Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[jodlebirger]

The storylines about Romeo and the cancer was not very good, but not extremely bad either. The writing of Indi and Sid was a bit off.

The problem is that there were no need for a new cancer storyline. It was too identical with Belles storyline. The storylines are to repetetative. It was not emotional. And it was over the top because both Sid and Indi was written too stupid. And for me it is the big lines that probably has changed too much, too many black holes in the storylines overall. And the dialogue is not realistic which is important in handling sensitive storylines like abuse and cancer..

In Norway we have seen Gina die today and everyone react to it. The funeral and following ep will be on tomorrow. But in this case i think it was right with a death or they should both (plus Jett) been written out. Gina and John were a stabile couple by home and away standards.. I have been impressed so far. Really good writing overall, well done writers!!

I said it in my previous post, I still find things to enjoy in home and away. But I liked it better 4-6 years ago and before 2006 better... The charachter developement, introduction of new characters and departures were better. But the show is not destroyed. And it is not only the writers fault, but competition and more pressure from channel directors and media and fans. And that limits the writers ability to write decent storylines for different kind of charachters.

[John]

I decided to revisit this thread. I'll try not to be repetitious.

I do think that the current "powers that be" have made some decisions which adversely effect the show.

The worst one in my view is the decision to use older actors to portray younger cast members. Aside from Jett and VJ there are few younger cast members who are likely to renew an initial 3 year contract so that they stay for at least 6 years. We hardly ever see VJ anyway.

When cast members initially joined the cast in early to mid teens there was much more chance that their stay on the show would be extended beyond an initial contract. This gave the writers and script planners the chance to explore characters in much more depth, build enduring relationships, and develop as characters over the longer time period.

Bringing in 20 years olds ( or even older actors at times ) to play teenagers means that they almost inevitably stay for only one 3 year contract. So we end up with a lot of shorter storylines with lots of short term drama, monotonous and repetitive "breaking up and making up" relationships etc rather than the slower paced, longer terms story arcs as we had with Belle, Mattie, Angel, Hayley etc.

For me this casting policy has had a far worse effect on the show than any one character or group of characters.

[Jacklost]

The storylines about Romeo and the cancer was not very good, but not extremely bad either. The writing of Indi and Sid was a bit off.

The problem is that there were no need for a new cancer storyline. It was too identical with Belles storyline. The storylines are to repetetative. It was not emotional. And it was over the top because both Sid and Indi was written too stupid. And for me it is the big lines that probably has changed too much, too many black holes in the storylines overall. And the dialogue is not realistic which is important in handling sensitive storylines like abuse and cancer..

In Norway we have seen Gina die today and everyone react to it. The funeral and following ep will be on tomorrow. But in this case i think it was right with a death or they should both (plus Jett) been written out. Gina and John were a stabile couple by home and away standards.. I have been impressed so far. Really good writing overall, well done writers!!

I said it in my previous post, I still fins things to enjoy in home and away. But I liked it better 4-6 years ago and before 2006 better... The charachter developement, introduction of new characters and departures were better. But the show is not destroyed. And it is not only the writers fault, but competition and more pressure from channel directors and media and fans. And that limits the writers ability to write decent storylines for different kind of charachters.

I almost cryed when Gina died. Special when john started crying, i can´t understand how Jett will stay now when Gina is gone):

[christine king]

The writers have destroyed home and away this year if it doesn't become better next year then I will still watch just not every night. I am loyal viewer and I won't give up on the show for that reason but watching every episode this year hasn't been enjoyable.

[Pierced Musie]

I don't have time to write completely on this topic but I want to comment on one thing that has been bugging me that has been said.

Balanced storyline telling and use of characters would go a long way, along with consistant storytelling (eg. violence is violence and just because a character is hot, therefore popular, doesn't make his actions any less criminal), but they don’t seem interested in doing that to any great extent - it’s all about catering to the current fad and when a lot of those viewers who love the Braxton show but find Home and Away boring fade away when the Braxtons start to leave, then they might find a bit of a problem on their hands, or do they just intend to hire another trio of hot guys, have them do a lot of bad things and masquerade it as exciting drama while manipulating us into believing they’re the good guys like they have done with the Braxtons, because while they might attract new viewers who find Braxton Mark II the hottest thing ever, they’ll probably also end up alienating other viewers as they’ve done for the past few years.

I quote the whole paragraph for context but the bit in bold is my main concern. Since 2011 I have seen this kind of thing posted quite a few times and each time I have been very annoyed by it. The generalisation that the only reason the Braxton's are popular is because they are hot may be true when it comes to some of the fans but what about the others, for example me and our friendly Moderator John (I hope you don't mind me using you here). Yes I understand that all of the actors chosen to play the brothers are pleasing to the eye... but to tar every fan with the same brush is quite insulting.

Someone on this thread asked another member to explain why they like the Braxton's. If you don't mind I would like to answer this but I will have to do it later.

[jodlebirger]

I decided to revisit this thread. I'll try not to be repetitious.

I do think that the current "powers that be" have made some decisions which adversely effect the show.

The worst one in my view is the decision to use older actors to portray younger cast members. Aside from Jett and VJ there are few younger cast members who are likely to renew an initial 3 year contract so that they stay for at least 6 years. We hardly ever see VJ anyway.

When cast members initially joined the cast in early to mid teens there was much more chance that their stay on the show would be extended beyond an initial contract. This gave the writers and script planners the chance to explore characters in much more depth, build enduring relationships, and develop as characters over the longer time period.

Bringing in 20 years olds ( or even older actors at times ) to play teenagers means that they almost inevitably stay for only one 3 year contract. So we end up with a lot of shorter storylines with lots of short term drama, monotonous and repetitive "breaking up and making up" relationships etc rather than the slower paced, longer terms story arcs as we had with Belle, Mattie, Angel, Hayley etc.

For me this casting policy has had a far worse effect on the show than any one character or group of characters.

I don't think using younger actors will lead them to stay longer… I know VJ's actor (Felix Dean) has stayed for many years now, but he is not a regular, and has very little screen time.

I remember Nick, Seb, Jade, Kirsty and also Annie were played by younger actors/actresses but all of them were only on the show for 2-4 years. I have also thought that some of the current characters are staying for too long, their storylines are going in circles and there are little character development.

Most of the actors are staying for three years, some of them almost four… and not shorter time than Belle, Haley or others did. But it seemed like they did. I don't think it would have helped to have the characters staying on the show for 10 years or using younger characters, when they aren't exploring the back stories and using them in the character development throughout their stay on the show.

For example Sasha's actress was just a teen when she first appeared, and Charlotte Best was only 13… But we haven't seen much development with these characters. Especially Annie was never used like she should have…. Yes we saw the actress became older, she looked older, but Annie was not explored, she was just the same. And a lot of the "older" actors/actresses who has been older and playing teens have had a lot of more development.. But when the storylines are about relationships and breakup, and the back story is just mentioned like: hey I'm April, I like fashion and I speak french… and later we hear about a father in France but never meet him, and her mother showed up in one/two eps and was never mentioned again. Then you can't blame the actress age.

[JamesC10]

We have too many new teens and younger characters. The only "older characters" we have are Alf, Irene, Marilyn, Leah, John and Harvey

Harvey is leaving soon

. When older characters leave, Home and Away replace them with younger/teen characters. The current producers are turning Home and Away into a teen show. All of the new characters they have introduced are "good looking".

[John]

We have too many new teens and younger characters. The only "older characters" we have are Alf, Irene, Marilyn, Leah, John and Harvey

Harvey is leaving soon

. When older characters leave, Home and Away replace them with younger/teen characters. The current producers are turning Home and Away into a teen show. All of the new characters they have introduced are "good looking".

Are we saying that it is a sin to be good looking?

[JamesC10]

We have too many new teens and younger characters. The only "older characters" we have are Alf, Irene, Marilyn, Leah, John and Harvey

Harvey is leaving soon

. When older characters leave, Home and Away replace them with younger/teen characters. The current producers are turning Home and Away into a teen show. All of the new characters they have introduced are "good looking".

Are we saying that it is a sin to be good looking?

Oh no, there's nothing wrong with that but I wish they would hire "ordinary" actors (if that's the right word). It seems that the producers hire good looking actors only. It's just my opinion of course. I was glad when the actress who plays Kit was in Home and Away as I felt she was a "normal" person. She wasn't great looking but she was a brilliant actress. I'd rather they hire more experienced actors than "hot looking" actors.

[Pierced Musie]

It is strange because I felt that when they hired Bonnie Sveen (sp?) they smashed that barrier of good-looking model-like actors that has been happening for a while. She is not completely stick thin and she has this nature acting style that is very compelling to watch (very much like Steve Peacocke's acting style). Plus the casting of Rosie was very different to what would have happened last year because she just looked... average. Like a normal teenager.

So for me I don't think the casting has been that bad, especially this year. They seem to be casting more younger actors with talent and going on that instead of just looks.