OMG Sharon is coming back!

That was my reaction too (the OMG). What a coup!

I don't get the Kirkwood bashing, the show seems to be doing much better than it has in years!

Edited February 2, 201214 yr by jfung79

He's been an easy target from the time he joined. At the time it almost seemed like some deliberate campaign.

It's all about PR. Collinson, or the late Gavin Blyth, were good at shilling, and this hid the many flaws in their work.

Hmm, never mind, I just found out what has been reported about how Heather exits and the character responsible. Yuck. Maybe there is something to the bashing after all.

Edited February 2, 201214 yr by jfung79

I totally understand the Kirkwood bashing, I'd like to know why you think it isn't justified, Carl, as I do respect your opinion.

For me the show has become unwatychable in many ways. A lot of people seem to have a problem with Santer's era, but it was a lot better than the show currently is IMO. The main things for me are that:

- he's ruined Kat and Alfie. I dread them appearing in an episode together because they're so dreary and depressing these days.

- very few of his new characters have worked.

- he brought in Derek Branning (panto villain with no purpose, cringeworthy and pointless)

- he has made nearly all characters unlikeable

The only good thing I can think of is the fact that Janine is finally a brilliant character again - I think she was trashed under Santer.

I think the show was unwatchable for most of Santer's era - just plot plot plot and most of that plot made everyone involved look horrible. I think the structure of Eastenders in recent years has just made it very difficult to have strong quality. It's the nature of all British soaps now - Emmerdale and Corrie are disgusting and offensive, as is Hollyoaks. I think Eastenders is more capable of some standout moments than these three, and it's not sending messages that domestic violence is sexy or that women ask to be raped.

The Kirkwood bashing started before he ever made any story or casting decision. That is why I will never agree with the stuff about him. I have my own issues with him as a producer based on Hollyoaks, but the level of bile against him as a person as well as a producer has been OTT from the day his name was announced.

Edited February 3, 201214 yr by CarlD2

I read that Kat's last scene before her leave was at Pat's funeral. She left off-screen. Alfie said sometime last week that Charlie had had a stroke and Kat had left to tend to him, and that was the beginning of the leave.

I wonder if she will have the Vic again. Will Kat be gone by then? I read Kat is going for 2-3 months?

Interesting ... I have not been watching regularly, just reading synopses and catching little clips, so you are definitely more informed about the current state of the show. I definitely think it's more than Janine though that has been good. Bringing back old favorites like David (even if it was just for a couple weeks) and now Sharon are definite good things! I never thought I would see David Wicks in the Square again, never mind holding his mom's head as she died or running away while Carol chased after him and tripped, crying. Wow! There is a feeling of EastEnders truly using its 80s and 90s legacy now that I did not sense in the mid- to late-2000s when everything was Roxy and Ronnie Mitchell, tons of new Brannings, Stacey Slater, Sean Slater, writing out the Fowlers, etc. Also even if Kat and Alfie have not been written well, at least they are back -- they probably made the biggest splash of any new characters on the show from the 2000s so they need to be on the Square. They are EastEnders icons.

Even with so much of the cast different from "the old days," I feel the EastEnders now "feels" EastEnders to me in a way that it hadn't for awhile. I do think some of the groundwork for this was laid while Santer was EP too though, like bringing back Carol and Bianca.

Having said all that, I'm still not happy about the rumor about Heather's exit.

I totally understand the Kirkwood bashing, I'd like to know why you think it isn't justified, Carl, as I do respect your opinion.

For me the show has become unwatychable in many ways. A lot of people seem to have a problem with Santer's era, but it was a lot better than the show currently is IMO. The main things for me are that:

- he's ruined Kat and Alfie. I dread them appearing in an episode together because they're so dreary and depressing these days.

- very few of his new characters have worked.

- he brought in Derek Branning (panto villain with no purpose, cringeworthy and pointless)

- he has made nearly all characters unlikeable

The only good thing I can think of is the fact that Janine is finally a brilliant character again - I think she was trashed under Santer.

Edited February 3, 201214 yr by jfung79

It's interesting to read your thoughts.

Carl - I think you're right that Kirkwood doesn't deserve the hate he gets, it can become OTT and unnecessary, I guess he is responsible for the direction the show takes which is why it's difficult not to blame him.

