ter06 Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 I am going to start this thread by saying I love Georgie Parker and think she is a great addition to the show. However, I think that they have almost created a new character who just happens to be Alf's daughter and called Roo! Roo moved back to the Bay permanently a year ago. In this year, not one piece of her history has been explored. Roo left the Bay a bad girl and came back twenty one years later as a goody two shoes. I know people change, but I feel we are being cheated. What happened to Roo in those twenty one years? Did she ever marry? Or have any long relationships? Any dark secrets waiting to be uncovered? Does anyone else feel like we are losing out here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julez Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yes, agree with your comments. I like that they brought Roo back so would rather they explored that than have created a new character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadyctslover Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 I agree. I think Georgie is great, and I'm glad she is portraying such an important character. I just wish she was being given something more interesting to do, rather than Harvey drama. It would be nice if her history was given more focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ranger 1 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Whilst I disagree with the point about her being a bad girl when she left(she'd pretty much completely reformed by the end of 1988), it is strange that they don't seem particularly interested in exploring what the character did in the time she was away:It does seem like she never married, which is consistent with the way she's been referred to during her absence, but all the hints about money troubles and a disastrous relationship when she turned up just seemed to be forgotten about. I think the exploration of the character's history has been a bit hit and miss.Her relationship with Alf is pretty much spot on, especially in the early days:Having her abruptly apologise for causing trouble when she was younger, as if she hadn't had any opportunity to do so in the past twenty years, was an insanity along the line of Carly telling Pippa "I'm sorry I was a bit mean to Bobby twelve and a half years ago." The relationship with Morag, at least to start with, felt like the current writers had never actually seen them together;Morag used to dote on Roo and by the time she left it was Roo being disgusted at Morag's bad behaviour, yet somehow it morphed into Morag looking down on Roo and saying she was always trouble.Thankfully they did eventually pull them out of that. I'm kind of on the fence, I suppose.I'm not a fan of recasts but I guess twenty-one years is an acceptable gap.They could have given Georgie Parker a new character but once you accept that she's Roo, I think most of the problems would exist if they'd rehired Justine Clarke and given her the same scripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ter06 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Yeah, I've got no problem with the fact Roo was recast - theres probably only a small percentage of viewers who remember Roo but I just feel that there are so many missed opportunities as far as the character goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630si Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Yeah, I've got no problem with the fact Roo was recast - theres probably only a small percentage of viewers who remember Roo but I just feel that there are so many missed opportunities as far as the character goes. Eventually, somebody will rock up to summer bay and Roo will be all panicky. And then well get the story of what happened probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau_t Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 I was also going to reply to nitpick about Roo not being a bad girl at all by the time she left in 1989, but Red Ranger bet me to it. But I completely agree with the point of this thread, she could be anybody really. It doesn't feel like she is "Roo" because they really haven't explored what happened to her after she left the Bay and while it is true that she had reformed to a good girl by the time she left in 1989, she was still very much troubled and haunted by the "dark side" of her personality. It was still inside her and she was terrified of letting it out again. I really wanted to see some of that inner turmoil explored in her now as an adult but the writers haven't seemed remotely interested in that. To give them their dues they made a LOT of referneces to Roo's less than saintly past in the Bay when she first came back, but (and I really don't understand WHY), they haven't seemed remotely interested in using this aspect of her personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ter06 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 I was 7 in 1989 and haven't seen repeats of The Early Years, I just have vague recollections of her being a bad girl so forgive me for not remembering she reformed!! But the basis of the thread is still the same, they have ignored her past. I was impressed her first few episodes back because it was acknowledged but swiftly forgotten about. And they've really gotten her relationship with Morag wrong, Morag would never pack Roo off to a caravan, she was her little protégée and loved her!! It's a bit like Irene and Marilyn again where new writers are obviously aware of past characters but don't know how to write for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 I'd agree in general that I think they could have used the past better with Roo and especially Marilyn I believe, but on a more general point I do believe it's also careful to make sure as fans we don't come up with storylines that in effect show off how much we know the show. I think I remember reading a post about 7-8 years back about someone who had sent a script in to Corrie looking to become a writer and by all accounts it sucked, but he was taken on as a continuity person or something. Because the script he wrote fell into a trap of referring to things that happened and had the characters talking in a way that people just don't talk. And whilst they are times yes, when you need to look back, you need to be careful that you are also looking forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau_t Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 I'd agree in general that I think they could have used the past better with Roo and especially Marilyn I believe, but on a more general point I do believe it's also careful to make sure as fans we don't come up with storylines that in effect show off how much we know the show. I think I remember reading a post about 7-8 years back about someone who had sent a script in to Corrie looking to become a writer and by all accounts it sucked, but he was taken on as a continuity person or something. Because the script he wrote fell into a trap of referring to things that happened and had the characters talking in a way that people just don't talk. And whilst they are times yes, when you need to look back, you need to be careful that you are also looking forward. But this brings us to ter06's original point - why not just create a new character? What is the point of recasting and returning an original character if you're not interested in who she once was and developping that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.