She supposedly murdered somebody. Was in possession of a firearm, which happened to almost kill Phil. She also got rid of the firearm instead of coming clean.
Something not being mentioned before is not a retcon.
If it was established fact that Ronnie had never given birth to any child in her life and then they introduced Danielle as her long lost daughter, it would be a retcon.
If it was never mentioned whether she'd had a child or not, then the introduction of Danielle would be a previously unknown development of her backstory.
It is if everything we've seen points to the contrary, even if Shirley's never actually said she didn't have a brother.
Nothing was seen or heard up until last year to give us any indication of the rest of her family's existence, bar Tina. Infact, I'm sure there's been occasions when we've seen Shirley on her arse in the gutter with nothing. Surely, she would have swallowed her pride and contacted her family back then?
The Ronnie thing was fine as I believe that was all planned out. Shirley's new found backstory has been added on at the eleventh hour to give her a new purpose on the show.
The Ronnie thing was fine as I believe that was all planned out. Shirley's new found backstory has been added on at the eleventh hour to give her a new purpose on the show.
Now that doesn't sound very much like Shirley Carter, does it?
Yes, she's self centred enough not to care and even if not desperate times call for desperate measures. And if Mick was such a caring brother, wouldn't he have contacted her himself before now?
I was rolling my eyes a little last year when Mick was first spoken of and Shirley expressed details of her previous falling out with him for the viewers' benefit but him being her son for me is just one step too far.
Show me something prior to last year that hints at the existence of a brother, let alone a long lost son and you might convince me.
Dom said in an interview that he would love to bring her back but laudably he couldn't. I'd say he's raging that Kirkwood did what he did >:(
As regards, the thread topic, I have a huge respect for DTC because it's clear he adores the show and respects its history so anything I don't really like/enjoy I tend to ignore.
I suppose the biggest issue I have is Donna the market lady. I don't see the necessity of her character but I do think she's funny and acerbic.
Yes, she's self centred enough not to care and even if not desperate times call for desperate measures. And if Mick was such a caring brother, wouldn't he have contacted her himself before now?
I was rolling my eyes a little last year when Mick was first spoken of and Shirley expressed details of her previous falling out with him for the viewers' benefit but him being her son for me is just one step too far.
Show me something prior to last year that hints at the existence of a brother, let alone a long lost son and you might convince me.
Again, I never said it was hinted at. I said it wasn't "confirmed" that she couldn't have had these other family members. Therefore, it's not a retcon. Retcon is changing previously established facts. Outside of the family she married into and the children she had with Kevin, we didn't learn anything about Shirley's own family.
Again, I never said it was hinted at. I said it wasn't "confirmed" that she couldn't have had these other family members. Therefore, it's not a retcon. Retcon is changing previously established facts. Outside of the family she married into and the children she had with Kevin, we didn't learn anything about Shirley's own family.
No it isn't. If new information contradicts previous fact THEN it's a retcon. Such as Shabnam not being married is a retcon as it was previously established she was offscreen.
No it isn't. If new information contradicts previous fact THEN it's a retcon. Such as Shabnam not being married is a retcon as it was previously established she was offscreen.
But adding something in is not a retcon.
I think this is the first time that we have agreed on something but yes, this is what I was saying too. A retcon is when something is changed that contradicts an already established fact.
Dom said in an interview that he would love to bring her back but laudably he couldn't. I'd say he's raging that Kirkwood did what he did >:(
.
That's a load of bull imo, he could if he wanted to. He might harp on about 'realism' but let's not forget we have a woman who is pregnant who swapped a child in the past not being visited by a social worker yet and living on the same square were the event happened and another resident who confessed to a killing and got a fast track out, this is still television after all. If he wanted to find a way, he could. >:( Do it DTC!
That's a load of bull imo, he could if he wanted to. He might harp on about 'realism' but let's not forget we have a woman who is pregnant who swapped a child in the past not being visited by a social worker yet and living on the same square were the event happened and another resident who confessed to a killing and got a fast track out, this is still television after all. If he wanted to find a way, he could. >:( Do it DTC!
No it isn't. If new information contradicts previous fact THEN it's a retcon. Such as Shabnam not being married is a retcon as it was previously established she was offscreen.
But adding something in is not a retcon.
Retcon - The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.
I'd say that covers Shirley's storyline.
Hair splitting aside, whether you choose to call it a retcon or an addition, it's bullshit and I don't buy it.
That's a load of bull imo, he could if he wanted to. He might harp on about 'realism' but let's not forget we have a woman who is pregnant who swapped a child in the past not being visited by a social worker yet and living on the same square were the event happened and another resident who confessed to a killing and got a fast track out, this is still television after all. If he wanted to find a way, he could. >:( Do it DTC!
you can't feasibly bring back someone who died of cancer on screen though. I miss pat so much but it's impossible
Something not being mentioned before is not a retcon.
