxy.
Before EastEnders made sibling spouse-sharing the norm, Sharongate was an innovative and provocative storyline which ran the length of two years. Think of that ... two years! And its reveal was one of the most watched moments in soap history. In fact, it was voted the best soap moment in a recent poll. Here you go ... try it out, dazza89:-
Sharon was always one of the strongest females on the show, in an age when women didn't have to screech to be identified mistakenly as being strong, and when they could and did walk away from men who were hampering their lifestyles. She rose from infidelity - and Sharon was shunned, virtually shunned by Walford in the wake of her affair with Phil. She rose from bankruptcy, her mother's alcoholism, the death of her fiance', the death(s) of her father and her husband, her first husband's physical abuse. Sharon got knocked down and came back for more, again and again.
The only thing that's ruing Sharon this time around, and it began a decade ago, is the writing and also the recreation of her last time around as a clingy, dependent woman in love with a fey prettyboy. Believe me, original Sharon would never have fallen for Dennis Rickman, and she'd never have countenanced sleeping with someone who was, by legal definition, her brother.
Blame the writers.
And from which "mate" did Sharon steal? Tanya is hardly a mate. She doesn't even qualify as one. How about Lauren, again? She stole from not one grandmother, but both grandmothers. She'd steal from her mates without compunction, if she had any. That's what addicts do. And Bianca not only stole from local citizens, she assaulted one as well - and she certainly wasn't addicted to anything, except stupidity.
Really?
Worse than Kat, who uses her son as a shield or a weapon and who partied and fucked with all and sundry whilst her abused husband cared for her child? Worse than Roxy, who left Amy wherever it was convenient whilst she also partied with Christian and Kim? Worse than Tanya, who's arguably the most selfish mother on the programme and who regularly ignores her children's problems because her life solely revolves around herself and her dependency on Max? Worse than Bianca, who can't even feed, discipline or look after her children unless there's an even older adult in the house, she's so retarded? This is the woman who chose to go in debt for a new telly instead of getting her children food for the table or clothes for their bodies. Worse than Lexi, who smeared industrial paint and adult chemical beauty cream on her newborn? Worse than Stacey Slater, who fucked another woman's husband on the bonnet of a car, whilst her child was inside the car?
I don't think so.
But dazza89 isn't the only millenial to wow us with hisknowledge ignorance. Here's Aaron1995, who's all of 17 years old:-
Shall I be picky? Yes, I think I shall.
Sharon secondary to Sharongate? Hardly. She was the woman whom two brothers loved. The whole storyline was named after her. She was the central figure, the object of desire. Take her away, and all you have are two bruvs in the corner with their willies and their right hands. Sharongate began with Grant's descent into the madness resulting from a violent childhood and PTSD after the Falklands war. Sharon was the abused spouse, the entire focal point of Sharongate, the dividing factor in brotherly love. The presence of Sharon, seen or unseen, set the dynamic which powered Phil Mitchell's life for the next twenty years.
I was never a Shannis fan, but I'd hardly call the story of that relationship a fiasco. It may very well have descended to fiasco level had both of the people concerned remained in the programme, but for many, it was the ultimate love story, which - again - could not have taken place without Sharon's presence.
June Brown is a jobbing actress whose performances descend sometimes into pantomime. Dot is prideful, annoying, self-righteous, hypocritical and selfish. You only have to watch the last episode in which John Bardon appeared to see her at "cartoon Dot" level - head-bobbing, eyes popping, arms flailing, running around like Olive Oyl in a Popeye cartoon.
Patsy Palmer and Jessie Wallace, as actresses, are no better or worse than Letitia Dean. The fact that all three women found their greatest success as EastEnders' characters and are back on the programme again for reprises of their original roles says a lot for the limitations of their acting abilities. All three characters - Kat, Bianca and Sharon - have been effectively ruined by Bryan Kirkwood's writing room. Kat is as far removed from her original character as Sharon is from hers. Kat was redeemed when she left in 2005 with a happy ending. This Kat is an abuse victim who's classically become an abuser. This Kat can certifiably be called a slut before Sharon could - shagging Derek Branning, copping off with a deliveryman in an alleyway, sleeping with her husband's cousin ... all whilst married. She's a bully who targets vulnerable people who are only doing their jobs and trying to get on.
