TV Home Forum

Coronation Street

(May 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
ST
stevek2
that is because they took the real thirty year old window out, replace it with sugar glass, chucked a bar stool through it, then put the original back in again Confused

in the confines of the programme it only took Owen three months to completely rebuild an entire shop so replacing 109 year old glass to the exact specifications of the 1902 original would only take an hour tops Wink

why did the solicitor have his mobile in the prison?. Didn't think you could take them in
SC
Si-Co
that is because they took the real thirty year old window out, replace it with sugar glass, chucked a bar stool through it, then put the original back in again Confused

in the confines of the programme it only took Owen three months to completely rebuild an entire shop so replacing 109 year old glass to the exact specifications of the 1902 original would only take an hour tops Wink

why did the solicitor have his mobile in the prison?. Didn't think you could take them in


Surely it wasn't the original? It must have been replaced after the fire of '86, and possibly a few other times after 'off screen' incidents.
NI
Nicky
Si-Co posted:
that is because they took the real thirty year old window out, replace it with sugar glass, chucked a bar stool through it, then put the original back in again Confused

in the confines of the programme it only took Owen three months to completely rebuild an entire shop so replacing 109 year old glass to the exact specifications of the 1902 original would only take an hour tops Wink

why did the solicitor have his mobile in the prison?. Didn't think you could take them in


Surely it wasn't the original? It must have been replaced after the fire of '86, and possibly a few other times after 'off screen' incidents.


No, it wasn't the original. The original windows had "Select" and "Public" inscribed on the glass - these were then burnt out in 1986, and then replaced with the familiar "Rovers Return" windows we see today when the Select, Public and Snug all became one bar.

However... if you look closely at episodes of the time, you'll notice that the current windows have actually only been in place since around 1991 or so. Between 1986 and 1991, the "Rovers Return" design was much smaller and was ostensibly 'printed' onto the windows. The current window has the design in slightly larger size and etched into the glass.

Rovers windows - thrilling discussion topic, eh? Laughing
RM
Roger Mellie

why did the solicitor have his mobile in the prison?. Didn't think you could take them in


Quite right-- you definitely can't In theory doing that is punishable by a two-year prison sentence, as any good lawyer will tell you Laughing The mobile-phone trade is a severe problem within prisons, so bringing them in is verboten. OSGs ought to have spotted the mobile on the way, when they pass by the visitor bubble.

PS: Fiz will have gone to a local prison, which are typically Cat B or Cat A-- no phones allowed in those. In Cat D you would be allowed one (with conditions)-- not sure about Cat C though Confused
Last edited by Roger Mellie on 6 July 2011 7:27pm
ST
stevek2
thought so. I used to help at a prison creche during visiting time (you entertain the kids whilst their family visits whoever is inside), you had to almost empty your pockets, so do the visiting familys, and this was pre-mobile phone. He can't be a very good lawyer if he doesn't even know the rules about prison visiting and mobile phone
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
thought so. I used to help at a prison creche during visiting time (you entertain the kids whilst their family visits whoever is inside), you had to almost empty your pockets, so do the visiting familys, and this was pre-mobile phone. He can't be a very good lawyer if he doesn't even know the rules about prison visiting and mobile phone


He's not a lawyer he's an actor reading lines written by a scriptwriter.

Googie Withers wasn't really a prison governor either.

*SHOCK*
CH
chris
thought so. I used to help at a prison creche during visiting time (you entertain the kids whilst their family visits whoever is inside), you had to almost empty your pockets, so do the visiting familys, and this was pre-mobile phone. He can't be a very good lawyer if he doesn't even know the rules about prison visiting and mobile phone


He's not a lawyer he's an actor reading lines written by a scriptwriter.

Googie Withers wasn't really a prison governor either.

*SHOCK*


Nobody said the actor was a lawyer. The character however was a lawyer, and the scriptwriters are there to make it as believable as possible.
JO
Jon
chris posted:
and the scriptwriters are there to make it as believable as possible.

In that case most nights it would be couples bitching about their work colleagues and discussing what they want for tea.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Writers are there to make it as compelling and interesting as possible.

If that involves "unlifelike" aspects like phones in prisons (as one particular example), then so be it.

It's a two-way bargain. The writer should make it interesting, and the audience should suspend their disbelief.

Not that I'm saying howling clangers should be overlooked - but really - the small stuff is totally irrelevant.
ST
Stuart
Writers are there to make it as compelling and interesting as possible.

If that involves "unlifelike" aspects like phones in prisons (as one particular example), then so be it.

It's a two-way bargain. The writer should make it interesting, and the audience should suspend their disbelief.

Not that I'm saying howling clangers should be overlooked - but really - the small stuff is totally irrelevant.

I tend to agree Gav: and in this instance we don't even know whether the scene between the Solicitor, Chesney and the Croppers wasn't in fact supposed to take place outside main the secure area, and the Solicitor's mobile had been returned to him as part of the normal exit process for family visitors and legal representatives.

Corrie has previous for asking its viewers to suspend belief on regular ocassions, and even if this was an example of that, it wasn't really worth the indepth analysis demonstrated on here.
BA
Badger264
Writers are there to make it as compelling and interesting as possible.

If that involves "unlifelike" aspects like phones in prisons (as one particular example), then so be it.

It's a two-way bargain. The writer should make it interesting, and the audience should suspend their disbelief.

Not that I'm saying howling clangers should be overlooked - but really - the small stuff is totally irrelevant.


Phones are allowed in some prisons (depends on the category).
CH
Chewy
Is it me or is this the Davenports area of the set? (those stairs look familiar) SPOILER PICS



It looks like more of a 'set' than an actual area, especially with "City Tram"

Newer posts