If it was established fact that Ronnie had never given birth to any child in her life and then they introduced Danielle as her long lost daughter, it would be a retcon.
If it was never mentioned whether she'd had a child or not, then the introduction of Danielle would be a previously unknown development of her backstory.
This I wish people would stop misusing the word.
Btw I don't remember Shabnam getting married. When was this?
you can't feasibly bring back someone who died of cancer on screen though. I miss pat so much but it's impossible
It's actually really not that impossible.
Firstly, they have already made clear Les can fake a funeral and he is an old friend of Pats. Then we have the fact Derek was about and she could have a valid reason to avoid him. Pat had a romance with Frank Burnside so she could be shacked up at his gaff. Derek's now dead so it's safe for her to return, bring back Steven who causes some problems. Les can get on the blower and Pat comes back to sort him out.
To be fair I wouldn't question it if pat came back without any explanation at all.
Comments
Looks like a villain to me.
It is if everything we've seen points to the contrary, even if Shirley's never actually said she didn't have a brother.
Nothing was seen or heard up until last year to give us any indication of the rest of her family's existence, bar Tina. Infact, I'm sure there's been occasions when we've seen Shirley on her arse in the gutter with nothing. Surely, she would have swallowed her pride and contacted her family back then?
The Ronnie thing was fine as I believe that was all planned out. Shirley's new found backstory has been added on at the eleventh hour to give her a new purpose on the show.
Now that doesn't sound very much like Shirley Carter, does it?
I used the Ronnie example as a hypothetical.
Yes, she's self centred enough not to care and even if not desperate times call for desperate measures. And if Mick was such a caring brother, wouldn't he have contacted her himself before now?
I was rolling my eyes a little last year when Mick was first spoken of and Shirley expressed details of her previous falling out with him for the viewers' benefit but him being her son for me is just one step too far.
Show me something prior to last year that hints at the existence of a brother, let alone a long lost son and you might convince me.
Dom said in an interview that he would love to bring her back but laudably he couldn't. I'd say he's raging that Kirkwood did what he did >:(
As regards, the thread topic, I have a huge respect for DTC because it's clear he adores the show and respects its history so anything I don't really like/enjoy I tend to ignore.
I suppose the biggest issue I have is Donna the market lady. I don't see the necessity of her character but I do think she's funny and acerbic.
Again, I never said it was hinted at. I said it wasn't "confirmed" that she couldn't have had these other family members. Therefore, it's not a retcon. Retcon is changing previously established facts. Outside of the family she married into and the children she had with Kevin, we didn't learn anything about Shirley's own family.
....Or adding to them.
The Masoods & Cora barely getting a look in.
Shirley being touted as the most important character in the show.
The show being too white for where it is realistically set.
No it isn't. If new information contradicts previous fact THEN it's a retcon. Such as Shabnam not being married is a retcon as it was previously established she was offscreen.
But adding something in is not a retcon.
I think this is the first time that we have agreed on something but yes, this is what I was saying too. A retcon is when something is changed that contradicts an already established fact.
That's a load of bull imo, he could if he wanted to. He might harp on about 'realism' but let's not forget we have a woman who is pregnant who swapped a child in the past not being visited by a social worker yet and living on the same square were the event happened and another resident who confessed to a killing and got a fast track out, this is still television after all. If he wanted to find a way, he could. >:( Do it DTC!
What do you suggest?
witness relocation to do with Derek?
time travel?
a twin?
take your pick.
Retcon - The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.
I'd say that covers Shirley's storyline.
Hair splitting aside, whether you choose to call it a retcon or an addition, it's bullshit and I don't buy it.
Daily dream sequences with Angie Watts.
I do like the Carter's but they are overused, particularly Mick who was shoehorned into Ian's prostitute storyline AND Alfie's arson storyline
you can't feasibly bring back someone who died of cancer on screen though. I miss pat so much but it's impossible
I want her back
**launches into expletive laden foul mouthed rant no 2 million about berkwood**
Btw I don't remember Shabnam getting married. When was this?
It's actually really not that impossible.
Firstly, they have already made clear Les can fake a funeral and he is an old friend of Pats. Then we have the fact Derek was about and she could have a valid reason to avoid him. Pat had a romance with Frank Burnside so she could be shacked up at his gaff. Derek's now dead so it's safe for her to return, bring back Steven who causes some problems. Les can get on the blower and Pat comes back to sort him out.
To be fair I wouldn't question it if pat came back without any explanation at all.
I don't recall that either....
No different to Home and Away being the Pippa (the 2nd actress, not Vanessa Downing) and Michael show in the 90's and now the Braxton show.
Why moan about DTC favouring Kellie and Danny over other characters? No different to Corrie with Sean Tully or H&A with the 2nd Pippa.
Corrie don't favour Sean Tully. He's been pretty much a background character for the last few years. They did overuse Tina and Fiz though >:(