Which is the more anoying or better character than the other?
Paul (Emmerdale) VS Sean (Coronation Street)
1 of 2
Well Paul is bloody GORGEOUS and erm, Sean isn't, so that's already a one-up for him 
So far it seems to me that Paul is the better actor and looks like he could be a very good actor at that. His character seems pretty decent so far.
The only thing Sean's got above Paul at the moment is amusing one-liners, but that could be tiresome eventually so we need to see other sides to his character - besides, Paul has had some funny lines too and he seems more well-rounded, plus he already has a plot coming up with Rodney being his dad which should show a more serious side.
So far it seems to me that Paul is the better actor and looks like he could be a very good actor at that. His character seems pretty decent so far.
The only thing Sean's got above Paul at the moment is amusing one-liners, but that could be tiresome eventually so we need to see other sides to his character - besides, Paul has had some funny lines too and he seems more well-rounded, plus he already has a plot coming up with Rodney being his dad which should show a more serious side.
either for me - both are hilarious and both after some guy or another (sean likes jason and paul likes bob)!!!!
The one in Emmerdale is utterly dire. Couldn't act his way along a feather boa. Band-waggoning at it's least inspired. The one in Coronation Street doesn't have the looks of the other one, but at least he has the strength of writing actually giving him a 'character'. I dislike both characters on the fundamental level that brought them into the soaps (headline box-ticking), and with the thinness of the writing on Emmerdale, Paul is the worst kind of character. So to answer the original question: Sean, even though I can't stand him.
Thinness of the writing? Are you smoking oven cleaner or something?
And this guy is a drag queen. Bandwagoning? When has there been a regular character in a popular British soap who's a drag queen? And as far as I'm concerned his character is already FAR more rounded, probably more than Sean will ever be. Sean's acting has bordered on unbearable a couple of times.
And this guy is a drag queen. Bandwagoning? When has there been a regular character in a popular British soap who's a drag queen? And as far as I'm concerned his character is already FAR more rounded, probably more than Sean will ever be. Sean's acting has bordered on unbearable a couple of times.
How did he get the name Paul, when everyone else calls him Frank Bernard.
As jen said, paul fell to his death just a month or so back.
As jen said, paul fell to his death just a month or so back.
From what I've seen of him Paul is sexier than Sean, and I think he may be a better more rounded character than Sean too. He's got a good storyline coming up and seems to be a fine actor. Plus he's the first dragqueen I can remember to regularly appear on a soap, so cudos
Sean is quite funny, not particularly sexy but I don't think he's meant to be. He's meant to be down to earth and fun and not too serious, I suppose a contrast to Todd who took himself way too seriously. I would like to see more sides to Sean though. But time will tell.
Sean is quite funny, not particularly sexy but I don't think he's meant to be. He's meant to be down to earth and fun and not too serious, I suppose a contrast to Todd who took himself way too seriously. I would like to see more sides to Sean though. But time will tell.
The writing on Emmerdale, since it over-stretched to six-nights a week, has become increasingly disjointed, contextless and anaemic. Viewers, at least a lot of people on here, accept it because the deluge of E'Dale we get so often acclimatises us to it, but take one single episode and critique it on an intillectual level, is proper by-numbers stuff. weak as water. well, weak as hollyoaks.
and of course it's band-waggoning: they only brought this character in because of the gay-trend that is currently underlining a whole lot of television. variations on a theme don't make it any more original. it's a cheap shot, and the worst thing is that it hasn't even worked.
and of course it's band-waggoning: they only brought this character in because of the gay-trend that is currently underlining a whole lot of television. variations on a theme don't make it any more original. it's a cheap shot, and the worst thing is that it hasn't even worked.
Originally Posted by TheWalfordOne:
“Viewers, at least a lot of people on here, accept it because the deluge of E'Dale we get so often acclimatises us to it, but take one single episode and critique it on an intillectual level, is proper by-numbers stuff.”
“Viewers, at least a lot of people on here, accept it because the deluge of E'Dale we get so often acclimatises us to it, but take one single episode and critique it on an intillectual level, is proper by-numbers stuff.”
Err no, a lot of us accept it because, shock horror, we find it GOOD. And that's because it it IS good. The writing is perfectly decent, often pure brilliance, it's probably got the most wide-ranging and diverse selection of characters of any British soap at the moment and they do great comedy as well as drama.
It's not perfect, but mostly they get it right and is a million times better than certain others naming NO ONE.
Quote:
“and of course it's band-waggoning: they only brought this character in because of the gay-trend that is currently underlining a whole lot of television. variations on a theme don't make it any more original. it's a cheap shot, and the worst thing is that it hasn't even worked.”
“and of course it's band-waggoning: they only brought this character in because of the gay-trend that is currently underlining a whole lot of television. variations on a theme don't make it any more original. it's a cheap shot, and the worst thing is that it hasn't even worked.”
