Coronation Street - Current Episode Discussion - V

[Son of Cain]

Is there anything that can be done to resolve this?

Every day I have problems, several times a day.

I get the message: This Page is not working.
www.Soapboards.co.uk is unable to handle this request
HTTP Error 503

Is this what others are seeing.
This on top of the isual problems I have, of having to log-in every time I visit, post, thank or change page.
It is hard work, this site.

[lizann]

Every day I have problems, several times a day.

I get the message: This Page is not working.
www.Soapboards.co.uk is unable to handle this request
HTTP Error 503

Is this what others are seeing.
This on top of the isual problems I have, of having to log-in every time I visit, post, thank or change page.
It is hard work, this site.

yes same, heard nothing from norman about it

[bratface]

Is there anything that can be done to resolve this?

They could update or get BETTER servers?

[Dennis tanner]

What is Detective Kit up to with PC Tinker?

He wants him to be his creature

[Dennis tanner]

Sometimes you have to question Sarah's sanity. She finds her flat has been broken into, she thinks they might still be there, she tells Nick she is going to get out. So what does she do? She goes into the flat, instead of calling the police. Good judgement or what?

Do all soap characters have a crowbar? How many times do we see them produce one at short notice? How many ordinary people actually have one in their home?

Some soap characters have baseball bats but never play baseball

[Perdita]

Every day I have problems, several times a day.

I get the message: This Page is not working.
www.Soapboards.co.uk is unable to handle this request
HTTP Error 503

Is this what others are seeing.
This on top of the isual problems I have, of having to log-in every time I visit, post, thank or change page.
It is hard work, this site.

I get the HTTP Error 503 message every day, touch wood, not the log in problems you have, think I had it once since the server problems started.

[parkerman]

I find it strange that Brian had some random customer's landlord's number on his phone.

[Dennis tanner]

I find it strange that Brian had some random customer's landlord's number on his phone.

One of many who complain about the papers not being delivered.

[parkerman]

I think I am about to get very irritated by the way this Joel/Lauren story is going. It is a microcosm of Corrie with the number of coincidences and fortunate circumstances just happening in this one storyline.

[bratface]

I think I am about to get very irritated by the way this Joel/Lauren story is going. It is a microcosm of Corrie with the number of coincidences and fortunate circumstances just happening in this one storyline.

Here is an opinion by a regular poster (midnightmitchell2019) on the Corrie Street Reddit board (https://www.reddit.com/r/coronations...esnt_add_up/):

This Lauren Storyline still doesn't add up

Warning: incredibly long post ahead, please grab a cuppa for your sanity

Last week saw Lauren?s return and, acting aside, there's elements within the episode that clash with the overall narrative.

The major issue: despite being a flashback episode, it explains essentially nothing.

Most of the episode is dedicated to showing Joel being an abusive rapist. While appropriately dark, this is an element of the story that didn?t actually need much clarification. Prior to this, the show already revealed he?d beat in Lauren?s nut and left her with a bleeding wound. Joel being horrific was established back in May and there?s nothing in this episode that offers any new revelation for their dynamic.

It?s about presenting Joel the abuser rather than Joel the boyfriend, yet it?s the latter that needed time and attention.

For example, take the reason for the initial phone call in October; Lauren wanting to pay back the rent money Joel gave her. Lauren tells Joel that she asked him for the money because he?s the only one that she could go to.

Before this, the only flashback scene is Joel and her in the police station and when going back to episodes in September 2023 the only scene between them is Lauren leaving the police station and them parting ways.

So given that: Why does Lauren say Joel is the ?only? one she can go to for help?

At this point, she?s encountered quite a few people on the Street that has went out of their way to help her, provide her with aid, offer her legitimate help, etc. Roy alone, back in September, was wanting to give her more. If the reason she decides against anyone on the Street is because she feels like a burden; that?s all well and good but the flashbacks don?t establish this.

