With thanks to The Radio Times, we now know that Ken Barlow's absence will be explained in a forthcoming episode.
Deirdre will be seen talking to Tracy about Ken having to make an impromptu trip to Canada. As you do.
In scenes to be shown on Friday 12 July, Deirdre will tell Tracy that Ken has left to look after grandson Adam who is recovering after blacking out and collapsing at work.
“I reckon he just fancied a holiday,” says Tracy, before questioning whether Ken would ever go to such lengths for her.
Deirdre will be seen talking to Tracy about Ken having to make an impromptu trip to Canada. As you do.
In scenes to be shown on Friday 12 July, Deirdre will tell Tracy that Ken has left to look after grandson Adam who is recovering after blacking out and collapsing at work.
“I reckon he just fancied a holiday,” says Tracy, before questioning whether Ken would ever go to such lengths for her.
All original work on the Coronation Street Blog is covered by a Creative Commons License
31 comments:
We were posting the same thing at the same time! Anyway i've deleted mine ;)
Hmmm it sounds a bit weird Ken just upping sticks to look after a son he's not seen for a few years. Surely something could have happened a bit closer to home?
Why did his leaving even need an explanation? We all know why he isn't there..we're not morons. Ken hasn't mentioned a grandson at all and suddenly he goes of to Canada to take care of him? The man is almost 80..sure..that's why he'd make a proper care-give..there aren't any in Canada. Better to have him off in Africa trying to find the elusive black rhino or summat. Stupid excuse award should be given to the writer who came up with this one.
You can see the joins occasionally when a character has a scene probably intended for Ken, but he's hardly been missed. Just shows you, nobody is bigger than the Street. Some explanation had to be given for Ken's absence, however unlikely, and this is as good as any.
I was just thinking if Bill Roache is found guilty, Ken can meet a secret woman in Canada and never return. This Canada SL has probably been thought out more thoroughly than we think.
If BR is guilty, they will probably just kill Ken off off-screen. If he's cleared, they still might not have him back - look what happened to Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough) back in the 80s.
But yes, as Humpty says, the show is bigger than any character and I honestly haven't missed Ken. It was obvious that it was meant to be Ken who found Roy on the Red Rec as there's no way Deirdre would be out walking a dog alone after dark through a dimly-lit park like that, but other than that, well, who would notice?
Would be more believable if Martha the barge lady made a brief (off-screen) return and whisked him away in the event of a guilty verdict. As others have said it's stretching credibility that there wouldn't be a suitable carer closer to home than having an octogenarian flying in from Weatherfield.
The holes left in various plots have been very visible recently. Even the characters who would normally associate with those "MIA" have been missing in a lot of cases.
I am glad that his absence is going to be explained. I was however unaware that Adam was in Canada. He doesn't have a job with Nick's Uncle does he? I think that the other poster has hit the nail on the head that the scriptwriters have done this on purpose in case William Roach can't or doesn't want to come back.
Ridiculous - we all know Ken is not there - it doesnt need a far flung "explanation" and to me he hasnt been missed at all with his clunky acting.
Hmmm. About as (un)likely an explanation as any other, I dare say, but clearly intended as a stopgap plot in case Roache needs to be sacked if/when he is found to be guilty of rape and sexual assault, while leaving it open for him to return if he is found not guilty.
Strange how often they resort to characters heading off to remote places to look after otherwise never mentioned relatives when they need to explain actors' long term absences, though. Hayley, Sally, Liz, Kevin, and now Ken have all done pretty much exactly the same thing. Clearly there needs to some explanation for the sake of plot integrity as characters do otherwise impact on other characters' lives daily, and extended absences would particularly do so, but the old credibility does get rather stretched.
In Ken's case, I think he really could have gone down the library for six months and nobody would have missed him.
FP - Peter Adamson was axed because he sold his story to the papers which was very frowned on in those days. Not so now.
I think the only reason they have sent both Ken & Kevin abroad is for the simple reason that if they choose not to return or are found guilty, their exits can be quickly written in with no fuss, as I've said. I think a big funeral basically celebrating Ken and Bill Roache would be in bad taste so sending him off to Canada is an easy option for now and the writers have all bases covered.
I've heard of sending someone to Coventry.... but to Canada?! That's just vicious!
Cruel and unusual punishment!
Anonymous 14:23, Canada is lovely. Canadians are lovely. Have you ever been? Some day I'll tell you about the very kind border guard who let me in even though I confused Tim Hortons with a city.
Wish I had an ailing relative in Halifax or Toronto or Quebec (je parle francais) some such place so I could spend a few months.
I, for one, have missed Ken Barlow, especially for his ability to keep it real with the vindictive, lazy, selfish Tracy Luv.
abbyk - you need to add Vancouver to your list!
