Cosy crimes and gritty sagas by Corrie Blog editor Glenda, published by Headline. Click pic below!

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Why no BAFTA nomination for Corrie?

It's not been a good year for Coronation Street so far as awards ceremonies go. And with the nominations released this week for the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) I was shocked to see that Corrie wasn't even nominated. No, not for anything. The four shows nominated under Best Continuing Drama were EastEnders, Emmerdale, The Bill and Casualty.

Is Coronation Street really that bad?

5 comments:

Ado said...

Is Corrie really that bad? I dunno. I do know that it's hardly rivetting at present. If it gets any slower it'll grind to a halt. Time for Granada to do some re-thinking. Ditch the dead wood - of which there is plenty and employ writers with an ounce of imagination...And for goodness sake Corrie, stop stereo typing every character that comes on to'cobbles!

Danny-K said...

Good job I kept a copy of this rambling post - apologies if it appears twice but the original has
vanished into cyberspace and is floating about up there somewhere - so I'll try once again -

POST BEGINS -
Omitting Corrie from nominations this time round is not without merit. I watch Corrie regularly - but this last month I'm starting to miss episodes - out of choice.

I forgave the storyline editors for the budding (and soon to be full-on), romance between Maria and her husbands murderer, Tony - even though it's totally, totally, implausible.

- BUT, the carry-on with Becky on her wedding day was the last straw! Particularly as they rubbed salt into the wound by having Steve behave as the guilty party and for Becky to buy in to that until someone saw sense and think: 'well we better get her to fess up at some point'!

Someone on the story editing team is responsible for changing Corrie from character-led 'continuing drama' to a plot-led 'continuing drama' (perhaps that's where the problem lies; the day they stopped referring to themselves as soaps) - and thus have well-defined characters behave implausibly just to move the story in the direction planned out at editorial meetings.

Corrie deserved to be omitted! Let it be a warning and a rebuke, if nothing else than from fans like myself.

P.S. It's always been my understanding that soaps don't have to have their characters behave realistically, only creditably. The two storylines I've highlighted are just not credible. Dev & his girlfriend's mother was another, but there's no need to go on - the BAFTA omission has spoken up for me.

Don't misinterpret my post. If I didn't care about Corrie I wouldn't even comment.

The BAFTA omission is serious - arses need kicking - and no mistake!

Glenda Young said...

Good posts to you both above. I'm not sure what the criteria is for putting sometihng forward for nomination but who decides for instance, that The Bill is "better" than Coronation Street? Aren't they good in their own ways? Isn't one more exciting and thrilling (Bill) and one better written (Corrie) for instance? Who decides? What criteria do they use? Mind you saying that, I'm also not sure that weddings, fires, murders and so on are the way forward for Coronation Street. Bring on the picallili stains and poems about scaffolding (this week's update) instead!

Anonymous said...

I've watched Corrie for nigh on 30 years. Right now in NZ being a year behind we are up to the storylines of Ryan being swapped at birth (ho hum) and the Liam/Maria/Carla carry on. Both storylines are dull. For me it's the rich humour of the dialogue that I love and at present it it's just not there. There are some great characters in the cast, but the storylines of swapped babies at birth belong on some tacky little American/teen soap. Bring back the humour and the originality of the writing and then you might be up for a BAFTA next year.

Danny-K said...

Yes Glenda, just why should the soaps be thrown into the same category as The Bill and Casualty?

The Bill IS a 'Continuing Drama', as is, Casualty. There may be light moments but they are, let's face it, primarily all about DRAMA - first, second and last!

The soaps are NOT Continuing Drama IMOpinion - they operate on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages principle (some with extra lashings of comedic moments more than others) the stalwart default setting for soaps since they were devised. At any one point the soaps will have a story involving one of those three as a current story - especially so as a Christmas week special.

The Bill and Casualty will focus more on the procedural expertise of the chosen profession of the characters, with the difficulties they often encounter in carrying out their jobs. Out-and-out DRAMA. You'll have to think hard, before finding a story of characters marrying each other on a regular basis in those two
- but the soaps, all the time!

They're soaps. That's what they do; which is why some often lay the accusation of melodrama at the feet of the soaps, but never The Bill or Casualty, which ARE Continuing Dramas.

Time to give the soaps their own category back - they are not continuing drama - they're soaps!

Otherwise we'll just get more ludicrous storylines of characters acting out of character to propel a story-editor's continuing-drama-story along.

Maria jumping into bed with Tony?
What!?! Sheesh! Pulleez, gimme a break with this 'continuing drama' imperative of the story editors.

GRITTY SAGAS BY CORRIE BLOG EDITOR GLENDA YOUNG, PUBLISHED BY HEADLINE. CLICK PIC BELOW!

You might also like...

GRITTY SAGAS BY CORRIE BLOG EDITOR GLENDA YOUNG, PUBLISHED BY HEADLINE. CLICK PIC BELOW!