I wonder if you'll ever pull your head out of the eighteenth century?
I'm sure you'll find it was a consentual act on both sides [by legal minors, granted]. Neil wasn't a main character so we don't know what "admonition" went on at his house. Sh*t happens, Coronation St just reflects this.
Or it just sensationalises to push up ratings. To admonish means chastise or punish, neither which sadly happened to Neil Fearns.
Oh thank you for explaining the meaning of the word, "admonition". I'm just a little backward Welsh boy, with only graffiti to teach me English.
As I said, Neil was just a quick character to necessitate the storyline -- what happened to him isn't necessarily important, it was all about Sarah.
I agree that soaps sensationalise many things for ratings, most recently in the "gay" business with Todd and Nick -- but you were once again taking the moral high ground against the boy in the storyline, like you did before, only not quite as ill-judged as then. Thank goodness you're not on the scriptwriting panel. In the end, Simon, it's - not - real.
chris for your information I like most of the characters and storylines in Corrie, its my fave show and id never stop watching it, I love it. I liked SS too, find me the place where I said I disliked the cast in SS, I dont think so! I would like nothing more than for SS to come back, most of the cast were good.
Emmerdale was so poor tonight, what was the point in it being on for an hour, and dont all say cos there wasnt one on Tuesday night, is there really a need for 1 hr episodes at all when there is no storyline? The Dingle court thing was sooooooo poor, what was the point in it, Zak and Cain are hypocrates, they have done things much worst than Marlon, god if I had a family like them id be glad to leave, this Robert and Katie storyline is crap as well. And as for Laural chasing that pigeon around the bedroom - purlease!!! Emmerdale is majorly losing the plot! tonights episode, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, BORING!!!
Note there is also an hour long EastEnders tonight
Only because it wasn't on last Friday due to Children in Need.
But Shane Richie fans got their fill of him on the Friday anyway. Apparently he sang.
Anybody would think EastEnders is as vital to surviving as breathing, the fact they've had to stick two episodes together. What, pray tell, is wrong with three eps for one week only? It's not as if the Beeb needs the viewers is it?
chrisb posted:
Square Eyes posted:
Jez posted:
I agree about Emmerdale, its been sooooo boring and crap this week, the storylines with Eddie Hope and Nicola and that bloke have been absolute rubbish. And yes it is so unrealistic that Katie would sleep with that sleeze Robert, and then she didnt seem to feel guilty at all which is even more unrealistic as isnt she supposed to be in love with Andy. At least if she must have an affair have one with someone nice like Scott, not that creep Robert
For heavens sake, STOP WATCHING THEN. Of hundreds of digital channels, you have to choose Emmerdale, and then go into explicit detail why it was crap. Vote with your remote then and don't watch ?
I do have to agree here! Jez watches Emmerdale, Shortland Street, Crossroads and Coronation Street and yet he hates all of the main characters and storylines?!
He'll have a job watching Shortie and Xroads then, unless he's got a really massive satellite dish to New Zealand in his back yard
I don't care much for any of the soaps myself, all a complete waste of airtime IMO. But the soap bubble seems to have burst now so who knows what'll happen to them?
But the soap bubble seems to have burst now so who knows what'll happen to them?
There is no evidence to support this, soap is still the most thriving genre on british TV. (Crossroads aside)
Notice use of "seems" in my message.
And anyway:
Crossroads - gone.
Brookside - gone.
Night & Day - gone.
Shortland Street - gone (albeit not "axed" as such but gone nevertheless for the time being at least)
Didn't High Road go this year as well in Scotland or was that last year?
Family Affairs doesn't seem to know if its going to be on the air in a few months time either. I reckon it'll be gone by Christmas 2004, myself.
I agree that soaps sensationalise many things for ratings, most recently in the "gay" business with Todd and Nick -- but you were once again taking the moral high ground against the boy in the storyline, like you did before, only not quite as ill-judged as then. Thank goodness you're not on the scriptwriting panel. In the end, Simon, it's - not - real.
Of course it's not real - but there are a minority who believe the soaps are real; look at the abuse certain actors have to contend with in the street. When Arthur Fowler was jailed in EastEnders, some dork turned up at Elstree Centre with "bail money" and they had to get Bill Treacher down from the set to explain the score!
We must be in no doubt as to the power of soaps when it comes to making an impression on the audience. Some people might believe Corrie was condoning pregnancy at 13. They weren't of course; they showed all the negative aspects of being trapped at such a young age, but some people may have been unable to see past this. It reminds me of when the Spice Girls had babies and doctors feared an increase in teen pregnancies.
Soaps can be good educators - they can raise awareness of, say, breast cancer if a high-profile character is given the condition. However, Sarah-Lou's pregnancy was tacky and completely out of character for Corrie; the producer who instigated it was an incompetent moo trying to turn the show into EastEnders with cobbles. It didn't work, so getting a 13-year old pregnant was the ratings trump card. The soaps don't seem to take their influence seriously and to bring in a child pregnancy was, at best, misguided.
