I was took aback by the bigness of the set
That much is obvious to me when walking past the windows etc
And the bricks are very dofferent lol, is it just me that sees it?
I like the differences though, it's good seeing new things xD just to notice them lol
I was took aback by the bigness of the set
That much is obvious to me when walking past the windows etc
And the bricks are very dofferent lol, is it just me that sees it?
I like the differences though, it's good seeing new things xD just to notice them lol
I noticed that the bricks were lighter on the new set maybe it's because the old set is 30 years older, they probably couldn't get the same type if brick
It's really weird how its changed the look of the street, I didnt imagine that it'd make stuff actually seem more lifelike. I guess I see what people mean when they called the Granada set 'Toytown'
The problem I have with the set isn't the size, it's more to do with the way they've went to such an effort to recreate a design that is pretty poor in the first place. If you look at Emmerdale when they built their set they could have went down the route of recreating Esholt exactly as you saw it onscreen, however they saw the design opportunity they had and instead created the best set in English television. It was similar to the former location but had been improved to create a better setting for the show. With Corrie they have just taken everything that was crap about the old set and recreated it on the new which is really pathetic. Why didn't they go with the history of the show and find a design solution to give the impression of Rosamund street being a main road that cuts through Victoria Street like it was meant to do. Why didn't they grab the opportunity to sort out the problem of that ridiculous viaduct that doesn't go anywhere? Why did they not create buildings in Victoria Street that look credible? It always looked ridiculous on the old set and they've just recreated it to look the exact same. Why have they built everything out of identical looking orange bricks that again make the place look unreal? They could have used different types of bricks on the viaduct for instance to make the place look more like a real street in Salford. If you look back to the 1970's set the viaduct was a real viaduct and it looked so much more industrial, dark and grimy than the one they have just now which looks as though it were designed to match the houses. For me the incredible lack of ambition on the part of the designers is summed up perfectly in the decision to recreate that wall behind the viaduct which is bloody well edited out of the opening titles because it's not meant to exist. That of all things, to me, just took the biscuit. What they've done is not a good or creative piece of design work. They've just looked at the old set and rebuilt it flaws and all. I work as a set designer myself and as it was being built I just knew this is what we would end up with. At first I had hoped they might have built something more believable and credible but after the pitiful redesign of the Rovers last year I knew this new set would be equally as void of ambition. Corrie just cannot do decent production design.
It would be a facade without space for a road or pavement that is built right against the end of the railway arch which you can see extends out of the back of the ridiculous viaduct to nowhere facade. It just looks like scaffolding with blue and red netting giving a vague impression of window shapes. Why would Corrie put the thought or effort into dealing with a design problem when they can just recreate the rubbish looking facade on the new set. The whole is a crap redesign. It looks as unbelievable as it ever did except this time on a larger scale. Corrie just isn't in the same league as other soaps when it comes to production design. Their sets, generally, are crap and don't look realistic.
Hi,
I found this image and if you look closely behind the arch you can see a pavement in front of this mural/façade (maybe they do have room for another street). Maybe Pyramidbread is right as why would they build a backdrop with a pavement in front of it? It'll look daft unless they are building a façade row of shops or houses behind the arch...
Hi,
I found this image and if you look closely behind the arch you can see a pavement in front of this mural/façade (maybe they do have room for another street). Maybe Pyramidbread is right as why would they build a backdrop with a pavement in front of it? It'll look daft unless they are building a façade row of shops or houses behind the arch...
So they've bricked up what should be the front of a house in what should be Mawdsley Street to create a terrace of buildings half the height of the surrounding buildings in the middle of what is meant to be Rosamund Street? More likely it's being bricked up as on of the entrances to the lot. It would have been good if they could have built facades of gable walls on each side of Rosamund Street to give the impression that it extended out of the set into town. Looking at the pic I can at least say I like that they've built a proper facade for the houses on the other side of the ginnel. That's as far as it goes.
That new area behind the viaduct is showing LOADS of signs that there will be a new street area there as all the other walls have got a pavement- why would they do that if it will never be seen on set?
That new area behind the viaduct is showing LOADS of signs that there will be a new street area there as all the other walls have got a pavement- why would they do that if it will never be seen on set?
For people to walk on and enter into the set. You can see the entrance they've built of the left hand side, two brick gate posts.
For people to walk on and enter into the set. You can see the entrance they've built of the left hand side, two brick gate posts.
I still think that that area will be shown on screen though as it would be a waste of money if we never saw it. Plus it would make the set look bigger and realistic
I still think that that area will be shown on screen though as it would be a waste of money if we never saw it. Plus it would make the set look bigger and realistic
We'll see the facade same as in the old set. Look at the back of the viaduct and the three different walls. There's no been attempt there to dress that to fit in with the illusion of a railway bridge. You can see where the bricks of the archway stop etc. They haven't tried to make it look as if it continues off to the right, like they do on the other side. That tells you that section is not intended to be seen onscreen which fits entirely with them continuing to use the odd looking backdrop. A production team that are happy to stick with having that arch to nowhere are clearly not overly concerned about a set that looks realistic in the first place. Buildings sitting bang right in the middle of the road directly in front of the arch would not make the set look bigger either, it would close it in even more.
We'll see the facade same as in the old set. Look at the back of the viaduct and the three different walls. There's no been attempt there to dress that to fit in with the illusion of a railway bridge. You can see where the bricks of the archway stop etc. They haven't tried to make it look as if it continues off to the right, like they do on the other side. That tells you that section is not intended to be seen onscreen which fits entirely with them continuing to use the odd looking backdrop. A production team that are happy to stick with having that arch to nowhere are clearly not overly concerned about a set that looks realistic in the first place. Buildings sitting bang right in the middle of the road directly in front of the arch would not make the set look bigger either, it would close it in even more.
It was a production team who stuck that arch there 15 years ago, they likely just recreated it because its been seen too often since then to just magic away. A lot of the bad decisions with Corrie's old set were due to Granada Studios sitting in the middle of a growing city. Now Corrie has its own compound and a lot more freedom in terms of what they do. As for the old Studio facade above the Viaduct, I really dont see the issue with that, it looks like its a wall now, and thats what its always been, aside from the very few occasions when they removed it in post. Its always more commonly been visible in the show, even after the tram crash. Heck, here it is during Mike Baldwin's funeral http://images.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/corrie/400x260_street_mikefuneral_arrive2.jpg
Honestly it'd seem weirder to edit it out, than leave it in.
It was a production team who stuck that arch there 15 years ago, they likely just recreated it because its been seen too often since then to just magic away. A lot of the bad decisions with Corrie's old set were due to Granada Studios sitting in the middle of a growing city. Now Corrie has its own compound and a lot more freedom in terms of what they do.
That was the magic of the opportunity that they had and have allowed to slip by. Instead of using that freedom they instead opted to rebuild all the limitations of the old set. This is the point I'm trying to make.
As for the old Studio facade above the Viaduct, I really dont see the issue with that, it looks like its a wall now, and thats what its always been, aside from the very few occasions when they removed it in post. Its always more commonly been visible in the show, even after the tram crash. Heck, here it is during Mike Baldwin's funeral
They also were lazy enough in the way they filmed shots that you could see the viaduct stopped half way down Viaduct Street. Should that inconsistency have been created as well? The job of the designer is to create Weatherfield and Coronation Street not rebuild problems that interfered with shots back in Granada. The simple solution was to make the viaduct wall slightly higher and that whole problem of that building which does not exist in Weatherfield would have been solved. It was a bad decision and there's no escaping that.
If you look at Emmerdale when they built their set they could have went down the route of recreating Esholt exactly as you saw it onscreen, however they saw the design opportunity they had and instead created the best set in English television. It was similar to the former location but had been improved to create a better setting for the show.
Slightly OT, but I think it's bizarre that you consider Emmerdale 'the best set on English Television'. Besides the fact that the change was utterly jarring to see on screen, I've always felt it looks a bit Lillyput Lane. Apparently this village doesn't have a single building not build of local stone in the local venacular, or any unfortunate modern changes. Plus their bizarre fondness of showing the village from above, which highlights that it's barely one street but miraculously supports an endless variety of shops and businesses....
I agree the orphan arch is weird when you think about it, but I'm sure people on here from the Manchester area claim they really do exist.....
