[Ash's Man]

*IN ADVANCE SORRY FOR YET ANOTHER EE THREAD*

These characters are actually rather similar when you think about it. Before the wedding episode, I used to think that Sharon would always hold the title for most tragic Eastenders character ever. After the amount they've put her through, it really doesn't even make sense that she'd ever want to return. But after Danielle was tragically mown down, it does make me think that Ronnie now holds the title of most tragic character ever... So here are the facts:

Sharon Watts:

- Grew up with her volatile parents, Den and Angie, constantly warring
- Her father slept with and impregnated her best friend
- Her father dies
- Had an affair with her husband's brother which lead to a huge fall out in the Vic (otherwise known as Sharongate)
- Finds out she cannot have kids
- Her fiance (Tom, the fire fighter I believe) gets blown up in the Slater household after saving Little Mo
- Falls for her step brother before her father turns up, having not died
- Marries her step brother after a very turbulent relationship and then finds out her father has been killed and buried under their home
- Finds out she's finally become pregnant, only to have her husband die in her arms outside the Vic

Ronnie Mitchell:

- Grew up her daddy's little angel (like Sharon) then fell pregnant at 14
- Was forced to give up the baby she gave birth to
- Was then mentally tortured by her father for years, making her cave into herself
- Comes to the square with her sister in tow and finally finds a family in the form of Peggy and Phil
- Her father turns up again, only to steal her family away from her and banish her from her home
- He also tells her, her daughter died
- Her sister meanwhile sleeps with the love of her life and falls pregnant
- She goes all out to try to win Jack back, only to find out that Roxy's Amy is his baby
- Some weird girl, Danielle won't leave her alone
- Roxy/Archie continue to mentally torture her, telling her she "doesn't know how to love a child"
- As a result she lashes out at Danielle, not realising that this is her real daughter
- Makes up with her father just before his wedding
- Discovers that her sister is now trying to take the love of her life
- Finds out at the wedding he has been trying to prevent a reunion between her and her daughter
- Catches up with her daughter and only has a short lived reunion with her before she is tragically mown down in front of everyone.

Jesus... I think the moral of the story is don't move to Albert Square and if you do, make sure you do not move into the Vic.

[Filiman]

Meh..... there are some vague similarities; but to put Ronnie Mitchell in the same sentance as Sharon Watts is a complete insult. Sharon Watts is 10 times the character Ronnie Mitchell is; Ronnie is just a pale shadow.

Just like Archie is a very pale imitation of Den.

The Mitchells will never be as good as the Watts, no matter how hard they try. Full stop.

[yohinnchild]

Both are awful...

[Ash's Man]

Originally Posted by Filiman

Meh..... there are some vague similarities; but to put Ronnie Mitchell in the same sentance as Sharon Watts is a complete insult. Sharon Watts is 10 times the character Ronnie Mitchell is; Ronnie is just a pale shadow.

Just like Archie is a very pale imitation of Den.

The Mitchells will never be as good as the Watts, no matter how hard they try. Full stop.

Don't agree, sorry. I think the Mitchells surpassed the Watts years ago in terms of high drama. It just goes to show when in 2004 they tried to bring them back and they soon fizzled out to be replaced, yet again, by the Mitchells. The Watts were good in their time, but IMO, they're not up to the Mitchells level.

Anyway this is about whose had a more tragic life, Ronnie or Sharon?

[Alice Cullen]

I never really got the whole fascination with Sharon. I didn't even think Letitia was a particuarly strong actress, although I'm sure I'll be shot down for saying that.

I only found Sharon likeable when she was with Dennis.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by Ash's Man

Don't agree, sorry. I think the Mitchells surpassed the Watts years ago in terms of high drama. It just goes to show when in 2004 they tried to bring them back and they soon fizzled out to be replaced, yet again, by the Mitchells. The Watts were good in their time, but IMO, they're not up to the Mitchells level.

Anyway this is about whose had a more tragic life, Ronnie or Sharon?

