RM
You're missing the point I made I think... the reason these characters are not developed, is because a relatively small number of characters are allowed to dominate, ironic considering there are so many characters.
For example, why are Vernon and Dev getting all the comedy storylines of late? There are plenty of other comedy characters they could use and develop more-- Tyrone and Molly for instance.
Violet has not been allowed to develop, because the characters in her environs have been allowed to hog the lime light. That's why we feel we don't "know" such characters; not because they are superfluous, but they haven't been given a fair chance. It's all been about the Connors and Barlows of late, little else.
I would argue that having all these characters ought to add variety. As I said before, the characters should be kept on their usefulness/popularity-- rather than sticking to a quota.
The workload should be spread more evenly between characters, to allow characters like Violet to develop more.
I notice a couple of people comparing Coro with EE, saying it manages with far fewer cast members-- yet EE is nowhere near as good as Coro
!!
As for EE, it was a jokey aside that we have more reason to complain about EE's superfluous cast, because we pay their wages. After all, it doesn't matter how many characters they have-- they're all the same on that soap anyway
02cashindavid posted:
Fair enough. It was just a minor point and I do agree that we need to have characters who don't just live on the street. But I'm just looking at different ways in which the cast could be scaled down - because it does need to be scaled down. We have a cast that is so large and like I said we have characters who we know virtually nothing about.
You're missing the point I made I think... the reason these characters are not developed, is because a relatively small number of characters are allowed to dominate, ironic considering there are so many characters.
For example, why are Vernon and Dev getting all the comedy storylines of late? There are plenty of other comedy characters they could use and develop more-- Tyrone and Molly for instance.
Violet has not been allowed to develop, because the characters in her environs have been allowed to hog the lime light. That's why we feel we don't "know" such characters; not because they are superfluous, but they haven't been given a fair chance. It's all been about the Connors and Barlows of late, little else.
I would argue that having all these characters ought to add variety. As I said before, the characters should be kept on their usefulness/popularity-- rather than sticking to a quota.
The workload should be spread more evenly between characters, to allow characters like Violet to develop more.
I notice a couple of people comparing Coro with EE, saying it manages with far fewer cast members-- yet EE is nowhere near as good as Coro
!!
As for EE, it was a jokey aside that we have more reason to complain about EE's superfluous cast, because we pay their wages. After all, it doesn't matter how many characters they have-- they're all the same on that soap anyway
NI
I hadnt noticed before. Very sad though that the Granada name is now completely gone from Corrie
.
I noticed that "2007 ITV Productions" had appeared randomly on one episode last week (or the week before that). I was about to post on here, but the following episode returned to "2007 Granada Television". Perhaps its a one-off like the previous time?
Jez posted:
plucky duck92 posted:
I do apologise if this has already been mentioned.
Tonight, ©2007 Granada Television was replaced by 2007 ITV Productions.
It was only a matter of time before this happened but it is truly a sad occurrence none the less.
Tonight, ©2007 Granada Television was replaced by 2007 ITV Productions.
It was only a matter of time before this happened but it is truly a sad occurrence none the less.
I hadnt noticed before. Very sad though that the Granada name is now completely gone from Corrie
.
I noticed that "2007 ITV Productions" had appeared randomly on one episode last week (or the week before that). I was about to post on here, but the following episode returned to "2007 Granada Television". Perhaps its a one-off like the previous time?
AN
He is the worst out of the new characters.
I think it's supposed to be 'comedy'.
lol - well its a poor attempt at comedy IMO. Even Diggory was better
Good to see you've let them settle in before making a decision
Imagine if you were around in 1960 "I can't stand that Ken Barlow, he should be axed"
Andrew
Founding member
Jez posted:
pad posted:
Jez posted:
Pootle5 posted:
I think there's something creepy about "Grandad" ... shudder.
He is the worst out of the new characters.
I think it's supposed to be 'comedy'.
lol - well its a poor attempt at comedy IMO. Even Diggory was better
Good to see you've let them settle in before making a decision
Imagine if you were around in 1960 "I can't stand that Ken Barlow, he should be axed"
JE
He is the worst out of the new characters.
I think it's supposed to be 'comedy'.
lol - well its a poor attempt at comedy IMO. Even Diggory was better
Good to see you've let them settle in before making a decision
Imagine if you were around in 1960 "I can't stand that Ken Barlow, he should be axed"
Andrew im only basing my opinion on what ive seen so far. Am I not allowed to give my opinion? I thought that is what is done here? And I never said he should be axed.
Can i not say anything negative about Corrie then without you having a go at me? Oh of course I cant, its on ITV.
And no I wouldnt have said that about Ken Barlow had I been around in 1960 because ive seen the first 12 episodes on DVD and I like Ken Barlow based on those episodes.
Jez
Founding member
Andrew posted:
Jez posted:
pad posted:
Jez posted:
Pootle5 posted:
I think there's something creepy about "Grandad" ... shudder.
He is the worst out of the new characters.
I think it's supposed to be 'comedy'.
lol - well its a poor attempt at comedy IMO. Even Diggory was better
Good to see you've let them settle in before making a decision
Imagine if you were around in 1960 "I can't stand that Ken Barlow, he should be axed"
Andrew im only basing my opinion on what ive seen so far. Am I not allowed to give my opinion? I thought that is what is done here? And I never said he should be axed.
Can i not say anything negative about Corrie then without you having a go at me? Oh of course I cant, its on ITV.