Slightly OT, but I think it's bizarre that you consider Emmerdale 'the best set on English Television'. Besides the fact that the change was utterly jarring to see on screen, I've always felt it looks a bit Lillyput Lane. Apparently this village doesn't have a single building not build of local stone in the local venacular, or any unfortunate modern changes. Plus their bizarre fondness of showing the village from above, which highlights that it's barely one street but miraculously supports an endless variety of shops and businesses....
I agree the orphan arch is weird when you think about it, but I'm sure people on here from the Manchester area claim they really do exist.....
We have some arches the remain standing despite other sections being knocked down but it's because they were attached to closed railway lines. You don't get arches built like for no reason and aside from that its designed to look as if it's not one solitary arch. It extends away as you would expect over the chip shop but makes no sense on the other. It's daft.
The village was designed to look like a North Yorkshire conservation village. They used local stone for the majority of the buildings to replicate the look of similar villages in North Yorkshire. If you look at what is now the church but was formerly the old school you will see a different type of stone is used. Mill Cottage as well uses a different variety of stone too but for the old tenant cottages they've look as they should. The village set we see in Emmerdale today looks more similar to the original Arncliffe location, in style, than it does to the Esholt village. I agree the arial shots don't look and spoil the illusion but in comparison to EastEnders and Corrie I'd say it's definitely the most impressive set. The EastEnders set I think is pretty good as well but Corrie's, to me, is pretty poor.
The problem I have with the set isn't the size, it's more to do with the way they've went to such an effort to recreate a design that is pretty poor in the first place. If you look at Emmerdale when they built their set they could have went down the route of recreating Esholt exactly as you saw it onscreen, however they saw the design opportunity they had and instead created the best set in English television. It was similar to the former location but had been improved to create a better setting for the show. With Corrie they have just taken everything that was crap about the old set and recreated it on the new which is really pathetic. Why didn't they go with the history of the show and find a design solution to give the impression of Rosamund street being a main road that cuts through Victoria Street like it was meant to do. Why didn't they grab the opportunity to sort out the problem of that ridiculous viaduct that doesn't go anywhere? Why did they not create buildings in Victoria Street that look credible? It always looked ridiculous on the old set and they've just recreated it to look the exact same. Why have they built everything out of identical looking orange bricks that again make the place look unreal? They could have used different types of bricks on the viaduct for instance to make the place look more like a real street in Salford. If you look back to the 1970's set the viaduct was a real viaduct and it looked so much more industrial, dark and grimy than the one they have just now which looks as though it were designed to match the houses. For me the incredible lack of ambition on the part of the designers is summed up perfectly in the decision to recreate that wall behind the viaduct which is bloody well edited out of the opening titles because it's not meant to exist. That of all things, to me, just took the biscuit. What they've done is not a good or creative piece of design work. They've just looked at the old set and rebuilt it flaws and all. I work as a set designer myself and as it was being built I just knew this is what we would end up with. At first I had hoped they might have built something more believable and credible but after the pitiful redesign of the Rovers last year I knew this new set would be equally as void of ambition. Corrie just cannot do decent production design.
Love every word of this post.
You might be interested in this post that I wrote yesterday.
The reasons for Coronation Street's decline are more about a culture of working than the responsibility of any one person. This idea of a 'culture' was highlighted to me during the recent documentary about the set move. What it showed was something I can only call nostalgic revisionism on the part of the show's senior production team. Kieran Roberts stood out in particular with his comments about the post-fire Rovers. He commented that changing the Rovers too much would damage the show, so it had to stay the same. He even said that previous attempts to alter the Rovers hadn't worked and had been changed back. This is inaccurate and a revision of the show's history because the Rovers changed many times prior to the 1986 fire, which itself changed the layout of the pub almost beyond recognition. The Rovers changed so much in the past because the characters, writing and forward-looking culture of the show was strong enough to allow this.
Annie Walker wanted only the best for herself and her pub (in spite of her knowing that it was 'just a back street boozer'), and the decor and appearance of the pub was changed frequently in line with Annie's characterisation. Scenes from way back in 1968, during the demolition of the Mission Hall and the Raincoat factory saw Annie bemoaning the dust settling on her newly painted egg-shell gloss. Here, the set was an integral and organic part of stories, it was shaped and changed by the force of characters and the production team's belief in these characters. This was character-driven writing at its best. Think also of other Coronation Street sets - Hilda's 'muriel' at No.13 and the Duckworth's cladding at No.9. These two examples provide some more interesting evidence about the change in the culture of Coronation Street.
The difference between the physical legacies of the Ogdens and the Duckworths is interesting. Both sets were built around strong characters and strong stories. Hilda Ogden left the street at one of its most progressive and exciting times, and as such all traces of her existence at No.13. were quickly wallpapered over in order to establish Kevin and Sally Webster as central characters. Hilda's impact on the street was unquestionable, but the production team didn't hold on to nostalgia because, ultimately, nurturing the next crop of characters was more important in taking the show forward.
Fastforward to 2014 and we have Tyrone and Fiz living in No.9, preserved as an eerie shrine to Jack and Vera both inside and out. Jack and Vera's departures came at a time when the production team's need to preserve nostalgia was at its strongest. Are we meant to believe that a young couple would really continue to live among the crumbling stone-cladding and the flock wallpaper? Tyrone's connection to Jack and Vera is strong, but starting Tyrone from scratch in a newly refreshed No.9. would have served his character more fittingly, as both he and Fiz are 'the future' of the show.
This highlights what I feel is one of the starkest and most damaging changes in Coronation Street over the past 10 years - the decline in strong, well-rounded characters.
Characters have been sacrificed for stories for many years, but the impact of this is, in my view, only starting to reveal itself. The result? Coronation Street hangs in a strange nostalgic time warp where characters come and go, but the street itself never changes. The production team's belief and investment in individual characters simply isn't strong enough to allow them to function in the same way they have done in the past. Even the more established cast members are victims of this, though they have their own pasts from the more progressive days of Corrie which help them through. Characters simply don't shape the show any more, stories do.
For all their talk of 'taking Coronation Street into the 21st Century', I couldn't help feel saddened and disappointed that the production team seem to be using nostalgia to hide much bigger problems lying beneath.
As most forum members will know, I love Corrie history and I get excited by references to the past in scripts but I am also not fooled by this notion that Corrie is in some way an untouchable and unchangeable creation. From the moment it began it was a trailblazer, it changed TV forever. The notion of change was actually a key part of the show's very first scenes - with Florrie Lindley moving into the corner shop. As Elsie Lappin proclaims in the show's very first lines: "that thing above the door'll have to be changed". Indeed, it is Coronation Street's ability to change and evolve that has kept it fresh for so long. This is more complex than just changing sets, actors or producers. It's about giving the characters the depth and strength to be able to influence and change their surroundings and their relationships with other characters - this is where stories come from. Today characters are too simplistic, with changing personalities and little connection to their surroundings. It's no wonder that the production team have created this culture of nostalgia because they themselves know that the stories they push don't have what it takes to hold the show together.
Sadly, I think that the soul of Coronation Street died years ago, though many ghosts still walk the cobbles.
I think that the lack of ambition is a complex part of this cult of nostalgia that has built up over the past 10 years or so. Absolutely agree with you that they really have missed a huge opportunity for change and expansion. Any chances of extending the set into Rosamund Street/Mawdlsey Street/Crimea Street have been blocked off by that viaduct. Similarly, Victoria Street has been more or less closed off by the extension of the flats/new gym.
There was a real opportunity to open up Victoria Street as well as Rosamund Street and Crimea Street. Many people have hoped for more of Mawdsley Street, but the dynamic from having larger houses on either Crimea Street or Victoria Street could have been much more interesting from a character perspective. Mawdsley Street is supposed to be identical to Coronation Street, and we already have a terrace full of residents there. Having characters living in large, potentially posher (or even rougher) houses could have been interesting. References to larger Victorian town houses and villas on both Crimea Street and Victoria Stree have peppered stories over the years and would have been a really interesting addition to the set. The removal of the viaduct and the inclusion of a gable end of houses on the corner of Crimea Street (more or less the same as what we used to see in the early 2000s credits) would have been fantastic, allowing diagonal shots from the Rovers/Salon area of the set and vice versa. Victoria Street could have been extended just behind Victoria Court with the inclusion of a couple of larger, red-brick town houses in the 'true' Salford style.
You might be interested in this post that I wrote yesterday.
I think that the lack of ambition is a complex part of this cult of nostalgia that has built up over the past 10 years or so. Absolutely agree with you that they really have missed a huge opportunity for change and expansion. Any chances of extending the set into Rosamund Street/Mawdlsey Street/Crimea Street have been blocked off by that viaduct. Similarly, Victoria Street has been more or less closed off by the extension of the flats/new gym.
There was a real opportunity to open up Victoria Street as well as Rosamund Street and Crimea Street. Many people have hoped for more of Mawdsley Street, but the dynamic from having larger houses on either Crimea Street or Victoria Street could have been much more interesting from a character perspective. Mawdsley Street is supposed to be identical to Coronation Street, and we already have a terrace full of residents there. Having characters living in large, potentially posher (or even rougher) houses could have been interesting. References to larger Victorian town houses and villas on both Crimea Street and Victoria Stree have peppered stories over the years and would have been a really interesting addition to the set. The removal of the viaduct and the inclusion of a gable end of houses on the corner of Crimea Street (more or less the same as what we used to see in the early 2000s credits) would have been fantastic, allowing diagonal shots from the Rovers/Salon area of the set and vice versa. Victoria Street could have been extended just behind Victoria Court with the inclusion of a couple of larger, red-brick town houses in the 'true' Salford style.
While I do defend certain silly decisions, I do agree about the cult of nostalgia, it first became apparent to me, when Tyrone was going to have the cladding taken off Jack and Vera's house, but they couldnt do it, stuff like that is annoying.
Comments
http://i.imgur.com/sEOrxGo.png
lol
They have indeed.
I could tell the brickwork near Tina's flat was new in Wednesday night's episode, though.
However the Websters' Auto Centre looks much, much better; the lighting looked very good, I thought!
That much is obvious to me when walking past the windows etc
And the bricks are very dofferent lol, is it just me that sees it?
I like the differences though, it's good seeing new things xD just to notice them lol
I noticed that the bricks were lighter on the new set maybe it's because the old set is 30 years older, they probably couldn't get the same type if brick
The garage looks fantastic now, it actually looks like there's enough room to work on a car
Bistro
http://i.imgur.com/KeEziIy.png
Garage
http://i.imgur.com/LDW31zL.png
Seeing everything looking that little bit bigger tonight, made me realise how more realistic everything looks now, its all less tightly packed in.
Definitely!
Hi,
I found this image and if you look closely behind the arch you can see a pavement in front of this mural/façade (maybe they do have room for another street). Maybe Pyramidbread is right as why would they build a backdrop with a pavement in front of it? It'll look daft unless they are building a façade row of shops or houses behind the arch...
http://i.imgur.com/ViDWY2o.jpg
Not to mention, the specifically bricked up that one house that is in the area of that facade
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2641184.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/%C2%A3%C2%A3%C2%A3The-new-ITV-and-Coronation-Street-sets-at-Media-City-Salford-Quays-Manchester-2641184.jpg
So they've bricked up what should be the front of a house in what should be Mawdsley Street to create a terrace of buildings half the height of the surrounding buildings in the middle of what is meant to be Rosamund Street? More likely it's being bricked up as on of the entrances to the lot. It would have been good if they could have built facades of gable walls on each side of Rosamund Street to give the impression that it extended out of the set into town. Looking at the pic I can at least say I like that they've built a proper facade for the houses on the other side of the ginnel. That's as far as it goes.
That new area behind the viaduct is showing LOADS of signs that there will be a new street area there as all the other walls have got a pavement- why would they do that if it will never be seen on set?
For people to walk on and enter into the set. You can see the entrance they've built of the left hand side, two brick gate posts.
I still think that that area will be shown on screen though as it would be a waste of money if we never saw it. Plus it would make the set look bigger and realistic
We'll see the facade same as in the old set. Look at the back of the viaduct and the three different walls. There's no been attempt there to dress that to fit in with the illusion of a railway bridge. You can see where the bricks of the archway stop etc. They haven't tried to make it look as if it continues off to the right, like they do on the other side. That tells you that section is not intended to be seen onscreen which fits entirely with them continuing to use the odd looking backdrop. A production team that are happy to stick with having that arch to nowhere are clearly not overly concerned about a set that looks realistic in the first place. Buildings sitting bang right in the middle of the road directly in front of the arch would not make the set look bigger either, it would close it in even more.