As for Bianca, she left in 1999, having successfully run her own market stall, for a career at fashion college. She returned a retard, with anger management problems, who isn't above resorting to bullying and criminal activities. She's known now, primarily, for her strident voice.
You're really showing your ignorance, because if you ask any person who doesn't watch EastEnders to name an iconic EastEnders' character, before anyone would name Kat or Bianca, they'd name Sharon.
And, by the way, the proper grammar is "better actresses than she."
Give it up, grow up, and come back when you've finished proper schooling.
Why does everyone think Sharon is so pefectBefore I blow this insignificant piece of wankspittle to smithereens, let me just say that I know he wasn't born when EastEnders started and that he probably didn't even start watching the programme until about 2006, but that's no excuse for not knowing the history of the show; and in this day of technology, one can always access old episodes or clips thereof on YouTube. Succinctly put, just because a character existed before this Little Prince took his first breath, isn't a reason to disregard her so cavalierly. I mean, the French Revolution happened some 200-odd years before I was born, but I know about it and appreciate its significance.
that she is the Mother Theresa of bleedin Walford
She is a slut, bad friend and an even worse parent
I hate all the constant threads about when will so and so have a scene with Sharon, why isnt Sharon doing this or doing that.
I really dont get her legendary status, she's a good character but no where near as good as people make her out to be and thats why i started this thread so we can talk about how crap Sharon is and why we all hate her so much. She takes pills when she is supposed to be looking after a baby, she steals off her mates, uses Phil and Jack who went up in my estimation when he dumped her at the altar. She is the worst mum in soapland, moving Denny around to what ever poor bloke she has targeted next and then leavings straight away when she messes up, Denny deserves a better mum than bloody Shazza
As for putting Sharon back in the Vic, no thanks...she's a complete wet weekend and wouldnt fit in there no more.
I HATE SHARON WATTS/MITCHELL/RICKMAN!!!
Let's examine some of dazza89's imperceptions of Sharon:-
She is a slut,How? Admittedly, Brain of Britain wouldn't know, but Sharon didn't lose her virginity until she was nineteen (to Simon Wicks), and she had a serious relationship with him. The next man with whom she slept after Simon deserted her, was Grant Mitchell,and she married him. Yes, she had an affair with his brother Phil, which has lasted off-and-on the better part of 20 years. She was involved with a divorced man when she returned to Walford in 2001, a relationship which ended; she was engaged to Fireman Tom, who died, and she married Dennis Rickman.
As yet, we don't know her backstory for the past six years she's lived in Florida, and long-term viewers are quick to recognise that her behaviour this time around is nothing like the character we've watched since the 1980s. Were dazza89 intelligent and open-minded enough to watch some YouTube episodes from the 1990s, he'd easily see that the Sharon from that period is vastly different person from the current Sharon. In fact, one could accurately say that the Sharon we currently have is Simon Ashdown's version of a Sharon as BranningLite.
Sharon was a very family-oriented person, who kept her friends (Ian, Phil and Dot) near and her enemies at arm's length. The Sharon of old would never have jumped into bed with a man she'd only known a few hours, nor would she have prostituted herself to a virtual stranger just for a roof over her head. The Sharon of old would have disdained Tanya and defended Kirsty, not the other way around. In fact, the Sharon of old would rather have died than beg for crumbs from Tanya's table. They would never have been best friends.
But slut? Hardly. And not in comparison to the likes of Tanya, Kat, Lauren or even Carol Jackson, who - last night - accurately described herself as a four-by-four.
she's a good character but no where near as good as people make her out to be
Come again?
Sharon was the original Walford ingenue. Without Sharon, you wouldn't have had a teenager named Bianca, or Tiffany Raymond Mitchell ... or Sonia or even the overrated Lauren. She was the daughter of the first and very iconic landlord of the Vic. In fact, in terms of legendary couples, any of the lot you have now on EastEnders - Alfie and Kat, Max and Tanya - would pale before Den and Ange, the original co-dependent duo.
She survived the departure of her mother and the "first" death of her father to establish herself as a viable businesswoman and manager of the Vic, before she met the Mitchells, who were actually created for Sharon. So without Sharon, there would have been no Grant or Phil. No Peggy. No Ben. No Billy. No Ronnie and Roxy.
