Characters you thought were pointless.

[Revealed]

On 20/07/2025 at 21:33, adam436 said:

@Revealed I'm not sure not being attractive enough or not liking the character is reason why they are "pointless". Some characters I actively disliked, but I still see the purpose they served. Brodie Hanson, for example. I couldn't stand the character, but she did serve a purpose as the "voice of reason" etc, and had a love interest. I agree with others being dull (i.e. the Holdens), but again they served a purpose. 

Judith Ackroyd is an interesting one - I remember liking her at the time, but she was secondary to Edward's story arc and even her role as principal wasn't neccesary, since Donald was still around at that point and could have continuned in that role. She could have easily been written out with Edward and Peta to be honest. She just floated around doing very little after Edward other than a romance with Joel (which was essentially just to give two characters at a loose end something to do until their exits), so she was definitely pointless in her last 6 months or so. 

For me, pointless means they just hang around and don't add anything to the show (i.e. Matt Wilson, Simon Fitzgerald). Even some of the borderline characters like Colleen, Floss and Neville were created for comic relief purposes. I found their comedy stuff irritating and eye-rolling, but that was their purpose. Likewise, some of the "nerds" filled a character type and were part of the central teen gang, family unit or part of a central family unit. 

 

Yes, all the characters seem to be cookie-cutter characters these days. When one leaves, we pretty much get another one to slot straight in - Abi/Flick, Mali/Dean. There are certainly more pointless characters these days, mostly because the majority of the cast a similar age and therefore all serve a similar purpose. 

Sadly, I agree. She was one of my favourite characters at the time, especially after the Alex story and doing the right thing in Colby's trial, so I was really sad to see her go. I'm not now wishing she would come back or that she didn't leave though. 

If it was just based on whether they were attractive or whether I liked them the list would probably be longer.

All characters have their place on the show to some extent, if anything because you need at least x amount of characters to make the show work.

I understand the need for a teenage male character in the era of the school at least. But when you have a few male teens at the same time who are interchangeable which we did maybe 10 years ago they all seem pointless even if you need at least one of them to fill the slot.

I only mentioned 2 nerds on there and the fact I mixed one up with the other kind of proves my point. There were nerds I didn't include such as Damien. 

[adam436]

1 hour ago, Revealed said:

I understand the need for a teenage male character in the era of the school at least. But when you have a few male teens at the same time who are interchangeable which we did maybe 10 years ago they all seem pointless even if you need at least one of them to fill the slot. 

There have definitely been times when we've had too-similar characters in the same era. The current batch of characters proves that point, but it's happened in other eras too. The mid 2000s group of Lucas, Matilda, Cassie, Drew etc all felt somewhat interchangeable.

The character-types like the popular girl, the tomboy, the surfie, the nerd, the jock

For me, Joey Rainbow is the geek character, but depending which teen gang you grew up with, they'll mostly remember Steven, Damien, Dexter, Oscar etc.

Occasionally, teenage characters have "broken the mould", such as Edward, Tegan Brook, Justine, Vinnie etc. But mostly, they are interchangeable, even some that are more memorable than others.