This is the whole reason they have an archivist - to make sure blunders like these don't happen. They even have a database of every story, every character, every little detail. They shouldn't waste their money having an archive office if they think their own history's not important. And screwing up or forgetting events from the past has now happened on more than one occasion.
I wouldn't care but it's not a minor, forgettable detail that they missed - Kevin/Alison/Baby Jake was a huge story at the time!
What I don't get is how the actor who plays Kevin didnt flag it up, nor the actress who plays Sally. I know it would have been late in the day that they got the scripts but still enough time to re-written / amended if need b.
There are always going to be plot oversights in soap. Most of the time it's amusing to spot and comment on them.
They are forgiveable if they are trivial (e.g. Ena Sharples eclairs, Rovers toilets in Ken's living room))
They are forgiveable if it's required for an absence death of cast member (e.g. Bev being so distressed at her brothers passing Dierdre cannot go home for a couple of days to see Ken or go to her own daughters wedding)
]They are forgiveable if a previous storyline is grossly misconceived (Ryan baby swap)
They are even forgiveable if it's needed for a storyline to work (e.g. Steve rebuying the pub despite being vitually bankrupt)
This gaping hole is not forgiveable, tho. Rita is a close friend of Kevin and Sally - she'd remember what happened to Jake. And Sarah would have been horrified about the kidnap, as it happened with her own baby. (Instead her and callum are dropping cheap little put downs.)
What I find most frustrating of all is that the link between that story from 2000 could have greatly enriched this one. Kevin reliving the agony of losing his baby son, would have increased Jenny's huge feelings of guilt.
Am I going to lose sleep over it ? No, but these massive clangers spoil the enjoyment for the viewer.
There are always going to be plot oversights in soap. Most of the time it's amusing to spot and comment on them.
They are forgiveable if they are trivial (e.g. Ena Sharples eclairs, Rovers toilets in Ken's living room))
They are forgiveable if it's required for an absence death of cast member (e.g. Bev being so distressed at her brothers passing Dierdre cannot go home for a couple of days to see Ken or go to her own daughters wedding)
]They are forgiveable if a previous storyline is grossly misconceived (Ryan baby swap)
They are even forgiveable if it's needed for a storyline to work (e.g. Steve rebuying the pub despite being vitually bankrupt)
This gaping hole is not forgiveable, tho. Rita is a close friend of Kevin and Sally - she'd remember what happened to Jake. And Sarah would have been horrified about the kidnap, as it happened with her own baby. (Instead her and callum are dropping cheap little put downs.)
What I find most frustrating of all is that the link between that story from 2000 could have greatly enriched this one. Kevin reliving the agony of losing his baby son, would have increased Jenny's huge feelings of guilt.
Am I going to lose sleep over it ? No, but these massive clangers spoil the enjoyment for the viewer.
what about Ena's eclairs? hahaha dunno why that has sprung out at me
All very good comments. The problem is as David Wright said there are too many episodes. The quality hasn't been consistently there since it went to 5 episodes & its a problem all the soaps have. I remember when Emmerdale used to be on only twice a week i used to be gutted when it finished on Thursday cos i'd have to wait til the following Tuesday for the next episode! Then it started showing every week night & the quality nosedived.All the soaps just become production lines quickly spewing stuff out then forgetting it & spewing out more ill though out nonsense. Mistakes are also inevitable as everything is written & filmed in such a rush without being properly checked. The only answer for improving quality is to have less episodes but ITV will never do that as despite how poor their soaps have become they still attract some of the channels highest viewing figures. So the more they show them the more lucrative advertising deals they can do plus the soaps will be relatively cheap to make. If they reduce the number of episodes they suddenly have empty slots to fill which is going to cost money. Eventually viewing figures may dwindle to a point where they are forced to do something but thats probably a very long way off.
In regards to this particular blunder I'm amazed at how it could happen. I understand the writers may not be fans of the show but its hard to believe that NO-ONE, not the archivist, any of the actors involved in the Alison/Jake storyline or proofreaders, editors anyone on the show picked up on it. It makes u wonder what the atmosphere is behind scenes. Did Michael le Vell or someone else say something but were ignored? Or does nobody care anymore they just phone it in & collect the money?
what about Ena's eclairs? hahaha dunno why that has sprung out at me
It's an anecdote from the early days of Corrie that often gets told. In the very first episode Ena famously asks Florrie Lindley in the corner shop for half a dozen fancies "and no eclairs" (the inference being she doesn't like them). Apparently five or six years later she was seen to be buying or possibly eating an eclair, and at least one eagle-eyed viewer wrote in to point out the gaffe!
I think it ridiculous. It's like Kevin has completely forgot all about him and Alison. People in a different thread were saying he said something about losing 2 kids but I'm not sure If he meant Jack and Jake or Jack and Tom. Also as someone else said it was really similar to Alison kidnapping Bethany but nothing was said. I don't know why they seem to have erased Alison and Jake out of Corrie history.
Even Bethany, Sarah, Gail, and David forgot about it
There are always going to be plot oversights in soap. Most of the time it's amusing to spot and comment on them.
They are forgiveable if they are trivial (e.g. Ena Sharples eclairs, Rovers toilets in Ken's living room))
They are forgiveable if it's required for an absence death of cast member (e.g. Bev being so distressed at her brothers passing Dierdre cannot go home for a couple of days to see Ken or go to her own daughters wedding)
]They are forgiveable if a previous storyline is grossly misconceived (Ryan baby swap)
They are even forgiveable if it's needed for a storyline to work (e.g. Steve rebuying the pub despite being vitually bankrupt)
This gaping hole is not forgiveable, tho. Rita is a close friend of Kevin and Sally - she'd remember what happened to Jake. And Sarah would have been horrified about the kidnap, as it happened with her own baby. (Instead her and callum are dropping cheap little put downs.)
What I find most frustrating of all is that the link between that story from 2000 could have greatly enriched this one. Kevin reliving the agony of losing his baby son, would have increased Jenny's huge feelings of guilt.
Am I going to lose sleep over it ? No, but these massive clangers spoil the enjoyment for the viewer.
Exactly, with a small trivial thing it can be laughed off & become a joke. But this was a huge storyline & an important part of Kevin's past. As Rita kept saying "there can't be anything worse than losing a child" (whilst Kevin sat mute staring into space?!?!?) Its not something you'd forget, neither would Rita, Sophie, Sarah, Gail, David & Sally who were all involved but no one mentioned it.
We can laugh at Corrie's incompetence, but there will be people watching who have lost a child. This must be incredibly insulting to them & I would have thought they would have tried to rectify things by adding in something tonight to acknowledge Jake. But no apparently him & Alison never existed. If corrie can't remember major facts like this then maybe its time ITV acknowledged they can't cope with 5 episodes a week & cut it down to 3 or 4. They need to have a serious look at the writing team & producers too & consider some changes. But I won't hold my breath.
It's an anecdote from the early days of Corrie that often gets told. In the very first episode Ena famously asks Florrie Lindley in the corner shop for half a dozen fancies "and no eclairs" (the inference being she doesn't like them). Apparently five or six years later she was seen to be buying or possibly eating an eclair, and at least one eagle-eyed viewer wrote in to point out the gaffe!
What I don't get is how the actor who plays Kevin didnt flag it up, nor the actress who plays Sally. I know it would have been late in the day that they got the scripts but still enough time to re-written / amended if need b.
Why on earth should Michael Le Vell remember? He's just an actor doing a job. Who can remember something that happened in their job 15 years ago? Particularly when it is not out of the ordinary?
Why on earth should Michael Le Vell remember? He's just an actor doing a job. Who can remember something that happened in their job 15 years ago? Particularly when it is not out of the ordinary?
It's fiction, it's not real.
but surely when you pay a part for so long, it becomes almost like your alter ego? so you 'know' them like a family member almost?
and surely one of the actors would have remembered even if he hadn't?
