Jump to content

Coronation Street: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yeah, I've heard people say that Ashley and Claire had to go because there was nothing you could do with their characters, and I laughed, because a) why do you have to "do" something with characters, and b ) take your pick with this show. It doesn't help that the new hires over the last year are generally so bad. It does not fill me with confidence about the show's priorities. Keep the worst of the old and bring in new who are as bad or worse.

I agree about the last scene. I think Alan Halsall has done a good job most of this week but that wasn't great, and also not a great way to end the episode.

Apparently the ratings were about 13-14 million, which is pretty good, since this episode hasn't been heavily advertised so much as the entire week has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Been a while since i posted on here but after watching Tram week , here is my thoughts on Corrie

- Tram Week Was Great. Exciting and important. The Stunt was really good and was something you couldn't turn away from

- Acting was marvellous by the majority of the cast including Jane Danson (Leanne)

- William Roache (Ken) is the man

- Kevin & Molly's Affair was finally revealed to Sally

- The Death's Were Sad but well done especially the first one

- The Live Episode was good "But" It didn't feel Live

- The Tram Crash Aftermath was brilliant due to how realistic it was

- Characters I Love - Ken , Rita , Peter , Norris , Leanne , Maria , Kirk , Simon , John , Tina & Mary

- Characters I Dislike - Bill , Dev , Ciaran , Sean , Becky & Pam

- Characters I Want Back - Elsie , Ena , Annie , Albert , Alf , Hilda , Bet , Alec , Vera , Blanche , Mike , Jack , Curly , Terry , Percy , Martin

, Alan , Sarah-Louise , Reg , Fiona , Fred , Natalie , Les , Toyah , Candice , Shelley , Richard , Cilla , Charlie & Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's nice to see you posting again. I'd like to see Ena, Elsie, and Annie again too, but sadly that won't happen :( At least we have our memories. What I'd really like to see is all the episodes made available, not just a select few.

Did you get to see the DVD special Curly was in earlier this year? How as it?

I haven't watched tonight's yet but I read that they had a montage. Groan. Between that and the Peter death fakeout and all that, it seems like the show is running away from most of what made it unique. I know Tony Warren has praised Collinson but I wonder how he really feels when he sees those cheesy montages and sound effects and gimmicks about "4 funerals" when only 3 people died. Now when a lot of people think about the anniversary they will wonder why the show misled, for no real reason. Why not just have Maria choke to death on her extensions or something. That's #4.

Jean Alexander feels the show has lost its identity.

http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a292473/jean-alexander-corrie-lost-its-identity.html

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

still it was a very entertaining week. I dont mind her complaining because she is right , the show isnt what it once was. It doesnt feel like real life that much anymore. It feels like a US Primetime soap opera , but never the less its gripping the nation all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The hype of the anniversary week and live episode will end, and then what's left?

The live episode caused a lot of destruction for the 40th anniversary in 2000. Many claimed it took the show a while to recover after it, since they poured so many resources into it and didn't plan in the long-term for much else. EastEnders suffered the same fate this year when they only planned for the live episode and not much else after it, and it will take the show a while to recover from it. I think Corrie will probably face the same problem again with the longterm aftermath of it all.

Edited by Y&RWorldTurner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it's better off and worse off than Eastenders, because they didn't really have any big reveal that had to be kept secret until their live episode. Stacey killing Archie was kept secret from a lot of actors and they clearly had barely planned out the aftermath -- the episode where Stacey and Max talked about the truth was written on the fly.

On the other hand, Eastenders, at least on paper, had several big stories which were supposed to take up the slack (Chryed, Lucas). That didn't really work out, but the idea at least made sense.

I guess Corrie's stories could work out, but to me they seem to be very thin. Tracy returning again -- her last appearance wasn't exactly a great success and I think a lot of fans are tired of Becky and Steve. The "love square" is seriously compromised by the poor work from Ben Price and the character assassination of Leanne and by Carla's overnight obsession with Peter. The story about baby Jack doesn't affect that many people and the show

doesn't suggest they have any real ideas or hope for this storyline. What else is there? Gary's PTSD could be interesting I guess, if they stop with all the special effects and actually have faith in the actor. Lloyd and the wooden stripper and her boring ex is dull. So is the Stape silliness. So is everything with the snoozeworthy Charlie Stubbs knockoff. Then there's the great idea of bringing in Chris Fountain as a Duckworth when all of his relatives are gone and he could have had a few last scenes with his grandfather if the show had planned it differently -- but then, if the other new characters are any indication, I guess Fountain will just spend months standing around with his mouth half-open.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Corrie is seen to be in a better position than EE, simply b/c some changes have taken place. Of course, the storylines are still left over from Kim Crowther, and should've ended, like Molvin and Stape/Fishwick, and that is their weakness. ITA with everything you said about the stories, as they don't have much to take them through the New Year, except for Tracy, who I think they're pinning a lot on, especially with:

Ideally, Tyrone would be better off leaving, and the show bringing in a new family; they should also dump most of those new characters, as they just don't work or are not needed. I hate the way Bill and Pam have been sidelined in favour of the new builder - I know they're only recurring, but more could be done with them. Also, there seems to be a bit of a mess with Liz, and that weird story w/ Jim's return and that builder guy. What happened to Jim anyway? Last I saw, Steve told builder guy that Liz had dumped him after jetting off to Spain off screen.

