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.