I don't know if JennyBradley was in it when Jake died but it may have made it better drama had Kev said what had happened, and Jenny hadn't known about it, and this what made her let Jack go
Why on earth should Michael Le Vell remember? He's just an actor doing a job. Who can remember something that happened in their job 15 years ago? Particularly when it is not out of the ordinary?
It's fiction, it's not real.
If it was anything else I'd agree but acting out the loss of a wife & child? That must be the most harrowing & difficult thing u could act out & I don't think you would forget even if was a long time ago & you've been through a lot since. I don't know whether Michael le Vell has children in real life but if he has he would not be likely forget that storyline.
Why on earth should Michael Le Vell remember? He's just an actor doing a job. Who can remember something that happened in their job 15 years ago? Particularly when it is not out of the ordinary?
It's fiction, it's not real.
Well obviously Michael Le Vell does remember because he did an interview last month in which he brought it up;
The way the report of the interview reads, it sounds like Michael is trying to nudge the writers to think about the Jake/Alison storyline IMO...
Which is interesting because the way its never been mentioned in the show since, I'd always assumed this was something that Michael Le Vell had perhaps not been comfortable acting and there might have been trouble behind the scene's.. With everybody pretty much just "moving on" as soon as it was over...
But it seem's not... Which sort of makes the way this whole part of Kevin's history has been erased from CS all the odder...
After the blip last week you'd think they'd mend the errors of their ways and redo the scenes for today's ep where headend to have no recollection of having a child die
The way the report of the interview reads, it sounds like Michael is trying to nudge the writers to think about the Jake/Alison storyline IMO...
Which is interesting because the way its never been mentioned in the show since, I'd always assumed this was something that Michael Le Vell had perhaps not been comfortable acting and there might have been trouble behind the scene's.. With everybody pretty much just "moving on" as soon as it was over...
Very
But it seem's not... Which sort of makes the way this whole part of Kevin's history has been erased from CS all the odder...
You can't blame it entirely on Blackburn... Although the show is woeful under his leadership and he should go ASAP...
But, I think it's the latest (and obviously most serious) manifestation of a show that's not being given the care and attention is deserves.
I think it was William Roach a few years ago that said CS nowaday's is basically like a conveyor belt on an assembly line, just knocking out a product with no real thought or care or attention...
Ideally, the number of episode's need's to be cut to three time's a week at the most. This would give the writers and the actors time to sit back and really consider what they are writing and saying... Rather than the current, mass produced, ill-considered, mostly filler rubbish that they are currently throwing out.
Well since he's in the drivers seat of the show I believe you can blame him but the fact not a single person corrected the scripts is just as bad as the hat man allowing it to get shot and forget it all. A good producer would not forget very important information like that, a sign he just don't care enough or have enough knowledge of the show to be in control of it
The way the report of the interview reads, it sounds like Michael is trying to nudge the writers to think about the Jake/Alison storyline IMO...
Which is interesting because the way its never been mentioned in the show since, I'd always assumed this was something that Michael Le Vell had perhaps not been comfortable acting and there might have been trouble behind the scene's.. With everybody pretty much just "moving on" as soon as it was over...
But it seem's not... Which sort of makes the way this whole part of Kevin's history has been erased from CS all the odder...
maybe they realised the error after the scenes were shot? which would have been before the interview.
they prob decided a little continuity error was cheaper than having to re-shoot on location
The way the report of the interview reads, it sounds like Michael is trying to nudge the writers to think about the Jake/Alison storyline IMO...
Which is interesting because the way its never been mentioned in the show since, I'd always assumed this was something that Michael Le Vell had perhaps not been comfortable acting and there might have been trouble behind the scene's.. With everybody pretty much just "moving on" as soon as it was over...
But it seem's not... Which sort of makes the way this whole part of Kevin's history has been erased from CS all the odder...
Just goes to show just how much he cares about the character and show by not even correcting the scripts. Shame on them all
It was funny when Rita kept telling Kevin how horrible it must be to lose a child. In real life she would be the most tactless woman in the world. By telling a man who's lost a child himself! Lol
I remember thinking about all this a few years ago when he got that girl (Molly?) pregnant... At one point he was trying to pressure her into having an abortion and I remember thinking then that after having a child die, no way would he want her to terminate his child....
