Jump to content

Coronation Street: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Well Ben, based on some of the reactions at Digital Spy, I can only imagine that if you did not enjoy the last episodes, you a) just do not understand Corrie b ) just do not understand comedy c) are not a Northener.

It's some of the same reaction to that awful stuff where Jim held up a bank. It's just a parody. It's irony. It's comedic irony. Brilliant!

I don't believe Phil Collinson has any interest in what made Corrie special. He just steamrolls all over it for the latest stunt. And none of these stunts ever have any fallout or purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Well, 1/3 ain't bad - I'm not a Northerner.

This story stopped being funny months ago. Nothing wrong with the premise of an accidental killer, but I don't feel this ever was about that, and instead that tagline became the running joke. John became pathetic; the story was isolated and didn't effect anyone but Fiz and Chesney - all he did was kill off guest characters that no-one cared about. What's so great about that? I can see how that final scene is ironic to the story, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. It was unrealistic and implausible. There's no getting away from that. Sadly, it still rumbles on w/ Fiz and John not being dead. John should be dead, and Fiz should go to jail. Get rid of her. Get rid of the story. Crime doesn't pay, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The 60's are their real golden age. I have a soft spot for 1960-1963, as this was before the very bad decision to dump wonderful characters like Martha Longhurst and Harry and Concepta Hewitt. After this many fans would say 1975-1983 or so. More recently, the early 90's are considered slow but had some iconic characters like Raquel, and much more quiet, character-driven humor and drama. The late 90's were more action packed and sensationalistic. Then 2003-2004 is considered fantastic.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm partial to early 70s Corrie myself. Annie, Bet, and Betty (sometimes Billy) running the Rovers, Maggie running the Corner Shop, Rita and Mavis later coming on with the Kabin...Len, Jerry, and Ray with their activities, early Deirdre (and Blanche), Emily/Ernest, the Ogdens at their finest, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I like the early 70's too, but they're seen as being a slump period, as a lot of the vets were ill or leaving. Still I think it's good until somewhere around 1974, which is still very watchable, but gets into some stuff I don't really want to see on Corrie like the story with Annie being terrorized in her home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She looks even worse when they glam her up, or their idea of glam anyway. When she was on Doctor Who about 5 years ago she fit the role better and looked OK.

That stupid pout and pose and Farrah hair on the daughter gets on my last nerve. I wonder if someone at Corrie is a big Marcy Rylan fan.

The only thing I will say is that

I wish the soaps spent less time on ads and more on better quality...but then, at least this shows us ITV still cares. I just wish they cared more about the show beyond the stunts.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
  • Members

Collinson has completely destroyed Carla and has badly bungled the Frank story, to the point where many fans were cheering him and trashing Maria. This story will get all kinds of hype, because Collinson gets hype no matter how bad the show is, but unless the guy who plays Frank wakes from his coma and Carla stops changing her personality based on the day of the week, then it's a waste of time.

What did you think of Michelle Collins and her bad accent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't seen her episode, yet - I'll probably watch tonight, if I remember, and will judge then.

I did read that she had trouble with the accent, but it was her idea to do the accent, as she didn't want the character to be a Londoner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think Hotel would have the similar demos as Dynasty W 19-49 would have been strong. St Elsewhere survived b/c it attracted wealthier/urban viewers and The Equalizer was probably stronger with men and younger viewers. So each had their own niche-good counter-programming. As for Aaron Spelling's influence over ABC in terms of scheduling, I don't know if he would have been happy with Charlie's Angels moving to Sunday, The Colbys scheduled on Thursdays or Matt Houston moved to Fridays. I think he just had to roll with the punches.
    • Thank you @Broderick. That information was so helpful. I watched the first episode of the "Mansion of the Damned" storyline. I was extremely confused by Margaret Colin's Paige and her relationship to other characters. Your post helps me understand what's happening. The rest of the show was easy to understand and I'm enjoying it. Hunter's Nola is a good character for me since I know Kim Hunter from other work.  I must have seen clips of Edge of Night before because I remember seeing April. 
    • How is it back tracking when it was in fact the word I originally used? It's not.
    • You know what is a great way to stop these unclear "rumors"?  Just stop posting them and then back tracking with words like "apparently".   Anyhow, I didn't find the Tracy/Lois scenes as good as I hoped.    
    • Jason, in thinking this over, I realize that we look at this space, differently. To me it is a potentially collaborative space. Now that I've realized this, what I should have said, "I'm having a problem because what I'm seeing is not matching up with your descriptions. Maybe these files I just got are misdated. Maybe it's something else. I will keep you posted. Meanwhile this episode, its edit, is ready, even though I might have to issue a corrected date later. But, people can enjoy the performances now. 
    • Thank you for the constructive suggestion. 
    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy