Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[emmasi]

The current format of the show does not support introducing a single gay character. The show is too much about bed-hopping. A bi-sexual character could work, but it would make more sense to have one or more of the current, established characters experiment with their sexuality. I know this is what they tried to do with Charlie, and I think that did work to a degree, it was just a bad storyline and a bad exit for Joey, and the fact that Charlie never glanced at another woman after the relationship ended was pretty insulting. I still haven't given up on Hunter, specifically because of the "gay/bi = evil" in H&A land thing  

Now, in defense of Neighbours. Chris was the most darling creature to ever grace our screens, and I will hear no talk whatsoever of him being there as a token gay. He was an established character who realised as we saw him mature through his teenage years that he was gay. It was done with sensitivity and realism, including both positive and negative reactions from friends and family, and his own struggles with his identity. He was a fantastic character on every level and it hurts daily that he's no longer around... Okay, so it's a soap, and to have romances you do need to introduce more gay characters after the first one comes out, and yes, it can be predictable that they get paired off. But that's the nature of soaps. No one can stay single for long. That doesn't mean that the relationships themselves will be predictable, or cliched, or token affairs. It doesn't mean that once a character is gay/bi, that's all they'll ever be. Aiden was fantastic, even though he was there specifically for Chris. The next boyfriend was an okay character, and had some pretty explosive storylines that had nothing to do with his sexuality. Nate is a (not meaning this as a racial thing...) black-hole of suck and if we want to talk about tokenism I wouldn't be looking at his sexuality *COUGH* (yes racial but not because I don't want diversity - see Aiden and other boy - I DO want talent!!!). I'm sorry but Nate is an awful character portrayed by an awful actor, who I'm sure is very nice in real life, but jeez... JEEZ!! ... I do appreciate Nate on one level, because he proves that I'm not going to love a character just because they're gay. He proves that point very, very well  ... ANYway... 

I'm not sure where the UK is up to with Neighbours so I won't go into specifics, but I'd follow Aaron to hell and back I would! HE is a good character. Not as wonderful as Chris (but then, who could be?), but he's an example of a cliched entrance - exotic dancer, pretty shallow, all about the looks and the body - who actually fit in really well to the street because they made sure to connect him to an established family and then to give him plenty to do that had nothing to do with his sexuality. And also stuff to do with his sexuality!! Because there's nothing more annoying than having a character declare "I'm gay!" to tick that box, and then never, ever have a relationship, or even show interest in other members of the same sex. (Vampire Diaries, I'm looking at you!). 

Well I promised myself I wasn't going to make a long rambling post in this thread lol... Hey, I said my piece about H&A in one paragraph. I stuck to my promise on that... Neighbours though... don't let me hear you dissing my Neighbours boys again!! If anyone even was... I... may be a little overprotective ...  

EDIT: Oh I forgot (in all the Neighbours rambling and ranting) to mention another idea that could work. An older gay couple move in to the bay with a hot teenage son/daughter, because then you'd have the gay characters to make us happy, but you wouldn't have to show them ever doing anything sexual (and therefore moral-panic-inducing) because older people on H&A don't get to do anything anymore but support the teen drama  

[Luke39]

13 minutes ago, H.M said:

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Number 96.

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for The Box.

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Skyways.

The presence of gay characters was not a ratings disaster for Prisoner.

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for Winners and Losers.

 

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for House Husband.

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for offspring.

The introduction of a gay character was not a ratings disaster for A Place to Call Home.

Ratings for Neighbours and Dance Academy.

The presence of gay contestants was not a ratings disaster for Masterchef or Big Brother.

A string of successful US imported programming with gay characters in key or guest roles have been successful on Australian network TV. Modern Family, Glee, Roseanne, Will and Grace, The Simpsons and Queer Eye for the straight guy (the title speaks for itself) just to name a few.

All the above mentioned (excluding Neighbours and DA) shows were hugely successful on Australian TV when gay people were included. So what anyone believe that Home and Away would be any different? In what way would Home and Away not be comparable to any of the above mentioned shows?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe because they are Us import shows. The success of Gay Characters were already determined by a us audience not aussie. Aussie and Nz tend to be more liberal and forward thinking. But I think.difference is.in the past h and a has not developed lgbt characters successfully 

[H.M]

On ‎12‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 5:49 PM, Luke39 said:

Maybe because they are Us import shows. The success of Gay Characters were already determined by a us audience not aussie. Aussie and Nz tend to be more liberal and forward thinking. But I think.difference is.in the past h and a has not developed lgbt characters successfully 

Just to clarify, my previous post was in response to the first part of Red Ranger's post, not the part that was actually quoted.

