Most logical thing to do would be to get rid of Blackburn not give him a chance to turn it around as he obvs doesn't have it in him. But there's no guarantee his replacement would be any better.
Phil Collinson seems popular but I thought he did some dreadful stories. As bad as Corrie now is, Blackburn hasn't done anything as bad as Molvin or the Tina/Graham/Xin story.
A major problem is that viewers don't care about most of the current characters. Years ago most of the cast was loved. Its just not the same show anymore. I can count on one hand the number of characters I like. The number of old timers is dwindling and even then theyre not all likeable. Ken and Rita seem to be objects of ridicule, Emily's barely in it, only Gail, Steve, Audrey and Deirdre are popular with viewers and that's despite their best attempts to mould three of them into one note comedy characters.
Completely agree. A cast cull is never the answer, the departing characters are only going to be replaced and there's no guarantee they'll be any better if the writing hasn't changed. Better the devil you know.
Corrie do seem to be making small changes, Blackburn has recruited two new writers this year - soap veteran Perrie Balthazar has written a few scripts now, and newcomer Cardy O'Donnell made their debut Wednesday, but it's baby steps. The people in the top seats have remained unchanged, their vision for the show likely the same. The damage is not irreversible, the show is still watchable but for Corrie fans not altogether as enjoyable as it could be. The stories aren't cutting it, they seem formulaic and repetitive in the main (someone dies, someone else gets the blame, blah blah bleurgh same story every year since 2007).
Balthazar hails from Hollyoaks and recently did a stint at EastEnders, I couldn't tell you what his work was like on Hollyoaks because that show thrives on being far fetched and in general is a bit rubbish so bad eps dont stand out but he was awful on EastEnders.
Why do Corrie need a cast of 70 odd when most are just there to fill time and they only ever give the big stories to a few of them? How are we supposed to care about the underused characters, some of whom are complete caricatures, who drift into a scene for one line and then thats it. Maybe thats always happened but I remember a time when I cared about most of the cast.
I disagree about them not needing a cast cull. They have loads of dead wood who need to go, in some cases to allow others to breathe. The cast needs to be a bit smaller with the remainder being utilised a lot better. I know they couldn't get by on 30 characters these days but 70 odd is taking it to extremes and only about 20 of them are fleshed out characters if that.
EastEnders by comparison still had a cast that for the most part resonated with viewers. The cast was and still is smaller than Corrie's with nowhere near the same amount of dead wood. Dexter and Fatboy aside they have all but cut it loose.
One of Corrie's failings is that they can't do long term planning. EE is brilliant at this. They always have a fair few SLs bbubbling away. In contrast, Corrie is fairly pedestian and amateurish from the production side to the acting.
And they persist in keeping unpopular characters. It's time to bring in some new blood, make it work and then dump all the dead wood.
Not much ever changes in Corrie. The SL ends and then they all lived happily ever after.
Totally agree. All very 'spur of the moment' thing with Corrie. Eastenders is much more organised and they'll bare the fruits of their labour even if they're lagging behind Corrie in the ratings.
Just cannot invest in the characters anymore. Partly because of the panto acting, but the writing doesn't help. Doesn't showcase the actors in good light.
Blackburn was talking about Steve and Michelle's upcoming storyline and came across as though he was trying to convince himself that they are good actors. That's the problem with Corrie right there.
Surely the sensible thing for ITV to do would be to sack Stuart Blackburn; if he was working in any other industry he would have gone long ago. A new producer could find new writers and replace deadwood, including Sophie and Muddie, two of S.B.'s favourites. The only coming plotline I have seen mentioned is about kiddie sex; that will lose the show millions more viewers (and gain some who want to watch that sort of thing). The older cast must be very disappointed with the way 'their' show has deteriorated.
Finally! The press are reporting about Corrie's ratings slump at last! Staging a big stunt is not going to bring back in viewers long term and Blackburn is clealy deluded if he thinks it will.
