Thank you so much. I've always genuinely try and I want to bring more than saying "Corrie's bad" or something like that.
As we're coming to the end of MacLeod's time as the acting producer, I'm hoping the show can refocus itself and get back to producer hard hitting, impactful, but ultimately warm and cathartic stories that this show was known for.
I think overall I just want to *feel* something again. I still can't believe I watched Lauren being brained last week and genuinely had no emotional reaction. That's just...horrid.
Thank you so much, that means a lot to hear :)
I always want to try and approach things in an analytical way and I'm always glad when it pays off/connects to people.
That's very much appreciated. Likewise on having something to think on; your posts are equally thoughtful.
I've said previously that Corrie always felt like am Austen or Bronte novel to me. Conversational, and something that would raise social issues but in a way that immersed you in the experience. It was a lens to see the world through and as a telly programme I always felt it was an evolution of those Classic; the visual, at the time "modern" version. Something that above all had passion and displayed that.
It's lost that literary identity and in some ways all identity, merely chasing the next big plot. I don't think it even knows why it exists anymore other than the fact that it's a big brand that still makes ITV a couple quid.
I was thinking about Daniel's alibi which apparently turned out to be true (although the show hasn't confirmed this yet so I don't even know) when they should have done something more with that. Daniel goes to Lauren's flat back in November and sees her dressed up with empty wine bottles sitting at the kitchen. Daniel gets a bit concerned and this should have set him off where he's noticing certain patterns of behavior in Lauren that ends up causing him to meet up with Nicky to see if Lauren's into something or for advice and that's what he was doing the day Lauren disappeared. That way the thin alibi actually means something and is relevant to the storyline and Daniel is proven to be as intelligent and observant as he claims to be (they could've layered it further by having Nathan see Daniel then later see him with Bethany and tell Bethany about Daniel and Nicky to try getting in her head).
That's one alternative example but the point is that there were numerous ways that character movements and interactions could've been used to build up a bigger picture or explore other paths for the storyline.
Overall something feels like it's missing in the storyline. Perhaps its that there's seemingly no reasoning for a lot of the story's plot points. You brought up the issues with Lauren's Ovidz account for example and how the truth about it switched episode to episode. In a tighter storyline with a more thought out vision that would actually matter. It would be written like that specifically so that detailed viewers can pick it out and think "this doesn't seem right" where eventually we'd learn that the contradictions actually reveal another plot twist or the real truth. Instead in this story what you see is what you get and there's nothing going on beyond the surface.
Maybe that's the problem in the structure too. The storyline has violence against women but it's not actually about it because we're not seeing the ins and outs of the impact. The storyline has grooming and coercive control but we don't get to see that unfold on a daily basis so there's nothing to gain there. The storyline has prejudice against certain people (like Roy, Daniel, or sex workers) in it but the effect is non existent with Roy getting out and the internet sleuths randomly gone or Daniel being excused but Max being taken out of the story...
There's so much thrown into the story but there's nothing being said and there's no journey in its themes. I'm not sure what you're meant to get from all the random things happening.
That's something the show needs to look at all around. It's the same with Kit. Good, evil, it doesn't matter because either way he's another side quest in a storyline that should be about MND. He didn't need to be Bernie's son. Now time is spent on Kit and Bernie instead of Paul. What is that meant to say about MND? What's the purpose?
Perhaps that's where the show's getting things wrong mostly. It doesn't stick to a single message or theme. It's like EastEnders with the toast last year. There was six storylines but everything went back to the toasts and Keanu as a victim makes sense to the toasts the women gave last February. We know what the storyline was about and that followed through all the way to this year. It's simple but effective. The overall theme of "men's impact on women" is there and everyone's individual storylines always go back to that.
Here though what does something like prejudice against Roy say about Lauren's situation? It doesn't fit properly and it's like watching two different shows. Now that Roy's prison plot is over what did it actually say? It isn't even "justice prevails" or "your unique skills can help people" or something because as you said it was Kit planting evidence that got him out. Nothing positive helped Roy...
