Options

After the Kapoors will Nate Kinski be a Success? NEIGHBOURS

vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
Forum Member
✭✭
The Kapoor's stint on Neighbours barely lasted a year before they were apparently axed.

Australian audiences are more Conservative than here in the UK and it is well documented that the Actors who played Priya and Ajay received negative feedback due to their race.

Neighbours have now introduced Nate Kinski to the cast played by Meyne Wyatt the shows first regular character of Aboriginal origin and on top of that Nate is also gay which is a really big step for Neighbours- a gay character who is native Australian.

The big question is will he survive longer than the Kapoors did?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    jude007jude007 Posts: 2,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    At least Neighbours are trying!!

    You wouldnt get it on H & A
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jude007 wrote: »
    At least Neighbours are trying!!

    You wouldnt get it on H & A

    Kudos to Neighbours, Chris has been a great character.

    Why does H & A not want an LGBT or non white character?
  • Options
    Pete CallanPete Callan Posts: 24,399
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You make it sound like Australia are some racist nation. I doubt the colour of his skin will really matter either way whether he's a popular character or not.

    Chris's boyfriends are usually wet and Chris himself is such a drama queen I'm already skeptical about Nate, but I'll give him a shot.
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You make it sound like Australia are some racist nation. I doubt the colour of his skin will really matter either way whether he's a popular character or not.

    Chris's boyfriends are usually wet and Chris himself is such a drama queen I'm already skeptical about Nate, but I'll give him a shot.

    It's more Conservative I never said racist.
  • Options
    Dr K NoisewaterDr K Noisewater Posts: 11,597
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Kapoors didn't last long because they were boring characters with no personalities, nothing to do with the colour of their skin.

    I agree with Pete Callan I'm already skeptical of Nate and that's down to Chris whenever Chris is given a love interest storyline I find myself skipping through his scenes. Chris' relationship woes are always so tedious.
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have always liked Chris.
  • Options
    DeschanelDeschanel Posts: 8,745
    Forum Member
    I always thought Priya had the most potential, and the one with the most personality.

    I think the Kapoors failed b/c they were written as inoffensive as possible to the point of being personality free and boring. Susan Bower introduced them at a snails pace (to appease viewers), so viewers never really got a chance to see them interact as a family unit before Priya was thrown into an affair with Paul. It's kinda ironic that they got rid of the Kapoors (and Lucas & Vanessa) to make way for two new nuclear families, yet ended up replacing the Kapoors with the equally dull, and maybe more annoying Turner family. Over a year later, and I still read posts about Matt being boring and Amber the drip. Not sure it was a fair trade, but on the plus, without the Turners we would never have had the awesome Paige,

    But I digress.

    As for Nate, I'm going to reserve judgement. On paper he sounds like he has potential. I hope he and Chris will play out better than Chris & Aidan/Hudson/Will.
  • Options
    lybertynelybertyne Posts: 795
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    From what I've heard, the actor playing Nate is in the wrong profession.
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lybertyne wrote: »
    From what I've heard, the actor playing Nate is in the wrong profession.

    I have heard he was a Soldier.
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Deschanel wrote: »
    I always thought Priya had the most potential, and the one with the most personality.

    I think the Kapoors failed b/c they were written as inoffensive as possible to the point of being personality free and boring. Susan Bower introduced them at a snails pace (to appease viewers), so viewers never really got a chance to see them interact as a family unit before Priya was thrown into an affair with Paul. It's kinda ironic that they got rid of the Kapoors (and Lucas & Vanessa) to make way for two new nuclear families, yet ended up replacing the Kapoors with the equally dull, and maybe more annoying Turner family. Over a year later, and I still read posts about Matt being boring and Amber the drip. Not sure it was a fair trade, but on the plus, without the Turners we would never have had the awesome Paige,

    But I digress.

    As for Nate, I'm going to reserve judgement. On paper he sounds like he has potential. I hope he and Chris will play out better than Chris & Aidan/Hudson/Will.

    Regarding the Turners Lauren is by far the strongest character out of that family but the jury for me is still out on Amber and Bailey. Matt really needs his own storyline.
  • Options
    Towie1977Towie1977 Posts: 668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As others have said the Kapoors were boring. I never saw them have any chemistry as a family. They were axed for the Turners who are an improvement thanks to their connection to Lou even though they hired bad actors to play Matt and Mason.

    I think Nate is interesting and it sounds like he's going to have a story of his own. It's just a big shame they are rushing him off to be paired with Chris.
  • Options
    lionkingonstagelionkingonstage Posts: 3,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Neighbours never cast because of someone's ethnic background. It doesn't matter if you are black or white, if you fit the role then they will give you it. I just wish producers would bare that in mind when casting over here. It just seems ethnic characters are put in soaps for arguments sake and are never properly cast. Dexter for example, he was just purely hired for ethnicity and not for acting skills.
  • Options
    lobeydosserlobeydosser Posts: 3,868
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    vaslav37 wrote: »
    I have always liked Chris.

    so have I
  • Options
    lobeydosserlobeydosser Posts: 3,868
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Kapoors didn't last long because they were boring characters with no personalities, nothing to do with the colour of their skin.
    .

