jodlebirger

That is only a small detail that could be written differently. Matt could have been younger or older.... And who knows, was Nathan in prison in whole 1996?? Or was he let out off screen?? A lot of things can have happened off screen, since the charachters doesn't get mentioned. I think the show doesn't use the potential it have with the charachters they already have developed. The show would have been more grounded if they use the past much more, instead of creating new characters all the time. It feels very random sometimes. For me Matt's storyline was very messy, and didn't have a good development, things happened in wrong order. And things that should have been explored and developed further was forgotten. It would have made more sense if Matt had his dad on screen for longer time, and if he had some connections to others in the bay. And it is totally unessescary to create a new role and use an "old" actor, instead of bringing back the character the actor originally played.

As I said in an another tread, Matt should have been Irene's grandson. Matt's father was played by the same actor who played Nathan Roberts, Irene's son. I think they missed a huge chance to do something great with Irene's character and also with Matt and Nathan's. Nathan was a drug addict, he could have had a son he didn't know about at first and then got the responsibility for after a while (and Ellie too). Nathan could have kept that as a secret and didn't want to involve Irene, because of their history. And then suddenly Matt could have come to the bay. I didn't like the river boy side to Matt, I don't think he suited to be a river boy. But Matt had something interesting with him. Then he could have been a long term character if the actor wanted to.

Snow, snow and snow.... Snowing all night, day and night.... And almost impossible to go outside. And tomorrow's forecast says rain and +5 degrees C... It will be slushy and slippery and even more difficult to move around outside, then. Now it is -6,5 degrees celsius, but was -10 earlier today.

Yes it was. The fire was in June 2015, Australian pace - in episode 6236. Denny was murdered in 6281. About 2 months later... Source: baktothebay.net/episodes/2015 I am months behind, but are they trying to rewrite the storylines?? I have felt that before, when they have tried to make Hunter responsible for Charlotte's actions. Do they want to make Charlotte for his now??? Charlotte weren't responsible for the fire, and Hunter electrocution of Marilyn, pushing Josh down the stairs, but she had her own mean plan and actions long before Hunter entered the show. Sometimes it is hard to see who is meant to be the parent, and who is meant to be the child on this show. The parent is the one who should be more responsible, and teaching their children right or wrong. I remember Charlotte being upset about some of Hunters actions, but she was too busy with fooling around with 16 year olds (Matt), and her own vicious plan to get Zack which ended with murdering several charachters (and they tried to blame that on Hunter). Hunter was responsible for what he did, but not Charlotte's actions. But Charlotte should have put him in place, that is a parent responsibility. It is the adult who's supposed to take responsibility and show it to the teen, not the other way around. I really miss the days when we had realistic adult charachters on the show, when parenting was the parent responsibility, and when the teens were taught to take responsibility for their actions, and when they parents weren't psycho's or weak with more faults than the teens toghether.

i have never thought that Irene is only a nice character. And she is so shifting, she has always been like that. I am only half way through 2016 (we are 6 months behind here in Norway), but I don't think she is harsher than she has been in the past. She has always treated other characters unfair. Some she adores no matter what they do, and others she "hate" for less. She is against Hunter, but nothing more than she has been sceptical towards others earlier years. And she has a good reason to be sceptic about Hunter. But I remember she was harsh against Aden too, very harsh and much harsher than she is now. Yep, he had done some bad things in the past, but at the time by the Annie incident he was nowhere near Hunter. And she accused him wrongly for rape, and didn't want to apologise, because he was just a boy with some bad behaviour (which wasn't that bad comparing to todays bad boys in H&A) Then she wasn't angry when Geoff skipped school because of what happened to Belle, but was after Aden because he was mourning his girlfriend. She was sceptical about Roman, and even Miles in the beginning... because he had no home.. As a former alcoholic, I think she has too little understanding for other's troubles. And yep, she was harsh against Josie... But then she wasn't sceptical against Kane and Kirsty even Kane raped Kirsty's sister... She had no bad feelings about Heath and Bianca either, they were adults - but so was Josie, Roman and Miles. I think it's more about who the writers want us to like no matter what, and who they want to create opinions about. And even if this also existed years ago, I think the tendency is more there now.. because I think we have seen this with Leah too, in the later years. For me, Irene has been a rubbish character from time to time. Her suddenly stalkers and over-the-top behaviour/reactions is making me not liking her. In these situations I find her overplayed.

I would have been too. Or a child who has been living with their father all the time, could be a secret that Roo is keeping for herself, and then suddenly something happens and the secret is revealed. Could have been great for both Roo and Alf.