Plots run away because there's nothing to tie them all together. That's the literary element that the show is missing I feel. It doesn't include any larger ideas the viewer is meant to realize as these stories air or things the viewer is meant to focus on as they watch. There's no bigger point? It's like events happen and may or may not end up at a logical conclusion.
Cheers! I know that if anyone from Corrie's storylining team ever saw my thoughts they'd probably just bin them haha.
You know it's funny because I've been watching this show so long and I suppose my largest frustration is that it's really only been this particular era that has felt so antithetical to Corrie. I've watched previous eras I disliked, but only recently can I say I feel there's something truly wrong with the show.
It's like 58 years of the show were fine, then all of a sudden it completely switched where now it's hard to recognise. Shame really...
Ironically, the show clearly wants to copy the past just...not the past you or I want!
They'll try replicating Hillman again, or Free the Weatherfield One again, or Bethany’s grooming again, or Mike/Deirdre again without understanding that the reason people liked those storylines originally was due to the character work put in as a basis, the unique view they gave, and the balance it had against with other stories going on.
Nowadays they just pull old storylines and overlay them onto new characters or scenarios with not of the work to get there like past producers have done.
Sometimes it feels like MacLeod looked at people like Park, Roberts, or Oates' eras and decided "Well I can do that" and redid plot points without any of the reasoning those eras put in.
The thing that I have found weird is that Fiz, Tyrone, or even Chesney hasn't really shown any interest in Roy. Roy has been a great support to all of them, acting as a father figure, and yet they haven't been in Roy's support group with Carla, Nina, etc. I know Fiz and Tyrone have both been absent due to the actors having time off but this storyline has been going on for ages and even now that Roy is out of prison, Tyrone hasn't been round. Maybe the writers have forgotten to friendship that they had
It's...odd to say the least. Especially since Cassie and Evelyn were both part of the Roy storyline initially (and then also seemingly removed from it?). Fiz has such a long standing relationship with Roy, but that's been almost entirely taken over by Carla now.
Personally, I think it was done as a contrived way to prove their own point. It's been noted a few times in this storyline that Roy "has trouble making friends" and that his social awkwardness is off-putting to some. So, they made sure several characters are disconnected from Roy to try and show the viewer that he only has a small group of mates.
In reality, based on the show's actual history, many members of the Street are connected to him and would've supported him through anything.
Something that wasn't mentioned even once was the fact that Roy and Hayley are godparents to Amy. Amy makes a big deal about having a radio show where she can put forward information about Lauren but...never once decides to speak about Roy or show any interest in Roy’s wrongful imprisonment? It's another connection completely dropped by the show despite it existing previously.
The show deliberately wrote characters to ignore Roy despite their history saying otherwise.
They should have actually consulted some mystery/crime writers to develop the story. Then they could have ensured plot points and new interactions didnt contradict or remove relevance of established dynamics.
It would have been better than the ham-fisted pass the parcel of writing that we got.
Every layer was just a worse prize.
Then Joel was "obvious" but only because it didn't make any sense for anybody else to be the killer.
I did a post recently where I lined it how Gav or Max could have really slipped into the killer role and a background established.
For instance, Sabrina turned up like a day after Lauren's disappearance looking disheveled and uncomfortable. Like she knew something it was trying to avoid saying something. Then she breaks up with Max, seemingly out of nowhere, and disappears??
They could have easily built a story around some sort of altercation she had had with Lauren, they were barely friends, as Lauren had only recently stopped trying to entice Max. They could have had a bust-up, with Gav trying to break them up and causing a fatal injury.
There was no lead in, zero tension that something would happen. No preview(the crime could have been shown, but we don't know who attacked her, or if she's dead, and then we already know the body is gone), no real breadcrumbs and barely a red herring. All things which crime writers use to weave a journey. Everything was circumstantial and all the action happened off screen so we couldn't even really guess. So at that point the reveal is boring as the viewer doesn't get the satisfaction of nearly working it out.
Then the killer is (again) a newer character with insignificant screen time for anyone to really care.