Balthazar hails from Hollyoaks and recently did a stint at EastEnders, I couldn't tell you what his work was like on Hollyoaks because that show thrives on being far fetched and in general is a bit rubbish so bad eps dont stand out but he was awful on EastEnders.
Why do Corrie need a cast of 70 odd when most are just there to fill time and they only ever give the big stories to a few of them? How are we supposed to care about the underused characters, some of whom are complete caricatures, who drift into a scene for one line and then thats it. Maybe thats always happened but I remember a time when I cared about most of the cast.
I disagree about them not needing a cast cull. They have loads of dead wood who need to go, in some cases to allow others to breathe. The cast needs to be a bit smaller with the remainder being utilised a lot better. I know they couldn't get by on 30 characters these days but 70 odd is taking it to extremes and only about 20 of them are fleshed out characters if that.
EastEnders by comparison still had a cast that for the most part resonated with viewers. The cast was and still is smaller than Corrie's with nowhere near the same amount of dead wood. Dexter and Fatboy aside they have all but cut it loose.
Coronation Street has a cast of 58 adult regulars. By comparison Emmerdale has 56 and EastEnders has 51. There's not much difference between them. It's not the size of the cast that's the problem, it's what they do with them, I'll stand by that. 'Deadwood' is a myth, an overused term if I ever saw one. If a character has not been used to their full potential, why get rid without seeing it out? If a story arises in that a character needs to go for that to happen, fair enough, but I'm not a fan of random axings here and there when that character's exit wouldn't make a difference to anyone. It's lazy unimaginative storytelling.
Downsizing the cast without fixing the issues of character usage and interaction would just end up in overexposure for the lead characters. It's happening over on Hollyoaks right now actually, they've downsized and certain characters are never off the screen. By contrast others are just sticking around as easy pickings for deaths in the next grand disaster.
After being a viewer when I was younger I would still dip in and out of it occasionally but I have done that as I found the characters to be so loathsome. For me Roy, Hayley and Sylvia were the only ones worth watching.
Personally, I do think the acting in eastenders is on a much higher level. I often see interviews with top actors praising June Brown for her skills but I never see the same level of praise for Barbara Knox.
Eastenders problems were with the writing, characters acted out of character and went round in cycles. With a few casting changes and changes in the production team the show is slowly turning around.
Can you imagine tuning into the show in thirty years time when the old timers consist of Michelle, Sean and Fizz?
Totally agree. All very 'spur of the moment' thing with Corrie. Eastenders is much more organised and they'll bare the fruits of their labour even if they're lagging behind Corrie in the ratings.
Just cannot invest in the characters anymore. Partly because of the panto acting, but the writing doesn't help. Doesn't showcase the actors in good light.
Blackburn was talking about Steve and Michelle's upcoming storyline and came across as though he was trying to convince himself that they are good actors. That's the problem with Corrie right there.
Agreed about panto acting. Simon Gregson is turning in pretty awful comedy performances in what is clearly intended as serious scenes. He's getting worse by the day.
Coronation Street's long-running stories have been lacking for a few years now. They really are trying to ever-emulate their greatest hits. The most original story in recent years has been Hayley's, but even that left a bad taste for me (others may not agree, but the suicide aspect was poor in my opinion).
Agreed about panto acting. Simon Gregson is turning in pretty awful comedy performances in what is clearly intended as serious scenes. He's getting worse by the day.
Coronation Street's long-running stories have been lacking for a few years now. They really are trying to ever-emulate their greatest hits. The most original story in recent years has been Hayley's, but even that left a bad taste for me (others may not agree, but the suicide aspect was poor in my opinion).
I love steve. I find him one of the very few characters I can bear these days!
as someone who enjoys both eastenders and corrie it annoys that both can't be excellent at the same time
Maybe the improvement of a Eastenders quality has made it more obvious to those that watch corrie that the show is in a bad way? A casual viewer I haven't been impressed with corrie for quite a few years now.
I love steve. I find him one of the very few characters I can bear these days!
