So, I'm re-watching stuff from the Louise Berridge era on PBS and some following stuff on YouTube...

I hate what Berridge did to Sharon's character. After a while, it seemed like all Sharon became was an extension of Dennis and Den. She literally had no personality or life of her own. This type of writing reminds me the stuff typically found on American soaps. Even when Sharon was with Grant and Phil, she was very much her own person with her own identity. I think a lot of that got lost when her life suddenly started to revolve around Den and Dennis. Sharon seems like a brand new character who lost most of the individuality she left with in 1995 and then came back with in 2001.

While I enjoyed Sharon and Dennis, that whole era I felt completely rewrote the character and made her dependent on the men in her life. Watching this era over again, I honestly cannot believe this is the same character I loved so much in the 90's and in the early 00's. If they bring her back again, I just hope they remember her most popular incarnation. It's not like I can say Berridge or whoever matured the character more, it felt like they just rapidly changed her to make her more suitable for the men in her life.

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Yes but wasn't Sharon in a lot of ways often dependent on the men in her life? I think that this was worse on her return because there was no Michelle, and then with Anita Dobson not wanting to return, no Angie. I think she almost had to become about men, Phil, then that annoying fireman, then Dennis and Den. I guess the frequent absences and returns from 2001-2005 just magnified that.

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by CarlD2

I think she was great mostly from 2001-2003, from late 2003 until her exit in early 2006, it just seemed like a completely different character who only lived for Den and Dennis.

There was a certain vibrancy about her in the 2001-2003 episodes. Even when she was still with Phil, they explored her other relationships with the other characters a lot. Then suddenly after Dennis came on and then Den returned, Sharon's life outside of them became almost nonexistent. Her independence seemed to be stripped from her. She seemed to lose that zest she left with in 1995 and had again from 2001-2003.

I'd never seen any of the stuff where she smashed the Vic up on Christmas. Was that Robinson, or Yorke...? It doesn't seem like Yorke to me but then I haven't seen a lot of his stories for Peggy, aside from the one with Harry and the feuding with Sharon.

It was John Yorke. It's the Christmas 2000 episode. The Slater's are in it, as is a very young and chubby-looking Charlie Brooks.

Here's part 1 of that episode, you can follow the other links for the other parts:

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x6hinf?additionalInfos=0"></param><param'>http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x6hinf?additionalInfos=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/x6hinf?additionalInfos=0" width="480" height="360" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hinf_eastenders-xmas-day-2000-part-1_shortfilms">Eastenders Xmas Day 2000 Part 1</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/EveryThingGoing">EveryThingGoing</a>. - <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/us/channel/shortfilms">Classic TV and last night's shows, online.</a></i>

Thanks. It was just jarring seeing Peggy that way. I tended to remember Yorke having her as more restrained.

Is it really necessary to try and diss Emmerdale every chance these sad sacks have? STFU!

I knew you'd say that!

Apparently, last night's episode peaked at 9.4 million, which is very good and solid, especially for a Friday episode.

Great news for EE. Many people tuned in to see Peggy bow out in style and drama.

I knew you'd say that!

You know me well, almost too well. Seriously tough, it is just completely pathetic. But back to EE, the soap that's never done anything wrong.

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by Amello

OK, I think I'm probably going to be the minority when I say that I didn't really like the fire episode.

I thought the fire itself was awesomely done; very realistic, especially in that scene with Stacey trapped in the living room, and the flames were on the wall and ceiling - very chilling.

But, I felt the details were lacking, which really tested my ability to disbelieve. The only pre-conceived idea I had was that it was going to end on a cliffhanger, instead of being a self contained episode, which was disappointing. By the end, I was comparing it to the Neighbours fire (2004 season finale), when they burnt down Lassisters (the pub and coffee show were iconic), and the emotional connection I had. It was moving. I could feel Lou & Harold's pain at seeing their businesses go up in flames; I could empathize with Toadie, as he eagerly awaited for Stuart & Sindi to emerge from the burning pub, and the shock at seeing it crumble with them trapped inside. I didn't feel that with this disaster - in fact, it felt very much like a stunt.

The panic felt real, if not a little OTT, but I didn't mind that. I also loved how Zainab stayed behind, even though she was traumatised by her own memories of that kitchen fire, to save Syed. I liked how Janine was genuinely worried for Pat and Ryan; how Denise, Kim, Patrick and Carol appeared to see what was going on.