There are definitely things other than Janine that Kirkwood has done that I didn't mention. For a start I think Lauren is a completely fascinating character and the recast has been wonderful. Bringing in Janine's grandmother was also wonderful, though I would have liked her to have stayed for longer. I don't necessarily agree with Janine being left millions in her will though, somehow it doesn't sit right with me. You're right, having David back was great for the show, not really a character I was too bothered about, but I know he is a massive favourite so it was great for the show.

I agree with you Carl, that there were certain aspects of Santer's era that were unwatchable, Darren being the father of Heather's baby etc, and it was very plot driven during his tenure but I still prefer that era to Kirkwood's overall. I'm finding it difficult to get my point across because I've lost so much passion for the show that I find it irritating to have to bring up the reasons why because it makes me frustrated with the state of the show.

I've switched off totally now and the reason was solely Derek Branning. I can 't stomach him. I literally feel like watching him would be a total waste of my life - what's he going to do? Threaten people, bully people, everyone's going to do what he wants, despite the fact he doesn't look scary whatsoever. I literally cannot comprehend the producers decision to bring in Derek - what does he bring to the show? A rivalry/alliance with Phil is something I couldn't give a hoot about. Rather than bringing in another pointless character who will get away with murder and not get their comeuppance, how about sorting out the character they've already got who fits this description, i.e. Phil. Phil is a legendary character but he just makes me cringe these days. Someone here posted a link to a thread on DS about the future of the Mitchells, well I personally feel that Sam needs to be brought back (played by Kim Medcalf) - Phil lacks chemistry with any of his family members, he and Shirley are one of the worst soap couples of all time, they don't have any chemistry and are mis-matched, she sticks up for him no matter what low act he does, it's just not right. I'd rather he was with Kate again. I don't think he should leave, but if Sam or Kate or someone came back I think his more endearing side could emerge again, being with Shirley seems to bring out the worst in him.

Talking of the Mitchells leads me to another point - people being 'family' when they're not family. Jay 'Mitchell' is one of the worst ideas they've ever had, I hate that soap cliche of families taking in randoms, I hated it when they did it on Neighbours but it's more annoying on EE because the characters actually act like they're family. The Kim/Denise/Patrick trio winds me up no end.

I also think that even though many of the storylines were plot-driven in Santer's era, they were character-driven at the same time - Syed and Christian's relationship, Zainab's behaviour totally fitted in with her character, she cares what people think about her and has strict morals, therefore she wouldn't have reacted well to the news that Syed is gay and I think, yes, it was a dramatic storyline, but character-driven. Well, on Zainab's part at least. I know Christian and Syed's build up to their relationship could have been better.

However, another thing I've liked during Kirkwood's era is Ian and Mandy's relationship - I find that fascinating. My main gripe though, as I wrote on DS, is that there are too many 'antagonists' or 'villains' - Michael was supposed to be a villain when he came in, now I don't know what he is. I think EE just needs more 'nice' characters who are likeable. I dislike nearly everybody thanks to the writing and that never happened during Santer's era. The Yusef/Zainab storyline is one of the worst in years. If there have been any plot driven storylines recently, that's it - the moat predictable, crappy storyline you could imagine - everyone knew how it was going to end, and like they've pressed the reset button, Zainab and Masood get back together like nothing has ever happened, like the story has been erased from the history of the show. Zainab has a lot of explaining to do for her actions but Masood, like a fool has not questioned any of her horrific behaviour. That is unrealistic because the man would want answers.

Why does the show also have this obsession with couples being unhappy too? Kat and Alfie, Ricky and Bianca, don't even get me started on the Whitney/Tyler/Fatboy triangle, is that supposed to be entertaining? I can't even follow it anymore because it's so boring and I hate Whitney as a result of her selfish, slutty behaviour.

I do agree it's great to have Kat and Alfie back, but I don't know if I'd rather they never returned. They are the second reason after Derek why I've stopped watching. I literally can't stomach them anymore at all, they are so despressing I'd rather watch the shopping channels. They have been universally ruined. Hardly anyone likes them anymore, it was totally unnecessary for Michael to be the father of her baby. Their stories don't make sense anymore. They left in 2005 both blissfully happy, and return to have their baby swapped (I don't have a problem with that) but it seems as though they've fallen out of love with each other and constantly wish they could get a divorce. I know that's not the case but if you watched on a casual basis you could be forgiven for thinking that.