The way Alison/Jake have been forgotten and ignored during the past 15 years has always been very, very weird, but obviously they've gone too far with this latest fiasco.
Is anyone really surprised...I remember the storyline as I really got into watching Corrie then, but I cannot recall Alison or Jake even being mentioned since, not even in the last ten years! it like Sarah Louise has she mentioned her baby son?
Unfortunately this is the way the street is nowadays. Forgetting about Kevin's other wife and son is part and parcel of the street. There are script writers who don't seem to understand the history or who seem to think the history of the street lies during the original golden era 60-90's. Sure mavis might get a mention every now and then but the 90s/00s era seems to have been boxed away and forgotten about. look at the current characters:
Todd was never a nasty vindictive swine yet reappeared as a one with no reason or real backstory in the years he was in London. All forgotten about.
Tracy is a murderer who premeditated and carried out her murder plan to effect (coming out of the rivers with Deidre, seeing Charlie with another woman and saying'I'm going to kill him' then trying to get Claire to be on her side pretending to be a battered wife to go in her defence) and now all forgotten about.
Ken and his kids/grandsons - Daniel never mentioned, Adam never mentioned, James and his father never mentioned. All forgotten about.
Dev and his other children never mentioned and forgotten about.
Martin Platt - never mentioned and forgotten about.
Gail - her dad forgotten about.
Sarah and Todd - their son forgotten about (no mention since they've been back)
It's absolutely ludicrous that this is happening. How can a soap with such a rich and deep history be treating its audience, who have invested years upon years of watching, like this?
This is not the corrie that I know and love. The corrie I know and love had characters that are wonderfully normal and real, has writers that love writing for the characters and actually are aware of their history and a soap that actually treats their audience with respect.
Comments
I wouldn't care but it's not a minor, forgettable detail that they missed - Kevin/Alison/Baby Jake was a huge story at the time!
They are forgiveable if they are trivial (e.g. Ena Sharples eclairs, Rovers toilets in Ken's living room))
They are forgiveable if it's required for an absence death of cast member (e.g. Bev being so distressed at her brothers passing Dierdre cannot go home for a couple of days to see Ken or go to her own daughters wedding)
]They are forgiveable if a previous storyline is grossly misconceived (Ryan baby swap)
They are even forgiveable if it's needed for a storyline to work (e.g. Steve rebuying the pub despite being vitually bankrupt)
This gaping hole is not forgiveable, tho. Rita is a close friend of Kevin and Sally - she'd remember what happened to Jake. And Sarah would have been horrified about the kidnap, as it happened with her own baby. (Instead her and callum are dropping cheap little put downs.)
What I find most frustrating of all is that the link between that story from 2000 could have greatly enriched this one. Kevin reliving the agony of losing his baby son, would have increased Jenny's huge feelings of guilt.
Am I going to lose sleep over it ? No, but these massive clangers spoil the enjoyment for the viewer.
what about Ena's eclairs? hahaha dunno why that has sprung out at me
In regards to this particular blunder I'm amazed at how it could happen. I understand the writers may not be fans of the show but its hard to believe that NO-ONE, not the archivist, any of the actors involved in the Alison/Jake storyline or proofreaders, editors anyone on the show picked up on it. It makes u wonder what the atmosphere is behind scenes. Did Michael le Vell or someone else say something but were ignored? Or does nobody care anymore they just phone it in & collect the money?
It's an anecdote from the early days of Corrie that often gets told. In the very first episode Ena famously asks Florrie Lindley in the corner shop for half a dozen fancies "and no eclairs" (the inference being she doesn't like them). Apparently five or six years later she was seen to be buying or possibly eating an eclair, and at least one eagle-eyed viewer wrote in to point out the gaffe!