Why on earth would they do that?? It had its first gay character well over TEN years ago and apart from her, there's nearly always been other gays in it since. They're band-wagonning nothing. Gays are nothing new whatsoever. Although frankly a drag queen is, so at least they're doing something different. It's also worth pointing out we've known about Paul since Val came into the show so his entrance is plausible and he has strong ties, unlike Sean who is really just a random character more or less, with connections to no one.
lol, what a gas.
if you think the writing on Emmerdale is often pure brilliance, then the literate education of a country is in dire straits. Emmerdale since 2000 (probably since 1993) has totally abandoned what makes Emmerdale individual: the context. Without this everything, however, ahem, 'brilliant', is automatically frayed.
And it's irrelevant that they've had a gay character present on the show, that means nothing: the current queer trend, namely for soap, the Todd storyline on corrie and the exposure it got, coupled with the increasingly cheap shots soaps are taking, are what brought this character into the show. They said it about Hayley on CS. Whether this works out like that is to be seen (I say it wont). I'm not defending one over the other, I think they've both got very weak ties (in terms of credibility, why on earth would a drag queen stay in a sh*thole backwater like Emmerdale for more than 10 minutes, but you're right about Sean).
Another thing you're right about is that it's not perfect. But what you said after, not naming the most obvious "no one" ever, is slightly preposterous. Emmerdale has bandwaggoned right through the 90s: even Zoe was in the shadow of EE/Brookie. As I said: a variation on a theme (something soaps have all played off for nearly 20 years) are never original, and in this case, not admirable.
if you think the writing on Emmerdale is often pure brilliance, then the literate education of a country is in dire straits. Emmerdale since 2000 (probably since 1993) has totally abandoned what makes Emmerdale individual: the context. Without this everything, however, ahem, 'brilliant', is automatically frayed.
And it's irrelevant that they've had a gay character present on the show, that means nothing: the current queer trend, namely for soap, the Todd storyline on corrie and the exposure it got, coupled with the increasingly cheap shots soaps are taking, are what brought this character into the show. They said it about Hayley on CS. Whether this works out like that is to be seen (I say it wont). I'm not defending one over the other, I think they've both got very weak ties (in terms of credibility, why on earth would a drag queen stay in a sh*thole backwater like Emmerdale for more than 10 minutes, but you're right about Sean).
Another thing you're right about is that it's not perfect. But what you said after, not naming the most obvious "no one" ever, is slightly preposterous. Emmerdale has bandwaggoned right through the 90s: even Zoe was in the shadow of EE/Brookie. As I said: a variation on a theme (something soaps have all played off for nearly 20 years) are never original, and in this case, not admirable.
Emmerdale didn't "bandwaggon" the lesbian storyline in the 1990s as Zoe was the first lesbian character on a UK soap.
Brookside's lesbian storyline did overshadow Emmerdale's, largely because of the simultaneous "body under the patio" storyline and the infamous kiss, but Beth appeared later than Zoe and came out as a lesbian later than she did, too.
People think Beth Jordache set it all off as Brookie beat Emmerdale to the first on-screen lesbian kiss on a UK soap & also on pre-watershed TV (between Beth and that Margaret one who had an affair with a priest!) Emmerdale probably missed a trick there, but it was on ITV and had formerly been a soap about gentle farming folk. Channel 4 was a more adventurous station...
EastEnders was the soap which jumped on the bandwagon, with Della and Binnie the lesbian hairdressers, who appeared last of all - and who are probably the characters to have made the least memorable lasting impression on viewers.
But then, it was EastEnders who very early on had (male) gay characters in the Square, to the horror / glee of the tabloid press at the time.
Brookside's lesbian storyline did overshadow Emmerdale's, largely because of the simultaneous "body under the patio" storyline and the infamous kiss, but Beth appeared later than Zoe and came out as a lesbian later than she did, too.
People think Beth Jordache set it all off as Brookie beat Emmerdale to the first on-screen lesbian kiss on a UK soap & also on pre-watershed TV (between Beth and that Margaret one who had an affair with a priest!) Emmerdale probably missed a trick there, but it was on ITV and had formerly been a soap about gentle farming folk. Channel 4 was a more adventurous station...
EastEnders was the soap which jumped on the bandwagon, with Della and Binnie the lesbian hairdressers, who appeared last of all - and who are probably the characters to have made the least memorable lasting impression on viewers.
But then, it was EastEnders who very early on had (male) gay characters in the Square, to the horror / glee of the tabloid press at the time.
Originally Posted by Drifter:
“Well Paul is bloody GORGEOUS and erm, Sean isn't, so that's already a one-up for him”
“Well Paul is bloody GORGEOUS and erm, Sean isn't, so that's already a one-up for him
”
What?
He looks like Liza Minnelli.
Originally Posted by TheWalfordOne:
“lol, what a gas.
if you think the writing on Emmerdale is often pure brilliance, then the literate education of a country is in dire straits. Emmerdale since 2000 (probably since 1993) has totally abandoned what makes Emmerdale individual: the context. Without this everything, however, ahem, 'brilliant', is automatically frayed.”
