|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 3, 2008 21:00:24 GMT
In the last 12 months David and The Connors have had storyline after storyline..
Whereas others like Amber have virtually done nothing..it seems very unfair to me
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 3, 2008 21:04:04 GMT
Over the last 8 years the Pratts have had one storyline after another. Over 4 and a bit years KF had one story after another.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 3, 2008 22:13:02 GMT
true
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 3, 2008 22:28:33 GMT
It never used to be like that. I blame Kieran when he focused everything first on Richard then Tracy 4. There was also non-stop Charlie and Smelly going round in circles which they dragged out longer even though they knew viewers were fed up.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 4, 2008 12:24:57 GMT
Richard Hillman was the last good 'ongoing storyline'..although you will never beat the Alan Bradley saga..that was timed and paced perfectly over about 3 years wasn't it?
Its like we have said before now it is on 5 times a week you feel as though it is rammed down your throat and you get sick of the sight of the ones featuring in the storylines (Shelley,Charlie,Tracey,Sarah Lou) now its David,Michelle,Alex,Carla (flavours of the month)
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Mar 4, 2008 12:35:21 GMT
I cannot remember the last time there was an episode with Michelle Conner. I used to like her, now I`m sick of seeing her on our screens constantly.
Will there ever be an end to this bloody storyline?
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 4, 2008 14:40:56 GMT
I agree, Nick. It also caught the public's imagination. It just doesn't hold up now. I put all the scenes onto separate tapes a few months afterwards, as I had with Alan. Watched it a couple of years on and I didn't enjoy it as much. It's a side-effect of too many eps. As I've said before, you could skip days when there were less of them. You could jump a week even. It was more carefully crafted and wasn't really affected by going three times as it had just two months left to run. Richard was never developed as a character either and there were still too many unanswered questions by the end. They focused on whatever heineous thing he could do next. They've forgotten how to write with all these eps to add depth to the characters and storylines.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 4, 2008 18:48:20 GMT
very true Pats Alan was introduced gradually and his character was built up,and then by seeing his characters progress you saw the gradual build up to what he did and why he did it......you feel that serial killers a ten a penny now in soaps
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 4, 2008 19:08:03 GMT
They are. They replace a type with a type and we've seen it all before, often better. Then they often change history because they can't remember. What happened to the ex-wife and kids of Charlie Stubbs? Alan started off nice too then suddenly became a devious git you just loved to hate. It is without a doubt my favourite ever storyline and also the one where I became a fan of Barbara. Mark said he was asked about turning Alan bad about 18 months in. But really, although up until then Alan was nice, the signs were always there he was a manipulative, selfish bastard. He sometimes did bad things for the right reasons. Alan was misunderstood. LOL! Richard was too much like Alan but without the development or facets.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by sallywebster on Mar 4, 2008 21:01:25 GMT
I agree they replace type with type - how many bitches and villans have we had in the soaps. They just replace each other all the time.
Alan showed signs of being selfish and bad early on - Jenny wasnt even speaking to him when he first arrived as he had abandoned her when she was about 6. He also two timed Rita and Gloria and attacked Terry in the Rovers. But it wasnt bad bad behaviour like we got later on in 1989.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 4, 2008 21:26:31 GMT
Exactly He was also rude to Reet after she turned down his first proposal then expected her to continue looking after Jenny while he buggered off back to Dubai. And I doubt it was a concidence he ended up choosing her AFTER Mike mentioned she had a few bob. He may have lied about dumping Gloria when it was the other way round but he'd have still gone for Reet due to the cash.
It was more subtle character development then whereas the likes of Richard, Charlie etc are in your face. They even changed Tracy's history to excuse the way they'd turned her bad. Things like that worked better with less eps and viewers didn't get bored. Alan was there for almost four years. Richard was crammed in during 20 months.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by sallywebster on Mar 5, 2008 20:35:29 GMT
Very true. They make them panto villans today - boo, hiss!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 5, 2008 20:41:07 GMT
Don't get bored with panto villains because they know when to end. LOL!
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Mar 6, 2008 1:48:04 GMT
I feel so tempted to storm the Grana(damm)studios, hunt down the person who decided on the Michelle/Ryan/Alex storyline and then boot them right up the jacksey 10 times.
Everybody please feel free to join me as my legs might get tired.
|
|
|
|
Post by CG Wendy on Mar 6, 2008 1:51:16 GMT
I feel sofa king sick at what those a-holes have done to my beloved Corrie. It`s not even a shadow of its former self. I`m watching a DVD of Corrie from 1961 and the writing was by far superior to what it is now.  |
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Mar 6, 2008 4:03:13 GMT
They would say it's had to move with the times. We know that's crap. Too many eps has created too many duff storylines for the same characters while the rest make up the numbers. It also didn't help in the 80s they decided to copy EE. Now they've lost touch with reality and are killing the golden goose. Corrie since the set expansion 18 years ago has got further and further from the real life they claim to portray so old eps will always be better. You could relate to the characters and woes of life unlike now.
That's what I think anyway and I very much doubt I'll go back to the current dross.
Patsy
|
|