P.S. I worry for Sharon. It's the wrong time for her to be coming back. I'm going to be devastated if she has to share any scenes with Derek Branning which I'm guessing will be the case. I really hope they don't ruin her by assocation with the dislikeable cast.

Edited February 3, 201214 yr by Edward Skylover

I hope they don't overdo the Tragedy Queen/Black Widow thing with Sharon this time, which was getting tiring during the end of her last stint.

That said, this is a nice montage video of it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KakyNEzJKBA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I believe Sharon still owns the Bookies, which she left Pat in charge of while she was gone, but that seems forgotten now and Pat is dead.

So, I wonder if she somehow buys The Vic from underneath the Michelle's again, or if she'll buy the club from Janine and turn it into Angie's Den again. I think Sharon worked best in the club during her last stint.

Also, Little Dennis is an American, so let's hope they can find a young American actor, so we can avoid another Vicky Fowler situation. Though, his accent change would be more believable than her's, as he'll be 6 when she comes back with Sharon.

On the topic of Vicky, I wonder if they'll recast and have her join Sharon eventually. We know Michelle returning will never happen.

Of course, there's Sharon also exploring her biological family again, and she does have biological half-siblings she's never met.

I like the business ideas!

Eventually, the "Mark Fowler Jr is Grant's son" story needs to be told too ... even if Michelle is never coming back. If Ben sticks around, I think he and Ben could be rivals, or they could gang up to take down Phil. The show doesn't need to keep inventing new Mitchells and adding adopted Mitchells when there is a Mitchell out there just waiting to be discovered. Sharon could be coming back to warn Phil that Michelle let the secret slip and tell him Grant has a son before Mark Jr shows up. No one would believe Sharon that Michelle never told her either (even though as far as we know that is the case). Various people would be either mad at Sharon for keeping such a big secret or happy Sharon was back. It wouldn't just be the Mitchells who were mad. Ian could be mad too since he would feel left out of a family secret. Sharon would be the target of financial, emotional, and perhaps gangland attacks, but she would give back as good as she got and not be a victim.

Then 3 months later Mark Jr gets there and hell really breaks loose. Michelle would have done a good job raising him but he would still be an angry young man. He would try to reach out to the Mitchells and they wouldn't know how to handle him so he would act out.

Then they would need to lure Ross Kemp back for a few months soon after that for the story to develop further. It would also be good for Peggy to make an appearance for a couple weeks during this story, perhaps at the end of an arc to set things straight in her lay-down-the-law Peggy way. I don't think Barbara Windsor is entirely averse to a cameo return.

I think Sharon coming back is the first step to Grant coming back again sooner or later anyway.

When/if everyone is mad at Ben, Sharon could also be the one person who forgives him and reaches out to him, and whose help he accepts, starting him on a healing path, because she sees similarities between him and Dennis -- spent time in jail, angry at his dad, mother dead. It would be totally a motherly thing only though, obviously, no cougar relationship with Ben being gay (although the show did end up making Tony Hills bi after he was established as gay; Tony is Ben's cousin BTW, just realized)! I still wish they never killed off Kathy.

You're probably right, Edward Skylover, that Derek will have to be involved. But it doesn't have to be that bad. He could offer Sharon and Mark Jr protection ... Perhaps his motivation would be that Bianca or one of her kids has a medical issue and would need Mark Jr's blood (although that is too American-soapy). We might see a softer side of him emerge. BTW Bianca is related to practically everyone on the show LOL.

I don't think Sharon will be ruined, any more than she was ruined by Den's so-so return and Jack Dalton/Andy Hunter/Johnny Allen gangland blah blah. The character can outshine anything. The show does need to remember her fun side too though.

Edited February 4, 201214 yr by jfung79

They can never tell the Mark Fowler, Jr story without Michelle (and Sue Tully), it wouldn't have any impact or make any sense without her being there.

I think it will be a dropped plot forever, unless Sue Tully decides she wants to come back and start acting again.

There's a better chance of Ross Kemp coming back as Grant though, but that won't probably be for a while. Sharon is the love of Grant's life and he never got over her, but the same can apply to Phil.

If the show ended tomorrow, they would probably have to reunite Sharon and Grant and have them running the Vic together. Sharon would be Courtney's surrogate mother, and Grant would be little Dennis' surrogate father.

