Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

beau_t

Did the aging of Duncan give the Stewart family a new lease of life?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bart knew when to draw a line!:lol:

Though, I get your meaning.

If Alf had gone "Why you little..." and started choking him, a lot people would have cheered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.