Please. The Mitchells are the most one-dimensional characters EE has produced; and they were brought back because the Watts were going; without the Watts, EE would likely have been cancelled in those years? Imagine the show without them?

2006 was EE worst year ever (in terms of quality and ratings), and that was dominated by the Mitchells and Brannings.

And as for most tragic character..... that is a highly interpretive question. The difference is that we saw most of what Sharon went through - whereas most of Ronnie stuff took place off-screen; before she even moved to the square. So again, I don't know how you can put the two in the same category.

If Ronnie Mitchell left tomorrow she would be forgotten in a few years time; Sharon is an EE legend (like all her family [ok, with the exception of Vicki]).

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by Alice Cullen

I never really got the whole fascination with Sharon. I didn't even think Letitia was a particuarly strong actress, although I'm sure I'll be shot down for saying that.

I only found Sharon likeable when she was with Dennis.

Where's my gun?

[rampantreporter]

Originally Posted by Alice Cullen

I never really got the whole fascination with Sharon. I didn't even think Letitia was a particuarly strong actress, although I'm sure I'll be shot down for saying that.

I only found Sharon likeable when she was with Dennis.

agree

[Ash's Man]

Originally Posted by Filiman

Please. The Mitchells are the most one-dimensional characters EE has produced; and they were brought back because the Watts were going; without the Watts, EE would likely have been cancelled in those years? Imagine the show without them?

2006 was EE worst year ever (in terms of quality and ratings), and that was dominated by the Mitchells and Brannings.

And as for most tragic character..... that is a highly interpretive question. The difference is that we saw most of what Sharon went through - whereas most of Ronnie stuff took place off-screen; before she even moved to the square. So again, I don't know how you can put the two in the same category.

If Ronnie Mitchell left tomorrow she would be forgotten in a few years time; Sharon is an EE legend (like all her family [ok, with the exception of Vicki]).

EE actually only started going down hill when the Watts took over and Peggy and Phil left back in 2003... This was when EE was at its low point and the whole Den returning thing was ridiculous. 2006 didn't have too many huge storylines so the Mitchells cannot be blamed for the lack of interest at this point in time.

And I'm another one who fails to see the obsession with Sharon... She never struck me as particularly strong, she was just quite drippy, and I've watched EE from the start. Ronnie to me is a much stronger character played by a more competent actress, sorry, that's my opinion. But this is not about that, it's about whose more tragic??

Anyone want to stay on topic?

[catwoman4]

I like both Sharon and Ronnie -Ronnie is a lot more fanciable though !
Archie -bloody rubbish , not a patch on Den .
He has this one expression with that horrble turn down mouth - never looks any different whatever is happening -expressionless face - ughh.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by Ash's Man

EE actually only started going down hill when the Watts took over and Peggy and Phil left back in 2003... This was when EE was at its low point and the whole Den returning thing was ridiculous. 2006 didn't have too many huge storylines so the Mitchells cannot be blamed for the lack of interest at this point in time.

And I'm another one who fails to see the obsession with Sharon... She never struck me as particularly strong, she was just quite drippy, and I've watched EE from the start. Ronnie to me is a much stronger character played by a more competent actress, sorry, that's my opinion. But this is not about that, it's about whose more tragic??

Anyone want to stay on topic?

You don't have to have big storylines to keep people interested; and there were lots of "big" s/l: stax, stella, may, etc. It's just that Phil and Peggy are tired characters so its hard to write for them (hence why Santer brought in R&R - to try and save the Mitchells).

And Den's return, imo, is no more ridiculous than Phil's ridiculous get out of jail free card.

And 05 was a very good year for the show and that was solely down to Den, Chrissie, Sharon, and Dennis. Without them, I and many others who have said so on these forums, firmly believe the show may well have been in very serious trouble. They saved EE.

But I won't say anymore.... you like the Mitchells, fine, I prefer the Watts.

My original point was to say that Sharon is obviously the more tragic character because we have been witnesses to her tragedy; therefore it resonates far more.

As I said, Ronnie has been around for 16 months or whatever; most of her "tragedy" occured off-screen - we never saw it; it's just words.