I think Jodi Gordon was too popular, to make it work... She wasn't meant to be a teenager either when she met. It's successful only with characters that are absent for many years, and are young when they leave (teenagers or kids) and then are full grown ups when they return - just like Roo in my opinion. But then Jodi Gordon's popularity went down after some very public incidents, so maybe it would have worked for some people. But it would have been great in this case, I have never liked her departure storyline. Alf's granddaughter running away with a people smuggler. I thought that storyline was a disgrace! And to bring her back even with a recast could have been used to repair that damage. But I have always thought that Roo was brought back to the show some years to late, because it would have been great to see her with Martha. A lot of potential storylines there. But then, I think she was only brought back just to give Alf some much needed family in the show. She is okay, but not used to her potential at all. She should have had other kids too. I have never understood why, she was too young when she gave birth to Martha and gave her away for adoption... but it doesn't mean that she had to choose not having more babies later on when she was older. But now - she is too old.

The way Nicole changed wasn't good for her character. The writers just took her to the destruction path, and put her with one villain after another, before they decided to use her to put her with Aden who was leaving soon.... It felt like they used her to make him look bad, but it made her look even worse. It would have been better to keep her father and develop her as a "normal" teen. I think there have been too many teens loosing their relatives on the show, and it looses its impact. So with Nicole they could have done it differently. If they needed to drop Roman/Conrad of the show because of something we don't know - they should probably have written him out just for work somewhere else, and Nicole could have stayed with someone to finish high school. I wonder if she could have stayed with Irene instead of Miles. But the Elliot/Rambo stuff, and the Gardy stuff were really terrible, and it felt like they tried to destroy him especially with the Gardy stuff... I think that Roman just should have been a nice man, with darker secret - but the secrets should have been told differently than they were. Secrets don't need to contain violence, murder and over the top storylines.

He wasn't that old either. Conrad Coleby/Taylor was born in 1979, which means that he was only 30 when he was axed. Younger than many other Hollywood travellers are. But I remember there were some comments from Conrad that he was disappointed by the axing, but got quickly over it (he got other roles down under). But I agree with you that he should have stayed, he was one of my favourites too. And he was important for the show, he was a brigde between the older and younger characters. I loved his talk with Colleen for example when Colleen found out that she was the Stewarts' half sister, and he was great with Aden and Nicole. But Roman Harris was axed to give place to Angelo who just had returned. I thought that was a terrible decision. Roman was just a nice and good character. He wasn't explored at all. They said that he had run his course, and they had taken him too far. Yes, the storyline about Gardy and Roman was over the top, and they suddenly made Roman guilty of murder... But that was Roman's departure storyline, so they had made their decisions before that. And he had certainly not run his course!! We never learned anything about his family, except from Nicole. I think this makes the more significant change in writing style, and not the arrival of the Braxtons. They were just the next step in that direction. Angelo should never have returned after he killed Jack... Oh, yes, I know he didn't mean to, but Angelo was a real mean and horrible cop who did a lot of crimes. Charlie and Kat was/is nothing in comparison. It was like we should just think that Jack was terrible and deserved to die, and all Angelo's crimes was forgotten. Roman should at least have stayed as long as Nicole did. What they did to her character after he left wasn't good either. I don't think he would have stayed for years and years, but probably for a while. He had some roles after Home and away, but he is a photographer now. I googled hm.

First snow of the season in the lowland (Southern Norway). Snowing really hard, and - 2 degrees Celsius.

I don't understand why it could be viewed as a mental breakdown. It really wasn't. I know that is what the writers wanted us to believe, but I really need better work to believe it. We didn't see the build up to it. We have never heard much about what happened to him before this, except from having foster parents (good ones) and having a girlfriend (Phoebe), and loving music. Yes, he probably didn't cope well with his mother's death, but still - he grew up with good foster parents, and normally that would have been enough not to fall that apart. I don't believe in a huge breakdown as that without a real solid storyline. Aden got a breakdown and that was belivable, because we saw a lot of the build up, and for me that is important. I don't want to guess the characters past, and if we have to it will only lead to unbelievable storylines. I didn't agree with how Aden's breakdown was done and it was certainly parts of that storyline that should have been done in a different way, but still I believed that he could break down, because it was solid work build up to it... Kyle never had such a build up. We have to guess a lot of what's happened before the desert. And Kyle's so called "breakdown" or desert storyline was far more unbelievable itself as a breakdown than Aden not letting his father, Belle and Rachel go, and tried hysterically to speed up his father's death. It wasn't a planned kidnapping like Kyle kidnap Casey. At least they should have explored Kyle's past and past events a lot more, extremely lot more. Because it was just mentioned here and there that he had foster parents, that his mother had died... But did we really know how his relationship with his mother was? No.. we didn't. And he grew up with good foster parents, is very important. Of course his biological mothers death could be hard on him, but if he had good foster parents they still should be more important to him... And giving him the comfort and support. And if they didn't we should have heard more about that. I feel that Kyle was only brought in just to point out how amazing the Braxtons was, and put them even higher on a pedestal. It only lead to that Kyle felt totally out of place, and with no real personality except from that he sometimes was a tiny little bit smarter than the Braxtons when it suited the writers. But it could have been a good storyline if had been done in a decent way with much more depth. I feel that he sometimes should have fought more against both Danny and the Braxtons, given that he had been brought up in a different way. But he just followed them as a poppy, and that make the storyline about Isla and Kyle in character for Kyle for me.

