Natalie or Sharona?
Who do you prefer?
shareSharona. I don't hate Natalie, but I just think she was more bland as a character.
shareSharona, but I like Natalie, too.
share
MovieChat Forums > Monk (2002) Discussion > Natalie or Sharona?
Natalie and it isn't even close. Rewatching Monk now and am counting down the episodes until Sharona's gone.
http://music4humans.us/
For the discussion, any reason why?
=========
wait for iiiiit
I prefer Sharona, but I also think the stories at the beginning of the series were better. I liked Natalie fine. To complicate matters further I much preferred Benjie to Julie.
sharebut I also think the stories at the beginning of the series were better.
I agree, I think a decline began after season 4. They started to focus more on Monk's crazy antics and less on the mysteries and his interactions with the other characters. share
For the discussion, any reason why?
Comes across as hypocritical, and a little too slutty for my tastes. Outright mean at times to Monk.
http://music4humans.us/ share
hey, thx for the response. btw, I completely agree with you, that Jersey shore 'tude is a total turn-off to me, I was happy she was replaced with someone with a heart.
=========
wait for iiiiit
that Jersey shore 'tude is a total turn-off to me
Nobody's saying you should be turned on by her. Monk doesn't turn me on either, in fact, he's incredibly annoying and disrespectful to others, but he's a great character.
I was happy she was replaced with someone with a heart.
Sharona has a heart as well, what nonsense. share
wow. it's just a tv show. I was responding to someone else. If you have a different opinion, that's ok with me.
=========
wait for iiiiit
Why the "wow" remark? I'm just disagreeing with your criticisms. You're the one who seems to feel very strongly about Sharona, disliking her because of the way she dresses. It's JUST a tv show, as you say.
shareI said nothing about the way she dresses. I answered a question, I don't have "very strong feelings" for a fictional TV character. I can tell the difference.
=========
wait for iiiiit
In the other thread you complained about her jewelry, in this thread you "completely agreed" with the other poster that she comes across as "slutty", which I can only imagine has to do with her looks instead of her sex life (which we see little of). You can't really blame me for getting the wrong idea.
But you've also stated that you "don't like" her, for pretty superficial reasons, in my opinion. Now it's one thing to prefer Natalie because you've got the hots for her, it's something else to suggest that Sharona has "no heart", which IS just nonsense.
You are putting words in my mouth, inventing an argument for your own gratification. Checking out other threads I've posted on just to take things out of context, you have way too much time on your hands. Go post another Ross n Rachel argument you troll. Welcome to my ignore list.
=========
wait for iiiiit
I guess it's time for me to quote you: "Wow!". All this simply because I disagree that Sharona had no heart and comes across as slutty? Instead of suggesting I can't handle a different opinion, you could've tried to explain why you actually feel that way.
I did not "check out" other threads, I frequent this board and remembered your comments in the other thread (that I actually posted in before you did). Excuse me for seeing that you were the same poster. I don't believe I took anything out of context, but please show me when and how I did that.
I have no idea what you mean with the Ross and Rachel reference, I've never posted such an "argument" in my life.
But yes, just put me on your ignore list just because I disagree with you. How mature.
It isn't nonsense at all. Sharona is rude, mean sometimes, totally money oriented and selfish. She shows no compassion and has no patience with Monk's disease. Heartless indeed. Nathalie is her opposite, warm, altruist, caring and in general a nice person.
shareActually, it IS nonsense to say Sharona had "no heart". To be honest, there isn't that much difference between Sharona and Natalie, in a lot of ways they're the same character. They're both easily annoyed by Monk, but also have a soft spot for him. Sharona is more blunt, but multiple times she shows genuine care for Monk. Natalie can be really whiney and impatient, complains about money all the time, rolls her eyes at Monk and talks badly about him and Randy in their face and behind their backs. Ofcourse, Natalie was on the show longer, so we saw more personal moments between her and Monk. It's just silly how you act like they're real people. There's no way the writers intended Sharona to be interpreted so negatively. In the episode in which Sharona returns, they make very clear how important she was to Monk and how much she cares for him.