They skip from the police station to Lauren apparently being already dependent on Joel?s help. More so, why would Lauren trust Joel anyway? When she was charged, he did offer her additional help but ? since she?s usually quite distrustful ? what made her feel Joel was a good option? There weren?t any special moments between them where he proved himself to be different than most. One interaction and then she?s immediately vulnerable with him.

What did Joel do to emotional and mentally isolate her? What did he do that convinced her that he?d be the only one to help or rather, that a professional solicitor like him would even help with something like this?

Considering this is meant to represent grooming, shouldn?t this process and how Joel manipulated her properly been included instead of skipping immediately to him being abusive? In a sense, Joel being able to turn Lauren?s mind is arguably the most important part of the storyline. Especially considering she?s someone that?s shown to be street wise and hard. If, in her mind, she didn?t want to be a burden to others, why be a burden to Joel, then?

What was it about Joel that made her immediately be taken in by him, shed her usual front, and completely believe he?d help in a way no one else would? Of course, it?s possible to come up with reasons, but considering this was a flashback episode that was meant to explain the relationship the viewer shouldn?t need to fill in the blanks or construct the foundation for the story on their own.

With that, it essentially breaks an accepted writing rule of telling rather than showing. It doesn?t accurately showcase how Joel broke Lauren down, its simply stated in the conversation between the two, on one hand ruining the impact, and on the other taking away any sort of actual valuable information to be gained from the show portraying grooming; there?s no signs to spot and nothing to take away.

This leads into a large problem?the episode doesn?t really fit with what was shown onscreen.

Back in January, Lauren calls Joel and breaks up with him. The phone conversation includes her feeling underappreciated and disrespected, remarking that her mates think Joel doesn?t exist and she finds that upsetting with ? based on her response ? Joel responding that it isn?t his problem. She then says she wants to be treated like a ?normal girlfriend.?

With that in mind: why would Lauren think that Joel would ever do this? Ignoring the abuse for a minute, Joel is with Dee Dee. Why would Joel go out with Lauren on his arm when he?s in a relationship? Why would Lauren think that Joel, a thirty-year-old solicitor, would want to meet up with her mates? Better, why would Lauren believe that Max and Sabrina would accept someone like Joel being her boyfriend?

While it?s easy to say Lauren was simply gaslit by Joel into believing she was meant to really be his girlfriend and what he?s doing is fine, this isn?t supported by the flashbacks. In the flashbacks, as early as the first time the viewer sees Joel sleep with her, Lauren is uncomfortable, disturbed, and upset. This continues and at no point is Lauren taken in by Joel, instead she seems increasing more disgusted by him. By the time he?s putting the necklace around her (which she received back in December), she?s in tears just by his touch alone.

The flashbacks show that Lauren is not with Joel because she believes he?s a good boyfriend, and they also show that she isn?t taken in by his actions; she knows this is wrong but feels stuck because of her finances.

This creates an issue with the idea that she would then both believe Joel would want to treat her like a regular girlfriend and that Joel meeting her mates would be a good idea.

Worse: going by the flashbacks, the episode conveniently ignores the January conversation.

Notice how it jumps from the necklace (December) to Lauren having the bruises Bobby found (February). This gives a suggestion that there were no ideas on how to reconcile both the conversation in January - and the gap of time where Joel apparently leaves her alone entirely (17th January up to the 15th February) ? so the writers decided to shrug it off and pretend in doesn?t exist.

This extends to other details as well.

Somehow, of all the elements to leave out, the show decided to ignore how Lauren, having had her nut caved in by several hits to the back of her skull managed to get out of the flat and survive with, apparently, no need for proper medical attention. She is then homeless, but, despite all this, can successfully sustain a pregnancy.

More so, a large part of the Roy imprisonment storyline was the internet sleuths. Combined with this was several public statements regarding Lauren?s disappearance and murder.

In total there were: missing posters, numerous online posts by the sleuths, an in-person and live streamed public vigil, online posts from her mates, and an official police reconstruction.