I like Steve, just getting tired of his rubbery face doing all the work. It moves independently from his body. He acts exactly the same in every scene, just inserts a frown here and a gurn there to suit the tone, and it all comes off as the same.
Coronation Street has a cast of 58 adult regulars. By comparison Emmerdale has 56 and EastEnders has 51. There's not much difference between them. It's not the size of the cast that's the problem, it's what they do with them, I'll stand by that. 'Deadwood' is a myth, an overused term if I ever saw one. If a character has not been used to their full potential, why get rid without seeing it out? If a story arises in that a character needs to go for that to happen, fair enough, but I'm not a fan of random axings here and there when that character's exit wouldn't make a difference to anyone. It's lazy unimaginative storytelling.
Downsizing the cast without fixing the issues of character usage and interaction would just end up in overexposure for the lead characters. It's happening over on Hollyoaks right now actually, they've downsized and certain characters are never off the screen. By contrast others are just sticking around as easy pickings for deaths in the next grand disaster.
I did count 72 characters in total on the main Wikipedia list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coronation_Street_characters so are 14 of those children/babies? Also despite being kids Faye and Simon are seen on a regular basis so I would count them as regulars, the babies less so. Either way it's still more than they used to have and I'm not sure 5 eps is a valid excuse as they could cut a few and still have enough characters to go around.
Characters should be there because they're needed not because there's airtime to fill. Those sequences with Beth ratching through a bin were embarrassing when we could have been seeing something more exciting instead.
I'm not saying cut anyone who has unrealised potential but there are a few who don't and do fall into the dead wood bracket.
Would you have been in favour of EastEnders keeping the much maligned Ava and Sam? Sometimes characters just don't work.
72 characters inc. babies/children is shocking considering it is set on one street.
Finally! The press are reporting about Corrie's ratings slump at last! Staging a big stunt is not going to bring back in viewers long term and Blackburn is clealy deluded if he thinks it will.
Corrie doesn't need a big stunt it needs better writing and some decent characters. In theory they couldnt introduce the latter without downsizing the cast a bit but they still seem to be adding to an already bloated cast anyway if the universally despised Nazirs are anything to go by.
A stunt might only work for a short time depending on what storylines come after that.
A great example is Emmerdale last year. It was beating EastEnders a lot even when not head to head (Sure EastEnders was weakier) but it pulled in some of it's best figures in ages and had people tuning in with the Cameron climax and the Flood but after that there was nothing to keep the new viewers or the ones that came back to the show. Now the show is struggling to reach 6 million viewers with last nights episode (8:00pm) Barely reaching 5 million with a low 26% share.
When EastEnders had a rubbish 2004-2006 Santer came in and climaxed some storylines, Some New Characters came in and there was a number of storylines bubbling away to climax at Christmas which gave EastEnders soaps biggest rating for a few years (Until it's 25th in 2010 of course)
There wasn't really any stunts to lure the viewers back it just needed someone new at the top and some fresh characters and storylines after a few biggies left (Pauline,Sharon,Dennis,Den ect)
Again with DTC last year he didn't rely on stunts but refreshed the characters that had been sitting there doing nothing for ages (Patrick,Denise,Carol,Cora)
He gave the Vic a new family which is what it had been crying out for for years.
And now the future of the show is looking bright once more.
I think Corrie needs to do the same. Make changes where needed.
Axe deadwood,bring in a couple of new faces and build up some storylines.
I did count 72 characters in total on the main Wikipedia list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coronation_Street_characters so are 14 of those children/babies? Also despite being kids Faye and Simon are seen on a regular basis so I would count them as regulars, the babies less so. Either way it's still more than they used to have and I'm not sure 5 eps is a valid excuse as they could cut a few and still have enough characters to go around.
Characters should be there because they're needed not because there's airtime to fill. Those sequences with Beth ratching through a bin were embarrassing when we could have been seeing something more exciting instead.