shareIt isn't nonsense at all. Sharona is rude, mean sometimes
Maybe she's being sassy? Maybe it's warranted. Maybe she's annoyed. Can you give examples?
totally money oriented
I know, wanting to get paid for working makes her 'totally money oriented'. And Natalie never complained about how much she was being payed, tried to get more money for the work she and Adrian did, or took side jobs or participated in schemes to make more money (Mr. Monk and the Big Reward) Ka-ching!, and Mr. Monk, PI.
And, Natalie might bot have had the money issues that Sharona did. Sharona drove a 10 year old beater car, and Natalie had 2 new cars a year, plus designer clothes and $1000 a pair shoes. On a "Monk's assistant" salary.
and selfish
Wait, a woman who was hired to be a 'nursemaid" to Monk, helped him get to a place, physically and emotionally where he was able to get out of a catatonic state, go outside and pursue a consulting career/solve his wife's murder AND take care of her son, on her own, without much help from her ex. What a selfish bitch.
She was always there for Monk, especially when he didn't have anyone else. Sheesh.
She shows no compassion and has no patience with Monk's disease.
1st, what Monk has isn't a 'disease", it's a disorder.
2nd, She worked to get him past the worst of the disorder, to the point that the person taking over for her could just drive him around, stand around and hand him wipes.
3rd, see the reply to the "Selfish" quote.
Heartless indeed.
Yeeeeah. Have you seen ANY of the Sharona episodes?
Look, I don't have any problem with Natalie. She's a good assistant. No one is perfect, not Natalie, not Sharona and especially not Monk. That being said, I think we should really keep in mind that Sharona could easily do what Natalie did. Natalie could never have done what Sharona did. Without Sharona, Natalie would probably still be a bartender, or working at the local Texaco. share
Yeeeeah. Have you seen ANY of the Sharona episodes?
Obviously they haven't. They admit that they hated her from the very first episode and stopped watching until she was gone. It seems they don't really have a right to judge the character.
Look, I don't have any problem with Natalie. She's a good assistant. No one is perfect, not Natalie, not Sharona and especially not Monk. That being said, I think we should really keep in mind that Sharona could easily do what Natalie did. Natalie could never have done what Sharona did.
Very true. The writers basically acknowledged this in the episode in which Sharona returned. share
Ha ha. You've raised the ire of the Bitty fan club. Don't worry, they're just bitter because she got fired for being a terrible actress playing an awful character. The show got much better with Traylor and much more popular. I now expect to be told that I'm overreacting for saying bad things about Bitty followed by them saying bad things about Traylor.
shareI'm not part of the "Bitty fan club". If someone were to make baseless claims or insults against Traylor Howard, I'd defend her as well. In fact, when Traylor Howard was new to the show, I defended her on the USA message board.
As for Bitty Schram, she couldn't have been that terrible of an actress. She, out of all the cast barring Tony Shalhoub - the multi-award winning star of the show, was the only cast member to be nominated for a Golden Globe award in the 8 years that the show ran. This was just before she left, so who knows, if things had gone differently, if she would garnered more nominations/awards.
And, according to everyone in production and Bitty Schram's people, she was let out of her contract, citing "creative differences", which is different than being fired. (The details aren't given, but this was after 3 of the four co-stars petitioned to renegotiate their contracts early, and Mr. Monk and the Game Show was filmed without those three actors.
And, to keep things in perspective, I'm not bitter about anything. The change in cast happened 10 years ago. Sharona reprised the role and was given a proper farewell (and hooked up with Randy). Her character was incorporated into the finale, and in a few of the subsequent novels. I have nothing to be bitter about.
And to be fair, if Bitty hadn't left, Natalie Teeger, a really great character would never have been created. I'm not bitter. I just don't get the whole "either/or" thing. They both had good qualities.