Yet, through all this publicity Lauren still managed to stay under the radar. It?s not so much that it?s unbelievable she wasn?t noticed; rather why was there so many public appeals included if it wasn?t going to be used as a checkov?s gun?

Instead of having Lauren randomly pop up at Roy?s hospital bed, why not have one of those public statements lead to a sighting?

Consider the messages to Lauren as well. Back in May, Dee Dee receives messages from Ovidz that contain a client of Lauren?s being threatening to her.

Now, on one hand there?s already a continuity issue. Back in February, Lauren reveals to Max and Sabrina that she?s on Ovidz. Around two weeks later, Max and Bobby look into Lauren?s Ovidz accounts and Max states that Lauren just created the account when he found out (in February) so there?s nothing on it.

If that?s the case who was subscribing to her? Were they subscribing to an entirely empty account?

Ignoring this for a second, apparently, the messages Dee Dee got were written with grammar similar to Roy (how she didn?t notice semicolons and commas and genuinely thought the messages were completely unlike Roy is another mystery). In his texts to Betsy, the show specifically makes a point of showing that Joel texts with very precise punctuation and proper grammar.

However, in the flashbacks Ovidz doesn?t come up. Clearly Lauren didn?t meet Joel on Ovidz, so its easy to suspect that the messages were simply from an upset client. However, if that?s the case, why show Joel?s grammar and present that as a [new] piece of evidence for the audience?

What actually happened to Ovidz and Lauren?s relationship to it in general?

Additionally, one of the pieces of evidence that Swain uses against Roy is the used condom wrapper.

One question is how it made its way underneath the blanket on the sofa, but more so each time that Joel sexually assaults Lauren its shown that he?s dressed as normal. So how were there no prints ? or rather not even the suggestion of any other prints ? on it? It wouldn?t have been cleaned (unless Lauren took the wrapper, washed it, then stuck it under the blanket) so something should have been left on there.

The only time Joel is shown to be using gloves is the day he brains her, but it?s clear that he doesn?t rape her that day. The implication then is that Joel bought the packet of condoms, took one condom out, put that in his wallet, took it out of his wallet, opened it, then disposed of it under the blanket all with gloves on?

Had the wrapper been found by Roy, binned, and never seen again it would be easy to pass it off as something used at some point and it was only shown to prove that Lauren was sleeping with someone. However, to have it resurface during the interviews with Roy makes it part of the investigation and it?s awkward to not then bring that up.

There?s pieces of the story simply unused or thrown out, making it questionable as to why they were added in to begin with. It?s as though SO much was placed into the storyline that writers weren?t sure how to properly use each piece and decided to cherry pick what they wanted to run with.

It?s not necessarily a major sin on its own, but it showcases a lack of planning for the storytelling.

On top of all this, there are some continuity issues.

In the flashbacks, Lauren moves into Evelyn?s flat and tells Joel something along the lines of, ?I thought I was going to be charged yesterday.?

However, back in the 11th September episode (when she gets the flat), Lauren states that Roy paid for a B&B for two nights [after she was charged], so really she wasn?t going to be charged ?yesterday,? it would have been two days ago. Does it matter? Not really, but it shows a lack of attention to detail.

Ultimately, it just seems like this story had no clear direction and was completely about throwing whatever they could come up with in the moment at the screen.

The episode spends about thirty minutes on flashback, but every flashback is the same as the previous?Joel being a *******.

It doesn?t truly get into any details about grooming. It doesn?t show the real process that Joel used to groom her (or rather no more than a two-minute internet article would). It doesn?t truly provide anything about Lauren?s mental state at the time or, more importantly, anything new that the viewer didn?t already know. The whole episode is a restatement of Lauren having been abused. Nothing fresh or creative on that.

For a storyline that is meant to be ?blockbuster,? it fails at creating any real sense of progression, depth, or proper exploration. All the story amounts to is repeated scenes of violence with tropes instead of themes, and shock instead of mature storytelling.