John
-
Content Count
4979 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
79
Posts posted by John
-
-
I think a lot of the comments regarding Natalie are unfair. I manage a Counselling Centre. I talk to Counsellors a lot although I'm not a Counsellor.
Looking at it from their point of view, the biggest problem they have is that as soon as people find out they are counsellors people want to tell them their troubles. They find great difficulty separating their professional and private lives. Doctors have the same problem. It seems to me that is what is happening to Natalie.
I also see Natalie's attitude to Brax differently. I actually think it is refreshing to see someone think and act beyond the physical attraction, jump into bed, we're meant to be , he/she is the love of my life cycle.
Natalie is attracted to Brax. She may even be falling in love with him but she recognises that just that physical attraction or even love is not enough to guarantee a lasting relationship. She's thought about it and made the painful decision that the relationship doesn't have a good chance of working. So, at least for the moment, she's walked away.
-
Digital Spy Article
Does anyone see any chemistry between Harvey and Roo? I really don't. I really wish Roo would get back together with Sid, or anyone else!
I think there is a strange sort of chemistry between the two of them but the constant making up and breaking up has become tedious for me at least.
-
Don is certainly the only believable and effective Principal the school has had in my time.
-
Would blow your dog off the chain!! Tree and power lines down all over.
-
Vile. Min 5 Max 10 Snow down to 600m.
-
You were "called out" because of the long and repetitive nature of your posts which were seen as stating the same opinion over and over again often in the same words.
If you would read through my previous post carefully you would see my acknowledgement of this misunderstanding:
Why is it that more than one post in admiration of the Braxtons is acceptable, whereas more than one post critical of the Braxtons is considered repetitive? That's called double standards.
They were also perceived to be aggressive and intimidatory.It's a shame that some members have been personally offended by my dislike of some television show characters. Please provide me with some specific examples where my posts have been 'agressive and intimidatory'.
Sorry about the delay in my replying to your post.
My apologies in that I was confusing you with a couple of other posters who had been referred to me. I have no problem with your posts.
Please be assured that it is not my intention to discourage anyone from either expressing a like or dislike of the Braxtons. That's what this discussion board is all about.
I was reacting to a number of PM's I had received from members who felt intimidated by long and repetitive posts about the Braxtons in various threads. This did not apply to you. Once again my apologies.
-
I agree it would be nicer to hear more about Roo's past, after all she is a returning character. There's so much (potentially) that we don't know and they really need to explore that.
Going out with Sid, and then Harvey, and then Sid, and then Harvey, and then Sid, and then Harvey, and then Sid, and then Harvey, and then Sid, and then Harvey, is not holding my interest.
I wonder if the actor that played Brett would return (?) after all he did come back in 2005.
I agree that it would be good to learn more about Roo's early life in the Bay. I must confess, as someone who hasn't watched the show right from the beginning, I have wondered a bit about her back story. I have recorded all the early years episodes perhaps I need to start watching them to catch up.
-
I think one of the biggest problems with the Braxtons getting away with things is that it completely destroys any sense of drama or storytelling.If they commit a crime, who cares?They're not going to be punished, certainly not legally, and within a few weeks it'll all be forgotten so you might as well not watch.If characters actions fail to have consequences, and this seems to be a trait that is infecting a lot of characters, even those we're apparently meant to see as pure and innocent, then you're not telling a story, you're just showing a series of unconnected events.
Now, a show like that can work.If you're going to make a show unrealistic, then you need to remove it from the real world, set it in a fantasy world populated by people who would be unbearable in real life but make for great entertainment and watch their grotesque, over the top behaviour towards each other:American soaps have functioned that way for years and British drama series developed an amusing "so-bad-it's-good" sub-genre a few years back.And yes, you can do a show about noble criminals, who operate on a strict code of conduct and whose motives are easy to identify with, it's an idea as old as the Robin Hood legends and when done well, it works.But those aren't what any of us got into Home and Away for and I don't think they're the type of show that the production team are trying to make.
And it doesn't help that Brax is so continually unpleasant towards everyone he meets that it's pretty hard to accept him being allowed to do whatever he wants, no matter how morally repugnant, without censure.
Very well said. I've highlighted the main points I agree with above. This is the major gripe I have about the show at the moment, really its the problem I've had with the show since 2005 to varying degrees. The major lack of consistency. But its got terrible since the Braxtons arrived and since they are the current obsession, I see their introduction and the focus on trivialising their crime and irritating behaviour as the main culprit in 2011-2012. It makes the writers come up with tacky plots that are very repetitive and difficult to invest in.
See I also agree with Coral about drama being about 'life without the boring bits' - the thing is, Coral was an excellent character writer who gave the characters genuine and realistic responses to goings on (most of the time) and therefore we could accept that these characters were realistically facing what they were on screen and dealing with the aftermath as people do in life. She knew Summer Bay and how to write Home and Away as we knew it, but with lots of emotion, drama and light-hearted content.
The current writers don't write 'life without the boring bits' they write shallow characters and storylines (Imo) that don't mean anything or have any lasting or realistic consequences - Braxton is top of the list for me. Bianca is another example - I can't comment properly on the last few months, but the rape was pathetic. Swept under the carpet within a matter of episodes. Irene's cancer, brushed to the side because they cant be bothered giving an older character screen time. These sort of things irritate me which is why I have done what others are suggesting, switch off.
I find some agreement with you both Alexx and RR1. I think the organisation of this storyline and the timing of the presentation of its parts has been poor. It's a shame because, as an examination of the type of counter culture which can grow up when social disadvantage prevents people accessing many of societies privileges, the Braxtons had real dramatic potential.
For me the back story of the Braxtons which would have helped us to understand them as characters was presented far too late in the development of the storyline. We've only just met Danny Braxton in the past few weeks and he is a major part of that back story. Without an understanding of his character and role much of what we've seen to this point is " a series of disconnected events".
I have some sympathy for those viewers who are tired of the pointless violence and crime. The back story which would have given the events point was simply not available to them.
On the up side it is being presented now. I hold out some hope that things will improve./
-
You were not "called out" because of your dislike of the Braxtons or their criminal activities and involvement with drug dealings. If you look back through the threads you will find numerous occasions where you and others have presented those views. There is no problem with this in fact it is what the Forum is about.
You were "called out" because of the long and repetitive nature of your posts which were seen as stating the same opinion over and over again often in the same words. They were also perceived to be aggressive and intimidatory.
-
I have to admit that I am getting slightly sick of some members on this forum constantly giving out about how the Braxtons seem to avoid being charged for any wrong doings that they may commit.
This is a soap opera. It is not real life.
And if every character was charged for every illegal thing that they did, there would be hardly any characters left in the show.
I wish people could just enjoy the show, and not constantly point out about how unlike the real world it is.
It's just a tv show!
I have to agree with you. People are entitled to their opinions and certainly entitled to express them on the Forum but it is almost as if some people are trying to drown out any different opinion in long, repetitive posts which pretty much say the same thing over and over again.
Personally I believe that the show has in the past overdone the drug and crime storylines but I do think in recent times we have begun to see more of the back stories of the characters and why they behave as they do. For me this makes interesting character focussed television.
Personally I am not looking to be constantly taught moral or legal lessons in the television drama I watch. I am looking for reflections of life presented in a dramatic way.
I recall Coral Drouyn, former Script Producer on the show, saying at one stage that she saw television drama as "life with the boring bits cut out'. I tend to agree with her. For me constant scenarios with criminals being caught and made to pay for their crimes would be just as boring as criminals constantly getting away with criminal behaviour.
In the "real world" many people who commit crimes are never charged or convicted. People who come from low socio-economic backgrounds tend to be over represented in the criminal justice system and also tend to be more harshly treated by the system than those who come from more affluent backgrounds.
Life is not fair and people who come from the "wrong side of the tracks" often have very limited options.
Perhaps that's why they see crime as their only option.
-
That's an interesting point and your view of Heath might well be right.I have to say I would much rather see Heath/April than Heath/Bianca or April/Dex but that's just my personal opinion and obviously someone involved in the show and quite a few people watching it see it differently.It is slightly annoying that April stated she was in love with Heath and now she's trying to make out she was in love with Dexter all along.(Rhiannon Fish seemed to go one step further in interviews and try to make out April was in love with Dexter from the moment she arrived in town, even though they never had anything to do with each other back then.)
As I intimated in my earlier post, I liked Dexter in the first half of the year but I haven't been too keen on him since he's started hanging around April again.I accept this is because I don't like them together but I've found him to be a selfish, shallow jerk:He hurt Lottie after lying to her to spend time with April, he seemed more concerned with his own feelings and getting the knock back than the stuff April had to deal with.As for April, they seem to change her personality whenever it suits them.When she first came in, she wasn't exactly a nympho but she was confident, she had strong opinions about things, she had the whole environmental belief, she was well travelled and used to looking after herself and surviving on her own.Then they paired her with Dex and suddenly turned her into a shy geek who couldn't get a date with anyone else, was a virgin(especially annoying for Xapril fans, it feels as though half the writers want to pretend they never dated)and completely forgot about the environmental angle which was her sole defining characteristic, leaving her as a rather dull non-entity of a character.It didn't help that the "geek" thing was pretty much an informed attribute:Unlike Dexter and Lottie, she very rarely says or does anything geeky and calling her "quiet" or "passive" might have been more accurate.I liked her a lot more when she was with Heath because it seemed like she was more like her old self and had gained a bit of attitude and independence after too long being Dex's shadow.And let's face it, she hasn't exactly slid back now she's hanging around Dex, she's pretty much acting like a nympho now.
Interesting post RR1. I really do think they have lost track of April's character. Early in the piece she had a degree of sophistication due to her travel and upbringing and could be quite idealistic if at times misguided.
Somehow that sophistication has deserted her and so has her idealism. The transformation to "nympho" as you so rightly describe it seems to have been without a real explanation on screen anyway as to why that had happened. I don't buy that an encounter with Heath would be the entire explanation for this.
To me April's journey in recent time s has been quite random and without any defining consistent character.
-
Cold, wet 10.5 degrees
-
Very wet. 10 degrees
-
I couldn't find a thread for the discussion of this relationship/marriage. If someone can set me straight I'll be happy to merge.
I just have a different view of this relationship and it's difficulties.
Indi is seen by many as the responsible one in the relationship with "responsible" being seen as conservative, low risk etc. I don't see it like that.
I see Indi as "safe". Not being able to function away from her family, not being able to contemplate life away from the safety and security of her well off life with her father generally providing a steady, more than adequate income and able to provide her with all the fashionable clothes and trinkets that she has been accustomed to up to this point. She finds it hard to contemplate a life where earning an income can come from sources other than the white collar, conservative lifestyle she grew up with.
Romeo on the other hand has grown up with none of that. His family has struggled against life's challenges. He is used to struggling in challenging circumstances without "safe" financial backup from parents and family. Because of this he sees earning a living as a surfer as an acceptable, challenging contributing to the financial support of himself and his wife. All of his attempts at business ventures have been risk taking ones. He didn't fail at his charter business because he didn't stick at it. He failed because Harvey sabotaged him in an underhand way. His Surf School didn't fail because of a lack of committment on his part. It failed ( or faded away ) because Indi couldn't get her head around Romeo wanting to earn a living in any other way but the "safe", white collar occupations she had been used to.
Perhaps these are reasons why they should never have married in the first place. Perhaps they explain the difficulties which appear to be besetting Indi in the upcoming spoilers.
Either way I hope that some how this relationship survives. I think it would have had a better chance if Indi had accepted the challenge of committing herself to joining the battle with Romeo away from her family rather than demanding that Romeo try to survive in her world.
-
Wet, windy. 13 C.
-
Mmmm.
I don't necessarily like or dislike Brax but I do find him a worthwhile and complex character. He's not all black or all white, like most people. There are times you can like him and at other times you will loathe him. I'd say I appreciate his character as a study rather than like or dislike him.
-
I should probably shut this computer down, go to bed and have a think before posting but...I'm here now.I feel I probably qualify as one of the "holier than thou" types of whom john speaks but, right to reply. I have spent the last few months following the talk in the Australian Discussion section and there's been talk of how the consistent portrayal of crime without punishment or consequence sends out the wrong message.And it seems people have grabbed that message with both hands:"If you're poor, crime is an acceptable lifestyle choice."Maybe I'm being simplistic and maybe those who have a balanced view of Brax are overcompensating to answer the other extreme.But it frustrates me when even storylines that have nothing to do with Brax are held up as evidence that he's somehow in the right, where Romeo failing his exams to impress a girl, dropping out of school, playing at being a businessman without making any money and entering a marriage he is not financially or emotionally ready for is suggested as the only alternative to getting a gang of street thugs together and growing marijuana.Did Brax come from a poor background?Yes.But if I believed his choice was the best or only one for someone from his background, I'd throw myself off a cliff.Maybe it's naive of me to think we live in a world where a man can support his family without breaking the law but I'll carry on believing it anyway.
A few posts back, DocZed suggested the moral "If a good girl gets involved with a bad boy, she'll die a violent death."That seems pretty accurate.Perhaps less obviously we might have "Violence breeds violence" or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."It's implied with Brax, and shown with Charlie, that breaking a little law to help those you love can seem like an acceptable choice at the time.But a few more steps along that road and you're mired into a world of crime and violence and revenge and there's no way out, however much you might want to convince yourself it can all stop.
If we are not meant to view Brax as a criminal, why do we see him react in such a matter of fact way to Angelo being left with life-threatening injuries as a result of his activities?Why do we see him ordering Liam beaten up for crossing his family?Why do we see him purchasing a gun with the expressed intention of murdering a man he sees as a danger to him?Why do we see him declaring he'll "deal with" Romeo if he objects to being used as a drugs courier?A criminal is how we are meant to see him.Is he "just" a criminal?No, he's a son, a brother, a boyfriend and even a legitimate businessman at times.But none of that stops him being a criminal and nothing ever will.A man who sees nothing wrong with planting evidence on a man who did him no harm because it's the most convenient thing to do.A man for whom "grief" is just another reason to wave a gun about.
Did Brax love Charlie?Yes.And her death was the result of that love.Have Heath and Casey really been helped by being exposed to gang culture or has it left all three Braxton brothers irreparably damaged with regards their moral and psyche?How often can you justify your behaviour by saying "I did it for my family" before you stop and look at what that family has become?
It seems as though the show and the fans are very restrictive about how "compassion" is implied.Is Jake Pirovic deserving of compassion for losing someone he loved or is he just to be viewed as a criminal to be locked up and kept away from society?Is Dean O'Mara, the perpetrator of an indefensible crime, to be given allowances for his disadvantaged background or is he just to be quietly shunted off to prison in a congratulatory manner?The only difference between Brax and any other criminal in Summer Bay is the amount of screen time he's given.If the story was told from someone else's point of view, we could have a very different image of him.
What a thought provoking post and just the sort I was hoping would be part of this discussion. That's not to say I agree with it all.
Just to clarify my thoughts;
1. I agree that Brax has been involved in criminal activity and that the River Boys are a gang involved in criminal activity.
2. I know that not all people from poor socio economic backgrounds resort to criminal behaviour but statistically, in Australia anyway, people from those poor backgrounds are over represented in our jail population.
3. I am not trying to promote Brax as some sort of Robin Hood figure who should be excused from the consequences of his wrongdoing.
My point was one of effective dramatic presentation of the human cost of criminal activity particularly that associated with drugs and gang activity.