It was a production team who stuck that arch there 15 years ago, they likely just recreated it because its been seen too often since then to just magic away. A lot of the bad decisions with Corrie's old set were due to Granada Studios sitting in the middle of a growing city. Now Corrie has its own compound and a lot more freedom in terms of what they do. As for the old Studio facade above the Viaduct, I really dont see the issue with that, it looks like its a wall now, and thats what its always been, aside from the very few occasions when they removed it in post. Its always more commonly been visible in the show, even after the tram crash. Heck, here it is during Mike Baldwin's funeral
http://images.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/corrie/400x260_street_mikefuneral_arrive2.jpg
Honestly it'd seem weirder to edit it out, than leave it in.
That was the magic of the opportunity that they had and have allowed to slip by. Instead of using that freedom they instead opted to rebuild all the limitations of the old set. This is the point I'm trying to make.
They also were lazy enough in the way they filmed shots that you could see the viaduct stopped half way down Viaduct Street. Should that inconsistency have been created as well? The job of the designer is to create Weatherfield and Coronation Street not rebuild problems that interfered with shots back in Granada. The simple solution was to make the viaduct wall slightly higher and that whole problem of that building which does not exist in Weatherfield would have been solved. It was a bad decision and there's no escaping that.
Slightly OT, but I think it's bizarre that you consider Emmerdale 'the best set on English Television'. Besides the fact that the change was utterly jarring to see on screen, I've always felt it looks a bit Lillyput Lane. Apparently this village doesn't have a single building not build of local stone in the local venacular, or any unfortunate modern changes. Plus their bizarre fondness of showing the village from above, which highlights that it's barely one street but miraculously supports an endless variety of shops and businesses....
I agree the orphan arch is weird when you think about it, but I'm sure people on here from the Manchester area claim they really do exist.....
We have some arches the remain standing despite other sections being knocked down but it's because they were attached to closed railway lines. You don't get arches built like for no reason and aside from that its designed to look as if it's not one solitary arch. It extends away as you would expect over the chip shop but makes no sense on the other. It's daft.
The village was designed to look like a North Yorkshire conservation village. They used local stone for the majority of the buildings to replicate the look of similar villages in North Yorkshire. If you look at what is now the church but was formerly the old school you will see a different type of stone is used. Mill Cottage as well uses a different variety of stone too but for the old tenant cottages they've look as they should. The village set we see in Emmerdale today looks more similar to the original Arncliffe location, in style, than it does to the Esholt village. I agree the arial shots don't look and spoil the illusion but in comparison to EastEnders and Corrie I'd say it's definitely the most impressive set. The EastEnders set I think is pretty good as well but Corrie's, to me, is pretty poor.
Love every word of this post.
You might be interested in this post that I wrote yesterday.
I think that the lack of ambition is a complex part of this cult of nostalgia that has built up over the past 10 years or so. Absolutely agree with you that they really have missed a huge opportunity for change and expansion. Any chances of extending the set into Rosamund Street/Mawdlsey Street/Crimea Street have been blocked off by that viaduct. Similarly, Victoria Street has been more or less closed off by the extension of the flats/new gym.
There was a real opportunity to open up Victoria Street as well as Rosamund Street and Crimea Street. Many people have hoped for more of Mawdsley Street, but the dynamic from having larger houses on either Crimea Street or Victoria Street could have been much more interesting from a character perspective. Mawdsley Street is supposed to be identical to Coronation Street, and we already have a terrace full of residents there. Having characters living in large, potentially posher (or even rougher) houses could have been interesting. References to larger Victorian town houses and villas on both Crimea Street and Victoria Stree have peppered stories over the years and would have been a really interesting addition to the set. The removal of the viaduct and the inclusion of a gable end of houses on the corner of Crimea Street (more or less the same as what we used to see in the early 2000s credits) would have been fantastic, allowing diagonal shots from the Rovers/Salon area of the set and vice versa. Victoria Street could have been extended just behind Victoria Court with the inclusion of a couple of larger, red-brick town houses in the 'true' Salford style.
While I do defend certain silly decisions, I do agree about the cult of nostalgia, it first became apparent to me, when Tyrone was going to have the cladding taken off Jack and Vera's house, but they couldnt do it, stuff like that is annoying.