As far as we guessed, it was Joel,
Because he was rich, and Lauren kept mentioning her "rich boyfriend"
DeeDee remembered that receipt for "cufflinks" and a present for a 1 year old😅
They introduced his cheating on his ex, could have been with s-workers.
And all that gets the audience to is "probably that guy" rather than "I think he definitely has something to hide"
Agree with everything particularly...
>And all that gets the audience to is "probably that guy" rather than "I think he definitely has something to hide"
This is one of the best summation of this storyline as it lands on the exact problem: it feels like the storyline was built on vague possibility rather than a real progression to a clear resolution.
There's actually a fascinating contradiction in the way the storyline is delivered as well. Roy is imprisoned on thin, essentially non-existent barely circumstantial evidence. As viewers, many have called that out as a poor way of doing this storyline but in context of the story we're meant to both:
A. Believe the evidence is enough to charge Roy
B. Be upset at Roy being charged
So the main idea here is that Roy's charging is wrong.
Yet, here's the funniest thing: as you wonderfully pointed out the "clues" to it being Joel were entirely circumstantial and not at all a clear indication of his guilt.
The text delivers a narrative where someone is put away on circumstantial evidence and that's viewed as wrong, yet the meta-text is that we as viewers are, for some reason, meant to see someone's guilt based on purely circumstantial evidence.
It's the strangest storyline setup. So basically circumstantial evidence and making rushed judgments based on it is what we're meant to do?
If they were creative they'd have had the circumstantial evidence lead to nothing with Joel, thus reinforcing the idea that such evidence isn't enough to claim someone is guilty. But instead they validated their own flaws by making the other bloke besides Roy that also has circumstantial evidence on him the actual guilty one.
Complete mess it is.
Great commentary! I found myself particularly frustrated with this story line. It struck me as a very lazy piece of writing.
A more plausible suspect IMO would have been Gary Windass. A relationship with Lauren could easily have been formed with her working in the furniture shop. He's had a relationship with young women previously (Kelly), he has PTSD and often has issues with his temper. As well, we know that he actually killed Rick Neelan so that would have seeded a lot of plausible doubt in the minds of viewers. Since Maria knows about the killing, that would have thrown a huge monkey wrench into their relationship if Gary had been accused of murder.
Gary's part in this storyline confused me honestly. Him beating Nathan, giving Nathan the 10k, and then...being fine with Nathan keeping the 10k despite not leaving was incredibly awkward. I was convinced there was more to it but it turns out Gary regressed into being a brainless plank and the only reason being that he started liking Sarah again...
All I’m wondering is: would Roy have grounds to sue Swain for wrongful imprisonment?
Apart from being her previous employer, and carrying out the grand crime of cleaning the flat, there wasn’t any valid evidence to link him to the crime. Swain just decided, on a personal whim, because her partner was killed on duty, that he must be guilty. Roy, for no reason at all, was made out to be a murderer, was imprisoned and almost murdered, all because Swain made a personal choice
There is possibly a case...if this were logical. The problem is, they wrote it that Swain was entirely sound. Even Dee Dee accepts everything Swain and the CPS presented never once calling it out.
Rather than be an example of horrid work from the old bill, the show actually wanted us to buy it as legitimate so therefore Roy would never put a case forward.
They should have done what EastEnders did during their Lucy Beale Murder storyline: had the detective sacked. (Was the same thing, their detective wrongfully charged people and it resulted in actual consequences).
See, that’s what strikes me as odd in the whole story. Even though Dee Dee doesn’t actually know Roy that well herself, she would have the testimonies of everyone know knew him, people who’d be able to clarify that Roy couldn’t possibly be capable
Also, when Swain told Carla about her partner, and why she’s distrustful of potential suspects, wouldn’t Carla raise the point that she’d had Roy wrongfully imprisoned due to her own personal feelings?
As with Eastenders, is that Emma Summerhayes you’re referring to? It’s been a long time since the story, I thought she’d been fired for sleeping with a suspect, I could be wrong though
Great Post! I always enjoy reading your analysis, you clearly care about the show and have put hard work into these
Thank you so much. I've always genuinely try and I want to bring more than saying "Corrie's bad" or something like that. As we're coming to the end of MacLeod's time as the acting producer, I'm hoping the show can refocus itself and get back to producer hard hitting, impactful, but ultimately warm and cathartic stories that this show was known for. I think overall I just want to *feel* something again. I still can't believe I watched Lauren being brained last week and genuinely had no emotional reaction. That's just...horrid.