And no I wouldnt have said that about Ken Barlow had I been around in 1960 because ive seen the first 12 episodes on DVD and I like Ken Barlow based on those episodes.
DA
He is the worst out of the new characters.
I think it's supposed to be 'comedy'.
lol - well its a poor attempt at comedy IMO. Even Diggory was better
Good to see you've let them settle in before making a decision
Imagine if you were around in 1960 "I can't stand that Ken Barlow, he should be axed"
Andrew im only basing my opinion on what ive seen so far. Am I not allowed to give my opinion? I thought that is what is done here? And I never said he should be axed.
Can i not say anything negative about Corrie then without you having a go at me? Oh of course I cant, its on ITV.
I agree. It's ridiculous the way people are shouted down around here because they hold a certain opinion. We're not 'making a decision' at all, just - like you said - basing our opinions on what we've seen so far.
I also haven't quite warmed to the Granddad, and to be fair that wasn't his first appearance so he hasn't improved since we last saw him. I wonder if he will when we start to see him more often.
Jez posted:
Andrew posted:
Jez posted:
pad posted:
Jez posted:
Pootle5 posted:
I think there's something creepy about "Grandad" ... shudder.
He is the worst out of the new characters.
I think it's supposed to be 'comedy'.
lol - well its a poor attempt at comedy IMO. Even Diggory was better
Good to see you've let them settle in before making a decision
Imagine if you were around in 1960 "I can't stand that Ken Barlow, he should be axed"
Andrew im only basing my opinion on what ive seen so far. Am I not allowed to give my opinion? I thought that is what is done here? And I never said he should be axed.
Can i not say anything negative about Corrie then without you having a go at me? Oh of course I cant, its on ITV.
I agree. It's ridiculous the way people are shouted down around here because they hold a certain opinion. We're not 'making a decision' at all, just - like you said - basing our opinions on what we've seen so far.
I also haven't quite warmed to the Granddad, and to be fair that wasn't his first appearance so he hasn't improved since we last saw him. I wonder if he will when we start to see him more often.
DA
You're missing the point I made I think... the reason these characters are not developed, is because a relatively small number of characters are allowed to dominate, ironic considering there are so many characters.
For example, why are Vernon and Dev getting all the comedy storylines of late? There are plenty of other comedy characters they could use and develop more-- Tyrone and Molly for instance.
Violet has not been allowed to develop, because the characters in her environs have been allowed to hog the lime light. That's why we feel we don't "know" such characters; not because they are superfluous, but they haven't been given a fair chance. It's all been about the Connors and Barlows of late, little else.
I would argue that having all these characters ought to add variety. As I said before, the characters should be kept on their usefulness/popularity-- rather than sticking to a quota.
The workload should be spread more evenly between characters, to allow characters like Violet to develop more.
I do understand what you mean. I don't think it's as noticeable in say Emmerdale which also has a large cast because apart from The Kings, there doesn't seem to be certain characters dominating the storylines week in week out. We've seen more of The Connors these past few weeks than say The Webster's. That doesn't mean I want The Webster's to be dropped because they haven't been featured for a while.
I don't think I was as clear as I should be. Obviously we shouldn't get rid of cast members that we rarely see for the sake of having a smaller cast - but there are characters that are either badly written or badly acted and some are superfluous like Adam and therefore Corrie would do well to drop them. Once they're gone, they could then focus on - like you said - spreading storylines out more evenly so that we see more of characters like Violet and find out more about her.
Roger Mellie posted:
02cashindavid posted:
Fair enough. It was just a minor point and I do agree that we need to have characters who don't just live on the street. But I'm just looking at different ways in which the cast could be scaled down - because it does need to be scaled down. We have a cast that is so large and like I said we have characters who we know virtually nothing about.
You're missing the point I made I think... the reason these characters are not developed, is because a relatively small number of characters are allowed to dominate, ironic considering there are so many characters.
For example, why are Vernon and Dev getting all the comedy storylines of late? There are plenty of other comedy characters they could use and develop more-- Tyrone and Molly for instance.
Violet has not been allowed to develop, because the characters in her environs have been allowed to hog the lime light. That's why we feel we don't "know" such characters; not because they are superfluous, but they haven't been given a fair chance. It's all been about the Connors and Barlows of late, little else.
I would argue that having all these characters ought to add variety. As I said before, the characters should be kept on their usefulness/popularity-- rather than sticking to a quota.
The workload should be spread more evenly between characters, to allow characters like Violet to develop more.
I do understand what you mean. I don't think it's as noticeable in say Emmerdale which also has a large cast because apart from The Kings, there doesn't seem to be certain characters dominating the storylines week in week out. We've seen more of The Connors these past few weeks than say The Webster's. That doesn't mean I want The Webster's to be dropped because they haven't been featured for a while.
I don't think I was as clear as I should be. Obviously we shouldn't get rid of cast members that we rarely see for the sake of having a smaller cast - but there are characters that are either badly written or badly acted and some are superfluous like Adam and therefore Corrie would do well to drop them. Once they're gone, they could then focus on - like you said - spreading storylines out more evenly so that we see more of characters like Violet and find out more about her.
PH
Speak of which, since when has The Lowry in Salford Quays been a hotel? Well since Leanne turned into an "Ford" escort.....
http://www.thelowry.com/aboutthelowry/default.html - Just look at the walls and flooring. Recognised it in a second
http://www.thelowry.com/aboutthelowry/default.html - Just look at the walls and flooring. Recognised it in a second