Really, with that whiny voice! I remember when Natalie was still new, I said that she had a face like a rat.I've read your posts. You have no problem giving your opinion about Traylor but you get all bent out of shape if someone says what they don't like about Bitty. You're a straight-up hypocrite. share
Here's the difference. That quote you quoted...that was what I thought of Natalie in late season 3, early season 4. I stuck with the show and character and eventually began to like her. It's not my opinion of her later in the series. Not my opinion of her now. She came into her own and made the character a good one.
And generally, if I say something It's COMPARATIVE to someone saying something unnecessarily negative about Sharona. Like backhandedly calling Sharona ugly. Or calling her mean, heartless, I might bring in a comparative instance of Natalie being ugly, rude/heartless, etc...when the person saying it obviously didn't watch when she was on the show.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
shareSo, if I reply to your post, I'm somehow demonstrating your point. Wow, you must be magic.
shareWow, you think what you've written makes sense?
shareWell, you might want to re-read that part of the thread, because I was responding to your comment...and you claimed that I was proving some sort of point...somehow.
shareYes and your purposeful oversimplification doesn't change that claim.
shareNow I think you're just fecking with me.
sharePeople who use dubious logic probably wouldn't know the difference.
shareI'm not sure if you should be on your meds, or off of them. ;)
shareAnd yet another logical fallacy.
shareHoney, you were made for meds.
shareWe got your ad-hominem the first time.
shareGood. Don't make me break out my Deus ex Machina
shareDoes that mean pussy out and delete a bunch of your posts in the other thread?
shareAt around 10 pm last night I realized I was spending my day off - my rest time from a stressful job - "debating" someone who was either crazy or doesn't recognize that you need to be clear when talking about a subject. They can't change the content of your posts within the conversation, and tell the other person they "didn't say that" because they deleted or re-wrote the post. And they can't say that words/concepts in the conversation don't mean what it means to everyone else in the world.
So, after this happened several times (silly me, I should have stopped at once), I removed myself from that Mad Hatter discussion. It was already corrupted by the other poster, who changed several of his posts after the fact. It wasn't worth it. I had better things to do than to debate someone like that.
What was better than debating a crazy person?
What isn't?
The posts weren't changed or deleted and you only bailed after it was pointed out that you were supplying your own definitions and got embarrassed. You constantly put words in other's mouths even after you asked that it not be done to you.
And once again, in absence of a valid argument, you resort to ad-hominem.
Nobody here is in the "Bitty fan club". We all love Monk and we all love Sharona AND Natalie. I don't care about the looks of either Bitty or Traylor, as long as the character is interesting enough. That was the point. And if anyone comes on these boards and says Natalie is "heartless", I'd defend her just the same.
I just have to laugh at your suggestion that the show became more popular because of Traylor. The show became more popular because of Tony Shalhoub and the awards and recognition he was getting. A supporting character like Sharona or Natalie had little effect on that. It's not like the ratings sky-rocketed after the third season. As for the show getting better, that's definitely subjective. I think the writing and comedy was at its best in the first four seasons and I certainly don't see how Natalie made the show "better".
What a surprise. Once again both accounts show up at the same time to tell us just how fair they are, despite the evidence to the contrary.
shareI showed up at the same time, because another poster actually replied to me in the last hour and then I read your nonsense post.
But yeah, accusing people of being sock puppets is SUCH a good argument. Maybe I should bring up how the board has been suspiciously crowded with Sharona-haters these last few days...
And yes, I'm absolutely fair, I'm not prejudiced against either actress and I love both characters. Where did you get the idea from that I'm not fair?
Yeah but scouter didn't just get a new reply.
Good point, saying something is a bad argument and then using it.
I got the idea from reading your posts.
Good point, saying something is a bad argument and then using it.
I didn't use it as an argument, I questioned if I should bring it up.
I got the idea from reading your posts.
Then you simply can not read. share
I didn't use it as an argument, I questioned if I should bring it up.Good point since I didn't was just as indirect as you.
Then you simply can not read.Do you believe that other people are buying that? share
Good point since I didn't was just as indirect as you.
That sentence makes a lot of sense!
No, you were not as indirect. You didn't question if you should bring it up, you just did and it was ALL you brought up.
Do you believe that other people are buying that?
Yes, especially since you can't write either.
But yeah, if people can read, they can see I'm fair to both. share
That sentence makes a lot of sense!Thank you! Because if it didn't, how could you make some lame counter-argument...
No, you were not as indirect. You didn't question if you should bring it up, you just did and it was ALL you brought up.Redefining words again.
Yes, especially since you can't write either.Could you learn something else besides ad-hominems? There are plenty of books on logical fallacies. share
But yeah, if people can read, they can see I'm fair to both.
Because if it didn't, how could you make some lame counter-argument...
(Ignoring the "lame") Because I'm not a dumbass like you.
Redefining words again.
So you simply don't have a comeback...
Could you learn something else besides ad-hominems?
If you don't want other people to use them, then don't use them yourself. Again, you're the one who brought up the sock puppetry.
There's nothing logically invalid about concluding you can't read, if you're reading things that aren't there.
Now let me hear an actual argument from you. share
(Ignoring the "lame") Because I'm not a dumbass like you.(Ignoring the "dumbass") Because I'm not lame like you.
So you simply don't have a comeback...Not to made up things.
If you don't want other people to use them, then don't use them yourself. Again, you're the one who brought up the sock puppetry.You don't really know what they are, do you?
There's nothing logically invalid about concluding you can't read, if you're reading things that aren't there.But you keep right on using them.
Now let me hear an actual argument from you.Pointing out invalid arguments is an argument. share
Because I'm not lame like you.
How unfortunate you don't know what dumbass or lame means. Not surprising, though.
Not to made up things.
Then prove me I'm wrong instead of making up things yourself.
You don't really know what they are, do you?
I'm wondering if you do. Dismissing people's arguments by accusing them of being sock puppets is definitely an ad hominem.
But you keep right on using them.
Point out all of the times I used them.
Pointing out invalid arguments is an argument.
I ask you to point them all out. The subject of discussion was my supposed unfairness and you saying that you got that idea from reading my posts is no argument. My conclusion that you can't read seems more valid. share
How unfortunate you don't know what dumbass or lame means. Not surprising, though.You know, I'll probably live with what you think.
Then prove me I'm wrong instead of making up things yourself."I'm rubber, you're glue." Great comeback.
I'm wondering if you do. Dismissing people's arguments by accusing them of being sock puppets is definitely an ad hominem.Thanks for proving my point.
Point out all of the times I used them.When you learn what they are.
I ask you to point them all out. The subject of discussion was my supposed unfairness and you saying that you got that idea from reading my posts is no argument. My conclusion that you can't read seems more valid.Nope, I'll leave it up to you to show how all of your posts are fair. share
You know, I'll probably live with what you think.
Good for you, not so good for the rest of us.
"I'm rubber, you're glue." Great comeback.
What else do you expect me to say when you're making things up? You said I was being "unfair", which is simply untrue. If you actually CAN read, then you're just making things up.
Thanks for proving my point.
You mean the point that you're stupid?
When you learn what they are.
So you just don't know what they are, huh?
Nope, I'll leave it up to you to show how all of your posts are fair.
And again this proves the point that you're stupid. Don't complain about people using invalid arguments, if you fail to back up your own.
share
Good for you, not so good for the rest of us.You don't speak for everyone.
What else do you expect me to say when you're making things up? You said I was being "unfair", which is simply untrue. If you actually CAN read, then you're just making things up.The only person who can say that's it's true that I find you unfair is me.
You mean the point that you're stupid?It says a lot about you if you actually think that was my point.
So you just don't know what they are, huh?Stuck on the "I'm rubber..." thing now?
And again this proves the point that you're stupid. Don't complain about people using invalid arguments, if you fail to back up your own.When you look up ad-hominem you should look up proof as well.
share
You don't speak for everyone.
No, but it's my opinion that it's not good for the rest of us.
The only person who can say that's it's true that I find you unfair is me.
Yeah, I said that me "being unfair" is simply untrue, not you THINKING I'm being unfair.
It says a lot about you if you actually think that was my point.
I'm sure it's not the point you intended, but it's the only point proven.
Stuck on the "I'm rubber..." thing now?
If you accuse me of not knowing, it's only fair to ask if YOU do know.
When you look up ad-hominem you should look up proof as well.
And your proof is simply saying that you read my posts? You didn't finish school, did you? share
No, but it's my opinion that it's not good for the rest of us.Again, not much fear in living with that.
Yeah, I said that me "being unfair" is simply untrue, not you THINKING I'm unfair.You asked me where I got the idea. I told you.
I'm sure it's not the point you intended, but it's the only point proven.It says a lot about you if you actually think that was my point.
If you accuse me of not knowing, it's only fair to ask if YOU do know.If showing that you do is out of the question.
And your proof is simply saying that you read my posts? You didn't finish school, did you?Where did I say proof? Who's making things up? share
Again, not much fear in living with that.
I didn't expect otherwise.
You asked me where I got the idea. I told you.
And I asked you to back it up, which you refused. That doesn't really help your cause.
It says a lot about you if you actually think that was my point.
I already said that I'm sure it wasn't the point you intended.
Where did I say proof? Who's making things up?
You actually mentioned the word "proof" when you said I should look it up. But like I already said, if you make an argument, you have to back it up. Simply saying that you've read my posts and that it's up to me to prove I'm fair, doesn't cut it. share
I didn't expect otherwise.Which is why you keep making the same arguments.
And I asked you to back it up, which you refused. That doesn't really help your cause.And yet my feeling hasn't changed.
I already said that I'm sure it wasn't the point you intended.I already wrote that it says a lot about you.
Like I said, if you make an argument, you have to back it up.Really? like showing where I said proof?
Simply saying that you've read my posts and that it's up to me to prove I'm fair, doesn't cut it.And yet, my feeling hasn't changed. share
It's not about "your feeling", it's about you not making a good argument on a discussion board about me being unfair.
You don't want to discuss my supposed unfairness against Natalie? Fine by me. I consider this the end of the discussion then.
It's not about "your feeling", it's about you not making a good argument on a discussion board about me being unfair.Maybe I should call you loco and claim that you popped a boner?
You don't want to discuss my supposed unfairness against Natalie? Fine by me. I consider this the end of the discussion then.Until the next person who doesn't like Sharona. share
Maybe I should call you loco and claim that you popped a boner?
Maybe I should just call you a sock puppet?
Until the next person who doesn't like Sharona.
Until your next sock puppet account! share
I consider this the end of the discussion then.Add end to the list of things for you to look up.
Maybe I should just call you a sock puppet?You might have a point if there were someone else who wrote exactly like me.
Until your next sock puppet account!
by StrategoI guess those who can't do, teach. share
» 49 minutes ago (Tue Jun 9 2015 16:54:36) Flag ▼ | Reply |
Like I said, if you make an argument, you have to back it up.
Greetings and partings are also part of discussions now? Yikes, then I've got a long day ahead of me tomorrow!
shareGreetings and partings are also part of discussions now? Yikes, then I've got a long day ahead of me tomorrow!If you make such narrow definitions, there really is no point in calling the end. share
So, I prefer Sharona, but Natalie's good, too.
shareHaha, I agree!XD
shareLike todos_siempre. Ignoring - because ...yeah.
