beau_t Posted January 24, 2016 Report Share Posted January 24, 2016 I'm guessing that was the intention of the writers. Did it work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHulk Posted January 24, 2016 Report Share Posted January 24, 2016 To a degree. Alf and Ailsa needed to focus more on their own child after taking Foster kids (Blake, Karen, Sarah, Curtis, Aaron, etc). Duncan was a toerag throughout most of 1999, Calmed down a bit in 2000 but after Ailsa died it all went Pete Tong in 2001. That said some memorable stuff happened, the bombs, Aila's car crash, Duncan planting the meat cleaver on Joey when he, will and Hayley stayed with the Stewarts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaxland 89 Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 I'm never a fan of ageing characters up. I feel it distorts the whole time line of the show. And if it was to give a new lease of life in my opinion that what be very lazy writing. There should be enough creativity to make it interested with the age he was and as he eventually got to the age it would make the stories more credible. I might be a sour puss but I just don't like things being changed when they have already been written in stone. He was born in 1989 and it was 1999. Just deal with it. They've rewritten it. One of the reason Sally has such a rich history is because they didn't do that with her. And I liked Sam gradually growing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaxland 89 Posted January 25, 2016 Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Blaxland 89 said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau_t Posted January 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Blaxland 89 said: I'm never a fan of ageing characters up. I feel it distorts the whole time line of the show. And if it was to give a new lease of life in my opinion that what be very lazy writing. There should be enough creativity to make it interested with the age he was and as he eventually got to the age it would make the stories more credible. I might be a sour puss but I just don't like things being changed when they have already been written in stone. He was born in 1989 and it was 1999. Just deal with it. They've rewritten it. One of the reason Sally has such a rich history is because they didn't do that with her. And I liked Sam gradually growing too. Interesting point of view, and you're right about Sally (and Sam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ranger 1 Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 I don't think it was entirely necessary. The Rosses worked without Christopher being aged up (at least until 2003). It added a different dynamic to Alf and Ailsa looking after a problem child that they couldn't send back, and the idea that they'd neglected their own child by focusing so much on the foster children (a common problem with the show focusing more on the teenage foster children than the younger biological ones, to the extent that you wonder why it doesn't come up more often), but I think they'd have been fine without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachel1990 Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 not really. I preferred Alf and Alisa before Duncan was aged. As other users have mentioned with Sally and to an extent Sam and Chris it was great watching kids just growing up normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trudy Heine Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Is it just me, or does Duncan remind anyone else of Bart Simpson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHulk Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Bart knew when to draw a line! Though, I get your meaning. If Alf had gone "Why you little..." and started choking him, a lot people would have cheered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homeandawayfan. Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I am not a fan of SORASing births that took place onscreen. Martha Mackenzie and Duncan Stewart being fine examples. Born during the shows run but altered to 1986 and 1987 respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.