Do You Prefer The Nashes or The Sutherlands

[KKB]

17 hours ago, CaptainHulk said:

What do you mean? The pregnancy or the reunion or both?

I think it was mentioned they're still together as of the 2010s by either Will or Gypsy in their returns.

I mean the reunion and I think Joel was mentioned but I don't think Nat was

[adam436]

Definitely the Nashes. They were more believable as a family unit and I think overall, more interesting characters. I think it's the same the writers didn't keep them on and perhaps introduce the Sutherland girls as Natalie's nieces (Shelley could easily have passed for the sister of Natalie #1). Joel also happens to be the most recent competent police officer we've had in the regular cast  

I too, don't understand the Natalie/Joel ending. If they knew that both Joel and Natalie were leaving (presumably to make way for the Sutherlands), I don't understand why they couldn't have given them a "staggered exit" or at the very least had Natalie cheat without complicating the situation further by adding the pregnancy.

 

Were Tom, Natalie and Joel definitely axed? I feel like at the very least Joel was. It's a shame really as I feel like had he not been, Joel would have become a long-term character. He would have always had a place in the community as the local cop and perhaps they could have introduced Shelley as a single mum who could have married Joel and given him 3 new step daughters. 

 

I wasn't a big fan of the Sutherlands. I liked Shelly and Kirsty (in her pre-Kane days), but I couldn't stand Jade, Dani or Rhys. Rhys used to grate on me. Michael Beckley seemed so wooden as an actor and he always seemed angry. I also don't understand what was gained by adding Brodie to the family unit either. Aside from the fact she was a woeful character, the family was already large enough, and certainly female-heavy enough. 

[j.laur5]

14 hours ago, adam436 said:

Definitely the Nashes. They were more believable as a family unit and I think overall, more interesting characters. I think it's the same the writers didn't keep them on and perhaps introduce the Sutherland girls as Natalie's nieces (Shelley could easily have passed for the sister of Natalie #1). Joel also happens to be the most recent competent police officer we've had in the regular cast  

I too, don't understand the Natalie/Joel ending. If they knew that both Joel and Natalie were leaving (presumably to make way for the Sutherlands), I don't understand why they couldn't have given them a "staggered exit" or at the very least had Natalie cheat without complicating the situation further by adding the pregnancy.

 

Were Tom, Natalie and Joel definitely axed? I feel like at the very least Joel was. It's a shame really as I feel like had he not been, Joel would have become a long-term character. He would have always had a place in the community as the local cop and perhaps they could have introduced Shelley as a single mum who could have married Joel and given him 3 new step daughters. 

 

I wasn't a big fan of the Sutherlands. I liked Shelly and Kirsty (in her pre-Kane days), but I couldn't stand Jade, Dani or Rhys. Rhys used to grate on me. Michael Beckley seemed so wooden as an actor and he always seemed angry. I also don't understand what was gained by adding Brodie to the family unit either. Aside from the fact she was a woeful character, the family was already large enough, and certainly female-heavy enough. 

I think the problem with Natalie and Joel was that their contracts finished at different times, and therefore had to be written out at different times.

[KKB]

5 hours ago, adam436 said:

Definitely the Nashes. They were more believable as a family unit and I think overall, more interesting characters. I think it's the same the writers didn't keep them on and perhaps introduce the Sutherland girls as Natalie's nieces (Shelley could easily have passed for the sister of Natalie #1). Joel also happens to be the most recent competent police officer we've had in the regular cast  

I too, don't understand the Natalie/Joel ending. If they knew that both Joel and Natalie were leaving (presumably to make way for the Sutherlands), I don't understand why they couldn't have given them a "staggered exit" or at the very least had Natalie cheat without complicating the situation further by adding the pregnancy.

 

Were Tom, Natalie and Joel definitely axed? I feel like at the very least Joel was. It's a shame really as I feel like had he not been, Joel would have become a long-term character. He would have always had a place in the community as the local cop and perhaps they could have introduced Shelley as a single mum who could have married Joel and given him 3 new step daughters. 

 

I wasn't a big fan of the Sutherlands. I liked Shelly and Kirsty (in her pre-Kane days), but I couldn't stand Jade, Dani or Rhys. Rhys used to grate on me. Michael Beckley seemed so wooden as an actor and he always seemed angry. I also don't understand what was gained by adding Brodie to the family unit either. Aside from the fact she was a woeful character, the family was already large enough, and certainly female-heavy enough. 

I agree with you Shelley could have past as sister of Nat #1. Yes I also think Joel is the most competent police officer in the regular cast.

I didn't understand that at all. Yeah I agree they shouldn't have got Nat pregnant and making the situation a lot more complicated.

I think because Nat and Tom's contracts ended that's why they departed. David Woodley who played Joel said he would still be on there if he could. Yeah he will sure always have a place in the community. That actually would being a good idea introducing Shelley as a single mum and her and Joel getting hitched.

I never liked The Sutherland Family. I never was a big fan of Rhys and I agree he always seemed so angry. I don't understand why they wrote Brodie in either.

[c120701]

Definitely the Nashes because of their history, they're also connected to the Fishers & Stewarts through Rebecca, although only the Fisher link was occasionally picked up between Gypsy & Don. You'd be forgiven for not knowing if you only watched in the 90s that Bobby, Rebecca & Sam had any family connection to Alf.

Looking back, Joel reminds me a bit of Tom Fletcher, although it might have just been his off duty costume.

[KKB]

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 6:54 AM, c120701 said:

Definitely the Nashes because of their history, they're also connected to the Fishers & Stewarts through Rebecca, although only the Fisher link was occasionally picked up between Gypsy & Don. You'd be forgiven for not knowing if you only watched in the 90s that Bobby, Rebecca & Sam had any family connection to Alf.

Looking back, Joel reminds me a bit of Tom Fletcher, although it might have just been his off duty costume.

I prefer them too. Yeah they have defiantly have those connections. It is shame they didn't have more stuff about the link.

I have nothing thought of that before but he does.

[jodlebirger]

in general I liked both families. I think the show should have a real family (parent(s), kids) on the show all the time. It gives the show some kind of normality. 

But I liked the Sutherlands more. They felt like real people with the range of emotions as people have. The Nashes either felt flat or caricatured. I liked the first Nathalie, but when they replaced the first actress with a much younger one, she became unrealistic for me.   I know the first one left because she wanted to, but the replacement was bad. She was far too young and flirty for being Gypsy and Tom's mother. Looked like their sister. And Gypsy was over the top for me. But I loved Joel and Tom, two very underrated charachters... But I think they didn't get the storylines they deserved. But Joel is certainly the last good cop in town! 

I loved the Sutherlands. Some will say that the problems Sutherland had (Kane) was far too fetched, but this is a soap and I think this was not too over the top, but an interesting case. I wasn't too keen on Shelley in her "I don't want to have scars so I don't want to save my daughter" period, I found that a bit unrealistic, because most mothers would do everything to save their child. Some people would have had some "I don't want scars" thoughts, but I think it went to far. And I also think Rhys/Kane wars went on for too long. Rhys and Shelley's divorce felt natural. I didn't like that Rhys went back to her though, and betrayed Beth. But I liked the drama, it's hard to have teenage children, especially when tragedy strikes and you really get tested (Kane). 

The Nashes departure from the show was far better than the Sutherlands. The twin swap was an unnecessary storyline. And Kirsty (and Kane's) return, was really bad - with the exception of the return of Shelley and mother and daughter got reunited. I loved that part.  

[KKB]

11 hours ago, jodlebirger said:

in general I liked both families. I think the show should have a real family (parent(s), kids) on the show all the time. It gives the show some kind of normality. 

But I liked the Sutherlands more. They felt like real people with the range of emotions as people have. The Nashes either felt flat or caricatured. I liked the first Nathalie, but when they replaced the first actress with a much younger one, she became unrealistic for me.   I know the first one left because she wanted to, but the replacement was bad. She was far too young and flirty for being Gypsy and Tom's mother. Looked like their sister. And Gypsy was over the top for me. But I loved Joel and Tom, two very underrated charachters... But I think they didn't get the storylines they deserved. But Joel is certainly the last good cop in town! 

I loved the Sutherlands. Some will say that the problems Sutherland had (Kane) was far too fetched, but this is a soap and I think this was not too over the top, but an interesting case. I wasn't too keen on Shelley in her "I don't want to have scars so I don't want to save my daughter" period, I found that a bit unrealistic, because most mothers would do everything to save their child. Some people would have had some "I don't want scars" thoughts, but I think it went to far. And I also think Rhys/Kane wars went on for too long. Rhys and Shelley's divorce felt natural. I didn't like that Rhys went back to her though, and betrayed Beth. But I liked the drama, it's hard to have teenage children, especially when tragedy strikes and you really get tested (Kane). 

The Nashes departure from the show was far better than the Sutherlands. The twin swap was an unnecessary storyline. And Kirsty (and Kane's) return, was really bad - with the exception of the return of Shelley and mother and daughter got reunited. I loved that part.  

I agree about the show having a real family-parent and kids all the time.

See I liked the Nashes more. I agree about the emotion thing. I also do agree about the second Nat. I didn't feel that Gypsy was over the top. Yes Joel and Tom were good characters and yes Joel was the last good cop in town! It would be awesome if he came back.

Yeah I feel that the thing with the Kane was too far fetched but your right it is a soap after all. Yeah I felt like that she should have put her daughter first not worrying about her so called boyfriend. I agree again about the Rhys/Kane wars it went on for way too long. Yeah I feel that the divorce was mutual. Yeah I didn't like that storyline either. Yeah I liked that drama too.

I agree that The Nashes was far better than The Sutherlands. Yes, I didn't understand that surely after The Mudslide they had a connection to where the other was. Yeah I agree about KK return but I did like how Shelley and Kirsty reunited

[jodlebirger]

19 hours ago, KKB said:

I agree about the show having a real family-parent and kids all the time.

See I liked the Nashes more. I agree about the emotion thing. I also do agree about the second Nat. I didn't feel that Gypsy was over the top. Yes Joel and Tom were good characters and yes Joel was the last good cop in town! It would be awesome if he came back.

Yeah I feel that the thing with the Kane was too far fetched but your right it is a soap after all. Yeah I felt like that she should have put her daughter first not worrying about her so called boyfriend. I agree again about the Rhys/Kane wars it went on for way too long. Yeah I feel that the divorce was mutual. Yeah I didn't like that storyline either. Yeah I liked that drama too.

I agree that The Nashes was far better than The Sutherlands. Yes, I didn't understand that surely after The Mudslide they had a connection to where the other was. Yeah I agree about KK return but I did like how Shelley and Kirsty reunited

I disagree. I meant that the Sutherlands were better than the Nashes.

I disagree  about Kane. He forced himself on Dani... but she was without bruses and it wasn't a huge vicious attack... It doesn't mean that it was ok, and it was a crime. But there are differences between some rapes and others. Did Dani overreact?? As other storylines on H&A it had some holes, but I think overall it was good.  I thought the whole thing was interesting, because should always jugde by the one crime someone once did? Should we never forgive? Should people never been given second chances??  I think it was a great storyline about time, forgiveness and differences in the family. And it took time, it was very well described. It was completely different to the crimes that were forgotten about in a blink, such as the Braxtons forgiving Kyle overnight for torturing Casey for days and trying to kill him. Half brother or not, this was something that should have happened over a long period of time. But Kane was judged by whole Summer bay for a really long time when he returned to the bay, even some time had passed since the incident.