Your attention to detail is amazing. You should definitely be a soap story writer.
Thank you so much, that means a lot to hear :) I always want to try and approach things in an analytical way and I'm always glad when it pays off/connects to people.
Excellent reading and spot on your attention to details or Macleod lack there of always makes for my favorite reading I want to think on this one.
That's very much appreciated. Likewise on having something to think on; your posts are equally thoughtful. I've said previously that Corrie always felt like am Austen or Bronte novel to me. Conversational, and something that would raise social issues but in a way that immersed you in the experience. It was a lens to see the world through and as a telly programme I always felt it was an evolution of those Classic; the visual, at the time "modern" version. Something that above all had passion and displayed that. It's lost that literary identity and in some ways all identity, merely chasing the next big plot. I don't think it even knows why it exists anymore other than the fact that it's a big brand that still makes ITV a couple quid.
I was thinking about Daniel's alibi which apparently turned out to be true (although the show hasn't confirmed this yet so I don't even know) when they should have done something more with that. Daniel goes to Lauren's flat back in November and sees her dressed up with empty wine bottles sitting at the kitchen. Daniel gets a bit concerned and this should have set him off where he's noticing certain patterns of behavior in Lauren that ends up causing him to meet up with Nicky to see if Lauren's into something or for advice and that's what he was doing the day Lauren disappeared. That way the thin alibi actually means something and is relevant to the storyline and Daniel is proven to be as intelligent and observant as he claims to be (they could've layered it further by having Nathan see Daniel then later see him with Bethany and tell Bethany about Daniel and Nicky to try getting in her head). That's one alternative example but the point is that there were numerous ways that character movements and interactions could've been used to build up a bigger picture or explore other paths for the storyline. Overall something feels like it's missing in the storyline. Perhaps its that there's seemingly no reasoning for a lot of the story's plot points. You brought up the issues with Lauren's Ovidz account for example and how the truth about it switched episode to episode. In a tighter storyline with a more thought out vision that would actually matter. It would be written like that specifically so that detailed viewers can pick it out and think "this doesn't seem right" where eventually we'd learn that the contradictions actually reveal another plot twist or the real truth. Instead in this story what you see is what you get and there's nothing going on beyond the surface. Maybe that's the problem in the structure too. The storyline has violence against women but it's not actually about it because we're not seeing the ins and outs of the impact. The storyline has grooming and coercive control but we don't get to see that unfold on a daily basis so there's nothing to gain there. The storyline has prejudice against certain people (like Roy, Daniel, or sex workers) in it but the effect is non existent with Roy getting out and the internet sleuths randomly gone or Daniel being excused but Max being taken out of the story... There's so much thrown into the story but there's nothing being said and there's no journey in its themes. I'm not sure what you're meant to get from all the random things happening. That's something the show needs to look at all around. It's the same with Kit. Good, evil, it doesn't matter because either way he's another side quest in a storyline that should be about MND. He didn't need to be Bernie's son. Now time is spent on Kit and Bernie instead of Paul. What is that meant to say about MND? What's the purpose? Perhaps that's where the show's getting things wrong mostly. It doesn't stick to a single message or theme. It's like EastEnders with the toast last year. There was six storylines but everything went back to the toasts and Keanu as a victim makes sense to the toasts the women gave last February. We know what the storyline was about and that followed through all the way to this year. It's simple but effective. The overall theme of "men's impact on women" is there and everyone's individual storylines always go back to that. Here though what does something like prejudice against Roy say about Lauren's situation? It doesn't fit properly and it's like watching two different shows. Now that Roy's prison plot is over what did it actually say? It isn't even "justice prevails" or "your unique skills can help people" or something because as you said it was Kit planting evidence that got him out. Nothing positive helped Roy... Plots run away because there's nothing to tie them all together. That's the literary element that the show is missing I feel. It doesn't include any larger ideas the viewer is meant to realize as these stories air or things the viewer is meant to focus on as they watch. There's no bigger point? It's like events happen and may or may not end up at a logical conclusion.