But, I think Sharon got over the Mitchell's and moved on from them in a way they haven't been able to do with her. Grant and Phil will always be a big part of her life and the connection will always exist, but she's evolved past them.

I think it's best to concentrate other areas of Sharon's character and not her love life until she settles down after a while.

I, for one, hope Sharon's return is a catalyst for bringing Chrissie back eventually, if only for a short-term stint.

There's a lot of mileage left in Sharon, she's a very adaptable character.

Edited February 4, 201214 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

I was watching the episode immediately after Den's funeral, and, as much of a cliche as it is, the show truly did not have anything else going for it outside of Den's murder plot. The Juley/Gus/Mickey "drama" was like confused homeless people reading lines, the beginning of the Sonia estrangement from Martin was boring...the Nana Moon death buildup was OK but kind of sad and remote. I'd almost forgotten how much I loathed Garry and Minty together.

Barbara Windsor, charismatic as she was, was not a good actress - some cringeworthy scenes with Charlie about the alibi.

I was so impressed by the writing and the acting in the scenes like Chrissie facing off with Peggy in front of everyone at the Vic, and turning things around on Peggy. The scenes with Sharon and Dennis talking about grieving. The last scene with Dennis at the grave was also well written, just not very well acted (Nigel Harmon wasn't good at crying scenes).

I was so sad at the sight of Pauline and Pat sitting around the Vic offering commentary and background for Den's funeral (Pat had a good line about how Chrissie, after falling in the grave, was "down there with Den and Angie"). That's what Eastenders has so little of now - those years of history which are unspoken but powerful.

Do you think Chrissie ever liked Sharon? Could they have been true friends if things hadn't happened?

I think Chrissie did like Sharon, and even after Sharon punched her in the face for killing Den, she still wanted Sharon's forgiveness (which she never got).

Even though she was a murderer, Chrissie was as much as victim as she was a villian.

Word to 99% of what you said, Ed!

Phil lacks chemistry with any of his family members, he and Shirley are one of the worst soap couples of all time, they don't have any chemistry and are mis-matched, she sticks up for him no matter what low act he does, it's just not right. I'd rather he was with Kate again. I don't think he should leave, but if Sam or Kate or someone came back I think his more endearing side could emerge again, being with Shirley seems to bring out the worst in him.

One of the reasons why he lacks chemistry with his on-screen family is b/c the ones that are left are the ones Phil has never cared for. Phil has always treated Billy like someone who is beneath him, and he's never cared for Roxy. The only times he pays them any interest is when they play the "family card" or he needs something from them. These three don't gel, and never will. It's illogical that Roxy would be living with Phil and Ben after all they have done, especially considering Phil stole Roxy's money (the ending to that was completely vexing), and Ben accusing her BFF of molestation! She just would not live there. Phil and Shirley are not a super-couple and never will be, and really they should have been broken up ages ago. Shirley has lost all sense of herself, and he's just nastier when he's with her; it's time for some character development for these two, pronto! Phil is the type of character that needs to be paired with someone who is nicer than he is, b/c pairing thug with thug just doesn't work - I loved Kate, so seeing her return would be great, and I'm wanting screen time for Sharon and Phil, as I think she will soften him a bit.

Talking of the Mitchells leads me to another point - people being 'family' when they're not family. Jay 'Mitchell' is one of the worst ideas they've ever had, I hate that soap cliche of families taking in randoms, I hated it when they did it on Neighbours but it's more annoying on EE because the characters actually act like they're family. The Kim/Denise/Patrick trio winds me up no end.

The Jay story has never made any sense - well, it did in the beginning as it looked like Phil was trying to replace Ben and mould Jay into the son he always wanted, but having Jay coldly push Billy (the man who he built a relationship with after his dad, Jase, died) aside in favour of Phil was so out of character, and the TPTB never addressed this at all. Jay would have never have changed his name. The basis of this story made sense of why Jay has been adopted into the Mitchell family, it's just the settings are all wrong.

I have no problems with the Denise/Kim/Patrick trio, as that actually makes sense. Denise and Patrick thought they were father and daughter, and bonded during that time. I love how that bond has stayed strong so long after the truth was revealed. He is the only father she'll ever know, and Patrick has sons who are either dead or MIA. Kim is someone who gets on well with him, I like how he's embraced her like Denise b/c she is Denise's sister and Kim is happy to embrace that set-up. Family doesn't have to be about blood, and I believe these three are a good example of that on this show. IMO, it wouldn't make sense if they didn't act like family.

