adam436 Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Does anyone know why the Nash family fell apart after just two and a half year? Firstly, were Antoinette Byron, David Woodley and Graeme Squires axed or did they leave of their own accord? If they were axed, I think it's a shame as Joel was a much more interesting and likeable character than his replacement, Rhys, and I get the feeling David Woodley may have stuck around the long haul. If Antoinette left of her accord (since she left earlier, I suspect she may have) then I would have preferred Joel to meet a new woman (Shelley Sutherland perhaps?) like Rhys did with Beth in 2003 or recast Natalie again (perhaps Paula Forest?) What are other people's thoughts? Were they written out prematurely or had they had their day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joany208121 Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 To me they no longer needed to be a family. Gypsy and Tom weren't young teens who needed looking after and with them soon to leave their parents empty nesters, what other storyline was left but to break them up? The pregnancy was good, but there was too much of a gap, i thought maybe they should have adopted/fostered, but hey I'm not a storyliner. Also they did have foster kids in Peta and Justine, but they were older too and palmed off from Pip, then Trav and Bec so it wasn't like it was their decision in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaxland 89 Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Perhaps if he didn't leave he and Judith and Judith had stayed they could have stayed together. Perhaps with her stepping away from teaching to get Fisher back to headmaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam436 Posted April 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 I always thought the Nashes could have "inherited" Jade, Dani and Kirsty. Perhaps Shelley could have been Natalie's sister who passes away and leaves her children with Joel and Natalie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.laur5 Posted April 21, 2016 Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 I liked Joel better than Rhys but I prefer Shelley over Natalie!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam436 Posted April 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2016 Me too actually. Maybe Joel marrying Shelly and giving him a flat-pack family (with Gypsy) would have been the way to go It worked for Rhys and Beth when Shelley left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homeandawayfan. Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Natalie was once engaged to Des Clarke and his bucks party was gatecrashed by Max Ramsay. I never could take to Joel and Natalie, I found then quite poor replacements for Pippa and Michael. I found the Sutherlands were better. Travis and Gypsy were the bets of the Nashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaxland 89 Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 I never saw Joel and Natalie as replacement for Michael and Pippa. Or anyone. Just characters in their own right. I thought of them all Tom Nash was the weakest. In fact I'd say he was one of the worst characters between 88-00. I hated when then put him with Justine who I thought worked better with Vinnie. And justine on her own was quite interesting too. The only time I took an interest in Tom was when he started seeing Terri Garner. The first time around that is. The sutherlands made me cringe. Kirsty and jade we to young and bratty. When all sutherlands were in the same scene I just wanted to turn off. Or when Duncan and Nick was with them. I felt I was watching children's TV. It wasn't until 2002 I started to like them. What I liked about the Nashes is that they had history with the bay. Though I'm a sucker for sticking up for the 97-99 characters as I feel they are the under dogs of the show. And always feel that some great stuff was overlooked. I'm hoping that when the repeats get that far some people with change their minds about the "dip" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHulk Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, Blaxland 89 said: I never saw Joel and Natalie as replacement for Michael and Pippa. Or anyone. Just characters in their own right. I thought of them all Tom Nash was the weakest. In fact I'd say he was one of the worst characters between 88-00. I hated when then put him with Justine who I thought worked better with Vinnie. And justine on her own was quite interesting too. The only time I took an interest in Tom was when he started seeing Terri Garner. The first time around that is. The sutherlands made me cringe. Kirsty and jade we to young and bratty. When all sutherlands were in the same scene I just wanted to turn off. Or when Duncan and Nick was with them. I felt I was watching children's TV. It wasn't until 2002 I started to like them. What I liked about the Nashes is that they had history with the bay. Though I'm a sucker for sticking up for the 97-99 characters as I feel they are the under dogs of the show. And always feel that some great stuff was overlooked. I'm hoping that when the repeats get that far some people with change their minds about the "dip" I may have been a bit harsh about 1997-99 but it was a difficult period of adjustment, post Pippa. It was a bit a comedown compared to the 7-8 red, bordering on white hot years before it. I'd take that time pattern over 2011-14, right now. Bear in mind Duncan, Nick and the Girls were 14 and in Year 8 as opposed to 15-16 in Year 10 like most teen gangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 I wouldn't call it a dip just a void felt by the absence of Pippa that they couldn't get right until the Sutherland's arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.