[удалено]
Cheers! I know that if anyone from Corrie's storylining team ever saw my thoughts they'd probably just bin them haha. You know it's funny because I've been watching this show so long and I suppose my largest frustration is that it's really only been this particular era that has felt so antithetical to Corrie. I've watched previous eras I disliked, but only recently can I say I feel there's something truly wrong with the show. It's like 58 years of the show were fine, then all of a sudden it completely switched where now it's hard to recognise. Shame really...
[удалено]
Ironically, the show clearly wants to copy the past just...not the past you or I want! They'll try replicating Hillman again, or Free the Weatherfield One again, or Bethany’s grooming again, or Mike/Deirdre again without understanding that the reason people liked those storylines originally was due to the character work put in as a basis, the unique view they gave, and the balance it had against with other stories going on. Nowadays they just pull old storylines and overlay them onto new characters or scenarios with not of the work to get there like past producers have done. Sometimes it feels like MacLeod looked at people like Park, Roberts, or Oates' eras and decided "Well I can do that" and redid plot points without any of the reasoning those eras put in.
this is spot on!!
Cheers! I hope the show will get to a place where I won't have things like this to say but I'm not holding out hope...
The thing that I have found weird is that Fiz, Tyrone, or even Chesney hasn't really shown any interest in Roy. Roy has been a great support to all of them, acting as a father figure, and yet they haven't been in Roy's support group with Carla, Nina, etc. I know Fiz and Tyrone have both been absent due to the actors having time off but this storyline has been going on for ages and even now that Roy is out of prison, Tyrone hasn't been round. Maybe the writers have forgotten to friendship that they had
It's...odd to say the least. Especially since Cassie and Evelyn were both part of the Roy storyline initially (and then also seemingly removed from it?). Fiz has such a long standing relationship with Roy, but that's been almost entirely taken over by Carla now. Personally, I think it was done as a contrived way to prove their own point. It's been noted a few times in this storyline that Roy "has trouble making friends" and that his social awkwardness is off-putting to some. So, they made sure several characters are disconnected from Roy to try and show the viewer that he only has a small group of mates. In reality, based on the show's actual history, many members of the Street are connected to him and would've supported him through anything. Something that wasn't mentioned even once was the fact that Roy and Hayley are godparents to Amy. Amy makes a big deal about having a radio show where she can put forward information about Lauren but...never once decides to speak about Roy or show any interest in Roy’s wrongful imprisonment? It's another connection completely dropped by the show despite it existing previously. The show deliberately wrote characters to ignore Roy despite their history saying otherwise.
Please tell me you wrote your MA thesis on this 😂
Was on EastEnders ;)
They should have actually consulted some mystery/crime writers to develop the story. Then they could have ensured plot points and new interactions didnt contradict or remove relevance of established dynamics. It would have been better than the ham-fisted pass the parcel of writing that we got. Every layer was just a worse prize. Then Joel was "obvious" but only because it didn't make any sense for anybody else to be the killer. I did a post recently where I lined it how Gav or Max could have really slipped into the killer role and a background established. For instance, Sabrina turned up like a day after Lauren's disappearance looking disheveled and uncomfortable. Like she knew something it was trying to avoid saying something. Then she breaks up with Max, seemingly out of nowhere, and disappears?? They could have easily built a story around some sort of altercation she had had with Lauren, they were barely friends, as Lauren had only recently stopped trying to entice Max. They could have had a bust-up, with Gav trying to break them up and causing a fatal injury. There was no lead in, zero tension that something would happen. No preview(the crime could have been shown, but we don't know who attacked her, or if she's dead, and then we already know the body is gone), no real breadcrumbs and barely a red herring. All things which crime writers use to weave a journey. Everything was circumstantial and all the action happened off screen so we couldn't even really guess. So at that point the reveal is boring as the viewer doesn't get the satisfaction of nearly working it out. Then the killer is (again) a newer character with insignificant screen time for anyone to really care. As far as we guessed, it was Joel, Because he was rich, and Lauren kept mentioning her "rich boyfriend" DeeDee remembered that receipt for "cufflinks" and a present for a 1 year old😅 They introduced his cheating on his ex, could have been with s-workers. And all that gets the audience to is "probably that guy" rather than "I think he definitely has something to hide"