Sympathetic backstories?? seriously they tried that with Kyle too... "he was so angry because Casey killed their father"... a father who never was a father for him, and he knew why he was killed. But the point is that the backstory was not used effectively, it wasn't realistic, it was full of holes. Kane's story was done in a decent way. They redeemed Kane, with a extremely long and complicated storyline. I believe in second chances, when life has made you flipping out. I believe that with some help people can change over time. But with Kyle we didn't see this at all... He changed overnight and the whole thing was forgotten about, it was treated like a small thing. But Kyle almost killed Casey slowly and he would have if he hadn't been stopped by Brax. With Danni we had to deal with the anger of the Sutherlands (except Kirsty) towards Kane for years, and also it wasn't easily forgotten about by the others either... Brax was angry for a little bit, and so was Heath, but it was over in a blink... No one else (except from a small stint from the police) confronted Kyle about what he had done. It wasn't realistic at all... But I feel that having a realistic tragic background which can tip everyone over is a crime for the writers and others. Because they destroyed Kane in the end by blaming him for something he didn't do, and destroyed all his hard work to become a better person. Some will probably say that it counts for Kyle too, and yep he returned a bit bad... But the problem is that he has never redeemed. We never saw the process, he never had a solid backstory with realistic chain of happenings which lead to his actions - and that makes it much easier for me to accept the storyline with Isla, even if it is a cheap way to get "rid of him". All charachters need to be explored and developed with realistic backstories and happenings for me to believe in their progress. As I've said before, Kane - Aden and more aren't like Kyle because their backstories and progression were more realistic... there will always be wholes in the storylines and things happens faster than in the real life, but still we saw the process. Kyle is more like how Hunter has been treated. And I guess Hunter will suddenly turn out mad in two years of time... But it will not be a loss, because we did never see why and how he became a better person, and we have never seen really why he went bad in the first place. I understand that this is the more modern way of "redeeming/bad boy storylines or girls", but it is a more cheap and lazy way, the characters are changing overnight and the writers expect us to believe what isn't been said... because "we have always had these kind of storylines".. But the backstory and the whole journey to become a better person is important to understand the change, and we need to see it!

Heath showed that it is possible to move away from that world. It was a tough ride they gave him to get to that place in life. I really don't hope they bring him back and destroy all that, but it would be really in character for H&A writers and producers to do so... We have seen them undo a lot of character work on these kind of stories before, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if they sacrifice Heath just to give Kyle a better ending. Kyle didn't have that kind of journey at all, his character was all over the place and he had no "real" personality. I think this storyline with Isla is actually in character for him, when we think about what he has done before, and how inconsistent his personality has been through his ride on H&A. And he had a caring nature besides his evilness and sometimes thoughtless actions, so I don't think it is unrealistic for him as a character to take the blame for Isla. But If they ever want to make Kyle some kind of "justice" they can bring Isla back and let the truth be revealed. By the way, was Ricky a family to Kyle? Was Brax or was Heath? I feel they were just family every time they needed some help from Kyle, but never really cared about him at all. It feels like Kyle was seeking some kind of love and attention he never got, so I don't think it is strange at all that he wants to sacrifice himself for a "stranger" who he has got totally in love with. In a way I agree that Kyle never seemed suited to that crime, crash and bang world, but I wonder if that is more because of the actors personality and way to perform his role than the storylines he has been given. Remember how Kyle was introduced to the show....

Yes, but then they needed to be able to move him away from the Braxtons. It feels like with his messy backstory which never made sense, or never was developed so it could have made som sense it was too difficult to move him forward. And I think it was too late to dig into his backstory now, without rewriting some of his storylines. I have always wished that Kyle's entrance to the show should have been done in a different way. What he did to Casey was too serious (with too many terrible scenes when he tortured Casey) to forget it or sweep it under the carpet. And we did not get any decent explanations why he did what he did. I don't by this "he was so angry at Casey for murdering Danny"-thing. Kyle didn't grew up with Danny as a father, he had foster parents. And it was made clear that he have had a good childhood with them. So why did he suddenly join Danny and form such deep bonds with him? All Danny did, was using Kyle. We did never get any real explanations to all these incidents, and that made what Kyle did to Casey quite awful and did not make any sense to me. A character like that should never be made as a regular.

And then I prefer that they let the storyline like it was. Heath was a better character with a better message than Kyle. I don't watch H&A every day anymore, but an episode here and there. I watched two episodes today, friday's and today's here in Norway (6393 and 6394) and we are in the middle of Isla and Kyle storyline. And I don't think Isla taking Kyle down with her, or him taking the blame for Isla is out of character for him, just because Kyle's character has really been all over the place, and he always seem to be following other's ideas... just like he followed the Braxton's and admired them no matter what they were up to. He has always felt like a spineless character that suddenly snaps.

I disagree. I feel Heath was that one who tried to be one of the community, and tried to be better... Kyle was only a no-charachter for me, just a shadow following the Braxtons in everything they wanted to. I felt he had such a "messy" personality, it was just all over the place. Kyle was just the character Hunter is now, and even worse. Totally a maniac and then suddenly a change without explanation and a prosess. And he was only in the other Braxtons shadow. It felt like just took advantage of him and never really cared about him for a couple of years. And all he did was moping around. In my opinion Kyle was one of the most unnecessary characters H&A ever has had. Like they wanted to milk the Braxton success as much as possible, and it felt unnecessary. I think Nick Westaway would have been good as a character with no connection to the Braxtons. Then the character could have been a character on his own, and Nick could have been given more opportunities to shine. I don't think he suited to these guns and maniac storylines.

To be honest I don't understand the fuzz about the recast. Olivia was hardly a character in 2005, she only was in it for a very few episodes and she hardly said a word! And that Olivia was further away from the baby Olivia that Chloe gave birth too, the actress was about 3 years to old. Rachaelle Banno's Olivia is far more up close to the original storyline. I know she is in her twenties, but she looks young and meant to be 16. Probably a year to young, but still closer to the original one than the one from 2005. But the reintroduction, the way they brought back wasn't true to her storyline or to the character of James. And that is what destroy her a bit for me. And I wish they hadn't paired her up with Hunter, I think she should have been with VJ instead. Maybe if Hunter had a different introduction to the show and a more normal backstory it would have worked better. But a classic character as Olivia shouldn't be paired up with a weird psycho with a strange backstory, his shift overnight doesn't help at all. I think that pairing her up with VJ would have helped both characters. But it is too late now! But I think the actress is doing a good job with the storylines she is given, I can see a bit of Chloe in her. I always felt that Chloe meant that she was a bit better than everyone else, and that is also the impression I get of Olivia.

Phoebe is kind of an unnecessary character, but she isn't the only one. There have been a lot of them during the last years. She isn't worse than Ash, than Denny was most of her stay, Hannah, Ricky during her last 2 years, Tamara, Natalie +++++ I feel that the producers and writers do the wrong priority. They write out characters with potential long before they have got their chance to stay, and many characters stay on for too long. Phoebe is just one of them. She could have worked for a guest character during a few moths, or for a character on her own for a longer period - but then she needed to be developed better. But I have never understood the hate, because her behaviour is certainly not any worse than most of the rest. But a character needs more than half hearted romance storylines.

I liked Martha and Jack a bit in the second time around, they were more relaxed and their relation seemed more matured and solid. And they had storylines that formed and developed their relationship, like Martha's cancer. In the first time around I didn't understand why hey were in love. Because they had no storyline that developed their relationship and the characters. I find romance in shows must more believable when they have another when they develop the characters and the romance through the love story and parallel other storylines. And I am probably the only one, but I liked Liam and Martha a lot. I think that what she was with him was like she should have been all the time. A bit "alternative" and less "princess". A bit wild, but not totally crazy. If they hadn't done the thing with the people smuggling storyline and Hugo, I would have preferred Martha and Hugo too. I think that Hugo should have been a wild one with a criminal record with smaller offences which could have created some drama. People smuggling was far too serious and over the top. I have never liked the way the writed Martha out. She was Alf's granddaughter and shouldn't have run away with a people smuggler. It's too serious, and destroyed the Stewarts a bit. I know that the actress behaviour was a concern for the producers but that shouldn't affect the character. It seem to me that every time an actor or actress do something less acceptable or if they think the actors is less popular then the writers punish the character so we won't miss them. We have seen this with several others too. And that is wrong, don't mix the actors personal life with the show and storylines. Martha should have been written out in a good way, no matter what the actress did or didn't do in her private life. And I think it is a shame that Roo and Martha weren't on screen together, I have always thought it was a bit unnecessary to bring Roo back after Martha left. But I am not so sure that it would have worked with a recast. Jodi Gordon and her Martha was too popular to make it work, I think.