 

And Luke, what are you talking about? Number 96, The Box, Skyways, Prisoner, Masterchef Australia, Big Brother Australia, Offspring, House Husbands, Winners and Losers, neighbours, Dance Academy and APTCH are not US imports. Only the last few shows I mentioned were made in the US.

[Luke39]

17 hours ago, H.M said:

Just to clarify, my previous post was in response to the first part of Red Ranger's post, not the part that was actually quoted.

 

And Luke, what are you talking about? Number 96, The Box, Skyways, Prisoner, Masterchef Australia, Big Brother Australia, Offspring, House Husbands, Winners and Losers, neighbours, Dance Academt and APTCH are not US imports. Only the last few shows I mentioned were made in the US.

You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows. So dont see the comparisons. To a scripted soap. I see your point. But they weren't great examples. For some reason having actual lgbt ppl on reality shows seems acceptable. But not fictional characters. For whatever reason. My point was in the past h and a have not done a great job introducing lgbt characters.

[Dan F]

30 minutes ago, Luke39 said:

You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows.

I'd probably go back and re-read the post, and perhaps look up the shows that were mentioned.

[Slade]

3 hours ago, Luke39 said:

You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows. So dont see the comparisons. To a scripted soap.

I would have thought you could argue that reality shows are a better example because they contain real people as opposed to fictional characters in a fictional program.  Big Brother being a perfect example of that having people filmed 24 hours a day 7 days a week where often (in a contained environment) their behaviour and traits become more amplified.

[H.M]

7 hours ago, Luke39 said:

You didn't mention those shows though. In.any case Masterchief is a cooking show. You only mentioned two shows that are scripted. The rest are reality shows. So dont see the comparisons. To a scripted soap. I see your point. But they weren't great examples. For some reason having actual lgbt ppl on reality shows seems acceptable. But not fictional characters. For whatever reason. My point was in the past h and a have not done a great job introducing lgbt characters.

What? I did mention them. You even the quoted the post in which I mentioned them.

Most of them aren't reality shows. Number 96, The Box, Prisoner, Skyways, Offspring, House Husbands, Winners and Losers, Neighbours, Dance, Academy and APTCH are all fictional/scripted shows that have had gay characters. That's quite a bit more than two, and Number 96, The Box, Prisoner, Skyways and Neighbours are/were soaps, so there is a direct genre comparison to H&A.

[Skylover]

I like the idea of Hunter being bisexual, he seems like the rebel type, could imagine him being down for whatever. Can't really imagine any of the other characters being bi, except possibly Maddy.

[j.laur5]

7 hours ago, Edward Skylover said:

I like the idea of Hunter being bisexual, he seems like the rebel type, could imagine him being down for whatever. Can't really imagine any of the other characters being bi, except possibly Maddy.

I thought Kyle or Matt could be bi.

[cadyctslover]

Sorry to put another downer on this thread, but does anyone else feel like Home and Away has lost some momentum in 2016?

With Dan Bennett's material in the latter half of 2015 I returned as a regular viewer, particularly enjoying the introduction and story arc of Charlotte King. So I was really disappointed in the 2015 finale to see them kill off the most interesting character we'd seen in years. Other stories I enjoyed included Marilyn's amnesia, Evie's rebellion, Josh's attack and recovery, and finally a deep, meaty story for Irene. Even Roo got a storyline, with mysterious new love interest James - however after all the intrigue this storyline didn't get a very satisfying conclusion in my opinion.

Some of the waifs and strays of the Bay (Andy, Chris, Matt) seemed to have more of a purpose, and the endless, monotonous crime theme largely subsided.

 

But in 2016 the show seems to have lost direction again. Irene's new storyline should have received massive focus, but her return to alcoholism, terrible childhood experience, and search for her long-lost child was rushed, and then completely dropped. Zac's story in prison could have been very interesting

Spoiler

especially the revelation about Tank

, but it has been poorly plotted. Ricky and Nate's romance and wedding plans have been mind-numbingly dull, and Brax's return underwhelming (especially the boring two-hander). I also really don't enjoy murder investigations. They are way overused on this show (I know they're a ratings winner) but this one has been particularly uninspiring, even with the half-arsed Morag return - another missed opportunity. The absence of John and Marilyn is also very apparent for me - although Emily's departure was out of the producers hands.

There's a lot of moaning and negativity here, but I must say that Hannah's genealogy storyline was interesting to me, and as far as I am aware new territory for H&A. I have never liked the character of Hannah (another one of the waifs and strays) but I have really enjoyed this storyline. I have also enjoyed Andy's reform into a good guy (if you forget the crime and murder from earlier in his stint), and also the storyline of him and Ash running the garage.

Does anyone else agree?