Even Bethany, Sarah, Gail, and David forgot about it
Exactly, with a small trivial thing it can be laughed off & become a joke. But this was a huge storyline & an important part of Kevin's past. As Rita kept saying "there can't be anything worse than losing a child" (whilst Kevin sat mute staring into space?!?!?) Its not something you'd forget, neither would Rita, Sophie, Sarah, Gail, David & Sally who were all involved but no one mentioned it.
We can laugh at Corrie's incompetence, but there will be people watching who have lost a child. This must be incredibly insulting to them & I would have thought they would have tried to rectify things by adding in something tonight to acknowledge Jake. But no apparently him & Alison never existed. If corrie can't remember major facts like this then maybe its time ITV acknowledged they can't cope with 5 episodes a week & cut it down to 3 or 4. They need to have a serious look at the writing team & producers too & consider some changes. But I won't hold my breath.
Here's the offending scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hD39ckObjw&t=5m08s
Why on earth should Michael Le Vell remember? He's just an actor doing a job. Who can remember something that happened in their job 15 years ago? Particularly when it is not out of the ordinary?
It's fiction, it's not real.
Ha-ha, marvellous
but surely when you pay a part for so long, it becomes almost like your alter ego? so you 'know' them like a family member almost?
and surely one of the actors would have remembered even if he hadn't?
I don't know if JennyBradley was in it when Jake died but it may have made it better drama had Kev said what had happened, and Jenny hadn't known about it, and this what made her let Jack go
If it was anything else I'd agree but acting out the loss of a wife & child? That must be the most harrowing & difficult thing u could act out & I don't think you would forget even if was a long time ago & you've been through a lot since. I don't know whether Michael le Vell has children in real life but if he has he would not be likely forget that storyline.
Well obviously Michael Le Vell does remember because he did an interview last month in which he brought it up;
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a649451/coronation-streets-michael-le-vell-kevin-will-sympathise-with-jenny.html#~pfIPGIo3Dzz1ZC
The way the report of the interview reads, it sounds like Michael is trying to nudge the writers to think about the Jake/Alison storyline IMO...
Which is interesting because the way its never been mentioned in the show since, I'd always assumed this was something that Michael Le Vell had perhaps not been comfortable acting and there might have been trouble behind the scene's.. With everybody pretty much just "moving on" as soon as it was over...
But it seem's not... Which sort of makes the way this whole part of Kevin's history has been erased from CS all the odder...
Very weird
Well since he's in the drivers seat of the show I believe you can blame him but the fact not a single person corrected the scripts is just as bad as the hat man allowing it to get shot and forget it all. A good producer would not forget very important information like that, a sign he just don't care enough or have enough knowledge of the show to be in control of it
maybe they realised the error after the scenes were shot? which would have been before the interview.
they prob decided a little continuity error was cheaper than having to re-shoot on location
Just goes to show just how much he cares about the character and show by not even correcting the scripts. Shame on them all
The way Alison/Jake have been forgotten and ignored during the past 15 years has always been very, very weird, but obviously they've gone too far with this latest fiasco.
Todd was never a nasty vindictive swine yet reappeared as a one with no reason or real backstory in the years he was in London. All forgotten about.
Tracy is a murderer who premeditated and carried out her murder plan to effect (coming out of the rivers with Deidre, seeing Charlie with another woman and saying'I'm going to kill him' then trying to get Claire to be on her side pretending to be a battered wife to go in her defence) and now all forgotten about.
Ken and his kids/grandsons - Daniel never mentioned, Adam never mentioned, James and his father never mentioned. All forgotten about.
Dev and his other children never mentioned and forgotten about.
Martin Platt - never mentioned and forgotten about.
Gail - her dad forgotten about.
Sarah and Todd - their son forgotten about (no mention since they've been back)
It's absolutely ludicrous that this is happening. How can a soap with such a rich and deep history be treating its audience, who have invested years upon years of watching, like this?
This is not the corrie that I know and love. The corrie I know and love had characters that are wonderfully normal and real, has writers that love writing for the characters and actually are aware of their history and a soap that actually treats their audience with respect.
They haven't. Helen Nugent has been Corrie's archivist since about 2000.