Jump to content

Sally Keating

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sally Keating last won the day on August 22

Sally Keating had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

216 Excellent

1 Follower

About Sally Keating

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree when you think about it objectively. His happy memories of growing up with the Fletchers were 10 years in the city with them. He was only in Summer Bay for slightly over one year and in that time he was nearly tricked into marrying and fathering a kid that wasn't his, nearly died in a car crash, married again only for it to end in divorce a matter of weeks later, and it's also where his foster father died after he left. Not quite sure why he'd want to return and celebrate a town that did all that to him in less than a year after a comparatively happy childhood in the city. You'd think he'd want to forget the place.
  2. Jack was literally the worst cop ever, he flouted the rules whenever it suited his personal desires, yet used the law to assert moral high ground over others at every opportunity. What a hypocrite. I agree about Joel, if he had been on the list. Peter should have been included as the show was plenty dramatic during his era. And he was actually smart and not corrupt (for the most part, compared to most others!)
  3. He just became a little mini replica of Donald, always on Shane's back, hanging around that kicthen set like a bad smell. It was like, get a life of your own Nick. You're a 20-something guy. I am not surprised they wrote him out in the end as they had clearly lost all interest in him. Shame as he was a decent enough character at the start.
  4. She wasn't used right in her last few years. There is a vast difference in how she was used in the 2000s and how she was used in the 2010s.
  5. Nick did almost nothing in his final year apart from suck up to Donald incessantly and shake his head disapprovingly at Shane.
  6. Comparing a period of 10 years to a period of 3 years doesn't seem that useful an argument to me. I'm not sure what your point is. In fairness H&A is the only soap that seems to be written in this bizarre way. In every other soap I can think of, the long term main characters are consistently the driving force behind storylines and focus. H&A is the only one that seems to treat its mainstays like background characters, to be given secondary focus; used as afterthoughts, given breadcrumbs of short "stories", to fit in around the arcs and attention of the temporary "main" characters who come and go every 2-3 years. It's almost as if the producers are more interested in their own creations than the characters they "inherit". Look at Martha being alive. Should have been the biggest story in H&A history for Alf - the longest running and most popular character - and instead all details of it were kept as ambiguous and background as possible. Where there should have been story, there was just glossing over. They even wrote that he knew all along - all to avoid actually giving him story and screen time (him finding out would have been a great story). Going so far as to rewrite and disregard established facts in H&A history, all to avoid actually having to give him scenes in his own story. Paul Robinson, Karl and Susan in Neighbours are consistently the focus of attention and character-led exploration in Neighbours. Ken Barlow is never out of the action in Coronation Street. Ian, Phil and Sharon are at the forefront of everything in EastEnders. Other characters get stories and focus too of course, but those original (and long term) characters get the fair share they deserve. Meanwhile their counterparts on H&A are treated as glorified extras. Leah no exception. Years of detail and attention went into establishing her strong connection with her family and yet was there a single mention of them the whole time she was "missing"? And VJ? It's just so, SO half-hearted when it comes to their long term characters. A feeling of "Any old crap will do, just write whatever and then get back to the new characters for the next scene." The ones the producers are interested in.
  7. How nice to celebrate 10 years of Leah and a further 10 years of a background character who occasionally plays with salad in the diner.
  8. Some people do move around a lot. They get opportunity after opportunity and just go wherever it takes them. There's no reason why Frank couldn't have went to London, then back to Aus, then back to America.
  9. The 2nd shop was very early 90s indeed. It was the trend at the time, I remember it in my town and nearby towns, to modernise everything and make it "90s". "Old fashioned" was out. After a few years the novelty wore off, people began to see all this modernizing as bland - everything ended up looking the same. And people wanted "traditional" back. The 3rd store was definitely more traditional and more similar to the original General Store that Ailsa had in the 80s.
  10. The ring is a place for a mutual fight among two consenting opponents. For some reason I was just randomly accused of insulting someone's mother when AFAIK I was talking about how an element of the show had changed So obviously I'm gonna defend myself against that, I think that's quite understandable. Defending yourself isn't the same as fighting but either way it was over hours ago, I don't see the point in dragging it up again. Let's get back to quick questions!
  11. I don't see how that's any sort of comment on how you were raised. The comment was on the logic that because something was ok for YOU, then it must be fine. I don't see how that's remotely related to how your mother raised you. I don't even know how she raised you in order to comment on it!
  12. Good, because I didn't give one.
  13. Talk about missing the point. I am talking about in specific cirumstances when adults realize they were in the wrong but it's still the child who has to apologize. That CLEARLY doesn't apply at all to Karen and Revhead because Alf and Ailsa never came to realize they were in the wrong (because they weren't). I don't know why you have to pretend to misunderstand people's posts just so you can bring up your favourite rinse/repeat subjects. We all know what I said had nothing to do with the examples you gave. As usual you take someone else's point and warp it into a point they were never making and then apply it to a storyline or example that is completely unrelated and nothing to do with anything. And so am I because that's nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about times when an adult comes to realize they were wrong but it's still the child who has to apologize for being rude (even though it was only their "rudeness" - i.e. daring to talk back - that made the adult realize they were wrong at all). The whole "it did me no harm therefore it's fine" nonsense is like the logic of a 4 year old. The inability to see past the end of one's nose to realize that maybe not everyone in the world has the exact same life, circumstances, surroundings, as you seems to escape some people.
  14. You're arguing against a point nobody was making, but then that's nothing new for you.
  15. From what I remember, Barbara was completely glossed over during the whole reveal of Seb's identity and Donald accepting him as Alan's son. She is extremely briefly seen in a flashback Donald has about Alan's death, around the time of discovering who Seb is. I can't remember if she is mentioned in passing, but unless I'm mistaken there's certainly never any discussion about them meeting which is ridiculous when you think about it. I like to think that it all happened off-screen, at least. Barbara deserved to meet Alan's son (her grandson).
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.