I mean, I think it is very telling that despite this your list is actually longer for Ronnie than Sharon. I don't know how that can be so when one character has been onscreen for 15 years and another for 16 months????

[Ash's Man]

Originally Posted by Filiman

You don't have to have big storylines to keep people interested; and there were lots of "big" s/l: stax, stella, may, etc.

And Den's return, imo, is no more ridiculous than Phil's ridiculous get out of jail free card.

And 05 was a very good year for the show and that was solely down to Den, Chrissie, Sharon, and Dennis. Without them, I and many others who have said so on these forums, firmly believe the show may well have been in very serious trouble. They saved EE.

But I won't say anymore.... you like the Mitchells, fine, I prefer the Watts.

My original point was to say that Sharon is obviously the more tragic character because we have been witnesses to her tragedy; therefore it resonates far more.

As I said, Ronnie has been around for 16 months or whatever; most of her "tragedy" occured off-screen - we never saw it; it's just words.

I mean, I think it is very telling that despite this your list is actually longer for Ronnie than Sharon. I don't know how that can be so when one character has been onscreen for 15 years and another for 16 months????

Funny you say that. I was actually trying to make the list as long as Sharon's and then it somehow ended up longer. Don't ask me how that happened..

Anyway, you can argue that Sharon is the more tragic of the two because we've seen her on screen for years, granted. But we've learnt about all the things Ronnie's been through in her 16 months on screen and she appears to have been far more affected than Sharon was.

It doesn't actually matter about the length of time each of them have been in it because its the actual events that have happened in the character's lives, both on screen and off, which make them who they are and the question is, 'who is more tragic'? Not 'who do you feel more sorry for'...

[nickymonger]

Originally Posted by Filiman

Please. The Mitchells are the most one-dimensional characters EE has produced; and they were brought back because the Watts were going; without the Watts, EE would likely have been cancelled in those years? Imagine the show without them?

2006 was EE worst year ever (in terms of quality and ratings), and that was dominated by the Mitchells and Brannings.

And as for most tragic character..... that is a highly interpretive question. The difference is that we saw most of what Sharon went through - whereas most of Ronnie stuff took place off-screen; before she even moved to the square. So again, I don't know how you can put the two in the same category.

If Ronnie Mitchell left tomorrow she would be forgotten in a few years time; Sharon is an EE legend (like all her family [ok, with the exception of Vicki]).

You may not like the Mitchells. ut the character of Ronnie is definately NOT one dimensional

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by nickymonger

You may not like the Mitchells. ut the character of Ronnie is definately NOT one dimensional

I agree. Sorry, but when I say "Mitchells" I basically mean Peggy, Phil, Grant, and Sam.

R&R to me are still set apart from them - but that's a personal thing, so my bad.

[Ash's Man]

Originally Posted by nickymonger

You may not like the Mitchells. ut the character of Ronnie is definately NOT one dimensional

Yeah sorry forgot to mention that, nor is Archie and Phil isn't either. Phil has come a long way in his time on the show and just because he's been stereotyped as the ultimate tv thug does not mean that there isn't more to him... We've been shown different sides to his character plenty of times over the 19 years he has been on the show.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by Ash's Man

Funny you say that. I was actually trying to make the list as long as Sharon's and then it somehow ended up longer. Don't ask me how that happened..

Anyway, you can argue that Sharon is the more tragic of the two because we've seen her on screen for years, granted. But we've learnt about all the things Ronnie's been through in her 16 months on screen and she appears to have been far more affected than Sharon was.

It doesn't actually matter about the length of time each of them have been in it because its the actual events that have happened in the character's lives, both on screen and off, which make them who they are and the question is, 'who is more tragic'? Not 'who do you feel more sorry for'...

Fair enough... lol. I suppose Ronnie is also more fresh in the mind too.

As to your second point I think it does matter..... otherwise why not count characters such as Donna Ludlow who had a very tragic life imo (just as tragic as Ronnie); or even Kathy, who was raped twice, and had her daughter commit suicide because she thought she didn't love her - that's pretty tragic too.

