When Alf was redoing his will, he looked at an old photo of Duncan, and it was . the lad who used to be in it. I thought that meant it'd be him as sn adult coming into it. But it isn't. They should've put a photo of the new Duncan as a child
shareI noticed that too but those of us who watched it with the old Duncan, remember him, so putting a new face to him as a child seems silly. Although I do see your point.
share[deleted]
I think you just aren't very observant. Most of the time, a child is easily identifiable as an adult when u see a photo. The photo of the original Duncan looked nothing like this Duncan. Also, surely you aren't seriously suggesting that a photo should be utilised of a missing child? Are you that thoughtless?
shareI think you just aren't very observant.
No, you're just seeing things that aren't really there. You're probably also one of these people who claim that some baby looks like his mother/father when in fact he doesn't look like anyone, because he's a baby.
Most of the time, a child is easily identifiable as an adult when u see a photo.
Sure, if they're like seventeen in the photo and eighteen now. Otherwise, no. You're able to identify them because someone told you they are the same person.
The photo of the original Duncan looked nothing like this Duncan.
Of course he didn't, because he's a child All children look the same anyway.
Also, surely you aren't seriously suggesting that a photo should be utilised of a missing child? Are you that thoughtless?
Not "seriously"; just pointing out that such a photo could be used and the viewers would never know the difference because all children have that generic child look.
What would be the point of that? People don't look the same as adults as they do when they are children. Any kid would do.
share