Before EastEnders made sibling spouse-sharing the norm, Sharongate was an innovative and provocative storyline which ran the length of two years. Think of that ... two years! And its reveal was one of the most watched moments in soap history. In fact, it was voted the best soap moment in a recent poll. Here you go ... try it out, dazza89:-
Sharon was always one of the strongest females on the show, in an age when women didn't have to screech to be identified mistakenly as being strong, and when they could and did walk away from men who were hampering their lifestyles. She rose from infidelity - and Sharon was shunned, virtually shunned by Walford in the wake of her affair with Phil. She rose from bankruptcy, her mother's alcoholism, the death of her fiance', the death(s) of her father and her husband, her first husband's physical abuse. Sharon got knocked down and came back for more, again and again.
The only thing that's ruing Sharon this time around, and it began a decade ago, is the writing and also the recreation of her last time around as a clingy, dependent woman in love with a fey prettyboy. Believe me, original Sharon would never have fallen for Dennis Rickman, and she'd never have countenanced sleeping with someone who was, by legal definition, her brother.
Blame the writers.
She takes pills when she is supposed to be looking after a baby, she steals off her mates,Do you know that addiction is an illness? That's why some addicts are under the care of a doctor. She takes pills. Lauren drinks. Shall we criticize her? Tanya and Cora both have been drunk and responsible for children. In one instance, Abi walked the length of the Square in the dead of winter in her pyjamas, looking for Max without Tanya ever knowing she'd gone; in the other, Cora was out like a light and Oscar took a tumble down the stairs.
And from which "mate" did Sharon steal? Tanya is hardly a mate. She doesn't even qualify as one. How about Lauren, again? She stole from not one grandmother, but both grandmothers. She'd steal from her mates without compunction, if she had any. That's what addicts do. And Bianca not only stole from local citizens, she assaulted one as well - and she certainly wasn't addicted to anything, except stupidity.
She is the worst mum in soapland,
Really?
Worse than Kat, who uses her son as a shield or a weapon and who partied and fucked with all and sundry whilst her abused husband cared for her child? Worse than Roxy, who left Amy wherever it was convenient whilst she also partied with Christian and Kim? Worse than Tanya, who's arguably the most selfish mother on the programme and who regularly ignores her children's problems because her life solely revolves around herself and her dependency on Max? Worse than Bianca, who can't even feed, discipline or look after her children unless there's an even older adult in the house, she's so retarded? This is the woman who chose to go in debt for a new telly instead of getting her children food for the table or clothes for their bodies. Worse than Lexi, who smeared industrial paint and adult chemical beauty cream on her newborn? Worse than Stacey Slater, who fucked another woman's husband on the bonnet of a car, whilst her child was inside the car?
I don't think so.
As for putting Sharon back in the Vic, no thanks...she's a complete wet weekend and wouldnt fit in there no more.May I ask, how long have you watched this programme? Kat and Alfie fit in the Vic? Roxy? The only other person who's capable of running the Vic, besides Sharon, is Peggy. To say Sharon wouldn't "fit" in the Vic is like saying water wouldn't "fit" in a lake. The only reason she doesn't this time around is down to the writing. Grow a pair.
I HATE SHARON WATTS/MITCHELL/RICKMAN!!!Yes, we know, asshole. We get the gist, and you probably hate her so much because she's the wrong side of forty, a tad overweight and not as fit as some of the other no-marks on the show. You really need to learn how to think critically.
But dazza89 isn't the only millenial to wow us with his
The only reason why she is considered "legendary" is her association with Den and Angie, arguably Eastenders most iconic couple and her involvement in "Sharongate" and the whole "Shannis" fiasco and it was the other characters/Actors involved that carried both those storylines.
I detest Sharon intensely and consider current female characters such as Dot, Janine, Bianca and Kat far more memorable and played by better actresses than her.
Shall I be picky? Yes, I think I shall.