What's that? Are you going to make up what I said and then run away when confronted with actual evidence?
shareBecause todos_siempre is "un poco loco"?
shareOdd how you both favor the ad-hominem.
shareYou're the one who brought up accusations of sock puppetry, so don't go crying.
sharePointing out the obvious isn't crying.
shareI agree they're not the same. You were crying, while not pointing out the obvious.
shareIt doesn't really help you're cause when you do the thing that I said was obvious in the same sentence where you deny it.
shareWhen did I deny the "obvious" thing you accused me of?
shareWhen did I "cry?"
shareWhen you said it was "odd" how we both "favor the ad-hominem". Rather hypocritical, since you started it yourself. I see no other point of that post other than crying about other posters.
shareWhen you said it was "odd" how we both "favor the ad-hominem". Rather hypocritical, since you started it yourself. I see no other point of that post other than crying about other posters.Actually, crying would be more like getting upset when people don't like Sharona. Since you still haven't learned what an ad-hominem is, hypocritical is highly debatable. share
Actually, as stated in MM&Sharona, Sharona, who was hired to be his nurse, and nothing more, brought him from "catatonic" mostly housebound mess with his phobias exaggerated by Trudy's death, to a working consultant. Sharona brought Monk to the place where someone could just stand beside him, drive him places and hand him wipes. Sharona could have easily done what Natalie does. Natalie could never have done what Sharona did.
Also note, that when Adrian worked with Sharona, he did NOT say picture-go-faster, picture-freezer, nor do I believe did he utter the phrase "sex affair". Even in the Sharona ep in season 8, he said "affair", not "sex affair".
Oh I totally agree Sharona was more qualified as a nurse and caretaker. I know about all the hard work she put in before the series picks up. I was only answering the question superficially, and Natalie is more my 'type' than a Sharona type, that's all. I get how important she was to his recovery. She's good people.
=========
wait for iiiiit
I agree with noofy311 here. Sharona could have never done the tender, supportive scenes with Adriana that Natalie does off and on. My wife refuses to watch any of the Sharona episodes again, even though a number of them have outstanding plots. She won't watch the Sharona reunion episode late in the series either. Though Natalie was a "bitch" in her early episodes late in season 3 as our friend who got us watching the series put it.
shareIt's okay if your wife won't watch the Sharona episodes. If you see Natalie do something, know that Sharona did it first.
Anyway, I see Natalie and Sharona as friends. In the novel series they tended to be chummy. They even ate from the same ice cream container during a heart to heart conversation, to the horror of Adrian Monk.
How was she hypocritical and/or slutty? I must have missed that episode.
shareComes across as hypocritical, and a little too slutty for my tastes.
I must have missed that as well. And slutty in behavior or slutty in the way she dressed?
Outright mean at times to Monk.
See, I don't get that criticism. Natalie could be outright mean to him as well, lots of people were. share
Sluttiness is a behavior, not a dress. Well-to-do people can act slutty.
shareThe poster said that Sharona came across as "slutty", people will also use that word to describe how someone dresses, so I'm not entirely sure what the poster means. But I don't think Sharona acted or looked slutty, she did sometimes wear slightly revealing clothes, but most of the time it was just kinda gaudy.
shareIMO, even if the outfits was gaudy, I still liked most of them. They fit her character.
I still don't understand how Natalie could afford her designer wardrobe, a new car every year and sending her kid to Berkeley on Monk's salary and no help from the 'rents.
The outfits were definitely too gaudy for my taste, but I agree that it totally fit her character.
I also agree about Natalie, it's especially weird since she often complained about Monk not paying and her needing the money. I would've liked it better if we saw a bit more of her struggles as a single mother.
So, if someone dresses in a way that you don't particularly like, you can't enjoy them as a character in a show? Just asking. I guess I can understand how the character and voice could be grating, but at the time she was on the show, it seemed that most of the Monk watching culture loved the clothes, the attitude and the voice.
And I have to say, when Natalie was first on Monk, I thought she was annoying. I couldn't stand her voice, her clothes. She was boring and 'white bread'. But I got used to her after a couple of seasons.
And I wish Sharona had stayed on. It would have been interesting to see where that character went in conjunction with the Monk universe. I'm glad she came back for one episode, and there was some closure.
