Retcons.

[CAEF]

Since DTC has come aboard the show has been full of blatant retcons of well established facts.

Kathy coming back from the dead.

Shirley abandoning Dean and Carly as teens when in 2006 she left when Dean was a baby. Dean and Carly did not recognise her when they first saw her in Dorset when Kevin went to meet her.

The timeline of the Carters swaying all over the place. Mick being born anytime between 1975 and 1977.

Conveniently having Carol Hanley's boyfriend who fathered Sharon an old friend of Den Watts.

Kat having a secret son.

[amber jade]

Would love to ask DTC about these!

I just take it as it comes nowadays as there have been so many of them (!) but it is silly

[wallis]

May 19, 2015 19:39:22 GMT CAEF said:

Since DTC has come aboard the show has been full of blatant retcons of well established facts.

Kathy coming back from the dead.

Shirley abandoning Dean and Carly as teens when in 2006 she left when Dean was a baby. Dean and Carly did not recognise her when they first saw her in Dorset when Kevin went to meet her.

The timeline of the Carters swaying all over the place. Mick being born anytime between 1975 and 1977.

Conveniently having Carol Hanley's boyfriend who fathered Sharon an old friend of Den Watts.

Kat having a secret son.

I think it's called creative licence. It keeps people in jobs and we aren't meant to remember what has happened in the past or question when story-lines don't add up.    

[CAEF]

May 19, 2015 21:59:25 GMT wallis said:

May 19, 2015 19:39:22 GMT CAEF said:

Since DTC has come aboard the show has been full of blatant retcons of well established facts.

Kathy coming back from the dead.

Shirley abandoning Dean and Carly as teens when in 2006 she left when Dean was a baby. Dean and Carly did not recognise her when they first saw her in Dorset when Kevin went to meet her.

The timeline of the Carters swaying all over the place. Mick being born anytime between 1975 and 1977.

Conveniently having Carol Hanley's boyfriend who fathered Sharon an old friend of Den Watts.

Kat having a secret son.

I think it's called creative licence. It keeps people in jobs and we aren't meant to remember what has happened in the past or question when story-lines don't add up.    

Disagree with the creative license bit. To long term viewers it does matter.

[maurice45]

Kathy in particular stands out for me. I am intrigued as to why Kathy pretended to be dead for so long, and more to the point, why she gave Ben up after going to great lengths to get him away from Phil. Ben always had issues, but I wonder whether he would've eventually developed the same traits had he not been under the influence of the Mitchells, been subjected to Stella's abuse, etc.

[saucysorcha]

I'm glad Kathy was brought back. Killing her off was a stupid and petty decision

[Lady Voldemort]

I don't consider Kathy's resurrection a retcon. A retcon would have been if she'd rocked up one day and everyone acted like she'd never been "dead".

I am mystified by Shirley's sudden involvement in her children's lives beyond when she is supposed to have left though.

[CAEF]

To newer viewers they may not mind retcons. Some newer viewers may be unaware of the past but being a long term viewer myself I find the retcons a bit annoying and can sniff them out.

[Lady Voldemort]

May 20, 2015 17:24:28 GMT maurice45 said:

Kathy in particular stands out for me. I am intrigued as to why Kathy pretended to be dead for so long, and more to the point, why she gave Ben up after going to great lengths to get him away from Phil. Ben always had issues, but I wonder whether he would've eventually developed the same traits had he not been under the influence of the Mitchells, been subjected to Stella's abuse, etc.

Gavin must be a total delight if Kaff decided Ben was better off being raised by the Mitchells.

[kitkat1971]

May 20, 2015 17:24:28 GMT maurice45 said:

Kathy in particular stands out for me. I am intrigued as to why Kathy pretended to be dead for so long, and more to the point, why she gave Ben up after going to great lengths to get him away from Phil. Ben always had issues, but I wonder whether he would've eventually developed the same traits had he not been under the influence of the Mitchells, been subjected to Stella's abuse, etc.

The explanation for Kathy is going to be a real watershed moment for me. I'm with holding judgement until we see what the explanation is but it had better be damned good and if it isn't, I will seriously consider turning off for good because I always said I would if it crossed that particular line.

I've just been having this conversation about Casualty changing the age of charlie's son. Basically that i get it was dramatic license, nearly 10 years ago they decided they wanted to run storylines for a mid to late teen when he was much younger than that so aged him. Really, you either have to accept that they've done that and move on or stop watching.