    Bit sceptical about claims the Kapoors were axed because of race. Vanessa also claimed that, but poor old Lucas, being white, just had to suck it up!
  • Options
    unclekevounclekevo Posts: 20,749
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I did get the impression that Richard Jasek cast the Kapoors to prove a point - Neighbours wasn't afraid to introduce characters of other races then wrote them poorly, basically made them a plot device to show a human side to Paul (namely he actually loved Priya) and quickly axed them when they got negative feedback. Priya was by far the strongest of the three but was killed off, even though Ajay and Rani weren't as great they weren't bad characters
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nate is slowly warming to me, he clearly cares about Chris and producers have not made a song and dance about his sexuality. The talk he had with Susan today gave us more information on why Nate is angry.
  • Options
    O-JO-J Posts: 18,851
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I loved the Kapoors, all of them.

    I think Nate needs a Sister.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,348
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    vaslav37 wrote: »
    I have heard he was a Soldier.

    What's the link / history / deal going on with Nate Kinski & with him having the same surname as Rachel and Zeke (and presumably their father) and the link with Susan (if there is one, I don't know??!) Or is this just one of those soapy "coincidences"?!

    Thinking that I may well have missed something initially, when Nate first arrived - is he a long-lost brother or cousin of Susan's step-kids (imagining he is due to the same surname?)

    If someone has the answer to this one that'd be great - i must've just missed the point in time when this was explained specifically on-screen & I haven't seen it being dealt with or explained in any way, having watched the show in the time, since Nate's initial arrival.

    Thanks very much :-)

    :-) :-) :-)
  • Options
    Sez_babeSez_babe Posts: 133,998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Nate is the son of Susan's ex-husband's brother - it's explained in this video at 3:40 :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=635gq7RBucQ

    I love Nate. I think it's quite rare on Neighbours that a new character has lots of secrets and has a lot of emotional baggage that we see right from the start. I love that he's been paired with Chris as well and they work really well together. I'm so glad he's talking to Susan about everything as well.

    I think and very much hope that Nate will be a success and be on the show for a long time.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,348
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sez_babe wrote: »
    Nate is the son of Susan's ex-husband's brother - it's explained in this video at 3:40 :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=635gq7RBucQ

    I love Nate. I think it's quite rare on Neighbours that a new character has lots of secrets and has a lot of emotional baggage that we see right from the start. I love that he's been paired with Chris as well and they work really well together. I'm so glad he's talking to Susan about everything as well.

    I think and very much hope that Nate will be a success and be on the show for a long time.

    Ah right - guessed that it was something like that.

    So suppose, yes based on that as I'd surmised, with Nate being the son of Susan's ex-husband's brother, then Nate is in fact Rachel & Zeke's cousin, as well as being Susan's "step-nephew" - so another addition to her brood haha which can't be bad (another surrogate Kennedy).

    Nice video - glad to have heard it explained. Yes, and am thinking the same - i do quite like Nate too as all the baggage stuff makes him a fascinating character. He should be having some interesting storylines - it looks that way, anyway with both the Chris & Susan dynamics. Should be good :-)
  • Options
    dee123dee123 Posts: 46,274
    Forum Member
    vaslav37 wrote: »
    Kudos to Neighbours, Chris has been a great character.

    Why does H & A not want an LGBT or non white character?

    Ask the Braxton obsessed showrunner.
  • Options
    Nobby BurtonNobby Burton Posts: 1,869
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andy Barrett on Home and Away is clearly not "white"
  • Options
    vaslav37vaslav37 Posts: 69,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think Nate's backstory is interesting as it fleshes his character.

    I applaud Neighbours for this and for bringing in a regular love interest for Chris.

    Neighbours is doing far more than Home and Away in terms of LGBT representation.
  • Options
    Sez_babeSez_babe Posts: 133,998
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    vaslav37 wrote: »
    I think Nate's backstory is interesting as it fleshes his character.

    I applaud Neighbours for this and for bringing in a regular love interest for Chris.

    Neighbours is doing far more than Home and Away in terms of LGBT representation.

    BIB: I completely agree :)
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,348
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's also important to note -; as was just thinking, that just because the Kapoors apparently failed and were subsequently axed doesn't automatically mean that Nate Kinski will go the same way. I.e. its a bit unfair that Nate is already having comparisons drawn & being made with previous "failed" non-white characters; the Kapoors.

    Do think that he's an interesting type of character to bring in with his family ties, back-story i.e. with his military background & his anger issues.

    Though the last set of Kinskis weren't an overwhelming success (that's just from my memory of them) and were maligned in some quarters - overall Rachel & Zeke and their father before them were also interesting additions (though people seemed to question the decision to bring them back recently, only probably because they'd had their day & their story appeared to be done). Whether true or not, is a matter of opinion.

    Nate Kinski is an interesting addition to the cast, he should be judged on his own merits and it will be interesting to see if he does (or indeed doesn't) stay around for a while and succeed as a character addition, in his SL's. Based on and looking at his back-story and impact so far, personally I see no reason why he shouldn't succeed. Quite an inspired move putting a new regular character with Chris - as the Chris actor has said hasn't been done before. So will reserve judgement for now, but so far with Nate from what has been seen IMO, all is good :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.