Bev
That must have been pretty bad blackout because let's be honest, he's going to be gone for a while. Kevin going to take care of his father makes sense, Ken taking care of a grandson we all forgot he had (and Ken probably forgot he had) doesn't. I'm surprised they didn't just send Ken and Kevin off on a Carnival cruise together and have it get stuck at sea.
The writers are a bit backed into a corner. People notice when a character hasn't been on screen in a long time without explanation and it's difficult to work the storylines around the character if it would have been logical to see them. i.e. Ken is one of Roy's closest friends and normally he would have been the one to sit down with Roy in the flat and talk to him but we got Brian instead. Deirdre likely wouldn't be walking Eccles out after dark but someone has to if Ken isn't available and Tracy wouldn't be bothered.
It's just one of those things that, even if a bit hard to believe, has to be taken on board under the circumstances.
On behalf of Canada, I'd like to inform Ken that he's not welcome. We're all full up on boring, stuffed shirts at the mo'. Perhaps try Thailand?
I don't know what people's problems are with the explanation. If they never explained his absence everyone would complain and accuse the producers of treating us viewers like idiots. No one is ever satisfied.
Oh yeah and I have missed Ken. I do like the character and fail to see how his acting is crap. He is no way terrible than some characters.
I agree with Anon 19:32. Despite what Bill Roache has or hasn't done, Ken Barlow hasn't done anything. I've liked the character and still like him.
He's always been there and so an explanation is needed. The Barlow household is very busy so the absence of Ken should be addressed, unlike maybe the absence of Emily.
And if it comes to it, Ken should get a proper exit if killed off. The character is an integral part of Corrie. Len Fairclough got a good send off and so should Ken.
Deirdre was always supposed to find Roy sleepwalking. Pictures of those scenes were in Mail Online on April 30. Bill Roache wasn't arrested until May 1.
All the (entertaining) recent scenes of Deirdre on her own were presumably filmed while Roache had that break in NZ for 5 weeks in April. The episodes on now- we can assume- were filmed after his arrest.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2317193/Coronation-Street-spoilers-Roy-Cropper-wanders-park-pyjamas-Deirdre-comes-rescue.html).
Then why not say he was offered a temporary placement at a Uni or college somewhere and had to move away from the street for awhile. Makes more sense than an old man up and moving to another country to bed-sit a grandson he's never mentioned.
Couldn't they have done a Tracy and said he was 'listening to tapes'? ;)
I haven't missed the character -- we are getting used to plot holes and the character not making an appearance is just part of the saggy writing we are all getting used to/tolerating while hoping for a vast miracle like a turnaround in quality. But once a decision's been made to explain his absence why such a stupid one?? I agree with the previous post of some kind of temporary teaching post in the college in the next town. Ken has always wanted to make better and more use of his intellectual and academic skills so why not explain it simply and believably. No excuse for yet one more instance of incompetence on the part of the producers/writers... seems the current team can't even handle a "non-story" story.... :-(.
Perhaps sadly Deidre will get the call in the middle of the night telling her Ken has had a heart attack and died a cover story if he is not asked back to the street - then Deidre could become the new Blanche
I personally think it is ridiculous that people are accusing so many actors/actresses/entertainment people of rape or pedophilia. Jimmy Seville was a pedo yes, but the others? I think it's an opportunistic witchhunt. I hope Ken comes back from Canada soon. :-)
I've never enjoyed the character of Ken and I couldn't care less what the actor has or has not been up to. There are so many characters on the Street who seem to disappear into the cupboard for ages on end, I have no idea why Ken's disappearance needed such a wild explanation. I personally think it's wonderful to see Deirdre out doing things on her own and she has a load of potential for comedic relief. I hope we see more of her on screen and Ken isn't bloody mentioned again!
We cannot say whether Bill Roache is guilty or not until after the trial. Ken Barlow may have been one of the original cast members but I fount his character to be uninteresting. I never cared what happened to him with Mike or his mistresses or his relationship tp Diedre.
The reason Ken's absence is going to need explaining is because he will be gone a long time. If he even does come back, it will most likely be Spring next year. Characters "vanish" yes, but not for about a year. Its going to be strange having Ken completely absent from being in the Rovers or Christmas dinner at the Barlow household. Why are people so damn bothered by it is beyond me. I think the producers have enough problems as it is with actors being suspended as its disturbing a lot of planned plots.
Yeah and Deirdre was meant to find Roy, it was filmed before Roache's arrest. See we are going to have another conspiracy where everything is replacing scenes Ken was meant to be in, similar to what happened to Kevin. And loads of women walk through parks at night, its hardly a suspension of reality.
I don't know if it's been thought through properly. Ken is going to be absent for a year, it would've be normal for ken to stay in Canada for that long. He,s hardly e er left the street or gone on holiday. It would've been better to say he'd had a stroke and was in a rehab hospital. He's the right age and belly size for a stroke and its something that would either take a year to get better or would suffer multiple strokes after a year and die off screen
Post a Comment