That said, i actually think changing the age of what was a fairly minor character (in terms of screen time if not importance to Charlie) who spent more years living away from Holby as a child than in it pales into insignificance against the death of a major character of 15 years. I mean honestly, who other than serious fans of Casualty wouuld be able to immediately say what year Louis was born? I susepct most would just guess mid 90s (or even just 90s) so changing it by 4 years is manageable although annoying for pedants like me. If on the other hand they were to now say Baz (his mother and a former major character) did not actually die in 2002 - that would be a huge problem.

I think my view on this is fairly fluid and it has to be judged on a case by case basis. In a show that goes on for decades, there is a real danger of becoming a slave to continuity and if a very good major storyline would have to be dumped because it contradicts one line said a couple of decades ago, i think that would be silly. If though it is something really major, like the death of a character or it is a recent thing, it is a line that shouldn't be crossed as although they might assume viewers don't remember (and many won't) some do and it is rather insulting their intelligence.

So, to be honest, things like changing a birthday or aging a character (as has happened with several EE characters) i don't have too big a problem with. Bringing Kathy back, i still might have. And the current Shirley retconning is getting on my nerves quite a lot too.

[kitkat1971]

May 20, 2015 20:26:33 GMT CAEF said:

To newer viewers they may not mind retcons. Some newer viewers may be unaware of the past but being a long term viewer myself I find the retcons a bit annoying and can sniff them out.

Yes i think that is the crux of it and what TPTB have to weigh up when doing these things.

As I was saying in my last post, how many Casualty viewers of today will either have been watching in the mid 90s or have good enough memories to say for sure whether a baby was born in 92 or 96? To be honest, I've got those seasons on tape and have a very good memory but only really remember because he happens to have been born a few months after my Godson. I remember Ben Mitchell's precisely for the same reason as he is 2 weeks older than Alex.

On the other hand, an actress that played a regular character who died in 91 reappeared recently in another part, sharing scenes with Charlie (who'd blamed himself for Kelly's death) and that i did rather object to. It'd be like having Michael Melia (Eddir Royle) turn uo in EE, share scenes with Dot and her not say "oh dear, you look like Eddie who my Mick killed I've never forgiven myself for how that happened".

But as i sau, more recent viewers probably wouldn't make the connection or see any issue with it.

[Lady Voldemort]

DTC has said Kathy's resurrection has a plausible explanation hasn't he?

Is there any merit in the theory that she fled for her life after the family rottweilers went nuts and she discovered those three 6s on Ben's head?

[kitkat1971]

May 20, 2015 18:39:59 GMT Lady Voldemort said:

I don't consider Kathy's resurrection a retcon. A retcon would have been if she'd rocked up one day and everyone acted like she'd never been "dead".

I am mystified by Shirley's sudden involvement in her children's lives beyond when she is supposed to have left though.

I see what you mean about Kathy in that they haven't said she isn't meant to be dead. But we are yet to have any details, i want to know what they say about Ian going over to SA, how he was told they were dead etc.

The shirley stuff about how old her kids were when she left is really winding me upo and is definately a retcon.

[kitkat1971]

May 20, 2015 21:19:43 GMT Lady Voldemort said:

DTC has said Kathy's resurrection has a plausible explanation hasn't he?

Is there any merit in the theory that she fled for her life after the family rottweilers went nuts and she discovered those three 6s on Ben's head?

STC has said that yes but I'll wait until it happens to see if I find it plausible or not. I of course am not the Oracle, i might think it is a load of old tosh whilst others accept it or vice versa but i'm afraid i'm not just taking a Producer's word that i will find it plausible just because he thinks it is.

That is a fantastic idea.

[ScrabblyWabbly]

May 19, 2015 21:59:25 GMT wallis said:

May 19, 2015 19:39:22 GMT CAEF said:

Since DTC has come aboard the show has been full of blatant retcons of well established facts.

Kathy coming back from the dead.

Shirley abandoning Dean and Carly as teens when in 2006 she left when Dean was a baby. Dean and Carly did not recognise her when they first saw her in Dorset when Kevin went to meet her.

The timeline of the Carters swaying all over the place. Mick being born anytime between 1975 and 1977.

Conveniently having Carol Hanley's boyfriend who fathered Sharon an old friend of Den Watts.

Kat having a secret son.

I think it's called creative licence. It keeps people in jobs and we aren't meant to remember what has happened in the past or question when story-lines don't add up.    

The whole point of soaps in my view is that you get to see a characters life unfold, especially the long term characters. The past affects their actions in the future, that's what makes it interesting and rewriting the history of characters just ruins their personality and motivations.


creative licence in soap is important for the little details such as people turning up at a prison to have a natter with an inmate just on a whim. But a characters personal history and backstory should not be changed. I don't mind when they add to a characters backstory though as long as it doesn't change the established facts we know about them.