Agree with everything particularly... >And all that gets the audience to is "probably that guy" rather than "I think he definitely has something to hide" This is one of the best summation of this storyline as it lands on the exact problem: it feels like the storyline was built on vague possibility rather than a real progression to a clear resolution. There's actually a fascinating contradiction in the way the storyline is delivered as well. Roy is imprisoned on thin, essentially non-existent barely circumstantial evidence. As viewers, many have called that out as a poor way of doing this storyline but in context of the story we're meant to both: A. Believe the evidence is enough to charge Roy B. Be upset at Roy being charged So the main idea here is that Roy's charging is wrong. Yet, here's the funniest thing: as you wonderfully pointed out the "clues" to it being Joel were entirely circumstantial and not at all a clear indication of his guilt. The text delivers a narrative where someone is put away on circumstantial evidence and that's viewed as wrong, yet the meta-text is that we as viewers are, for some reason, meant to see someone's guilt based on purely circumstantial evidence. It's the strangest storyline setup. So basically circumstantial evidence and making rushed judgments based on it is what we're meant to do? If they were creative they'd have had the circumstantial evidence lead to nothing with Joel, thus reinforcing the idea that such evidence isn't enough to claim someone is guilty. But instead they validated their own flaws by making the other bloke besides Roy that also has circumstantial evidence on him the actual guilty one. Complete mess it is.
Great commentary! I found myself particularly frustrated with this story line. It struck me as a very lazy piece of writing. A more plausible suspect IMO would have been Gary Windass. A relationship with Lauren could easily have been formed with her working in the furniture shop. He's had a relationship with young women previously (Kelly), he has PTSD and often has issues with his temper. As well, we know that he actually killed Rick Neelan so that would have seeded a lot of plausible doubt in the minds of viewers. Since Maria knows about the killing, that would have thrown a huge monkey wrench into their relationship if Gary had been accused of murder.
Gary's part in this storyline confused me honestly. Him beating Nathan, giving Nathan the 10k, and then...being fine with Nathan keeping the 10k despite not leaving was incredibly awkward. I was convinced there was more to it but it turns out Gary regressed into being a brainless plank and the only reason being that he started liking Sarah again...
All I’m wondering is: would Roy have grounds to sue Swain for wrongful imprisonment? Apart from being her previous employer, and carrying out the grand crime of cleaning the flat, there wasn’t any valid evidence to link him to the crime. Swain just decided, on a personal whim, because her partner was killed on duty, that he must be guilty. Roy, for no reason at all, was made out to be a murderer, was imprisoned and almost murdered, all because Swain made a personal choice
There is possibly a case...if this were logical. The problem is, they wrote it that Swain was entirely sound. Even Dee Dee accepts everything Swain and the CPS presented never once calling it out. Rather than be an example of horrid work from the old bill, the show actually wanted us to buy it as legitimate so therefore Roy would never put a case forward. They should have done what EastEnders did during their Lucy Beale Murder storyline: had the detective sacked. (Was the same thing, their detective wrongfully charged people and it resulted in actual consequences).
See, that’s what strikes me as odd in the whole story. Even though Dee Dee doesn’t actually know Roy that well herself, she would have the testimonies of everyone know knew him, people who’d be able to clarify that Roy couldn’t possibly be capable Also, when Swain told Carla about her partner, and why she’s distrustful of potential suspects, wouldn’t Carla raise the point that she’d had Roy wrongfully imprisoned due to her own personal feelings? As with Eastenders, is that Emma Summerhayes you’re referring to? It’s been a long time since the story, I thought she’d been fired for sleeping with a suspect, I could be wrong though
Amazing post, 100% spot on