It is my view that the ongoing saga of the River Boys, the death of Charlie ( and others) and its effects on Brax, Jake, the other gang members, Ruby, Casey and all members of the Summer Bay community needed to be explored at some length and in some depth for the "human suffering" message to be effectively presented. That message is still being presented in the pain and suffering of those left behind.
The portrayal of a swift implementation of justice and winding up of the storyline without portraying the suffering would not have been as effective either as drama or in portraying the human cost.
-
I have no problem with the recognition that the gang lifestyle and it's associated activities are criminal and can and do have tragic consequences. But I believe that if our appreciation of Brax as a character and his efforts to look after his family stop there we have missed a lot of the point of the storyline.
-
I'd like to widen the discussion of the character of Daryl Braxton.
At times discussion has been focussed entirely on his criminal dealings, real and assumed, and the tragic consequences of those both for him, his family and his friends. I certainly acknowledge that and I think that a large part of the point of the River Boys storylines has been the tragic consequences which can come from association with gangs and their culture and criminal associations. This is particularly the case when drugs are involved. These have been graphically portrayed in the death of Charlie and the various others who have become casualties of that whole scene and will continue to be felt in the grieving of those who loved Charlie and those who were her friends.
But to stop there ignores all the other dimensions of this complex character.
There are some who choose to believe that Brax and the others effected by the deaths of other gang members are not entitled to any sympathy or compassion and are only to have blame assigned to them, be ostracised from society and forgotten about. I don't subscribe to that view.
I believe any human being is entitled to compassion after suffering loss or grief.
Why did the writers introduce us to Ma Braxton and her attitudes to Casey and her other children if not to have us understand the background they came from? Why did the writers show us the struggle that Brax had to try and go straight and cut himself off from any criminal associations in his past? Surely it was to show us how difficult it is for people who are born on the "wrong side of the tracks" to escape from that life and access the opportunities for a better life that those of us who are more affluent enjoy often without thinking. Casey's struggles have been a great illustration of this.
So I feel compassion for Brax, at the same time as I feel it for Ruby and Charlie's friends.
I don't believe any of these insights into the difficulty of escaping from a criminal background would have been illustrated to us, the viewers, if the drug squad had descended on mass and swept all of the alleged criminals up and conveyed them to court and jail. A sometimes self righteous, and "holier than thou" society would have once again dusted off it's hands, congratulated itself on a job well done, and proceeded to once again ignore those who grow up in disadvantage and who at times see crime as their only chance of gaining some of the advantages of society denied to them.
This examination of the tragic consequences of all of this in the death of Charlie and all of the others, as well as the ongoing grief being suffered by Ruby, the Summer Bay community AND BRAX is a far better illustration of the tragedy of all this than a simple morality tale where all crime is punished, all criminals end up in jail and all crime is committed by those from the "wrong side of the tracks".
To me that is the point of the character of Brax and I think he has been written with a great deal of insight and beautifully played by Steve.
-
I think the relationship has possibilities. April certainly isn't intimidated by Heath and has the ability to make him think.
Heath certainly seems to care for April on some level. He wasn't prepared to provide her with drugs and has showed at least some concern for her welfare at times.
It will be interesting to see how it develops. For it to last fairly substantial character changes by both of them.
I'd like to see it.
-
Has it really been that long? I've been here since 2004. It's been a wild ride but fun.
May it continue.
-
Windy and wet. Would blow your dog off the chain!!
-
Hot 40 C
-
I'd like to see the storylines with Casey go in another direction. I think without the influence of Ruby and the adults that back her Casey will drift back into the life he knows from the example of his family. Rememeber that Irene has had a substantial influence on Ruby so had Leah. In that sense I think Casey's relationship with Ruby is important to his eeking another direction for his life.
A lot will depend on where Ruby turns to for wiser counsel. If Ruby turns to Irene, Leah and perhaps Roo then both she and Casey could become a stable and mutually supportive couple who would help each other to grow within that relationship.
Heath/Bianca
in Character/Actor Discussion
Posted
No you aren't. Many of us like Heath and Bianca together.