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

Thursday, 27 April 2017

Nathan Curtis - Coronation Street's most evil man?

We've had villains a-plenty on Coronation Street. You can read about the top 10 Corrie villains here

But would you rate Nathan Curtis as a villain? I'm not sure I would.

Soap villains have a certain cartoonish flair to them when you think of the likes of Pat Phelan or Richard Hillman.

Yes, I know, they go around murdering people but they didn't mean to do it, not really. Richard only wanted to protect his family. John Stape only wanted to teach. 

But Nathan?  No, he knows what he's doing. He's not a villain. He's evil. Have we ever seen the likes of Nathan on Corrie before? 

The only good thing to come out of it so far is the knowledge that Nathan is leaving (Yes, he is, you can find out more about that here) and this awful storyline will soon come to an end. 

Would you say that Nathan's the most evil man that there's ever been on Coronation Street? 

See also: Coronation Street's Top 10 Baddies

Please read our advice for leaving comments on the Coronation Street Blog
All original work on Coronation Street Blog is covered by a Creative Commons License


Louby said...

Yes he is. Everything he does is planned and for his own ends. Although Bethany is 16, that's not much more than a child, and she is quite naive and unaware of what's going on.

Thinking about other evil characters I came up with Frank Foster and Terry Duckworth, not quite in the same league but still would hurt anyone for their own purposes.

Humpty Dumpty said...

The archetype soap villain has redeeming features. Terry was a bad boy but he genuinely loved his mum. Didn't stop him from doing bad things to her but she was definitely his Achilles Heel. Agree about Frank Foster. He didn't have much in the way of saving graces; his mother killing him says a lot. Pat Phelan is evil by writers' mistake. I don't think he's meant to be entirely evil but he hasn't got one pleasant or vulnerable strand to his personality. I'm suspicious that his second family coming to the Street is meant to save the character. It's too late and he should leave with them one way or another.

Nathan is a Machiavellian character whose only interests are power and money, and he manipulates his victims accordingly. If you discount those who had mental health problems,I can't think of anyone else in Corrie like him. Super evil and great to watch.

Anonymous said...

As per Jordan's interview with the actor, there's a lot we don't know about Nathan's motives or perspectives. It's Bethany's story. More may come out later... or not. From what we're shown, however, Nathan is malignant toward Mel and ruthless in his manipulations of Bethany. I know it's necessary to representing the story, but I wish it weren't so. I like the actor very much.

Laura said...

I don't know...Terry accepted money from Jack and Vera to agree to donate an organ to save his own son's life, and then left town, forcing his mother to undergo a life-threatening operation instead in order to save Tommy. Manipulating and betraying your own family on that level, and leaving your young son to battle for his life on his own is evil to me - at the very least on par with Nathan's manipulation of Bethany, someone he doesn't have any familial obligations to.

Maybe the difference is that Nathan is intentionally creating this situation, whereas Terry just took advantage of "opportunities" that came his way?

Louby said...

Terry also took advantage of being let out of prison to marry Lisa, and did a runner. He agreed to sell Tommy to Lisa's parents even though he knew Vera was emotionally attached to him, and he gave or sold to his mum a car that was a death trap and caused Judy Mallet's death. There was something else when Tommy returned as an adult, can't remember the details though.

Thoroughly nasty piece of work. Was brilliant when Jack disowned him.

Flo said...

Yes. Nathan is nasty in a "Ted Bundy" sort of way. Very much a sociopath.

popcorn said...

I think Charlie Stubbs was pretty evil too. He really enjoyed manipulating and hurting people.

Maricha said...

I agree. When Tracy killed Charlie I was very annoyed at the thought that it could get her put in jail but I didn't feel sorry for him in any way.

Louby said...

How did I forget him! His psychological torture of Shelley went on for ages.

Derelict Cucumberpatch said...

He's only cunning and manipulative if you're daft enough to fall for it.

Bobby Dazzler said...

Frank Foster was a rapist wasn't he? Tracy is a murderer and tried to sell her child, set fire to Victoria court..evil? Charlie Stubbs was a dirtbag too...don't think he killed anyone though he did scare the beejeezus out of David. David Hillman didn't mean to whack Max and Emily...pretty sure he did...left Duggie to die and stole his keys..opportunist maybe. Alan Bradley...think he was just nuts. Terry Duckworth was a piece of work...he was evil. Can't remember if he killed .

The guy that made my skin crawl? JEZ QUIGLY...NOW THAT MAN WAS SCUM
Nathan is a manipulator of little girls...scum...evil..still no match for Jez


You might also like...