TV Home Forum

Coronation Street

Costa & Coop p68: Repeats on ITV3: Are there too many spoilers?

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
DJ
DJ Dave
Stuart posted:
Brekkie posted:
Back to the present day and maybe a storyline about in work poverty would have resonated more, if done with the right characters. Fiz and Ty finding themselves going to food banks and being ashamed of it might be more believable, and viewers would certainly have more sympathy for them.

I agree, Brekkie, but this is yet another example of my previous comment about the writers wrapping a story around an inappropriate character.


Sean was a BAD choice for this story arc. It doesn't resonate with me. The character is a 'filler' at the best of times, rather like Dev and Sally's previously unmentioned 'Sister from the loony bin'. We already have a loveable nutter in Mary Laughing

I don't mind Gina Laughing
AN
Andrew Founding member
Stuart posted:
DJ Dave posted:
Yeah as posted above, to claim benefits you need an address, which currently he doesn't have.

No you don't, you just need a correspondence address, that's all, and it can even be the Jobcentre. There are plenty of homeless people on benefits.


The story about Sean is rather unbelievable. I can understand them trying to portray someone who is too ashamed to tell their friends about their situation. However, he has started begging, and didn't have the foresight to do it in an area he was unlikely to be seen.

The Cities of Manchester & Salford are very large conurbations, so why would you sit outside the local hospital? Surely begging for money is more damaging to his pride than walking into a Jobcentre and claiming benefits?

At least he hasn't started selling his body on Canal Street (yet), but they've already played a similar 'moral high ground card' on that subject with Sarah's sister daughter.


They don't do benefits, or any sort of political stuff on soaps. They'd either not portray it right or send out the wrong message.

A lot of things are just supposed to be assumed, like how Zak and the Dingles can survive on Emmerdale with only odd bits of work here and there.

I find the Sean story quite believable myself, remember its been building up right since Underworld closed down, and then with him no longer living with Eileen.
SC
Si-Co
BeanosOnToast posted:
Does anyone take a moment to consider how the editing in 1989-October 1990 Corrie was all over the place?

I remember one episode from October '89 that had the 35mm filmed 1976-90 title sequence abruptly cut into the videotaped episode, without any fade transitions at all. Unlike on many late '89 and pre October 1990 episodes which have about 15 seconds of the 35mm sequence, then fade into the videotaped footage of the episodes, with the 'CORONATION STREET' logo fading in soon afterwards, wonder if that was part of the reason why the title sequence was revamped twenty-one months after Granada switched to shooting on-location footage on videotape.


I had noticed that sometimes they show the whole opening sequence, with “Coronation Street” displayed over the long view of the street from the Rovers end, and other times omit this last image and superimpose the title over the first scene (often an establishing shot of the street that led into the action of the episode).

The next set of titles (1990-2002 I think) often omitted the last shot too, which showed the dog running down the street. I always found that shot of the dog a little odd to be honest - there seemed to be too much going on.
SC
Si-Co
London Lite posted:
EastEnders did a poverty storyline under Sean O'Connor where Denise was going to a food bank.


Which people said was equally hard to believe. SOC liked Denise and gave her more than her fair share of storylines, and this one may have been better suited to another character.
JE
Jez Founding member
Si-Co posted:
BeanosOnToast posted:
Does anyone take a moment to consider how the editing in 1989-October 1990 Corrie was all over the place?

I remember one episode from October '89 that had the 35mm filmed 1976-90 title sequence abruptly cut into the videotaped episode, without any fade transitions at all. Unlike on many late '89 and pre October 1990 episodes which have about 15 seconds of the 35mm sequence, then fade into the videotaped footage of the episodes, with the 'CORONATION STREET' logo fading in soon afterwards, wonder if that was part of the reason why the title sequence was revamped twenty-one months after Granada switched to shooting on-location footage on videotape.


I had noticed that sometimes they show the whole opening sequence, with “Coronation Street” displayed over the long view of the street from the Rovers end, and other times omit this last image and superimpose the title over the first scene (often an establishing shot of the street that led into the action of the episode).

The next set of titles (1990-2002 I think) often omitted the last shot too, which showed the dog running down the street. I always found that shot of the dog a little odd to be honest - there seemed to be too much going on.


The shot with the dog running down the street was only used until the mid 1990s I think and even then it often wasn't shown. From Mid 90s onwards I think the shot with the cat was the final shot with 'Coronation Street' on that. As seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neuwcOpFnE8
ToasterMan and Si-Co gave kudos
JA
james-2001
According to Corriepedia, the last time the "dog running down the street" shot was shown was in February 1995, and it was being regularly replaced even before then.

http://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence
DA
davidhorman
Si-Co posted:
London Lite posted:
EastEnders did a poverty storyline under Sean O'Connor where Denise was going to a food bank.


Which people said was equally hard to believe. SOC liked Denise and gave her more than her fair share of storylines, and this one may have been better suited to another character.


It was just week after week of Denise going "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, this ain't me " and then it was all solved in a moment.

I'm not sure the soaps can really do these kinds of things realistic justice, and maybe they shouldn't try. You can't alienate characters from the rest of the cast in a soap (except by dropping them completely for months), so the only way to keep them in dire straits is to make them too proud to get help. Then eventually, they won't be, and everyone will come to their aid and Sean'll be back at Fizz's or Eileen's and that will be that.

If only it were that simple for people in real life...

Edit: actually that said they can do a bit of a better job of it if they don't insist on imposing the storyline on an existing character. Maddy (Sophie's now-dead girlfriend) started off as homeless.
JB
JasonB
Andrew posted:


A lot of things are just supposed to be assumed, like how Zak and the Dingles can survive on Emmerdale with only odd bits of work here and there.


Emmerdale missed a great opportunity of building Zac and the Dingles a better home to live when their dinky place had a wall knocked down last year. Instead all it got was a fresh lick of paint the same colour and some new kitchen units.
ST
Stuart
JasonB posted:
Emmerdale missed a great opportunity of building Zac and the Dingles a better home to live when their dinky place had a wall knocked down last year. Instead all it got was a fresh lick of paint the same colour and some new kitchen units.

I guess that probably sums up the plot from the 12 months since I stopped watching Emmerdale. Laughing
:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
Last edited by A former member on 26 March 2021 9:29pm
AN
Andrew Founding member
Stuart posted:
JasonB posted:
Emmerdale missed a great opportunity of building Zac and the Dingles a better home to live when their dinky place had a wall knocked down last year. Instead all it got was a fresh lick of paint the same colour and some new kitchen units.

I guess that probably sums up the plot from the 12 months since I stopped watching Emmerdale. Laughing

Viewers don’t like change

Like if the Rovers ever gets redecorated it always ends up basically the same.
ST
Stuart
Andrew posted:

Viewers don’t like change

Like if the Rovers ever gets redecorated it always ends up basically the same.

Actually, the TARDIS-esque Rovers has already lost it's 'Snug' and 'Select' bars in the last 30 years. I believe the wallpaper after the latest fire/nuclear bomb/tram crash had to be 'not-so-subtly altered' (without explanation, of course) because of complaints.

Mind you, stairs and other interior fittings have been known to change overnight in some of the houses, and the viewer seems to accept those.

10 years ago in Emmerdale, Debbie's house was completely reconfigured overnight, and she never mentioned a word! Shocked

I'm not in my best mood first thing, but frankly, I'd be rather annoyed in the morning if I fell through the floorboards from my bedroom because someone had moved my staircase overnight. Wink

Newer posts