We always get loads of interesting comments posted on this blog. It's really wonderful when something you blog about is well received or generates discussion. One theme seems to run through a lot of discussions though - disliking the Corrie producer.I don't know if this is a recent phenomenon. We revere producers from the good old days like H.V Kershaw or the legendary BIll Podmore, however more recent incumbents of this role have faired less well. Maybe it's because the entire medium of television and the media has changed during Corrie's long run, who knows? Certainly Corrie producers are much more visible these days.
The current producer, Stuart Blackburn, receives his fair share of criticism from across the board. I've seen plenty of comments warning us that Mr Blackburn will do the same to our favourite show as he did to Emmerdale. As I've never watched Emmerdale, I don't really know what that means.
Stuart Blackburn isn't alone though. His predecessor Phil Collinson was frequently targeted as the villain of the piece with claims that he didn't understand the essence of Coronation Street and was merely interested in filling the show full of his mates. Before Phil came Kim Crowther and she too faced criticism for the storylines she introduced and the castings she made. Going back further, I remember the late Jane MacNaught coming in for serious complaints when she introduced more issue-led storylines in the early 2000s. I certainly remember the outrage that came with Toyah's rape storyline and Alma's death due to cervical cancer. Perhaps one of the most controversial Corrie producers of all time was Brian Park, dubbed the "axe man" for killing off Derek Wilton and sacking many favourite, longstanding actors.
So why do fans always seem to have it in for the Corrie producer? Is it because we think we could do the job better? It's clear to me that whoever does sit in the producer's chair these days needs a thick skin to survive!
Follow me on Twitter @GraemeN82
Download our App | Follow on Twitter @CoroStreetBlog | Like on Facebook
AlCreative Commons License
l original work on the Coronation Street Blog is covered by a
13 comments:
Corrie has *always* had storylines, characters and casting that turned out to be mistakes. Always. Nobody's perfect. The Powers That Be have a lot of pressure to get the ratings up and viewes turning on and these days it's a lot more difficult than it used to be. There is a lot more choice and the days of 15 to 18 million viewers for a top episode are long gone.
I think all the producers do the best they can. Yes they make mistakes, and probably what we think of is a big mistake looked good on paper or in concept. Sometimes they're tied by an actor wanting to leave or having to drop out suddenly due to unexpected circumstances, illness etc. They have to scramble.
Coronation Street has had to change to keep up with the competition and I have always found that I've enjoyed it overall even with the changes and sometimes, storylines or characters I felt were mistakes. This too shall pass. Corrie is still better than most on the air.
It's the same for football supporters. When your team is doing well, the manager's a hero but when it's doing badly, the manager comes in for a lot of flak. Fans and supporters love their team/soap and feel entitled to praise and criticise where necessary. My objection to the current wave of producers is that they're now spin doctors, as well. I object to being told a storyline/character/actor is brilliant when the evidence of my own eyes tells me the opposite. Soap audiences have changed. You can see on this site that many comments are about story arcs, character development, background music and camera angles. You would never have heard Corrie fans discussing those things back in the 70's and 80's. It was a simpler time when we were fully engaged with the character and barely knew the actor - except the high profile ones. This blogsite is self-selective. If you're a fan who is happy to be served 30 minutes of entertainment with all its flaws, or you want to drool over an actor's physical appearance, you probably wouldn't come here. Equally, you'd never find me on a site that didn't go in for plot and character analysis. I think most of the criticism that the producers get here is constructive. It's hard for soap producers these days but I do think they need to catch up with the demographics of their audience.
I think you summed up my thoughts on this matter very well Humpty Dumpty.
I could add more, but suffice to say that after decades of watching a programme that I loved so much and thought would never change, it has done.
Now, like the reality type shows that a large percentage of today's viewers love,Coronation Street has become a show that I'm not proud to say I enjoy, in fact, every day I watch less, until the habit to do so does pass.
Inevitable in a place where the show is put under the microscope.
I think the modern producers are under more pressure than previous ones. The programme Bill Podmore ran was magnitudes smaller in every respect.
It's the life cycle of a corrie producer. First announced, mostly it's a positive response (mainly because they will be replacing the last lothed producer). Six months in people aren't sure, figure they are still working on the previous much lothed producers plot lines. Twelve months in, hate them, they are running the show, it will never be the same again, awful plot lines, hate the characters they use, hate it, hate it all. Eighteen months they will be lothed, come back last lothed producer all is forgiven. A new producer is announced and the cycle starts all over again.
Coronation Street is no different from any other huge business that started off small, gained immense popularity over the many years, became much bigger, with the thought that if a little is good, lots more will be better. It's trying to keep up with award winning competitors, trying to keep current but has managed to lose a very large proportion of it's loyal viewers along the way.
