Options

Save our Street... The ironic decline of Coronation Street

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    AuntieSoapAuntieSoap Posts: 2,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Valentine wrote: »
    Spot on, and yet he's revered through rose tinted glasses!

    Collinson was no god or saviour. He did well with the spectacular 50th which was his main brief, but he did little long term for the show and the axing of the Peacocks was a mistake for the future of the show as the maturing Barlows, Platts and Websters shows. Continuity is a strength that Collinson did not value.
  • Options
    Pink_SmurfPink_Smurf Posts: 6,883
    Forum Member
    AuntieSoap wrote: »
    Nonsense it does not break any T&Cs. I made a comment on my post for the point of discussion.

    Glad it made your day though... I'll do my very best to keep you old and jaded... seems easy!

    Self-aggrandisement is a wonderful thing when you have a point to make and the ability to do it and return to it again and again.

    I think it is against Terms and Conditions. Vaslav was banned for at least a week for bumping old threads, mostly his own. (I like Vaslav so it's not a dig against him). It can be annoying.
  • Options
    AuntieSoapAuntieSoap Posts: 2,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pink_Smurf wrote: »
    I think it is against Terms and Conditions. Vaslav was banned for at least a week for bumping old threads, mostly his own. (I like Vaslav so it's not a dig against him). It can be annoying.

    I don't know the circumstances of that banning. Certainly revisiting a thread that is relevant is not against the rules.

    The great thing about a forum is that one can choose to ignore whatever they want!
  • Options
    GracieLGracieL Posts: 4,311
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AuntieSoap wrote: »
    Collinson was no god or saviour. He did well with the spectacular 50th which was his main brief, but he did little long term for the show and the axing of the Peacocks was a mistake for the future of the show as the maturing Barlows, Platts and Websters shows. Continuity is a strength that Collinson did not value.

    Collinson had his negatives and strengths. He managed to bring Corrie back to life after Kim Crowther's extremely dull period which was mainly filled of filler stories (other than Liam/Carla/Maria/Tony). With stories like the Nick and Leanne affair and the introduction of Leanne's mum Stella. Bringing back Marcus, Sian and Sophie's partnership, Gary's PSTD. The Peter, Leanne, Carla and Nick (also Frank) love square, although it got tedious by the end, he developed those 5 characters really well to make us care about them a lot. Also Roy and Hayley's wedding, the suburb exit of Natasha Blakeman (though he should have never axed her in the first place) and the fantastic pairing of Kylie and David.

    To be fair on Collinson, the Webster's story started under Crowther who was the one that jammed them down our throats and I thought he managed to save them as a family unit somewhat.

    Peacocks needed to be axed, they did barely anything for years other than Claire's PND and Josh's dad going for custody as they were that dull. All their storylines screamed 'something to do' i.e house swap with the Websters. I never thought Claire and Ashley worked as a couple, he was much more suited to Maxine imo.

    There were some extremely down points though, obviously Betty's non funeral sticks out like a saw thumb with Stella rifling through her things. He totally ruined Becky;s character towards the end as well after the marriage between her and Steve broke down. Along with dull storyline of Lloyd, Chris, Maria and Cheryl. Other things include the sham marriage, Audrey's tranny boyfriend, Steve remarrying Tracy, Tina's surrogacy.
  • Options
    boogie woogieboogie woogie Posts: 16,442
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Great post! For the most part I liked Collinson, but his handling of Betty's death was pretty disgraceful.
This discussion has been closed.