At the point when Stacey, Peggy, Phil and Billy were trapped in the flames, I didn't feel that emotional connection of danger. Barbara Winsor's very OTT acting didn't help, and instead totally distracted from the drama (I know she's an OTT character, but was really bad acting from her - or maybe that's the problem: I felt she was acting, instead of it being more natural. Then there were the sloppy details, like the ladder not being underneath the window, making it impossible for Ryan to climb down with Stacey thrown over his shoulder; how did Peggy and Billy free Phil from under the bar? He was pinned under, and it was on fire, yet Peggy & Billy managed to pull him out without any burns at all!? Why did Glenda randomly appear, but not feature or get mentioned in the next episode? Why was Ian & Jane not at the reception, but shoved into the end of the episode in such a random fashion? Who was babysitting Kamil, when all of the Masoods were at the pub? Oh, and why didn't the Vic have a smoke alarm?

If I had been emotionally invested in what was going on, I probably wouldn't have noticed half of the details (that some may say are minor). I'm also one of those people that didn't mind no-one dying - I think it would've detracted from the iconic Vic dying. Again, I don't have any real sadness for this loss, as it will just be rebuilt with a new face. Unlike Neighbours, as Lassisters has never been the same since the fire - it had lasting effects, but will this?

Did anyone notice how Patsy Palmer disappeared? I guess this was b/c of her RL pregnancy...

Peggy's actual departure was much better. I loved the family scenes with the Mitchells, but more importantly, it showed how rounded Peggy is as a character. The scenes with Stacey showed how vile Peggy can be, and really reminded me of why I don't really like her, but then she had those genuine moments with Ronnie, Sam, Phil and Billy, which demonstrated that she can be a decent human being. I loved how she acknowledge her treatment of Billy, and how she realized that she had been suffocating Phil for her own needs. I think her not saying goodbye to Pat, really showed what she truly thought of her, and how they didn't really have a genuine friendship (at least not on Peggy's part).

I do think this was the right time for Peggy to leave, b/c really, she was eating show. Over the years they have slowly made her the centre of all things EastEnders, but hopefully the other families can take more centre stage, now.

Why was Ian & Jane not at the reception, but shoved into the end of the episode in such a random fashion?

I thought that made sense, to have the various characters who weren't at the party run out of their homes when they realized the Vic was on fire. That's the sense of community I've missed on EE.

Glenda's appearance didn't really bother me either, although she should have been mentioned in the next episode.

I didn't mind a lot of the stuff mentioned (and some was cut -- Peggy was supposed to try to use a fire extinguisher and Phil took it from her), but I wondered why the Masoods were at the reception in the first place, as they never go to the Vic, and Syed has no real history with Janine, beyond falling out with her a year ago.

I wondered that about the Masoods as well. It seemed like they were there so Zainab could save Syed, and move that plot on.

It looked like Ian & Jane had just returned from a trip out, as he was wearing a coat, and she was in a long green dress. As I said, I liked that aspect of other residents coming out of their homes, but it just seemed odd not to have Ian & Jane at the reception, and instead use Ian for that random scene at the end where he's shouting at Peggy as if he's about to speak, but ends up saying nothing. It all felt weird to me.

And it wasn't Glenda's appearance that bothered me, it was the lack of follow up, which made it seem random and pointless. It didn't make any sense at all.

ETA: I will add that Steve McFadden is turning in some very awesome performances. I think this is his best work to date. I haven't been disturbed by any of the drug story, but when he was going through withdrawals, that really freaked me out. They were full on disturbing.

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by Ben

I know some wanted Peggy to have more scenes with the longrunning characters. I guess Ian didn't have a great reason to be there -- Janine ruined his life last year. Still it would have been interesting to see Jane's reaction if Ian had been in danger. I think they were only there at the end to show the various reactions of people in Walford.

There were some odd moments, and I'm glad you pointed them out. The episodes weren't perfect. It's more the "how could they have Peggy leave with no money and we don't know where she went" (when neither of those is true) and the, "It was all so boring because no one died, how epic if Peggy had died in the Vic" (which is incredibly lazy writing on a show which has already decimated its past and part of its future through needless stunt killings) that annoy me when people say them.

I agree with you that I didn't feel any real sense of danger with Phil in the Vic (and he should have been in the hospital in the next episode -- I guess they wanted him to stay at home for the last scenes with Peggy but they could have just said a few days had transpired since the fire). I did feel that with Stacey, mostly through Lacey's performance. I don't agree with the "Lacey is the best on the show and everyone else sucks" type of attitude -- frankly I think she's seemed at loose ends with her character for a long time. But she was very good in the fire episode and then when she convinced Peggy not to turn her in to the police.

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by CarlD2

So... What if Peggy comes back? It's almost certain she will, but when? Next year? Too soon. Or not? In five years? Too late. One kind of has to wonder where will they take this character, especially since we know what kind of a caricature she became in the past few years.