Worth it?
Most definitely if it continues to win accolades at the tv award ceremonies.
You only have to look at Eastenders right now (spit) It's on fire and has been since new Producer Domenic Treadwell-Collins took over. The first thing DTC did was hire new team of writers (including our very own Daran Little) and more importantly a new senior story producer. DTC leads from the front and together with the new storyliner came up with the first 3 months worth of storylines before he started. I believe Martin Sterling is corries senior storyliner and we have also heard about junior associate Farquan Ackter. I believe
the buck stops with the producer (Stuart Blackburn) He or she steers the storyliners to what is good and what is rubbish. It may be true that viewers are never happy and always think they can do better but when a soap producer is bad the number of complaints on social media usually sky rocket. I have watched corrie & EE for many years and both have had good and bad producers. I also believe that as an ensemble everyone should get a turn. No one should take centre stage for more than 3 months. EE has 54 characters, Corrie has 75 but only I can only think of about 10 who continually are on screen. Tina, steve, michelle, carla, peter, nick, leanne, kal, windasses. With such a big cast what was SB thinking introducing more families like Kal's and Steph's. on a positive note i believe SB has brought more humour to the scripts and more scenes of idle chit chat. But i don't like the personality change in Rita and Todd and Michelle. I could go on but lets just hope SB's contract comes to an end soon and the powers that be read this blog.
I think you are right Barrie, too many characters are allowed to dominate endlessly. I don't like the personality changes either. I cannot comment on EE as I don't watch it, but it wasn't that long ago it was supposedly on its last legs
Weatherfield is a nation apart and the producer is its PM. In the history of democracy there has never a PM or President who increased his popularity percentages as his or her term progressed. The buck stops with whoever is on top and so all grievances must make their way to the PM's feet. If a man or woman is not strong enough to handle the insults along with the adulation then he or she should not seek that office.
Producers have the power to fix "mistakes" over time --of course they cannot always predict how a character or storyline will work out, but they have the time and they have the authority over the writing and casting to effect small and big changes. They also have a multitude of viewer feedback -- many from long-time and loyal viewers who provide constructive criticism, not just thumbs up or down. So I don't think there's a valid excuse for producers who cannot run a tight ship and keep to standards. The evidence is right there in front of us -- lazy-ass writing and egotistical decision-making that does not take into account the best interests of the viewers or preserving show quality.
I understand the competitive context and fragmented TV audiences of today versus the old days, but that really isn't the problem or an excuse but a cop out for highly paid, trained and experienced TV/entertainment professionals. A show that has the Corrie history and the brand carries with it a huge reserve of 'grace' and room reserved by a loyal audience prepared to be patient for improvements. Unfortunately, that patience is wearing thin and the confidence that the ship will be turning around is rapidly fading. :-(
---JS from Western Canada
Michelle's personality hasn't changed. She's always been bossy and has always dragged Steve down. She did the first time around and she's doing it now. Todd's has evolved into what he is now. When he visited with Jules a few years ago (before SB) he was snobby and an pain in the backside and he's only got worse.
I am a fan that's a lot more forgiving, I guess. I enjoy a lot more of Corrie than I dislike. There's really very little that i'm not enjoying or at least interested in lately.
Personalities evolve, de-evolve or perhaps stay the same for the longest time. It isn't whether a story character goes one way or the other or stay the same. It is "HOW" and how much we see that change and whether the story of such transformation or NOT is convincing, interesting and/or entertaining. We saw Todd I think for one episode or a very short time and somehow he's turned into a snob because we saw that he appeared to be ashamed of his family when he acquired an upper-crust boyfriend. This wouldn't be what I call a credible change of character since he seems to have gotten snoby off-screen. As for Michelle, she's still the same ol' same ol' harpie and shrieking high maintenance girlfriend who got dumped by Steve for Becky. Perhaps she SHOULD have changed...she's lost two brothers and gone through quite a lot -- a son who's not her son who then came back with an entirely, nasty personality...
Fine, fine if there are viewers who are content with the overall quality of the show. I just think that there are a significant portion out there who have their fingers on the fast forward button of their remote control or their computer screens or they are missing whole episodes and ready to turn to other shows that are soap opera-like -- an ensemble cast with some plotlines that continue over several episodes.
Never mind the producers, where is it that we can productively send our complaints about the absolutely ridiculous, amateurish writing that goes on? It's not funny, it's not dramatic, who are these writers and how is it they got and keep their jobs?! Utter madness!! You can change producers like you change socks and none of it matters if you still have the same trash story lines being pumped out.
Post a Comment