The only reason why she is considered "legendary" is her association with Den and Angie, arguably Eastenders most iconic couple and her involvement in "Sharongate" and the whole "Shannis" fiascoSharon was a teenager when Den (the first time) and Angie were on screen. While it might be hard to believe, the teenaged contingent on EastEnders during those years consisted of only Sharon, Michelle, a very young Ian, Kelvin Carpenter and Mark Fowler Mach I. And, apart from Michelle's teenaged pregnancy, they didn't figure in any A-List storylines. If Sharon were so dependent on her parents, she would have left with Angie when she split with Den. And Sharon was a very integral and important part to that storyline, because Den's and Angie's behaviour very much determined the sort of person into which Sharon evolved, much the same way Max and Tanya are determining the sort of person Lauren's becoming.
Sharon secondary to Sharongate? Hardly. She was the woman whom two brothers loved. The whole storyline was named after her. She was the central figure, the object of desire. Take her away, and all you have are two bruvs in the corner with their willies and their right hands. Sharongate began with Grant's descent into the madness resulting from a violent childhood and PTSD after the Falklands war. Sharon was the abused spouse, the entire focal point of Sharongate, the dividing factor in brotherly love. The presence of Sharon, seen or unseen, set the dynamic which powered Phil Mitchell's life for the next twenty years.
I was never a Shannis fan, but I'd hardly call the story of that relationship a fiasco. It may very well have descended to fiasco level had both of the people concerned remained in the programme, but for many, it was the ultimate love story, which - again - could not have taken place without Sharon's presence.
I detest Sharon intenselyYes, child, you made that abundantly clear on another thread you started and got handed your arse and sent to the naughty step with your security blanket and dummie.
and consider current female characters such as Dot, Janine, Bianca and Kat far more memorable and played by better actresses than her.I've no argument about Janine. She's equally as important as Sharon and shares many common traits - another daughter of an iconic Vic landlord (another alpha male with feet of clay), daddy issues, trust issues, an ex-addict herself (cocaine) and someone who actually did resort to prostitution in order to support herself when she was flung out to fend for herself when her father abandoned her at sixteen. If Sharon's the Queen Bee of Walford, then Janine is rightly the Crown Princess.
June Brown is a jobbing actress whose performances descend sometimes into pantomime. Dot is prideful, annoying, self-righteous, hypocritical and selfish. You only have to watch the last episode in which John Bardon appeared to see her at "cartoon Dot" level - head-bobbing, eyes popping, arms flailing, running around like Olive Oyl in a Popeye cartoon.
Patsy Palmer and Jessie Wallace, as actresses, are no better or worse than Letitia Dean. The fact that all three women found their greatest success as EastEnders' characters and are back on the programme again for reprises of their original roles says a lot for the limitations of their acting abilities. All three characters - Kat, Bianca and Sharon - have been effectively ruined by Bryan Kirkwood's writing room. Kat is as far removed from her original character as Sharon is from hers. Kat was redeemed when she left in 2005 with a happy ending. This Kat is an abuse victim who's classically become an abuser. This Kat can certifiably be called a slut before Sharon could - shagging Derek Branning, copping off with a deliveryman in an alleyway, sleeping with her husband's cousin ... all whilst married. She's a bully who targets vulnerable people who are only doing their jobs and trying to get on.
As for Bianca, she left in 1999, having successfully run her own market stall, for a career at fashion college. She returned a retard, with anger management problems, who isn't above resorting to bullying and criminal activities. She's known now, primarily, for her strident voice.
You're really showing your ignorance, because if you ask any person who doesn't watch EastEnders to name an iconic EastEnders' character, before anyone would name Kat or Bianca, they'd name Sharon.
And, by the way, the proper grammar is "better actresses than she."
Give it up, grow up, and come back when you've finished proper schooling.
Well said. The year of birth after the nickname is a dead giveaway and shows these brainless CHILDREN for what they are.
ReplyDeleteBoth are probably peurile fanbois who fantasise about 'hot' Jac Jossa every night, with the aid of a photo and a flashlight under the covers after Mummy has switched the lights out.
They know nothing, and need to go away for ten years at least, so they can join in discussions when they are old enough to speak sense.
I'm not fond of Sharon in this incarnation either (although she has been showing signs of life lately, thankfully), but there is no denying that she is one of EE's most iconic characters. Anyone who doesn't understand this much clearly has no concept of the history of this show.
ReplyDelete