I also think it's weird how they've fired the guy that plays Eddie. The Windasses work, b/c each one brings something different, and when one falls, the two left will feel incomplete and alone. Ironically, when they first arrived, I believed that Anna would've better as a single mother, but since they've changed the characters for the better, that no longer stands.

Also, anyone else notice that they seemed to have slightly changed Greame's appearance? He doesn't look so goofy, or Curly-esque, almost like they wanted him to look better, b/c he's with Tina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've heard a few others say Anna would be better off without Eddie, but I think that might just further isolate her.

I don't see why they decided that Graeme needed to be "normal." He was popular with fans because he was weird. I don't believe the actor can pull off serious material and Tina just seems to be there to help him along. Don't they remember what happened to Curly when he became "normal"?

I can see why they have decided to extend the story with John, because it is one of those weird things which can go on and on as it was odd to begin with, and Graeme Hawley is an underrated actor who has always given his best to this silly stuff. It seems like they keep this up because they have to stretch to 5 episodes a week. But it has become so ridiculous. I just wonder whether any of this will ever affect anyone on the Street. It's such an isolated story.

I really wonder why Tracy needs to be back. I get that she's Amy's mother but I think people need a break from Becky/Steve stories. All of Tracy's relationships seem played out (especially the one with Deirdre) and Kate Ford isn't a very good actress. The only way I would be interested in her return is if she made life hell for Carla, and I wonder if the show will even remember Peter and Tracy were close.

When was Jim last seen? After he was beaten up?

I guess Izzy's father and sister were supposed to make up a new family, but I don't think they click. I don't understand why they cast such an incredibly dull actor for a role which was supposed to have some type of spark. The story with Liz seemed to be scuttled quickly, as Bev Callard vanished without much real explanation.

Corrie used to be great at creating new characters. Even Kim Crowther had some like Mary. I wonder what has changed. If Collinson is ashamed of creating silly new characters, surely they are better than dullards.

The show has a lot of characters at the moment who do nothing and who are played by actors not talented enough to drive story. The show seems afraid to get rid of them or somehow lulled into thinking that this is just what Corrie is. But beyond that the show has become so cordoned off that even if characters who are supposed to be major suddenly disappeared, I'm not sure how many would notice. Corrie used to be a very character-driven show. It was about people interacting, not as much about their stories. Now it's very plot-driven, but as a result, the show no longer has any tone and you get really weird things like Steve barely noticing that a tram crashed or a building blew up or that one of his friends died. Not to mention how many characters shrugged off Rita being found after a week in the rubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will say that as much as I'm dreading Tracyluv's return, the character was popular during Kate Ford's run, and they had her in some good stories. The actual buildup of Tracey meeting her match in Charlie Stubbs (who was sex on legs -- if they could get away with any fake death story, it would be with him) and slowly being driven to madness. The real mistake was in having Tracey kill him.

Her return early this year was just terrible. Perhaps this one will be better, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That should be a huge change. I wonder what the new set will look like. Maybe we won't notice a difference.

When Collinson wants a character gone, they're gone, huh? Ashley, a 15-year character, gets no funeral, just some cheapjack thing that was apparently thrown together by the characters in two days. Quite a goodbye :(

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 have very detailed synopses of all 1976 storylines for the soaps from the Daytime Serial Newsletter. Please let me know if you are interested in a particular show and I will post it in the appropriate thread. As I stated they are very detailed, so I don't want to clutter up threads if posters are not interested.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Surely we (and Billy Flynn) are not going to be saddled with a character named Aristotle Dumas? This isn't 1970's Edge of Night.
    • What annoys me a little bit about the "day players" is they sound a bit too "Brooklyn-ish" sometimes.  Obviously, the show was taped in New York City, and the actors are all New York actors, but Monticello is supposed to be located in Illinois or Ohio.  Occasionally, they grab actors and actresses for small roles who have VERY distinct New York accents, which contrasts sharply with the main cast, none of whom have noticeable accents (except for our dashing European gigolo, Eliot Dorn, of course).  The heavy Brooklyn accent works fine if the character is a bookie, or the owner of a pawn shop, or a guy who's selling stolen guns on the street corner.  But when it's a steadily recurring character -- such as the first Mrs. Goodman, who worked for Miles and Nicole -- it's pretty jarring to me sometimes.  And you'll see it often -- such as an "under-five" character who witnesses a car accident, or a character who witnesses a shooting, or the occasional desk clerk, or waiter.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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