“lol, what a gas.
if you think the writing on Emmerdale is often pure brilliance, then the literate education of a country is in dire straits. Emmerdale since 2000 (probably since 1993) has totally abandoned what makes Emmerdale individual: the context. Without this everything, however, ahem, 'brilliant', is automatically frayed.”
Oh do me a favour! The soap got RID of what made it individual in the first place, cos lets face it, a FARM soap ain't gonna do well these days. It still has its own individual traits and has moved on with the times and become a much MUCH better show for it. It's gradually improved, with obviously a few dips here and there, and I believe it's about to enter another new stage where it becomes even better, and hopefully even more popular. Though this remains to be seen.
But sorry but I don't think you're going to find many people who agree with you on this unless they are living in the past and preferred it as the dull old "unfashionable" soap it once was.
Quote:
“And it's irrelevant that they've had a gay character present on the show, that means nothing: the current queer trend, namely for soap, the Todd storyline on corrie and the exposure it got, coupled with the increasingly cheap shots soaps are taking, are what brought this character into the show. They said it about Hayley on CS. Whether this works out like that is to be seen (I say it wont). I'm not defending one over the other, I think they've both got very weak ties (in terms of credibility, why on earth would a drag queen stay in a sh*thole backwater like Emmerdale for more than 10 minutes, but you're right about Sean).”
“And it's irrelevant that they've had a gay character present on the show, that means nothing: the current queer trend, namely for soap, the Todd storyline on corrie and the exposure it got, coupled with the increasingly cheap shots soaps are taking, are what brought this character into the show. They said it about Hayley on CS. Whether this works out like that is to be seen (I say it wont). I'm not defending one over the other, I think they've both got very weak ties (in terms of credibility, why on earth would a drag queen stay in a sh*thole backwater like Emmerdale for more than 10 minutes, but you're right about Sean).”
This is ridiculous. As I have said, Emmerdale has had a number of gay characters over the past 12 or so years, the show is RARELY without two (Zoe is ever-present). Now Corrie could be accused of bandwagon jumping if you so wanted to, because it was the first gay character they've EVER had. This is what, Emmerdale's TENTH?
Quote:
“Another thing you're right about is that it's not perfect. But what you said after, not naming the most obvious "no one" ever, is slightly preposterous. Emmerdale has bandwaggoned right through the 90s: even Zoe was in the shadow of EE/Brookie. As I said: a variation on a theme (something soaps have all played off for nearly 20 years) are never original, and in this case, not admirable.”
“Another thing you're right about is that it's not perfect. But what you said after, not naming the most obvious "no one" ever, is slightly preposterous. Emmerdale has bandwaggoned right through the 90s: even Zoe was in the shadow of EE/Brookie. As I said: a variation on a theme (something soaps have all played off for nearly 20 years) are never original, and in this case, not admirable.”
Well as been said, Zoe came before Brookside, so that holds no water whatsoever. And we're talking about the gay character - I have never denied Emmerdale has bandwagonned before, of course it has, ALL soaps have. But what else do you expect from a a soap that had to turn its fortunes around? It had to become a more "conventional" soap or it was gone, simple as. But it hasn't always bandwagonned. And when it has, it can do it very well.
As far as I'm concerned it quickly became a soap that could be just as original and brilliant as the others and very much held its own, and continues to do so.
Sean is great I hated the idea of the wet lectuce coming into the street, but he is funny, a laugh, I guess when you play yourself acting skills arent needed.
Originally Posted by matt_thecolin:
“How did he get the name Paul, when everyone else calls him Frank Bernard.
As jen said, paul fell to his death just a month or so back.”
“How did he get the name Paul, when everyone else calls him Frank Bernard.
As jen said, paul fell to his death just a month or so back.”
for a start the guy who is frank bernard is pearls son, paul who we are talking about is val's!
Ah, that would explain it. I've not been able to follow it religiously and got the two sons confused. Am I right in thinking Frank Bernard is going to/ did appear?
Paul looks a bit like Rodney and so he should as he is Rodney's son. Can't wait for Rodney to find out.
erm why would he look like rodney though...it isnt real! even if they are son and father on the show!
Originally Posted by lauralou:
“erm why would he look like rodney though...it isnt real! even if they are son and father on the show!”
“erm why would he look like rodney though...it isnt real! even if they are son and father on the show!”
I actually thought he looked like Rodney. He has his nose !!! I think they cast him very well.
Originally Posted by lauralou:
“erm why would he look like rodney though...it isnt real! even if they are son and father on the show!”
“erm why would he look like rodney though...it isnt real! even if they are son and father on the show!”
Yes its just good casting. Next week we will find out that Paul usually wears a tight string necklace
Originally Posted by pistonbroke:
“Yes its just good casting. Next week we will find out that Paul usually wears a tight string necklace”
“Yes its just good casting. Next week we will find out that Paul usually wears a tight string necklace”
I thought it was just me who hated that necklace - weird or what but its just one of my pet hates.
1 of 2