Hm.. In a way I liked Sasha and Spencer, but it felt a bit pointless since he was leaving. And Sasha felt pointless to me after the other Walkers left, she should have left with them. I think her relationship with Matt was completely pointless, it felt like they reversed her a bit. But I don't understand why a character can both have a good friend and a boyfriend/girlfriend at the same time. Miss the days of Mathilda and Cassie... And Rosie and Sasha was wasted potential. I liked Rosie, but thought the pregnancy was unnecessary. Would have liked to see her in a foster care with some of the Bay's main characters. I have always thought she should have stayed with Irene. But Rosie was just one of those guest characters during the last years that had bigger potential and was more interesting that the main characters. There have been too many of those. And it feel pointless, just when we start to connect to the character they disappear from the show.

Never saw any romance tendencies between Rosie and Sasha. Rosie was just desperate in need for a friend. And she was a lot into Spencer. If they ever will do a gay storyline again, then I really hope it will be a well build storyline with realistic characters, and not something which is done just for sensationalism and attention. Characters suddenly turning gay isn't the way to do it.

I won't quit watching only because Oscar is getting killed and Andy and Josh are going on the run. But because of the constant tendency to ruin the characters by the end, and undoing a lot of character work they have done with the characters. And also for not using the characters to their potential such as Oscar, Chris and Nate and several others through the years. And for the lack of natural character development when the characters change behaviour from psychopaths to good boys (Hunte and Kyle++). Andy was a thug when he came in, but he had a logical character development. The killing of Jake was unnecessary and only because the police didn't do their work and only to get the blame off Brax. It was Brax who hurt Jake in the car chase not Andy. They could easily have killed him off there, he was in a coma. And with Charlotte, she should have been arrested for terrorising the whole town and for killing Denny and other characters. I don't get this "oh he killed Charlotte" or "oh he killed Jake"- thing. These were murderers, and psycopaths, and their storylines should have been ended earlier. And the explosion wasn't Andy's fault but the caravan park's from what I have seen from a short clip of the whole thing. Others could have knocked that cans down too, please do these kind of storylines more logical writers!! I don't understand why they always have do undo all the character work they are doing with such characters during the stay, when they are departing. It was unnecessary to write these storylines like they have done. To run away from the law isn't something that should be glorified either. It's wrong, and it's also not excactly that living on the run is to live a normal and happy life. They destroyed Kirsty and Kane with it, now they are doing the same with Josh and Andy. It is not as bad as with Kirsty and Kane since those two had a better character development than Andy (and Josh), but still wrong. Death or prison would have been better really.

Casey was played by Lincoln Younes. For me Geoff was a much better and memorable character than Casey.

I didn't like Watson more than I liked the other guest cops... And I think Watson was a bit sterotyped boyish policewoman. And I don't think she would have worked as a full time character (regular). I liked Lara Fitzgerald more, and Emerson would have been great if he hadn't been written like a stupid moron sometimes. But sometimes he acted like a cop.

It's because of the messy writing. As RR1 points out his storylines about his background is too short and too weak. In my opinion putting him with the Braxton clan and their wider members is destroying him, because he is never given the possibility to shine alone. He is just like Ash, Ricky, Andy and the rest. All of them would have been better if they were allowed to have their own story without continuing with the Braxton like storylines. I actually liked Nate through the Sophie storyline even if I didn't like his actions. It showed how difficult it can be to cut ties with someone who isn't good to you and you still have a soft heart for the person, and you drag yourself and the other person into a difficult and sometimes dangerous cycle. It was exaggerated of course, but it had some good elements in my opinion. But Nate needed more background storylines, his father storyline was far too quick and rubbish. I want Nate as a character on his own, and not only in this endless storyline circle with Ricky. I want him to be more involved with the others instead. To be honest, I think it was bad that they didn't couple him with Hannah. It would have been good for both characters to develop good and normal storylines. And I loved him with Cat. When they first put them together they shouldn't have split them up. I feel they are keeping sacrificing a lot of characters just to have this Brax is the greatest thing, going on.