Why does the show also have this obsession with couples being unhappy too?

BK has said many times that couples must be unhappy and miserable in order to create drama. According to him, stories for couples cannot come about unless they are based in relationship angst. He doesn't know how to write for happy couples - Syed/Christian and Kat/Alfie are a case in point.

P.S. I worry for Sharon. It's the wrong time for her to be coming back. I'm going to be devastated if she has to share any scenes with Derek Branning which I'm guessing will be the case. I really hope they don't ruin her by assocation with the dislikeable cast.

ITA. I think she's coming back for all the wrong reasons, and I don't want to see her get ruined. You know she'll have scenes with dodgy Derek. * shudder*

Carl: Just b/c the BK bashing has been OTT at times, and started out with what seemed prejudice at the beginning, doesn't mean that the current criticism is unfounded. I really don't like the direction the show took last year; there are just so many things that he and his team have done that have been wrong. All of the same issues that were present under Santer have never been addressed by BK, and these issues (continuity, pacing, plotting, etc) will continue to drag the show down the longer they are left un-addressed.

What is the deal with Ben? He has been ruined due the constant need to throw every plot at him without developing anything. And now they have dodgy Derek. Why? He's been so badly crafted from the get go and I don't understand why that is. I think they made a big mistake with writing the character like this, and even with the casting. I find Derek's scenes with Ben so creepy, and not in a good way. I just feel this character has no business being on the show. If they wanted to create an enemy for Phil to go head-to-head with, someone who commands fear and has proven that he is a serious villain, then they should have developed Qadim Shah - now he had depth and was seriously scary at times, plus you could understand his motivations; a villain you could love to hate.

Whenever I think about all the good BK has done, Janine is the first person that springs to mind and all that is associated with her. I do think about the positive changes in Syed, but that was all undone a few months ago. Yes, he produces some great stand-alone episodes, and I particularly liked the one this week that had character driven material and a good use of history, but these don't come along often, and the next day we're back do the same ol' crap with dodgy Derek, psycho Ben, and the useless Moon brothers. Of course there are a load of characters that need to go, and sadly Fat Boy is one of them; he's been ruined in this tedious triangle with Whitney/Tyler.

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by Ben

The Jay story has never made any sense - well, it did in the beginning as it looked like Phil was trying to replace Ben and mould Jay into the son he always wanted, but having Jay coldly push Billy (the man who he built a relationship with after his dad, Jase, died) aside in favour of Phil was so out of character, and the TPTB never addressed this at all. Jay would have never have changed his name. The basis of this story made sense of why Jay has been adopted into the Mitchell family, it's just the settings are all wrong.

To be honest I've never seen this Billy/Jay "relationship." Yes, Jay stood up for Billy and at one time sort of called him a dad, but he was barely seen for about a year during the time he was living with Billy. Billy was also the man who did nothing as his father was beaten to death. And Jay never had his father's name anyway, so he was basically changing his last name from people he never seemed all that close to in the first place.

I think the idea of Jay being a Mitchell made some sense, it's just nothing was ever done with it.

The only time the Mitchells were believable as a family was Peggy/Phil/Grant/Sam. The hybrid version has never worked.

Carl: Just b/c the BK bashing has been OTT at times, and started out with what seemed prejudice at the beginning, doesn't mean that the current criticism is unfounded. I really don't like the direction the show took last year; there are just so many things that he and his team have done that have been wrong. All of the same issues that were present under Santer have never been addressed by BK, and these issues (continuity, pacing, plotting, etc) will continue to drag the show down the longer they are left un-addressed.

I agree with you. I don't even watch the show all that much these days. The problem is BK was trashed before he made a single decision about the show. That means any valid criticisms of him are canceled out. And to this day, you still mostly hear people going on about the horror of firing the awful actors who played Lucy, Lauren, and Ben. Is that really Eastenders' biggest problem? If Melissa Suffield came back to raise an eyebrow and woodenly bark her lines, would Eastenders be saved?

As for Derek and Sharon, he's about the same as most of the people Sharon had to deal with in her 2003-2005 years.