I'm not saying cut anyone who has unrealised potential but there are a few who don't and do fall into the dead wood bracket.
Would you have been in favour of EastEnders keeping the much maligned Ava and Sam? Sometimes characters just don't work.
72 characters inc. babies/children is shocking considering it is set on one street.
Ava could have worked but Sam was terrible. The character was dull but more so the Actor was dull. He had no personality And couldn't act.
DTC knew straight away that these two and Carl wasn't liked by the viewers so he got rid.
After being a viewer when I was younger I would still dip in and out of it occasionally but I have done that as I found the characters to be so loathsome. For me Roy, Hayley and Sylvia were the only ones worth watching.
Personally, I do think the acting in eastenders is on a much higher level. I often see interviews with top actors praising June Brown for her skills but I never see the same level of praise for Barbara Knox.
Eastenders problems were with the writing, characters acted out of character and went round in cycles. With a few casting changes and changes in the production team the show is slowly turning around.
Can you imagine tuning into the show in thirty years time when the old timers consist of Michelle, Sean and Fizz?
This. The issue with EE was never with the cast.
They never seem to have more than a handful of dead wood at any one time, usually acquired under a poor EP, to which a subsequent EP will swing the axe. At any rate I can't think of a time when there's been more dead wood in the cast than characters worth keeping.
Corrie is unique in that comfortably more than half of their cast don't add anything to the show.
Surely the sensible thing for ITV to do would be to sack Stuart Blackburn; if he was working in any other industry he would have gone long ago. A new producer could find new writers and replace deadwood, including Sophie and Muddie, two of S.B.'s favourites. The only coming plotline I have seen mentioned is about kiddie sex; that will lose the show millions more viewers (and gain some who want to watch that sort of thing). The older cast must be very disappointed with the way 'their' show has deteriorated.
Just don't think the character in question is strong enough to pull something like this off. Shame that horrible clan will continue to steal the limelight.
Agreed about panto acting. Simon Gregson is turning in pretty awful comedy performances in what is clearly intended as serious scenes. He's getting worse by the day.
Coronation Street's long-running stories have been lacking for a few years now. They really are trying to ever-emulate their greatest hits. The most original story in recent years has been Hayley's, but even that left a bad taste for me (others may not agree, but the suicide aspect was poor in my opinion).
Suicide just didn't feel like something Hayley would do. I wasn't a fan of the storyline, but her final episodes were a masterpiece in terms of acting and script writing.
The storylines since have been absolute dogshit. Fiesty-turned-promiscuous Tina sleeping with a married man, married woman Andrea having it off with her classmate's best friend, dreary Maria acting surprised her gay-turned-straight boyfriend was having sex with the sweet boy-turned-evil Todd. Can you see a pattern emerging?
There have been good moments -- Sally and Tim not least, but it's infrequent. Thought they would have gone somewhere darker with Phelan, but it wasn't to be. Shame, he was a good villain.
After being a viewer when I was younger I would still dip in and out of it occasionally but I have done that as I found the characters to be so loathsome. For me Roy, Hayley and Sylvia were the only ones worth watching.
Personally, I do think the acting in eastenders is on a much higher level. I often see interviews with top actors praising June Brown for her skills but I never see the same level of praise for Barbara Knox.
Eastenders problems were with the writing, characters acted out of character and went round in cycles. With a few casting changes and changes in the production team the show is slowly turning around.
Can you imagine tuning into the show in thirty years time when the old timers consist of Michelle, Sean and Fizz?
Sylvia was great, shame she left. Roy is head and shoulders above the cast in terms of acting. You have Carla, Leanne, Kylie and Peter, who on their day with decent scripts holding a candle to Roy, but Kylie's recent storyline for instance has set her back two years. Shirking and mouthing off at others.
Sean is a poor relief character. All he does is fold his arms, make a quip and bitch. Same with Michelle. For a character portayed as the bee's knees she's absolute muck. Up until a few weeks ago she had no sense of compassion -- all she did was nag, nag, nag. The character like Sean once upon a time served a purpose, but poor writing and development has meant they're just glorified extras.
I love steve. I find him one of the very few characters I can bear these days!
What I don't like is Steve portrayed as some bumbling fool. Would a fool have two businesses and be liked by the Corrie residents?
He used to have a backbone; it would be nice if the Corrie writers remembered that. His relationship with Michelle borders on sadistic -- they should never have been paired up.
The thing with Corrie is the cast and has been for a while is that the cast are weak, by far the weakest of all four soaps and I shudder putting Hollyoaks above anything but quite frankly that's how poor the Corrie cast are. It's been somewhat disguised in the past by good writing and strong storylines over the last ten years but in all honesty I could count the decent actors on one hand!
I think itv need to revamp when episodes are broadcasted.
1. Bring back Sunday night Corrie at e.g. 6.30pm and scrap Monday nights at 8.30.
2. Move Fridays 8.30 ep to Thursdays at 8.30.
Resulting in
Sundays 6.30
Monday 7.30
Wednesday 7.30
Thursday 8.30
Friday 7.30
I agree but i'm annoyed ITV are concerned about Corrie but happy to let ED rot under KO
i do champion corrie but i am surprised at the attacks on kate oates and emmerdale. obviously people on here don't tune into emmerdale regularly, other wise they would realise that emmerdale is in good health and in alot better shape than corrie although the ratings do not reflect this.
Comments
Phil Collinson seems popular but I thought he did some dreadful stories. As bad as Corrie now is, Blackburn hasn't done anything as bad as Molvin or the Tina/Graham/Xin story.
Why do Corrie need a cast of 70 odd when most are just there to fill time and they only ever give the big stories to a few of them? How are we supposed to care about the underused characters, some of whom are complete caricatures, who drift into a scene for one line and then thats it. Maybe thats always happened but I remember a time when I cared about most of the cast.
I disagree about them not needing a cast cull. They have loads of dead wood who need to go, in some cases to allow others to breathe. The cast needs to be a bit smaller with the remainder being utilised a lot better. I know they couldn't get by on 30 characters these days but 70 odd is taking it to extremes and only about 20 of them are fleshed out characters if that.
EastEnders by comparison still had a cast that for the most part resonated with viewers. The cast was and still is smaller than Corrie's with nowhere near the same amount of dead wood. Dexter and Fatboy aside they have all but cut it loose.
The reason the ratings have fallen is because the show is absolute rubbish at the moment.
Just cannot invest in the characters anymore. Partly because of the panto acting, but the writing doesn't help. Doesn't showcase the actors in good light.
Blackburn was talking about Steve and Michelle's upcoming storyline and came across as though he was trying to convince himself that they are good actors. That's the problem with Corrie right there.
Downsizing the cast without fixing the issues of character usage and interaction would just end up in overexposure for the lead characters. It's happening over on Hollyoaks right now actually, they've downsized and certain characters are never off the screen. By contrast others are just sticking around as easy pickings for deaths in the next grand disaster.
Personally, I do think the acting in eastenders is on a much higher level. I often see interviews with top actors praising June Brown for her skills but I never see the same level of praise for Barbara Knox.
Eastenders problems were with the writing, characters acted out of character and went round in cycles. With a few casting changes and changes in the production team the show is slowly turning around.
Can you imagine tuning into the show in thirty years time when the old timers consist of Michelle, Sean and Fizz?
Coronation Street's long-running stories have been lacking for a few years now. They really are trying to ever-emulate their greatest hits. The most original story in recent years has been Hayley's, but even that left a bad taste for me (others may not agree, but the suicide aspect was poor in my opinion).
I love steve. I find him one of the very few characters I can bear these days!
Maybe the improvement of a Eastenders quality has made it more obvious to those that watch corrie that the show is in a bad way? A casual viewer I haven't been impressed with corrie for quite a few years now.
Characters should be there because they're needed not because there's airtime to fill. Those sequences with Beth ratching through a bin were embarrassing when we could have been seeing something more exciting instead.
I'm not saying cut anyone who has unrealised potential but there are a few who don't and do fall into the dead wood bracket.
Would you have been in favour of EastEnders keeping the much maligned Ava and Sam? Sometimes characters just don't work.
72 characters inc. babies/children is shocking considering it is set on one street.
A great example is Emmerdale last year. It was beating EastEnders a lot even when not head to head (Sure EastEnders was weakier) but it pulled in some of it's best figures in ages and had people tuning in with the Cameron climax and the Flood but after that there was nothing to keep the new viewers or the ones that came back to the show. Now the show is struggling to reach 6 million viewers with last nights episode (8:00pm) Barely reaching 5 million with a low 26% share.
When EastEnders had a rubbish 2004-2006 Santer came in and climaxed some storylines, Some New Characters came in and there was a number of storylines bubbling away to climax at Christmas which gave EastEnders soaps biggest rating for a few years (Until it's 25th in 2010 of course)
There wasn't really any stunts to lure the viewers back it just needed someone new at the top and some fresh characters and storylines after a few biggies left (Pauline,Sharon,Dennis,Den ect)
Again with DTC last year he didn't rely on stunts but refreshed the characters that had been sitting there doing nothing for ages (Patrick,Denise,Carol,Cora)
He gave the Vic a new family which is what it had been crying out for for years.
And now the future of the show is looking bright once more.
I think Corrie needs to do the same. Make changes where needed.
Axe deadwood,bring in a couple of new faces and build up some storylines.
DTC knew straight away that these two and Carl wasn't liked by the viewers so he got rid.
They never seem to have more than a handful of dead wood at any one time, usually acquired under a poor EP, to which a subsequent EP will swing the axe. At any rate I can't think of a time when there's been more dead wood in the cast than characters worth keeping.
Corrie is unique in that comfortably more than half of their cast don't add anything to the show.
Suicide just didn't feel like something Hayley would do. I wasn't a fan of the storyline, but her final episodes were a masterpiece in terms of acting and script writing.
The storylines since have been absolute dogshit. Fiesty-turned-promiscuous Tina sleeping with a married man, married woman Andrea having it off with her classmate's best friend, dreary Maria acting surprised her gay-turned-straight boyfriend was having sex with the sweet boy-turned-evil Todd. Can you see a pattern emerging?
There have been good moments -- Sally and Tim not least, but it's infrequent. Thought they would have gone somewhere darker with Phelan, but it wasn't to be. Shame, he was a good villain.
Sylvia was great, shame she left. Roy is head and shoulders above the cast in terms of acting. You have Carla, Leanne, Kylie and Peter, who on their day with decent scripts holding a candle to Roy, but Kylie's recent storyline for instance has set her back two years. Shirking and mouthing off at others.
Sean is a poor relief character. All he does is fold his arms, make a quip and bitch. Same with Michelle. For a character portayed as the bee's knees she's absolute muck. Up until a few weeks ago she had no sense of compassion -- all she did was nag, nag, nag. The character like Sean once upon a time served a purpose, but poor writing and development has meant they're just glorified extras.
What I don't like is Steve portrayed as some bumbling fool. Would a fool have two businesses and be liked by the Corrie residents?
He used to have a backbone; it would be nice if the Corrie writers remembered that. His relationship with Michelle borders on sadistic -- they should never have been paired up.
1. Bring back Sunday night Corrie at e.g. 6.30pm and scrap Monday nights at 8.30.
2. Move Fridays 8.30 ep to Thursdays at 8.30.
Resulting in
Sundays 6.30
Monday 7.30
Wednesday 7.30
Thursday 8.30
Friday 7.30
i do champion corrie but i am surprised at the attacks on kate oates and emmerdale. obviously people on here don't tune into emmerdale regularly, other wise they would realise that emmerdale is in good health and in alot better shape than corrie although the ratings do not reflect this.