So, if someone dresses in a way that you don't particularly like, you can't enjoy them as a character in a show? Just asking.
Are you asking me, or just asking in general? I already stated that I feel the opposite. Sharona's wardrobe was definitely not my style, but I immensely enjoyed her character.
I kinda feel the same way about Natalie. I'm not a big fan of the actress, I don't really like her nasal voice or her squinty eyes, but Natalie was a sympathetic character for the most part.
I'm also glad Bitty Schramm came back and gave the character some closure.
share
hahaha...on message boards, i have no idea who i'm asking
. sorry
Haha, that's okay!;)
shareTotally on #teamNatalie LOL
If we are judging the actresses on their looks alone Traylor Howard is my kind of girl so that is why she would win that battle for me. But, that is not what this thread is about so.
I didn't really get into Monk until probably the last few episodes with Sharona. And of course this wasn't in syndication and such yet. So as my love of the show grew it was all episodes featuring Natalie. So I just have a deeper connection to the show during the Natalie era.
Having the chance to go back now and watch the series from the start I don't dislike Sharona. I just don't enjoy the Monk/Sharona dynamic. To best explain it I will point out another show that is the reverse Monk in my opinion in terms of a casting change.
With the show Charmed the original trio of (Prue, Piper, and Phoebe) featuring Shannon Doherty, Hallie Marie Combs, and Alyssa Milano is the cast version that I liked and preferred and when they moved away from Shannon Doherty as a part of the show I lost interest in the series and I never came back. It had nothing to do with looks or anything because I have always loved some Alyssa Milano. I just never bought into the replacement sister and the new Power of 3 dynamic.
Now Charmed is not placed conveniently in the lineup so I never see the re-runs, but if there was an episode with the original 3 I'm more likely to stick through it. And the same thing happens with Monk, I can watch the Monk/Sharona episodes, but I don't really stick to them. If UHD is going through a Monk Block - and it's mostly Sharona episodes I don't tune in. If it is a Natalie block, I tune in because that is the show I enjoy.
[deleted]
My complements to your street whores, then. They must be awesome.
When Natalie first arrived, I found her voice annoying, as well. I got used to it.
[deleted]
This is one that's just gonna go on forever b/c there's no real one answer. They were both important to the show, both have their fans and detractors, both have selflessly helped Monk and have also taken a few shots at him when he acts difficult, and both spark a great debate for the fans to hash out.
While they're both TV characters and I ultimately don't really care either way, I've personally appreciated the traits that Natalie showed a little more than Sharona, who I don't hate, but wouldn't date. Nothing against Bitty Schram at all. A League of Their Own was an instant classic, IMHO, and she was excellent in that. "THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!!!" is one of the best movie lines Tom Hanks ever delivered, right in her face. She'll be in a new movie with Eric Roberts soon, Moments of Clarity.
Traylor Howard doesn't have the big-screen resumé. I vaguely remember a few eps of Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place. She hasn't really done much since Monk, and is apparently building a family instead of acting, which is fine.
========
wait for iiiiit
Natalie.
shareSharona pushed Monk and Natalie was a pushover. I liked Sharona and Monk interaction better.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
When we were introduced to Monk and Sharona, Monk was Sharona's boss, but they were kind of equal because Monk couldn't live without Sharona.
shareI preferred Natalie, I thought she was much nicer, and treated Monk better. But I also agree with some of the earlier posters that some of the early episodes, and mysteries are better in the early seasons, I kind of wish Natalie had just been on the show the whole time.
shareThe eternal question.
I don't know that I have a preference. I like both characters quite a bit. It's true that Sharona had a bit more baggage in terms of regrets from her past, a troublesome ex-husband, etc. and perhaps that makes her objectively a more interesting character. But I find them both very likeable and sympathetic. They can be impatient with Monk at times, but they do a much better job than I ever would in such a position.
Natalie
--My mission is to maintain fairness and sanity in this forum.