The recent news that the Rovers may (or may not) succumb to another fire took me rather by surprise. I can see the logic of doing this if the powers that be are trying to find a way to build a new set, but what I cannot understand is why they would consider making the character of Michelle Connor the new Rovers landlady.
I mean really, do the Corrie bosses never listen or learn from past mistakes?
It's not the idea of making Michelle the landlady that annoys me most. Even though Michelle has been a less than favourite character of mine since all that rubbish with the two sons, which she never mentions, even though she is now bringing up a son who isn't her own, with a different head. I also don't like the effect she has on Steve, a favourite character of mine. It didn't work the first time and it doesn't work now.

There have been several attempts at this in recent years and despite the varying talents of the actors involved it never comes off. Sean Tully was a flavour of the month for a time, however now the character receives a fair amount of criticism and isn't currently carrying a major storyline. Tracy-luv Barlow is another one. Again and again she has taken centre stage in numerous ridiculous and rehashed stories in the vain hope we will take to her. Michelle Connor herself was flavour of the month for quite some time until the aforementioned child-swap story which plumbed new depths!

In the old days characters were allowed to develop over time. They built up their screen time and storyline potential gradually, allowing the viewers to get used to them, learn more about them and finally take to them and appreciate their presence. These days characters seem to explode into Weatherfield and are shoved down our throats from the get go!

Anyway, I'm finished ranting now. I'm off to watch some classic Annie Walker to remind me of what a proper Rovers Return landlady should be like.
As usual, let me know your thoughts!
Follow the Bluenose CorrieBlog on Twitter and Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment