It counteracts everything because in 2007 Jimbo was her established as her "first born" and in 2014 we discovered that Mick was her first born child. That is a change to the established continuity - ie a retcon.
Yeah its a total mess and I can't buy into any of it.
It counteracts everything because in 2007 Jimbo was her established as her "first born" and in 2014 we discovered that Mick was her first born child. That is a change to the established continuity - ie a retcon.
But she's hidden the truth for decades!
So she wouldn't even tell anyone back in 2007.
I don't find it THAT unbelievable if its a massive secret.
But yes- the endless twists are getting silly now.
It counteracts everything because in 2007 Jimbo was her established as her "first born" and in 2014 we discovered that Mick was her first born child. That is a change to the established continuity - ie a retcon.
It was only provisionally established because a secret son hadnt been established or revealed.
The key is the word secret.Her chat with Denise established nothing castiron if shes harbouring a secret!
Shirley still walked out on her children, it was previously established that Kevin was not Deans father. All they are doing is providing a backstory as to why she walked out on them. We knew she couldn't cope as a mother and they are providing us with reasons why.
I remember it being stated that Deano and Carly had different fathers and that Shirley couldn't remember who Carly's father was, but I honestly can't remember if she said the same about Dean. I could be wrong. It's been a long time since I saw it.
I think we heard more about Carly's dad as Dean was very accepting and forgiving of Shirley in 2007, while Carly was the one who couldn't forgive her.
They do need to explain why Shirley didn't just tell Dean about Andy/Buster in 2007. One possible explanation for this is that she didn't want Kevin to go through the pain of watching him build a relationship with his biological father. Also it seems Kevin and Buster knew each other and perhaps she thought Kevin would have been more hurt by her turning to someone they know for sex than bunking up with strangers. That's assuming Kevin himself didn't know.
Obvs some of this is newly-created material for Shirley's back story however there was room for it. Prior to 2013 all we knew about her pre-Walford life is that she had walked out on her kids and that Kevin wasn't the bio-daddy of Dean and Carly, plus fleeting mentions about what she and Hev got up to in the 80s.
Most of Shirley's stuff was focussed on the present. Her friendship with Heather, on/off relationship with Phil and her relationships with Carly (bad) and Dean (good) in the present.
It's kind of like how Archie/Ronnie/Roxy joined the Mitchell family out of the blue. I see it as 'adding on' rather than retconning.
Yeah its a total mess and I can't buy into any of it.
Its not a mess?I had a great aunt who I thought of as a childless spinster until she stopped telling younger family members that she was childless but had a secret illegitmet son and that shed lied.Change and tweak that to a fictional tv character and its really not complicated to understand??People with deep secrets lie about it?!
Exactly. If Mick was her 'secret' son, she wouldn't have confessed to Denise...
Exactly.
Plus as Mick was taken away from her, Shirley bottled it all up and simply pretended it hadn't happened so to ease the pain.
Because she had Heather, her best friend to support her she was able to move on with her life. But as she lost Heather, the feelings and truths she had bottled up came to the surface again and when Mick came back into her life her past came back to haunt her and she has been struggling with her emotions ever since.
Its not a mess?I had a great aunt who I thought of as a childless spinster until she stopped telling younger family members that she was childless but had a secret illegitmet son and that shed lied.Change and tweak that to a fictional tv character and its really not complicated to understand??People with deep secrets lie about it?!
Its a mess to me. ;-) Therefore I don't believe any of it.
It was only provisionally established because a secret son hadnt been established or revealed.
The key is the word secret.Her chat with Denise established nothing castiron if shes harbouring a secret!
That's a bit of a cop out to be honest. Following that logic, we'd have to assume all established facts are 'provisional' until they decide to change them.
Retconning undermines the credibility of the show, and this story has been retconned to death.
That's a bit of a cop out to be honest. Following that logic, we'd have to assume all established facts are 'provisional' until they decide to change them.
Retconning undermines the credibility of the show, and this story has been retconned to death.
Shirley and Babe both seemed like they wanted Dean away from Buster so that makes me think he is.
Still could be a red herring though. But they'd need a good reason why Shirl and Babe behaved in this way.
Simple. They know Buster saying one single wrong thing to Dean [or anyone] would be one stone's throw away from the real truth coming out [that Buster and Shirley are Mick's actual parents].
It's why I think Stan reacted badly to him too. No way he doesn't know about Shirley and Mick, imho, either.
This would be like Roxy suddenly turning around and admitting she gave birth to a child in 2000 and had it adopted out.
That's how this ****s up continuity for those of us who have watched for years.
That's exactly it. A retcon is a retcon - it damages the credibility of the show.
You can't just excuse it by saying "it was a secret". By that logic you could bring Pat back from the dead and say that she "secretly" faked her death and ran off to Peru.
That's a bit of a cop out to be honest. Following that logic, we'd have to assume all established facts are 'provisional' until they decide to change them.
Retconning undermines the credibility of the show, and this story has been retconned to death.
TBF, theres been so much retconning already (Branning and Moon family, Dennis's existence, Dens return etc), one more retcon and not a huge one at that isn't all that undermining.
Its a mess to me. ;-) Therefore I don't believe any of it.
Theres nothing illogical or implausible about it which is the point people often make.
If peoples point is adding many new family members for Shirley to make her central to the show is something they dont like and isnt worthwhile then thats a fair opinion.But to claim something is logically impossible when it isnt then its fair to counter that showing how it is possible.
That's exactly it. A retcon is a retcon - it damages the credibility of the show.
You can't just excuse it by saying "it was a secret". By that logic you could bring Pat back from the dead and say that she "secretly" faked her death and ran off to Peru.
We saw her die on screen through so it would be impossible.
My Great Nan had at least 3 babies but none of my family appeared to know until I found a distant cousin who had did family research. My Nan knew and despite talking about the past a lot never mentioned her until we asked( strangely she mentioned her today.
That's exactly it. A retcon is a retcon - it damages the credibility of the show.
You can't just excuse it by saying "it was a secret". By that logic you could bring Pat back from the dead and say that she "secretly" faked her death and ran off to Peru.
That's exactly it. A retcon is a retcon - it damages the credibility of the show.
You can't just excuse it by saying "it was a secret". By that logic you could bring Pat back from the dead and say that she "secretly" faked her death and ran off to Peru.
Pat did do that tbh. That has been established because Les, her ex punter likes to do fake deaths and funerals
Comments
Yeah its a total mess and I can't buy into any of it.
But she's hidden the truth for decades!
So she wouldn't even tell anyone back in 2007.
I don't find it THAT unbelievable if its a massive secret.
But yes- the endless twists are getting silly now.
The key is the word secret.Her chat with Denise established nothing castiron if shes harbouring a secret!
Agreed.
They do need to explain why Shirley didn't just tell Dean about Andy/Buster in 2007. One possible explanation for this is that she didn't want Kevin to go through the pain of watching him build a relationship with his biological father. Also it seems Kevin and Buster knew each other and perhaps she thought Kevin would have been more hurt by her turning to someone they know for sex than bunking up with strangers. That's assuming Kevin himself didn't know.
Obvs some of this is newly-created material for Shirley's back story however there was room for it. Prior to 2013 all we knew about her pre-Walford life is that she had walked out on her kids and that Kevin wasn't the bio-daddy of Dean and Carly, plus fleeting mentions about what she and Hev got up to in the 80s.
Most of Shirley's stuff was focussed on the present. Her friendship with Heather, on/off relationship with Phil and her relationships with Carly (bad) and Dean (good) in the present.
It's kind of like how Archie/Ronnie/Roxy joined the Mitchell family out of the blue. I see it as 'adding on' rather than retconning.
This would be like Roxy suddenly turning around and admitting she gave birth to a child in 2000 and had it adopted out.
That's how this ****s up continuity for those of us who have watched for years.
Its not a mess?I had a great aunt who I thought of as a childless spinster until she stopped telling younger family members that she was childless but had a secret illegitmet son and that shed lied.Change and tweak that to a fictional tv character and its really not complicated to understand??People with deep secrets lie about it?!
Exactly.
Plus as Mick was taken away from her, Shirley bottled it all up and simply pretended it hadn't happened so to ease the pain.
Because she had Heather, her best friend to support her she was able to move on with her life. But as she lost Heather, the feelings and truths she had bottled up came to the surface again and when Mick came back into her life her past came back to haunt her and she has been struggling with her emotions ever since.
Its a mess to me. ;-) Therefore I don't believe any of it.
Sorry I dont see the parallel or your point?Adoption is a fact of life I cant see the confusion.
That's a bit of a cop out to be honest. Following that logic, we'd have to assume all established facts are 'provisional' until they decide to change them.
Retconning undermines the credibility of the show, and this story has been retconned to death.
Totally.
Simple. They know Buster saying one single wrong thing to Dean [or anyone] would be one stone's throw away from the real truth coming out [that Buster and Shirley are Mick's actual parents].
It's why I think Stan reacted badly to him too. No way he doesn't know about Shirley and Mick, imho, either.
So aunt Nellie turning up out the blue ten years after the show started would have been a retcon as she wasn't mentioned previously?
That's exactly it. A retcon is a retcon - it damages the credibility of the show.
You can't just excuse it by saying "it was a secret". By that logic you could bring Pat back from the dead and say that she "secretly" faked her death and ran off to Peru.
TBF, theres been so much retconning already (Branning and Moon family, Dennis's existence, Dens return etc), one more retcon and not a huge one at that isn't all that undermining.
Theres nothing illogical or implausible about it which is the point people often make.
If peoples point is adding many new family members for Shirley to make her central to the show is something they dont like and isnt worthwhile then thats a fair opinion.But to claim something is logically impossible when it isnt then its fair to counter that showing how it is possible.
My Great Nan had at least 3 babies but none of my family appeared to know until I found a distant cousin who had did family research. My Nan knew and despite talking about the past a lot never mentioned her until we asked( strangely she mentioned her today.
Aunty Nelly was not a secret child of Arthur was she.
Dirty Den did what again?
Excellent point.A retcon is changing established facts not adding to them.
Pat did do that tbh. That has been established because Les, her ex punter likes to do fake deaths and funerals