It seems you have just picked Ronnie out of thin air to compare her to Sharon. But the *reason* why Sharon is usually held to be EE most tragic characters is *precisely because* we have seen it all on-screen. That's why; otherwise there are other characters who have passed through with very "tragic" lives. And that's the reason why she is more "tragic" than Ronnie.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by Ash's Man

Yeah sorry forgot to mention that, nor is Archie and Phil isn't either. Phil has come a long way in his time on the show and just because he's been stereotyped as the ultimate tv thug does not mean that there isn't more to him... We've been shown different sides to his character plenty of times over the 19 years he has been on the show.

As I have said elsewhere, Phil is the least one-dimensional of the Mitchells.... but he is still not a particularly three-dimensional character, and indeed he seems to have worsened with age. He was a lot more multi-faceted in the first decade: he has basically been the same since 01/02 imo. There has really been no movement at all.

Archie.... well, I am sorry, but he is painted really as a stock villain. He is clearly being based on another character (Den) and alot of people on these forums have been confused about his motivation, which to me indicates that he is not being developed particularly well.

This is why I preferred the Watts; they were not perfect characters, and Den and Dennis in particular could suffer from stinted characterisation, but generally speaking they were very well developed and very dimensional; and they gave alot of bang for their buck. The Mitchells have been on-screen longer than the Watts, yet even if you were to give the dramatic edge to the Mitchells, the Watts would not be far behind; considering that they have been on screen less, and that there are far fewer Watts (5) than Mitchells (8, including Danielle), I feel they have brought more to the show. But, I don't want to get off topic, it's just my opinion.

[hellomoto7788]

If there was a fight between them Ronnie would win ove sharon hands down lol

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by hellomoto7788

If there was a fight between them Ronnie would win ove sharon hands down lol

I don't know..... Sharon roughed up Zoe Slater pretty good. She can be very fiesty when she is roused.

But I accept that Ronnie is the flavour of the month atm, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if alot of people were favouring Ronnie.

But we will see how things stack up in a few years time. I doubt Ronnie will be as popular as Sharon after she has been off-screen for 3 years or more.

[Ash's Man]

Originally Posted by Filiman

As I have said elsewhere, Phil is the least one-dimensional of the Mitchells.... but he is still not a particularly three-dimensional character, and indeed he seems to have worsened with age. He was a lot more multi-faceted in the first decade: he has basically been the same since 01/02 imo. There has really been no movement at all.

Archie.... well, I am sorry, but he is painted really as a stock villain. He is clearly being based on another character (Den) and alot of people on these forums have been confused about his motivation, which to me indicates that he is not being developed particularly well.

This is why I preferred the Watts; they were not perfect characters, and Den and Dennis in particular could suffer from stinted characterisation, but generally speaking they were very well developed and very dimensional; and they gave alot of bang for their buck. The Mitchells have been on-screen longer than the Watts, yet even if you were to give the dramatic edge to the Mitchells, the Watts would not be far behind; considering that they have been on screen less, and that there are far fewer Watts (5) than Mitchells (8, including Danielle), I feel they have brought more to the show. But, I don't want to get off topic, it's just my opinion.

That's a fair opinion. And there were actually 6 Watts (I'm assuming you weren't counting Angie or Chrissie). The thing with the Watts' return was that it seemed to be very make shift and unrealistic. Sharon comes back to this square where nothing but bad stuff has happened to her (why, I don't know). Then Den turns out to have an estranged son in Dennis. Vicky turns up at the Fowlers'. Den returns from the dead and his wife soon follows. Then they all live together and wage war on the Mitchells (or what's left of them). It just all seemed very contrived. Of course, you could say similar things about Ronnie and Roxy's introduction and then Archie and Peggy being in love but it was a lot more natural than the Watts clan all suddenly descending onto the square at once.

Anyway, I do agree that Phil NEEDS some new storylines. Steve Mcfadden is a great actor and Phil needs something new to do because right now he seems to just drift in and out of other people's stories.

[Ash's Man]

Originally Posted by Filiman

I don't know..... Sharon roughed up Zoe Slater pretty good. She can be very fiesty when she is roused.

But I accept that Ronnie is the flavour of the month atm, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if alot of people were favouring Ronnie.

But we will see how things stack up in a few years time. I doubt Ronnie will be as popular as Sharon after she has been off-screen for 3 years or more.

For a lot of people it has to do with flavour of the month, granted. but personally, as someone who has watched EE from since the start, I can tell you I much prefer Ronnie as a character to Sharon. I'm sure if she left now, and in a few years we were asked this question then she would not have made that great an impact for a lot of people.

Also, the difference between Sharon and Ronnie in terms of tragedy is that Ronnie seems to get it all at once in a big way whereas Sharon's has been drawn out over the years. But seriously, I remember when Sharon was in it and I thought, how much can they put one person through? Killing Dennis was absolutely unnecessary because both characters were leaving the show.

[Filiman]

Originally Posted by Ash's Man

That's a fair opinion. And there were actually 6 Watts (I'm assuming you weren't counting Angie or Chrissie). The thing with the Watts' return was that it seemed to be very make shift and unrealistic. Sharon comes back to this square where nothing but bad stuff has happened to her (why, I don't know). Then Den turns out to have an estranged son in Dennis. Vicky turns up at the Fowlers'. Den returns from the dead and his wife soon follows. Then they all live together and wage war on the Mitchells (or what's left of them). It just all seemed very contrived. Of course, you could say similar things about Ronnie and Roxy's introduction and then Archie and Peggy being in love but it was a lot more natural than the Watts clan all suddenly descending onto the square at once.

Anyway, I do agree that Phil NEEDS some new storylines. Steve Mcfadden is a great actor and Phil needs something new to do because right now he seems to just drift in and out of other people's stories.

Actually, I wasn't counting Vicki!! Den, Angie, Sharon, Chrissie, Dennis.

You see, I don't see Sharon's return in the same light. She had good memories here too, so why let the bad chase away the good.

The square is where she grew up; her friendship with Michelle; her young life (which wasn't all bad). It's also were she met and fell in love with Dennis and where they spent their happiest (and saddest) moments. Why let the bad over-ride the good?? I think she should still return for all the above reasons... because it's home - and people don't always get to chose what type of home they have, but it remains home nonetheless.

If I were to take your line of thinking, then Ronnie should leave asap. Unlike Sharon she has no happy memories in the square - *everything* has been bad. She didn't grow up here; it's brought her nothing but grief. Surely she would want to leave and never come back?????

I agree that Den's return, although well explained, was "out of the blue" in alot of ways; as was Dennis existing.... but Chrissie made sense to me - I saw no reason why he would not have married. And I never felt that Den had "died" in the first place, so his returning didn't concern me.

(In all honesty, the day Cindy hired a hitman to kill Ian was the day I realised EE was no longer going to be bound to "realism". the hitman, Who Shot Phil, Den's return are all the same OTT melodramatic s/l to me).

But as you say I find it just as hard (if not harder) to believe that Mitchell cousins who had never been mentioned before in the show ever should suddenly turn up at become part of the Mitchell family! At least no one knew that Dennis was alive, so him appearing out of the blue wasn't so odd (just them not knowing was).

[RocaBoi18]

Ronnie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sharon

[gingerballs]

i agree us viewers have grown up with sharon we haven't with ronnie

[BabbleQueen]

Originally Posted by Alice Cullen

I never really got the whole fascination with Sharon. I didn't even think Letitia was a particuarly strong actress, although I'm sure I'll be shot down for saying that.

I only found Sharon likeable when she was with Dennis.

Same here. I've grown to like Ronnie more than I ever liked Sharon, and as mentioned that was really only when she was with Dennis. Before that, I didn't really get the fuss about her tbh. Although, I'll NEVER deny the poor girl has had a tragic life, lol...Sheesh.